I put this in a form I'm more familiar with. I'm no logician, but it's clear that, as it stands, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Oh yeah? What makes it clear that it doesn't follow?

Yes, that is sensory data, that involves thought, — Garrett Travers

Again, for about the tenth time, you do not address my point, that if knee jerk is from a process of reason, then any human behavior in response to stimuli, is reason, even unconscious response such as twitching your nose if ticked by a feather.

Not that jerking one's knee will save their life or anything. — Garrett Travers

There is a more general claim that you backed yourself into: That all responses to stimuli are in a process of reason.

Another matter is whether all means of survival are from a process of reason. But even basic animal instincts (I'm accepting your rubric 'instinct') contribute to animal survival, and you granted that humans at stages of maturation, do respond by such instinct. You backed yourself into the reductio ad absurdum from the claim that all all means of survival are based in reason.

What's it based in, then? — Garrett Travers

I already told you: Automatic response, animal instinct, emotion. And as to necessary attributes, not just reason is required, but all the biological processes and physical capabilities.

You keep saying we should settle one point first, but we have come full circle on the point long ago, while you continue to skip certain decisive arguments I've given.

It appears that the reason Objectivism makes this incorrect overstatement, this implausible reduction, is that it is needed to drive other conclusions about ethics and politics. But even granting the reductions, the conclusions don't follow.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

This isn't an argument. — Garrett Travers

I don't claim that is an argument that refutes you.

Calling an assertion a reduction deosn't make it one. — Garrett Travers

That's right. And it's not necessarily incorrect to make reductions. But I have not just said that it is a reduction; I showed how your particular reduction is incorrect, on pain of taking 'process of reason' to include even knee jerk or even nose twitching during sleep.

You are born with no animal instincts that could ensure your survival. — Garrett Travers

(1) What is the proof of that claim?

(2) Even if one is not born with the instincts, that doesn't make them a process of reason. If humans are not born with animal instincts, then I would guess that there are instincts of lower animals that are also not present in birth. Or are you claiming that lower animals endow all their instincts in completeion genetically?

(3) Even if we granted that all human instincts are learned, still the learning is so basic that it's not what people ordinarily mean by 'reason'. When I was an infant and refrained forever from touching fire because it once was painful, I didn't use reason for that, again, unless 'reason' is defined so broadly that it loses ordinary meaning. Just as, if a lower animal learns certain responses, ones not given at birth, then we don't say that the animal used reason.

You've still not provided a single life-sustaining behavior, that falls outside of the confines of reason, that could ensure human survival. — Garrett Travers

Again, you blew right past what I said about that many posts ago. I have not claimed that means other than reason are sufficient for survival. They are necessary for survival. Even granting that reason is necessary does not vitiate that other attributes are also necessary. And reason alone is not sufficient for survival.

If you can't get straight the difference between necessity and sufficiency then of course you wouldn't be able to properly reason about this.

Moreover, you are leaving out that the Objectivist argument is not just with regards to necessity but also as to essentiality. So not only is your argument not valid, it doesn't an aspect that particularly characterizes the Objectivist import. And I mentioned before that the Objectivist argument requires justification of the Objectivist essentialistic framework.

What makes it clear that it doesn't follow? — Garrett Travers

Are you claiming that it does follow?

And I already told you why it doesn't follow.

It is missing premises that would provide entailment.

One premise that could be added:

"If humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival, and if it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty, then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals."

With that added premise, it is a valid argument. (NB: 'valid does not mean that the premises and conclusion are true. 'valid only means that if the premises are true then the conclusion is true.)

Your argument doesn't lock. The premises (irrespective of whether they are true or not) don't provide a lock by which the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.

A technical point: To prove that an argument is invalid requires showing an interpretation of the vocabulary in which the premises are true but the conclusion is false. Or showing at least hypothetical circumstances in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Because the vocabulary here is not so easily transposed to different meanings, it would be pretty unwieldy to provide such a proof of invalidity. So, a more restricted claim technically needs to be made: The proponent of the argument has not shown the validity of the argument; the proponent of the argument has not cited a valid logical form of which the premises along with the conclusion are are an instance or that valid form. But, for example, by adding another premise, I showed an argument in valid form, viz. modus ponens.

Oh yeah? What makes it clear that it doesn't follow? — Garrett Travers

Are you thinking of it as a syllogism?

Again, for about the tenth time, you do not address my point, that if knee jerk is from a process of reason, then any human behavior in response to stimuli, is reason, even unconscious response such as twitching your nose if ticked by a feather. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, fundamentally. That doesn't mean one is employing reason at the level of executive function, but the cognitive process of integrating data to inform behavior is reason. That is what I already asserted here numerous times.

Automatic response, animal instinct, emotion. And as to necessary attributes, not just reason is required, but all the biological processes and physical capabilities. — TonesInDeepFreeze

All of this is dependent on reason to be used to sustain life.

Another matter is whether all means of survival are from a process of reason. But even basic animal instincts (I'm accepting your rubric 'instinct') contribute to animal survival, and you granted that humans at stages of maturation, do respond by such instinct. You backed yourself into the reductio ad absurdum from the claim that all all means of survival are based in reason. — TonesInDeepFreeze

To the degree that animal behavior is genuinely predicated on the integration of sensory data, which we don't know how much that is, I would go ahead and grant this to you. However, if it is instinctual very low resolution, unsophisticated reason. I also didn't back myself anywhere. Reason is the means of survival. Animals are not exclusively relegated to having such as their means.

I showed how your particular reduction is incorrect, on pain of taking 'process of reason' to include even knee jerk or even nose twitching during sleep. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, if human reason covers that process as well as higher cognitive processes, nobody is asserting a reduction. Variable gradients exist in all complex systems. Cognition is no different.

What is the proof of that claim? — TonesInDeepFreeze

When you're born you're 8 pounds, with a squishy head and an under-developed brain, with more than a decade rearing period. Reasoning abilities and capacities are developed over decades, babies and children would die on their own in a way that would leave our species unable to achieve its birth rates. It can only survive when it can develop its reasoning abilities to the point of achieving goals.

Even if one is not born with the instincts, that doesn't make them a process of reason. If humans are not born with animal instincts, then I would guess that there are instincts of lower animals that are also not present in birth. Or are you claiming that lower animals endow all their instincts in completeion genetically? — TonesInDeepFreeze

..... No. But, many of them are ready to be on their own, in accordance with their evolutionary adaptations, in a very short time. Humans specifically develop this reasoning faculty, over a long number of years, as their evolutionary adaptation to ensure survival.

still the learning is so basic that it's not what people ordinarily mean by 'reason'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Gradients of sophistication are not relavent to the definition.

When I was an infant and refrained forever from touching fire because it once was painful, I didn't use reason for that, again, unless 'reason' is defined so broadly that it loses ordinary meaning. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You didn't come to that conclusion based on the integration of sensory data that informed your future actions in a way that avoided harm..? ... Okay, sure. Yeah you did.

Reason: think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

Just as, if a lower animal learns certain responses, ones not given at birth, then we don't say that the animal used reason. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That's true, we use the word Pavlov left us. I'm not going to deny the current linguistic framework, nor ask you to adopt a new one. Again, when it comes to animals it's a bit different, reasoning isn't an intrinsic aspect of any other species, we don't know at what level of sophistication they're operating with. Like I said, I'll concede the animal stuff out of sheer ignorance.

Are you thinking of it as a syllogism? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yep.

Are you thinking of it as a syllogism?
— ZzzoneiroCosm

Yep. — Garrett Travers

It's clearly not an Aristotelian syllogism.

So what valid syllogistic form do you claim it to be?

Modus Ponens

Actually it does, nevermind.

Maybe a dumb idea, but it might help to have a brief glossary of the core terms being used , like 'reason' so that we don't need to keep interrupting the flow defining the key words.

Again, for about the tenth time, you do not address my point, that if knee jerk is from a process of reason, then any human behavior in response to stimuli, is reason, even unconscious response such as twitching your nose if ticked by a feather.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, fundamentally. That doesn't mean one is employing reason at the level of executive function, but the cognitive process of integrating data to inform behavior is reason. — Garrett Travers

My point stands that your view requires a notion of 'reason' so broad as to lose ordinary meaning. Also, using your notion of reason, I stated your "syllogism" to show that it is even more implausible than you started with.

Automatic response, animal instinct, emotion. And as to necessary attributes, not just reason is required, but all the biological processes and physical capabilities.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

All of this is dependent on reason to be used to sustain life. — Garrett Travers

Going back about 50 posts, I pointed out that reason depends on them. No physical processes, then no brain, then no reason. Physical processes themselves are necessary too. It is arbitrary to say that only reason deserves to be mentioned as an attribute necessary for survival.

