Inherent irrationality

[Eiuol]

Those results aren't the result of irrationality, but of a ruling elite making rules for others that they themselves do not need to obey.

In other words, it is sometimes the result of rationality or a verbal confusion? Dishonesty is irrational. Labeling it irrational is probably just a dishonest attempt to trick or fool you. What's wrong with being dishonest, then? Dishonesty, if it is neither rational nor irrational, may sometimes be a rational for your goals. Very little irrationality exists for practical issues, therefore any dishonesty is usually rational. But then somehow the "ruling elite" are not involved in practical issues, so by your tone, I presume these people are mostly verbally confused and irrational. Although you don't think irrational is a good label, so we can't call these people irrational. But if they are only confused, what's morally bad about that? Since all you imply is maybe/probably, this is moot - we can't ever be sure. We're left with probabilities. Assume as a heuristic that everybody lies and you'll be safe.

 

 

Now I'm verbally confused!

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I think the only route to the rational utopia you envision is a deterministic one.

Please clarify this.

 

That is a concrete example of "thinking in a vaccuum". It completely ignores the fact that men, for whatever reason, choose not to think rationally.

And that's where you're wrong.  I'm not ignoring the fact that the vast majority of homo sapiens alive today are not rational. 

Do you honestly believe that I started this thread by identifying a nearly universal fallacy, and happen to be operating on the assumption that everyone (including you) is completely rational at present?

 

I'm not ignoring anyone's irrationality; I'm attempting to comprehend the reasons for it, on the premise that even stupidity can be understood.

What do you call a belief which cannot be understood and is simultaneously assumed to be true?  It's either axiomatic or an act of faith; you tell me which one applies to entire civilizations.

 

It takes an isolated abstraction: "Man has free will" and uses that as the base in which to deduce. So since man has free will by his nature, then it is possible to have a society or a world in which every man is rational.

Does that base contradict a single fact of reality?

 

It's the equivalent of saying: "Since man has free will, then it is possible that everyone in Connecticut will decide to come to my school and bring me a cookie."

Under the proper conditions, yes.  That's the gist of it.  Why is this even an issue?

 

What irritates me so much about this is that you're refusing point-blank to give it any serious consideration, for no other reason than the fact that it's unprecedented.  This frustrates me immeasurably because it violates what I expect from someone so familiar with Objectivism.

Now, my expectations were perhaps not entirely realistic, and I'll concede that; I apologize for the implicit application of a standard you may well be incapable of reaching, for all I know.

 

And if you're already convinced that I'm not being realistic then let's agree to disagree.

 

Live long and prosper.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Since mind reading is not possible, it is not possible to decide whether an individual is being irrational or dishonest.

Yes, it is.  It actually is possible to figure out what any individual has, is or will think or do, given the proper information and methodology.

If it were not then civilization would not be conceivable, let alone achievable.

 

For purposes of designing a political system, all one has to do is assume the possibility of dishonesty in all individuals and design accordingly.

 

Do you grasp how this statement relates to thenelli's position?  The irony would be hilarious, were it not so tragic.

[howardofski]

In other words.....  

Now I'm verbally confused!

Making up a long paragraph of nonsense that I didn't say is probably why you are confused.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Assume as a heuristic that everybody lies and you'll be safe.

 

Now I'm verbally confused!

The entire argument is predicated on the liar's paradox! 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Making up a long paragraph of nonsense that I didn't say is probably why you are confused.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Eiuol]

Making up a long paragraph of nonsense that I didn't say is probably why you are confused.

There's a reason there's a question mark. That sentence was a question about if I understood. The other sentences were using premises you presented, not paraphrasing. If it's nonsense, that's exactly why your argument/position made no sense! I never claimed you said or meant to imply what I wrote, but the implication and logic of what you said is still there.

 

The confusion line was a joke, another way of saying "nope, you're wrong".

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Since I began this thread, I've learned that Ayn Rand already named the infernal thing.

 

Do not confuse “man worship” with the many attempts, not to emancipate morality from religion and bring it into the realm of reason, but to substitute a secular meaning for the worst, the most profoundly irrational elements of religion. . . These neomystics are not man-worshipers; they are merely the secularizers of as profound a hatred for man as that of their avowedly mystic predecessors.

A cruder variant of the same hatred is represented by those concrete-bound, “statistical” mentalities who—unable to grasp the meaning of man’s volition—declare that man cannot be an object of worship, since they have never encountered any specimens of humanity who deserved it.

 

The man-worshipers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man’s highest potential and strive to actualize it. . . .

-Ayn Rand

 

Found it in the Lexicon under "Man worship".

[New Buddha]

Humans are inherently irrational - and this is neither good nor bad, it just is.  We don't say that earthworms, eagles, dogs, cows, etc. are irrational.  We only say this about humans.

 

If one accepts some form of evolutionary psychology, is it conceivable that irrationality can in fact be beneficial to an individual?  I'm not sure what a "completely rational" human society would look like, but I'm pretty certain I'd not like to live in it.

[Dormin111]

Humans are inherently irrational - and this is neither good nor bad, it just is.  We don't say that earthworms, eagles, dogs, cows, etc. are irrational.  We only say this about humans.

 

If one accepts some form of evolutionary psychology, is it conceivable that irrationality can in fact be beneficial to an individual?  I'm not sure what a "completely rational" human society would look like, but I'm pretty certain I'd not like to live in it.

 

What does it mean to say "human are inherently irrational"? Are a majority of all decisions made by all individuals irrational? If that were the case, we would all be dead. Does it mean that human beings aren't always 100% rational? If so, then that's bad terminology.

[New Buddha]

What does it mean to say "human are inherently irrational"? Are a majority of all decisions made by all individuals irrational? If that were the case, we would all be dead. Does it mean that human beings aren't always 100% rational? If so, then that's bad terminology.

You make a valid point, Dorm.  I could have worded it better.

 

My main point (which you did not respond to, by the way....) is why is irrationality even possible in the first place?  Why did nature allow it to come to be that humans can be irrational?  And if irrationality is so bad, why didn't evolution weed it out?  Until this is answered, people will treat irrationality as an "original sin".

[Harrison Danneskjold]

My main point (which you did not respond to, by the way....) is why is irrationality even possible in the first place?

All forms of irrationality stem from the premise that ideas don't matter; that the human mind is something outside of causality.  Look at Pascal's Wager for a concrete example of that premise.

This can be seen both in the Libertarian concept of volition (thinking and acting causelessly) and in the behaviorist reaction to it (attributing all thoughts and actions to external causes).

 

The idea that consciousness is outside of causality has been passed down hereditarily over countless generations, through the things that parents teach their children.  It is derivative of the Primacy of Consciousness and this ancestral concept can be traced to the beginning of recorded history.

 

Why did nature allow it to come to be that humans can be irrational?

The Primacy of Consciousness requires one to turn a blind eye to one's own mind.  It essentially requires, not one or two failures to introspect, but a chronic state of such failures.  In the context of our prehistoric ancestors, such a failure would be completely understandable (perhaps even logical); survival was their first priority.

In any case our ancestors' earliest records clearly shows that they could not discern between "in here" and "out there".

 

And if irrationality is so bad, why didn't evolution weed it out?

It does.  That's why we give them Darwin Awards.

 

If one accepts some form of evolutionary psychology, is it conceivable that irrationality can in fact be beneficial to an individual?  I'm not sure what a "completely rational" human society would look like, but I'm pretty certain I'd not like to live in it.

 

And the implicit premise in your own statement, right here, is that ideas don't matter.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Harrison Danneskjold

[New Buddha]

@Harrison

"All forms of irrationality stem from the premise that ideas don't matter"

 

Your missing my point, and your reply is rather simplistic.  My question - and it is to hopefully spark some insightful responses and not just cliché answers - is what make irrationality possible in the first place?  What neurological component allows humans to be uniquely irrational?  Why did it develop?  Evolution does NOT weed it out, since we all inherit the capacity to be irrational.  And why do we not consider the behavior of other animals as irrational?  Is irrationality a necessary offshoot of volition?  Is volition only made possible BY the capacity to be irrational?

 

If I were the proverbial Man-from-Mars and I landed on Earth, the first thing that I would notice is that the dominate, intelligent species on the planet has the capacity for irrationally.  I wouldn't just cast the observation aside and say that "irrationality stems from the premise that ideas don't matter".

[Harrison Danneskjold]

What neurological component allows humans to be uniquely irrational?

The same neurological component that allows for innovation.  Our capacity to think outside the box is also our capacity to think outside of reality.  I'm not saying that doesn't matter. 

I am saying the different ways it can be used are separable, it can be used for good instead of evil and that the latter is not and can not be of value.

[dream_weaver]

New Buddha, your question is reversed. The questions that serves as a better basis here are; "What is it that make rationality possible in the first place?" Why did rationality develop? What neurological component allows human being to be uniquely rational? Why do we consider the behavior of other animals to be 'instinctual?' Is rationality an offshoot of volition? Is volition only made understood by the discovery discovered by the recognition that that error is possible?

 

Edited: previous, updated.

Edited April 9, 2014 by dream_weaver

[tadmjones]

While the discussion is an interesting topic, why questions imply intent, yes? "Why did evolution.." And similar phrases muddy the waters , at least for me it becomes like an ear worm that must be silenced or forgotten before I can even get to the rest of an idea.

[New Buddha]

@dream_weaver

 

"What is it that make rationality possible in the first place?"

 

Dogs and cat's exhibit rational behavior.  We see them learn from their mistakes and modify their behavior accordingly.  This is true for a great many animals. Most, if not all, mammals must learn how to live by interacting with others of their kind.  If you drop a young wolf into the forest, he will die without guidance.

 

We don't really begin to see what we would identify as irrational behavior until we reach the primates.  The greater the intellect, the greater the capacity for irrational behavior.  Correlation many not equal causation, but if I were the Man-from-Mars, I'd sure take note.

[dream_weaver]

Man, as the rational animal, versus the instinctual actions of the rest of the animal kingdom? Correlation of the activities observed in parts of the animal kingdom as quasi rational can blur the distinction to be had. Are you pining your hopes on the discovery of the Rosetta stone of dolphinese? Many birds remain in their nest, reliant on the parent to bring them food until they mature to the point where they can 'learn' how to fly. I would like to think that the "Man-from-Mars" is capable of discriminating the crucial differences that made it possible to be taking notes.

[aleph_1]

Leaders, in order to place themselves in positions where they reap enormous benefits, weave myths. These narratives take many forms, but the purpose is the same--to make the masses compliant while these leaders exercise power. "Power" here is taken in the social sense: The ability to get other people to do what they would not do otherwise. Since myth is essential in maintaining these positions, it is equally essential that the general population not learn to distinguish between myth and reality. Perhaps this is why "reduction" is not standard procedure.

 

Are you a compassionate conservative? What the H*ll does that mean? Do you have Hope and want Change? What?! These are just embarrassing in retrospect, but they hornswoggled a lot of people. Was Greenspan really indispensable through the 1990's? Was Timothy Geithner really the only man to run the Treasury Dept. in 2009? We weave myths about people to deflect opposition. Was an investment bank bailout really necessary in 2008 in order to prevent the collapse of the American economy?

 

Has myth-making had an evolutionary advantage? Myths have permitted people to kill their neighbors and take their land without conscience. The Bible contains the story of Jericho, and whether this was a myth or somehow partially true, the story goes that the people were instructed, by God, to kill every man, woman, child and beast in the city. Muhammad instructed his followers to kill those who would not be converted. The 20th century saw many atheist leaders conduct their followers into mass murders. When your neighbors are dead, you certainly have the evolutionary advantage.

 

Irrationality is not inevitable, but the rational are mostly peaceful. The irrational can only maintain themselves through force. Force can make an evolutionary advantage, reaping the surplus capacity of the rational and productive. The irrational tend to overreach and this leads to their downfall, and so the cycle begins again.

[New Buddha]

@dream

"Man, as the rational animal, versus the instinctual actions of the rest of the animal kingdom?"

 

I differ with you on what can be termed "instinctual actions".  I would say that there are in fact very few behaviors that can be called instinctual in the animal kingdom among animals of any real complexity.  The following is taken from Wiki's Instinct page and is more in line with what I mean when differentiating "instinct" from "learning and/or rational" behavior:

 

"The role of instincts in determining the behavior of animals varies from species to species. The more complex the neural system of an animal, the greater is the role of the cerebral cortex and social learning, and instincts play a lesser role. A comparison between a crocodile and an elephant illustrates how mammals for example are heavily dependent on social learning. Lionesses and chimpanzees raised in zoos away from their birth mothers most often reject their own offspring because they have not been taught the skills of mothering. Such is not the case with simpler species such as reptiles."

 

I'm arguing that an animal's learning of complex behavior is an exhibition of rational behavior, and certainly not instinctual.  But, please keep in mind, that my definition of "rational" is following a contextually narrow one in order to distinguish it from "irrational" behavior, relative to this post.  And I still stand by my position that greater cognitive complexity makes irrationality possible, and that less cognitively complex organisms do not exhibit irrational behavior.

[dream_weaver]

Irrationality is not inevitable, but the rational are mostly peaceful. The irrational can only maintain themselves through force. Force can make an evolutionary advantage, reaping the surplus capacity of the rational and productive. The irrational tend to overreach and this leads to their downfall, and so the cycle begins again.

This last line is the theme of communism almost to a tee.

[dream_weaver]

 New Buddha,

 

Just because animals exhibit behaviors that a similar in nature to what we identify as rational behaviors, does this alone make the rational, or is it an anthropomorphic projection derived from human activities applied to animals.

 

What an entity is, determines how the entity acts.

 

What needs to be 'unpacked' here, is the concept of "rational." By 'unpacked', the question "What in reality gives rise to the concept?" has to be addressed.

If a starting point to frame this task uses the Merriam Webster dictionary definition 1.) of based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings
2.) having the ability to reason or think about things clearly.

 

The irony in this arises right off the bat. Take something like food. Clearly both man and the rest of life requires the intake of a form of energy to persist.

Animals and plants differ in how this energy is acquired. Man cannot survive for long emulating either. Animals either hunt or forage. Plants produce roots and foliage. Man had to discover the connection between seeds and plants, the domestication of animals for meat. Animals have had the opportunity to observe man performing agricultural activities going back before Aristotle's time. Yet it is the rejection of an infant chimp by its mother "because it was raised in captivity and never learned from its mother" - a man "reasoned" reason (no opportunity for error here, is there?) that this conclusion is teetering upon.

 

This recurring theme does little to address why beings with the potential to be rational have so many that are adamant to embracing that potential.

[aleph_1]

Dream Weaver said:

 

This last line is the theme of communism almost to a tee.

 

The irony is, my description applies to communists too. Communism, being based on whim worship, is force fused with a strain of irrationality. Consciousness is identification.

 

The Law of Surplus Capacity (that creatures must be capable of producing more than they need for survival) enters this topic in that it makes irrationality possible. People (and all animals) may be very destructive as long as they produce as much as they need. If a group of people are productive, then someone may design to take that surplus. Is it rational to design to take the surplus of others? You may treat others as productive cattle as long as you do not kill the herd. However rational, this is evil.

[New Buddha]

@dream,

 

I can see we are pretty much talking right past each, but I'll give it one more shot.  If something comes of it, fine. If not, well, the Seattle Mariners are set to start soon...

 

FL Wright said of Louis Sullivan something along the line that "Sullivan always searched for the rules of Nature, while I (Wright) searched for the exceptions".

 

My use of the Man-from-Mars was meant to say that if someone were to look at all the living animals on this planet with a fresh set of eyes, what would be immediately apparent is that the most intelligent and complex animal is also the one that repeatedly behaves in appallingly irrational ways.

 

To me this "exception" catches my attention, and it is a worth while endeavor to try and understand how this came to be.  I find speculation on it to be intellectually stimulating.  If you don't well, we can both stop the back and forth.

[dream_weaver]

I saw communism most clearly. This broadens the scope to include any unchecked government agency. Even when the checks have been made as explicit as humanly possible at the time, the myths are used to circumvent and even undermine the controls, even to the detriment of the greatest achievement of self-governance ever contrived.

 

 

 

 However rational, this is evil.

Therein lies the rub. Morality requires rationality to be discovered. If a proper application of reason to the problem of survival is the good, an improper application of reason is its converse. Yet an improper application of reason is a contradiction in terms.

Edited April 10, 2014 by dream_weaver