To be rational, be irrational

[rousseau]

Logic:

1) People need to protect themselves to survive and reproduce
2) People evolved to be good at protecting themselves, so they can survive and reproduce
3) Instinct, then, is inclined to promote survival and reproduction, and not 'illogical' behavior that doesn't maximize those two things
4) So actualization, true morality, and the ability to be rational (choose our behaviour freely, not because it's logical) comes from our ability to shirk and overcome this dynamic

And that is my latest thread in Other Philosophical Discussions.

 

[Valjean]

Rationality = free choice?

 

[PyramidHead]

Logic:

1) People need to protect themselves to survive and reproduce
2) People evolved to be good at protecting themselves, so they can survive and reproduce
3) Instinct, then, is inclined to promote survival and reproduction, and not 'illogical' behavior that doesn't maximize those two things
4) So actualization, true morality, and the ability to be rational (choose our behaviour freely, not because it's logical) comes from our ability to shirk and overcome this dynamic

And that is my latest thread in Other Philosophical Discussions.

I agree with all of the above, but I don't get your thread title. Rationality can be a general catch-all term for not doing absurd things, or it could be specific to a certain context. I don't think our genes have a 'rationale' for what they compel us to do; that's something we impose from the top down to help us understand things better (genes that behave as if they want us to survive and reproduce). If you want to be moral, self-actualize, or whatever other goal you might have apart from propagating your genes, the rational thing to do is just whatever best serves your goal, and by comparison, engaging in activity driven by instinct may turn out to be irrational.

 

[rousseau]

Logic:

1) People need to protect themselves to survive and reproduce
2) People evolved to be good at protecting themselves, so they can survive and reproduce
3) Instinct, then, is inclined to promote survival and reproduction, and not 'illogical' behavior that doesn't maximize those two things
4) So actualization, true morality, and the ability to be rational (choose our behaviour freely, not because it's logical) comes from our ability to shirk and overcome this dynamic

And that is my latest thread in Other Philosophical Discussions.

I agree with all of the above, but I don't get your thread title. Rationality can be a general catch-all term for not doing absurd things, or it could be specific to a certain context. I don't think our genes have a 'rationale' for what they compel us to do; that's something we impose from the top down to help us understand things better (genes that behave as if they want us to survive and reproduce). If you want to be moral, self-actualize, or whatever other goal you might have apart from propagating your genes, the rational thing to do is just whatever best serves your goal, and by comparison, engaging in activity driven by instinct may turn out to be irrational.

It's just a play on words, and I agree with you.

I think you could get into fine detail about how the brain actually works here, but the general point is that 'by always doing what is maximally logical for my own self interest, I'm not actually using my reason and choosing freely, I'm just following well defined paths of logic that I already understand'.

The person who truly resorts to their reason stops, analyzes a situation, and realizes that there are a much larger number of paths to take than the one that's immediately obvious, the one that usually wastes the least amount of energy.

In a certain sense the person resorting to their reason is really just using more complicated logic to choose their behavior based on their desires, but I think the concept is still a useful one. I believe many people go through their entire lives without really attempting to break their innate thought patterns, and who have little ability to really shift course.

 

[fromderinside]

First one needs to get past placeholders like instinct. WTF is instinct. ...and don't take me back to that island off Germany where von Holst was assigned to control Liebnitz who didn't have a doctorate. Talk about German instinct.

Here's one operational definition of instinct according to one of my early profs. An instinct is a physical reaction of an African mouth breeder, the Talapia (now on american menus) when it recognizes a sgnifnifcant cue such as the splash of a meal worm associated with the Talapia nose poking a lever. It is universal that the Talapia upon making the association dives to the bottom of the tank, its chromaphores darken, then returns to madly and repeatedly strike the test tube. The instinct is the behavior of diving darkening then returning with the certainty that the test tube - the tube has a red bead inside to make it more obvious that it is a thing for the fish - is the source of reward.

Now that was the state of Comparative Behavioral Science in 1965 . Ethologists in England, Germany and Australia were no better.

 

[fast]

Logic:

1) People need to protect themselves to survive and reproduce
2) People evolved to be good at protecting themselves, so they can survive and reproduce
3) Instinct, then, is inclined to promote survival and reproduction, and not 'illogical' behavior that doesn't maximize those two things
4) So actualization, true morality, and the ability to be rational (choose our behaviour freely, not because it's logical) comes from our ability to shirk and overcome this dynamic

And that is my latest thread in Other Philosophical Discussions.

People evolved and became good at protecting themselves. You snuck in something not true the way you worded it.

 

[fromderinside]

Pardon me, that's Lorenz.

 

[Bronzeage]

Logic:

1) People need to protect themselves to survive and reproduce
2) People evolved to be good at protecting themselves, so they can survive and reproduce
3) Instinct, then, is inclined to promote survival and reproduction, and not 'illogical' behavior that doesn't maximize those two things
4) So actualization, true morality, and the ability to be rational (choose our behaviour freely, not because it's logical) comes from our ability to shirk and overcome this dynamic

And that is my latest thread in Other Philosophical Discussions.

I'm not sure what any of this means. Human behavior is so complex and dependent upon conscious choice, it's difficult to recognize our instincts. We don't build a nest, having never seen one before, and we don't all gather on some beach during a full moon, in order to mate.

Our basic survival instinct will make us run out of a burning building, but then we run back in because a child was left behind. Our morality is a learned behavior, which makes life easier. This sounds strange on first hearing, but any moral stricture, however anachronistic or arbitrary, is a better life than starving to death, or dying of exposure, all alone in the wild.

Morality insures survival of the group, although it doesn't always insure survival of the individual. This sucks for the individual in question, but not being a member of a group guarantees death of the individual. Anyone who thinks differently is not going to be around long enough to pass on this belief, or their genes.

 

[untermensche]

Logic:

1) People need to protect themselves to survive and reproduce

If there are threats to their life they need to protect themselves. Most people are not under any threat.

2) People evolved to be good at protecting themselves, so they can survive and reproduce

People do not evolve to be good at anything.

If by chance one is good at something that has a survival advantage then one has a greater chance to survive.

But humans are very bad at protecting themselves.

They evolved in groups and developed weapons and used planning not claws to try to counter their extreme vulnerabilities.

3) Instinct, then, is inclined to promote survival and reproduction, and not 'illogical' behavior that doesn't maximize those two things

This is true but does not follow from what is before it.

But in the case of humans survival has become so easy illogical behaviors thrive just fine.

4) So actualization, true morality, and the ability to be rational (choose our behaviour freely, not because it's logical) comes from our ability to shirk and overcome this dynamic

And that is my latest thread in Other Philosophical Discussions.

These things come from what?

The ability of relatively easy survival?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think we tend to overestimate the role of our rational mind in what we actually do. It's a bit like the chattering class forgetting they only represent themselves. The rational mind is definitely a major feature of the human mind but it seems to me that most of what we do goes in fact unexamined by our rational mind. It's also unclear why we use rationality. Rationality is expensive both in terms of time and energy, which probably explains why we don't do more of it, and its benefits are difficult to assess in advance. But rationality can provide an advantage so somehow our mind probably does a cost analysis to decide when to switch to rational mode. So notice that the switching cannot be decided rationally. Yet, I would make the distinction between unconscious and instinctive. A lot of what we end up doing is controlled unconsciously but it would be misleading to say that it's all done on instinct. A lot of what we do is unconscious because we've internalised the processes. And we can only internalise processes that we have been able first to master, which seems to require some degree of conscious control. Just think about walking. I also think there are processes in our mind that are fundamentally rational although unconscious. Broadly, these are calculations our mind does without bothering to go through consciousness for validation.

So, I think the opposition presented in the OP between our rational mind and instinct is both simplistic and wrong. Rather, rationality is an additional mode of functioning that is available to our mind and that it can use depending on the circumstances. Some people can afford to indulge more of it but only because the social order means that their basic needs are covered by other people, somewhat like a priesthood can enjoy singing and prayer time just because the lay folks are taking care of the day to day chores. Remove society and the rationally minded would have to spend much more time doing the chores.

Rationality seems to be the only mode to provide a complex representation of our environment and as such it should have advantages. But it's only because we live in society that anyone can spend a lot of time in this mode. It's rather revealing that modern societies invest so much money in maintaining an army of workers whose job is to rationalise the world, from public servants to scientists. So rationality is now fully integrated as a mode of social production. People are trained, paid and organised all their working lives to indulge our ability to rationalise.

It's also interesting to realise that this rational economy which is in place now came about piecemeal from very irrational activities such as religious activities, entertainment, war, lust for power etc. Similarly, as individuals, that we do engage in rational debate does not in any way remove the initial incentive which is likely emotional.

A crucial and delicate question is that of the rational bias we cannot avoid to have. Our rational mind is its own tribunal and I think it tends to overvalue its role. It also tends to overvalue its effectiveness, much like the administration overvalue its role in society. It also is a prisoner of how it represents the world and that too is a problem, for us individually but also for society and indeed humanity.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Well if one gives up on tracking the consequences of operating out of genetically determined sequences one can interject, at some arbitrary level of complexity that determined outcomes are impossible to compute. We then resort to another model, one convenient for human self adulation, and claim the existence of rational behavior by inserting a probabilistic undefinable cloud of presumption.

Now we parse from what we claim to experience only that which follows certain logical .statements. It's not an explanation. Its a dodge. For in those presumptions and rationales are genetically determined and learned behaviors which we no needn't bother ourselves. Welcome religion superstition, foolishness, and excess.

Time to end rationality and return to good old experience and recording.

 

[rousseau]

When you learn how to program computers, there's books on syntax that tell you what words you have to develop programs. Take 100 keywords of a computer language and nothing else and try to build Windows 10. You can't, because you don't know how to approach your usage of the keywords.

Now take a book that describes various frameworks and processes with which you can use as mental models in your construction with the 100 keywords. Now we're getting closer to Windows 10.

Life is the same way. Go up to grade 12 and learn what everyone else learns and nothing else and you're just an average guy who can't build Windows 10. But if you happen to stumble on specific mental models which allow you to refine your behaviour and improve yourself, you're better off.

This thread offers one of those mental models, which is that 'behaviour doesn't always have to be optimal'. This is a useful mental model for no other reason than it frees us to look at situations with a deeper lens, and an awareness of more possibilities.

 

[ronburgundy]

Logic:

1) People need to protect themselves to survive and reproduce
2) People evolved to be good at protecting themselves, so they can survive and reproduce
3) Instinct, then, is inclined to promote survival and reproduction, and not 'illogical' behavior that doesn't maximize those two things
4) So actualization, true morality, and the ability to be rational (choose our behaviour freely, not because it's logical) comes from our ability to shirk and overcome this dynamic

And that is my latest thread in Other Philosophical Discussions.

This muddies two completely separate meanings of "rational", one means to apply principles of logic and reasoned thought to optimize the likelihood of accurate beliefs about reality, while the other means dong anything that increases the odds of survival or one's other goals.

Also, point #4 has no logical relation to the first 3. It suddenly throws in conclusions about morality, despite the first three having no implications for morality.
Morality is about what we "should" do. The fact that we evolved to survive and reproduce in no way implies what we should strive to do, only what our biology tends to motive us to strive for. In addition, we arguably evolved no mere to maximize our own reproduction but that of those around us because for most of our evolution they shared much of genes. The genes of groups that acted to maximize success at the group rather than just at the individual level increased their numbers most. Some actions that maximize individual short term success cause harm to long term success at either or both the individual and group level. So how does one decide how to act to maximize all levels in the long run? Well, accurate understanding of reality often helps and that is achieved by logic and rational thought.
Whatever instincts and unreasoned behavioral tendencies we evolved were evolved in a completely different environment. They no longer manifest in the same way or have the same results.

So, not only does our evolved instincts have no implications for morality, but they no longer have clear reliable implications for which of our actions will even optimize our survival and reproduction.

 

[rousseau]

I think I need to scratch out the term 'moral' and switch to 'good' behaviour.

The (over-simplified) connection I'm making between instinctual self-interest and truly 'good' behaviour, is that helping others and simultaneously serving ones own interest isn't really good, it's likely just representative of a mutually beneficial relationship. I don't hold a door for a person because it's good to do so, I do it because if I don't I'm breaking norms and might lose favour from the person I'm holding the door for.

In the same way, a lot of behaviour that appears 'good' is really just an extension of the game being played. And so what I would classify as truly doing something good is helping others when it doesn't serve the person in any way, but simply because they want to make other people happier or healthier.

 

[humbleman]

Logic:

1) People need to protect themselves to survive and reproduce
2) People evolved to be good at protecting themselves, so they can survive and reproduce
3) Instinct, then, is inclined to promote survival and reproduction, and not 'illogical' behavior that doesn't maximize those two things
4) So actualization, true morality, and the ability to be rational (choose our behaviour freely, not because it's logical) comes from our ability to shirk and overcome this dynamic

And that is my latest thread in Other Philosophical Discussions.

Point 2.

People have not evolved. a more accurate definition is :the thoughts of people have evolved to be good at protecting themselves.

Our physical organism is in worst condition than how it was in former generations.

 

[humbleman]

I think I need to scratch out the term 'moral' and switch to 'good' behaviour.

The (over-simplified) connection I'm making between instinctual self-interest and truly 'good' behaviour, is that helping others and simultaneously serving ones own interest isn't really good, it's likely just representative of a mutually beneficial relationship. I don't hold a door for a person because it's good to do so, I do it because if I don't I'm breaking norms and might lose favour from the person I'm holding the door for.

In the same way, a lot of behaviour that appears 'good' is really just an extension of the game being played. And so what I would classify as truly doing something good is helping others when it doesn't serve the person in any way, but simply because they want to make other people happier or healthier.

You better keep the "moral" term, because "good behavior" is part of it, not so a different term.

 

[Hermit]

Logic:

1) People need to protect themselves to survive and reproduce

Food and shelter seem to be two prerequisites.

2) People evolved to be good at protecting themselves, so they can survive and reproduce

Survival of an individual is more of a function of social factors than whatever an individual does in order to survive, then procreate. Nothing enabled more people to survive than sewer systems, for example. Millions upon millions of babies no longer die before their first birthday anniversary. The Black Plague that wiped out a quarter of Europe's population in just a few years has itself been wiped out. Millions more are spared death by being inoculated. Cholera and polio have been fought to a standstill. The last flu epidemic, which killed more people in one winter than were killed in the four preceding years by the Great War, is almost a century in the past. Many diseases that constituted a death sentence have been tamed.

3) Instinct, then, is inclined to promote survival and reproduction, and not 'illogical' behavior that doesn't maximize those two things

How does that follow from 1) and 2)? You just snuck "instinct" in without recourse to any logic, and "Logic", per the first word of this post is how you think you constructed your argument. I put it to you that you use more calculation than instinct to protect yourself and procreate, whether that is just for the purpose of crossing a busy road, applying for the job that will be your meal ticket, chatting up that Sheila you want to fuck, or doing the thousands of other things you pursue in order to achieve those goals.

4) So actualization, true morality, and the ability to be rational (choose our behaviour freely, not because it's logical) comes from our ability to shirk and overcome this dynamic

Parse that for me, please, then explain how this whole sorry lot is supposed to cohere. At this point it appears to me that you have connected various concepts in a very shambolic manner. Neither the Dadaists nor Alan Sokal could have come up with anything more absurd, but at least, unlike you, they came up with their nonsense quite intentionally.

 

[Hermit]

Our physical organism is in worst condition than how it was in former generations.

 

[untermensche]

Many people lived past 30.

But there were no antibiotics. No treatments for acute kidney failure which is easily treatable but untreated can kill you. No treatments for something as common as hypothermia which is incredible easy to treat but again untreated can also kill you. No treatment for a displaced bone fracture. No treatment for high blood pressure which in time can destroy the kidneys. No treatments for type one diabetes which means a short life. The list goes on and on.

There was also great stress. Great physical hardship and periods of deprivation.

There is no logic to that cartoon.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Many people lived past 30.

But there were no antibiotics. No treatments for acute kidney failure which is easily treatable but untreated can kill you. No treatments for something as common as hypothermia which is incredible easy to treat but again untreated can also kill you. No treatment for a displaced bone fracture. No treatment for high blood pressure which in time can destroy the kidneys. No treatments for type one diabetes which means a short life. The list goes on and on.

There was also great stress. Great physical hardship and periods of deprivation.

There is no logic to that cartoon.

Ok, let me walk you through this.

Humbleman was claiming that:

Our physical organism is in worst condition than how it was in former generations.

Hermit posted that cartoon as a commentary on humbleman's claim. This can only be read as verbal irony. He's using the cartoon to disagree with humbleman, not agree. In fact, by reading Hermit's previous post you can see he's making precisely the same point as you:

Many diseases that constituted a death sentence have been tamed.

So whatever the original author of that cartoon intended, for Hermit, it was used to point out that you can't look at our health without looking at all our other abilities, like the ability to diagnose, prevent and cure formally lethal problems.

I'll say again, he seems to hold the same position as you. He's just being sarcastic.