Is Man Reasonable?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

In general, let's figure out how many reasons a person has to call himself reasonable. In fact, the concepts of reason or intellect are vague, intuitive, lacking clear criteria. There is no scientific definition at all, let alone convincing enough. Neither biologists nor psychologists have such an idea of what mind is, specialists who are trying to model intelligence on a computer do not have such an idea, authors of philosophical theories have no understanding of what mind is. If you look at what ends different specialists are trying to grasp this elusive concept, then the following emerges. Firstly, some experts are trying to convince us that humans have intelligence, because, unlike animals, they are capable of performing certain complex actions that do not immediately lead to a result, the purpose of which is kept in mind.

Suppose, they say, we throw a piece of meat to an animal, it will eat it, and a person will put it in the refrigerator in order to preserve it for the future. However, if you think carefully, there are no such significant differences here, and animals also do not always react only at the level of primitive reflexes, but are capable of complex actions that have a long-term goal, the ability to perform which they acquire in the course of learning. Sensational results were obtained in experiments with pygmy chimpanzees, which not only turned out to be able to understand individual abstract concepts, but also learned to communicate in natural human language (see, for example, On the other hand, children who happened to be and spent their childhood in the jungle (Mowgli) are then unable to adequately behave in human society, to perform those actions that seem elementary to us. Therefore, it can hardly be said that such a criterion of intelligence exists - after all, the ability to use (certain) abstractions does not arise by itself, but appears as a result learning, and can each of us be sure that his actions will at least resemble reasonable in a situation radically different from those in which his daily life passed before? the concept of intelligence as a means for a practical solution to some kind of task, because even in his simple daily actions, a person is guided not only by data obtained directly on the spot, but also by a large amount of knowledge previously mastered in the learning process, for example, when planting a carrot in the garden, he sees the expediency of his actions, relying on abstract the knowledge that the seeds of plants, if planted in the ground, germinate and then grow into exactly the same plants. Without such information, he will not see any sense in burying something in the ground. Consequently, the mere potential ability to use abstract concepts and perform actions with a distant result (which both humans and animals have) does not yet give us a guarantee that someone will demonstrate intelligent behavior.

Okay, psychologists say, let's measure intelligence without reference to any specific skills, specific knowledge, etc., let's come up with some simple tasks on unfamiliar material and see how well a person manifests the ability to generalize, the ability to find patterns … The result of this approach were tests to determine the "intelligence quotient" (IQ). This approach has several fundamental disadvantages. First, such tests are largely artificial, that is, they reveal the techniques that were chosen and considered indicators of intelligence by the psychologists who made the test, and have no connection with the practical tasks that a person faces in life, i.e. the criterion for determining the truth through practical testing and application of their knowledge is discarded. Second, and more importantly, methods for solving simple riddles cannot be extrapolated to solving complex problems, since in life even the posing of questions is ambiguous, not to mention the range of possible answers. In fact, this approach is based on the idea of intelligence as the possession of some completely simple methods of thinking, which, in themselves, not only do not say anything about the ways of practical use of the results of thinking, but are absolutely in no way docked with the fact that a person uses a complex structured view of the world, to build which the simplest logical techniques, focused only on solving ready-made riddles, will not help him in any way.

Well, maybe then give us a definition of intelligence as the sum of accumulated knowledge and rules? This is the approach that artificial intelligence developers have tried to apply. Attempts have been made and are being made to develop a knowledge base in which a wide variety of concepts will be listed, connections between them will be given, information about the world will be laid in the form of separate judgments, and a computer armed with the ability to operate these concepts and connections according to the rules of logic will give us reasonable conclusions. A similar principle lies in the work of expert systems, which in some places are even successfully used in specific areas, however, in the field of creating a full-fledged AI, capable of at least passing the Turing test, things are still there. And, if you think about it, the disadvantages of this approach are also visible on the surface. First, we still understand the mind as the ability to think independently, that is, the ability not only to use, but also to receive knowledge, the ability to build the very schemes and discover the very rules, and secondly, such a system is inflexible if we can expect from a person that he is able to understand the text not only literally, paraphrase it in his own words, modify the existing solution, etc., then the rigid scheme of rules does not imply this.

Let's move on to the second part of finding out what the mind is. In real life, a rigid system of rules, patterns, logical inferences, etc. cannot work for the simple reason that every rule, every concept is not absolute, it has a certain sphere, when it leaves it, it changes its meaning and meaning. We cannot describe the life of people with such rules, unambiguous dogmas and instructions, we cannot, relying on known concepts, principles, etc., indicate what is right and what is not, for there is always an exception that will refute the rule, and which will require you to act contrary to this rule. Thus, in the end, in real life, the mind turns into a kind of mystical category, into the ability to find the right solution outside the established rules and concepts. A similar idea of mind as something mystical has developed in philosophy, although attempts to give it some definition and separate it from simpler forms of thinking have been made since the time of Kant.

So what is intelligence? Maybe, indeed, there is such an elusive, mystical beginning in a person, which is beyond the scope of his decisions to be popularly explained and expressed in words, and only the person himself, being in direct contact with this mystical beginning, can and has the right to decide for himself such questions as, for example, what is happiness, and indeed, a bunch of other, much smaller questions, without arguing or substantiating your opinion? NO-T-T! Yes, many of you are in just such confidence, acting in life with the help of this very mystical principle, intuition, believing that intuition is a substitute for reason and a complete and absolute substitute for any arguments, any arguments, any logic and meaning. Intuition is not a substitute or embodiment of reason, just as knowledge of abstract concepts, logical devices, an inflexible system of rules and dogmas is not it. Intuition is only a tool, sometimes helping to find a way to a reasonable solution, but not replacing it.

Did Newton use intuition? Yes. But, feeling with its help the way to the correct solution, Newton also found the opportunity to understand, translate into his own consciousness and formulate, leaving his descendants, his findings, and now we can all use Newton's laws and integral and differential calculus, we no longer need to wander into fog and turn to mysticism in order to draw a conclusion about the reasons for the movement of bodies. For most people, intuition is by no means a tool to find a reasonable solution, but a tool to distort any conclusions within the framework of their emotional preferences. If for a reasonable person a vague hint given by intuition is a proposal for a search, there is evidence of contradictions, there is a thread by which to pull, you can unravel the ball, then for a person who thinks emotionally, this is just an excuse to turn everything upside down, nothing without understanding and without proving anything, formulate on the basis of this vague assumption the most stupid categorical conclusions and build the most incredible conjectures and illusions. Usually, having their favorite dogmas, emotionally thinking people are afraid to delve into something or understand something, because this violates their emotional comfort, emotional people absolutize their minute and private intuitive impressions and record them in the form of habitual assessments and dogmatic conclusions, moreover, they show a tendency to argue dogmatically and insist on their own, not showing interest in any other options. Sometimes they rush everywhere with their fixed idea, based on a particular intuitive impression, which they think is important, without being able to either understand this issue better themselves, or explain their position to others. In the hands and eyes of emotionally minded people, the ability to find the right solutions turns into a truly mystical ability, especially when it comes to fairly complex issues.

At one time, Socrates, who formulated the famous phrase "I only know that I know nothing," studied the peculiarities of the thinking of the inhabitants of ancient Athens. The conclusions and observations made by Socrates (who lived in the 5th century BC) can be fully attributed to our time. Actually, Socrates was sure not only that he did not know anything personally, but everyone else did not know anything (although, unlike Socrates, they did not even know that they knew nothing). Socrates could, by offering to express a thesis to a person, which he considers to be deliberately correct, by means of leading questions, lead this person to the fact that he himself formulated a conclusion that is directly opposite to the original one. Socrates saw that many beliefs of people, things that they consider obvious or repeatedly proven by practice, are superficial, and the relationships between these beliefs do not withstand any test of logic. But if Socrates, as a reasonable person, tried to understand these contradictions, to get to more correct and general ideas, then ordinary people were quite happy with what they had. Today, just as in the days of Socrates, an ordinary person believes that it is enough for him to know only a small narrow set of stereotypes, which he is not going to go beyond and imagine that for another person, in a different situation and at a different time, they can be unfaithful, incapable. The inability to build an integral and consistent picture of the world from those ideas that have been accumulated and used in modern society is the obvious reason that we cannot consider the people living in it to be reasonable. Today, just like 2500 years ago, the criteria of truth are the familiarity of dogmas, reference to authorities, the general acceptance of certain ideas, etc. We must say absolutely unambiguously and directly that a person is not able to use knowledge, is not able to draw correct logical conclusions, unable to see the causes of phenomena, unable to distinguish between correct theses and errors.

The manipulation of abstract concepts, which a person is so proud of, turns for him either into fruitless scholasticism, or into a way to give weight to his intentions, which have nothing to do with the subject of his speeches. Behind the reasoning, which has the appearance of logical arguments, there is an arbitrary selection of one-sided arguments, which in no way necessarily confirms the correctness of the thesis being proved. Instead of real research into the causes of the phenomena and the search for a better solution, in almost 100% of cases, people with amazing activity begin to push through their favorite dogmas and their personal decisions as a substitute for those that do not justify themselves. In fact, people generally do not consider themselves obligated to prove anything, rational in their form (but not in content) they use only as a secondary, not an obligatory addition to their mystical intuitive impression that it should be considered this way here.

