Rationality

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rationality

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sculptor1 wrote: December 3rd, 2019, 10:28 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: December 3rd, 2019, 9:28 am

Just as interesting is the thought that our 'unconscious mind' is a misleading term. Conscious mind refers to a particular 'part' of our minds; our unconscious minds are what is left after the conscious mind is removed. So the unconscious is responsible for instinctive behaviour ... and a lot of other stuff too; anything that isn't 'conscious'. So the inspiration that lead Coleridge to Kublai Khan came from the unconscious. Our hearts are kept beating by our unconscious minds. And so on. The human mind is a many-faceted thing, and instinctive behaviour is just one of the things it provides.

And it also occurs to me that instinctive behaviour is likely not rational. I think its development is based on evolution, not rationality. Our instinctive responses are built-in, and therefore inherited in some way. They're simply part of being a human being, yes? 🤔
Yes, but..

No.
I mean every word I am typing comes through the unconscious. It's far more than instinct.
If you had to stop and think about every word, every letter, how to find the key on the key board, all the while managing to keep an eye on your fingers and the screen, life would be painfully slow.
Oh yes, the unconscious does a great deal, but instinctive behaviour is part of its remit. And that instinctive behaviour takes place far too quickly for reason or logic to play a part. The rest of it is probably more interesting, as it begins to enter the space you have been referring to. Perception is entirely unconscious, and takes place chronologically prior to consciousness. And that's a whole load of fun in itself. But it's not on-topic here, where rationality holds sway. 😉
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Rationality

Post by Sculptor1 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 5th, 2019, 9:59 am
Sculptor1 wrote: December 3rd, 2019, 10:28 am
Yes, but..

No.
I mean every word I am typing comes through the unconscious. It's far more than instinct.
If you had to stop and think about every word, every letter, how to find the key on the key board, all the while managing to keep an eye on your fingers and the screen, life would be painfully slow.
Oh yes, the unconscious does a great deal, but instinctive behaviour is part of its remit. And that instinctive behaviour takes place far too quickly for reason or logic to play a part.
That is simply not possible.
There is clearly no obvious and clear demonstration of formal logic, but it would be foolish to claim that reason and logic play no part. More than foolish, just in comprehensible, since we automatically do very rational and logical things all the time. And even when we perform formal logic the answers come from the unconscious too.
The rest of it is probably more interesting, as it begins to enter the space you have been referring to. Perception is entirely unconscious, and takes place chronologically prior to consciousness. And that's a whole load of fun in itself. But it's not on-topic here, where rationality holds sway. 😉
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rationality

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sculptor1 wrote: December 5th, 2019, 4:22 pm
That is simply not possible.
There is clearly no obvious and clear demonstration of formal logic, but it would be foolish to claim that reason and logic play no part. More than foolish, just in comprehensible, since we automatically do very rational and logical things all the time. And even when we perform formal logic the answers come from the unconscious too.
You do realise that when I refer to "instinctive behaviour", I mean things like fight or flight, and similar behaviours? 🤔 We both know the unconscious does a great deal more than this, and that some/much of that great deal may involve rationality. But instinctive reactions happen too fast; rationality belongs with any considered decision, and fight or flight is no such thing. There is no time for consideration, no reason and no logic. Just (possibly life-saving) action.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Rationality

Post by Sculptor1 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 6th, 2019, 10:55 am
Sculptor1 wrote: December 5th, 2019, 4:22 pm
That is simply not possible.
There is clearly no obvious and clear demonstration of formal logic, but it would be foolish to claim that reason and logic play no part. More than foolish, just in comprehensible, since we automatically do very rational and logical things all the time. And even when we perform formal logic the answers come from the unconscious too.
You do realise that when I refer to "instinctive behaviour", I mean things like fight or flight, and similar behaviours? 🤔 We both know the unconscious does a great deal more than this, and that some/much of that great deal may involve rationality. But instinctive reactions happen too fast; rationality belongs with any considered decision, and fight or flight is no such thing. There is no time for consideration, no reason and no logic. Just (possibly life-saving) action.
Instinct is one thing
unconscious brain activity another.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rationality

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sculptor1 wrote: December 6th, 2019, 6:56 pm Instinct is one thing
unconscious brain activity another.
Quite so. 👍
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Rationality

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 6th, 2019, 10:55 am
Sculptor1 wrote: December 5th, 2019, 4:22 pm
That is simply not possible.
There is clearly no obvious and clear demonstration of formal logic, but it would be foolish to claim that reason and logic play no part. More than foolish, just in comprehensible, since we automatically do very rational and logical things all the time. And even when we perform formal logic the answers come from the unconscious too.
You do realise that when I refer to "instinctive behaviour", I mean things like fight or flight, and similar behaviours? 🤔 We both know the unconscious does a great deal more than this, and that some/much of that great deal may involve rationality. But instinctive reactions happen too fast; rationality belongs with any considered decision, and fight or flight is no such thing. There is no time for consideration, no reason and no logic. Just (possibly life-saving) action.
I would call fight or flight reactions non-rational. Usually we are presented with a binary set of options. Rational and irrational, the former tends to be viewed as positive, the latter as negative. But the fact is that there are many instances where it is stupid to use rational thinking. And further there are all sorts of use non-rational processes and in fact these are necessary even for rational thinking, though most people think, for example, that you don't need intuition when being rational.

I think a great deal of problems arise when instead of seeing different types of processes we think of one as good and one as bad. One can rationalize and reach dumb conclusions. It is a type of thinking. It can also be an inappropriate choice of process. Using non-rational processes can be good or bad and


people can be good at either one (in specific areas or in general) and bad at either one.

One can have a good intuition or a bad one (about anything from reading other poker players to medical diagnosis) and one can use rational thinking well or poorly.

They are types of processes.

I think irrational is a problematic term.

If we are going to be binary, we should have rational and non-rational as the categories, and not assume that either is good or bad per se, but it depends on the context, the skill of the person involved, how much information is present, how much time one has and so on.

I actually think this binary rational/irrational framing has caused untold damage.
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Rationality

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

If you are trying to connect word-based sentences and ideas in logical fashion, you are using a rational process.
If some other black boxed, less verbal process leads to choices or conclusions, then you are using non-rational processes.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rationality

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Karpel Tunnel wrote: December 24th, 2019, 6:05 am I actually think this binary rational/irrational framing has caused untold damage.
I agree. I suspect it's down to sciencists, objectivists, and the like, who seem to insist that logic and rationality are the only possible ways to think and live, even though they practice the same sort of irrational cultural stuff that we all do in their everyday lives. Santa Claus is a timely example. :wink: Thinking should be applied according to context, as you observe, and sometimes the context will demand something other than the logical or rational.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
SubatomicAl1en
New Trial Member
Posts: 15
Joined: January 6th, 2020, 9:08 am

Re: Rationality

Post by SubatomicAl1en »

If you had to make a decision between two things, and you analyze them rationally and find out they have the exact same benefits and value, you would have to use "irrationality" or "randomness" to choose one right? Otherwise you'll just be choosing forever. For example, there are two benches in the middle of the cafeteria, and they are both empty and clean, if you used pure logic you would never be able to choose. So is being "irrational" bad? Are emotions or random choice choosing really irrational?
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Rationality

Post by LuckyR »

SubatomicAl1en wrote: January 9th, 2020, 8:29 am If you had to make a decision between two things, and you analyze them rationally and find out they have the exact same benefits and value, you would have to use "irrationality" or "randomness" to choose one right? Otherwise you'll just be choosing forever. For example, there are two benches in the middle of the cafeteria, and they are both empty and clean, if you used pure logic you would never be able to choose. So is being "irrational" bad? Are emotions or random choice choosing really irrational?
Your example seems to confound the theoretical "rational" or "logical" mind, yet is easily dealt with by actual human minds. Likely this is because of what the computer folks used to call fuzzy logic, where calculations are rounded off rather than carried out with extreme accuracy. Thus while the two benches are identical to five decimal places (50.00000 vs 50.00000), they might appear to a human mind as 50 minus something vs 50 plus something, such that the second one is chosen.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Rationality

Post by chewybrian »

SubatomicAl1en wrote: January 9th, 2020, 8:29 am If you had to make a decision between two things, and you analyze them rationally and find out they have the exact same benefits and value, you would have to use "irrationality" or "randomness" to choose one right? Otherwise you'll just be choosing forever. For example, there are two benches in the middle of the cafeteria, and they are both empty and clean, if you used pure logic you would never be able to choose. So is being "irrational" bad? Are emotions or random choice choosing really irrational?
It seems nearly impossible for the human to find themselves in such a spot for such a trivial matter, as so many priorities can compete. The situation can always be viewed with a new priority until one choice takes precedent. Within a second or two, I can see that either bench offers the same evident sturdiness, cleanliness, room to spread out and such. I can also see that the left bench offers a better view of the cute girl in the corner, or that the sun is shining on the right bench, and it's a bit chilly. I can hear that the table over to the right is rather loud, so I might want to go toward the left. I may unconsciously prefer one side because I am right or left handed, so my preferred hand is not close to the person beside me, or the wall.

But, if the tie is still not broken by the elements in the room in a second or two, then other tasks quickly jump to mind and force action. I may wish to avoid looking foolish, and reason that the cost of looking foolish is greater than any possible benefit of one bench over the other. Based on this new priority, choosing randomly becomes 'rational'. I may see that I have other things I need to get done today, so soon enough, the time lost in contemplation is more valuable to me that any tiny advantage that could be found when the two choices are so close.

It seems the process of choosing still remains rational in every case. It is the setting of the priority that might be considered irrational, as in the idea that looking foolish or not is important. That's what I was getting at with the 'levels' of rationality. Based on the priority we pick, we can make a rational choice. Yet, we can always step back and wonder whether our choice of priority was rational.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rationality

Post by Pattern-chaser »

LuckyR wrote: January 9th, 2020, 5:30 pm
SubatomicAl1en wrote: January 9th, 2020, 8:29 am If you had to make a decision between two things, and you analyze them rationally and find out they have the exact same benefits and value, you would have to use "irrationality" or "randomness" to choose one right? Otherwise you'll just be choosing forever. For example, there are two benches in the middle of the cafeteria, and they are both empty and clean, if you used pure logic you would never be able to choose. So is being "irrational" bad? Are emotions or random choice choosing really irrational?
Your example seems to confound the theoretical "rational" or "logical" mind, yet is easily dealt with by actual human minds. Likely this is because of what the computer folks used to call fuzzy logic, where calculations are rounded off rather than carried out with extreme accuracy. Thus while the two benches are identical to five decimal places (50.00000 vs 50.00000), they might appear to a human mind as 50 minus something vs 50 plus something, such that the second one is chosen.
Yes, or a real-world human mind might just think that, because both seem the same, either one will do. Such a mind - and its body - might just pick the one closest to the door, to minimise the work of putting it into the waiting van? Or this same mind might choose on the basis of a quality that wasn't really important in the initial evaluation. So perhaps choose the greener one, not the more red-tinged version? As you say, @LuckyR, there are many ways - all of them simple - that a real human mind might select a bench.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Rationality

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

SubatomicAl1en wrote: January 9th, 2020, 8:29 am If you had to make a decision between two things, and you analyze them rationally and find out they have the exact same benefits and value, you would have to use "irrationality" or "randomness" to choose one right? Otherwise you'll just be choosing forever. For example, there are two benches in the middle of the cafeteria, and they are both empty and clean, if you used pure logic you would never be able to choose. So is being "irrational" bad? Are emotions or random choice choosing really irrational?
I think a better term is non-rational. And obviously emotions are very effective motivators in many cases. Intuition is something we all depend on.
User avatar
doberso
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: April 9th, 2020, 3:24 pm

Re: Rationality

Post by doberso »

Presumably 'full rationality' (your 'levels up') includes the awareness that current rational paradigms are limited, approximate, or otherwise subject to enhancement or improvement.
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Rationality

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

LuckyR wrote: January 9th, 2020, 5:30 pm Your example seems to confound the theoretical "rational" or "logical" mind, yet is easily dealt with by actual human minds. Likely this is because of what the computer folks used to call fuzzy logic, where calculations are rounded off rather than carried out with extreme accuracy. Thus while the two benches are identical to five decimal places (50.00000 vs 50.00000), they might appear to a human mind as 50 minus something vs 50 plus something, such that the second one is chosen.
But then there are all sorts of situations where actual human minds make decisions based on intuition, where the two people, options, objects are less easily compared, but decisions need to be made or are desired to be made and one cannot rely on logic or even what gets called rationality to decide. So, we use intuition. Intuition is a batch-word gathering together an array of processes many of which people can be better than others at in some or many areas. And these processes we often have to black-box. It would be speculation to say they are illogical - especially since someone's intuition can often be right, people can be good at these things - so I refer to them as non-rational. The decisions are not made by mental verbal processes where the person tries to use deduction or induction to arrive at a choice or conclusion. They may experience it as simply knowing or seeing the best option. They could be firefighters or poker players or detectives or someone assessing potential threats in a room or teachers. And yes, these people will all use logic and rationality also, the competent ones, but there are many situations where you cannot or do not have the time, and yet you can be better at these kinds of non-rational decision making processes that other people.

Further, even to use logic, one needs intuition. One needs to rapidly evaluate the sematics and scope of the words in premises, one's own having evaluated long and carefully enough, whether any biases (paradigmatic or personal) might be affecting what one is taking as a premise and so on. This often happens rapidly and we focus on the rule-based parts of the process, but in situ humans use intuition to carry out their logical analyses.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021