Lachean

Rational thought is a relative term, we can demonstrate it by either:

• Comparing ourselves neurology to those in earlier stages of evolution who lacked the neuroanatomy for it.
• Through functional neuroimaging
• By looking at the products of rational thought (engineering, technological advancement, etc...)

__________________
At the root of every civilized achievement, such as science, technology, progress, freedom--at the root of every value we enjoy today, including the birth of this country--you will find the achievement of one man, who lived over two thousand years ago: Aristotle.

Felicity

How do you know that's a "reasonable" answer--and how do you know I will "understand" that answer. Can you prove the mental meaning of the process you went through to arrive at that answer?--you might be able to show me some brain scan that makes different colors on a screen, but how do you prove the "meaning" of those colors? What can you "show me?"

Panache

A premise cannot be proved. A conclusion can be proved based on the acceptance of the premises that lead to the conclusion.

1. If this argument is sound, it demonstrates my ability to think rationally.

2. This argument is sound.

Therefore: I have an ability to think rationally.

Given that premises one and two are true, the conclusion must also be true.


We can take either of those premises and turn it into a conclusion by evaluating the reasoning behind the premise.

1. A sound argument is an argument in which the conclusion cannot be false, given that its premises are true.

2. If a conclusion can be deduced from multiple premises, such that the conclusion cannot be false, given that its premises are true, it is a demonstration of rational thought.

Therefore: If this argument is sound, it demonstrates my ability to think rationally.

Each of these premises can be further turned into a conclusion for which additional premises must be found.

rathi

All empirical evidence requires 3 assumptions.

1. Humans can observe the world with our 5 senses.
2. Humans can remember what they observed.
3. Humans can communicate with each other.

Proving the assumptions is not really possible.

However, you either have to accept the 3 assumptions, or admit that your entire argument is pointless. You cannot have an argument without the 3 assumptions above. The very nature of discussing using this forum requires those givens.

__________________
He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an axe into somebody's face.

Lachean

Way to get all practical!

__________________
At the root of every civilized achievement, such as science, technology, progress, freedom--at the root of every value we enjoy today, including the birth of this country--you will find the achievement of one man, who lived over two thousand years ago: Aristotle.

A_Wise_Fool

"Because I have read a book, I know more about that subject"

...Leads to ---->

"Because I have read the book, I know I know more about that subject"

... Leads to??? ---->

"Because I have read a book I know more about that subject"???

I don't think the second jump in reasoning works. Knowing that you know more about a subject from reading a book does not cause you to read the book, it is merely a result. However, reading the book does cause you to know that you know more about that subject. The reasoning behind one causes the other, but the reasoning behind the other does not cause the one. Get what I mean? I did rephrase what you said in a more straight forward manner though. If that somehow changed the underlying meaning I did not realize it.

Lightdemon

Do you ever wonder why the color blue is called blue?
What is meaning, you ask? Is it not something we attribute to another thing?

In the realm of science, empiracle evidence is used. When there is none available, logic is your only option. But you asked to be "shown" logic, but that's not really possible. You have to understand logic, not actually see it with your eyes.

But what difference does it make, whether it exists or not? You can still use numbers without having them to exist, can't you?

__________________

Felicity

Aye...there is the rub!...

If to know something to be true we so insist on empirical evidence in all things, isn't it hypocritical to blindly assent to such "givens."

To put the question as simply as I can, --what is it that makes it possible for the mind--the seat of our rational thought--to capture within its confines a representation of the material world (as well as concepts that have no material origin) so that meaning can be "known?".... and from there, how can we take that immaterial reality called "meaning" and transform it into material reality, or convey it immaterially to other minds? What is "proof" that this esoteric process exists?

One can point to a thing built by the hands of a man who dreamed it up, but the origin of that thought cannot be proved. One can "say" ~ "I understand that abstract notion you are explaining to me" but what is there to verify beyond the assent to believe it?

If we elevate empiricism to the level of the ONLY means of knowing something to be true--doesn't empiricism shoot itself in the foot with such assumptions at its core?

Lightdemon

An evangelical once tried to tell me that God existed because of this argument:

Does truth exist? Let's look at it this way...

1. If truth does not exist, then this sentence is false. That leads us to the conclusion that truth DOES exist. Furthermore, if truth does not exist, then that means ALL things are subjective.

2. If there is no truth, ALL things must be subjective, that means this sentence is subjective. But if there is no truth, one cannot state anything with certainty. Meaning that "ALL things must be subjective" is false.

Conclusion? Truth MUST exist.

He then went on to a similar argument to prove God's existence. Blah blah blah.

__________________

Felicity

What is your point? How does this relate to the fact that there must be assumptions even in empiricism?