Rational Thinking Is Not Natural

[meta]

Rational thinking IS natural.  It is programmed in the brain, through many years (some 200,000 for homo sapiens sapaiens), as the human brain developed through evolution to be wired for rational thinking, processing information in practical ways through reason using evidence in the environment, cognition using intuition and conation, and the ability of prediction, choosing ways of thinking and acting, making decisions, and motor control for carrying them out, backed up with alternative plans if the first doesn't work properly.  The key is pragmatism.  The brain works for survival, with definition selection value.  Rational thinking in this pragmatic sense (ONLY) is genetically determined in a healthy brain. Thus the brain provides the basis for scientific methodology, the only way to truth, never with certainty, but with variable probabilities.

Richard.

[Sanford]

Rational thinking is very natural. This is what we people are: rational thinkers combined with emotions. See the new book, "Rational Thinking, Government Policies, Science, and Living". Rational thinking means starting from basic principles, applying logic, and checking with empirical verification. See the chapter, "The Big Lie of God's Existence."

[Tank]

Rational thinking is very natural. This is what we people are: rational thinkers combined with emotions. See the new book, "Rational Thinking, Government Policies, Science, and Living". Rational thinking means starting from basic principles, applying logic, and checking with empirical verification. See the chapter, "The Big Lie of God's Existence."

Plugging a book by:-

[spoiler:3t4l0d6i]sandford aronoff ph.d.

Rather poor form spamming your own book!  

Welcome aboard.

Regards
Chris[/spoiler:3t4l0d6i]

[a-train]

Man's self awareness, his cognition, as evidence of a creator, is nothing more than an example of the fallacy of a plead to ignorance.  It is just the same as intelligent design.  It is simply claiming all things unexplained indicate God.  

Whether reason itself is natural is simply a ridiculous question.  It is like asking: Is golf natural?  The question is somewhat nonsensical, and even if answered it sheds no light on the existence of diety.

-a-train

[TheJackel]

All things that happen and exist are entirely natural whether they are irrational or rational. It's the nature of all things and not just what someone wants to cherry pick to suit their agenda.

[a-train]

Natural:
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.  
2. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
3. growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.

(there are many more, but these suit our purpose).

"Natural" simply refers to anything not produced by man, or without man's involvement.  Surely man's actions themselves are produced by man.  Rational thinking is definitely therefore NOT natural.  

Reason is a purely human activity.  There are philosophers who wish to consider man nothing more than another part of all things natural, but this is usually involved in some attempt to justify the trampling of human rights.  If everything is natural, then what is the need for the term?  When we say that everything is natural, what do we mean?  What is not natural?  Well, nothing.  This is nonsense.  Philosophers try to erase man's volition by claiming his reason is nothing more than some natural product.  It is a sort of fatalistic world view in which reason is nothing more than a mirage in the eyes of otherwise typical mammals.  It would return man to nothing more than an animal.

Man does possess reason and as a result he is a volitional being, capable of using means to accomplish ends.  And all that he does and all that he produces is unnatural.  This is the point and purpose of the term "natural", to distinguish between the man-made and that which man finds already extant in the universe as it is without man's labor upon it.

Mystics, of course, believe in a "supernatural".  The actions or the products of the actions of some super-being, beyond the wisdom and capacity of man, are called supernatural.  Thus, you have natural, man-made, and supernatural.  Mystics confuse all of this and attribute all things to the supernatural except for that of man's actions which they call unnatural.  However, they complicate the matter by saying that only the supernatural act itself is supernatural, and then after some time the product of this action is considered natural (thus, the earth created by God through supernatural action is now considered natural).  All of this messiness is also often used to justify the trampling of human rights.

It is just too simple:

If it is made or done by man, it is not natural, it is man-made.
If it is not made or done by man, it is natural.

Reason is NOT natural.

-a-train

[LegendarySandwich]

If it is made or done by man, it is not natural, it is man-made.
If it is not made or done by man, it is natural.

Why are things made or done by man not natural? Is man not natural?

[a-train]

If it is made or done by man, it is not natural, it is man-made.
If it is not made or done by man, it is natural.

Why are things made or done by man not natural? Is man not natural?

Man's existence is natural, but his actions and the products of his actions are not.  This is the meaning and purpose of the term "natural", to distinguish between those things produced by man and those things man has found in the universe extant without his action.

-a-train

[superdave]

This may be a stretch but bear with me...  Imagine a dolphin taught to press a button of a certain shape to get a treat.  If you use the definition I found for rational shown here;

"using reason or logic in thinking out a problem"

...then wouldn't a trained dolphin be using some degree of rational thought to determine which object to push with his snout in order to get the reward?  

