Hi there! Rick's the name, reason's the game. Here's a fake interview with me:

Mind-Brain: Why do you say reason is your game?

Rick: Many years ago I was seeking some basis for deciding good actions in this game of life, and after looking around a bit, it seemed to me that reason can't be beat. Did you know that the age of reason in human affairs has passed? It peaked in the 18th century. It's actually called "The Age of Reason."

Mind-Brain: So what happened, why is reason passe?

Rick: I think it's the rebellious nature of the human heart. People thought that life shouldn't be so formulaic. After all, if reason is the best guide, then machines that can be reasonable would be just as good as people.

Mind-Brain: That really suggests a further question, doesn't it? That is, if people's experience and feelings are brain activity, then how is it that people aren't just some type of machine?

Rick: You have just put your finger on one of the really interesting problems. My "answer" is "why do you care?"

Mind-Brain: OK, let's shift gears for a minute. Let's assume that reasonable people need a good basis for knowing things. You seem to know that reason is a good way to decide things. Does reason give you this basis itself?

Rick: This is why a lot of people don't believe in reason. In the early part of the 20th century, Kurt Godel, in his famous "incompleteness theorem" showed that no rational system could be shown to be consistent within itself. In the middle part of that century, Alan Turing, with "Turing undecidability" showed that there were an infinte number of true theorems that could not be proven true. So as a result, reason does not provide a basis for adopting reason. Such a decision must come from the heart.

Mind-Brain: So the natural question here is why did you decide that reason is a good thing?

Rick: It really comes down to a process of elimination. For example, one could adopt any of a multitude of canned religions, cult beliefs, etc. For me, a belief system must satisfy some basic needs. First, it must offer the highest probability of being reliable in new and unanticipated circumstances. Second, it must offer some hope of being communicated to and understood by other people. Trying to share beliefs by saying "trust me and have faith" is not sufficiently satisfying.

Mind-Brain: So are you saying that reason provides satisfaction of some desires of the heart?

Rick: You got it.

Mind-Brain: Who are the thinkers you most admire?

Rick: Pythagoras, Diogenes, Socrates, Euclid, Archimedes, and Spinoza.

Mind-Brain: You know you have conspicusously left out Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Liebnitz, Newton, Kant, Godel, Einstein, Turing, and Feynman.

Rick: Yes, I know, but if I make the list too long nobody will read it.

Mind-Brain: So if you could sum up your message in a few sentences, what would it be?

Rick: Love really is the answer and reason guides us to make the most of it.

Mind-Brain: Thanks for the interview.

Rick: It's my pleasure.

This post has been edited by Rick on Aug 29, 12:54 PM

!!!!!


mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
life taste good with a pinch of rick

interesting hypothetical interview. For many centuries, there has been an apparent conflict between Reason and Emotion; hence the Rationalists vs. the Romantics. Looking at history these past centuries, you can argue for an oscillation back and forth between these two viewpoints. Regardless, it is something of a false dichotomization. Reason is impotent without Emotion, and Emotion is blind without Reason, which parallels Einstein's well-known quote about Religion and Science. Few people would advocate a single-faceted existence in light of the fact that life is a multi-faceted experience. You cannot get very far in life employing just Reason without utilizing other facets such as Emotion. Spinoza has written much on this subject in his Ethics. No doubt others have maintained or expressed similar views preceding his, though likely with less clarity and precision.

Shawn, you have anticipated my next installment. That's OK. It needed saying one way or another.

Thanks, anonymust. Five exclames is high praise indeed. I'll bet it's good with a pinch of you too.

Rick, I like your approach-- and your politics, BTW. That reason doesn't have to necessarily deny emotion is why I'm titling my online book project "Faith by Reason".

Thanks, Warren. When it's ready, be sure to give us a pointer to your book project.

Rick,
You give very good reasons why reason is a good reason for reasonable people to reason about reasoning in order to live reasonably well, with or without emotion.

And happy Valentine's day, too.

Rick, do you have a response to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? Or does it affect your views? I am not familiar with it myself, only I have heard of it and your interview brought it to mind.

How does your belief in Reason translate into your everyday existence? For example, does it mean that given a set of choices from which to make a decision with, you would choose the most reasonable one, even if in the context of the setting it was unreasonable? Or would you see making no choice as the only alternative in such a situation?

Tim.

There is nothing in Kant's many works that fundamentally contradicts my views. Ultimately, Kant said that one should live one's life as if it were to be held up as an example for others.

My application of reason is very similar to the instructions that jurors are given in deciding a case. What would or should a "reasonable person" do in a given situation.

My post of Feb 14 demonstrates admirably my lack of emotion.
I have not shown my respect for a sensible and valuable 'interview'.
I did find that it concurred with my own thoughts!

I must admit that I am logic driven rather emotion driven, but contend that it is due to my makeup rather than a choice.

I am not well read in all the authors quoted, so cannot speculate on the dichotomy of the emotion/reason argument.

Most of us have a bit of both in various mixes I dare say, so I presume that both serve a purpose, or at least did at some time or another.

Lack of consciousness of emotion may not be lack of emotion. When emotions reach consciousness, we call them feelings. To be fully reasonable, a person must be capable of examining his emotions, which implies consciousness of them.

I appreciate and value your views.

The beauty of your rule lyes on its simplicity, in my opinion: you don't even need to know how to read in order to apply it. I mean, I think I've been trying to live by this rule since early chilhood!

Hi Rick

Nils Bohr correctly stated that "A great truth has an opposite which is also true whereas a trivial truth has an oppostie which is merely false". Godel or Turing are misunderstood in reference to what you called 'true theorems' as if there are things which cannot be proven and yet we should accept them.

It is a matter akin to Intelligent Design debates. Those who think they know (or speak for) G-d are not scientists even if Dembski is a sell-out to Christian propaganda. The people who say G-d can be known are those who limit God - anthropomorphing.

So are you saying we cannot experience God? You seem to be saying that anyone who has a mystical experience of God is anthropomorphizing. I would have to disagree.

One of the most interesting concepts that we have inherited from the ancient Greeks is the concept of the unknowable. I can give undisputable examples.

But the ancients did not have Google and other search engines, eh?.

BUT SERIOUSLY, IS ANYTHING WORTH KNOWING, UNKNOWABLE?
======================================================
With apologies to Leonardo: To me, the joy of being able to explore and to try and understand what is now called the unknown is, IMO, the noblest joy of all.

(Quote)code buttons
The beauty of your rule lyes on its simplicity, in my opinion: you don't even need to know how to read in order to apply it. I mean, I think I've been trying to live by this rule since early chilhood!

A tai ch of reason and emotion. Reason would be too cold without emotion. Emotion couldn't be managed very well without reason. Is putting what's reasonable above what's emotional what makes humans less animal?

I think the ancient Greeks regarded man's capacity for self-control as what set them apart. A modern approach is to recognize and honor our animal nature, but to apply reason to maximize one's return.