Maybe a dumb idea, but it might help to have a brief glossary of the core terms being used , like 'reason' so that we don't need to keep interrupting the flow defining the key words. — Tom Storm

Actually yes, this may be what messes up the syllogism in its current form to begin with.

My point stands that your view requires a notion of 'reason' so broad as to lose ordinary meaning. Also, using your notion of reason, I stated your "syllogism" to show that it is even more implausible than you started with. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Okay. So, does that mean you don't want to contend with "my" view of reason?

Physical processes themselves are necessary too. It is arbitrary to say that only reason deserves to be mentioned as an attribute necessary for survival. — TonesInDeepFreeze

They are necessary. But they are not sufficient for survival. That's the point.

I think what Garrett is saying and suggesting is that the brain is amazing. But we don't even know how amazing it is.

I think what Garrett is saying and suggesting is that the brain is amazing. But we don't even know how amazing it is. — theRiddler

Well, of course I am. It's the most complex system in the known universe. But, I am actually trying to demonstrate how cool the brain is in accordance with modern data.

Modus Ponens — Garrett Travers

Modus ponens is the form:

If P then Q
P
Therefore Q.

Your argument is not of that form.

But I showed you how to put it into modus ponens form. But then, if you want to move past mere validity to a demonstration of the truth of your conclusion, then you have to demonstrate that the "If P then Q" and "P" parts are true.

For your reference, here is an instance of modus ponens:

(If P then Q) If humans evolved with response to stimuli being their means of survival, and if it is only through response to stimuli that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty, then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals.

(P) Humans evolved with response to stimuli being their means of survival, and if it is only through response to stimuli that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty.

Therefore, (Q) the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals.

/

That is valid.

But to demonstrate that Q is true, you sill need to demonstrate that both "If P then Q" and "P" are true.

Agreed, in essence, but let's be honest here: she clearly delineates from selfishness and rational selfishness. Meaning, if this is a discussion about Rand, that needs to be the exclusive usage for the term. Same way if we were talking about Marx, we would discuss Capitalism from precisely his view, even the definitions are no longer the same today. Right? — Garrett Travers

I can say this much. The word "selfish" has a different meaning to its conventional one in Rand's works. If not I fail to parse her.

Actually it does, nevermind. — Garrett Travers

What does 'it' refer to? Your argument? What do you mean 'it does'? It does what?

if [animal instinct] is instinctual very low resolution, unsophisticated reason. — Garrett Travers

That doesn't vitiate the point that humans also have such attributes, and we don't call it 'reason'.

Variable gradients exist in all complex systems. — Garrett Travers

That doesn't vitiate that humans also use attributes other than reason.

It can only survive when it can develop its reasoning abilities to the point of achieving goals. — Garrett Travers

Again, for about the tenth time, the question is not whether humans could survive by non-rational means alone. The point is that reason is not the only necessary attribute.

Animals are not exclusively relegated to having such as their means. — Garrett Travers

The fact that reason is not an attribute used by lower animals doesn't vitiate that reason is not the only human attribute required for survival.

You didn't come to that conclusion based on the integration of sensory data that informed your future actions in a way that avoided harm..? — Garrett Travers

That is not enough to cay it's "reason". If an animal takes sensory data to respond in certain ways in the future, then we don't call that "reason".

Post after post after post, you merely persist to claim that all human response is reason, even though that is a patently untenable position, even as I have spelled out exactly why it is untenable.

this may be what messes up the syllogism in its current form to begin with. — Garrett Travers

No, terminology is not why your argument is not modus ponens. It's not modus ponens because it is not of the form of modus ponens.

does that mean you don't want to contend with "my" view of reason? — Garrett Travers

Your notion of 'reason' is so dramatically iconoclastic that it is truly not recognizable as any sense of the word 'reason' I've ever seen. (I don't think I've even seen Objectivists use 'reason' in a sense that would allow that knee jerk or involuntary nose twitching in sleep is exercise of reason.)

Moreover, even with your personal notion of 'reason', your original argument is invalid.

And even more at the bottom line, no matter what an Objectivist notion of 'reason' is, this Objectivist argument toward the conclusion that ethical acts are all and only those that are selfish. But what is interesting at least is Objectivist essentialism that is used in the argument.

No, terminology is not why your argument is not modus ponens. It's not modus ponens because it is not of the form of modus ponens. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, I fucked up the syllogism. We'll have to either simply continue via Socratic argument, or reformulate it. My apologies.

They are necessary. But they are not sufficient for survival. That's the point. — Garrett Travers

It was not your original argument. You started switching to it only long after your necessity position crumpled. And it still is a wrong argument. Attributes other than reason are not sufficient for survival, but also reason is not sufficient for survival. So it's arbitrary both to single out reason as necessary, since other attributes are also necessary. And it's arbitrary to disqualify non-reason as insufficient, since reason is also insufficient.

As I mentioned, the Objectivist argument is more involved than yours, as it deploys essentialism. Maybe you might go back to reread your Objectivist texts. Though, the Objectivist argument is not valid anyway.

Your notion of 'reason' is so dramatically iconoclastic that it is truly not recognizable as any sense of the word 'reason' I've ever seen. (I don't think I've even seen Objectivists use 'reason' in a sense that would allow that knee jerk or involuntary nose twitching in sleep is exercise of reason.) — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, my notion of reason is broadly understood in the neuroscientific community to include what I have discussed.

your original argument is invalid. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, we can reformulate it if need be. Or, I believe you had one from earlier that looked good, the original reformulation you did. Not the one with your specific conclusion in it conclusion.

And even more at the bottom line, no matter what an Objectivist notion of 'reason' is, this Objectivist argument toward the conclusion that ethical acts are all and only those that are selfish. But what is interesting at least is Objectivist essentialism that is used in the argument. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, we'll have to get to that point, kind of a process of understanding.

It was not your original argument. You started switching to it only long after your necessity position crumpled. And it still is a wrong argument. Attributes other than reason are not sufficient for survival, but also reason is not sufficient for survival. So it's arbitrary both to single out reason as necessary, since other attributes are also necessary. And it's arbitrary to disqualify non-reason as insufficient, since reason is also insufficient. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Those attributes help the person initiating reason to survive, but they are tools of reason itself. We of course need the body we exist in. But, it is specifically reason by which we generate concepts for the usage of that body.

As I mentioned, the Objectivist argument is more involved than yours, as it deploys essentialism. Maybe you might go back to reread your Objectivist texts. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, I'm all set. I am also recognizing essentialism, that has nothing to do with the argument.

Yep — Garrett Travers

Okay. A syllogism has the form:

1. A is B
2. C is A
3. Therefore, C is B.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.


So you can see from the form and from the example that something from the first premise must be included verbatim in the conclusion.

There may be a way to finagle your argument into the syllogistic form by rephrasing. Not sure.

That doesn't vitiate the point that humans also have such attributes, and we don't call it 'reason'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Didn't say it did. I said those attributes are tools of reason, not the other way around.

Again, for about the tenth time, the question is not whether humans could survive by non-rational means alone. The point is that reason is not the only necessary attribute. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It's the only one that directs the usage of the others.

That is not enough to cay it's "reason". If an animal takes sensory data to respond in certain ways in the future, then we don't call that "reason".

Post after post after post, you merely persist to claim that all human response is reason, even though that is a patently untenable position, even as I have spelled out exactly why it is untenable. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It may be untenable from someone who is looking at things only in the form of an argument, but not in function. I already stated that if an animal does use sensory data to inform action, then that constitutes reason, even if only a very low-resolution kind. But like I also said, we don't know what's going on with them cognitively.

I am also recognizing essentialism, that has nothing to do with the argument. — Garrett Travers

It is very key to the Objectivist argument.

You did touch on it when you mentioned that animals don't use reason.

For sake of argument, let's set aside dolphins, ravens, primates and such, and let's simplify to say that only humans use reason.

The Objectivist view then is that the essential property of being human is reason. Then with that essentiality premise, the argument goes through some steps to conclude that selfishness, and only selfishness, is ethical.

I know, defer to my above statement. I fucked up the syllogism. It will have to either be reformulated, or dismissed. However, that doesn't mean that any of the arguments I have made outside of the syllogism are wrong, just that the syllogism was not in form.

my notion of reason is broadly understood in the neuroscientific community to include what I have discussed. — Garrett Travers

Maybe you can mention an article that explains that? Perhaps something at the level of an encyclopedia.