One could argue that humans trained the dolphin so it cannot be natural but we don't magically transmit this information into the dolphins brain, we expose it to trial after trial and eventually the dolphin learns.  Wouldn't that process of learning also be an application of rational thought?  The dolphin is using logic, based on previous experience and recollection, to conclude that the square button gives him the fish and the circle one does not.

I've read that certain monkeys prefer ripe fruit.  Isn't the process of determining whether or not the fruit is ripe using rational thought?  The monkey sees the fruit, recognizes it's attributes by sight/smell/feel and by applying previous experience the monkey can decide if it should be eaten or not.

If this is the case then rational thought is natural in certain species with sufficiently developed intelligence yes?   ...or am I confusing instinct and trained behavior with thought?  

[a-train]

If this is the case then rational thought is natural in certain species with sufficiently developed intelligence yes?   ...or am I confusing instinct and trained behavior with thought?  

The existence of the mind, the existence of mental faculties came naturally to man, but the action of thought, the volitional work of reason, is not natural because it is the action of a sentient being.  Inasmuch as some other species than man is able to reason, that action and any product of that action would also be not natural, but purposefully made.  Whereas the dolphin or the monkey may know where to get food, they do not engage in the work of production.  They do not purposefully alter the universe, but if they could and if they did that would not be natural.

If man's reason and all he does and produces is natural, then what is not natural?

-a-train

[dloubet]

Whereas the dolphin or the monkey may know where to get food, they do not engage in the work of production. They do not purposefully alter the universe, but if they could and if they did that would not be natural.

False. Many animals create and utilize tools to perform specific tasks. They produce things. They use them. They deliberately teach others of their species to create and use them.

And allow me to assure you my feces, urine, saliva, carbon dioxide, and methane are all completely natural products.

Natural is that which is contained in nature. Everything is natural, from planaria to microchips.

That's why the word unnatural is reserved for things that don't really exist at all, and aren't contained in nature. It's another word for supernatural.

The word you are trying to define is Artificial.

[a-train]

Natural is that which is contained in nature. Everything is natural, from planaria to microchips.

That's why the word unnatural is reserved for things that don't really exist at all, and aren't contained in nature. It's another word for supernatural.

So your definition of natural is simply: "in existence".  If that is the definition we are to use, then yes, reason is natural.  But what does that tell me about it?  Under this definition, murder is natural, slavery is natural, everything is natural.  What is the point of even asking the question or asserting any answer to whether or not reason is natural?

The original post brought the question of whether rational thought was rational in the context of theists who claim that it is not natural and therefore supernatural.  What those theists want the atheists to accept is a fallacy of a false dichotomy.  Atheists are either forced to prove that rational thought is natural or admit that it is supernatural.  The reality is that it is neither.  It is neither extant in nature without man's volition, nor is it supernatural, it is man-made.  This is no different from the automobile, it is not made by deity, nor found in nature, it is man-made.

-a-train

[dloubet]

Under this definition, murder is natural, slavery is natural, everything is natural.

Of course murder is natural! What did you think, that it was alien or something? Just because something is undesirable does not mean it's not natural.

Newsflash: I agree with the theory of evolution. That does not mean I'm a fan of evolution. Evolution is a horribly wasteful process. Looking at the mountains of bones of the creatures that came before us, it is clear that evolution is not our friend.

The word natural differentiates real things from the crap we make up.

Rational thought is completely natural. But we actually discuss it and concoct rules concerning it, and consciously apply those rules to our thinking. That's what's artificial.

[a-train]

Under this definition, murder is natural, slavery is natural, everything is natural.

Of course murder is natural! What did you think, that it was alien or something? Just because something is undesirable does not mean it's not natural.

Newsflash: I agree with the theory of evolution. That does not mean I'm a fan of evolution. Evolution is a horribly wasteful process. Looking at the mountains of bones of the creatures that came before us, it is clear that evolution is not our friend.

The word natural differentiates real things from the crap we make up.

Rational thought is completely natural. But we actually discuss it and concoct rules concerning it, and consciously apply those rules to our thinking. That's what's artificial.

Wow.  
OK, so you are using a definition for natural that is not found in the dictionary, that's cool.  I am using the definition found in the dictionary.  I would advise you that when you tell someone that microchips are natural, just remember to make sure that they understand that you have made up your own definition for the term and don't assume they are stupid for not knowing.

The works of man are the creation of man, not aliens, not deity, but man.  What is man-made is man-made.  Microchips and skyscrapers are man-made, they are not found in nature and were not provided by deity.  They required man's purposeful efforts to come into existence.  The same is true for golf, slavery, and all the other works of man.

The mystic theists who before the Age of Reason enslaved the masses under the various medieval despotisms perpetuated the false dichotomy of man's reason as either natural or supernatural and perpetuated with that false dichotomy the false doctrine of original guilt.  With that, they claimed that without strict controls, man's nature was chaotic lasciviousness, bloodshed, and brutality.  Meanwhile, the very kings and rulers who were the beneficiaries of these falsehoods brutally murdered and abused the people they were supposedly protecting from the sinful nature of fallen man.  It was the Enlightenment thinkers who discovered that man is not sinful and naturally inclined to evil.  They understood that man's reason, his science, his works, were good.

The theists ignore any possibility for man to be good, for man to rise above the dirt by his own reason and effort.  On the other hand, there are philosophers who look at man just the same as do the theists: as nothing but dirt.  What reason itself tells us, what rational thinking tells us is that man is good, that man can and has by examination and reason proven that he can and has risen above nature.

-a-train

[Recusant]

I miss Jac3510; I think he put a lot of work into his posts.  He's overfond of technical philosophical jargon though, which made some of hs posts almost unreadable to us mere mortals.  His big post in this thread was actually pretty short compared to some of his efforts here.

If determinism is true (and determinism is the necessary consequence of materialism), then our thoughts--all of them--are determined by nature, not by ourselves.

The first part of this was addressed by dloubet.  The second part though...

Earlier in the post, Jac3510 says that "If determinism is true, everything that humans think or do is natural to them. There is no such thing as anything non-natural." Though I'm not sure that determinism is necessarily true, nor that it's the necessary consequence of materialism, I'll accept that position as a given for this post. It's whether there's anything non-natural that seems to be the question in this thread lately.  I think that there are without question artificial things.  I don't know whether Jac3510 thinks that non-natural = artificial, but it's not that important, really.

It sounds to me like humans are completely natural beings, given materialism/determinism.  In essence, we and nature are not divided.  So if one were to say, "I determine my thoughts," and somebody else says, "Actually, nature determines your thoughts,"  we would both be right, since I and nature are not actually two separate entities.  I am just a discreet element within nature.  I believe that I determine my thoughts, when (according to this view) actually all that I am is a manifestation of nature, and it's really nature determining my thoughts.  From a certain standpoint this can be viewed as true.  I've had moments when I realized that I and the universe are really the same thing.  I'm just an aspect of the universe which is capable of percieving and thinking about the universe/myself.  Those moments are probably as close to religious experiences as I've had in my life, and they're highly satisfying.  

From another point of view, it's clear that I do not share in the full identity of nature.  My brain floating at the top of my spine encased in bone is separated from nature at large. When by thinking, feeling and doing, I create a piece of work, it's a product of that brain and not of nature at large.  Thus the term artificial. So it seems that the answer given might depend on what point of view one chooses to adopt for purposes of discussion.

Let's look at the defintions of these terms:

rational:  1) based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings
2) having the ability to reason or think about things clearly

thinking: 1) the action of using your mind to produce ideas, decisions, memories, etc. : the activity of thinking about something
2) opinion or judgment
3) a way of thinking that is characteristic of a particular group, time period, etc.

natural: 1)  a : existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature    b : not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial
2) usual or expected : normal
3) always used before a noun â€"used to describe a quality, ability, etc., that a person or animal is born with and does not have to learn
4)  to be normal and relaxed in the way you behave and look
5) always used before a noun a : related by blood  b old-fashioned : born to parents who are not married to each other : illegitimate
6) of a choice, decision, etc. : logical and reasonable
7) always used before a noun formal : based on a sense of what is right and wrong  natural justice/law
 music : neither a sharp nor flat

It seems that we should also define artificial:

artificial: 1) not natural or real : made, produced, or done to seem like something natural
2) not happening or existing naturally : created or caused by people
3) not sincere

And reason:

It's clear from the context of this discussion that we're looking at definition #3:
3)  the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way

(All defintions from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary.  I find it's often helpful to use it, since its definitions are crafted to be as clear as possible.)

It's been touched on earlier in this thread:  If humans are the only species capable of rational thinking (reason, logic) then we might be justified in saying that it's artificial.  Take a look at this short video:

 [youtube:p06283pv]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtmLVP0HvDg[/youtube:p06283pv]


It seems that the crow is using reason to solve a problem without recourse to emotion or feeling.  It might even be described as logic:

P1: The object is not accessible with the straight wire.
P2: A bent wire will allow access to the object.
C: To obtain the object, I must bend the straight wire.

Now, I'm not sure if Jac3510 thinks that crows have immortal souls.  It seems that his thesis is that rational thinking, which he considers to be a supernatural property, is conferred by his god on humans. This is presumably in conjunction with the immortal soul.  In any case, I think that we have here evidence that rational thought is not the exclusive property of homo sapiens sapiens.  This would lead me to think that it's natural, at least according to definition 2 of rational, and definition 1a of natural given above.