h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

".. rationality is an emergent property of human discussion and argument .."

I don't think that is true.

The Descartian "Cogito Ergo Sum" argument is not based on thought being an emergent property (or even if it is it doesn't make any difference to the argument), so why assume that rationality is either (or even that it matters). In addition rationality, my internal abililty to reason is not dependent on discussion or argument with others.

What I'm wondering is if we fully explore this starting from a different statement, like "I am rational, therefore I am" do we end up going anywhere other than "to hell in a handbasket" with Descartes.

I do not know if there is any mileage in this approach or not, whether this approach has been tried elsewhere, or even if it is fundamentally different to Descartes, but it is at least worth considering, isn't it?

Semantics: tedious but unavoidable. Sorry. I would like to contribute to this latest thread about rationality, but I'm unsure what it is. Can anyone define it for me (even a vague starting point will do)? Madent, in what sense are *you* using the term?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

As in my abilty to reason, make decisions, use logic, conceive of and use mathematics.

To be honest PC, I am not entirely sure what difference there is between "I think" and "I am rational".

Surely it's theoretically possible to think without being rational, even if no human does it? (Although what about mental illness, insanity...?)

I think I agree with MaW, and with you, Madent, when you say To me, 'rational' means acting in a way that a typical human might do (i.e. not someone who is mentally ill in some way). My dictionary isn't much help, as it describes rationality as 'being in keeping with the ditates of reason and logic', *and* as 'being of sound mind'. With such a hazy definition, I wonder if any discussion of rationality can be constructive?

I remember seeing some bloke on TV describing the difference *he* saw between 'logical' and 'rational': a wife says to her husband "are you cold?", and he gets up and closes the curtains. The bloke thought this was rational but illogical. I'm not sure it's a good example of anything, but it does show the very broad understanding of the term 'rational' that exists.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Madent, you were arguing earlier that rationality is an evolved survival characteristic. You wrote (#2138),

"[Rationality] is an evolutionary trait. We have evolved to use our reason to survive better. We have furthermore (through the development of language) evolved to work co-operatively to achieve even better chances of survival and growth. As such I find it difficult to ask "what is the purpose of rationality?" and arrive at any answer other than survival."

I've posted that for two reasons, firstly because I basically agree with it, and secondly because I think it contradicts your claim (#2201) that "my internal ability to reason is not dependent on discussion or argument with others." If rationality has evolved, then it has survived selection pressures in the environment, such as other people's ability to make rational arguments. The stronger the reasoning powers of those around me, the more likely it is that I will have to strengthen my own reasoning powers, in order to retain the ability to convince others that my arguments are valid.

That seems, to me, to back up the view being put forward by Noggin in post #2199 (see also Dogster, #2191) :- "rationality is an emergent property of human discussion and argument." Rational thought could hardly evolve in a vacuum, without selection pressures, and therefore it is surely false to think of it as an irreducible component of the human mind.

"I am rational, therefore I am" has, then, to be a false statement (as indeed is "I think, therefore I am"). More accurate would be something like, "I am human, therefore I am blessed with an evolved capacity for rationality... which capacity, it is by no means inevitable that I will make full, or indeed any, use of."

Maybe that could be shortened a bit...


Lear

Yes, and though I may be stating the obvious, we also learn how to reason (better) from our contemporaries, and we learn from their reasoning (shoulders of giants ), saving the trouble of working it out for ourselves.

Which reasoning leads into a case for humans evolving as components of groups (tribes, societies...) as well as individual creatures. Just like termites, aren't we? Obviously speech has to do with social interaction as well.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Just imagine how much we're all learning here... we'll go out in the world and astound everyone else with our reasoning skills!

Hmmm...

LEt's say we have this quality (rationality, tohugh not defined as yet) that doesn't seem to be present to the same degree in other life forms. It's reasonable to say that it is an evolved characteristic. However, at its most basic level it is to be able to predict the behaviour of our environment (including others of our species).

I don't think it's true to say it is only a product of interaction with other quasirational beings. 'Rationality' is also just as powerful a tool for predicting how other creatures or non-living processes will behave.

If we're going to bare bones basics, I don't think we can guage rationality in terms of persuasion, as to talk about persuasion assumes a whole brace of other 'woolly' attributes (such as belief) are defined. Why not define rationality in terms of being able to predict the behaviour of the environment?

If we have this, then we find that our rationality is an attempt to model the rules of the universe. So, the universe has to be kind of 'rational' by this definition (Although not really; it's not doing any modelling. It's the process the rationality models).

However, this argument only holds if the universe itself is rules-based. On the other hand, we've got the anthropic principle making sure we're in a universe consistent enough to produce us, which requires at least some rules in the universe.

Onr thought that's always tickled me is this idea about what God might be.

It started when I thought about the meaning of omniscience. If God was omniscient, surely He know exactly what is going to happen in the universe. Then I thought, well, why would he be limited to one universe? If He is truly omniscient then he knows the full history of all possible universes.

Did He come into being with all this knowledge? If he did not, by what process did he gain this knowledge? Thinking, probably.

So- What if our universe is but one of all the possible universes that God is currently calculating? What if we are just part of the thought processes of God?

The best part is, 'all possible universes' includes all the ones with intervention from the sysadmin...

"... we'll go out in the world and astound everyone else with our reasoning skills!"

Sure, as soon as the nice doctors say we can leave the ward unsupervised !

oh my...

the idea of being a thought process by some higher being is rather frightening

most likely because i am a writer, who has created a universe populated by characters who are, in effect, my thought processes

in some senses i can do whatever i want to them, but in others they take on their own lives and develop minds and personalities and thought processes of their own

it becomes like setting up two mirrors that are facing each other, and looking at the millions of reflections

which are mere illusion, i might add

perhaps that is a model of rationality

realizing that whatever you believe to be true based on your perspective of the universe, it is necessarily an illusion

or something along those lines, i don't have time to refine these ideas because i get to leave school early due to inclimate weather

>"I don't think it's true to say [rationality] is only a product of interaction with other quasirational beings. 'Rationality' is also just as powerful a tool for predicting how other creatures or non-living processes will behave.
If we're going to bare bones basics, I don't think we can guage rationality in terms of persuasion, as to talk about persuasion assumes a whole brace of other 'woolly' attributes (such as belief) are defined. Why not define rationality in terms of being able to predict the behaviour of the environment?" (Queex, #2209)


I can see what you're saying. But I think the point is that rationality has developed, between human beings, as a way of dealing most effectively with those problems in the non-human environment. Obviously we wouldn't have been discussing hunting strategies with the local bear population. But we would certainly have been discussing, with our hunting companions, the safest and most efficient ways of catching the local bears. And the hunter who has demonstrably the best arguments - ie, the one whose hunting theories lead to the capture of most bears with fewest costs in terms of human injuries - is likely to be the one that other tribal members will find most persuasive in future discussions on the subject. Likewise, the tribal member with the best knowledge of local plant lore - which plants are poisonous, which have curative properties, etc - is well on the way to becoming a local witch doctor.

That knowledge and reasoning ability doesn't evolve in a vacuum. It is primarily social - ie, it evolves in collaboration and competition with other tribal members who are, naturally enough, also trying to maximise their own opportunities for control over local resources.

Rationality, then, is a distinct advantage in the competitive struggle with other human beings for status, reproductive opportunities, etc, in the local community.

Thus, I stand by the statement (not my own words - sorry, I can't remember who said it originally), "rationality is an emergent property of human discussion and argument."


Lear

Hmm, so if we're just in some being's imagination, what if the characters we create when we write stories are also real... what if we're just tapping into another Universe.

If the suggestion that every possible decision of any kind - right down to random fluctuations at a level our science doesn't yet understand - creates a new parallel Universe is true, then it would mean, probably, that every single Universe you could ever imagine exists - as do all the ones you can't. So every story is, in some sense, real.

Weird.

I don't disagree with what's being said here, but I wonder how much it has to do with rationality? It seems to me that what we're discussing are the evolutionary aspects of social behaviour and language.

Rationality is necessary for this, of course, but is it central, or just one of a number of conditions necessary for the (evolutionary) success of the human race? If rationality is the ability to reason, isn't it roughly as important as legs and arms, and the consequent abilities to chase quarry and throw a spear? I could even compare it with breathing, if I were given to sarcasm. But as I'm not...

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Lear-

I still wouldn't say that rationality is *primarily* social. You need to be able to make the thoughts yourself before you can communicate them. And it would be usual to expect some sort of internal verification of a rational thought before it was communicated to another (not strictly necessary, but more advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint).

I think rationality is primarily spotting patterns in the environment. Discussion and persuasion I would call argument. Rationality is needed for argument to take place, and argument may have helped hone rationality, but I think they are still separate concepts. Argument is an artefact of society, rationality is an artefact of environment.

As to whether the universe is rational (which was how this all kicked off, IIRC), then I say it *has* to be because it is by what we measure rationality.

Yes you do. But by communicating these ideas, and discussing them with our peers, we are often able to reach conclusions that would have been beyond any individual. Two heads are better than one. Surely this is "primarily" a social skill?

<...rationality is an artefact of environment.>

At the risk of repeating a recent - and very extended - discussion, isn't rationality a property of humans, and not their environment? It describes a mode of behaviour adopted by humans, after all.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"<...rationality is an artefact of environment.>

At the risk of repeating a recent - and very extended - discussion, isn't rationality a property of humans, and not their environment? It describes a mode of behaviour adopted by humans, after all."

Sorry, a artefact of interaction with the environment. As such, its dependent of the environment, not necessarily other developing minds.

Even so, we still need to be able to think with originality. Two heads can hone an idea, but it only takes one to come up with it.

Do you ever justify your claims, QQ? All you seem to do is to assert that you're correct, as many times as it takes, until those who disagree with you get fed up.

Please explain why rationality is an artefact of interaction with our environment. I can't see it myself.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"