I agree, except that, if the soul part--call it, also, the 'mental'--is not real, but only perceived (for several reasons) to be real; if the mental is 'actually' a system of codes to which the body responds with feelings and action (and only the latter is real, albeit not in a form we are familiar with, i.e., not narrative, and so, necessarilyoverlookedby the narrative); if the narrative form of that code, the part to which we desperately attach, is not real, then it can be acknowledged as 'other' than the body, to exist, and still, it can be eliminated from that category we think of as 'real.' — ENOAH

I have two questions on this post.

1. Are mental and soul different? How are they different?
2. What do you mean by "we think of as real"? What is real?

I see. The only knowledge is scientific knowledge, which excludes second-hand knowledge. But science is only possible because research starts on the basis of the results of previous research, and no-one is expected to repeat all that work for themselves. Newton standing on the shoulders of giants. Moreover, in order to do experiments, read texts, discuss ideas and results, they have to rely on common sense and common knowledge. — Ludwig V

If Newton had been observing the apples falling from the trees to the ground without the scientific discovery, then it would have been just described as daily perception of an ordinary bloke. But he discovered the scientific principle from the observation, which made into the history.

The same could apply to your case. If you had discovered some ground breaking new scientific principle such as a possibility of time travel or something like that, from your observation of the train arriving at 7:00 everyday to your station platform, then it would have been a case of inductive reasoning. However, only thing you have observed in that exercise was that train arrives at 7:00 every day to your platform, which is just a trivial part of daily life of an ordinary bloke. Would anyone class the case as a rational thinking based on the inductive reasoning? I doubt it.

Inductive reasoning is a scientific method of applying our reasoning in forming the principles and theories from the observations, not daily ordinary habitual perceptions of general public.

I have caught the 7:00 train every working day for the last 5 years. Standing on the platform at 6:55, I notice the signal changing. I have noticed that same event every time I have caught the train in the past. I expect the train to arrive shortly. I think that's inductive reasoning. — Ludwig V

Yes, it is an inductive reasoning. You have your knowledge based on your past observations on the events.

Yes, I do have blind faith in inductive reasoning, as Hume noticed. One has to start somewhere. One also has to risk being wrong in order to be right. — Ludwig V

Hume said that inductive reasoning can be irrational. Therefore your reasoning on the train arrival time could be irrational.

Do you mean something like?
How did you know the train was coming at 12:00?
Because the company's web-site said so.
Why do you believe what the company's web-site says?
Because it is almost always accurate.
Why do you believe it is almost always accurate?
Because I and many others have used it in the past.
Why do you believe that its accuracy in the past means that it is accurate now?.
Because I am rational.
Why are you rational?
Because it is the best way to get to the truth.
Why is it the best way to get to the truth?
?
All justifications end in "groundless grounds". — Ludwig V

It sounds like you are just checking and confirming with yourself what you see on the web site.
You may think that your blind faith of the accuracy of the web site is based on the past record of the accuracy on the information of the website, therefore you were doing an inductive reasoning. But it is still a blind faith on the info. because you have not made any scientific observations on the past events. Plus there is nothing scientific about the accuracy of the train time shown on the website, why it has to be the info, and not otherwise. There is nothing to think any further, why the info has the contents it has apart from it is just there for you to see.

Plus there are many possible chance the web site info might not be correct. Therefore it is not a rational thinking. It is just daily habitual acts of reading and confirming the info. There is nothing rational thinking involved in that process.

I was taught to drive a car. Hence, I can drive a car.
I was taught to think rationally. Hence, I can think rationally.
I would be grateful if you would explain to me what you mean by "ground". — Ludwig V

I have an impression that you are in confusion between skills, capabilities in problem solving with rational thinking.

Ground for rational thinking is, when you are faced with question to justify why your beliefs or thoughts were rational. You should be able to give explanation on your thoughts or beliefs in logical and objective way. If it was rational to you, then it must be rational to the whole universe. Not just to you. That is what being rational means.

I am looking forward to see what you might have to say in reply to Patterner's question. — Ludwig V

I presume my replies above also answers to Patterner's question.

The ground for my rational thinking or beliefs is the training and education that I got in my youth. — Ludwig V

Sorry I don't see a logical link between the ground for your rational thinking or beliefs and the training and education in your youth. Could you elaborate further?

I did say explicitly

on the company web-site (which I have chosen because there is good reason to trust it) — Ludwig V — Ludwig V

Do you trust everything you see on the web site? Trusting whatever you see on the websites has nothing to do with being rational?

If I look up the time of the next train on the company web-site (which I have chosen because there is good reason to trust it) and tell everyone that the next train is at 12:00 and the next train is at 12:00, I would claim that I knew the next train was at 12:00 and deny that I'm just parroting. — Ludwig V

You have been able to access the internet and able to check the train time. Somehow it doesn't give impression you were thinking rationally for that act. From the statement, you are just a bloke who can access the internet homepage, get on to the train company web site, and check the time for the train, which is an act of typical ordinary people.

You still haven't provided the ground for your rational thinking or beliefs, if you had one.

"ground" is a bit vague. I hope you mean "justification". I notice you include explanations in your list. I'm especially happy with that. — Ludwig V

Why is "ground" vague? Why does it have to be "justification"?

I don't see what your problem is. If my question is "Why can't S tell red from green?", I will want to work out my answer rationally, because that guarantees that my answer will be reliably correct. — Ludwig V

I don't have problem. You seem to have. I am just pointing out your example is not reflecting what rational thinking is. When you are asked, "Why can't S tell red from green?", if you explained the reason is S is colour blind, then your answer is based on your guessing, or just parroting what you read or heard from other sources, not from your rational thinking.

You explanation must be based on either from deductive or inductive reasoning for it to be qualified as a rational thinking. Not just because you explained something based on your guessing or parroting what you have heard or read from other sources.

Contrast to your example, my answer to the question how do you know it is autumn, because I see the leaves are falling from all the trees, is based on my previous observation that whenever leaves were falling from all the trees, it was autumn, which is an inductive reasoning, hence it is a rational thinking.

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: