Q. About Rationality and Nature

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also, as a side, it is kind of remarkable to read what Kant argues as his conception of God on the basis of pure logic and what modern cosmology has dubbed the Singularity.

Not to derail your thread, but Kant is also the guy who came up with what is basically our current theory of stellar formation from nebulae. He also, having read the hypothesis that the Milky Way was a spinning agglomeration of stars, first conceived of the idea of multiple galaxies in our Universe, which he referred to with the (to me) haunting phrase "island universes".

Here's a blogpost about his astronomical contributions: http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/kant/

[Whateverist]

It isn't the existence of whatever it is that gives rise to our sense data which depends on pure reason, just us.

Go on... I think I agree but can you spell it out a little more?

Also, as a side, it is kind of remarkable to read what Kant argues as his conception of God on the basis of pure logic and what modern cosmology has dubbed the Singularity.

That is interesting but I'm afraid I don't know what else is to be said about the other matter. I take it on faith that our sense data and cognition have arisen biologically to successfully cope with something real of which we are apart. Anything paradoxical concerning reality is just our cognition revealing again that it hasn't evolved to ponder the depths of our navels or answer riddles.

[Mudhammam]

Go on... I think I agree but can you spell it out a little more?

Also, as a side, it is kind of remarkable to read what Kant argues as his conception of God on the basis of pure logic and what modern cosmology has dubbed the Singularity.

That is interesting but I'm afraid I don't know what else is to be said about the other matter. I take it on faith that our sense data and cognition have arisen biologically to successfully cope with something real of which we are apart. Anything paradoxical concerning reality is just our cognition revealing again that it hasn't evolved to ponder the depths of our navels or answer riddles.

Would that be Faith with a capital F, whateverist?

If rational principles are able to successfully cope with something real, does it stand to reason that those rational principles precede Space and Time, and represent to us the closest to this real thing that we can fathom? Or are Space and Time merely representations which are themselves not actual descriptions of existence as it truly is apart from an experience?

[Whateverist]

I'm afraid we are just in no position to know. So yes, it is entirely a leap of faith on my part. (Without a net!)

[Mudhammam]

Word.

[XK9_Knight]

What an exciting question! I recommended Aristotle to you not long ago, and although I saw you haven’t read Plato, I’m wondering whether you’re acquainted with him? I’m sure you would like Plato, let me try and summarize him for you.

Plato believed that truth could only be attained through logic alone, and that our senses could not provide us with any valuable knowledge of the external world. He postulated that true form (“being” or “essence”) existed in an abstract realm, along with numbers and geometric objects. “The Allegory of the Cave” comes form Plato, it essentially means that we can never truly know the nature of a thing (or subject) unless we are freed from bodily senses.

Aristotle didn’t agree with Plato entirely. He refined Plato’s philosophy to included empirical deduction and his book on Metaphysics is essentially the primmer to all scientific quarry.

In short, yes, the universe is rational. As Aristotle would have explained, man is a “rational soul,” and our end goal is the attainment of knowledge. Without getting into a long discussion on God in general, Aristotle saw that rationality was derived from God’s being. Admittedly, this is unpopular on this sort of forum, but personally I think it deserves more attention that what it’s given (the source of rationality that is).

... Fun stuff. ^_^

[The Grand Nudger]

I take it on faith that our sense data and cognition have arisen biologically to successfully cope with something real of which we are apart.

I take it on evidence that our sense data and cognition have only developed biologically to deal with the inputs they receive, whether real or simply perceived. Deer, for example, are blind by human standards. Yet they are notoriously skittish of motion (which is pretty much all we think they can see). They have incredibly developed senses of smell and hearing, on the other hand - but how they might know that a certain sound or smell is danger would always fall to post hoc, ergo propter hoc. They react to inputs which could not properly be considered danger, the "danger" is not real, it is perceived, and largely in error (hence skittishness). Nevertheless, their strategy, sense data, and cognition works, apparently- as they are still here. Whats important, clearly, is not whether our sense data and cognition can cope with something real, but whether or not it can handle inputs of any kind; the effect of that "coping" when juxtaposed against what -is- real (as there -is- danger in the world for deer).

The world that we perceive ourselves to be a part of needn't be "real" it just needs to be computationally actionable. "Real" to us. If we -were- "brains in a vat", it wouldn't matter - as our world is simply the operating environment that our equipment affords us regardless. If rational principles work in that environment, it would be rough to try and extend them beyond it (as sho-nuff suggested), and they needn't be thusly extended - though, agreed, we just don't seem to be in a position to know that.

[Confused Ape]

Do you think the whole of nature, as in the primeval substance in which it began to exist, can be deemed either rational, irrational, or arational?

Just throwing in a quote from Carl Sagan here -

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/...ymous/3209

“The Universe is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be. Our contemplations of the cosmos stir us. There’s a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation as if a distant memory of falling from a great height. We know we are approaching the grandest of mysteries. The cosmos is within us. We are made of star stuff. We’ve begun at last to wonder about our origins, star stuff contemplating the stars. Organized collections of ten billion billion billion atoms contemplating the evolution of matter, tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on planet Earth and perhaps throughout the cosmos. Our obligation to survive and flourish is owed not just to ourselves but also to that cosmos, ancient and vast from which we sprung.” - Carl Sagan (beginning of the Cosmos series)

Explanation of arational.

http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blo...e=activity

Arational behavior does not involve reasoning; neither rational nor irrational apply. Autonomic processes are neither irrational nor rational. Behavior over which one has (at least by default) no conscious veto power whatsoever, instinctively blinking when an object comes too close to one's eyes, for example, ducking when one hears a loud explosion, or other stress responses to perceived danger are arational.

My thoughts on the question -

1: The human part of the universe/nature is all three.
2: Stop there because anything else is trying to view the entire universe in human terms.

[Whateverist]

I take it on faith that our sense data and cognition have arisen biologically to successfully cope with something real of which we are apart.

The world that we perceive ourselves to be a part of needn't be "real" it just needs to be computationally actionable. "Real" to us. If we -were- "brains in a vat", it wouldn't matter - as our world is simply the operating environment that our equipment affords us regardless. If rational principles work in that environment, it would be rough to try and extend them beyond it (as sho-nuff suggested), and they needn't be thusly extended - though, agreed, we just don't seem to be in a position to know that.

But that's where my leap of faith comes in. Stand aside, I'm a leapin'.

[bennyboy]

+1 rep to you, Pickup, if you move this thread to the philosophy section where it so desperately belongs!