Nothing at all. One old, uninteresting point is that concepts are formed from sensory input, not independently. — Vera Mont

So how does that point relate to your stance that animals are able to do rational thinking?

I agree with that. I was thinking, however, that deciding what the physical explanation is would be applying rationality. — Ludwig V

I am not sure if deciding what physical explanation is applying rationality. Reasoning is either deductive or inductive reasoning. Deduction infers from the valid premises to the valid conclusions such as A > B, B >C therefore A>C. All men is mortal, Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Induction is reasoning which infers the future case from the observed previous cases such as Sun have risen from the east. The sun rises from the east. Therefore sun will rise from the east.

Reasoning yields new knowledge or conclusion from the premises or observations. Reasoning can be ground for the actions, speakings, beliefs, knowledge and explanations. But reasoning itself is not explanations or beliefs or actions. You seem to be still in confusion telling the difference between reasoning and intelligence (or knowledge).

But the subject matter one thinks about has to be collected through sensory data processing before one can formulate any concepts. — Vera Mont

Sure. But it lacks any meaningful point in the discussion for the topic rational beings and rational thinking. What is there to dispute or be surprised in that? It is like saying, if you wore sunglasses, then the whole world will appear darker to you.

It is not talking anything about rational beings or thinking, but it is just a description of a obvious mechanism of perception, that if you are lacking something in your retina, you cannot see things in proper way. If a being lacks sensory organs, then it cannot form any concepts. What is new or interesting?

But sometimes we find ourselves with incompatible beliefs, or simply confused. Then we start asking questions, making diagnoses; very often, but not always we can resolve the situation and then we turn on the perceiver and conclude that there is something wrong or at least different going on - colour-blindness, astigmatism, etc. I realize that's very vague, but I'm gesturing towards all that, rather than trying to describe it. — Ludwig V

In case of mysterious or abnormal visual perception case, you would try to resort to the biological or psychological probes and explanation in clarifying the problems, rather than rationalisation. Rational thinking and reasoning takes place in conceptual level, not physical or biological level. You wouldn't get much progress or meaningful conclusion bringing in rational thinking into your abnormal perception due to colour blindness or astigmatism.

That works. You want to hog a faculty all to yourself, just categorize it as the thing only you have. — Vera Mont

No matter how different each and everyone's thinking processes and contents are, we must allow the freedom of thinking, must'n we? That is also a rational thinking. :wink:

While we're at it, I am not a soul, and I am not my brain. I am a whole, conscious, physical unit. — Kurt Keefner

But can you be conscious without your body? Isn't body the precondition for being conscious?

OK. So believing what they saw and reporting that when asked doesn't involve reasoning. But reasoning can come into it when they are asked to justify (give reasons for believing) their belief that what they say did happen. Is it only after the justification has been provided that it is rational for them to believe what they saw? — Ludwig V

I have never heard of anyone trying to justify what they saw. One can confirm what one saw. But usually one doesn't justify what one saw. One justifies what one believes, said, done and think, but not one saw, smelt, felt, drank, ate or heard.

I don't really see the difference between discussing whether animals are rational and discussing whether my belief that animals are rational is rational. Of course, there is a third possibility that my belief that animals are rational may be the result of a valid argument based on false premisses. Is that what you are suggesting? — Ludwig V

Think whatever you like, but if you think animals are rational, then we are not talking in the same category of reason. In my book, if you think animals are rational, then you could be a zoologist, scientist, social activist. poet, novelist, religious cult member or a folk in the pub, but not a philosopher.

Animals could be intelligent, but they are not rational. Rational beings ask questions, reflects, and are able to criticise and analyze. Is any animal capable of these mental activities apart from humans? In that regard, not even every humans are rational.

Please think about Hegel's saying "The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel Philosophy of Right. 1820.

What did he mean by that? He didn't mean to say anything about the owl in actuality. He meant to say the metaphor about reason and philosophy.

Perhaps I should re-phrase my answer.
Are you saying that when someone says that they saw X get out of the car, even though they may not have articulated any rationale for believing what they saw at the time, we can later on ask questions and elicit a rationale? — Ludwig V

That has nothing to do with rationalising. That is just a perception. Perception and recalling what they saw when asked, is not reasoning.

Reasoning takes place when thinking takes place on why and how, and being able to logically and objectively summarising the grounds for the perception, beliefs, actions or propositions.

Are you concerned about the trilemma argument that justifications must either be repeated indefinitely, or become circular or must end arbitrarily, with grounds that have no further grounding?
It's a fairly standard issue. But you are free to ignore that question if you find it annoying. — Ludwig V

Every beliefs, actions, speaking and perception is one time only in the path of time, therefore they are unique. There is no repeat or going circular in reasoning, unless you are talking about the Sun rising every morning. Even rising of the sun is unique events because it takes place in the path of unique time.
No I didn't find anything annoying. I was just trying clarify the points using reasoning.

