reason is simply a product of human existence — jackhuxy1

I don't think so. Reason is not a product but the capacity to make sense of words, beliefs, or perceptions, and as such it is not exclusively human. A bird, for instance, might not make much sense of words but it makes sense of things it sees, hears, feels etc., which enables it to act accordingly. Its tweets, colours, and gestural signs might be products of bird existence, like our words, pictures, and gestures are products of human existence. But the capacity to make sense of things is then not species-dependent but a feature of the biology of conscious creatures.

Alien blobs may thus have the capacity to make sense of perceptions, beliefs, or signs in alien blob languages.

So, what's the difference between reason and Blobreason? I don't get the question. Suppose someone hooks you and I up to brainwave machines and demonstrates that we do not think in the exact same way. Then I say thinking is what I do, you don't think, you jackhuxythink. What's the difference between thinking and jakhuxythinking?

I agree with you jkop, I have since re-imagined my question, as I realised I was asking the wrong thing.
What I really want to ask is whether reason can exist as an objective thing in the universe? That is to say that when entities use their capacity for reason are they able to reason apart from their personal natural history in an objective manner? Is reason ever 'neutral' ?

I suppose what I was trying to ask is whether our capacity to reason is unique to humans/animals? I admit its not a particularly good question.

What I wanted to explore are the consequences of reason being as morally baseless as relativist moral theories like emotivism.

It seems to me that in this day and age where so much rides on our judicial systems- case and point the US court currently blocking Trump's executive orders- that justice and morality must be grounded in something that exists as a thing in-itself in order for it to be able to maintain the 'moral high ground' in situations like the travel ban in the US. I believe that society sees this objectively true thing to be reason or rationality. I say this because our courts are lorded for their neutrality, with emphasis on cold hard facts rather than what 'feels' like the right thing to do.

However, I do not believe reason exists as a thing in-itself outside of human existence and therefore, it has no 'superior' objective status over moral theories such as emotivism, for example. Our capacity to reason is affected by our natural history, beliefs, situations etc. and is never neutral. Consequently it seems to me that reason is open to the same criticisms as relativist moral theories and the emphasis Trump has begun placing on the importance of looking out for your individual-self is not necessarily any less morally commendable as doing the 'rational thing'.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this

when entities use their capacity for reason are they able to reason apart from their personal natural history in an objective manner? — jackhuxy1

You might be interested in this book: Fear of Knowledge (2006), by Paul Boghossian, in which the idea that knowledge and reason would be fundamentally cultural or subjective is torn to shreds.

It is Unenlightened Speculation

Consider 'enlightenment' - it will have identified a universal value (common to all enlightened beings), which is 'higher consciousness', and it will have an adequate grasp of reality, realizing that life is not eternal, which begets an enlightened goal - that of securing higher consciousness against a deadly universe (which keeps alive the possibility of a future higher consciousness 'resurrecting' us (hence 'life after death' and 'eternal life') (though 'eternal life' is rendered impossible given eternity, so we are left with a 'Great Struggle') (a 'continuous struggle' to exist). It will have identified the key factors in the survival of higher consciousness - diversity, dispersal, and sheer numbers (what microbes have used), and extended reason, proaction, and technology (what humans (higher consciousness) have introduced).

So any reasoning from such a 'blob' will either be enlightened (recognizing the value of the survival of higher consciousness - and we are obligated to argue for it - let the dead argue for non-consciousness), or not. It will realize that the 'biological platform' (or non-biological platform) is trivial compared higher consciousness (though such platforms contribute to diversity - a critical component of broader survival).

In other words, all 'enlightened minds' will 'think the same' at the highest level - that is, they will all recognize the same Ultimate Value in life, hence the same Ultimate Goal (to secure the ultimate value), and where the Ultimate Goal gives all enlightened minds the same basis for clearly distinguishing good from evil, which offers a solid foundation for building worthwhile lives and relevant civilizations (no matter what the conscious platform - human or blob). So the common link is final, ultimate enlightenment, begetting the same goal, and realizing the value of the other (toward diversity, dispersal, sheer numbers, extended reason, proaction (discovering/solving threats to life BEFORE they act), and technology). If it tries to attack you or exterminate you or enslave you, then it is not enlightened, which is why I say "Pursue peace, it is a noble goal, but be armed to the teeth just in case...".



Note that animals have reason. Consider the ball hidden in one of three cups game, where the game master quickly scrambles the three cups and you must guess which of the three cups the ball is under. A goldfish can keep track of the hand motions and point out the right cup every time (see YouTube, under 'animal intelligence' I believe, I can't remember specifically). This is not 'blind instinct', it originated from reason (at least the first time, for after that, it could become 'automatic' - without the need for further reason, and erroneously appear as instinct).