Argument #2: From the Nature of Rationality

[skevosmavros]

Okay, I just read the entire thread, though I'll admit I skim-read some of the longer posts replying to individual posters on very very specific points.  So I apologise in advance if I say something that has already been covered.

The problem I see in this discussion is an equivocation of the concepts "rational" and "free will" - the original poster (and a few others) talk about "rational thought" in ways that I could replace "rational thought " with "free will" and the sentences would make more sense.

If the original poster had said: "FREE thought is possible, therefore materialism is false", then depending on the definition of "free", they would have been on their way to a reasonable argument.

But the original poster did not say that, they said (paraphrased): "RATIONAL thought is possible, therefore materialism is false", which makes me wonder - what is it about RATIONAL thought that contradicts materialism?  I see no such contradiction or incompatibility.

I DO see incompatibilities between classical understandings of free will and materialism, but we're discussing rationality, right?  Not free will?  One can exercise one's free will both rationally and irrationally, right? (if you accept free will of course)

What is it about thinking rationally (not thinking freely, just thinking rationally) that contradicts materialism?   I have read the whole thread and haven't seen this addressed (if I missed it, please copy and paste or point me to the right post).

[Davin]

I've been telling you my idea throughout this thread, and you continue to tell me I'm making assumptions. I am trying to get to the root of our disagreement. Really, if you had just answered the question we would have been finished with this by now. Again, why would you call the theory of gravity descriptive and not prescriptive?

We could have been done before you even attempted to play the silly game if you just said your "basic idea" to begin with, however you want to play a boring game that I do not want to participate in.

Ought - that which refers to duty or obligation

So rationality now also depends on duty or obligation? What could possibly be the reason to attach such specific meanings onto rationality? You're only rational when performing your duty? This only further complicates the definition for no purpose except, possibly, to make the definition of rational thought as complicated as possible.

A guard decides that he'll take a bribe to let someone in, he could reason it out and be very rational, but not fulfilling his duty. What if a man's duty conflicts with his obligations to his family, then there's no way to make a rational decision with this kind of "rational thought".

I've been explaining this the entire time. This is the point that no one has even interacted with, much less refuted. And this has been the central point I have made since my very first post.

Rational thought is only rational if it conforms with logic, and logic is prescriptive by nature. We can say logically that a rock will fall if it is dropped. That doesn't make the rock's falling rational. A falling rock is arational. Again, going back to your Deep Blue example, all of its moves, like the falling rock, are strictly determined and are thus are also arational.

The whole concept behind rationality and irrationality is that we have a duty to think rationally. That is what we mean by the word. When we say someone is acting irrationally, we are saying that they did something they reasonably should not have done. The whole reason it was irrational is that they should not have done it (or believed it, or whatever). When something just does what it does with no choice in the matter, that action is neither rational nor irrational. It is arational.

Again, this goes back to a very simple point: the laws of logic are prescriptive whereas the laws of physics are descriptive. Prescription necessarily implies duty, because that is what we mean by prescription. You are supposed to do this or that. If a person doesn't have the ability not to do this or that, then they aren't supposed to do anything. They are just doing what they are doing.

Logic is not prescriptive, it's descriptive. It describes what makes sense, those who use it all follow the same rules just as we all follow the rules of math when we do math. Prescriptive statements are subjective, logic is not.

Yes, yes. We agree on this. And if all the thoughts in my head are determined by nature--by physics and chemistry--then my thoughts are not rational. They are arational in precisely the same way a falling rock is. I don't have a choice in what I am thinking anymore than you do. You aren't really thinking at all. You are just going through the motions that nature is requiring you to do.

No, then we don't agree on this. The thoughts are rational regardless of their cause.

Even in your case, the output wasn't "wrong." It was exactly what it had to be given its admittedly limited data. Just because we go back and provide it more data to change the output doesn't mean it gets to make "smarter decisions." It just means that it is now acting on new data. It is no more or less rational than it ever was. It is still doing exactly what it is forced to do. Therefore, its actions are not rational. They are determined.

How is that different than the person? Both are treated the same way and both have the same result and both are learning. The person being corrected isn't make a "wrong" decision either, it's the person correcting them that has a goal for the person's output, the same is true of the program.

And the functions they create themselves have been created because the programming requires it.

Now, I completely agree that just because a person is wrong they aren't necessarily being irrational. I made that same point myself. Rationality is relative to what a person should or should not know and what calculations they have or have not made. For example, suppose I am driving down the road and notice that my gas needle is on empty. I am coming up to a gas station, and the next one is not for another fifty miles. The rational thing to do is stop for gas. Suppose, however, I decide not to stop for gas and drive on anyway. Now suppose I actually make it the next fifty miles because, unbeknownst to me, the needle was broken. I made an irrational decision even though it worked out for the good. Likewise, we could flip the details and have me run out of gas before I got there. My decision then to keep going would be rational because I had no reason to believe that I was out of gas. In that case, the rational worked out for the poor.

Rationality is not decided with reference to the consequences of an action. It is decided on the basis of what a person ought to do or think given a set of propositions. Again, this process is strictly normative. That is, it is prescriptive. Such normative, prescriptive statements however, have no meaning in a deterministic model (such as a computer program, or naturalism). Therefore, rational thought is impossible given determinism, and as materialism necessarily entails determinism, rationalism is impossible.

This doesn't describe the difference between a person and the program. Rational thought is the opposite of prescriptive, the purpose of rational thinking is to come to the truth regardless of the preconceptions of people. It's not prescriptive, it's descriptive. I don't know why you keep trying to inject subjectivity into "rational thought" when that is the opposite of what rational thought is.

In fact, this entire conversation is evidence of what I am talking about. If you are right, I "ought" to see my mistake and retract the argument once you have proven it fallacious. Even if you do, however, there is no guarantee I will, because I could well be a dishonest hack who doesn't care about being rational. But that, of course, is the rub. To be rational is to do what I ought to do, not to do what I just am doing. Under materialism, there is no such thing as ought. I am just doing what nature determines I will do. All of my, and your, arguments are merely arational.

By your sad definition of rational, not mine.

Use whatever adjectives you like. Mere assertions and characterizations don't discount arguments. It would be irrational to think that they do.

Here, however, is an admission on your part. You are admitting that under determinism, rationality--insofar as it requires self-determination--is impossible. That's the whole point I am making. If all of our thoughts are determined by nature, you are no more rational than the 9/11 nutjobs. They did exactly what nature forced them to do, just as you are doing. They didn't have any choice in the matter, and neither do you. Your thoughts are on exactly the same level as a rock falling. Just as the falling rock isn't rational, neither are your thoughts.

Read what I was responding to again, and what I responded with. Your definition of rational thought requires subjectivity, which is against the concept of rational thought. I do agree that mere assertions don't discount an argument, just like mere assertions don't support an argument, like that rational thought is not possible without a supernatural source.

It is a necessary consequences of determinism, not an assumption. The only reason we can't predict the future, under determinism, is because we don't fully understand all the variables involved and the laws which act on them. Predicting human thought and action, on determinism, is exactly the same as predicting how fast a rock will fall at any given point in its descent. It's just a matter of knowing the variables involved and the laws that are important. Our lack of knowledge doesn't make prediction impossible in principle. Just in practice.

If, however, there is a part of Kasparov that exists beyond the laws of nature that truly does determine its own thoughts, then it would be absolutely impossible to predict his moves. We could only say what he ought to do, and what he will do if he chooses to adhere to the laws of logic as prescribed. In other words, we can know what he would do if he were to be rational. Such language is absolutely meaningless under determinism.

You merely assert that someone could predict the moves of Deep Blue in spite of no one being able to, and you merely assert that no one could predict the moves of Kasparov if given the same access that people had to Deep Blue. The first assertion is counter to the evidence, while the second is just baseless.

That's if anyone accepts your very odd definition of rational thought. I'm sure most people don't agree with your definition that it's not rational unless it's for duty or obligation and everything not for duty and obligation is irrational.

Then people ought to take the time to ask whether or not rationality is prescriptive by nature, which is the point I have been making the entire time.

So it seems now that we are in fundamental agreement. If rational thought is prescriptive by nature, it is impossible on materialism. If not, it may or may not be. That would need to be more fully discussed. So the question is whether or not rational thought is prescriptive by nature. I've offered arguments as to why it is. What say you?

I still say the same thing: the process of rational thinking is descriptive, not prescriptive. Objective and not subjective. Rational thought by nature is objective, not this subjective stuff you keep trying to put into it.

No. Deep Blue was programmed to act in a particular way given particular circumstances. We may label it rational insofar as such actions are consistent with what we ought to do if we were in that situation, but the decisions themselves are neither rational or irrational. They are calculations produced by a mindless machine.

In short, any rationality in Deep Blue is borrowed from human rationality--not in terms of origin, but it terms of prescription. Taken in themselves, Deep Blue's actions aren't the least bit rational. They're just necessary effects.

If all you did was rational thinking, then you'd be just coming to the necessary conclusions. Rational thought is a process of thinking that ensures that the thinking remains objective. Given the same set of data, following the rules of logic, every person would necessarily come to the same conclusion. The same way a lot of programs work.

Precisely. A falling person is not rational. But falling is not an obligation. It is something that just happens to bodies thanks to gravity. An obligation is something that you ought to do.

Under determinism, there is no such thing as obligation. Thus, under determinism, there is no such thing as rationality.

Then why do you keep bringing up that example? And no matter how many times you state your conclusion, it doesn't make your logic follow. The universe doesn't bend to the definitions of people, the best we can do is define things in the universe as accurately as possible. That requires that we compare the definitions to reality, not just speculating.

The second is not rational at all, as Davin and I have been discussing, because rationality implies ought, which cannot be legitimately applied to computer software.

You keep saying requires an "ought," however "ought" is very subjective and counter to the idea of rational thought being objective. Duties and obligations are for individual people, my duties and obligations are different than your duties and obligations, which means that what I "ought" to do is different than what you "ought" to do, which is subjective... which is counter to the objective nature of rational thought.

There are some things that are universal obligations. Rational thought is one of them. What I ought to think or believe is relative to my knowledge base. The subjective aspect, then, is what I am or am not aware of. Again, return to the gas example I gave above.

You may think rational thought is a universal obligation, but not everyone does, and not every one should. Many people get around happy without being rational about most things in their life. I'd prefer people be rational about certain things, but it's far from me to be so arrogant to think that it's their obligation.

As for your gas example, in that example, neither choice can be considered rational or irrational because the rationale wasn't even discussed. And again it's subjective to the driver. The process for coming to a decision could be rational, but it may also require no rational thinking at all. It also does show that you're comparing the colloquial use of rational with the technical term. When ever some one does something that doesn't make sense to them, they tend to call that person irrational without even considering that there was a rational thought process behind it. However I'd like to avoid comparing colloquial definitions with technical definitions. What one ought to do is subjective, rational thought is objective. One can come to a conclusion and accept that that is what they ought to do, however they could also decide that they ought to act differently. When rational thought leads one to no certain decision, very often people must experiment to see what the best option actually is. That doesn't mean they're being irrational, just that rationality didn't lead them to a conclusion.

It might also be a good idea for you to drop the false dichotomy and argument from ignorance that it's either deterministic universe or a supernatural universe, because proving one false doesn't mean one should accept the other.

[Sophus]

I DO see incompatibilities between classical understandings of free will and materialism, but we're discussing rationality, right?  Not free will?  One can exercise one's free will both rationally and irrationally, right? (if you accept free will of course)

What is it about thinking rationally (not thinking freely, just thinking rationally) that contradicts materialism?   I have read the whole thread and haven't seen this addressed (if I missed it, please copy and paste or point me to the right post).

Exactly.

and if rational thought is possible, then determinism must be wrong. We must be in some sense self-determined, which requires there to be a part of us that exists in some sense beyond the laws of nature. Such an existence would be supernatural by definition.

There is nothing about being "self-determined" that would imply a supernatural source. What I am is an animal, an living entity whose brain is controlled by all the other cool stuff that makes it up. Everything that is self-determined by me comes from my brain. My brain exists within nature.... most of the time.  

[superfes]

It truly makes me sad that ideas cannot be discussed to come to an agreement.

I do not see this ending, as arguments go, they should continue forward until an agreement is reached. And unfortunately this is not something I see happening with this argument.

Jac3510, logic is a term invented by Humans, this means that it is subjective. Naturalism is a term invented by Humans, this means that it is subjective. Rational and rational thought are terms invented by Humans, this means they are also subjective.

And finally God was also invented by Humans, so the concept of God is also subjective.  This is why there are so many religions, so many definitions of God and so many belief structures that were created by primitive man to help define things that could not yet be defined.

Now that we know how things work (mostly).  God is no longer needed to help define why trees grow, why life began and how we evolved.

Reasoning and rational thought have evolved enough at this point in Human history to no longer need God, and this is what I have been arguing.

I believe that God is not required for rational thought because I believe it creates the opposite.  My reason for that is that the belief in God in an intelligent and modern society is irrational.

With this I'd just like to say, I have tried to argue my points as I have seen so many others, but you do not seem to be interested in reading nor comprehending anybody else's ideas, this makes it seem like you're not interested in the argument.

So I think I'll be leaving this argument to people more interested going around in circles with you.

[Jac3510]

I'm going to limit my specific reply to skevos, and then offer a general reply to davin, superfes, and sophus, just because of space limitations at this point:

What is it about thinking rationally (not thinking freely, just thinking rationally) that contradicts materialism?   I have read the whole thread and haven't seen this addressed (if I missed it, please copy and paste or point me to the right post).

I would have to copy and paste from almost all of my responses to point you to the "right" post, including the first one. There, I said:

Now, for the argument itself, (2) is obviously true. The entire argument hinges on (1). Why should we believe it? Very simply, because if materialism were true, then everything would be determined by the laws of nature. Everything. Rocks don’t stop to ponder whether or not they should fall. They do so because that’s just what happens. But that means that what goes on in your head is no exception. Your thoughts arise, in this scheme, from what your brain does. Yet the brain is just chemistry and biology. It may be very complicated chemistry and biology, but it is still just chemistry and biology. This atom is colliding with that one which causes that atom to do that. Ultimately, your thoughts are determined by the chemistry in your brain.

In other words, if there is no part of you that is capable of stepping “outside” the laws of nature and “thinking for itself,” then everything in your brainâ€"including your thoughtsâ€"is absolutely determined by the laws of nature. If that is true, then you aren’t thinking anymore than a rock is thinking when it falls. You are doing the exact same thing a rock is doingâ€"exactly what the laws of nature demand of you at this moment in this time given your particular physical composition.

Now, we don’t consider a rock’s falling “rational.” It isn’t irrational. It is arational, meaning it is just doing what it is doing without any thought, because that is what it does. Likewise, under materialism, your thoughts aren’t rational. They are arational. The idea that you are considering arguments for anything and coming to the “right conclusion” is just an illusion. You are thinking what you are thinking, as am I, because this is what nature has decided we will think at any given moment.

In short, there is no “intellectual faculty by which knowledge is obtained.” There is just chemistry going on in your brain.

The only way to have rational thought is to posit some part of you that exists outside the laws of nature and works independently of them. This immaterial aspect of you would have to be able to actively influence the laws of natureâ€"to make this neuron fire in that way to generate this thoughtâ€"for rational thought to be possible. That, however, denies materialism.

Almost everything else has been an expansion on this rather simple point. If our thoughts are not determined by ourselves, then we don't have any basis of calling them rational or irrational. Our "clash of ideas" here is no more a clash of ideas than two rocks hitting each other are a clash of ideas. This is all just physics working itself out. You aren't thinking anything. You've had absolutely no choice in even a single thought that you have ever had or will ever have. You've never had the ability to think anything other than you do now. And not only you, but me, everyone one this board, all those wacky fundies most atheists I've met can't stand, Richard Dawkins, Albert Einstein, Osama bin Laden, and all the rest.

We call something rational strictly and totally because people ought to think rationally. If they have no ability to think other than they do, the word "rational" is meaningless. What makes one forced thought "rational" and another forced thought "irrational"? Your judgment that one is rational and the other irrational would itself be forced. You have no criteria for judgment. The determining factor in such a call--as in every thought--is strictly and totally the physics that force your brain to conclude what it does.

Thus, rationality is meaningless if you can't be self-determined. You can't be self-determined if there is not a part of you that exists outside the laws of nature.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the others, three issues need to be addressed, which I will address in order, as each builds one upon the other.

1. Is logic prescriptive or descriptive
2. Is logic merely a human invention
3. Supernaturalism as a requirement for self-determination

Concerning the first, description is merely a depiction of what has happened, of what is happening, of a process, etc. It takes an existing reality and represents it in language. Prescription, on the other hand, designates what ought to happen. It pictures a desired reality and provides the actions one is to take to make that an actual reality. So, if I say, "The man fell down," I am describing a process. If I say, "Push the man, and he will fall down," I am prescribing a process.

Scientific laws are descriptive by nature. When we talk about gravity, we don't have a desired reality in mind. We take our measurements of reality as it is and describe reality as it is. Often, we can even describe reality as it will be so long as certain other variables are constant (the rock, if dropped from this height, will hit the floor in this many seconds, provided no one catches it, etc.).

The laws of logic, however, are prescriptive by nature. They do not describe how people actually think. They describe how people ought to think. It is an unfortunately fact that a lot of people don't think logically. We call them irrational precisely because they ought to think logically, and they do not. They violate the prescription. The desired reality is for them to think a certain way; to be sure that they think a certain way, we lay out the laws of logic. When they abide by them, they are rational. When they do not, they are irrational. Therefore, rationality assumes a prescriptive reality.

Concerning the second, it has been argued that these laws of logic that we have developed are merely human inventions and thus are strictly subjective. This, however, is blatantly false. As people have argued on this very board, that thought process which has cured disease and landed us on the moon, that thought process that keeps us from stepping out into oncoming traffic, such a thought process is at least minimally representative of reality.We can argue that evolution produced these laws. At this point, it is very much like the moral argument. I absolutely could not care less where these laws came from. The point is that they aren't mere human inventions. In order to think up a "new logic" you would have to employ the "old logic."

In other words, the laws of logic were not invented. They were discovered. Now, again, perhaps the human brain simply evolved in such a way that we are not capable of thinking in any other fashion. Fine. But we didn't invent the way we think. We discovered the way we think. The law of non-contradiction is the starting point for all of this (along with the law of identity and the law of excluded middle). Logic, then, is part of the warp and woof of human nature at least, if not a part of reality as a whole.

Which leads to the third issue: if the laws of logic simply evolved and essentially made us what we are, then why is there a supernatural requirement for logic to exist? The reason is found in the first point above - because logic is prescriptive in nature. If philosophical materialism is true, then it turns out that what has evolved is not logic, but rather absolutely nothing more than a particular programming feature in the human brain that forces us to make this or that decision at any given time. This is of the utmost importance to understand. Logic does not exist in the naturalistic scheme. To prove this, take two people, John and Sarah. Suppose Sarah makes a decision you think is rational (she becomes an atheist), but John makes a decision you think is irrational (he becomes a suicide bomber). Now notice this very carefully: both of them used precisely the same evolutionarily evolved programming to make their decisions. In fact, neither Sarah nor John made their decisions at all. Their brain is so constructed that given a certain set of circumstances in their experiences, then they will necessarily come to certain conclusions. Why are these conclusions necessary? Quite simply, because everything is determined by the laws of nature. So the same mindless nature that makes one person and atheist makes another person a Jihadist. There is no prescription here. Only description. Upon inspection, in turns out that both used "logic" to come to their conclusions, because "logic" is nothing more than a descriptive process of the thought process people use to come to their decisions. That includes your own thought process by which you conclude that their thoughts are illogical! You have no more choice in what you think than Sarah or John did.

The only way, then, to say that Sarah or John are being rational is to say that there decisions are not determined by the laws of nature, and that, in fact, they have a choice whether or not they should act logically (wherever logic comes from, be it evolution or God or aliens or the flying spaghetti monster). If they have no choice,then there is no prescription, because there is no ought. But the only way to have a choice is to deny determinism, which is to say, the only way to say that they have a choice is to say that something within them exists beyond the laws of nature, that can operate beyond natural law. That which operates beyond natural law is called "supernatural."

Thus, the conclusion is firm and inescapable.

If there is no supernatural, then rational thought is impossible.
If there is no supernatural, then all thought is equally arational.
If there is no supernatural, then atheism is just as "rational" as religious fundamentalism.

Rationality can only exist if some part of us exists beyond the laws of nature.

[humblesmurph]

Jac3510,

I appreciate the summary.  I kind of stopped paying attention after quantum physics and stochasticity were brought into the discussion.  Have you addressed the idea that what is known of quantum physics (no I don't understand it even a little bit) points towards determinism being false?  If materialism doesn't entail determinism, doesn't your argument fail at the start? Have you read Conway and Kochen?  What are your thoughts?

[skevosmavros]

I would have to copy and paste from almost all of my responses to point you to the "right" post, including the first one. There, I said:

Now, for the argument itself, (2) is obviously true. The entire argument hinges on (1). Why should we believe it? Very simply, because if materialism were true, then everything would be determined by the laws of nature. Everything.

How does being "determined by the laws of nature" make anything (in this case human thought) irrational or arational?  Please take me through it step by step.

Perhaps it seems obvious to you, but it seems quite unintuitive to me, and it certainly hasn't been argued, merely asserted.  I'm not aware of any generally-accepted definition for "rational" that includes concepts of freedom or indeterminancy, are you?  On the contrary, if I build on this philosophical definition of "rationality" in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality:

In philosophy, rationality is the exercise of reason, a key method used to analyze the data gained through systematically conducted observations.

Not only do I see no reference to rationality being free or non-determined in that (or any other) definition, but I see thinking rationally as reaching conclusions based on systematically conducted observations and reason - not much room for "freedom" at all.  One could almost say that by being rational, by using evidence and reason, one is constrained in one's possible conclusions.  But I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying that one can only be rational if one's thoughts are deterministic.

(snip)
In other words, if there is no part of you that is capable of stepping “outside” the laws of nature and “thinking for itself,” then everything in your brainâ€"including your thoughtsâ€"is absolutely determined by the laws of nature. If that is true, then you aren’t thinking anymore than a rock is thinking when it falls. You are doing the exact same thing a rock is doingâ€"exactly what the laws of nature demand of you at this moment in this time given your particular physical composition.

You're not talking about rationality here, you're talking about free will.  Even if I accepted your description of a totally deterministic universe (I'm basically a compatibalist on free will, but for the sake of argument I will adopt the mantle of a determinist) - how does that make human thought irrational?  I happily accept that in a deterministic universe our thoughts would not be "free" in the classical sense, but how are they not rational?  What part of the definition of rational is violated by determinism?

(snip)
The only way to have rational thought is to posit some part of you that exists outside the laws of nature and works independently of them.
(snip)
Thus, rationality is meaningless if you can't be self-determined. You can't be self-determined if there is not a part of you that exists outside the laws of nature.

I understand this claim, I just see no reason to believe it.  Nothing in my understanding of "to be rational" requires classical free will, requiring that "a part of you that exists outside the laws of nature".  Where are you getting this?  Can you argue for this without arbitrarily making up your own definition of rationality?

Thanks in advance for your patience,

[hackenslash]

Very simply, because if materialism were true, then everything would be determined by the laws of nature.

And the utter ignorance is exposed for precisely what it is with this phrase. Everything is not determined by the laws of nature. Everything is governed by the laws of nature. This does not entail determinism, and no amount of apologetic bum-custard will generate a model in which this pathetic bit of discoursive bait-and-switch holds any water whatsoever. Until this point is bridged, the OP, once again, has no argument.

You call this philosophy? I call it a failed attempt to support a puerile masturbation fantasy.

[Jac3510]

Jac3510,

I appreciate the summary.  I kind of stopped paying attention after quantum physics and stochasticity were brought into the discussion.  Have you addressed the idea that what is known of quantum physics (no I don't understand it even a little bit) points towards determinism being false?  If materialism doesn't entail determinism, doesn't your argument fail at the start? Have you read Conway and Kochen?  What are your thoughts?

I have not read Conway or Kochen. There is nothing in QM, however, that relieves the materialist from the necessity of determinism. All the talk of uncertainty is epistemological. The uncertainty is with respect to an observer (whether that observer is an intelligent being or, more commonly, something a simple as a photon), not the thing itself. Molecules don't sit around and ponder what they will do next, sometimes doing this, and other times choosing to do that. They just do what they do, and based on our observations of what they just do, we develop a description of their behaviors which we call the laws of nature.

Again, it is important to note that these laws are merely descriptive. No atom ought to do this or that. It simply does what it does, and our laws describe that behavior. If materialism is true, then every single effect is caused by something else necessarily, because there is nothing that sits around and ponders what to do next. Even the pondering in your brain would be merely illusory, because everything in your brain is, again, just physics. Complicated physics, yes, but still just physics. You still have nothing to do with your thoughts, in which case, we have no basis of calling them rational.

I would have to copy and paste from almost all of my responses to point you to the "right" post, including the first one. There, I said:

Now, for the argument itself, (2) is obviously true. The entire argument hinges on (1). Why should we believe it? Very simply, because if materialism were true, then everything would be determined by the laws of nature. Everything.

How does being "determined by the laws of nature" make anything (in this case human thought) irrational or arational?  Please take me through it step by step.

Perhaps it seems obvious to you, but it seems quite unintuitive to me, and it certainly hasn't been argued, merely asserted.  I'm not aware of any generally-accepted definition for "rational" that includes concepts of freedom or indeterminancy, are you?

You quoted the very first line of my paragraph and then ignored everything after it, and then stated I offered a mere assertion. Skev . . . in proper English composition, the topic sentence comes first and is followed by details. As such, I stated my topic up front and went on to explain it. All of the "step by step" that you are asking for is found in the very post you apparently ignored.

I'll be as patient as you like, but I do ask you to consider the words I have already written.

As for your question about the definition of rationality, we're talking about much more than definitions. A definition is merely a semantic issue. I'm talking about the ontology of rationality. For instance, the definition of "man" doesn't include the air in the room around him, but if there is no room around him, I can promise you there won't be any man--at least not one that can do anything.

I'm not arguing that the supernatural is found in the definition of 'rational.' I am arguing that the rational cannot exist in a deterministic universe, because the rational presupposes--by definition--a conforming to reason, that is, a conforming to the laws of logic, which is a prescriptive concept. Prescriptions, though, cannot exist in a deterministic model as determinism only allows for description. Therefore, rationality is impossible under determinism.

Edit: in other words, I'm arguing from the nature, not definition of rationality. See the title of the thread.

[i_am_i]

Even the pondering in your brain would be merely illusory, because everything in your brain is, again, just physics. Complicated physics, yes, but still just physics. You still have nothing to do with your thoughts, in which case, we have no basis of calling them rational.

Here's where I call bullshit, sorry, but this is bullshit, bullshit thought up by someone who sits around thinking up this bullshit, someone who's evidently living some kind of cloistered little life and has been doing so for way too long.













I hope you will excuse me for this outburst, forgive me according to what laws or rules or whatever apply to whatever the hell game it is that you're playing here.

Also, I apologize to the moderators and members of this forum for calling what Jac3510 is putting up here bullshit.

[Jac3510]

Would you care to back up your assertion, i_am_i, or is it just a mere assertion without evidence? If you get to make bald assertions and don't have to justify them, then I may as well, too: God exists. There. Bald assertion. I was under the impression that you, as an atheist, actually wanted evidence. If you don't, then ignore everything I've ever said and just take the bald assertion without evidence. God exists.

If, though, you are the least interested in intellectual honesty, then what evidence do you have that the statement of mine you quoted is incorrect? Do you think that what goes on in your brain is more than physics and chemistry? Is there some part of your brain that is exempt from the laws of nature, that gets to do what it wants to--think what it wants to, fire off this or that neuron when it wants too, just because it wants too--even if the laws of physics and chemistry demand otherwise?

If your thoughts come directly out of your brain, and your brain is just complicated chemistry and biology, what on earth makes you think that you have anything to do with your thoughts? Do molecules sit around and ponder whether or not they are going to react together? No, so what makes you think the molecules in your brain do?

You can complain that I've thought about this stuff too much if you'd like. I'm asking you to think about it. What on earth would possibly make you think that you have any control over your thoughts when you are nothing but a bunch of atoms interacting together? If your thoughts come out of your physical brain, why, pray tell, should your thoughts be somehow over and above the laws of nature that tell the atoms in your brain how to operate? Or do the laws of nature stop at your brain? You don't think that your brain has some supernatural power over nature, do you?

[i_am_i]

If your thoughts come directly out of your brain, and your brain is just complicated chemistry and biology, what on earth makes you think that you have anything to do with your thoughts? Do molecules sit around and ponder whether or not they are going to react together? No, so what makes you think the molecules in your brain do?

I don't know and you don't either.

You can complain that I've thought about this stuff too much if you'd like.

Not complaining, only observing.

I'm asking you to think about it. What on earth would possibly make you think that you have any control over your thoughts when you are nothing but a bunch of atoms interacting together?

But I don't think of myself as being nothing but a bunch of atoms interacting together.

If your thoughts come out of your physical brain, why, pray tell, should your thoughts be somehow over and above the laws of nature that tell the atoms in your brain how to operate? Or do the laws of nature stop at your brain? You don't think that your brain has some supernatural power over nature, do you?

Where else would my thoughts come from if not my physical brain? The supernatural?

If my thoughts come from the supernatural then they're not my thoughts, they're thoughts that are put in my brain by the supernatural something that is responsible for my thoughts. Either way, you see, according to what you're proposing here our thoughts cannot be our own, rational or not.

If the supernatural explanation for thought applies only to rational thought that simply doesn't make sense. It seems to me that you're asserting that irrational thought cannot have a supernatural explanation.

[PoopShoot]

We are more than the sum of our parts.  Arguing the existence of a metaphysical part doesn't change that.

[Sophus]

I think he's relying on the complexity of the brain to make it feel as though there's something going on beyond our comprehension. Yes, the brain is complex and difficult to understand. However, rolling up our sleeves and trying to figure out what makes it work is a lot more valuable than lazily concluding its thoughts ought to be credited to the supernatural. Also note, the difficulty of understanding and comprehending the functions of organs or any biological process can be a challenge, yet what is going on itself is very simple, merely obeying the natural laws. It's not as though any thought is required on the cells' part in order for them to do what they do.

[PoopShoot]

I can see that.  The whole point, however, was that this thread has been a matter of arguing "more than the sum of our parts, therefore extra part".