The origins of reason.

lifegazer

Philosopher
L
Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
5,047
I got the ideas for this topic from a question asked of me by somebody, in another thread, in another town, in another world...:-

"What is this reason we are born with and when are we able to start using it, not at birth surely because we have no language with which to use it?"
My response:-
"Consider this important fact: without reason, no new-born child could ever come to understand 'language'. The baby has a reasoning-mind. How else do you think the child can come to understand the things which it is presented with - such as language?".

Significantly, we are born with reasoning minds. Otherwise, we could never make sense of anything... and never come to learn of anything.
'Reason' has got nothing to do with language. Indeed, reason is shown to have understood language (in a baby). I.e., reason builds languages. Languages don't build reason.
Clearly, we are born with the ability to reason. What this means, is that we are born with the ability to comprehend order. We cannot learn of any order without the prior ability to reason of it.

Conclusion: reason is not something which we learn. Not really. Though we can obviously learn to sharpen our abilities. Reason is our birth-right, and enables us to learn about the order of things.
I posit that the Mind knows how to reason before learning about things.
Also, the ability to reason must precede the discovery of any knowledge. Knowledge is understood, by reason.
From this, I conclude that things are not responsible for our ability to reason. And from this, I conclude that the Mind transcends the 'things' which it ponders. I.e.; I conclude that the mind has a distinct existence of its own - separate from the things which it sees outside of itself; yet which truly exist within the self.
The mind is the origin of the ability to reason. Not matter.

Any chance of some sensible responses?
 
lifegazer said:

"What is this reason we are born with and when are we able to start using it, not at birth surely because we have no language with which to use it?"
My response:-
"Consider this important fact: without reason, no new-born child could ever come to understand 'language'. The baby has a reasoning-mind. How else do you think the child can come to understand the things which it is presented with - such as language?".
Click to expand...
I hardly know where to begin...have you ever actually seen a child?

Significantly, we are born with reasoning minds. Otherwise, we could never make sense of anything... and never come to learn of anything.
'Reason' has got nothing to do with language. Indeed, reason is shown to have understood language (in a baby). I.e., reason builds languages. Languages don't build reason.
Clearly, we are born with the ability to reason. What this means, is that we are born with the ability to comprehend order. We cannot learn of any order without the prior ability to reason of it.
Click to expand...
reason has been shown by whom to have understood language (in a baby)? I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree with you here--language is what builds reason, and you are 180 degrees dead wrong.

Conclusion: reason is not something which we learn. Not really. Though we can obviously learn to sharpen our abilities. Reason is our birth-right, and enables us to learn about the order of things.
I posit that the Mind knows how to reason before learning about things.
Also, the ability to reason must precede the discovery of any knowledge. Knowledge is understood, by reason.
From this, I conclude that things are not responsible for our ability to reason. And from this, I conclude that the Mind transcends the 'things' which it ponders. I.e.; I conclude that the mind has a distinct existence of its own - separate from the things which it sees outside of itself; yet which truly exist within the self.
The mind is the origin of the ability to reason. Not matter.

Any chance of some sensible responses?
Click to expand...
I doubt it. Try again, only this time for every "statement of fact" that you make, try to back it up with a citation. We have been studying cognitive development for decades, linguistics and language acquisition as well, there are reams of sources out there that address this radical notion of yours. If there is any truth to it whatsoever, it should be easy to demonstrate that studies of language learning are consistent with your model. Problem is, no.
 
It is the combination of an organ capable of reason (the brain) and input to that organ which is consistent over time (the interactive universe) which leads to reason. Infants learn language because they are presented with a consistent word (or handful of words) for identical concepts each time they are exposed to that concept. In a totally chaotic universe, reason would have no chance to develop.

So I'd say it's more a potential for reason, rather than reason itself, that is inherent in all normally-functioning newborn human brains. You use the word "ability" where I would use the word "potential", but it's more or less the same concept.

I'm not sure how the notion of a "Mind" separate from the brain helps, or springs from, this conclusion, though.
 
Mercutio said:
I hardly know where to begin...have you ever actually seen a child?
Click to expand...
Amazingly, yes.
reason has been shown by whom to have understood language (in a baby)? I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree with you here--language is what builds reason, and you are 180 degrees dead wrong.
Click to expand...
And your reasons for disagreeing with me, are?
I doubt it. Try again, only this time for every "statement of fact" that you make, try to back it up with a citation.
Click to expand...
A citation? This is a reasoned argument about the origin of reason. Just asserting unsubstantiated facts isn't going to wash in this discussion.
We have been studying cognitive development for decades, linguistics and language acquisition as well, there are reams of sources out there that address this radical notion of yours. If there is any truth to it whatsoever, it should be easy to demonstrate that studies of language learning are consistent with your model. Problem is, no.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you'd like to discuss the notion of a non-reasoning baby coming to understand the order and meaning of language.
 
Beleth said:
It is the combination of an organ capable of reason (the brain)
Click to expand...
So you agree that the mind/brain has the ability to reason prior to understanding things which relate to other things? I.e., the mind/brain can discern of order prior to relating to it. Agreed?

If the brain is an organ which has evolved to reason, then the question begs as to how? For the ability to comprehend the order of things cannot be given by those things.
Any comment?
 
Ultimate origins of "reason":
Trial and error, observation and experience.

That evolved into (Natural) Philosophy.

From Philosophy stemmed the roots of science (as well as the root's of Religion).

From science comes Technology and Medicine.

(I could continue the list if I felt like it...)
 
Religion did not come from philosophy, though it has borrowed from it. Also, it isn't really that clear whether science came from philosophy, or the other way around. Beginning with Aristotle, the two were indistinguishable for the longest time.
 
Language isn't 'reasoned out'...the capacity for language is mostly hardwired into the brain, and the rest is based on external stimulus. I know you won't belive that, LG, because the brain is physical and you don't believe that physical things actually exist; and you don't believe in external stimulus.

What's up, LG? Get bored of being dead wrong on physics and philosophy, and you decided to branch out into being dead wrong in other fields as well?:D
 
Zero said:
Language isn't 'reasoned out'...the capacity for language is mostly hardwired into the brain, and the rest is based on external stimulus. I know you won't belive that, LG, because the brain is physical and you don't believe that physical things actually exist; and you don't believe in external stimulus.
Click to expand...

I wonder what would happen if we pumped lg full of neurotoxins...

Nah, he'd probably think it was a spiritual encounter.
 
c4ts said:
Religion did not come from philosophy, though it has borrowed from it. Also, it isn't really that clear whether science came from philosophy, or the other way around. Beginning with Aristotle, the two were indistinguishable for the longest time.
Click to expand...
Oops!

I guess my timeline of events is off a bit...

It is hard to tell what comes from what, what evolved indepently, what evolved co-dependently, etc. etc. etc...
 
c4ts said:


I wonder what would happen if we pumped lg full of neurotoxins...

Nah, he'd probably think it was a spiritual encounter.
Click to expand...
Who says he hasn't already done it to himself? It would explain his neo-hippie worldview.
 
Yahweh said:

Oops!

I guess my timeline of events is off a bit...

It is hard to tell what comes from what, what evolved indepently, what evolved co-dependently, etc. etc. etc...
Click to expand...

I hate timelines. Time may be linear, but history isn't so neat.
 
lifegazer said:

A citation? This is a reasoned argument about the origin of reason. Just asserting unsubstantiated facts isn't going to wash in this discussion.
Click to expand...

hmm..I think the thread just washed away. All you did in the starting post is assert unsubstantiated facts.
 
Since lifegazer is in the UK he may have seen the program recently about feral children who were only exposed to language late in their development. One girl was interesting as she was extremely curious and wanted to learn the words for everything. BUT because she had not been exposed to language eraly enough, her brain did not just not develop, the language centres that would allow her to develop the ability to form sentences had withered so she was incapable of developing real language skills. I.e. she could learn words but could not structure them, graphic illustration on the role of stimulation on cognitive development.
I refer lifegazer to old works by Piaget on psychocognitive development, still quite a good model in some ways.

By the way, I hope this new thread doesn't distract you from answering Upchurch's question. It's been quite a while now and the evasions don't reflect well on you.
 
Depends on how you deine reason:

I would say that a baby has the ability to make associations, not all of which will be logical.

Maybe you should be the one trying to make reasonable responses.

Or is it your hamster that is the rude one?
 
lifegazer said:

So you agree that the mind/brain has the ability to reason prior to understanding things which relate to other things? I.e., the mind/brain can discern of order prior to relating to it. Agreed?

If the brain is an organ which has evolved to reason, then the question begs as to how? For the ability to comprehend the order of things cannot be given by those things.
Any comment?
Click to expand...

Again I would say that the brain has the ability to create associations, some of which will be illogical and opposed to the concept of reason.

I would counter that what the brain does is create associations between the events, some exist and some don't.

But 'reason' is a very high cortical function, depending on which form of reason you refer to it may come about quite late in life.

But I would say that the associations come first and the 'reason' comes later. So the ooposite of what you say here:

"So you agree that the mind/brain has the ability to reason prior to understanding things which relate to other things? "


If you wish to discuss, I would point out that humans make many illogical associations and that it isn't until much later , if ever, that humans lern which associations have validity.
 
Well whatever, but one thing is abundantly clear and that is:

any philosophical argument that neglects the simple fact that consistently physical damage or atrophy of specific parts of the human brain prevent reasoning or limit it, are intellectually, philosophically and morally bankrupt.
 
RussDill said:


hmm..I think the thread just washed away. All you did in the starting post is assert unsubstantiated facts.
Click to expand...
No Russ. I think you'll find that I used reason to unveil facts.
Such as anything learnt does so via the prior ability to learn of things.

Can you not see that the base ability to reason is needed prior to discovering any concious knowledge? It's simply obvious and not a one of you seems to have the ability to see it. Either that, or denial is a permanent state of affairs.
 
lifegazer said:

No Russ. I think you'll find that I used reason to unveil facts.
Such as anything learnt does so via the prior ability to learn of things.

Can you not see that the base ability to reason is needed prior to discovering any concious knowledge? It's simply obvious and not a one of you seems to have the ability to see it. Either that, or denial is a permanent state of affairs.
Click to expand...
No, it is a circular definition. You are inferring a "prior ability to learn of things" only from the fact of having learned. Up to the point of learning something, you have no evidence for this "prior ability". The thing you say is responsible for X is only deduced from the presence of X. Circularity. Not logic. It is, as you say, simply obvious.

Yahweh suggested "trial and error" as an alternative to your view. I'd say that, simple as his suggestion is, it is a much better explanation than yours. Plus, it has the added advantage of agreeing with the evidence. (You remember evidence, don't you? Logic is not everything.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom