Exactly. It is as if we can manage without intuition, often. Or, it is as if everything in science, say, is reasoned and empirical. Conclusions are formed, hopefully, after testing and rational analysis, but the process of science requires intution and other non-rational processes. Often if one asserts this, one is told 'but they are fallible.' Well, sure. And of course reasoned/rational processes are also fallible. But yes, intuition is fallible but necessary. We can't weed it out and function. And then as a related issue, some intuition is better than other intuition. Some people's intuition that is is better than other people's. — Bylaw

Yes. As you note, you don't use intuition and insight as a replacement for reason. They do different things. Reason can't do what intuition does. More than that, reason knows it needs intuition. I guess maybe rationality doesn't. Maybe that's the difference. Reason has the humility to know that it doesn't provide, can't provide, all that's needed.

Clearly explained! — Janus

Thank you. I'm glad it was clear to you. That was the first time I really tried to write out the point I was trying to make, after toying around with it in my mind for a long time. The description I wrote was a good example of what I was trying to describe. It was intuitively clear to me based on my experience of my own thinking process that much, most, of my thinking is not rational. Taking that intuition and putting it into words was a rational act, but in its heart, at its birth, it was not.

Situation: I am standing on a hard surface in the dark.
Problem: I am not satisfied to stand here until daybreak (Memory has kicked in with two pieces of information: it's night and it usually ends with sunrise) — Vera Mont

You're not describing a new generalization. This is something you learned when you were three-years-old. Memory is not reason.

I don't see any of that as irrational. — Vera Mont

Again, non-rational is not the same as irrational.

Even when we think, we reason internally as an internal discussion. — Pantagruel

This is not my personal experience. Most of my useful thinking, things other than worrying or fantasizing, takes place subconsciously. It pops up and then I have to apply reason to check whether or not it makes sense.

Whatall premises? How so? — Vera Mont

Here's my thinking. Non-trivial premises come from one of two places 1) They are established using deductive logic from previous premises or 2) They are established by inductive logic from empirical observations. If you follow every chain of deductions backwards, you will ultimately come to at least one premise that has to be established empirically.

How do people turn empirical observations into generalizations that can be used as premises? 1) They look at patterns they or others have seen before with other observations or, if that doesn't work or if they haven't seen similar observations before 2) They generate new generalizations that can be tested. If you follow every chain of generalizations backwards, you will ultimately come to at least one that has to be established based on a new generalizations.

How do people generate new generalizations from observations? I do it by pouring information into my brain, letting it spin around for a while until a pattern emerges, an insight. Intuition. Generating a new premise, a hypothesis, is not a logical process. It requires that something new be created where there was nothing before. Then that new idea can be tested using empirical methods. You have to have a hypothesis before you can apply logic. Before you can be rational.

Sometimes "reasonableness" is contrasted specifically with instrumental rationality in submitting to judgment also the worthwhileness of the goal and the acceptability of the means of achieving it, so a broader decision-making process. — Srap Tasmaner

This makes sense to me. As I wrote previously:

Reason takes into account issues beyond the bare facts, e.g. clarity, civility, contemplation, cooperation. — T Clark

It would have made sense to add the worthiness of the goals to my list.

That makes no difference to the kind of thinking that is applied to a problem. The whole chain of reasoning may be invalidated at the end by one irrational premise or one false datum along the way, but the process itself is either rational or irrational. — Vera Mont

I agree with this but, as I noted, I think premises are by their nature non-rational, which is not to say irrational.

I do gain something, even from some of the futile, circular ones. — Vera Mont

Yes, I too have gained from those types of discussions. I've learned to avoid them if possible. I also try to keep the opening posts on threads I start very specific so I have a better chance to really examine the subject I'm interested in.

I think that ambiguity is the reason I never took on the task of clarifying the distinction. There's just too much room for pointless disagreement descending into "sez you." People have a lot invested in what is considered reasonable or rational and what is not.
— T Clark

I think the terrain can be mapped. — Pantagruel

As I noted in my response to @Vera Mont, this discussion seems to be proving me wrong.

scientistic and hermeutic approaches to understanding and intentionality — Pantagruel

Can you briefly summarize these. That may be an unreasonable, although not irrational, request.

The premises or belief from which the thought begins may be entirely false (religious tenet, cultural assumption) and the information may be incorrect (optical illusion, misuse of language, inaccurate measurement, deliberate lie) and therefore the conclusion derived from them entirely wrong, disastrously wrong, as long as they are internally consistent, the thought is rational. — Vera Mont

Sure, the premises may be wrong, but they also may just be non-rational. In a recent thread I made the claim that all premises, if you trace them back to their source, are non-rational.

I suppose... But don't they in just about every kind of opinion and belief? Avoiding all of those subjects doesn't leave much to discuss. The weather, traffic, our children and our dreams... — Vera Mont

I'm mostly thinking about here on the forum. There are some topics I avoid because I don't think the discussion will go anywhere useful. This one seems to be proving me wrong in that regard. For many here, rational is a value judgement. They don't acknowledge the legitimacy of things they don't consider rational or the distinction between irrational and non-rational.

the derived word 'reasonable' is not synonymous with 'rational'. — Vera Mont

I think that ambiguity is the reason I never took on the task of clarifying the distinction. There's just too much room for pointless disagreement descending into "sez you." People have a lot invested in what is considered reasonable or rational and what is not.

Yes, trying to capture some kind of paradigm descriptor of thought in its purest or ideal form. I believe there are elements of logic, ethics, awareness, rationality. Reason. — Pantagruel

I think I know why you've chosen those elements, but you can't have thought without Intuition, emotion, imagination, visualization, memory.

I was continuing my inter-evaluation with ethics (which I think is another top-level descriptor). — Pantagruel

By "top level descriptor" do you mean a category at the same level as reason or rationality? Or what?

Also, I don't think thinking is strategic. I'm not even sure what that means. Certainly a lot of our thinking is not goal oriented.
— T Clark

I was thinking of a criminal. Who can have high situational-awareness and make complex plans. But is that sufficient to rationality? — Pantagruel

What I should have said is that thinking is not necessarily strategic.

I don't think complexity makes something rational. It's the connections between elements that are important. I'll stick with yes, criminal thinking can be rational. Didn't you see "Ocean's 11," "The Italian Job," and all those other heist movies.

If thinking is strategic — Pantagruel

Also, I don't think thinking is strategic. I'm not even sure what that means. Certainly a lot of our thinking is not goal oriented.

What about reasonable? — Pantagruel

I thought about starting a thread to discuss the difference between rationality and reason. They seem different to me, but they are considered synonyms. They are generally defined in terms of each other, so it's hard to separate. How would you define them?

This is how I, tentatively, see it - The discussion of anything can be rational, logical; but premises are not necessarily rational. I'd go further and say premises are generally not rational, which isn't to say they are irrational. Most of our thinking is not rational. We grasp most things without tracing our knowledge back to a source. Rationality comes into play when we have to go back and justify what we've proposed.

One way I think of reason as different from rationality, although I'm not sure it is legitimate, is in terms of broader values. Rationality is a hammer. Reason takes into account issues beyond the bare facts, e.g. clarity, civility, contemplation, cooperation. Again, that's my idiosyncratic way of looking at it.

So, yes. Discussions of criminality and ethics can be rational and reasonable.

Is it ethical for technological automation to be stunted, in order to preserve jobs? — Bret Bernhoft

It's ethical, but probably impossible or at least infeasible. Science will be science. Technology will be technology. The solution may be something like universal basic income.

On the other hand, the unemployment rate is low and demographers say there won't be enough workers in the future as birthrates decline.

Thank you.

Competing interpretations of quantum mechanics have been proposed which fit the math equally well, though experiments are beginning to achieve the capacity to adjudicate between them. — Enrique

I has been my understanding that different interpretations of quantum mechanics cannot be differentiated using empirical methods. If you have information otherwise, I would be interested in seeing it.

The ball remains in their court. It is up to them to give an account that explicates such a use. — Banno

I've had my say. Nothing to add.

I think it’s pretty much spot on. Less complex version than mine on pg 2. — Mww

Ok.

Real is that which is the object of human inquiry. — Daniel

Many here on the forum and elsewhere would disagree.

That's actually not true. People vary in how much they trust logic. Some can march, one logical step at a time, to amazing effect. — frank

Deductive logic only operates on propositions. The propositions have to come from somewhere. If you follow a logical chain of propositions back to the beginning, you'll come to one that can't be generated by deductive logic.

Propositions can be generated by inductive logic. Following a standard scientific type process, you start with observations, use them to generate hypotheses, and then test those hypotheses against further observations. Logic of either type is not able to make the step from the original observation to hypothesis. That requires insight, intuition.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. — Hanover

[deleted]

Just for the record, I (T Clark) did not delete this post.

The other side of this: https://www.chabad.org/4411808 — Hanover

As a philosophy - humane and inspiring. In this context - a grotesque and self-serving justification for prejudice and censorship.

