I dunno, that is the question right? And that question in turn depends on what you would consider "a reason". — ChatteringMonkey

Survival might be considered high on the list.

Does a chicken have a reason the scratch the ground when looking for food? — ChatteringMonkey

Yes: seeds scattered on the ground sometimes get covered by dirt. Having eaten all the visible seeds, the chicken scratches for any that were overlooked. Floors are artificial, beyond a chicken's repertoire of experience; she doesn't have sufficient information to be sure it won't yield to scratching.

So a lot of that behaviour seems to be instinctual. — ChatteringMonkey

That's where it begins. Drive - habit - instinct - adaptation - thought.
Some big brown slug didn't just hump itself out of the primordial swamp and grow into H. sapiens without reference to any other species. The process was long and gradual; the product exists on a scale and a spectrum.
A dog may not recognize its image in a mirror, but neither can a man pick the smell of his own urine out of a hundred other humans'. We self-identify differently and perceive differently, use similar faculties in different proportions, but the strategies and tactics of survival have to be coherent, directed and purposeful in order to succeed. By the time you're up the brain size of a great ape, most of its behaviour is controlled and directed - purposeful - even though we don't constantly think about what we're thinking and how we're thinking it (which would paralyze action and probably get us killed).

I think a lot of what we humans do is more or less the same, we do seem to do a lot of things without conscious rational deliberation, out of instinct. — ChatteringMonkey

We also have habits and instincts, yes. And many perfectly reasonable decisions that we don't dwell on, simply because they're learned reactions; considered appropriate to a familiar situation. Reason can't have been invented in response to being challenged: that's the wrong way around. Who was there to challenge an action prior to the concept of rational thought?

So then if we took a human, and they did the same thing as the crow without saying any words, we would think that wasn't rational thinking? How did the crow arrive at that conclusion to do what it did to begin with? — Philosophim

That is the intuitive question. As @Manuel warns, when we know something intuitively, it is important to check and double-check that intuitive thought. An intuitive thought may be the result of past experiences or spending many days trying to answer a question. We can not be sure why but the thought is just in our heads whole and complete. Because I am studying the brain I read or hear time and time again, that our brains are very active and we are not aware of all its activity.

We know humans can be aware of some of that thinking in a way we call rational thinking. Rushing out to hang someone for committing an offense with other men dressed in white sheets, is not rational thinking even if the men are aware of their reasoning. Their reason is not the careful reasoning of science. Men's behavior in times of war had little to do with rational reasoning. :heart: I hope we all gain better knowledge of different modes of thinking and different codes for thinking. How do our brains work compared to how do the brains of great apes work?

(Experiment: have a trusted human teach a baboon to do it, then let him in among a troop of youngsters.) — Vera Mont

I am excited because you have gotten to the core of the subject. Baboons to not have the attention span of great apes. Baboons are monkeys not apes. The difference is genetic. I don't know if anyone has tried as hard to teach a baboon or done an experiment as you suggest. I think not because from our present judgment of baboons it would be futile.

Here is a link...

Monkey species include baboons, macaques, marmosets, tamarins, and capuchins. Ape species include humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, gibbons, and bonobos.

In evolutionary and genetic terms, ape species are much closer to humans than monkeys are. In addition to having similar basic body structures, apes are highly intelligent and can exhibit human-like behavior. For example, chimpanzees, which are closest to humans genetically, can create simple tools and use them effectively.

Although monkeys communicate with each other, apes possess more advanced cognitive and language skills. They can't speak like humans, but they can use sign language and other bodily movements to communicate with humans effectively. Communication skills help gorillas, chimps, and bonobos develop complex social groups and even exhibit some aspects of culture. Like humans, apes can think and solve problems in their environments. https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/whats-the-difference-between-apes-and-monkeys#:~:text=Monkey%20species%20include%20baboons%2C%20macaques,to%20humans%20than%20monkeys%20are.

We also have habits and instincts, yes. And many perfectly reasonable decisions that we don't dwell on, simply because they're obviously the correct response to a situation. Reason can't have been invented in response to being challenged: that's the wrong way around. Who was there to challenge an action prior to the concept of rational thought? — Vera Mont

No, but what I'm saying is that "reasons" are not necessarily the result of conscious rational deliberation either. Instincts are obviously prior to all of that, and instincts are to some extend already reasonable. Instincts are the original 'reasons'... then great apes evolved language as a tool of communication as social group animals, then we develloped rationalisation or justification, i.e. delineating and expressing in language, after the fact, the reasons already inherent in behaviour guided by the instincts (or perhaps expressing reasons that weren't even there in case of dissimilation). And then eventually, socrates put forwards the notion that we should have conscious rational deliberation prior to the act as the golden standard.... rational thinking instead of instinct.

