Happy Atheist Forum

It has been proposed here on this forum that if human beings are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural reason for that. This means that rational thought is not natural to human beings, it isn't something that humans could have arrived at on their own. Instead it is bestowed on us by a supernatural force, an intelligence that created everything, that it was bestowed on us, human beings, by God with a capital G.

I don't agree with that at all. I see this kind of thinking as another example of religious dogma being employed to denigrate humanity. Why anyone would make it a point to do that is beyond me but it is done a lot by religious people, even by the most intelligent religious people.

So. What do you think? If human beings are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural reason for that. Taken purely on face value what would you make of that?

I would say that would be compelling evidence for the supernatural, probably some kind of spirit realm.  That said, there is still further evidence needed to say that there are gods or that any one particular god is anything more than myth.  Taken on their own meits, I've seen no reason to believe that any existent god is one of the theistic gods (at least the popular ones).

Rationality comes from problem-solving and problem-solving is a natural part of human intellectual development.

i agree that rational thought is not natural. It is unnatural not supernatural. It is acquired through time and not inherent in man.

Yes. Many forms of irrationality can often be the default. We must train ourselves to think rationally.

This is "unnatural" in one sense of the word, but certainly not supernatural.

Rational thinking is not natural.

Rational thinking is the product of a natural object, the human brain.Is it a first order manifestation of the brain, rather than a second order manifestation one example of which would be a flint tool? If one considers language to be a first order manifestation is rational thought, as structured manipulation of memes, a second order manifestation?

I don't think rational thought is unnatural, as we can do it without physical tools. As far as we know it is unusual and possibly unique in the animal kingdom. More questions than answers.

Quote from: "Tank":hmm: Rational thinking is not natural.

Rational thinking is the product of a natural object, the human brain.Is it a first order manifestation of the brain, rather than a second order manifestation one example of which would be a flint tool? If one considers language to be a first order manifestation is rational thought, as structured manipulation of memes, a second order manifestation?

I don't think rational thought is unnatural, as we can do it without physical tools. As far as we know it is unusual and possibly unique in the animal kingdom. More questions than answers.

Agreed.

Quote from: "Tank"I don't think rational thought is unnatural, as we can do it without physical tools. As far as we know it is unusual and possibly unique in the animal kingdom. More questions than answers.

That's one thing that's always gotten me, people seem to think we're special because we have tools.  They say that only we plan ahead, yet chimps at an overcrowded zoo were found to gather rock piles to throw at gawkers, a behavior not seen in the off-season.  They say only we can conceptualize, but crows have made tools that require a concept of the final tool.  The say that only we can philosophize (a typically useless behavior anyway), yet they were wrong about the first two.

Quote from: "i_am_i"If human beings are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural reason for that. Taken purely on face value what would you make of that?

Interesting question, I agree that there is something very seductive about such an argument.

Moreover the basic movement from human 'rationality' to a divine 'mind' has deep pedigree. The idea that in some way making sense, organising, of the universe required divine rationality dates back before Socrates with a thinker called Anaxagoras who claimed that the universe was chaos organised by Nous (which roughly translates as mind - in the context a divine mind).

This line of argument was, in part, adopted by the Platonic tradition. I think it is not too much of a leap to link this, through neo-platonists like Plotinus, to the development of medieval Christian theology. In particular this kind of derivation from the fact we have a rational mind, is methodologically the same as the derivation Aquinas makes about our concept of perfection in his ontological proof of God.

Later still we find this kind of argument used by the rationalists. For example Leibniz uses just such an argument to justify his God (the perfect monad which guarantees the divine harmony of our perceptions).

Having said all that I think that the movement from an anthropocentric observation (us humans are capable of rational thought) to a divine reality is ugly in philosophical terms. As PoopShoot so astutely pointed out there is a certain arrogance to assuming that rationality is exclusive to us humans. More deeply though, why should it be any more surprising that the universe gave rise to rational animals, than say, that the universe gave rise to creatures with opposable thumbs? It seems to me that our disassociation of 'rationality' from the natural world (hence the need for a "supernatural" cause) is both arrogant and misguided.

Peace

Quote from: "i_am_i"It has been proposed here on this forum that if human beings are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural reason for that. This means that rational thought is not natural to human beings, it isn't something that humans could have arrived at on their own. Instead it is bestowed on us by a supernatural force, an intelligence that created everything, that it was bestowed on us, human beings, by God with a capital G.

I don't agree with that at all. I see this kind of thinking as another example of religious dogma being employed to denigrate humanity. Why anyone would make it a point to do that is beyond me but it is done a lot by religious people, even by the most intelligent religious people.

So. What do you think? If human beings are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural reason for that. Taken purely on face value what would you make of that?

I'm glad you don't agree with that, because neither do I.

I argued that rational thought is impossible if determinism is true. [EDIT: This is true even if God exists and created a deterministic universe. Some Christian theological positions embrace a type of deterministic universe, and they should be rejected for exactly the same reasons that I argue materialism should--it renders rational thought impossible. /EDIT] If determinism is true, everything that humans think or do is natural to them. There is no such thing as anything non-natural. That includes painting pretty pictures to murdering millions of people. The reason is simple enough. 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.

This thought is hardly original with me. I'm quite a fan of Etienne Gilson's The Unity of Philosophical Experience, so let me quote from him on how this idea came up in Kant's own philosophy:

The first implication contained in the fact of duty is that we should be conceived as able to perform it. An act of pure duty, without any personal motives, is perhaps a psychological impossibility; but the desire to obey the moral law because it is the moral law must at least enter into the composition of our moral decisions. Unless the word

ought is to be wholly meaningless, what we ought, we also can. Now, to be able to determine oneself according to a certain law is to be free. Consequently, freedom must be presupposed as a property of the will of all rational beings. Moreover, since man is not free as a member of the world of sense, which understanding is bound to conceive as strictly determined, it is to be supposed that man, as a moral agent, is a member of another world, purely intelligible, where no sensible motives can interfere with the exigencies of morality. (188)[/list]
Now, while I reject Kant's general view of morality, the point he is making well describes our own discussion. If we are not able to think in any other way than we do, then it is meaningless to say that we ought to think in any other way, in which case the laws of logic are absolutely meaningless. They do not describe "right thinking." They are merely the necessary results of certain physical processes that have absolutely no bearing on reality at all. Irrational thoughts are no more irrational than rational thoughts are rational. They simply are what they are by necessary effect.

The only way to say that we are rational is to say that we ought to think in this way or that way, which is to say we are able to think in other ways, which is to say that we are, in some sense, self-determined. That, however, requires us to admit a reality beyond the natural.

Whether or not that reality terminates in God is another matter of discussion, but the evidence for the supernatural is absolutely irrefutable. If rational thought is to be possible, the supernatural must exist.

Quote from: "Jac3510"This thought is hardly original with me.

Are any of your thoughts original with you?

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Jac3510"This thought is hardly original with me.

Are any of your thoughts original with you?

I would hope not. Does anyone really think that they are so much smarter than all the great minds in human history, past and present, that they've thought of something no one else has ever thought of before? Please.

Beyond that, the origin of an idea has no bearing on its truthfulness. The fact that two and two make four is true whether you realized that on your own or was taught it by your school teacher. We weigh arguments on their own merit, not on where they came from.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Are any of your thoughts original with you?

I would hope not. Does anyone really think that they are so much smarter than all the great minds in human history, past and present, that they've thought of something no one else has ever thought of before? Please.

Sure. In fact, I probably do it in my sleep.  

Quote from: "i_am_i"So. What do you think? If human beings are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural reason for that. Taken purely on face value what would you make of that?

So how come those that are so devoted to the supernatural aren't better at rational thought?  

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "i_am_i"So. What do you think? If human beings are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural reason for that. Taken purely on face value what would you make of that?

So how come those that are so devoted to the supernatural aren't better at rational thought?  

Because they haven't been trained how to think rationally. If rational thought is possible, then the part of you that thinks is just as supernatural as theirs. The question is only whether or not a person chooses to train themselves in the discipline of logic. There must be a supernatural part of you if you are to think logically. That doesn't mean you have to believe there is a supernatural part of you to think logically anymore than I have to believe that there is a particular source of water to get water from my faucet.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Because they haven't been trained how to think rationally.

Funny how there's not a course for that in god's perfect word.  You know, that one book that contains everything you should ever need to know?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Jac3510"Because they haven't been trained how to think rationally.

Funny how there's not a course for that in god's perfect word.  You know, that one book that contains everything you should ever need to know?

Which book is that? I need a copy of that one.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Jac3510"Because they haven't been trained how to think rationally.

