I said that science holds that reason and memory are inextricably linked. Meaning, if stimuli can be stored as memory to inform future behavior, then there's undoubtedly some level of reason going on. But, nobody would know how to determine that right now. — Garrett Travers

"Some level of reason" is a partial retreat you arrived at after earlier making stronger claims. And still "some level of reason going on" disagrees with Objectivism anyway. I will look at your link later to see what it says about any mere response to stimuli being any kind of reason.

You've made specious arguments. I detailed the exact points of your speciousness. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No you didn't.

"Some level of reason" is a partial retreat you arrived at after earlier making stronger claims. And still "some level of reason going on" disagrees with Objectivism anyway. — TonesInDeepFreeze

This is what I've said the whole time, and no it doesn't disagree with Objectivism.

I will look at your link later to see what it says about any mere response to stimuli being any kind of reason. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Response used to inform future behavior is what I've said. That would imply memory.

Have you really been arguing this whole time that there are some things the body does autonomically that aid in survival? Very well. Duh. — Garrett Travers

And it has taken you all this time to recognize it.

My argument from the start has been there are attributes of humans other than reason that are needed for survival, therefore it is not correct to say that only reason is necessary for survival. That point needed to be made in response to your:

"[H]umans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival." — TonesInDeepFreeze

But reason is in the means of survival. It is part of a palette of means.

That it took me so long for you to recognize this does not make me childish; it arose only because of your own recalcitrance to grant an obvious point. Whether that recalcitrance is due to childishness, I don't opine.

Breathing is a mechanism you need to live. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I should have been more clear. Breathing is not a means, or method of survival. It is, in fact, a necessary autonomic bodily function required to live. Doesn't belong a debate about how humans actively ensure their survival, which is where the realm of this debate should have stayed.

"Some level of reason" is a partial retreat you arrived at after earlier making stronger claims. And still "some level of reason going on" disagrees with Objectivism anyway.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

This is what I've said the whole time, and no it doesn't disagree with Objectivism. — Garrett Travers

You claim that it is incorrect to say that Objectivism says that even the lowest creatures are using some level of reasoning?

And it has taken you all this time to recognize it. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yeah, I quite literally thought you were trying to say that breathing was in the realm of what we were discussing.

My argument from the start has been there are attributes of humans other than reason that are needed for survival, therefore it is not correct to say that only reason is necessary for survival. That point needed to be made in response to your: — TonesInDeepFreeze

Okay, that's a bit more clear. This didn't need to take this long. Yes, humans have basic functions. Means is to imply methods, people don't sustain themselves on autonomic functions, the brain does that. That's not the realm in which we're talking.

But reason is in the means of survival. It is part of a palette of means. — TonesInDeepFreeze

There's one of two ways you can look at that. Yes, there are other mechanisms like breathing or blood flow. That's not even something that is a part of this. This is about how does the living human continue his existence. Navigate his world. We do not have basic instinct that guides us. We're not talking about that which is intrinsic to him being alive at all.

That it took me so long for you to recognize this does not make me childish; it arose only because of your own recalcitrance to grant an obvious point. Whether that recalcitrance is due to childishness, I don't opine. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, it's due to me not understanding that that's literally all you were saying. I thought you were actually equating them as far as the human's actual methods of survival. Not just remarking on things that are a given.

a debate about how humans actively ensure their survival — Garrett Travers

"How humans actively ensure their survival" requires definition.

And humans don't ensure their survival. No matter what we do, we can't ensure that you'll survive into the next minute.

So putting aside "ensuring", breathing definitely is active and necessary for survival.

And, again, the Objectivist argument is that it is only humans that use reason as the primary agency for survival.

I quite literally thought you were trying to say that breathing was in the realm of what we were discussing. — Garrett Travers

It is, as I just quoted you omitting the means other than reason,.

You claim that it is incorrect to say that Objectivism says that even the lowest creatures are using some level of reasoning? — TonesInDeepFreeze

As of the moment, yes. I stated clearly that there's a difference between what happens when you respond in reflex, which informs later behavior, and what we know of the bug as far as the same phenomenon.

It is, as I just quoted you omitting the means other than reason,. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Autonomic function is in the same realm of reason?

people don't sustain themselves on autonomic functions, the brain does that — Garrett Travers

The brain does not do it alone. Reason doesn't ensure survival. And reason without other functions is even less reliable. So, it is not a good argument to base ethics on the mere fact that humans use reason, or even that reason in some sense "heads up" all the other functions. And the Objectivist claim that reason is primary only for humans does not entail that an act is ethical if and only if it is selfish.

"How humans actively ensure their survival" requires definition. — TonesInDeepFreeze

As in, act in the world to ensure survival.

And humans don't ensure their survival. No matter what we do, we can't ensure that you'll survive into the next minute. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Okay, which word would you like then? Seek, pursue, attempt, or direct. Are those better for you?

So putting aside "ensuring", breathing definitely is active and necessary for survival. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Sure, it just isn't in the realm of guided behavior or thought devised for survival.

And, again, the Objectivist argument is that it is only humans that use reason as the primary agency for survival. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, it is the human's primary agency for survival.

me not understanding that that's literally all you were saying. — Garrett Travers

Clearly, it is not all that I am saying. It was part of an argument I layed out very clearly, and with any rebuttals needed to advance it against your specious replies, and even as your specious replies chronically skipped key points I made.

The brain does not do it alone. Reason doesn't ensure survival. And reason without other functions is even less reliable. So, it is not a good argument to base ethics on the mere fact that humans use reason, or even that reason in some sense "heads up" all the other functions. And the Objectivist claim that reason is primary only for humans does not entail that an act is ethical if and only if it is selfish. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I don't know how to argue with assertions of this kind. You are equating autonomic functions with the cognition by which humans standardize all of their behavior. One is a conversation about where we get philosophy and mathematics, and the other is breathing and heartbeat, facts that aren't disputed by the philosophy in question. I don't know what to say to you.

"You cannot do math without reason."

"Yeah but you cannot do reason without breathing."

Okay. Not the same ballpark of stuff.

I stated clearly that there's a difference between what happens when you respond in reflex, which informs later behavior, and what we know of the bug as far as the same phenomenon. — Garrett Travers

You said that there are things we don't know about creatures, but for many posts you claimed that even the least response to stimuli involves reason (even, if I recall (I'm not going back now to find the quotes), that it is an instance of reason). I even pointed out that knee jerk is not exercise of reason, and you persisted to claim that it is (the point about knee jerk not being a survival mean is not relevant to the mere question of what is and is not reason).

Breathing is not exercise of reason, and not plausibly at any "level". So reason is not the only thing necessary for survival, which is to take exception to your original description in your earlier flubbed argument.

Now you move the goalposts to what is "in the same realm", while that is quite vague terminology, and my argument doesn't rely on realm anyway.

Clearly, it is not all that I am saying. It was part of an argument I layed out very clearly, and with any rebuttals needed to advance it against your specious replies, and even as your specious replies chronically skipped key points I made. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I can't take your argument seriously. You were a thousand times better on the logic stuff. You're "very clear" arguments were pointing out functions like breathing and likening them to the cognitive functions that bring us the LHC. That's the definition of specious.

act in the world to ensure survival. — Garrett Travers

I addressed 'ensure'.

And breathing is an action. It is necessary for survival, but does not ensure it. Using reason is an action. It is necessary for survival but it does not ensure it.

Seek, pursue, attempt, or direct. — Garrett Travers

Breathing is an action directed to survival.

So putting aside "ensuring", breathing definitely is active and necessary for survival.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Sure, it just isn't in the realm of guided behavior or thought devised for survival. — Garrett Travers

That is so specious.

I said that breathing is necessary and it's not reason. You reply, essentially yeah but its's not reason (guided thought).

You said that there are things we don't know about creatures, but for many posts you claimed that even the least response to stimuli involves reason (even, if I recall (I'm not going back now to find the quotes), that it is an instance of reason). I even pointed out that knee jerk is not exercise of reason, and you persisted to claim that it is (the point about knee jerk not being a survival mean is not relevant to the mere question of what is and is not reason).

Breathing is not exercise of reason, and not plausibly at any "level". So reason is not the only thing necessary for survival, which is to take exception to your original description in your earlier flubbed argument.

Now you move the goalposts to what is "in the same realm", while that is quite vague terminology, and my argument doesn't rely on realm anyway. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I said data being integrated to inform future behavior is specifically what reason was this entire time. And, I'm certainly moving the goal posts now away from this nonsense. I had no idea what you were actually trying to argue. I've been confused by why you keep talking about reflexes all night. No, reason is not all that is necessary for survival, not in that manner. But, it is most certainly from any methodological , or evolutionary advantages perspective. And, babies don't survive on autonomic function, reason has to be applied in their direction for a good long while. But, I'm not gonna continue talking about blinking and urinating and bloodflow, this is absurd.

That is so specious.

I said that breathing is necessary and it's not reason. You reply, essentially yeah but its's not reason (guided thought). — TonesInDeepFreeze

Specious is you bringing up basic bodily functions as a means of long-term survival and regarding that in the same caliber of what we're talking about. It's complete bullshit and you know it. It isn't even something that is denied regarding Objectivism.

And, again, the Objectivist argument is that it is only humans that use reason as the primary agency for survival.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, it is the human's primary agency for survival. — Garrett Travers

'primary agency' requires definition.

And, you skipped my main point, again. Even if reason is primary, that fact does not entail that an act is ethical if and only if it is selfish.

You are equating autonomic functions with the cognition by which humans standardize all of their behavior. — Garrett Travers

That is false. I asserted no such equation. I said that both are necessary for survival. I did not in any way claim that they are equal (in a sense of identity) nor equal in importance (I don't even know how that would be measured) nor equal in primacy ('primacy" not even defined) nor equivalent in any way. They share the property of being necessary; that is not a claim of "equality".

Breathing is an action directed to survival. — TonesInDeepFreeze

What kind of survival? Can babies live by just being left alone to breathe?

"You cannot do math without reason."

"Yeah but you cannot do reason without breathing."

Okay. Not the same ballpark of stuff. — Garrett Travers

'ballpark' is abysmally vague.

And my argument doesn't require that one is "in the ballpark" of the other. I have explained that; you skip,

That is false. I asserted no such equation. I said that both or necessary for survival. I did not in any way claim that they are equal (in a sense of identity) nor equal in importance (I don't even know how that would be measured) nor equal in primacy ('primacy" not even defined) nor equivalent in any way. They share the property of being necessary; that is not a claim of "equality". — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, they share a property. One is the source of all human science, wealth, technology, medicine, and philosophy, and the other is breathing. Placing them together as if they belong, or were ever in dispute in the capacity you've been playing around with is an attempt to reduce the role reason plays in human survival, which supercedes that of breathing.

Breathing is an action directed to survival.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

What kind of survival? Can babies live by just being left alone to breathe? — Garrett Travers

You are doing it again. At this point it is trolling.

Breathing is directed to survival. Breathing is necessary for survival. Breathing is not sufficient for survival.

Reason is directed to survival. Reason is necessary for survival. Reason is not sufficient for survival.

And that is not "equating" one with the other.

'ballpark' is abysmally vague.

And my argument doesn't require that one is "in the ballpark" of the other. I have explained that; you skip, — TonesInDeepFreeze

It does require it. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Again, reason is how the human navigates the world. We aren't tlaking about mitochandria.

an attempt to reduce the role reason plays in human survival, which supercedes that of breathing. — Garrett Travers

Now you're lying by putting words in my mouth.