We know humans can be aware of some of that thinking in a way we call rational thinking. Rushing out to hang someone for committing an offense with other men dressed in white sheets, is not rational thinking even if the men are aware of their reasoning. Their reason is not the careful reasoning of science. — Athena

This is why the definition and meaning of the phrase "Rational thinking" needs to be clearly listed and agreed upon first. If we all have different viewpoints of what the phrase "Rational thinking" means, we're never going to come to an agreement. as to whether an instance of a crow using a tool is an instance of rational thinking.

Intuition is rational thinking. — Vera Mont

I will use a link to explain why intuitive thinking is not rational thinking.

Intuition is defined as the ability to acquire knowledge without the use of reason [1]. Some liken intuition to a gut feeling, or to unconscious thinking. Rational thinking is defined as the use of reason, the capacity to make sense of things, and the use of logic to establish and verify facts [2].

Intuition versus Rational Thinking: Psychological Challenges ...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1546144012003791#:~:text=Intuition%20is%20defined%20as%20the,and%20verify%20facts%20%5B2%5D.

As @Manuel explains rational thinking begins with a proposition. I am learning as I read and reply and use links because I do not have a strong understanding. So here is an explanation of propositional knowledge.

Propositional knowledge is the knowledge of a proposition, or fact, that can be justified, true, and believed. It can be applied to a wide range of subjects, including science, geography, math, and self-knowledge. https://www.google.com/search ? <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_knowledge#:~:text=Propositional%20knowledge%20asserts%20that%20a,referred%20to%20as%20knowledge%2Dthat" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_knowledge#:~:text=Propositional%20knowledge%20asserts%20that%20a,referred%20to%20as%20knowledge%2Dthat</a>.

Now here is where the rest of the animal realm fails. It took us centuries but we now of an amazing comprehension of pi.

Succinctly, pi—which is written as the Greek letter for p, or π—is the ratio of the circumference of any circle to the diameter of that circle. Regardless of the circle's size, this ratio will always equal pi. In decimal form, the value of pi is approximately 3.14. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pi-and-how-did-it-originate/#:~:text=Succinctly%2C%20pi%E2%80%94which%20is%20written,of%20pi%20is%20approximately%203.14.

The importance of our present knowledge of pi is mind-blowing! It tells how organism grow, and helps with navigation of air planes. This link is very complex so I am leaving just the link for those who want to know what pi has to do with the creation of the universe and how things grow. https://www.biophysics.org/blog/pi-is-encoded-in-the-patterns-of-life

This link is a little simpler..

Tracking Aircraft with a Raspberry Pi - Stephen Smith's Blog

Stephen Smith's Blog
https://smist08.wordpress.com › 2023/01/27 › tracking-...
Jan 27, 2023 — A tutorial, by Tony Roberts, on connecting a Raspberry Pi to an SDR radio to retrieve flight information from nearby aircraft.

Any way even though many of us struggle with math, it is an important component to rational thinking.

Sciencific thinking is nothing like our every day thinking.

Scientific thinking is the process of reviewing ideas using science, observations, investigational processes, and testing them to gain knowledge. The goal is to make outcomes of knowledge that may be meaningful to science. The scientific method is how scientists and researchers apply their scientific thinking. https://study.com/academy/lesson/scientific-ways-of-thinking.html#:~:text=Scientific%20thinking%20is%20the%20process,researchers%20apply%20their%20scientific%20thinking.

Oh man :nerd: A thought came up as I worked on the explanation.

Modern thinking is nothing like the thinking of the Middle Ages and around the world are people still far from proposition knowledge and thinking. Our understanding of the different modes of thinking and how far we have come in the last hundred years is still outside of our consciousness but we are not the same human beings we once were. We only had to potential to become as we are. Other animals do not have this potential.

Intuition is defined as the ability to acquire knowledge without the use of reason [1]. Some liken intuition to a gut feeling, or to unconscious thinking.

The problem with this definition is it does not describe whether the person's intuitive thinking was the result of previous rational thoughts that one has subconsciously accepted, or instinct. One can have an intuitive behavior driven by instinct, previous rational thought, or trained habit.

So in the case of the crow, while we see they search through the branch and pick a twig of the correct size, we never saw if the crow had ever toyed around with the branch before. Maybe earlier they tried other materials, saw certain ones did not work, and finally found that a small branch did.

Working through a process to find what works, and does not work, seems like rational thought. It does not mean a being has to use math, language, or any higher level tools or processes that humans do. Can it reason through a novel problem and come up with a solution? That's really the question.

They already have a language. The argument is over whether and how well they learn some version of a human language. — Vera Mont

No animals don't already have a language. Language is next to culture, it has to be learned. The ability to learn a language varies across species and within the species are individual differences and the age of our ability to learn changes with our age. Older children have a greater learning ability and there are some things that if a child does not learn or experience at a certain age, the child will never be able to incorporate it in its being.

That said, many animals have warning sounds. Those sounds are instinctively known to all species because as math explains, the sounds are irritating and can not be ignored. A group of chimps may have different sounds for different threats- this would be cultural and something that has to be learned before one could know if the threat is an eagle coming from the sky, or large snake hanging in the tree or a predator coming by ground. Those warning sounds, even the more complex ones are not propositional thinking. The great ages are not going to discuss what humans are doing to their habitat and what they can do to defend it.

Do you mean animals besides humans? — LuckyR

Yes. I don't think anyone here is arguing humans have not evolved from an ancestor that would be classified as an animal. The transition from prehumans to humans is better documented today and with our improved knowledge of animals having culture, our understanding of the transition is getting better.

facial anatomy suggests that A. ramidus males were less aggressive than those of modern chimps, which is correlated to increased parental care and monogamy in primates. It has also been suggested that it was among the earliest of human ancestors to use some proto-language, possibly capable of vocalizing at the same level as a human infant. This is based on evidence of human-like skull architecture, cranial base angle and vocal tract dimensions, all of which in A. ramidus are paedomorphic when compared to chimpanzees and bonobos. This suggests the trend toward paedomorphic or juvenile-like form evident in human evolution, may have begun with A. ramidus. Given these unique features, it has been argued that in A. ramidus we may have the first evidence of human-like forms of social behaviour, vocally mediated sociality as well as increased levels of prosociality via the process of self-domestication—all of which seem to be associated with the same underlying changes in skull architecture. A. ramidus appears to have inhabited woodland and bushland corridors between savannas, and was a generalized omnivore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus_ramidus

.

Their challenge was most likely climate change making life in the trees more difficult, forcing this species out of trees and making them land animals with culture and physical changes improving vocalization and indication of less aggressive behavior.

I have to change what I said about climate change. There is new information and it makes more sense.

Hominid fossils predating the emergence of Australopithecus have been sparse and fragmentary. The evolution of our lineage after the last common ancestor we shared with chimpanzees has therefore remained unclear. Ardipithecus ramidus, recovered in ecologically and temporally resolved contexts in Ethiopia’s Afar Rift, now illuminates earlier hominid paleobiology and aspects of extant African ape evolution. More than 110 specimens recovered from 4.4-million-year-old sediments include a partial skeleton with much of the skull, hands, feet, limbs, and pelvis. This hominid combined arboreal palmigrade clambering and careful climbing with a form of terrestrial bipedality more primitive than that of Australopithecus. Ar. ramidus had a reduced canine/premolar complex and a little-derived cranial morphology and consumed a predominantly C3 plant–based diet (plants using the C3 photosynthetic pathway). Its ecological habitat appears to have been largely woodland-focused. Ar. ramidus lacks any characters typical of suspension, vertical climbing, or knuckle-walking. Ar. ramidus indicates that despite the genetic similarities of living humans and chimpanzees, the ancestor we last shared probably differed substantially from any extant African ape. Hominids and extant African apes have each become highly specialized through very different evolutionary pathways. This evidence also illuminates the origins of orthogrady, bipedality, ecology, diet, and social behavior in earliest Hominidae and helps to define the basal hominid adaptation, thereby accentuating the derived nature of Australopithecus. https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1175802

No, but what I'm saying is that "reasons" are not necessarily the result of conscious rational deliberation either. — ChatteringMonkey

Of course not. The reason why something is necessary precedes any consciousness recognizing the necessity, which precedes any deliberate action taken. Entities striving to survive are not acting at random; they're acting in response to a need: they have specific reasons for doing what they do, long before the development of a brain. Animals with brains recognize their needs, explore their environments and decide on actions intended to attain a specific end: find water, get food, erect shelter, seek safety.

Instincts are the original 'reasons'.. — ChatteringMonkey

Biological impulse is the original response to the environment and survival. Instinct develops much later , in increasingly complex organisms. Instinct and memory form habitual behaviours, then the even more complex brain adds curiosity and imagination to extrapolate situations beyond the present and consider alternative actions to reach the same goal.

And then eventually, socrates put forwards the notion that we should have conscious rational deliberation prior to the act as the golden standard.... rational thinking instead of instinct. — ChatteringMonkey

By which time, thousands of species had been doing it for 50 million years, without pontificating about it.

No animals don't already have a language. Language is next to culture, it has to be learned. — Athena

Yes, all social animals learn their language from their elders.

Now here is where the rest of the animal realm fails. It took us centuries but we now of an amazing comprehension of pi. — Athena

Not to mention all the means of mass extinction. The other animals fail most spectacularly by dying at our hands.

This is why the definition and meaning of the phrase "Rational thinking" needs to be clearly listed and agreed upon first. If we all have different viewpoints of what the phrase "Rational thinking" means, we're never going to come to an agreement. as to whether an instance of a crow using a tool is an instance of rational thinking. — Philosophim

I can think of three major elements to rational thinking: its form is linguistic, its structure is logical, and its orientation is (ostensibly) self-interest (either direct or indirect). Under that definition, animals do not have rational thinking because they lack language. And intuitive thinking, which allows for action without explicit knowledge of the reasons for action is similarly excluded. — Baden

@Manuel said "I suppose a bare minimum has to be symbolic representation akin to something that arises with language use. Animals do not have language, if by "language" one has in mind propositional knowledge."

Perhaps we can focus on logic.

Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the study of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It examines how conclusions follow from premises based on the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. Informal logic examines arguments expressed in natural language whereas formal logic uses formal language. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers to a specific logical formal system that articulates a proof system. Logic plays a central role in many fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

.

I like that the definition begins with "correct reasoning". Lenching someone does not involve correct reasoning. In court, we aim at correct reasoning. But then I think of the ancient Greeks and the argument against rhetorical speaking which may appeal to emotions more than reason.

I like that the definition begins with "correct reasoning". — Athena

Why does 'reasoning' require a modifier? You can arrive at the wrong conclusion through a rational process, if you begin with false or incomplete information, if you start from an assumption that is later proven to be unfounded, if your initial purpose is to justify an act deemed wrong by others.

I get that humans want to be oh-so-special - not enough to be the most; we must be the only. Well, we have a number of claims to that exceptionality already. The reason - rational, but rarely acknowledged - we so desperately want to deny other species the faculty of reason is to justify our exploitation of them.

Manuel said "I suppose a bare minimum has to be symbolic representation akin to something that arises with language use. Animals do not have language, if by "language" one has in mind propositional knowledge." — Athena

This is defining the term to exclude animals without debate then. This is also an incredibly narrow term that historically has not required language use. I would not agree this is a requirement for rational thinking, just a requirement for linguistic thinking.

Perhaps we can focus on logic. — Athena

Logic may also be too strong. Rational thinking is the ability to piece premises together and come up with potential solutions. Those solutions may be wrong. A rational thinker can then eliminate that wrong answer and try another route. Logic often implies deductive reasoning, but many would argue that inductive reasoning is also necessary for rational beings.

Here is a clear example of thinking which is not rational. If you poke a caterpillar with a leaf in a way that doesn't harm it, it will squirm like its being attacked. Every time, it never stops. Its a purely reactionary mind, with no forethought, adaptability, or ability to react to memory. Whereas we have a monkey using a tool. How many tests did the monkey have to do to get the right stick? What did they try before sticks? Rational thinking is a process which requires memory, adaptation, and often times proactive and not reactive.

