Rationality Precedes Man?

[pinkroger]

Was rationality invented by man, or did it precede man? In other words, if no sentient life existed, would rationality still exist?

[Vagrant]

Was rationality invented by man, or did it precede man? In other words, if no sentient life existed, would rationality still exist?
Without life period:

On the macro scale, everything is governed by rational laws such as gravity and momentum.

On a micro scale, everything is chaos -- molecules bouncing every which way, quantum mechanics is often unpredictable, and other things.

With life:

Natural selection is a very rational process: That which does not survive and reproduce dies out, leaving what's stronger behind.

[pinkroger]

Allow me to clarify. I did not mean that all life had been destroyed, or simply never existed. Instead, I meant that All sentient life had been destroyed or never existed. There would still be animals, but not humans.

[blueback]

Well, rationality just means thought in accordance with evidence and logic (IMO) and it doesn't take consciousness for that. Animals use logic and collect evidence, computers are rational, it's just thought according to rules. Those rules don't have to have a metacognitive control loop (sentience).

[zibber]

Was rationality invented by man, or did it precede man? In other words, if no sentient life existed, would rationality still exist?

You'll have to define rationality for yourself in order to answer your question. Is it the rationality of sentient beings, or what Vagrant described?

In the case of the latter, I'd have to note that to call effects like gravitation "laws", "rational" or even "effect" and "gravitation" is a cognitive act.

It doesn't matter whether certain occurences occur in a manner systematic and predictable to us, there needs to be us for that to be the case.

[Monte314]

According to Proverbs chapter 8, verses 22 through 30, rationality preceded man. The speaker in this passage is "Wisdom":

"The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth; while as yet He had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there; when He set a compass upon the face of the deep; when He gave to the sea His decree, that the waters should not pass His commandment; when He appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him...."

[pinkroger]

I find it fascinating that the Bible would have something on this topic. As an atheist, that's the last place I would look, but perhaps it's not a totally worthless religion after all.

[zibber]

I didn't know God read Plato.

Well, he did go on to make him, so..

[Lionel]

Was rationality invented by man, or did it precede man? In other words, if no sentient life existed, would rationality still exist?Well, by studying the development of religion, philosophy, science i have learn that there are two diffrent mood of conscience; to make more comphrehensive two difffrent domain of knowledge 1. is rational knowledge 2, intuitive knowledge,so in essence rationality is a abitary cretion of the human mind, one can say its an essential arbitary, so to ask the question 'if no sentient lfe existed, would rationality still exist?' that qestion is meaningless the moment you deside to ask it. if no sentient life exist there would be nobody there to preceive rationality to know wether or not it exist, remembver 'sentient' the ability to feel and precieve

[pinkroger]

Well, by studying the development of religion, philosophy, science i have learn that there are two diffrent mood of conscience; to make more comphrehensive two difffrent domain of knowledge 1. is rational knowledge 2, intuitive knowledge,so in essence rationality is a abitary cretion of the human mind, one can say its an essential arbitary, so to ask the question 'if no sentient lfe existed, would rationality still exist?' that qestion is meaningless the moment you deside to ask it. if no sentient life exist there would be nobody there to preceive rationality to know wether or not it exist, remembver 'sentient' the ability to feel and precieve

This smacks of Immanuel Kant.

[Lionel]

Immanuel Kant. i never heard of him before but he sound interested so i ganna look him up

[zibber]

This smacks of Immanuel Kant.

I don't think the total annihilation of reason was a scenario he took into account.

[blueback]

I thought Kant said that rationality existed a priori (before experience). We are simply capable of becoming aware of it.

[Lionel]

pinkroger. my question to you, why is the universe?

[pinkroger]

pinkroger. my question to you, why is the universe?

As an Existentialist and a Taoist, my response is that the universe exists for whatever reason I want it to exist. If my purpose is to, for example, become the first American trillionaire, then that is the purpose of the universe. So in a sense, the universe exists solely for me. Of course, this isn't a Narcissistic ego trip, this is merely philosophy at its' most rational. Because I can't prove that existence isn't simply a more or less pleasant dream, I can't trust anything except my own consciousness. Therefore, I am the only thing that can be proved to exist (though I do not really ascribe to this scenario, I do believe that it is possible). Therefore, the universe exists to serve my consciousness.

[Ool]

Was rationality invented by man, or did it precede man? In other words, if no sentient life existed, would rationality still exist?

Well, cause and effect would exist without sentient beings. But rationality is about the tracing of causal relationships between phenomena, and for that you need a tracer.

So, no, rationality would not exist without a person, because only people can be rational. The world is, if anything, causal.





Ool added to this post, 2 minutes and 14 seconds later...

pinkroger. my question to you, why is the universe?

Depends on how you define “universe.” If you’re asking why everything there is exists in the first place then the answer is, of course, “for no reason,” because there is, by definition, nothing other than everything there is, meaning there is no possible outside cause for it.





Ool added to this post, 2 minutes and 54 seconds later...

I thought Kant said that rationality existed a priori (before experience). We are simply capable of becoming aware of it.

Well, then he must have a different definition of “rationality” than my intuitive understanding of the convention of the word. Cause and effect exist a priori, but rationality is actually the following of cause and effect, meaning you must have a follower.

[Lionel]

Well, cause and effect would exist without sentient beings. But rationality is about the tracing of causal relationships between phenomena, and for that you need a tracer.

S

which mean the question is meaningless, is it not? at some instand question seem to make sense but the question become meaningless the momen i descide to ask it, this is the answer i have been waiting for. how con anything exist anywhere went it has to be inside the universe

[blueback]

Animals can track cause and effect relationships. You don't have to be sentient for that function.

[Lionel]

isn't cause and effect are words created by rational thinking?
does cause and effect mean anything to the animal you speak of?

[blueback]

Until we develop the ability to communicate directly brain-to-brain I have to use words. The words describe concepts which should be roughly the same in your brain and in my brain.

Animals might not use the same labels but they react to causes like they can predict the effect. This wasn't my definition, but this definition doesn't rule out the possibility that rationality preceded man.

[Nikita]

I thought the thread title read "Rationality Predeceases Man?"

I think that rationality is created by man. What is it but a concept put forth by language? We are the creators of language. We give definition to our ideas, we interpret and apply the meaning. If no sentient life existed, who would be around to interpret what is rational or irrational? Animals are creatures of instinct. There's a reason humans are held to higher standards of behavior. Sure, animals can learn certain behaviors and tricks, but higher thought processes are not associated with animals. I don't think that interpreting cause-and-effect relationships rises to the level of rationality. Such a relationship is developed in direct response to environmental stimuli. You might say it results in developing a reflex. To me, rationality rises above the level of mere reaction to environmental stimuli. Some may say natural selection is rational, but natural selection itself is a man-made term. Just because we define an idea in a certain way does not make that definition or that meaning absolute. Nature exists beyond rationality. Rationality is but a tool of man.

[blueback]

See? This is why it's important to define terms. If you think that deductive reasoning is rational, then animals are rational. If you think that inductive reasoning is rational, then animals (at least most animals) aren't rational. If you think that sentience is rational then only humans (most humans) are rational.

I figure that rationality is just thought that proceeds according to rules. A gut reaction is not rational, reflexes are not rational, etc. When the doctor hits your knee with a hammer and your leg jumps that is a reflex reaction and is not rational. If you watch a scary movie and scream when the killer jumps out of the shadows that is a gut reaction and is not rational.

However, I had a cat (it's still around actually) that was pretty smart. I left the garden hose running in a patch of sand for a while. It formed a small puddle of water but most of it just ran across the sand and stirred it up. The cat wanted to drink the water but it was full of suspended sand particles. After staring at it for a minute the cat reached into the running water and dug out a deeper hole. After waiting for the sand to settle to the bottom of the hole it drank from the top and wandered off happy. So, this cat voluntarily reached into water because it thought it could accomplish its goal that way. That sounds pretty rational to me. Other animals are capable of similar actions that aren't brilliant but do seem to be rational.

[Antares]

Animals can track cause and effect relationships. You don't have to be sentient for that function.

You don't even have to be alive. My cellphone can do that too.

[Ool]

Animals can track cause and effect relationships. You don't have to be sentient for that function.

Sentience is actually a measure of how well you can model and simulate causal relationships in the world, anticipating phenomena before they even happen, as opposed to merely reacting to something.

[blueback]

Sentient means that you are aware that you are sensing things. It is both being able to sense something and knowing that it is you that is doing the sensing. The reason I said you don't have to be sentient to "track cause and effect relationships" is that you don't need self-awareness to do that.

Animals are capable of tracking relatively complex relationships between causes and effects, some more than others of course. Just because they can do it without being aware that they are doing it doesn't make them non-rational. The vast majority of animals are only capable of deductive reasoning, if that, which is when they reason that since something happened several it will happen again. It is difficult to find support for the idea that animals are capable of inductive reasoning, which is when they derive principles from facts. However, the story I told about my cat could be and example of inductive reasoning. The circumstances can often be ambiguous. However, the vast majority of the things humans learn are simple mimicry; monkey see monkey do, which is basically only deductive reasoning.

If animals can be rational, and existed before humans, then rationality preceeded humanity.

[Lionel]

If animals can be rational, and existed before humans, then rationality preceeded humanity.

then what does it mean to be rational? doesn't the word rational created by the human mind and can only understand from the stand point of 'I' or as a human being?

Alrigth lets not confuse the map with the territory, so to speak, if the word rationality is use to point to and idea that can only be seen in the eye of the mind, so... lets say that the word is no longer essential ok. but for the idea to precise there has to be a human mind.

so i say, Rationality Precedes Man? the paragon of meaninglessness

[Nikita]

then what does it mean to be rational? doesn't the word rational created by the human mind and can only understand from the stand point of 'I' or as a human being?

Alrigth lets not confuse the map with the territory, so to speak, if the word rationality is use to point to and idea that can only be seen in the eye of the mind, so... lets say not the word is no longer essential ok. but for the idea to precise there has to be a human mind.

Yes. If rationality is a concept created by man, then anything before man is simply nature. Rationality is man's attempt to explain and control nature.

[Lionel]

Thanks Nikita, thats the reply i have been looking for

[blueback]

You're not being clear.

The WORD rationality was created by man. The CONCEPT that the WORD labels was created by man because concepts are specifically thoughts in our head. However, the THING that inspired the CONCEPT which inspired the WORD existed before humans.

Animals are rational. Animals existed before humans and did rational things. Hell, homo sapiens were rational before they were actually human.

[Lionel]

You're not being clear.

The WORD rationality was created by man. The CONCEPT that the WORD l

yes. but you said the CONCEPT the world LABLE, I DONT KNOW ABOUT THAT, lets just say the idea the word point to, which is a thought-form, so in order for a thing to exist it as to exist as forms, so an organism, like an animal which is physical-form is incapable of rational thinking because rational think is a thought-form which created my the human mind.



Animals are rational. Animals existed before humans and did rational things. Hell, homo sapiens were rational before they were actually human.

So this 'thing' you speak of what form does it take, for it to exist?

[blueback]

concept: an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars

Rationality: the quality of being consistent with or based on logic

I don't know what you mean by "thought-form". It sounds like you're being intentionaly vague on that point.

We observe things, those observations get combined into a concept. The concept then gets labeled with a word. That's the way I picture it happening. Rationality isn't a "thing" like a tree is a thing but more like erosion is a thing. You don't get to see it happen, all you can see are the results, but by seeing various stages of results you can piece together the process.

When I saw my cat implement a solution to a problem that I doubt it had ever seen before it implied that the solution was the result of logical thinking. It combined one observation, that the water was dirty, with another, that deep pools of water are usually clean, and infered that if it could make the pool deeper it might clear the water. It doesn't need to know that the mechanism is the dirt particles falling out of the still water on top of the deeper pool. When people do things like that we call it rationality, so why would we call it something else when an animal does it?

[Luthor Rex]

Was rationality invented by man, or did it precede man? In other words, if no sentient life existed, would rationality still exist?

Define "rationality".

[Lionel]

thought-form or a non physical form: a specific mind generate denity: thought belief system, concept, etc., produce by, and store in, the mind, which can only exist with the mind

Form: any observable entity; aa thing apparently separated and distinct from everything else by virtue of it being surround by not-that-thing.
ithink this sum up every thing a meant

[blueback]

Only in your language. In mine none of that made any sense.

[AnonymousPlease]

Being precedes rationality. What is rationality?

[pinkroger]

Since there have been numerous posts on this topic, I meant the concept of rationality, not the word itself; and let's stick to animals/beings that we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to be sentient (not cats).

[Lionel]

Only in your language. In mine none of that made any sense.

you seem to love animal alot

[blueback]

I don't think rationality is something special. It's just the ability to think logically. Self-awareness is special, but we're not talking about that.

If this is so important to you then the first thing you should do is clearly define the terms you are using. Otherwise you have no hope of understanding it yourself let alone explaining it to anyone else. It would be like trying to plug a fire-wire cable into a USB port. Sure, you might force it in there but even after you've made a connection none of the signals are going to be translated properly.

[Lionel]

Ok, blue back, you said that rationality is the ability to think logically, right? and there is nothing special about it, well it seem thats your assumtion however, I believe that Rational knowledge, is something special because it as been expressed in all acient culture in buddahism they refer to as relitive knowledge and thus limited, however the fact that it exist, science exist, so if animal are cable of rational thinking then they could be scientist then, would you agree? Rational knowledge is importand, Its function is to : categorized, discriminate, etc. but you dont seem to realized the important of rational knowledge and; i dont know what else to tell you. Rationality proceeded man? no, its a meaningless statement

[blueback]

Whatever dude. I can't get enough meaning out of your sentences to go into any more depth.

Oh, and you still haven't put enough effort into defining your terms.

[pinkroger]

Lionel, blueback, you guys should start your own thread on this topic.

[Lionel]

lol. i agree pinkroger