What is intelligence? Reason is, first of all, the ability for reasoned choice, the ability to find not particular, but general answers to questions, the ability to replace a vague intuitive impression (both in your own mind and in words intended for others) with a clear, clear, obvious representation that does not give grounds for speculation and speculation. Reason is the ability to eliminate confusion and uncertainty, creating such knowledge that will be valuable and true for a person, regardless of his momentary desires, from opportunistic considerations, knowledge that can be reliably relied on, without expecting that at one fine moment they will disperse like smoke. Reason is the ability to formulate your thoughts, without leaving in your head a vague impression of their incompleteness and inaccuracy, without feeling the need to cast aside internal doubts about their correctness. Alas, even being able to sometimes draw some reasonable conclusions, people do not feel at all the desire to think systematically in order to constantly test their ideas with the help of reason. On the contrary, often with the fruits of their momentary reflections, turned into dogma, they then rush all their lives, not being understood and not being able to develop them to any significant extent. The problem is that people, not adhering to the correct system of values, do not even see the point in being reasonable, a mystical intuitive form of thinking, ideal for indulging their desires and favorite emotional preferences, they are quite satisfied.

What to do? This situation is certainly not normal. Of course, we cannot put forward the requirement and admit the assumption that each person individually can become reasonable without changing those generally accepted ideas, the usual forms of people expressing their thoughts and, ultimately, the value system, which dominates the society. After all, the entire system of ideas that a person uses in his daily activities is a product of the collective mind. Not to mention the fact that a person who is trying to be or become reasonable in modern society is experiencing significant difficulties. There are a huge number of false stereotypes that are hammered into his head from all sides, as obvious and such, the correctness of which no one can question. There is a reaction from others who believe that first of all you should take into account their desires, but in no way touch the question of the correctness of their beliefs, most of them are extremely painful to perceive any encroachment on their favorite stereotypes. Finally, the majority of people, including those who verbally advocate for a reasonable society, for various correct ideas, etc., are satisfied with the current situation of the domination of the mystical intuitive method and many contradictory ideas, mainly because in this darkness, there is no illuminated by reason, it is much easier to hide your own mistakes, hide your own ignorance, to avoid any mental efforts yourself, otherwise, you would have to withstand very impartial assessments and criticism of your ideas, you would have to bring them to a completely different quality, look for a true solution, clearly and consistently prove that this particular option is really reasonable, really worthwhile, really solves the task or answers the question.

However, it is worth noting that, unequivocally, a change in this situation cannot be carried out without individual changes in people's perception of the world, so that each person accepts a new system of values, which will push him to constant discoveries with the help of his thinking and reason, instead of, in order to confine his consciousness in a narrow niche, surrounded by his usual dogmas and habitual emotional reactions. If until now the dominance of the system of ideas about the world and the system of relations in society, built on irrational motives and reactions, seemed indisputable, now the situation is changing dramatically. The system of representations that is still considered generally accepted, those dogmas, assessments, philosophical and scientific theories that are set forth in books that are said to be reliable on TV, that are discussed on forums on the Internet, etc., are piecemeal. it consists of various contradictory parts, when even within the framework of one theory, ideology, trend, etc., there are completely different points of view. This system of ideas is currently experiencing bankruptcy, which manifests itself across the entire spectrum of life of today's civilization - from the inability to solve geopolitical and social problems to a dead end in the development of fundamental science.

The lameness and unsatisfactory nature of the standards and patterns of behavior that are presented by Western civilization as natural and the only right ones becomes obvious; even without seeing the right decisions and not understanding in a sufficiently clear measure how an alternative society should be built and what alternative priorities and values should be replaced, many people around the world are already unequivocally rejecting the path to nowhere, the path of further transformation into monkeys, in consumers, in passive earners and seekers of pleasures and material goods. The ideas based on the priority of the mystical, irrational approach, when the actions and decisions of a person are guided by desires, as the basis of the worldview system, the basis of social structure, fail. Not everyone yet unambiguously sees the essence of the problem, trying to name some individual reasons as a source of problems, but it should be clearly understood that these difficulties are not accidental, not caused by one mistake, one or someone's private wrong opinion, one some false idea, all these difficulties are of a fundamental nature and cannot be corrected by people if these people do not abandon their usual stereotypes - avoid thinking, ignore problems in understanding phenomena, arbitrarily interpret any facts in accordance with their desires, etc. Emotional selfish people who are going to continue to adhere to the same methods should go to the zoo and live with monkeys. The rest should turn on the brain and unite in organizing the transition to a sane society and a new system of values.