Why does 'reasoning' require a modifier? — Vera Mont

If the reasoning isn't correct, things can go very wrong. That is why it is important to have the correct facts and think things through carefully. Democracy is not about what one person thinks but together after we argue with each other and check our facts, what is true. This is akin to scientific thinking. It is not basing our understanding of reality on a myth that can not be supported with factual statements.

We have a big problem in the US. Our understanding of rational thinking is very weak. In general people don't know the difference between an opinion and a fact. All thinking is confused with being rational and that is a serious problem.

It is your opinion that I hold rational thinking as a human thing based on language that animals do not have because I want to exploit animals, is an opinion, not a fact. Let me make it clear, I care that we know the difference because it is the only chance we have of not destroying our planet. If we do not distinguish between correct reasoning and incorrect thinking, the planet is doomed and there is no other animal on earth that can do that reasoning.

Logic may also be too strong. Rational thinking is the ability to piece premises together and come up with potential solutions. Those solutions may be wrong. A rational thinker can then eliminate that wrong answer and try another route. Logic often implies deductive reasoning, but many would argue that inductive reasoning is also necessary for rational beings. — Philosophim

There is a problem with inductive reasoning. Scholasticism used Aristotle and the Bible as the foundation of education. We did not come to the modern age until much later and there was a terrible fight and strong backlash to Aristotle's inductive reasoning. We are talking a huge knowledge breakthrough that changed our cultures and our lives. There was a lot of anger towards education based on Aristotle because it prevented us from progressing intellectually.

Hume asks on what grounds we come to our beliefs about the unobserved on the basis of inductive inferences. He presents an argument in the form of a dilemma which appears to rule out the possibility of any reasoning from the premises to the conclusion of an inductive inference. There are, he says, two possible types of arguments, “demonstrative” and “probable”, but neither will serve. A demonstrative argument produces the wrong kind of conclusion, and a probable argument would be circular. Therefore, for Hume, the problem remains of how to explain why we form any conclusions that go beyond the past instances of which we have had experience (T. 1.3.6.10). Hume stresses that he is not disputing that we do draw such inferences. The challenge, as he sees it, is to understand the “foundation” of the inference—the “logic” or “process of argument” that it is based upon (E. 4.2.21). The problem of meeting this challenge, while evading Hume’s argument against the possibility of doing so, has become known as “the problem of induction”. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

There is a problem with inductive reasoning. Scholasticism used Aristotle and the Bible as the foundation of education. — Athena

A person who is using a screw to fix a pipe also has a problem. Inductive reasoning is a tool. It has its proper applications, and improper applications. But no one throws away their screwdriver entirely just because it can't fix a pipe.

We did not come to the modern age until much later and there was a terrible fight and strong backlash to Aristotle's inductive reasoning. — Athena

Right, because someone asked the question, "What if Aristotle is wrong?" To explore that, that particular person had to explore several inductive reasons too. Rational thinking is not, "I have the right answer". Rational thinking is a process of working through a problem to a solution. And that requires both inductive reasoning to figure out different possibilities, and deductive reasoning to narrow it down to necessary conclusions.

Hume stresses that he is not disputing that we do draw such inferences. The challenge, as he sees it, is to understand the “foundation” of the inference—the “logic” or “process of argument” that it is based upon (E. 4.2.21). The problem of meeting this challenge, while evading Hume’s argument against the possibility of doing so, has become known as “the problem of induction”.

If you are interested, I have essentially solved that problem here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 There is a nice summary on the next immediate post. Essentially there is a hierarchy of inductions. The close they are to the process to gain knowledge, the more cogent they are. Inductions are absolutely necessary tools in rational thinking and discovery. We just have to understand them and use them correctly.

Here is a clear example of thinking which is not rational. If you poke a caterpillar with a leaf in a way that doesn't harm it, it will squirm like its being attacked. Every time, it never stops. Its a purely reactionary mind, with no forethought, adaptability, or ability to react to memory. Whereas we have a monkey using a tool. How many tests did the monkey have to do to get the right stick? What did they try before sticks? Rational thinking is a process which requires memory, adaptation, and often times proactive and not reactive. — Philosophim

I might throw in here something I just read in a math book. It has been proven a 4 month old child recognizes the difference between one thing, two things, or three things. The baby has no language so is not thinking in terms one, two, three. It is just the change in the number of objects that the baby reacts to. This does not happen when there are four things or five things. More than three is just many. It also is specific to the number of things. It does not matter if three balls become three blocks, or if red puppets become blue puppets. It is only the change in the number of things, up to three things that catches the baby's attention. This is also basic to horses, birds, and dogs.

That is knowledge of some things is hard-wired. It comes with the animal. This is not the thinking you described. It is more like the caterpillar reacting as though it were being attacked. No thinking, just a reaction. A man accidentally killed his son because he was reacting to fear, and picked up his gun when he heard an intruder and then fired that gun when his son who came home from college a day early, jumped out of the closet to surprise his dad. The reaction happened before the thinking could begin. I think it is important to understand not all thinking is rational and thank you for your example of the caterpillar. It is also a baby's reaction to the change in the number of things. This is the stimulus, this is the reaction. Not rational thinking.

quote]He (sc. Hume) presents an argument in the form of a dilemma which appears to rule out the possibility of any reasoning from the premises to the conclusion of an inductive inference.[/quote]
People often forget that he also says that, in spite of the fact that inductive reasoning is deductively invalid, we will continue to act on that basis, but not from reason, from custom or habit. He also says that inductive reasoning is all the proof you will ever get and provides a basis that is "as good as a proof". (In the context of his discussion of miracles, he slips up, or gets over-enthusiastic, and says that induction reasoning (against miracles) is a proof. He excoriates radical scepticism, which he calls "Pyrrhonism" even though he acknowledges that he cannot refute it. He recommends a month in the country as a cure. All he wanted to disprove was the Aristotelian idea of a "power" hidden behind the phenomena.

There are two ideas that may help with the issue of animal ratonal thinking.
One is the idea of "embedded" beliefs. These are believes which it is necessary to posit to make sense of the action. You walk towards your car, reach in to your pocket for the key to open it, and fail to find it. You believed that you had the key even though you didn't. You just didn't think. So there was no reasoning process behind your walk to the car and yet you believed it. The same is clearly true of animals. They do not have language, so they cannot go through what we call a reasoning process, though they can clearly learn from experience and remember what they learn and so act rationally.

The other idea is the distinction between knowing how to do something and being able to articulate that knowledge, or between tacit and articulate knowledge. (Even philosophers have to acknowledge that it is perfectly possible to use a word correctly without being able to define it. They quarrel about whether that means that you know what the word means only because (unsurprisingly) they are fixated on articulate knowledge and don't take knowing how seriously. Given that knowing-how and knowing-that are two distinct abilities, it should be no surprise that animals know how to do things without knowing how to articulate them.

Please let's try to get over the idea that only humans have language. There are many language-like communication systems, of varying degrees of sophistication. It's a matter of degree, not of kind.

The reaction happened before the thinking could begin. — Athena

That doesn't mean that it wasn't rational. He thought that his son was an intruder. An embedded belief.

This is the stimulus, this is the reaction. Not rational thinking. — Athena

But you are leaving out all the interesting bits. Stimulus/response is Pavlov's idea. The stimulus, for him, is something external and the response is the animal's. It's the feedback that does the work. In the case of his dogs, the bell announces the food and the animal salivating is the response, because the dog has learnt that the bell is followed by food. It's perfectly rational. Skinner introduced what he called "operant conditioning", where the stimulus is something the animal does and the response is what the environment does. If the response is a reward, the animal's action is reinforced; if the response is unpleasant, the animal's action is inhibited. It's called trial and error and it's perfectly rational.

I agree that the baby waving its arms and legs about is. let's say, purely mechanical. Evolution sees to it that we are born with a basis for learning what we need to know. Whether it is mechanical or not, it will be rational. But the baby quickly finds out that some movements are rewarded and some are not - and off we go. They have a mechanical seeking movement - probably based on pheremones - that is rewarded when the milk is found - and off we go. Horses and cows and others have a more complicated problem - they have to learn to stand up and walk before they feed - but they manage it. I'm not clear whether the squirming caterpillar is yelling in pain or trying to escape, by the way - possibly both. They could be blind, mechanical movements, but I doubt it. Evolution would favour squirming caterpillars because they are more likely to escape.

Ran out of time. My ride to the airport has arrived. I will be in Hawaii for a week.

People often forget that he also says that, in spite of the fact that inductive reasoning is deductively invalid, we will continue to act on that basis, but not from reason, from custom or habit. He also says that inductive reasoning is all the proof you will ever get and provides a basis that is "as good as a proof". (In the context of his discussion of miracles, he slips up, or gets over-enthusiastic, and says that induction reasoning (against miracles) is a proof. He excoriates radical scepticism, which he calls "Pyrrhonism" even though he acknowledges that he cannot refute it. He recommends a month in the country as a cure. All he wanted to disprove was the Aristotelian idea of a "power" hidden behind the phenomena. — Ludwig V

[Emphasis added]

I'm not familiar with the Aristotelian idea of a "power" hidden behind the phenomena. However, based on my considerations of neuroscience, calling our subconscious recognition of patterns "a power" doesn't seem inappropriate.

I'd be interested in hearing more about Hume's disagreement with Aristotle, if it isn't too much trouble.

If the reasoning isn't correct, things can go very wrong. — Athena

Indeed. But 'correct' isn't in the definition of reasoning, nor is the soundness of the result. It's a process that can be carried out more or less effectively.

It is your opinion that I hold rational thinking as a human thing based on language that animals do not have because I want to exploit animals, is an opinion, not a fact. — Athena

I like that the definition begins with "correct reasoning". — Athena

'Incorrect', 'ill-informed', 'faulty', 'based on invalid premises and/or unfounded assumptions', 'inappropriate' and even 'fatally flawed' are descriptions that can be applied to:

Webster: 1. The use of reason; especially : the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of reason. 2. An instance of the use of reason : argument.

It is your opinion that I hold rational thinking as a human thing based on language that animals do not have because I want to exploit animals, is an opinion, not a fact. — Athena

I never claimed otherwise. And, in fact, the remark was not directed specifically at you - except inasmuch as you have been defending the human exclusivity position - but was an observation regarding a whole system of faulty/disingenuous human reasoning for the purpose of arriving at a desired conclusion.
Propaganda and advertising work in this same way: argument directed at a desired outcome. The purveyors of mis- and disinformation use a rational process to determine what kinds of falsehood their audience is most likely to believe and construct the most persuasive arguments to make their conclusions sound reasonable. Often, this involves altering the meaning of words and twisting familiar concepts, and may include denial of the audience's practical experience.

However, based on my considerations of neuroscience, calling our subconscious recognition of patterns "a power" doesn't seem inappropriate. — wonderer1

That's a different case. Our recognition is revealed when we recognize it. These powers, as Hume keeps emphasizing, are "secret", "hidden".

I'd be interested in hearing more about Hume's disagreement with Aristotle, if it isn't too much trouble. — wonderer1

I recommend reading what he actually says, and only reading secondary sources with that in mind. The argument against induction is routinely misunderstood, and so they cannot be altogether trusted.

Bear in mind also that when I say "Aristotelian" I mean it. Hume might have been arguing with Aristotle, but he doesn't say that who he's disagreeing. It's "the schools" that he is targeting.

His discussion is in the "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" Section IV, Part II. It begins on page 33 in my edition. It begins:-

I shall content myself, in this section, with an easy task, and shall pretend only to give a negative answer to the question here proposed. I say then, that, even after we have experience of the operations of cause and effect, our conclusions from that experience are not founded on reasoning, or any process of the understanding. This answer we must endeavour both to explain and to defend.

If you have an electronic text, search for "power". It'll come back with over 100 entries, but you can click through them quite quickly. In my search, it was number 15 of 129. It comes quite early, in the first page or two.

Thanks!

I guess you'll have better things to do that hang around here!

I want to add that I do not at all deny that animals (including humans) do have purely mechanical responses. Examples in humans are the reflex breath as you come back to the top of the water, which is clearly evolved and rational, as contrasted with the jerk of your lower leg as your old-fashioned doctor tap just below your knee, which (so far as I know) has no evolutionary purpose. You may know that if you scratch a dog at just the right place, their back leg comes up as if to scratch themselves; they can also do the same thing when they want to scratch themselves; that response can be mechanical and irrational and can be voluntary and rational.

Often, this involves altering the meaning of words and twisting familiar concepts, and may include denial of the audience's practical experience. — Vera Mont

You're not wrong. But, along with all the similarities, there must be differences. The same applies to chimps and horses and whales. So there is legitimate enquiry to be had here, surely?

His discussion is in the "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" Section IV, Part II. — Ludwig V

I just finished reading it, so I have a better understanding of the context in which he was using "powers".

These powers, as Hume keeps emphasizing, are "secret", "hidden". — Ludwig V

It's interesting to consider how much less secret and hidden these days, is the power of bread to nourish. These days if I go buy a loaf of bread many of the bread's nutritive 'secrets' are likely to be listed on the packaging. :smile:

I just finished reading it, so I have a better understanding of the context in which he was using "powers". — wonderer1

So you should also have a better understanding of what empiricism was/is all about. The debate between empiricists and rationalists (the orthodox background for empiricism in philosophy to-day) is a whole other issue. That debate was about innate ideas - a quite different problem.
You may find it interesting to read Section V and VII for more about causation and Section XII for more about scepticism.

It's interesting to consider how much less secret and hidden these days, is the power of bread to nourish. These days if I go buy a loaf of bread many of the bread's nutritive 'secrets' are likely to be listed on the packaging. :smile: — wonderer1

Yes. One could argue that the powers are less secret than they seemed to be back then. We describe what happens in terms of a condition - if and when the first billiard ball hits the second, the second will move. It makes no difference if you know the molecular analysis of the balls - the causal relation has no more to it than "if and when p, then q will follow".

One could argue that the powers are less secret than they seemed to be back then. — Ludwig V

When it comes to our power of thought, it's still hidden. We don't know at this point how the brain thinks BECAUSE we do not have access to enough of the brain's processing to figure it out. Yes, we have fMRI, EEGs, direct measurement of neuron's firing, etc. But these just don't reveal in anything close to granular detail how the brain produces the self, consciousness, novels, symphonies, mechanical inventions, and so on and so forth. There are clues, but the case isn't solved by a long shot.

Will it be solved? I don't know. Depends on the stability of civilization over the next century or two. The brain's 90 billion neurons (give or take a half dozen) and their trillion trillion interconnections are literally beyond our reach at this point. C. elegans' brain (all 300 neurons) has been fully charted, but that's a far cry from even a rat's brain, let alone the extraordinary brain of Ludwig V.

If we don't figure out what ever neuron does, that's fine. We don't need to know. Our brains are not so reliable that they should have more knowledge than they can safely use.

It makes no difference if you know the molecular analysis of the balls - the causal relation has no more to it than "if and when p, then q will follow". — Ludwig V

Well, I'd think it could only seem so from an awfully 'high level' view, where a lot of the causal detail is coarse grained out of consideration. The causality involved in anything I'm apt to find interesting is a lot more complex than "if and when p, then q will follow". In digital logic terms, that can be implemented with a wire 'from p to q'.

It's pretty deeply engrained into my way of thinking, to see causality as a lot more complex than that.

But, along with all the similarities, there must be differences. — Ludwig V

Certainly. Evolution is a huge, complex, interconnected web of living things developing the faculties that best served their survival. Many of those faculties are held in common by large numbers of species, in varying degrees, styles and intensities. Rational thinking is one survival tool that many animals use to varying degree, depth, breadth and efficiency. I don't say humans are not the smartest and most linguistic; only that they are not unique in the ability to solve problems, and that setting problems to solve is the only way that I know of to test this ability.

So there is legitimate enquiry to be had here, surely? — Ludwig V

It's been going on for a considerable time - I think we're coming up on a century of scientific inquiry into the subject.
What I object to is starting from a conclusion that should have been put to rest decades ago.

For what is worth, I agree with pretty much all of this.

Instincts are obviously prior to all of that, and instincts are to some extend already reasonable. Instincts are the original 'reasons' — ChatteringMonkey

One way to clarify all this is to distinguish clearly between rationality in the instrumental sense, meaning something like "goal advancing," and rationality in the sense of something like "meeting the standards of argument and evidence in your speech community."

In the first sense, animals are prima facie rational, if anything mostly more rational than human beings, less subject to ridiculous maladaptive beliefs or habits of thought that might lead to behavior harmful to self or group. There are limits of course.

The second sense appears to be the sole province of language-users and therefore us, for better or worse.

Two tricky points: (1) the extent to which and the ways in which the two related; and, perhaps as a particular case of (1) but perhaps not, (2) whether internalizing the patterns of reason as justification and argumentation (i.e., sense 2) genuinely contributes to belief formation at all, and perhaps to adaptive belief formation, or simply makes us more facile at producing justifications for beliefs arrived at we know not how.