mobile logo
 

Reason

Reason’s Key Concepts / Proofs

DEFINITIONS

PRINCIPLES

Governance

Leadership

Relationships

    PROOFS

    DEMONSTRATIONS

    CONSIDERATIONS

    Problem Solving
    Other
      Reason Definition/Description

      First, a simple definition — Irrational: not endowed with reason or understanding. (Merriam-Webster)

      Reason is a process whereby a promoted hypothesis (yes, the scientific method) runs a gauntlet of competing hypotheses until one alone survives to reach the “sufficient condition.” For a rational effort, both the necessary and sufficient conditions for the hypothesis must be met. Initially, a hypothesis’s necessary condition is met when the observed data are explained or predicted by the hypothesis. At this point, some individuals are tempted to stop and proclaim that they have obtained the correct answer because the data support it – that is, they say, that their perspective is “supported by the science.” While possibly true, these individuals have met the necessary condition only. If there are, or there remains, a potential for other viable hypotheses, then the reasoning effort is incomplete. Reason is precisely the process of pursuing the sufficient condition, which irrational individuals explicitly forgo. Sufficiency is achieved when a hypothesis’s promoter establishes that the observed data are explained or predicted exclusively by the proposed hypothesis. That is to say, no other hypothesis has been, or can be, alternatively offered to explain the phenomenon. Proving the sufficient condition can be an infinitely complicated activity with which to commit.

      Reason by analogy

      By illustration, imagine that I present the number “4” to you. Consider this to be the observed data for a specific situation. For this illustration/thought experiment, I reserve within my mind the method whereby the “4” was produced. Yet, I subsequently ask you to discover how I arrived at it. To enable reasoning (rationality), I ask that you observe a single rule: I will answer all your questions about the data, but one, whether your hypothesis about my method is correct.

      Say your first hypothesis for the thought experiment is the formula “2+2”. This hypothesis would meet the previously described “necessary condition” because “2+2” = 4. Your theory is thus “supported by the science.” Again, this is the likely end of the thinking road for an irrational person. Of course, some individuals may also fabricate data, but that is another, more profound, possibly more nefarious problem. The necessary condition is the correct answer to the irrational individual because it is doubtless true to them. It just feels right. And others will likewise see it as true as well. Critically, it is just not the only way to arrive at 4. The rational person accepts this. However, for a variety of reasons, irrational persons desire to look no further into the observed. They are unable or unwilling to steer in the direction of objective truth. By contrast, a reasonable person begins to ask probing questions: did I arrive at 4 in my thought experiment by addition? This question is an example of a test (a form of prediction) in the scientific method. Here, you still do not know my thoughts because I reply no. Still, the test has successfully eliminated alternative hypotheses 2+2, 3+1, 1+1+1+1, etc. And so the process goes, potentially forever. Even if you cleverly proffer the correct answer, I can never confirm your success. This rule is the essential rule. Your capacity to reason depends upon it. I understand that this uncertainty requirement appears impractical, but the perpetualness of the process is the actual process of reason. And, it possibly explains why irrationality is so prevalent. Thankfully, our minds can learn how to manage this challenge, though only tenuously for some universally shared neurological reasons.

      Reasonableness is only self aware irrationality

      Consistently rational people can overcome this process challenge by consciously and only temporarily suspending the ‘pursuit of the sufficient condition’ once a productive, though always intermediate, the solution is isolated (no other surviving competitive hypotheses). However, and potentially perilously, until sufficiency is established (impossible), all that has been affected with this sufficiency compromise is a kind of self-aware irrationality. Still, one might reasonably call it a state of reasonableness (see also Objective truth, harmony, and freedom of conscience). Ideally, this is how we all live our lives. Yet, while potentially acceptable, reasonableness may only be attained by nurturing some doubt and a proactive questioning posture. The second requirement is best depicted as a deferential humility to absolute Truth. However, maintaining balance within a state of reasonableness is difficult work too. Irrational individuals appear uncomfortable with it. Maybe this is predictable since doubt produces insecurity and anxiety. Our societal development often and purposely attempts to acclimatize us to thoughtless manipulation by authority. Yet, both are fatal when they happen simultaneously (never let a crisis go to waste).

      Reasonable people cannot claim to “know” absolute truth

      In general, absolute truth exists, but no person or group can ever claim to know it. Absolute Truth is known only to the Creator, which is true even for the banalest of questions. Consistently reasonable people are always empowered to think in this way. Absolute truth, or as some would say, God’s truth, or truth only God can know, is fundamental to our capacity to reason. Suppose a person is permitted to resolve their hypotheses into absolute Truths, for whatever reason. In that case, the involved persons will stop looking for new possibilities, and their capacity to reason will be undone. An absolute Truth that no person can claim is thus inseparable from reason.

      Benjamin Libet

      In addition to the above challenges of logic and process for reason, the science of neurology and psychology must also have their say. In the 1970s, Benjamin Libet, a consciousness researcher, discovered that the human brain begins its neural activity initially outside of, or before, conscious awareness of it. He quantified the time lag between stimulated neural activity and conscious awareness of the inputs driving it. The delay he measured was approximately 0.6 seconds. Though relatively small, the awareness delay has a consequential impact on reasoning and the mind’s suspended efforts in pursuit of the sufficient condition. Some thoughtful people have gone so far as speculating that “You Probably Don’t Have Free Will” (Philosophy Break) using the observations of Libet and others. I alternatively hypothesize that, while we always have the capacity for free will or reason, there can be neurological impediments for its real-time or near real-time, application. Significantly, individuals can be tempted to accept their immediate ‘gut instinct’ instead of reasoning and jumping to conclusions.

      Reason’s neuroscience foundation

      I also believe that one’s brain evolves neural interconnection objects (peripheral nervous system ganglion-like, but generally “syn-neuro” in the brain, variously volatile, and “stackable” [objects connecting to, or using other objects]) for thoughts and actions supporting every belief or behavior. In the big picture, our senses and capacity to reason provide feedback for the creation and evolution of these neural objects. Over time, the objects “learn” and are permitted (see Libet above) to pseudo-independently act upon their own input. This is how one can drive a car and not consciously require the aware part of the brain to participate in every detailed driving task. In other words, and upon our free will, we decide what to think and improve using hypotheses for what constitutes a good or bad result. The brain, in turn, evolves neural interconnection objects to assume the lowly responsibility of their repeated application. One’s consciousness thus slowly rises to take the responsibility of directing those actions, having previously, that is, neurologically evolved interconnection objects designed specifically to shoulder the burdensome responsibility of efficiently and consistently enacting them. Because of this, Libet’s 0.6 seconds matter.

      In any event, when it comes to behavior actions, the feedback system is simple. It is our senses and good/bad behavior hypotheses (as children, lacking internal and testable hypotheses, we rely on external praise and shame). The neural object works with reasoning until the sensory feedback system (the data) says it doesn’t. The problem arises when the feedback source becomes more distant or complicated, with complex or abstract ideas.

      It is now helpful to analogize reasoning in the following way: Minds, as if possessing doors through which reasoning is made possible, are either open, closed, or locked. For this analogy, absolute Truth loiters on the external side of the mind’s reasoning-door.

      Absolute Truth Denied

      The locked-door mind represents the irrational mind. Sometimes, absolute Truth is psychologically incomprehensible to irrational persons, while at other times, it is variously ignorantly or emotionally rejected by them. This may also explain why irrational people tend to reject faith. Objective truth is simply anathema to the resolutely irrational. Unfortunately, reason is not possible without absolute Truth (which cannot be claimed as understood by people). Thus, an irrational individual perceives themselves to be a victim since there can be no other explanation for their “suffering.” See Buddhism & Duḥkha. Utopianism emerges as the only plausible remedy for their unhappiness. Irrational people pursue Utopian perfection because, without absolute truth and reason, there are no tools to alter or make reasonable their unrealistic beliefs. Instead, they jealously cling to being “good” for praise (while assiduously avoiding its opposite shame) because they have access only to the outline of what reason has previously been produced … by others. Subsequently, by weaponizing the child (rationally immature) influencing tools of shame and praise, locked-door minds endeavor to crush the contrary and thus psychologically threatening perspectives of the reasonable. Irrational people suffer because they believe their subjective reality is the Truth, while instead, True reality perpetually rope-a-dopes their locked-door reason-less mental rigidity.

      Absolute Truth accepted, with a pragmatic suspension of the search for sufficiency

      The closed-door mind represents a potentially reasonable person who may be receptive to new ideas but does not proactively seek them. Instead, new ideas are required to knock on the person’s reason-door to gain entry. Said another way, the owner of the closed-door mind must grant permission to enable their mind’s exposure to absolute Truth. Thus, the closed-door person is only a sporadically reasonable thinker. Unfortunately, this may be the state of reasoning for much of humanity. Humanity’s naturally irrational, subjective truth tempted/self-focused thinking is what Christians consider our fallen nature. Sometimes, the more emotionally mature or enlightened among us can help those with a closed-door mind hear the knocking and aid in their reasoning by assisting them in holding open the door to the illuminating light of absolute truth. Yet, permission is needed here too. All the while, the din of delusional propaganda from the locked-door above minds makes hearing the knock of evidence for objective truth confusingly tricky. Fortunately, life’s intentional and persistent suffering for people with only a closed-door mind eventually facilitates mental growth, but notably never to perfection. Humans are, after all, fallen.

      Absolute Truth embraced, with pragmatic suspension of the search for sufficiency

      The open-door represents the reasonable mind. The open-door person prays for the spiritual strength to seek always absolute Truth. Their reasoning-door could close. The suspended process requirements of the sufficient condition and the neurological considerations set forth by Benjamin Libet (and others) are illustrative reasons. However, one way to preserve an open-door mind is through deference to God. Deferential humility, because it requires a purposeful and continuous assessment of God’s will (and objective Truth), ensures that its owner actively propped open the door of reason. Yes, the irreligious may learn to hold the door open themselves (see Buddha), but, as Benjamin Libet sets forth, the reason-door biologically always tends to shut quietly; that being its stable, neurologically efficient state. Yet, love and fear of God, and not of oneself, can have an enduring and constantly self-skeptical impact on one’s ability to hold that door open. God’s Grace, or awareness that God’s Truth cannot be claimed even in the pursuit of truth, is achieved this way. I see the wisdom of faith in God and Christianity (among other religions), and I am grateful to them … for all of our sake. Still, everyone and every group must respect the requirement that absolute Truth cannot be claimed, or irrationality may wickedly devolve into self-righteous totalitarianism. The rule that knowledge of God’s truth cannot be claimed, even in personal piousness, was a lesson for Job as well.

      I can’t prove that God exists (the absolute Truth rule applies here, too – as if God wanted the primary point made unambiguously). However, all that is truly needed is an understanding that it is reasonable to believe in God. At the same time, it is likewise unreasonable to claim a personal understanding of absolute, or God’s, Truth. And that’s a good and necessary foundation for rationality. As for God’s Grace and me personally, I know not to desire it, but I humbly accept that I need it as only a tenuously reasonable human.

      Home

      A detailed and complete explanation for reason; how it is achieved and how it is undone (the latter only in part).

      Book Chapters

      Brain Owner User Manual
      Brain Owner User Manual

      Chapter 1: What do you think?

      The brain’s understanding of reality is always flawed. Even a person’s direct observations can be misleading since the mind only sees what it wants to see. The brain plainly perceives the world through a recorder of its own ignorant and self-absorbed design. This mental tunnel vision is our human cross to bear. Yet, it is essential that we understand it. …

      READ MORE

      Chapter 2: The One Thing?

      I propose a much more accessible and concrete “one thing” which can enable this insatiable discovery mindset. It is called “free won’t.” By habitualizing ‘free won’t’, a person can intentionally produce lifelong learning through a human-made detour to one’s personal search for understanding. It is important to do this. Human civilization may depend upon it …

      READ MORE

      Chapter 3: Free Will is Empowering. Do You Have It?

      Producing free will and reason is not easy. I’ll provide an answer as to why below. Yet, the answer may not initially make sense to you. The form of the free will question and answer is, from one perspective, paradoxical. I structure the question this way to compel your thinking. If the subject of free will makes sense to you too quickly, then you didn’t have to think about it. Likely, your mind jumped to conclusions. Free will, or really something more accurately called free won’t, is studied only from reason, and reason is the part of your mind that cannot arrive at conclusions.. …

      READ MORE

      Copyright © 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 by LearningFramework.com