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

Yes, but isn't it also true that two (or more) can generate an idea between them that wouldn't have emerged without discussion? And two (or more) can take an incomplete or impractical idea, and get from it something usable, yes?

I take your point, and agree with it, but it doesn't detract from the social benefits of rationality in this context.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

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

In the environment, there are patterns of cause and effect. Being able to predict these patterns (such as when it's about to rain, or that a predator won't hunt when it has just fed) offers some concrete advantage. Some species exploit these patterns by 'hard-wiring' behaviour that takes advantage of them.

A far more effective method is for a species to respond to these patterns on an experience basis (c.f. Pavlov). This is the very basis of rationality (it will rain *because* the sky is red, we felt ill *because* we ate that fruit). Rationality is a 'software' solution to find these patterns in the environment and exploit them. It seems far more plausible for rationality to have arisen this rather than purely through social interaction.

Of course, it is also advantageous to be able to share these revelations, which is where teaching (and inevitably, argument and persuasion) comes in. After all, without rationality how many complex concepts would there be to articulate?

I don't think "rationality = recognising and acting upon patterns in the environment" is the generally accepted meaning of the word. If we accept your implied definition, surely "rationality" *describes* a (successful! ) way in which people interact with their environment? I see that as being different from "an artefact of that environment". Perhaps the patterns (causes) observed in the environment are artefacts?

>"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." (Queex, #2216)


Yes, but in order to make the thoughts you need language, which you pick up from the social environment. And any new theory, however radically different from whatever went before, is produced within the context of an existing body of knowledge, even if it ends up proving that the existing knowledge was wrong. I don't see how new knowledge can be produced by someone who doesn't have a grasp of the existing conventions of his / her discipline. Apart from anything else, they would have a heck of a time getting anyone to understand them, or even listen. So, to me, discussion and persuasion are inseparable from rationality.

I would say that 'spotting patterns in the environment' is the *beginning* of a rational approach. Next is formulating a coherent theory about those patterns, and expressing it in a form and language that is comprehensible to other people. I think part of the problem, Queex, is that your understanding of 'rationality' seems (to me, forgive me if I've misunderstood) primarily functional - 'logical analysis of problem followed by solution' - whereas to me (and this is probably my Humanities background talking), rationality also has a wider sense to do with what I might call 'personhood', or 'being in the world'. That is, a rational person is one who can give a coherent, plausible (ie, based on facts), account of her situation in the world and the relation between herself and that wider context of life going on around them. In other words, someone with a philosophy.


Reading through what I've written, I'm not sure that it's as clear as I would like. I'm just going to post it like this, and hope that it makes some sort of sense.

Lear

Queex:

"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 see your point, but consider this. A man on a desert island probably talks to himself. This doesn't mean that language isn't primarily social, just that it can be conducted without other people.

In my ordinary, everyday interactions with the world I typically don't use my reason, I use my intuition. If I don't cross a busy road, am I thinking "If I cross this road, I will be knocked over and probably killed, being killed is something I don't want to happen, therefore I won't cross this road" (a rational argument for not crossing the road) or is it just a feeling, perhaps based on some heuristic?

Consider this possibility: individuals are governed by heuristics which have no intrinsic meaning but serve us well, rationality emerges (perhaps in some sense as a sort of common core) through communication between these individuals because their heuristics differ. This is almost a scientifically testable hypothesis, perhaps something with communicating computer programs could be devised?

"A far more effective method is for a species to respond to these patterns on an experience basis (c.f. Pavlov). This is the very basis of rationality (it will rain *because* the sky is red, we felt ill *because* we ate that fruit). Rationality is a 'software' solution to find these patterns in the environment and exploit them. It seems far more plausible for rationality to have arisen this rather than purely through social interaction."

OK, I was beginning to think I had an odd definition of rationality, but this is much odder. This isn't rationality how I think of it, this is heuristics and empiricism. We see that the tail always follows the nose and we infer that the nose causes the tail . (That is, we see that event A always precedes event B and we infer that event A causes event B, i.e. that the appearance of event A is a predictor of event B.)

These conversations that we have with ourselves are termed 'internal *dialogue*'. Even alone we're not alone....



And it works the other way around too. In 'Lila, an inquiry into morals', Pirsig describes how, instead of A *causes* B, we could say that B *values* precondition A. It works too, it just seems odd at first. I don't doubt there are other perspectives that work just as well.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

* remains quite baffled by the whole discussion *

For some reason I just can't follow this...

It appears that our own inability to concur on the use and meaning of language is giving us some grief.

Yeah, I noticed... discussions about a single subject like this seem quite rare around here - at least, when they get this long!

I think one difficulty with this - very long - thread is that Queex retains the unusual view that various concepts are part of what is observed, not part of the observer. It leads to things being expressing in an unusual - and perhaps confusing - manner.

Of course I could be wrong.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Very FFFF there. "I think this, but I might be wrong".

Well taking an entrenched position only sets you up to be humiliated when you're proven wrong. Why put your reputation/honour/etc behind something so daft? Being 'proved wrong' (negative experience) is a**e about face: it's a Good Thing because you've learned something new. You shouldn't put yourself into a position where you have nothing to gain and something to lose. IMO, of course.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Of course, nobody willing to admit that they think they're right can make discussions drag on forever... still, better than fights that drag on forever!

Is it just me, or are the only (British) politicians worthy of respect all women? Despite the horrific precedent of recent history , I look around for politicians whom I admire, and I see Mo Mowlam, Clare Short, Gwyneth Dunwoody, Glenda Jackson. Maybe even Theresa May from the Party Who Shall Not Be Named (by me! ).

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

It's probably just you PC

A quote from a not-to-complimentary article, whose main topic is predictable, but not central to this forum. The potential conversion of the Jews is more our cup of tea, though.

With war almost upon us, does anyone have thoughts on the spiritual aspects of the current crisis? Would you agree with those who observe growing levels of anti-moslem feelings in the USA? Is Saddam, as Osama says, a bad moslem? Is Dubya a servant of the Lord? Will Tony Blair rot in hell for betraying the British people?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.