I hold the view that people's professed beliefs often reflect personal context rather than logic. — Tom Storm

Everything I know, think, feel, and believe reflects "personal context" rather than logic. No one comes to believe things because of logic. Logic does not generate knowledge or understanding. It can, and sometimes does, validate or invalidate beliefs. E.g. do you think @universeness's opposition to anti-natalism comes from logic? His baloney gestures to logic are just a cover to support his desire that ideas he doesn't agree with should be censored.

@Baden

I appreciate you starting a new thread with a more respectful name.

I just remembered something I hadn't thought about in a long time. In my Boy Scout troop, we played games after our weekly meeting. One of my favorites was Gab Fest. Two people stand close and look each other in the eye. When someone says "start" they have to start talking fast without stop or pause. The first one to run out of things to say loses. The words don't have to be meaningful, but you can't just repeat the same thing over and over.

I was good at it.

If you think of the poetic function of language as a subtype of "fun with pattern recognition" (alongside seeing bunnies in clouds and such), that might even have contributed to the creation of language in the first place. Shared social grunt-play. Would make sense to me.

A scene from the anime Yuyushiki that may or may not demonstrate what I mean (depending on how much sense I make): — Dawnstorm

For me, all language is play and poetry is particularly playful. Metaphors are jokes. Pronunciation, rhyming, rhythm, and alliteration are music. I liked the video.

That's a matter of taking physics way, way outside of its purview. — Manuel

Agreed.

Point being, very few people are just going to say "the things I argue for/believe in are not real", it's a very strange statement to make. — Manuel

I was motivated to start this discussion by recent threads that questioned whether quantum mechanics undermines the idea of reality.

Have I forgotten something in the set of what is real? Almost certainly. — Benj96

I don't have a problem with any of things you identify as real, but different people have different ideas. Some philosophical approaches deny there is any reality. Hence this discussion.

Interesting indeed. I think the main motivation for ending death through technology and medicine stems from fear of death, fear of the uknown and powerless state of non-being, fear of being forgotten and thus retrospective meaningless to your life after no one alive ever knew you even existed in the first place. In otherwords having no legacy. — Benj96

Your probably right about the reasons. I'm 70 and many of my family and friends are that old or older. I'm surprised by how many of them feel as I do. I don't think any of us are particularly afraid of dying.

Why did you take this as a criticism of a philosophical position? — Tom Storm

Your post was a response to this from Universeness.

I can only wish you the best of luck in trying to understand the logic put forwards by antinatalists.
I personally find it one of the most ridiculous idea's a human has ever come up with. — universeness

It's not much of an argument, but it is in response to anti-natalists position, not their psychological state.

I think for some people with mood issues and negative life experiences, it might make sense (in theory) never to have been born and to surmise that all lives are irrevocably marred by suffering and futility - the byproducts of living in a cruel world we didn't devise or choose to enter. There are a lot of folk out there living with chronic dissatisfaction and an inability to find joy. This corrosive anhedonia easily trumps optimism and hope and is readily attracted to philosophical justifications for pessimism. And frankly, look around, it's not hard to see how some people might regard the world through shit colored glasses. — Tom Storm

You know that analyzing a person's motivation is not a legitimate criticism of a philosophical position.

Post 200 threads in succession on any philosophical topic you like and I'll learn to hate it pretty quick, thanks. — Baden

We should have an "All Metaphysics' thread, an "All Leftist Bullshit" thread, etc. — frank

Funny, I was about to respond to Baden, ironically, that now I have to worry about a "Metaphysics Sucks" thread where all my brilliant insights will go to die. I'm pretty sure your suggestion isn't ironic.

I remain skeptical of your sincerity.

The forum is not supposed to be used as a platform for spreading any poster's particular ideology. — Baden

"Ideology" is another name for a philosophy you don't like.

I appreciate your response.

First, it's not just antinatalism: we do try to merge discussions on the same topics if they're happening simultaneously, or if they're asking the same questions or making the same points. — Jamal

Perhaps that is the policy, but it certainly isn't the practice. As I noted in my first post on this subject, it is uncommon for moderators to consolidate threads, even in situations where it is getting silly.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

Interesting perspective. I am not sure if I am aware about the possibility of denying the existence of my past at all because it created myself in the present and how I will be in the future. So past is there. I guess you are trying to say to me that is possible to "get over it" and not being stuck in the past endlessly. Another important characteristic of the transition of our lives. Every has an end, so the past too. — javi2541997

I didn't mean literally that the past doesn't exist. It's my experience of the past that has changed.

Mikie had our full support. — Jamal

I was certain of that. My message was to you and @Baden, not to him. It's rotten and unfair and it's bad philosophy. Prejudice and censorship against positions you don't care for.

The true ones do not disagree with each other. — Banno

There are an infinite number of true descriptions of the world.