Changing Technique

[Tusok]

Rational: The process of thought, grounded in understanding the nature of human needs, to recognize ways of satisfying our needs most beneficial to the state of our existence.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

Ok, now we're off to a quick start. Let me ask you about the first phrase, because it appears your definition of rational calls upon "the" process of thought.

I'm willing to wager a large sum of real money that the process you use for thinking differs from mine. If you're married, I'm also willing to bet that there have been many times your process differed from your mate - in unexpected ways. Heck, I was quite surprised the other day by my wife, and we've been married a long time.

My point is that there probably isn't any single process of thought.

Tusok

[wleg]

Tusok,
You say: “My point is that there probably isn't any single process of thought”.

I say: I agree, we can think rationally, irrationally, or somewhere in between. But, if everyone thought perfectly rational, the process itself would be the same process. Rational thinking is the process of conforming our thinking to the nature of the existence of the things and conditions we are thinking about by recognizing their attributes. If thinking is mental behavior and the purpose of all behavior is to satisfy our needs, understanding the nature of our needs can result in our thinking being more rational.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[Tusok]

Tusok,
You say: “My point is that there probably isn't any single process of thought”.

I say: I agree, we can think rationally, irrationally, or somewhere in between. But, if everyone thought perfectly rational, the process itself would be the same process.

Ok, so now you're saying that there is a SINGLE process of RATIONAL thought. Let's go with that. What is "rational" thinking?

Rational thinking is the process of conforming our thinking to the nature of the existence of the things and conditions we are thinking about by recognizing their attributes.

So, still comparing myself to my wife, you're saying that her rational thinking is the same as mine? I'm sure you're not going to suggest that her thinking COULDN'T be rational; and at the same time I won't be put off if you suggest that mine isn't. However, there's a good chance we could both fool you into thinking we were both rational. Yet, given the exact same situation, even one in which we evaluate attributes equally, there's a good chance we come to divergent conclusions. Therefore there can't be a single process. Can there?

T

[wleg]

Tusok,

Rational thinking is a systematic process, therefore it has to be a single process. What is different is the infinite things and conditions we can think systematically about. Two people can think systematically/rationally about different things because the ways we satisfy our needs are different, but the systematic or rational process is a single process. We are just beginning to understand the process of rational thinking and the understanding/knowledge is not complete and when it is complete it will be easier to understand. The difference in the way two people think is that each is attempting to satisfy their need in a different way and each may or may not be thinking in a systematic rational way. There is more to understanding the process of rational thinking than just understanding systematic; the different ways we choose to satisfy our needs determines if our thinking is rational or not.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[Arising_uk]

You enjoy chatting to yourself?

Kierkegaard was more honest.

[Impenitent]

You enjoy chatting to yourself?

Kierkegaard was more honest.

not to mention Berkeley

-Imp

[Tusok]

Rational thinking is a systematic process, therefore it has to be a single process. What is different is the infinite things and conditions we can think systematically about. Two people can think systematically/rationally about different things because the ways we satisfy our needs are different, but the systematic or rational process is a single process. We are just beginning to understand the process of rational thinking and the understanding/knowledge is not complete and when it is complete it will be easier to understand. The difference in the way two people think is that each is attempting to satisfy their need in a different way and each may or may not be thinking in a systematic rational way. There is more to understanding the process of rational thinking than just understanding systematic; the different ways we choose to satisfy our needs determines if our thinking is rational or not.

Dear Wayne,

I wholeheartedly disagree. And here's a whole thread of people, including some economists who have just published a paper on this, who feel the same way.

In short, there is a rational conundrum that exists in many places. If you value A over B, and B over C, you should therefore always value A over C. But it's not true. You may be able to think of something that you yourself value that violates the rule of transitivity.

Personally, it's going to be a lot easier on us as philosophers if we simply allow for "thinking" to occur, without trying to untangle the mess that lies between our ears. Isn't it much easier to assume that inputs go in, and some kind of decision is made?

Tusok

PS - I haven't read the last two links, but I recommend parsing the level 5 comments in the slashdot thread. Some are very insightful and relevant to this discussion.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/01 ... e-rational
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independe ... ternatives
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 30935.full