I don't believe that when we come to the rationality of creatures that do not have language as we know it, the only way to attribute reasons for their behaviour is guessing. But I wanted also to recognize that the process was more difficult and less certain than it is when we are dealing with someone who can explain their reasons. — Ludwig V

The agents with no or little linguistic ability is not the point of the topic. They are not the subject of reasoning. They are objects of reasoning. We have been talking about whether your thoughts and comments on them are rational. Not them.

What bothers me is the looming trilemma, that either that process can be repeated indefinitely, or it must become circular or it must end arbitrarily, with grounds that have no further grounding. — Ludwig V

Once ground for being rational for the topic or issue has been put forward, you either accept it as rational or discard it as irrational. Why do you want to go on circular?

When we are dealing with animals (or small children, for that matter), we can't. Then we have to supply the rationale and that's very tricky. There may be no way to satisfactorily answer the question. We can't even conclude that the belief was irrational. — Ludwig V

Could you not have said that you were just guessing on the behavior or actions of the animals or children as intelligent or dumb, rather than trying to pretend, make out or assume that they were rational or irrational?

You didn't quite say that. — Ludwig V

I was trying to give you a simple example of even a simplest most basic daily life knowledge has a ground to be rational when examined.

On the other hand, you could be talking about the case when I attribute knowledge to someone else. That is indeed a bit different. But there are still simple cases and more complex ones. In a simple case, I know the person quite well and know that they are in a position to know and are reliable, and then I will say just that. — Ludwig V

I am still not sure what your exact point is. You cannot attribute being rational to someone or something just because you know what type of the person is, or what the thing does. Being rational means that belief, knowledge, perception or action, or proposition can demonstrate in objective manner the ground for being rational when examined or reflected back.

But so far as the question "How do you know" goes, I don't see the difference between your simple case and your "other cases". — Ludwig V

Could you elaborate further on what you mean by that? My point was that being rational must be able to be verified, justified and approved to be so. You cannot call something or someone being rational just because someone went to a shop, or a dog opened the door or hawk hunted his meal. That sounds like someone not understanding what being rational means, but just misusing the term.

That's a bit odd, at least for me. I start from the justified true belief account of knowledge, so for me, knowing something means being able to justify it, which would require some rationality, wouldn't it? — Ludwig V

Not always. I know it is autumn by looking at the falling leaves from the trees outside. My knowledge of autumn arrived to me purely from the visual perception. Why do I need to justify the knowledge? If someone asked me to justify it, I could then do it. But before that unlikely event, I just know it is autumn.

But in some other case of knowledge, rational justification is needed, helps or even based on. You seem to be over simplifying the issue, which results inevitably in the muddle.

I was trying to clarify the correct use of the concept "rational" from the muddled way. :)

Why would we not say that given that they believed their myths, they were rational to build the pyramids? — Ludwig V

Knowing something is not also being rational. One can know many things in the world, but still can be irrational, or be common as muck, have nothing to do with rational being. Reason and being rational can be basis of knowing, but reason and being rational is not knowing itself.

So you are saying that people with no language do not act rationally? That seems like a stretch. — I like sushi

Well, if you told me, you like sushi, or you ate 10 boxes of sushi, then I wouldn't take that comment as rational. But if you said, you like sushi, because of the health effects it can bring, or some other reasons why you like sushi from biological, social or cultural backgrounds, then I might take that explanation rational.

Having ability of using language or knowing meanings of some words doesn't make one rational, nor does ability or preference eating sushi.

I can certainly think without words. The guy from Mexico managed to cross a border and work in the US before coming to understand what language was. Do not confuse language with culture. Our understand of language maps onto the lived-world rather than the other way around. — I like sushi

Do not confuse language and words with the rational explications and justifications expressed in language.

OK. I can make some sense of that. To be rational is to rationalise. — Ludwig V

:up:

1. So do you think that the people who built the pyramids were rational or not? (They built them before the ancient Greeks started philosophizing.) — Ludwig V

They were physically rational, but not philosophically rational. There is no record or evidence of their rational explanations on how and why they had built them.

2. About the process of learning or acquiring a habit or routine. I grant you that putting on one's lucky trainers when going out to compete is not (normally) rational. But when the habit or routine is capable of rational justification - driving or fuelling one's car would be examples - is learning or practising those activities rational or not? — Ludwig V

You could ask them why they put on the lucky trainers, and if it is rational to do so, and also ask for the justification for doing so. If they can expound about it in rational manner, then they are rational. If not, they were just superstitious.

Doing something, practicing or training some skills are not rational. Only when they can elaborate on them critically, reflectively and logically, they could be regarded as rational.

Is believing and defending a myth, rational thinking? — Athena

No, they are not rational at all. They are more in the arena of emotional states.

I agree rational thinking requires language and then questioning out one thinks and that animals do not do this and can not do so without language. — Athena

:up:

However, there is evidence that bonobos can learn language and judge right from wrong. Why not, we are on the same branch of the tree. But it is curious in nature that bonobos do not develop language independent of human intervention. However, if a bonobo does learn language at least one of them has taught the offspring language. I am wondering if they would continue to pass on language and if so, would they develop better language skills in following generations? (evolution working) — Athena

I am not familiar with bonobos and their languages at all, but I guess it is nowhere near in the complexity and diversity of human languages.

More important, should we assume all humans are rational thinkers or must they learn the higher order thinking skills to be rational? Is believing and defending a myth, rational thinking? — Athena

Not all humans are equal, and rational even if they appear to be. Only some are.

Driving and fueling cars and opening the doors which most people do without having second thought about doing so based on habits and routines, and rationalising i.e. analysing, criticising, reflecting and questioning about them logically, critically and reflectively are different category of things.

The former is just doing and living, the latter rationalising and philosophising.

Coming from the math thread. Do animals have rational thinking? Do animals have communication skills? Is intuitive thinking rational or maybe something better? — Athena

When someone has rational thinking, he / she must be able to reflect, analyse, criticise, and ask questions on the thinking. Just because a hawk has hunted his meals, or dog has opened door to go out for whatever don't mean they have rational thinking. They are just instinctual survival and habitual response by the animals.

If you trace back to the origin of rational thinking, then it would be the ancient Greeks. How did they start? They started by asking what is the world made of, and debating and analysing on the world linguistically. Then Socrates came to the scene asking how one should live to be good, and followed by Aristotle who asked and propounded what happiness is.

No animals can do rational thinkings like the way they did. If someone had rational thinking on why he went to a shop, then he should be able to explain the reason why when asked the reason why.

Suggesting animals have rational thinking is a gross confusion on the concept.

Does the color “red” exist outside of the subjective mind that conceptually designates the concept of “red?” — Mp202020

What is the difference between the colour "red", and the concept of "red"?

Truth is truth. There is no separate religious truth and factual truth or rational truth or empirical truth. Religions claim a lot of things e.g. the Biblical God created the world in six days. — Truth Seeker

I don't agree with you. Their truth is not philosophical or empirical truth.

I am talking about what Buddha taught. Not what different schools of Buddhism teach. — Truth Seeker

It doesn't matter what Buddha taught. We notice how the historical buddhism has been, and is now in reality.

On the contrary, religions claim to be true. "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6, The Bible (New International Version). — Truth Seeker

You are talking about totally different kind of truth which is in the Bible, i.e. the religious truth. It is not the factual or rational or even empirical truth.

Of course they talk about truth. But what does it mean? It doesn't mean anything. Their truth is not the truth the non-believers know as truth.

No, Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths and they are based on empirical observations. — Truth Seeker

There are so many different schools of Buddhism. They all claim totally different things.
Most Buddhists I have met talked about good luck, good health, good fortunes, and rebirthing to richer and more successful folks in their next life. Nothing else.

Most religions rely on faith instead of evidence. — Truth Seeker

In that case, truth or falsity don't belong to religious domain. Rejecting religions solely on the basis of lack of truth is not reasonable.

Buddhism is an exception in that Buddha's original teachings are based on what is empirical. — Truth Seeker

Most religions including Buddhism have been for the believers' wishing good fortune, prosperity, good health, good luck and better afterlife and rebirth after their deaths, rather than academic or philosophical debates on the universe or self.

Some folks and authorities have been using and abusing the religions for justifying their wrong doings and forcing the other folks into irrational actions and practices. These facts are not faults of the religions, but the people and authorities.

When did you first wake up from the American dream? — an-salad

The dreams coming true happens only in the movies and fictions. Waking up from the dreams into the cold reality is what happens in real world.

How could religions be true when they contradict themselves and contradict each other and contradict what we know from evidence-based research? — Truth Seeker

The current western narrative at least focuses on the contradictions in religion, signifying a turn in the Dialectical battle in which Science has only recently made headway, but continues to face threats (Fanaticism, Theocracolies, Fundamentalism and Traditionalism). — ENOAH

Contradiction doesn't mean it has to be rejected out right. Contradiction means it could be further investigated and analysed. Recall Hegel? Without contradictions, there is no progress or understanding in the universe.

Religions have their own truth system, which is different level from truth system based on rationality. There is possibility that human reason is not powerful enough to perceive and understand all the existence in the universe.

You said that you have been reading much and all the religious books. I am sure you would understand my points.

The believers of a particular religion believe their religion is true. This also spread their beliefs to their children. There is often a steep penalty against leaving the religion one is born it. For example, leaving Islam is punishable by death. This is how religions survive for thousands of years. — Truth Seeker

I don't know anything about Islam, Hindu, Buddhism or Christianity, but I used to think there might be something that is more than what non-believers see and believe.

Whether or not I believe in them, religions exist and billions of people believe in them and live their lives according to them and happily kill others for them. — Truth Seeker

It seems to be sure that one thing common in religions is that it is beyond the rational thinking system. You kept brining in religions into your threads, so I was expecting that you might be saying something more significant than religions are fiction. Claiming that religions are fiction without solid arguments has no significance in philosophical discussions.

I agree with you. — Truth Seeker

:cool: :ok:

The questions here are, then, what is purpose (in itself), where does it come from, what is its ground? Or, what exactly gives it all meaning, makes it all worthwhile? — tim wood

Purpose is like the concept of cause and effect. It doesn't exist in the empirical world. It comes from the human mind i.e. imagination, desire, motives or will. It is psychological in nature.

Truth has nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity. Truth exists no matter whether you know it or not. Knowing or believing has nothing to do with truth.

You may not know a box exists on my desk with a content. But it does exist, and it has its content.
At the moment, I don't even know what content the box has in it, because I forgot about it, or I have not opened it and checked it out yet. Truth exists even if no one knows it. The universe started at some time and by some causes, but no one knows about it. The truth of the universe exists, but no one knows it.

Therefore talking about subjective or objective truths is a confusion. Knowing or believing are mental events about something, which has nothing to do with truth.

Hindus believe their holy books are true. Just as Christians, Muslims and Jews believe their holy books to be true. Only the nonbelievers disbelieve the holy books of all religions. The holy books of all religions are self-contradictory and mutually contradictory. I have studied most religions. — Truth Seeker

Most "Hindus" would say, [and I currently generally agree,] that vis a vis the only ultimate reality, everything projected into the world [as a representation of/by Mind] is ultimately a fiction and yet we have been deceived by it. And not just for a few millenia, but since the dawn of human history [as opposed to prehistoric human animals] — ENOAH

If all the religions are fiction as you claim, then why do they keep believing in them for thousands of years?

Isn't there a whole branch of philosophy called the Philosophy of Religion? — Truth Seeker

Philosophy of Religion doesn't deal with the legitimacy of the claims made by the religion. Philosophy of Religion is mainly interested in the linguistic and conceptual analysis of the religious scriptures and expressions.

But if you just label all the religions are fictions, then people might wonder what was the point of you even mentioning them in your posts.

It's written in their holy book. I don't agree with them. I think all religions are fiction made up by people. — Truth Seeker

Two questions come up to mind.

1. If it is a fiction, then why people have been deceived by it for so long time? 5000 years? Surely it takes 5 minutes for ordinary folks to know it is a fiction.

2. If it is a fiction, then what is a philosophical point of it?

Under what ground and evidence Hindus believe the universe is illusion and things have immortal souls which reincarnate according to karma? Do you agree with them?

Might I suggest, respectfully, the illusion that you might not have any illusions? — ENOAH

Sure, I am not ruling out possibility of illusions in life and the world.

You are welcome. It sounds traumatic especially for a young child.
I have never been kidnapped. So it is hard to imagine how it would be like to go through experience like that.

I have not read much in Religion, so the Hindu system is unfamiliar to me. Would it be similar to Buddhism? I recall some Buddhism scripture saying "Seeing colour is seeing emptiness" or something like that.

Neither am I. But we are in the Philosophy forum, and can try learn to philosophise by reading books and discussing the topics.

You listed illusion as one of the possibilities for the idea of Self. I think it is somewhat meaningful concept. In my time of childhood, I had been living with the 100% of illusions on the world, life, other people and the Self.

I believed Santa Claus was real.
I believed people live forever.
I believed if people die, then they come back to life in a few days of rest, after seeing the same action movie actor being killed in a movie, then a few weeks later, he was back in another movie fighting the gangsters.
I believed that old folks are born old, young folks like me are born young, and it will be like that forever.
I believed that my parents might be God, because they could buy me nice things.
I believed that the world is the size of my town where I lived.
I believed that when I am asleep, the world disappears, and I am the centre of the universe.
... etc etc.

Those were some of my childhood illusions, which were all proven to be false, as I was growing up. I am not sure what other illusions I might still have.

We don't have the means to test the simulation hypothesis. — Truth Seeker

Philosophy doesn't dirty its hands doing tests. That's the job of science.
Philosophy inspects the problems, investigates, analyses, reasons, argues, criticises and come to the conclusions.

There is no such things as Empirical Logic. We apply our reasoning to the empirical events or objects. The way you apply your reasoning to the events, objects, formulas or statements, be it inductive or deductive is called Logic.