Funny how there's not a course for that in god's perfect word.  You know, that one book that contains everything you should ever need to know?

Which book is that? I need a copy of that one.

The next time Jehovah's Witnesses knock on your door, ask for  free copy.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"The next time Jehovah's Witnesses knock on your door, ask for  free copy.

That might be an approach worth trying. They aren't allowed to read from any book I might have on my shelf . . . :p

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"The next time Jehovah's Witnesses knock on your door, ask for  free copy.

That might be an approach worth trying. They aren't allowed to read from any book I might have on my shelf . . . :p

Then you should probably get something intellectual.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Then you should probably get something intellectual.

I assume you are aware that JW's aren't allowed to read non-JW literature, and hence, the reference . . .

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Then you should probably get something intellectual.

I assume you are aware that JW's aren't allowed to read non-JW literature, and hence, the reference . . .

I assume you're unaware that your statement is only accurate insofar as religious literature is concerned, excluding bibles.

Jac3510. Is there a supernatural explanation for irrational thought?

Quote from: "i_am_i"Jac3510. Is there a supernatural explanation for irrational thought?

Of course there is! There is a supernatural explanation for everything, pity is none of them are correct.

The universe is not deterministic. The fact that the radioactive decay of an atom is a Random (with a capital "R") occurance should put that idea to rest once and for all. Yes, the universe operates according to strictly deterministic physical rules, but since it can also accomodate random events such as atomic decay the future is not determined. The universe is stochastic, and the future is not written in stone.

Yes, the operation of our brains is mechanical, and shares with the falling rock its adherance to physical law. But that does not mean that logical or rational thought is not happening in the brain. You wouldn't say a computer is not calculating simply because it's a machine operating according to strict physical law. Of course it's calculating, and of course we can think rationally. It's what atoms in those arrangements do.

And free will. Please. It's not even an illusion, it's just an assertion. I did not get to choose my nature, and my nature forces everything I do. So no free will.

But no determinism either. We're meat robots marching towards an open future.

I like it.

Quote from: "dloubet"We're meat robots marching towards an open future.

I like it.

That sounds like something that Kurt Vonnegut might have written. In that spirit I quite like it too.

Quote from: "dloubet"The universe is not deterministic. The fact that the radioactive decay of an atom is a Random (with a capital "R") occurance should put that idea to rest once and for all. Yes, the universe operates according to strictly deterministic physical rules, but since it can also accomodate random events such as atomic decay the future is not determined. The universe is stochastic, and the future is not written in stone.

Yes, the operation of our brains is mechanical, and shares with the falling rock its adherance to physical law. But that does not mean that logical or rational thought is not happening in the brain. You wouldn't say a computer is not calculating simply because it's a machine operating according to strict physical law. Of course it's calculating, and of course we can think rationally. It's what atoms in those arrangements do.

And free will. Please. It's not even an illusion, it's just an assertion. I did not get to choose my nature, and my nature forces everything I do. So no free will.

But no determinism either. We're meat robots marching towards an open future.

I like it.

Instead of random, would it be more appropriate to say an element of chance? Random seems to apply outcome is almost completely ungoverned whereas chance can explain why some outcomes are more probable and that there is still a cause and effect going on. I dunno, only semantics I guess.

Oh, there's still cause and effect! That's what I mean when I say the universe is mechanical. It's utterly deterministic clockwork but for the existence of acausal random events. It's those random events -- that the otherwise mechanical universe accomodates -- that makes the universe not deterministic.

The random decay of an atom creates debris that behaves completely deterministically, but the timing of the decay itself was completely random.

So for the most part, we can treat the universe as predictable and deterministic since the rules that apply to the scales we're used to appear to act that way.

(But lest one think that atomic decay is too small to make meaningful changes in the universe, a single decay can release debris that damage a cell in just the wrong way to cause a cancer and kill the host. Pick any famous figure of history and imagine how the world would be different if that person had died of cancer as a young child. These random events matter.)

Quotethe mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.

If that's the definition of reason, then far from reason not being natural, I would argue that it's the natural state, and our bigger brains merely provide the means to be less rational.

If a planaria in an experiment can learn to expect pain and avoid it by trial and error, then I'd say it's being rational. When you train your dog, the dog is behaving rationally from its perspective. It's trying to avoid that punishment or get that treat by forming a conclusion about the consistent way the world appears to work. If I hear this, and I do this, I get the treat! That's completely rational if that's what actually happens.

We're the ones that keep buying those lottery tickets even thought we never actually win. Our big brains seem to only serve up better rationalizations, and rationalization does not equal rational.

Quote from: "Jac3510"There must be a supernatural part of you if you are to think logically.

I don't follow...

I propose that those animals in the wild which had bad problem solving abilities died before they could reproduce due to an inability to make accurate connections between circumstances and objects.  Therefore, as generations passed, the animals that were able to accurately make connections between circumstances and objects and use that information for their own benefit (survival, reproduction, etc.) would be more likely to survive and reproduce, thus passing the "logical genes" to the next generation.  Within a few generations, the illogical animals die out leaving only logical animals.  This is evolution.

No supernatural intervention is required.  Occam's Razor states that "plurality should not be posited without necessity", or in simpler terms, "Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."  Therefore, the theory which requires no intervention should be preferred over the theory requiring supernatural intervention because it makes the fewest assumptions.

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.

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."

Quote from: "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."

Plugging a book by:-

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

Rather poor form spamming your own book!  

Welcome aboard.

Regards
Chris[/spoiler:3t4l0d6i]

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

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.

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

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "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

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?  

Quote from: "superdave"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

Quote from: "a-train"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.

Quote from: "dloubet"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

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "dloubet"

Quote from: "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

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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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
8)  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 (http://www.learnersdictionary.com/).  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.

Quote from: "Recusant"natural: 1)  a : existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature

This is the definition the theists are using.  The theists, either trying to erase man's volition or trying to assert that volition is a gift from God, are claiming that rational thought was not produced by man nor given to him by nature, but given to him by God.  Philosophers teaching determinism try to erase man's volition by saying that rational thought is nothing but innate tendencies entirely granted by nature.  This is a false dichotomy.  Man's rational thinking can be and has been built up by man's volitional action.  If birds can do the same then bravo!  Determinism is false, man has his volition and he can choose to build up his power of reason through its exercise.

Quote from: "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

Problem is, Man is apart of nature.. I personally consider it silly to consider anything man does as not "natural". It's like saying anything but what Ants do is not natural :headbang:

Quote from: "a-train"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.

So what is a beaver dam, or a termite mound, or a bird nest, or the stick carefully stripped of twigs used to fish ants out of the mound by a chimp? Are the works of beavers, termites, birds and chimps, unnatural as well, or are you special pleading their deliberate efforts as somehow being part of nature when our deliberate efforts somehow aren't? Face it, a termite mound is a skyscraper built by termites. Why would you call their skyscraper natural, and ours unnatural? Theirs even has air-conditioning!

Granted I may not be using the common definition of the word, but the common definition is stupid and inconsistent.

But even if I granted the common usage it doesn't help your argument: If reason is practiced by other animals, and it appears that it is, then it's not a purely human construct and thus is natural by your definition.

Quote from: "dloubet"Granted I may not be using the common definition of the word, but the common definition is stupid and inconsistent.

But even if I granted the common usage it doesn't help your argument: If reason is practiced by other animals, and it appears that it is, then it's not a purely human construct and thus is natural by your definition.

It is completely consistent:

man-made = not natural
not man-made = natural

Yes, it is special to man.  That is the whole point of the term.  Look in the dictionary.

Now on the subject of whether or not animals reason, the answer is a definite no.  Reason requires the use of symbols, language and the manipulation of logical systems.  Computer programs can be built to work out logical problems, yet they are entirely incapable of reason.  Humans alone possess the ability to create and manipulate language, symbols, icons and so forth and do so volitionally.

A monkey may naturally discover some enjoyment in swinging a stick to strike a stone so as to make it fly.  Perhaps a monkey could attempt to cause the stone to land in a hole.  It's possible that men could drag a monkey around a golf course and train it to hit drives and putt.  But can the monkey create the game of golf and communicate with language the rules of the game to his counterparts?  That would require some amount of reason.

Associative thinking (when the dog hears a bell it thinks of food) is not reason.  The distinction is not new, Aristotle made it over 2300 years ago.

Now we could redefine reason as: any constructive mental action.  But that is not going to help us in our conversation with the theists.  That is not what they are referring to.  They are referring to the "miracle" of man's capability to create and manipulate logical systems in order to discover what is not apparent.  They are talking about man's ability to speak and read and write, to engage in science and mathematics.  They are referring to the act of "reason" spoken of by the philosophers and scientists.

-a-train

dloubet has it in a nutshell.  But really it wholly depends on the context.  We have a phrase, "It ain't natural" when something shocking has happened which is outside our expectation of the usual patterns of nature as we perceive them.  And we all know what it means, and it's ok to say "it ain't natural".  Ultimately though that is an expression of shock and emotion, because in reality anything that exists in nature is natural.  Since humans, our planet and our universe all exist in nature, anything that happens in it, even manipulations of usual patterns of cause and effect by different species, are all natural.

Actually I avoid the use of the word completely if I can.  In my experience, people tend to use the word natural in order to associate their own moral ideas with the uncompromising power of nature, sometimes even to god.  It's usually pretty obvious from the start what they're trying to do, and I wouldn't want to be thought that shallow.

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "Recusant"natural: 1) a : existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature

This is the definition the theists are using. The theists, either trying to erase man's volition or trying to assert that volition is a gift from God, are claiming that rational thought was not produced by man nor given to him by nature, but given to him by God.

I really don't give much weight to what theists might be saying when they talk about the universe, nor how they manipulate language to back up their position.  I do find such things interesting, but as far as I'm concerned theist's myths and the means by which they defend them are not really relevant when discussing reality, and should be of little concern when examining the universe and talking about what we see.  The definition I gave came from Merriam-Webster.  I'm not aware that Merriam-Webster has any clear theist bias.  Do you disagree with said definition?  If so, could you explain why?

Quote from: "a-train"Now on the subject of whether or not animals reason, the answer is a definite no. Reason requires the use of symbols, language and the manipulation of logical systems. Computer programs can be built to work out logical problems, yet they are entirely incapable of reason. Humans alone possess the ability to create and manipulate language, symbols, icons and so forth and do so volitionally.

I think that you here show an anthropomorphic bias.  You go too far in your definition, in your attempt to prove your position.  Compare:

Quote from: "a-train"Reason requires the use of symbols, language and the manipulation of logical systems.

Quote from: "url=http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/reason]Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary[/url]"]the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way

or

Quote from: "url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason]Merriam-Webster[/url]"]the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways

Neither definition says that reason is dependent upon language use, nor use of symbols.  One of them mentions thinking in a logical way, but that's a far more basic idea than "use... of logical systems."

I think that we can see animals thinking in a logical way.  So the difference between humans and the other thinking animals (unless you want to say that animals don't think at all) is one of degree and not one of kind.  While people have developed reason and logic (rational thought) to a much higher degree than any other animal on the planet, I think it's not accurate to say that we are the only ones capable of using logic.  Thus it's "natural" in that it's not the exclusive reserve of humans.  Now if we're discussing what one might call "higher rational thought" (that which entails the use of language, symbols and logical systems), then it can be said that humans are the only ones on the planet capable of it.  If we call anything which is the exclusive reserve of humans artificial or "non-natural," then you're correct, a-train.  At least until we discover that we're not the only beings in the universe which are capable of higher rational thought.  But what then?  If we were to encounter evidence that such beings existed, would you still maintain that higher rational thought was not natural?

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "Recusant"natural: 1) a : existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature

This is the definition the theists are using. The theists, either trying to erase man's volition or trying to assert that volition is a gift from God, are claiming that rational thought was not produced by man nor given to him by nature, but given to him by God.

I really don't give much weight to what theists might be saying when they talk about the universe, nor how they manipulate language to back up their position.  I do find such things interesting, but as far as I'm concerned theist's myths and the means by which they defend them are not really relevant when discussing reality, and should be of little concern when examining the universe and talking about what we see.  The definition I gave came from Merriam-Webster.  I'm not aware that Merriam-Webster has any clear theist bias.  Do you disagree with said definition?  If so, could you explain why?

No, we are now using the same definition of "natural", its the "not made or caused by people" (humans) that I am pointing to in that definition.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "a-train"Now on the subject of whether or not animals reason, the answer is a definite no. Reason requires the use of symbols, language and the manipulation of logical systems. Computer programs can be built to work out logical problems, yet they are entirely incapable of reason. Humans alone possess the ability to create and manipulate language, symbols, icons and so forth and do so volitionally.

I think that you here show an anthropomorphic bias.  You go too far in your definition, in your attempt to prove your position.  Compare:

Quote from: "a-train"Reason requires the use of symbols, language and the manipulation of logical systems.

Quote from: "url=http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/reason]Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary[/url]"]the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way

or

Quote from: "url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason]Merriam-Webster[/url]"]the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways

Neither definition says that reason is dependent upon language use, nor use of symbols.  One of them mentions thinking in a logical way, but that's a far more basic idea than "use... of logical systems."

I think that we can see animals thinking in a logical way.  So the difference between humans and the other thinking animals (unless you want to say that animals don't think at all) is one of degree and not one of kind.  While people have developed reason and logic (rational thought) to a much higher degree than any other animal on the planet, I think it's not accurate to say that we are the only ones capable of using logic.  Thus it's "natural" in that it's not the exclusive reserve of humans.  Now if we're discussing what one might call "higher rational thought" (that which entails the use of language, symbols and logical systems), then it can be said that humans are the only ones on the planet capable of it.  If we call anything which is the exclusive reserve of humans artificial or "non-natural," then you're correct, a-train.  At least until we discover that we're not the only beings in the universe which are capable of higher rational thought.  But what then?  If we were to encounter evidence that such beings existed, would you still maintain that higher rational thought was not natural?

The term "reason" is a more technical philosophical term.  While Webster's gives a lay definition for casual use, philosophers and psychologists use a much more technical definition.  And that is what the theists are getting at.  And they are right on those grounds.  Look at the wikipedia article on reason and you can get a start on some of the scholarly discussion on the topic.

Perhaps the theists could say: "Of all the earthly creatures known, only man is capable of constructing mathematical models, he therefore must have been taught by God."  That is the point they are making and the use of the term "reason" or "rational thought" is appropriate and so is the term natural.  What does not follow is the notion that God had to give man the capability to construct mathematical models in order for man to do so.  If we were to say: "No, its natural, the animals do it too."  The theists would rightfully find our reply ridiculous.

The truth is that man did, through centuries, build on the body of human knowledge until he could construct mathematical models (and all other forms of reason).  This was not "natural", meaning it was done by man not for man.  If we accept that nature did this for man, we are accepting the false premise on which the theists' case rests: that man, on his own, could not have developed the logical systems provided by reason.  It is with that they put before us the problem of demonstrating how nature developed reason and handed it to us.  The truth is, nature gave man the necessary tools and man developed reason.  How did he do it?  One only has to go to school and get the history of any scientific or technical discipline to see how.  It is all there in recorded history.

I say all of this because I know what the theists are thinking and why they are wrong.  And I know that claiming that reason is natural will not convince the theist for the reasons I've mentioned.

-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"The term "reason" is a more technical philosophical term.  While Webster's gives a lay definition for casual use, philosophers and psychologists use a much more technical definition.  And that is what the theists are getting at.  And they are right on those grounds.  Look at the wikipedia article on reason and you can get a start on some of the scholarly discussion on the topic.

OK, I think that it's useful for purposes of this discussion to distinguish between "reason," and "higher rational thought."  It seems that you do not.  Were early hominids capable of reason?  I'd say that on evidence which can be gained from our fellow animals, it's very likely that they were.  Were they capable of higher rational thought?  That's doubtful.  They likely were more adept at reasoning than any other species, but were still not in the realm which philosophers and psychologists are describing when they use the term.  I don't think that you and I are that far apart in our positions here, a-train, it's just that I would give a wider range of thinking the name "reasoning" than you would. It seems that you do not describe the thinking that apparently occurred when the crow bent the wire as "reasoning," while I do.  To me, such signs of a primitive ability to reason provide strong evidence that all humanity did is develop to an extreme degree something which other animals possess. At the human level, it's "artificial" just as a house is artificial compared to shelters built by other animals.  There is a continuum though, which shows that there is no need at all to invoke a deity to explain the capacity for higher rational thought which we humans possess.  (Since you insist that this topic continue to be relevant to the original discussion. ;) On the other hand, if the (very basic) capacity for thought which is displayed by our fellow animals exists, then all humans did was develop it far beyond anything any other animal on the planet has done.  Why must we totally discount their ability, to prove that we are the sole possessors of higher rational thought?  That doesn't make sense to me.  Even if a crow is able to use an extremely primitive form of logic to solve a problem, that doesn't mean that "nature provided reason [in the form of higher rational thought] for man." Nature (and a natural capacity for primitive reasoning) merely served as the ground upon which humans developed higher rational thought.

 

Quote from: "a-train"It is with that they put before us the problem of demonstrating how nature developed reason and handed it to us.  The truth is, nature gave man the necessary tools and man developed reason.  How did he do it?  One only has to go to school and get the history of any scientific or technical discipline to see how.  It is all there in recorded history.

I say all of this because I know what the theists are thinking and why they are wrong.  And I know that claiming that reason is natural will not convince the theist for the reasons I've mentioned.

-a-train

I think we're practically on the same page here.  Except that once again, I would put the origins farther back than you would. I think that many important features of higher rational thinking were developed in prehistory.  And I really don't give a damn about convincing theists, because they're quite happy to ignore evidence and logic and anything else which disagrees with their divinely inspired conception of reality.  I often enjoy wrangling with them, but I gave up convincing them of anything at all a long time ago.

Reasoning and the ability to think is still a natural process LOL.. It's entirely irrelevant. To say that anything to which is produced by man is not natural ectra is entirely a logical fallacy! At best it's poor religious rationality because they can't seem to get it through their heads that they are entirely and equally apart of nature. It's irrelevant if we can construct cities or computer chips! It does not segregate you from nature, human nature, or the nature of everything we are and do! It's entirely based on that logical fallacy of humans thinking they are superior to nature.. I consider myself completely all natural! :/

1) Are you an Animal? YES!
2) Do you exist in nature? YES!
3) Are you apart of the natural world? YES!
4) Is everything man does natural to the human species and behavior? YES!
5) Is man apart of the food chain? YES!
6) Is man apart of reality? YES! though some try to deny reality..

It's end of story right there even if our natural behavior is destructive, aggressive, viral, or manages to build concrete jungles with computer chips!.

Reason: Humans named it and refined it. We didn't create it.

Animals reason. Crows using sticks to poke at unfamiliar things is not mere stimulus/response. It's the result of a logical train of thought.

We merely discovered what we and the other animals had been doing all along. Reason works, and because it works it aids survival, and because it aids survival evolution selects for it.

Reason, it's not just for humans.

Quote from: "dloubet"Reason: Humans named it and refined it. We didn't create it.

Animals reason. Crows using sticks to poke at unfamiliar things is not mere stimulus/response. It's the result of a logical train of thought.

We merely discovered what we and the other animals had been doing all along. Reason works, and because it works it aids survival, and because it aids survival evolution selects for it.

Reason, it's not just for humans.

And all reason is, is the processing of information and the process of weighing it. Even an ant can reason because it can count, choose to go left or right ect. It just depends how primitive you want to go with it. Dolphins and Orca's are shown to be self-aware, have language, and even cultures within pods or groups. And besides, there can ever only be a positive, negative, or neutral  selection, action, adaptation or reason  So duh, of course things with brains can process information and weigh it in some form or another. All rational thinking really is, is thought that more closely matches the reality of any given thing or situation to which is sensed, perceived, or observed. An irrational thinking is thinking that strays further away from the reality of any given thing or situation.  Yes, No?

Quote from: "TheJackel"Reasoning and the ability to think is still a natural process LOL.. It's entirely irrelevant. To say that anything to which is produced by man is not natural ectra is entirely a logical fallacy! At best it's poor religious rationality because they can't seem to get it through their heads that they are entirely and equally apart of nature. It's irrelevant if we can construct cities or computer chips! It does not segregate you from nature, human nature, or the nature of everything we are and do! It's entirely based on that logical fallacy of humans thinking they are superior to nature.. I consider myself completely all natural!

Hell, I bought this computer from a talking donkey working with a green ogre.  They have a computer shop in the west bottoms, they do great work.  All natural, non of the man-made sh*t.

-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "TheJackel"Reasoning and the ability to think is still a natural process LOL.. It's entirely irrelevant. To say that anything to which is produced by man is not natural ectra is entirely a logical fallacy! At best it's poor religious rationality because they can't seem to get it through their heads that they are entirely and equally apart of nature. It's irrelevant if we can construct cities or computer chips! It does not segregate you from nature, human nature, or the nature of everything we are and do! It's entirely based on that logical fallacy of humans thinking they are superior to nature.. I consider myself completely all natural! ;)  So I don't care what the definition says because it's a logical fallacy. It needs to be redefined by more intellectually honest people. It's just stupid to say this or that doesn't occur naturally in nature when you just proved this or that thing does by doing it!  

