idiom

Not my assertion.

If everything is explained by science then everything that happens is predictable and there is no room for human input. We just think we're having input. Therfore under the same assertion I can't believe in a natural metaphysics, I can only be under the illusion that I am believing in it.

Most of the chemicals in the brain stuff is repeated in the references Vorkosigan offered. Chemicals are predictable. Therefore you are neither rational or irrational. You are simple part of a giant equation and we seem to be reading reason into that chain of events.

Kachana

That position seems rather unrelated to the topic (whether human's behaviours and cognitions conform to various logical operations is unrelated to whether they have metaphysical free-will; we can programme a computer to act rationally even though it has no free will). However, I don't think the position you state is neccessarily off the mark, it may well be that we are, for want of a better word, automatons, and that our feeling of being able to make choices is merely a trick, an illusion. Evolutionary psychologists like Steven Pinker realise this and have said that our conscious may just be an illusion to explain our behaviour to us. When we look at patients with a split brain we can see how their thoughts often operate to make sense of their behaviours, they end up "lying" to themselves without realising it to explain separate behaviours mediated by separate hemishpheres of the brain; the brain is certainly capable of such delusion. Sometimes actions occur without our willing them at all, the book Illusion of Conscious Will by psychologist Daniel M. Wegner lays out the case for why our will may just be an illusion.

However, even assuming that is the case, it does not preculde questions about how often and in what circumstances we act logically, or illogically (e.g. on our emotions). It is clear that our emotions often conflict with what a rational appraisal of reality would conclude, even though they themselves often serve a useful function (e.g. self-esteem/ happiness).

But even if we accept that, why does that make us neither irrational or rational? Accepting that we are part of some giant equation, it still makes sense to say that the part of the equation we term human is perfectly capable of taking input and transforming it according to logical principles. That is a separate question to our determinism. It is also reasonale to say that often, given some input, the transformations do not accord with logical principles, and the output given is false even though we are all part of one great physical equation. You seem to be confusing separate hierarchical levels, whilst we may only differ from clockwork quantitatively rather than qualitatively, it is still possible for something totally deterministic like clockwork to act ratioanlly or irationally, we can programme a calculator to give rational or irrational answers without compromising its being just part of a big equation.

Rusting Car Bumper

As an aside, I'd warn you to examine the explicit and implicit definitions of "rational" and what it means to be said that one is "behaving rationally" when studying objectivism. This is one of its achilles heels and no I don't want to talk about here with flaming objectivists. Web searches will find you criticisms of objectivism with this included.

About the topic....

What does it mean to be "inherently rational"? Does it mean that every decision is a rational one or does it merely mean that humans posses a capability to reason?

Your question, "humans may be capable of using reason, but are they inherently rational" is confusing. If a thing is "capable of using X" when does that make it "inherently X-ish"?

Clearly, humans reason by birth without being taught. Imagine a human who lives in a place with mountians to the east and a sea to the west. The human sees the sun rise over the mountains every day and then the human begins to predict its rising everyday over the mountains as opposed to expecting it to rise over the sea. The human has used deductive reasoning in its most natural sense.

DC

Gurdur

These are some excellent posts here, but some nevertheless beg the question.

Using split-brain patients to prove psychological determinism won't work; there, one independent hemisphere seeks to explain the other, not a connected brain seeking to explain itself; there's a great difference.

Using the argument that our conception of free-will is only an illusion to explain away automatisms simply doesn't address the point:

Why the hell should there be a need to explain anything ?

The reason why we experience need to explain unconscious actions and automatisms is because we have evolved a limited-free-will overseer-complex; this is where you get into self-rewarding, self-controlling etc. --- the "black box" of self-consciousness.

Just because free-will is limited is no grounds for legitimately asserting that it doesn't exist.

After all, there are genuine automatons among humans - massive frontal-lobe injury tends to produce suchlike. And yet there are important differences between such automatons and healthy adult humans.

99Percent

Animals, in fact every single species including humans derives their tools of survival through their genes of course. For examples cats are natural predators. Their instinct and methods for hunting is inbred they don't need to learn them. However humans inherit through their genes a larger brain that allows them to gain knowledge outside of the information transmited genetically. In fact human beings have evolved to such a degree that we cannot depend exclusively on the pure instincts of survival transmitted genetically. We must use the basic tool that is inherently essential in human beings and that is also transmitted genetivally - our capacity to reason. Humans can also be predators if they choose to become them or if necessity arises. But the way to hunt is not in born. We must learn how to hunt from our parents or the group we live with, and in order to learn we must use our human ability - reason.

Gurdur

This contradicts your earlier statement:
So your earlier statement was false ?

Wrong as stated. Reasoning simply helps many more humans to survive - back 150, 000 years ago, the use of reason was hardly a major feature.

And you're still ignoring the point of just what you mean by reason - problem-solving, learning and teaching is not limited to humans.

Jagged

Almost but not quite. It is true that Reason vs. Emotion = a false dichotomy. However emotions are not subject to free will (!). Any psychologist worth her/his salt can back me up here. We do not choose to feel "appropriate" emotions, we choose to react to our natural emotions appropriately. Reason is what allows us to do this. And, imo, the degree to which any human chooses to temper her/his emotional reactions using reason is the characteristic which can seperate humans from other animals.

I may feel a tremendous urge to eat chocolate morning noon and night, however I realize this is not conducive to good health, so I restrain myself. My cat is not capable of this sort of self-control regarding the yummy kitty treats that always make her throw up. She's quite smart and I suspect that after the fact she realizes the cause of her distress. However she has not been able to use this information to overcome her desire for Pounce any time they are available (or, any time she sees an opportunity to steal them from her roommate). With a great amount of effort I may be able to train her not to eat them (I doubt it, but anyway...), but then the restraint would originate with me and not her. One final example, young children are not capable of this sort of control either--they have to learn it as they develop into adults. And one child may, for whatever reason, grow into an adult with much greater self-control than the next.

So my proposition is that it is not so much reason per se which is inherent to humans (I would say many creatures are capable of reason) as applied reason (which i term self-control) which is the unique capability of the human animal. And each human individual will demonstrate this ability to a varying degree.

If we want to go even further into the free will thing, I think that the point at which self-control is employed by a human being is the point at which her/his behavior can no longer be considered automatic (as in "automaton") or able to be predicted thru empirical science.

Which brings us to the mystery of self-awareness...

idiom

Ha.

Self Control is supposed to be a direct evidence of the Holy Spirit.

So far our science says this point does not in fact exist.

To stay with the topic, in our little illusionry disscussion I vot we are inherently rational. Note also that a lot of biologists seem to think of our gestation period as being unusual in that it it continues outside the body for at least a year. That is we are completly unable to do anything for ourselvesfor some time, yet we appear to be capable of reason before this. Maybe it is emotions that are learnt?

Does anybody have much data on the number and level of emotions that a baby experiences?

Jagged

Are you suggesting that my use of this term is on the level with a laughable religious doctrine? In fact the term is not exclusively religious or even basically so.(1) Further, I employed this term to describe a construct of my own making in want of an existing expression. I think I made this fairly clear.
Which point? And which science? Are you asserting that science is able to predict even acts of self-control, or that humans do not have free will, or both? And do you find the evidence in hard science, philosophy, or elsewhere? Which evidence do you refer to, or do you suggest that we assume the negative until we prove otherwise? Also, the snipped phrase which you quoted was actually my theory, not my assertion. Please read more carefully. Also, please include more context when you quote me.

I'm sorry, I think I've just been snubbed. Do you question my personal integrity in reporting that psychology has established that emotions are NOT learned behavior? Or is it the integrity of the discipline of psychology itself which you discount out-of-hand? Its clear you see little purpose in correct spelling at any rate…

Demosthenes

I apologize for not replying early enough, I only have a limited time right now. I'll reply as soon as I have more time to write up my post.

P.S

All of the posts are fascinating, I'm learning a lot more than I expected!