Human Reasoning Origins

[Old Things]

Mental effort is explained by what is called the meta-controller of the brain.

Where can I read about this metacontroller of the brain? My search engine is failing me atm.

 

[Black Rose]

Mental effort is explained by what is called the meta-controller of the brain.

Where can I read about this metacontroller of the brain? My search engine is failing me atm.

hope these help.

Prefrontal cortex - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Black Rose]

You don't accept dualism, but you refuse to accept that consciousness is an embodied process, you'll go so far as to invent an entirely new level of reality just avoid the conclusion that you're made of meat, and believe me I get it.

You must really think Black Rose is crazy being an idealist then. But to be honest, the way Black Rose argues for idealism it very much just feels like materialism just calling it mind instead of matter. Doesn't seem like there is any practical difference there.

My view would be materialism if I only included matter in my view of what exists. But that highly depends on what matter is made of and what empty space is made of.

I do not say just atoms exist, both atoms and empty space exist. So I can also include subatomic particles and the background from which they exist. It is the background space where particles reside but particles are not just "stuff".

Particles appear and disappear. This means something is continuously creating them. I believe that this is what happens because of something fundamental mental. I mean that nothing should exist, everything should be empty and non-moving.

If "things" move it is because they appear and disappear via God transposing them into new locations. However, it does matter what happens because anything could happen. It matters that God has these particles in existence because empty space is where God has particles not existing.

If God is the reason things exist he is allowing things to exist in some places and not others and that is mental, not non-mental. Particles are not even made of anything, they are happenings in God being allowed by him not anything to do with hard little balls. (En)-urgy or God urging things into (Ex)is-tence i.e. Time.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Reasoning is... definition. Then we can debate or even begin to talk.

 

[Black Rose]

Reasoning is... definition. Then we can debate or even begin to talk.

getting to the bottom of why things are the way they are...

"s/he reasoned out the answer to the problem"

the reason x is x is because (looks for answer to reason x)

“In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God” is a verse from the Bible, John 1:1.

 

[ZenRaiden]

getting to the bottom of why things are the way they are...

"s/he reasoned out the answer to the problem"

the reason x is x is because (looks for answer to reason x)

“In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God” is a verse from the Bible, John 1:1.

You need others to define what you do every day?
Try to tell me what you think it is.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

The threat detection in some of these people's brains is messing with their ability to reason.

I wrote down a simple enough postulation addressing OP, and I was roped into a discussion about determinism. I guess he thought I was talking to him?

 

[Black Rose]

getting to the bottom of why things are the way they are...

"s/he reasoned out the answer to the problem"

the reason x is x is because (looks for answer to reason x)

“In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God” is a verse from the Bible, John 1:1.

You need others to define what you do every day?
Try to tell me what you think it is.

I believe I already did:

Reasoning = forming nested hierarchical loops of understanding the world by interacting with it.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Reasoning = forming nested hierarchical loops of understanding the world by interacting with it.

What does that mean?

 

[Black Rose]

Reasoning = forming nested hierarchical loops of understanding the world by interacting with it.

What does that mean?

learning through experience

 

[ZenRaiden]

learning through experience

OK, then learning through experience is reasoning?
So I experience something, then I adjust my behavior.
Is this sufficient answer for reasoning?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Reasoning = forming nested hierarchical loops of understanding the world by interacting with it.

Reasoning​	=	forming	nested hierarchical loops	of understanding	the world	by interacting	with it
Assembling mental models of knowledge of the world through experience	Equals	assembling?	mental models?	of Knowledge	real and non real?	redundant?	within the world.​

I don't think so.

I doesn't define how we acquire knowledge to reason with. It doesn't clarify reasoning through abstractions, representations, and it sounds like it's muddy on what an interaction is.

Also, how knowledge from one situation is chosen to be used in a different situation. I think this definition of reasoning in a cognitive sense is incomplete.

I mentioned in MY OP that reasoning has to come from external sensations. Accept it or don't, I did address it.

 

[Black Rose]

OK, then learning through experience is reasoning?
So I experience something, then I adjust my behavior.
Is this sufficient answer for reasoning?

Sometimes I need to reflect on things when get them wrong.

 

[Black Rose]

I doesn't define how we acquire knowledge to reason with. It doesn't clarify reasoning through abstractions, representations, and it sounds like it's muddy on what an interaction is.

The body and environment. We conclude things in the way they can be confirmed or denied via social and other such acquisitions when looking for answers to various questions derived from incomplete knowledge.

Also, how knowledge from one situation is chosen to be used in a different situation. I think this definition of reasoning in a cognitive sense is incomplete.

yes, so I think that involves the ACC(anterior cingulate cortex).

I made this thread earlier:

Human Cognition Overview

1: Actions are intimentally tied with the perception of feedback between sensory and motor areas. 2: Memories are stored in the hippocampus where we remember what our actions have done in the past. 3: Our actions are adjusted by what happens when we pay attention to current stimuli. 4: By...

www.intpforum.com

 

[Black Rose]

OK, then learning through experience is reasoning?
So I experience something, then I adjust my behavior.
Is this sufficient answer for reasoning?

Sometimes I need to reflect on things when get them wrong.

I think this is Ti - introverted thinking

Te = immediate feedback so the loops are not deepening to internal thought as Ti will do.

Often I cannot do Ti

 

[Black Rose]

I think I might be forced into self-reflection all the time.

But I cannot think of things in the way TxNi/Ne can.

I might be ISTP now.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Reasoning is... definition. Then we can debate or even begin to talk.

So we cannot define reasoning.

 

[Black Rose]

Reasoning is... definition. Then we can debate or even begin to talk.

So we cannot define reasoning.

We can but then it would have to be internally consistent to the person using the word.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Reasoning is a process executed by a evaluative system.

or

Reasoning is the output of a computation.

Can a thermostat reason? Is that reasoning apart of the system itself, or is it just a temporary tool that emerges and subsides? Is it intrinsic to the system?

 

[Black Rose]

Reasoning is a process executed by a evaluative system.

or

Reasoning is the output of a computation.

Can a thermostat reason? Is that reasoning apart of the system itself, or is it just a temporary tool that emerges and subsides? Is it intrinsic to the system?

Reasoning has to be about an entity knowing what it reasoning about.

If the thermostat knows what it trying to understand it reasons otherwise it does not.

 

[Black Rose]

Reasoning is a process executed by a evaluative system.

or

Reasoning is the output of a computation.

Can a thermostat reason? Is that reasoning apart of the system itself, or is it just a temporary tool that emerges and subsides? Is it intrinsic to the system?

Reasoning has to be about an entity knowing what it reasoning about.

If the thermostat knows what it trying to understand it reasons otherwise it does not.

x is true because of reason ?

find reason ?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

You're invoking epistemology. I would start there to fill that gap.

I would say that babies who are not yet self-aware have the ability to reason for example. If what you wrote contradicts that anyway. They can't know anything, (depending on who you ask) thus they cannot reason according to those terms.

 

[ZenRaiden]

We use reasoning every day.

 

[Black Rose]

You're invoking epistemology. I would start there to fill that gap.

I would say that babies who are not yet self-aware have the ability to reason for example. If what you wrote contradicts that anyway. They can't know anything, (depending on who you ask) thus they cannot reason according to those terms.

They know what feels good and what feels bad.

So the first thing is to find out what is good and what is bad.

Then it is about going in the right direction.

If I do x then I get good things.

But then this forms more structures and more abstractions.

 

[Black Rose]

We use reasoning every day.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

You wrote

Reasoning has to be about an entity knowing what it reasoning about.

In the case of a thermostat, they don't "know" that the temperature goes below or above a threshold, they "detect" it and trigger electronic process to lower it.

By that same token you can say a brain doesn't know things either. You can say that it is just a bunch of triggers and feedback loops. Knowing is just a term we use to describe having knowledge about something.


Also I find that life a lot of times I don't know where my reasoning is going or contributing to. I just know that if I solve problems, they won't be problems anymore.

I may have no idea what the root cause of my problems are, and I could be solving a stream of problems caused by that said thing. Am I really reasoning about the problem if I'm only looking at a symptom rather than the source?

 

[Cognisant]

bringing god into any arguement is stupid.

i am agnostic, and using god to explain unexplained phenonemon doesnt really resolve the quesion. You can use god as a rationalization for anything.

Spoiler

If I may borrow the term "God" for a bit, I think God is everywhere because God is everything, the ground you walk upon, the air you breathe, the food you eat and even the shit that comes out of your ass. Which at face value is disgusting but it's not because God isn't a person, I don't think any mere singular entity could possibly encompass the sheer majesty of the universe. People have biases, people have flaws, people have egos, that's all too petty for a God that created galaxies and black holes and complex ecosystems and, frankly, us.

I think God is the universe and not in the sense that we are in God's imagination but in a more literal embodied sense, God is the universe in the same way my consciousness is embodied, thus we are a part of God and God is intrinsically a part of us.

You don't like dualism or physicalism so you propose a third choice but no matter what you propose it's ultimately just going to be one or the other (with extra steps) and I think the only reason you're not a physicalist like myself is that you have a stigma against the physical. And fair enough, it's absolutely terrifying and if that wasn't bad enough it demands a level of humility that's difficult for anyone to accept.

By terrifying I mean death, if consciousness is embodied then when you die and rots that's not just your body dying and decomposing, that's you, it never stops being you, or what's worse it does, what was once you becomes a cadaver, which becomes fetid mush, until at last it becomes soil and goes on to become new things.

Of course the ego RAGES against this, the INDIGNITY of it! HOW DARE THE WORLD KEEP TURNING AFTER I AM GONE! Doesn't it know who I am, how important I am, I'm the center of my world after all. And that's when you realize it, of course the universe knows who you are, it never forgot... you did.

Enlightenment isn't becoming one with the universe, it's remembering that you always were, that you are finite and small and in the grand scheme of things you don't really matter as much as you think you do, and that's hard to accept, but it's ok. That pain, that rage, that ego, let it go and in a state of humble tranquility you'll wonder why you ever held on to it so tightly in the first place.

It's okay, life doesn't have to have a meaning, there doesn't have to be an afterlife, the good don't need to be rewarded or the evil punished, realize that all of these things stem from your ego, the joy you feel when your beliefs are validated and the pain you feel when they aren't. You create meaning because that's what a God does and you are not God but you are a part of God and that's a lot of pressure for someone who mere moments ago (relative to the timescale of the universe) didn't exist.

To know God is simply to know reality, for reality itself is God, and this God doesn't have a mind or intent like a person does, and yet it acts with purpose and direction, and we don't know why indeed there might not even be a why, the why might be something altogether grander than we can conceptualize. Natural selection for instance, why does God's favor go to those who are better able to survive and thrive, or maybe I'm getting it backwards, perhaps they are better able to survive and thrive because of God's favor?

Once we get our egos out of the way I think God's will becomes BLINDINGLY self evident, God wants what's best for us even if we don't recognize what that is, like a child being told by their parent to eat our vegetables we resent God's apparent cruelty but if we knew better we'd understand this cruelty was actually kindness.

God isn't a person, God just "IS" in such such a profound and all encompassing sense that I really don't have the words to explain it, there's no external frame of reference, all I can say is God is everything and everything is God, which just sounds dumb.

So God is in the toilet and if God can be said to have a sense of humor I think it would find us very amusing, getting so worked up over such a silly thing.

exactly, might as well called it the God force.

i only use it to equate with nothingness and the infinite, and even so i try to disregard it.

And why can't God be a force? You insist God must be a person but you give no justification for it, is that not merely your bias? Are you not just refuting the idea that God can be anything but a person because you want God to be a person and anything else doesn't conform to your desires.

There's a character in WH40k names Lorgar Aurelian and his major malfunction is that he actively looks for powers greater than himself to surrender himself to in order to justify his actions. Basically exactly the sort of guy who does terrible shit in the name of God, it's not God's fault that he's a terrible person, he just uses God as an excuse and in order to do that God needs to be a person who he can act on behalf on.

Point being, don't get too hung up on the idea of God being a person.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Ok do bacteria reason?
Is my sperm reasonable?
We ought to do better with definitions next time.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I tried GPT though I think its definitions are too complicated.
The term "reason" can have multiple meanings depending on the context, but broadly speaking, it refers to the capacity for logical, rational, and critical thinking. Here are a few common interpretations:

1. Logical thinking: Reason can refer to the ability to think in a logical and coherent manner. This involves analyzing information, making connections, and drawing conclusions based on evidence and sound principles.
2. Justification or explanation: Reasoning can also mean providing explanations or justifications for beliefs, actions, or decisions. It involves presenting logical arguments to support a particular point of view.
3. Intellectual faculty: Reason is often considered one of the higher mental faculties that distinguishes humans from other animals. It involves the ability to think abstractly, solve problems, and engage in complex cognitive processes.
4. Cause and effect: In some contexts, reason can refer to the cause or explanation behind a particular event or phenomenon. It's about understanding why something happened.
5. Mind or intellect: Reason can be used to describe the mental faculty of thinking, understanding, and drawing conclusions. It's the cognitive process that allows individuals to make sense of the world.

In philosophy, the term "reason" is often discussed in the context of epistemology (the study of knowledge) and ethics. Philosophers explore questions related to how we acquire knowledge, the nature of rationality, and the role of reason in ethical decision-making.
It's important to note that the interpretation of the term can vary depending on the field of study or the specific context in which it's used.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Ok here is the definition of reasoning I use.
I am not claiming this is correct by the way.
Its just something I am comfortable with.

Reasoning is the capacity of something or someone to relate facts to each other, in such ways that it can model predictive advantage with approximation to reality.
Abstract reasoning would be the ability to create models of related facts in generalized forms in such way that we can relate facts removed from direct experience, but with sufficient adherence to reality when applied, we can predict outcomes, with approximation.

Example> A dog bites me, I reason dogs bite, there for every time I see a dog I will avoid the dog. However then I see someone petting the dog, and I reason dogs bite only sometimes.
Therefore I learn that dogs can bite, but also be petted. I encounter a dog so the dog can either bite me or be petted.
I reason that I do not know which will happen, so I observe the dog. I realize the dog does not bite so I pet him. Then I meet another dog, but I see the dog bark and that triggers fear in me so I reason that the dog must want to bite me so I fear the dog and avoid the dog.

So at no point was I given explicit truth of the dog, but each encounter meant I could in some ways reason causality between events though I was never certain I could guess, the right answer. I was not in any case necessarily doing anything fancy, just relating facts.

Then I learned 2+2 = 4, so next time I was carrying apples in the basket and I counted there are four apples. So I realized that if I give two apples to my dog, and I am left with two apples. I employed subtraction abstract reasoning.

 

[sushi]

bringing god into any arguement is stupid.

i am agnostic, and using god to explain unexplained phenonemon doesnt really resolve the quesion. You can use god as a rationalization for anything.

Spoiler

If I may borrow the term "God" for a bit, I think God is everywhere because God is everything, the ground you walk upon, the air you breathe, the food you eat and even the shit that comes out of your ass. Which at face value is disgusting but it's not because God isn't a person, I don't think any mere singular entity could possibly encompass the sheer majesty of the universe. People have biases, people have flaws, people have egos, that's all too petty for a God that created galaxies and black holes and complex ecosystems and, frankly, us.

I think God is the universe and not in the sense that we are in God's imagination but in a more literal embodied sense, God is the universe in the same way my consciousness is embodied, thus we are a part of God and God is intrinsically a part of us.

You don't like dualism or physicalism so you propose a third choice but no matter what you propose it's ultimately just going to be one or the other (with extra steps) and I think the only reason you're not a physicalist like myself is that you have a stigma against the physical. And fair enough, it's absolutely terrifying and if that wasn't bad enough it demands a level of humility that's difficult for anyone to accept.

By terrifying I mean death, if consciousness is embodied then when you die and rots that's not just your body dying and decomposing, that's you, it never stops being you, or what's worse it does, what was once you becomes a cadaver, which becomes fetid mush, until at last it becomes soil and goes on to become new things.

Of course the ego RAGES against this, the INDIGNITY of it! HOW DARE THE WORLD KEEP TURNING AFTER I AM GONE! Doesn't it know who I am, how important I am, I'm the center of my world after all. And that's when you realize it, of course the universe knows who you are, it never forgot... you did.

Enlightenment isn't becoming one with the universe, it's remembering that you always were, that you are finite and small and in the grand scheme of things you don't really matter as much as you think you do, and that's hard to accept, but it's ok. That pain, that rage, that ego, let it go and in a state of humble tranquility you'll wonder why you ever held on to it so tightly in the first place.

It's okay, life doesn't have to have a meaning, there doesn't have to be an afterlife, the good don't need to be rewarded or the evil punished, realize that all of these things stem from your ego, the joy you feel when your beliefs are validated and the pain you feel when they aren't. You create meaning because that's what a God does and you are not God but you are a part of God and that's a lot of pressure for someone who mere moments ago (relative to the timescale of the universe) didn't exist.

To know God is simply to know reality, for reality itself is God, and this God doesn't have a mind or intent like a person does, and yet it acts with purpose and direction, and we don't know why indeed there might not even be a why, the why might be something altogether grander than we can conceptualize. Natural selection for instance, why does God's favor go to those who are better able to survive and thrive, or maybe I'm getting it backwards, perhaps they are better able to survive and thrive because of God's favor?

Once we get our egos out of the way I think God's will becomes BLINDINGLY self evident, God wants what's best for us even if we don't recognize what that is, like a child being told by their parent to eat our vegetables we resent God's apparent cruelty but if we knew better we'd understand this cruelty was actually kindness.

God isn't a person, God just "IS" in such such a profound and all encompassing sense that I really don't have the words to explain it, there's no external frame of reference, all I can say is God is everything and everything is God, which just sounds dumb.

So God is in the toilet and if God can be said to have a sense of humor I think it would find us very amusing, getting so worked up over such a silly thing.

exactly, might as well called it the God force.

i only use it to equate with nothingness and the infinite, and even so i try to disregard it.

And why can't God be a force? You insist God must be a person but you give no justification for it, is that not merely your bias? Are you not just refuting the idea that God can be anything but a person because you want God to be a person and anything else doesn't conform to your desires.

There's a character in WH40k names Lorgar Aurelian and his major malfunction is that he actively looks for powers greater than himself to surrender himself to in order to justify his actions. Basically exactly the sort of guy who does terrible shit in the name of God, it's not God's fault that he's a terrible person, he just uses God as an excuse and in order to do that God needs to be a person who he can act on behalf on.

Point being, don't get too hung up on the idea of God being a person.

i am bordering agnostic but i try to not include God as a factor or variable in any theories and hypothesis, including the creation and destruction of universe.

like saying black hole is made of GOD. The only thing where god seems to apply for me is infinite and zero.