Quote from: "TheJackel"The computer ect, or even a green ogre are natural even if they were just mere existing patterns or ideas of information. It's entirely a logical fallacy to call anything that exists as being "not natural". It's very simple sir, if it exists, it's natural!  Humans are not apart from nature, and nor is anything that humans do. It's all still naturally occurring phenomenon. Man made =/= Ant made in regard to the concept of nature. The logical fallacy is man seeing itself above or separate from nature when it's not  :)

Your right, there is no difference between my computer and a pot leaf.  It's all natural bro!

-a-train

Quote from: "a-train"

Quote from: "TheJackel"The computer ect, or even a green ogre are natural even if they were just mere existing patterns or ideas of information. It's entirely a logical fallacy to call anything that exists as being "not natural". It's very simple sir, if it exists, it's natural!  Humans are not apart from nature, and nor is anything that humans do. It's all still naturally occurring phenomenon. Man made =/= Ant made in regard to the concept of nature. The logical fallacy is man seeing itself above or separate from nature when it's not  :)

Your right, there is no difference between my computer and a pot leaf.  It's all natural bro!

-a-train

technically speaking that is true even if they have different characteristics, or are the result from one phenomenon vs another. They are all products of natural occurring phenomenon. This however doesn't mean that computers or things made or constructed by man is necessarily good for the environment or ecosystem. But then again, neither is a Gypsy Moth in the united states, or if our Star were to just up and die on us.  :hail:

Quote from: "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.

If you watch footage on a group of dolphins hunting, you'd quickly come to the conclusion that they don't need to be trained by us to be rational. There's some real strategic thinking, planning and organised execution there. Not to mention they're creative.

In fact marine mammals are quite something. I came across a documentary on a seal which could outperform humans on a type of intelligence measuring test.

Quote* New Caledonian crows have been recently studied and have shown that they can solve a multi-step problem. The challenge they faced was a three-step process.  The goal was to retrieve a piece of food from a cage.  The piece of food was kept at a safe distance from the walls of the cage.  This piece of food could be drawn out by a long stick, but this long stick was held inside a barred toolbox.  To get the long stick, the crows would need a short stick.  And so the first step of the test involved a short stick which was tied to a string, hanging from a branch.The study took two groups of crows and separated them.  The first group was allowed to look at each step of the problem individually before taking on the whole test.  The second group was presented with a piece of food on a string and some sticks which could be used to get the food, but they never experienced a situation where one tool was used to get another.  Both groups of crows were able to successfully complete the test, though some took either a second attempt or a bit longer to do so.

    * New Caledonian crows also solved a few other problems.  One problem they were faced with was reaching larvae inside of hollowed out trees.  Since their beaks are not long enough, the crows must find other methods to reach the larvae.  The study found that crows will find an almost ideally sized stick for the job, also showing that more experienced crows were faster and better at retrieving the larvae.  Another problem these crows faced was with a floating worm inside a glass.  The water-level was kept low enough so the crows could not reach the worm.  The crows would take rocks and put them in the cup in order to raise the water-level enough so that the worm could be reached.

http://nation.towergaming.com/2010/04/the-clever-crow/ (http://nation.towergaming.com/2010/04/the-clever-crow/)

That's pretty smart but I bet they're not smart enough to worship a sky guy who isn't there.

Jac3510 writes;
                       Does anyone really think that they are so much smarter than all the great minds in human history, past and present, that they've thought of something no one else has ever thought of before? Please.

                       More to the point.........are the answers to the great imponderables of the ages simply memes floating around somewhere awaiting their discovery, or did some mind really present with an answer derived from purely intellectual activity [the application of creative inference, reason and logic]?

                      It is essential to our intellectual well-being that there was a plethora of original thoughts in human history. To suggest that there are no more available to us, that there is nothing new, is to my way of thinking a surrender of intellectual independence and the adoption of a kind of stultifying fatalism.

                     What could be the nature of this "something" you refer to if you can even conceptualise its existence? We can never "know" that that "something" does not exist and we must conduct ourselves on the conviction and presumption that it does exist. Otherwise we may just as well resign ourselves to a thoughtless existence and death. Thankfully, the properties of consciousness precludes us from doing this.