What is the definition of Reason?

[Xenu]

Maybe I'm having a brainfart, or a stroke, but I've been trying to think of a definition of "Reason", but couldn't think of a clear one. Do any of you have ideas?

[sargentlard]

A explanation to society for your actions that maybe otherwise out of context with the society's norms.

As for everyday stuff.....a explanation and a sort of a witness for one's future preservation...i.e explaning what you were going to do so later they don't get mad at you for doing something.

Reason could also be a self relieveing mechanism so you don't accumalate mental stress for doing something that you once found wrong or against your morals. A guilt free card of sorts...as you tell your self reasons why this is good.

It could be many things....but alas my limited intelligence gets in the way of answering your question.:o

[drnihili]

You're not having a brain fart, this is just an exceptionally tough questoin. Most of the work I've seen on it takes something like decision theory as it's starting point. But aside from all of the thorny issues within decision theory, there's a fair bit of disagreement about whether it's even the right starting point.

[Mucker]

Yes, it is a tough one! I'd say reason involves the elimination of all variables, except the ones being studied.

For example when trying to study cause and effect*, if one imagines the two ends of the scale of each variable, and then tries the different combinations, it can usually be discovered (with some certainty) which one is most likely to be causal etc.

*Bad example: cause and effect can be seen really, and reason is not needed here.

[glaucon]

Greetings,

A toughie indeed.
Try a stipulative definition: reason is the application of regulatory or ordering procedures to systems that are otherwise chaotic (or entropic). ?? :-)

Alternatively, you could try a negative definition, attempting to point out what reason is not......

[Xenu]

Well, Reason is not an asparagus.

Hmmm... :p

Here's what I get when I look it up at www.m-w.com

the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways

Well what does it mean to be rational ? So I look that up...

having reason or understanding

Ummm... :confused:

Frickin' dictionaries are so circular. :D

[Mucker]

Well, Reason is not an asparagus. Pml!! Frickin' dictionaries are so circular. That they are, and they are also only really for a general reference, so I wouldn't pay much attention to the 'specialized' words, and certain others too (words that must be traced back through hsitory, and through countries)!

[John Locke]

Maybe I'm having a brainfart, or a stroke, but I've been trying to think of a definition of "Reason", but couldn't think of a clear one. Do any of you have ideas?

For one to exercise Reason is for one to assent to what is Natural in being human. Human beings are the highest beings of the physical world, only of which, out of all creatures, possess the potential to apply Intellect. To follow one's Conscience, to rest in what is Right, to reach the highest level of Being: all of these, in a way, define Reason. The problem of the modern day is that men have a tendency to reduce "reason" to mere "logic." Just because a conclusion is reached by processes of logic does not mean that the conclusion is Truthful. Truth is not inconsistent, per se, but human beings are fallible in their logic, at times, and can have a tendency to failure. The bottom line with what I was just saying was simply that just because there is an apparent "truth" arrived at by use of so called "reason," the logic could have been flawed all along. I think that "reason" is difficult to define, of course. But it seems that it can be defined as synonymous with that which is the onset of whatever it is--essentially and necessarily--to be Fully Human.

[Mucker]

I disagree John Locke! (You're not the John Locke are you?? :D ). How can reason/logic be infalliable?? It is the Law!

[Xenu]

Sarge,

A explanation to society for your actions that maybe otherwise out of context with the society's norms.

I was thinking in a more philosophical sense, but you probably caught that by now. Sorry I was unclear.

drnihili,

You're not having a brain fart, this is just an exceptionally tough questoin. Most of the work I've seen on it takes something like decision theory as it's starting point. But aside from all of the thorny issues within decision theory, there's a fair bit of disagreement about whether it's even the right starting point.

Reason is the basis of a lot of our knowledge, and structures what we consider "reality", does it not? If it's such a foundation, you'd think it would be something that's easily grasped, and not take something like decision theory to define.

glaucon,

reason is the application of regulatory or ordering procedures to systems that are otherwise chaotic (or entropic)

So are you saying reason is just making stuff up? Trying to force the chaotic universe into a structural system.

John Locke,


For one to exercise Reason is for one to assent to what is Natural in being human. Human beings are the highest beings of the physical world, only of which, out of all creatures, possess the potential to apply Intellect.

This is pertinent to the thread but many animals "apply Intettect" too.

To follow one's Conscience, to rest in what is Right, to reach the highest level of Being: all of these, in a way, define Reason.

This doesn't sound right. I wouldn't say Reason is any of these things.

To follow one's Conscience, to rest in what is Right, to reach the highest level of Being: all of these, in a way, define Reason.

That might be a good starting point.

Just because a conclusion is reached by processes of logic does not mean that the conclusion is Truthful... etc.

Now you're bringing in Truth. I don't believe in absolute Truths. What people call truths seem to be nothing more than dogmatic instituitionalized knowledge.

[Xenu]

So let me pick a starting point. I'm going to say that Reason is at least Logic.

Now I want to say, what the hell is Logic?

[drnihili]

Originally posted by Xenu
drnihili,

Reason is the basis of a lot of our knowledge, and structures what we consider "reality", does it not? If it's such a foundation, you'd think it would be something that's easily grasped, and not take something like decision theory to define.



Actually it's exactly the opposite. Foundational concepts are far harder to define. First, you have to define them in terms of something else, but because they're foundational it's hard to find other concepts to use in the definition. Secondly, because Reason is a foundation to pretty much everything else, the deginition must fit well with an extremely wide array of data and theory.

We all grasp the concept of reason, buy defining it is another thing entirely.

[wesmorris]

The act of managing an inter-relationship of conceptualized data in a manner that discriminates and classifies input whereby it approaches consistency in and of the conceptual relationships.

There's my shot.

[Xenu]

Originally posted by drnihili
Actually it's exactly the opposite. Foundational concepts are far harder to define. First, you have to define them in terms of something else, but because they're foundational it's hard to find other concepts to use in the definition. Secondly, because Reason is a foundation to pretty much everything else, the deginition must fit well with an extremely wide array of data and theory.

We all grasp the concept of reason, buy defining it is another thing entirely.

You're right, thanks. I wonder why concepts are so easy to grasp and not so easy to define? And what is grasping and how does it relate to consciousness? I can grasp what grasping is, but I can't define it. Oww, I just hurt myself. :p

[Xenu]

Originally posted by wesmorris
The act of managing an inter-relationship of conceptualized data in a manner that discriminates and classifies input whereby it approaches consistency in and of the conceptual relationships.

There's my shot.

Oww, I'm going to have to get a claw hammer to get what you just said out of my brain.

Let me try to understand this...

So Reason is like managing a giant database organized by certain relationships. What you say is making sense, but I would like to know: how are these relationships are determined? Do these relational rules come from data within the "database" itself, or is there some kind of outside source?

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Xenu
Oww, I'm going to have to get a claw hammer to get what you just said out of my brain.

Let me try to understand this...

So Reason is like managing a giant database organized by certain relationships. What you say is making sense, but I would like to know: how are these relationships are determined? Do these relational rules come from data within the "database" itself, or is there some kind of outside source?

Well, I think we touched on that in "Love and Hate", but I think it's addressed more specifically in "Subjective Geometry".

The respective links:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19671

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23714

Do you think it's applicable?

[sargentlard]

Originally posted by Xenu

Now I want to say, what the hell is Logic?

An ideal state of affairs practised in a situation. Logic is a sought after state of mind in a forthcoming problem.

Logic is something we don't have.

[whitewolf]

Reason is a mind, rational and irrational, combining the senses.
Logic fits into the rational, the Left side of the brain (Sarge is Right-brain oriented as stated earlier) (however I could see how Logic could be intuitive.. ah, im going to stop before i confuse myself)

[lifegazer]

Reason unravels order. Therefore, we could say that reason is the base-knowledge of order, prior to seeing any order.

I find that interesting, to say the least. If the base-knowledge of order is required prior to unravelling the order of the universe, then where does this base-knowledge of order come from?

[(Q)]

If the base-knowledge of order is required prior to unravelling the order of the universe, then where does this base-knowledge of order come from?

Don't tell me - let me guess - the singular mind?

:rolleyes:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by (Q)
Don't tell me - let me guess - the singular mind?

:rolleyes:
Now I know how Jean-Luc Picard feels.
Are you ever going to use anything other than sarcasm as a response to my posts?
Come on Q. Use logic to counter my own. Them's the rules of philosophical debate.

[Fafnir665]

Reason. An explanation which makes you right in the eyes of others. A way to explain your actions. An Excuse.

[Xenu]

Originally posted by wesmorris
Well, I think we touched on that in "Love and Hate", but I think it's addressed more specifically in "Subjective Geometry".

The respective links:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19671

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23714

Do you think it's applicable?

I read parts of the "thought geometry" thread. Let me say, that I have a paradigm that is quite similiar, but deals more with emotions. I will post my thoughts there soon. :)

But in terms of rationality, I'd say rationality is layered on top of this "thought geometry", or mixed in, or something. Within the "thought geometry" are many things that aren't necessarily rational, such as images, and experiences, and plain irrational thoughts in general (remember dreams come from this "thought geometry" too). Rationality may be a set of rules and relationships between "shapes" within this geometry, but this geometry is "more" or "different" then rationality. I hope this makes sense with the paradigm that you provided in that thread.

Don't have a lot of time right now, will try to post more later.

[(Q)]

Come on Q. Use logic to counter my own.

Already tried that - didn't work. You're impervious to reason.

[lifegazer]

Never seen you use it Q, since you never address anything I say. But never mind... there's plenty more letters in the alphabet.

[(Q)]

Lifey

That's the same excuse you used on everyone else at physicsforums yet you were banned.

They started a thread about you there giving the reasons, which were your inability to listen to reason and rationale.

So, how is it you can comment on reason and rationale here?

Reason = Think.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by (Q)
Lifey

That's the same excuse you used on everyone else at physicsforums yet you were banned.
So, how is it you can comment on reason and rationale here?

Reason = Think.
"Reason unravels order. Therefore, we could say that reason is the base-knowledge of order, prior to seeing any order.

I find that interesting, to say the least. If the base-knowledge of order is required prior to unravelling the order of the universe, then where does this base-knowledge of order come from?"

This, Q, is an example of "thinking" (by me). It is a presentation of my thoughts derived by reasoning. When you reply to thoughts such as this, you are supposed to agree or deconstruct what I say. This is what I mean by "addressing my posts". On the dozen-ish occaisions I have spoken to you, you have failed to address a single thing I have said. Hence, my previous post is not so much an excuse - but rather a fact. I cannot reason with you - literally.
In reference to physics-forums: I was there for nearly two years and many posters there enjoyed my participation. It came to a crunch though, when the wise asses at that forum decided that discussions about 'God' were deemed as religious and would be transferred into that forum (and out of the philosophy forum). I
decided to make a stand for philosophy's own sake. But the materialists have the power - and they used it. That forum is now officially lame, imo. It's a discredit to 'philosophy'. [If you're interested, my views about this are clearly expressed in the 'God topics' thread at the top of the philosophy forum.]
I guess this is off-topic. I don't think people here are interested in your opinion of me. If you really want to argue about my credibility, then at least do it by e-mail, or in another thread.

[(Q)]

On the dozen-ish occaisions I have spoken to you, you have failed to address a single thing I have said. Hence, my previous post is not so much an excuse - but rather a fact. I cannot reason with you – literally

No, you ignored most everyone else there who were attempting to reason with you, including me. That’s why you were banned. And that’s also why I find it curious that you could actually comment on this thread in regards to reason.

Why don’t you start a thread here on your “singular mind” theory and see what sort of responses you get?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by (Q)
Why don’t you start a thread here on your “singular mind” theory and see what sort of responses you get?
The responses I will get are about as predictable as a materialist's philosophy at a Christian's social-gathering. But I shall be posting something soon anyway.

[drnihili]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Reason unravels order. Therefore, we could say that reason is the base-knowledge of order, prior to seeing any order.

I find that interesting, to say the least. If the base-knowledge of order is required prior to unravelling the order of the universe, then where does this base-knowledge of order come from?

As near as I can tell this is gibberish. At the very least you need to define your terms. It's unintelligible in it's current state.

I neither know nor care about your tiff with Q, but you can't fault him for not using logic to counter this. Until you can say something clear enough to be understood, it's impossible to address it with logic.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by drnihili
As near as I can tell this is gibberish. At the very least you need to define your terms. It's unintelligible in it's current state.

I neither know nor care about your tiff with Q, but you can't fault him for not using logic to counter this. Until you can say something clear enough to be understood, it's impossible to address it with logic.
As near as I can tell this is gibberish. At the very least you need to define your terms. It's unintelligible in it's current state.

As you can see, this sort of a response makes a mockery of philosophy. We must assume a certain level of universality about 'language' itself.
I shall go through it again, slowly, just for you.

- "Reason unravels order. Therefore, we could say that reason is the base-knowledge of order, prior to seeing any order."

The faculty of reason enables awareness of order. We cannot be aware of the order of things without the faculty to decipher that order for ourselves. The order of the universe, and the ability to comprehend that order, are not the same things.
In fact, the ability to reason is not the same thing as what-is- known - for what-is-known is an effect of the ability-to-know those things.
Hence, reason precedes knowledge. Knowledge is a product of reason. And knowledge is not the same thing as the ability to reason.

- "I find that interesting, to say the least. If the base-knowledge of order is required prior to unravelling the order of the universe, then where does this base-knowledge of order come from?"

If the ability to reason precedes knowledge, then how can the mind have this ability? The mind cannot know anything until it can reason what those things might be. Thus, before the mind can know anything about the universe, it must have the ability to reason what that universe is telling it.

[drnihili]

Originally posted by lifegazer
As near as I can tell this is gibberish. At the very least you need to define your terms. It's unintelligible in it's current state.

As you can see, this sort of a response makes a mockery of philosophy. We must assume a certain level of universality about 'language' itself.
I shall go through it again, slowly, just for you.


Of course the difference is that you managed to understand me despite your protestations. The fact that the response can be used to mock does not entail that it is always used to mock. That's the difference between semantics and pragmatics.


- "Reason unravels order. Therefore, we could say that reason is the base-knowledge of order, prior to seeing any order."

The faculty of reason enables awareness of order. We cannot be aware of the order of things without the faculty to decipher that order for ourselves. The order of the universe, and the ability to comprehend that order, are not the same things.
In fact, the ability to reason is not the same thing as what-is- known - for what-is-known is an effect of the ability-to-know those things.
Hence, reason precedes knowledge. Knowledge is a product of reason. And knowledge is not the same thing as the ability to reason.

- "I find that interesting, to say the least. If the base-knowledge of order is required prior to unravelling the order of the universe, then where does this base-knowledge of order come from?"

If the ability to reason precedes knowledge, then how can the mind have this ability? The mind cannot know anything until it can reason what those things might be. Thus, before the mind can know anything about the universe, it must have the ability to reason what that universe is telling it.

Ok, so reason is necessary for knowledge. Nothing new or puzzling here unless you also make the claim that reason is knowledge. You seem to do that in your original quote (depending on what you mean by "base-knowledge"), but you deny it later.

Are you claiming that reason is a kind of knowledge? If so, why? If not, then why is this interesting?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by drnihili
Ok, so reason is necessary for knowledge. Nothing new or puzzling here unless you also make the claim that reason is knowledge. You seem to do that in your original quote (depending on what you mean by "base-knowledge"), but you deny it later.

Are you claiming that reason is a kind of knowledge? If so, why? If not, then why is this interesting?
The ability to reason is a purpose of the mind. It's a product of the mind itself. It's like sensation, in this manner, for the mind itself is the cause of its own sensations also.
Reason is the source of known existence. And if the mind can create sensations which mirror [supposed] external input-data, then the mind must understand that data prior to creating the orderly (comprehendible) sensations which are reactions to that data (and not the data itself).
In other words:
1. The mind can reason before it knows anything.
2. The mind creates sensations which mirror a specific order (of a [supposed] external reality).
3. 'Awareness' (of the sensations) is facilitated by the already-present ability to reason, and the focus of the mind at a central point within those sensations.
4. Knowledge is derived by the ability to reason, of things discerned within sensation.

I have a thread about this in the religion-section, if you're interested. But basically, the ability to reason is an attribute of the mind. It doesn't exist anywhere else. It's the mind's own.
There are no physical processes which can ~programme~ the brain to understand the order inherent within physical-processes.
I.e., reason is not a product of Darwinian evolution, in my opinion.

[drnihili]

Aside from some leaps of reasoning that may be due the short format of posts, it sounds like watered down Kant.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by drnihili
Aside from some leaps of reasoning that may be due the short format of posts, it sounds like watered down Kant.
Never read Kant... so dunno.
But whatever it sounds like, I'd like to see you deconstruct what I have to say - or agree.