No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

I agree entirely with your post; reasoning is a conscious/semi-conscious process that can be linguistically followed, which much of manifest existence clearly isn’t. But this last paragraph confuses me - Hume explicitly and forcefully argued against the rationalist view of reason’s primacy. That’s what he did; that’s most of what he did, and is famous for, philosophically. That you don’t deduce that the sun will rise tomorrow, but accept it as a regularity of sensation. Why do you choose him as the standard bearer?

Also: “a mistake that Hume made (and maybe others before him) that created a lot of problems- you end up with skepticism and Berkeleyian idealism”. Berkeley wrote before Hume was born, so even if your criticism holds, definitely others before him

It is a totally false understanding of Hume.

Mine or his? Do you have an argument, or just a declaration?

That depends whether or not your agreement extends to his caricature of Hume, or you were just agreeing with the rest of the statement. Hume did not make that presumption. Sensible qualities are impressed on our thought, reason is a process we choose to apply to our impressions.

I believe 'unconscious reasoning' to be an oxymoron.  Certainly beliefs are formed from time to time by unconscious processes, but to call those processes reasoning makes no sense to me. 
 So for example, I throw a ball, and a dog catches it. The ball is moving at a certain speed, describing a certain arc, to end up in a certain place at a certain time, and the dog puts his mouth precisely where it needs to be, when it needs to be there.  Would you say that dog performed [i]unconscious trigonometry?[/i] I would not.  Dogs don't know trig. For that matter, neither did the person throwing the ball in this example.  The dog certainly had some sort of unconscious process that put his mouth where it needs to be, but I don't see why it has to be parallel to the process a person would go through if they were consciously working it out as a math problem.

If I were in the 16th century, I might agree with you. But these days, we know far, far more about how a brain and mind function in order to accomplish what they do. And yes, I really would say that the subconscious performs that “trigonometry”, but in its own terms.

Mathematics is a cognitive language for the conscious mind. The sub- and unconscious mind doesn’t use that language except in extraordinary cases. The unconscious mind uses inherent logic applied to its limited perception and the subconscious mind uses comparative rationality to aim toward a goal. Both can be reduced to probability and statistics, but not using the language of mathematics, merely the effects of assessing a perceived situation from one step to the predicted next step, which is all mathematics does. Both are cases of reasoning. They both perform the function of intelligence to accomplish a life supporting goal, merely using different languages and methods.

Relating to the process of awareness / consciousness there are two „ways“: b[/b] the way from semiotical, linguistical operations to logical (philosophical), mathematical operations, b[/b] the way from mathematical operations to logical (philosophical), linguistical, semiotical operations.

Some of the non-human living beings have consciousness, but they have a very much smaller brain and less consciousness than the human beings have. Only human beings have such very, very complex conscious systems, especially the linguistical, the logical (philosophical), and the mathematical system. Let’s say that some of the non-human living beings have a pre-consciousness because the diffrence betwenn their consciousness and the consciousness of the human beings is too large.

An example:

A lioness „instinctively »knows«“ how much cubs she has. When one or more of them are lost, she realises it, but she can’t count like humans can. At first the lioness „goes“ the conscious „way 1“ without any linguistical and logical operations (see above), thus from the semiotical operations (sign: „lost cubs“) to the mathematical operation („all cubs – missing cubs“), and then she „goes“ the conscious „way 2“ without logical and linguistical operations (see above), thus from the mathematical operations (for example: 7 – 2 = 5) to the semiotical operation (sign: „less cubs“). The mathematics in the brain of the lioness works but she doesn’t „consciously »know«“ that it works.

Another example:

A predator must be able to calculate the „worth“ of attacking a prey If it is not profitable or even too dangerous, it is better to protect oneself and to gather forces. A predator with a broken leg can hardly catch a prey; a predator with a broken lower jaw can hardly eat a prey: a predator without a tongue can hardly drink. Predators must „instinctively »know«“ much about their environment and their skills, their risks, what is possible and what is too dangerous.

In order to survive the non-human living beings don’t need such a complex brain, such a complex awareness / consciousness, especially such complex systems of language (linguistics) and logic (philosophy), as the human beings have. Human beings are luxury beings.

• viewtopic.php?f=1&t=186170&p=2490903#p2490903
• viewtopic.php?f=3&t=186493&p=2492127#p2492127
• viewtopic.php?f=3&t=186493&p=2492127#p2492331

Human beings can say: „I don’t want to eat today because tomorrow or later I am going to eat a Sacher torte“. The evolution of the luxury beings means the process of winning more and more luxury at the cost of losing more and more instincts, means becoming less and less beings of adaptation to the environment but more and more beings of alienation, of insulation. Nevertheless, human beings are also predators, but they are luxury predators because they are luxury beings.

To me it is all about like arguing if a calculator or computer “uses logical deduction”, “thinks”, and/or “knows the answer”. It is all just how you want to define the words and concepts. As far as I am concerned, the method for deduction and intelligence is pretty irrelevant to the concern of whether something is actually deducing, reasoning, or responding intelligently. They all get the task of reasoning done, by whatever means they do it else none of them would survive at all. Without any type of reasoning, an animal wouldn’t even be able to see, breath, eat, or walk.

Science like government is a purely political and economic affair.

… and now involving indoctrination, propaganda, and coercion.

Same as it has always been.

I can’t much credit, I’m aping Thomas Reid as usual.

My take on Hume is that he argued against it because he saw the rationalist view as flawed and the[i] only alternative[/i] to skepticsm and thus he embraced skepticism. That's the part of Hume I'm disagreeing with.  In other words, he thought that in order for a belief "there is a tree" to be justified given the premise "I see a tree", it had to be grounded in some additional, rational argument, axiom, or observation.  He could find no such thing (the closest he got to was 'the future will be like the past'), and especially no evidence that people do any argumentation when percieving, and so he argued for a skepticism of the world beyond perception that Reid and ultimately Kant had to respond to.   Same thing with belief in causation; causation isn't immediately delivered by the senses, no axiom or argument gets us to causation from what we do percieve, so therefore we must be skeptical that there is such a thing as causation.   I (thanks to Reid) say the act of 'seeing a tree' includes both the belief formation and it's justification, the belief formation is not a thing that happens after the seeing as a result of some bridging rational process in ordinary circumstances.  Looking for such a process is a mistake, and not finding it is no cause for skepticism. 

So briefly:

Hume thought: Sense perception + Reasoning = belief about external world = skeptism about external world, because the reasoning is bad/non-existent.

I think: Sense perception = belief about external world + accompanying experience = Belief in the external world because a bridge between perception and belief isn’t needed.

And to bring it back to the point I was responding to, to say that sense perception involves reasoning is to invite general skeptism as any formulation of that alleged reasoning is bound to be found lacking. And now I’m aping Ernest Sosa…or this other guy I read at the same time as him who’s last name begins with a G. I think.

Ha, you’re right about Berkeley. Sorry, Early Modern was a long time ago. Yes, it was a combination Hume and Berkeley’s skepticism of knowledge of the real world that Reid and Kant wrote in response to.

If you want to call what the brain does to get from "I see a tree" to "There is a tree"  'reasoning', it's just a word and I've not real problem with your vocbulary.  My point would be that what the brain is unconsciously doing doesn't resemble the premise-> premise-> ...... conclusion pattern that we think of as conscious reasoning.  You aren't going to find the 'good argument' for why seeing a tree justifies thinking there is a tree hidden in the human sub- or unconscious. I think you'd have to define 'reasoning' as "Any old thing a mind happens to do, conscious or otherwise" in order to successfully say that sense perception involves reasoning.

EDIT And then I saw this from you:

So it sounds like we’re basically on the same page. To me, ‘reason’ describes a very specific faculty that involves examining the logical interaction of propositions. From my point of view, the mind does a whole bunch of things that aren’t reasoning.

Well as I said before, you are obviously talking about “cognitive reasoning” only wherein one is aware of each step in reasoning. To me, that is a bit like saying, “there is arithmetic, algebra, and trigonometry that all make sense, then a bunch of other math that doesn’t make any sense.” Just because you are not conscious of the reasoning, doesn’t mean that it isn’t there.

Surely you can agree that when you look at a tree, the light from that tree is scattered in an array across your retina stimulating neurons in a pattern. And some part of you brain has to be deducing that because the color changes to green from this neuron all the way over to that neuron and then changes again to whatever and then whatever and the final pattern resembles that of a tree, “I am seeing a tree”. You are not cognizant of the photons striking your retina, the neurons being triggered, the synaptic decisions being made, nor the waves of sensations that form that visual map of the terrain, but certainly that have to happening, else you could never become conscious of the tree image merely from scattered light.

The more instinctive mind does not watch itself try to reason, it merely does it. Much like riding a bicycle or playing a musical instrument, one might at first have to consciously attend to each tiny effort but after some practice he becomes unconscious of the very many automatic feedback control actions he is making. Do you say that he didn’t decide on each effort he made just because he wasn’t cognizant of them, or do you say that he just wasn’t conscious of each decision that he was in fact making?

The entire function and purpose of a brain is to sense, analyze, and adjust its environment. It does nothing else. It doesn’t have to watch itself doing it and is often better off not doing so (although it would be good if it would be inspired to verify its conclusions much more often - especially when posting online ).

[size=150]One need merely have faith[/size] [-o<
… in your Lord
[size=85]… we scientists.[/size]

Faith is the power by which the will can propel recognition out of the dark cave of the indiscernible.

Berekely was a a sort of ironist for Hume, to deal with reactionary , secondary views. I don’t really think that he purposefully set himself up to his student’s retort , to test the immateriality of material.

[quote=“obe”]
Faith is the power by which the will can propel recognition out of the dark cave of the indiscernible.

The base of religion and theology (also theism) is belief respectively faith. The German word for “belief” is “Glaube” (and “to believe” = “glauben”), and this has its roots in the the term “FÜR WAHR HALTEN” - HOLD FOR TRUE (ACCEPT AS TRUE) -, so that one can also say that philosophy, science, and something near have also their roots in what religion and theology have their roots; but science and philosophy are more elaborated and “higher” than religion and theology. For belief there are also two sides and ways: (1.) a practical side and way and (2.) a theoretical side and way. (1.) The practical belief leads to religion and perhaps, if becoming an elaborated form, to science; (2.) the theoretical belief leads to theology and perhaps, if becoming a higher form, to philosophy. All cultures have this sides and gone this two ways but differently. When Westerners are saying that there is “a huge difference between religion and science and between theology and philosophy”, then they are saying more about themselves and their culture because that difference is not as huge as they always assume.

Theism is merely the ideologised form of theology. Antitheism is just another theism. Theology is the theoretical side and way (=> 2.) of belief, the belief in God (“θεός”, “theós” «» “God”). And if you don’t want to belief in God, then you can call yourself “disbeliever” but not “antitheist” because an antitheist is just another theist, although or because of the attempt to become a disbeliever. Because of the fact that antitheism refers to theism and although both fighting against each other both a parts of Hegel’s dialectic process and have to bow to it, thus became a synthesis, and in the case of theism there can merely be theism as the thesis, antitheism as the antithesis, and syntheism as the synthesis. And one can easily guess what syntheism is.

I agree with all of that except that my brain is deducing something. To me, deducing is a conscious process. If my brain was deducing, then I would be deducing, and aware of such. If I’m not aware that I’m deducing something, then I’m not, by definition. Does your brain reason that each heart beat should take place? Does some part of you deduce that the hand should be jerked away from the hot surface? I am told that in this latter case, the signal doesn’t even make it all the way to the brain before the reaction happens- the spinal cord takes care of such flinches. Does the spinal cord make decisions that the brain only finds out about later?
It’s clear to me that even if you believe in unconscious reasoning, you have to accept that the brain does some things which aren’t reasoning- even things that lead to physical action or reaction to the environment. I think visual object recognition is probably among these things- it’s why we flinch away from things flying suddenly into our field of vision and so on.

True enough.

I think something is only a decision to the degree the decider is conscious of it. Being conscious of it is not the only aspect of something being a decision, but it is essential, I think.

It seems to be merely a matter of word usage, semantics.

A neural network makes decisions based upon interaction states. When those decisions are aimed toward a goal such as survival, they are “rational decisions”. I say that a neural network “thinks”, sometimes “rationally”. You say that only a conscious entity can “think deductively and thus rationally”. To me a conscious entity is merely a neural network that utilizes a “terrain map”, such as recognizing the self from the fire.

But this is all much like the Theist-Atheist contention. It is just a choice of word usage and whatever sociopolitical gains might be obtain or lost. In the reductive sense, there is no conceptual difference between cognitive reasoning and sub/unconscious reasoning of a neural network, just like there isn’t between a Senator making a decision and a private citizen making a decision. The same principles apply, they just have different influence.