Rational Thinking Is Not Natural

[a-train]

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.

[TheJackel]

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

[dloubet]

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.

[a-train]

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

[Existentialist]

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.

[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?

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:

Reason requires the use of symbols, language and the manipulation of logical systems.

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

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?

[a-train]

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.

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:

Reason requires the use of symbols, language and the manipulation of logical systems.

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

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

[Recusant]

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.

 

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.

[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! :/

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!.

[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.

[TheJackel]

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?

[a-train]

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

[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!  

[a-train]

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

[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: