Are there phenomena which simple rationality cannot adequately explain?

[noyen]

cuntitude

[null123]

i don't understand the question, but yes

[slunken]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

although like I said in theory if we could perfectly measure first cause we could know that he ate eggs over easy and the hearts of his enemies or whatever

the only difference being that people don't devote their entire lives to breakfastology



















































































...OR DO THEY

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by slunken

right and The Omega Concern is a total loony...

my point being if we're on a football field of unexplained phenomena this ghost talk is already 90 yards down the field. what about first down with how the pyramids were built or easter island

totally agree

Originally Posted by redbreegull

yeah, I see your point. I'm not sure I can think of very many legitimate examples of things which science has actually attempted to explain and totally failed. These things usually are beyond quantification and thus the scientific method cannot be applied to them... and generally fall into the category of "no one really knows if this is true or not"

But just because something is unknowable doesn't in-and-of-itself mean it's probably false. There probably is no God, and my degree of uncertainty vs. awareness of not knowing makes me say that. But other people see these and come up with different ratios and say my awareness of not knowing and my experience of X, Y, and Z make me think there probably is a God. We have different windows of tolerance to the unknown, and that goes beyond our opinions of whether God exists or not. Yes Occam's razor blah blah blah but do you get what I'm saying? Trying to make sense here, not doing a very good job.

Also, the older you get - by virtue of your time on earth expanding - the more likely you are to experience "mystical" phenomena that is not rational from your perspective. Some people will right then say aha, this is proof that mystical things exist. Some people will say okay this is weird, but I'm not sure what it means. And if you were to say this means nothing, just a bunch of coincidences that have no meaning, that closes you off to ever knowing anything that may not be rational, if such a thing exists.

And even if it doesn't have some cosmic meaning relating to humanity or spirituality or whatever, it may have a personal one which comes to another point which is the meaning of "real" but that is another topic.

But I still see your point. I guess I just feel like the inability to apply science to a phenomenon should not automatically constitute THE UNEXPLAINABLE or otherworldliness or spirituality in our minds, because that just leads us down paths of magical thinking which I believe are not helpful to us as individuals or as a species as tempting as they are.

well of course

[reprise85]

Also, I mean I guess I can agree that nothing is "unexplainable". But that doesn't concede that everything can be explained "rationally"

[killtrocity]

Originally Posted by reprise85

I agree with you that things should be able to be explained scientifically, but if we are not able to explain something based on our limited resources, how do we discern what is untrue from what is true but unexplainable for whatever reason (limit in human intelligence or knowledge of scientific principles etc)?

yeah that's pretty much why the "transrational" idea makes sense to me, in addition to your first post. I have an analogy of sorts:

so is a group of people comprised ultimately of atoms? Yes. But can we succinctly or even realistically describe social dynamics in terms of straight-line particle motion? Absolutely not. And that's not to say that we couldn't in theory, or that a supercomputer exponentially more complex than any sort of processor conceivable right now couldn't possibly break down the inner workings of a human body and brain to the simplest components, trace the behavior of each part, and calculate a probable or even inexorable outcome... but the simple physics need to be augmented, or at least benefit from, additional layers of understanding: the biological, the psychological, the sociological, the economic, yes?

Or how about something easier to conceptualize: are the workings of a video game ultimately comprised of zeroes and ones? Yes. Is it possible to describe how to kill a dragon in Skyrim using zeroes and ones? Yes. Is that a practical or succinct way of understand the process of killing a dragon in Skyrim? No. So it's not that the initial system is wrong, it's just that it lacks the complexity which arises from the systems which are layered on top of it, and speaking in terms of this complexity is ultimately beneficial for describing more complex phenomena.

Do "normal" sized bodies follow conventional physics? Yes. Do electrons? No. Are "normal" sized bodies comprised of electron-sized or near-electron-sized particles? Yes. Do electrons and rocks follow the same rules? No. There is a disconnect going on here which must be necessity be caused by an incomplete or inadequate form of thinking (assuming there isn't something huge about the universe which rationality cannot deal with). But our current system isn't "wrong"! So I guess the question becomes "Is the 'trans-rational' really just a "more accurate rational?"

So both of those thought examples are similar and involve complex systems arising from less complex systems. Not really sure if that's exactly what we're talking about. How about another one:

So primitive cultures would associate things like rain dances with summoning rain, or other rituals with bringing about certain desired effects - voodoo, alchemy, sacrifices to gods, perhaps prayer in the "wishing" sense - it seems like in these cases there is a perceived causal relationship which is usually non-causal. So perhaps sometimes the ritual happens to have some sort of causal relationship to the desired effect, and sometimes it doesn't. Like with alchemy, for example. I don't know much about alchemy except that it involved mixing things based on prior knowledge of mixing things, sometimes based on established experience but also with some sort of mystical affect attributed to the things being mixed. We can talk about these mixing process with pinpoint accuracy and precision in 2013, being able to accurately predict the outcomes of controlled reactions - we have a system of explanations which perfectly fits the observations - but back then it was essentially a ritual for obtaining desired outcomes. And strangely enough I don't think what we do today is dramatically different. We have developed a juggernaut of a school of thought for explaining and predicting alchemical processes based on cause and effect which fits the empirical data, but that initial system of mere association between objects is still central to the process of chemistry, we've only added more complexity and sophistication to the system of understanding, which has led to more sophisticated applications of "alchemy", so to speak. So is chemistry "trans-alchemy" or "more accurate alchemy"?

So is it conceivable that in 200 years we will add even more complexity to various systems of thought? I think it is inevitable, because there are things we still don't know but which must have explanations, and therefore I think it is reasonable to think of a "trans-rational" system of thought as something which augments rational thought without neglecting it.

So with the archaic or magical systems of understanding, sometimes the association is grounded in reality, sometimes it is not. Sometimes they got lucky with alchemical recipes, but what about rain dances? Isn't that just a happy coincidence when it works? So this system of happy coincidences called the "pre-rational" becomes augmented with a tried and true way to determine causal relationships: the scientific method, or the "rational". So does that imply, if you buy into the pre/trans dichotomy, that or current system for explaining the universe gets lucky sometimes but totally misses as well? Perhaps that systems of equations, while adequate in most cases, are missing something in other areas? So the leap from pre-rational to rational is pretty large, there's a significant improvement being made. My question then is what kind of dramatically significant improvement will come next? Will it have to do with how societies function as wholes? Will it have to do with consciousness as it relates to brains? Will it be some other even more accurate method for determining truth amidst misleads akin to rain dances being associated with rain? Is consciousness arising from complex systems an inherent property of reality itself? If this part strikes you as too metaphysical or theoretical, read this article: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...consciousness/


This part gets abstract and is just a vomiting of thoughts:
This is a side note, but one thing which rationality does not account for is systems of values - what makes one thing aesthetically pleasing? Films, music, artwork, faces, sunsets... some of these can be attributed to evolutionary tendencies in a pretty logical way. But there is a gargantuan lack of understanding of values, esthetics, and morals when it comes to rationality alone. But if one were to poll an audience or look at aggregate ratings or opinions of the aforementioned things, there is usually some degree of consensus. Another example: a strong case can be made that love is the only truly rational act (read "The Art of Loving" by Erich Fromm), a conclusion arrived at via logic, but traditional empiricism totally neglects the idea that certain things are inherently "better" than others, and certainly that humans are capable of putting others before themselves - this violates self-preservation according to evolution! Maybe...

Ok so perhaps the whole idea of putting others before oneself is just another evolutionary mechanism for perpetuating groups of species (to me this seems as odd as describing a human in terms of electron distribution, but ok). But it's also strangely aligned with the teachings of that Jesus dude, who was arguably ahead of his time, whom everybody has been freaking out about for 2000 years. Logic denotes that living things have survival mechanisms built into them, but where does the will to survive come from? The lesson IMO is that systems are self-perpetuating independent of motive. So we're all supposed to be motivated according to our DNA by the desire to create the most evolutionarily advantageous offspring to perpetuate our own genetic data and therefore lead to a fitter species, yes? So not only is the individual perpetuating itself, the collective of individuals is self-perpetuating, for subsequent generations. So maybe we all get together and form culture and therefore similar tastes as an extension of evolution, to self-perpetuate, to not kill leach other due to lack of common ground and values, to reinforce each other and therefore the continuation of the species and by extension the new collective system known as society which has emerged form this coming together of parts. But if values are culturally relative, than how can they arise from DNA? And so we have a situation where things like collective values and behaviors are arising from a collection of parts, the parts being people in this case, in the same way that a person is a collection of other self-perpetuating systems. And if this complexity arises based on probability in the same way that life arises from non-life due to retention of individual mutations and therefore incrementally increasing complexities, then how can "values" or perceived quality be subjective? Unless quality (what is good, beautiful or efficient/situation appropriate in an Aristotelian way) is a distinct property of the universe. What if truth is a subset of quality, and therefore just one aspect of it parallel to goodness and beauty as measures of quality? Could the "trans-rational" incorporate these things to augment rationality? Can the subjective be quantified and predicted using a calculus even more exponentially complex than that required to predict the outcomes of societies based on straight-line particle collisions, with the caveat that "subjective" carries with it a connotation of a unique set of circumstances and experiences specific to one person or situation which has it's own ideal set of conditions which might be refereed to as "good", "beautiful", or "true"?

[redbreegull]

yeah I pretty much agree with everything you've said except acceding to slunken's claim that the pyramids are unexplainable.

I definitely believe there is a difference between something being unknowable because of lack of evidence and being unexplainable by rationality. I think most everyone would agree those two things are not the same, I feel like slunken is muddying the waters. He's probably trolling, I am drunk

[slunken]

I'm cool to drive.

[redbreegull]

killtrocity that is far too long, but I read the first two paragraphs and basically I am down with what you are saying as well. I believe the human experience is comprised in part by things which we are not able to trace back to rational, scientific causes. I think the only place I differ from you and reprise is that just in terms of framing, I don't think it is helpful to say that that kind of thing constitutes the existence of something beyond the realm of the explainable. I think it is better for people to look at it in terms of I don't personally understand this but I acknowledge there is almost certainly science under it, even if my senses are presenting me with this thing which is beyond understanding. I personally don't see that attitude as lessening the significance of "spiritual" or "mystical" experiences in our lives. I think it makes us human that we feel things that are unexplainable. I just also think that saying that literally means there are mystical forces in the universe around us is counterproductive and gives fodder to people who do LITERALLY think there are mystical things flying around us and fucking with shit

[slunken]

i'm just saying that one person's "science" may well be anothers "magic"

[killtrocity]

Originally Posted by slunken

Spontaneous Human Combustion

Actually thermodynamics account for this just fine. It's possible according to the second law while statistically HIGHLY FUCKING UNLIKELY that molecules could collide in such a way so as to initiate a combustion reaction in the presence of adequate oxidizing agent (which we happen to have plenty of on Earth in the form of oxygen gas). It could take a million years, but it is possible in theory.

[slunken]

i'm aware of what it is. what is on account is whether you believe its happend or not.

[redbreegull]

maybe it has, maybe it hasn't, science can't really investigate something that is not testable and we definitely don't know enough about the topic to do that. if it has happened, it has a rational explanation and is not the result of supernatural forces

[reprise85]

killtrocity, that is quite a post and i'll reply more in detail tomorrow. the concept of your "is trans-rational" just more accurate "rational" is poignant. i also totally agree about chemistry being more accurate alchemy. more tomorrow.

[killtrocity]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

killtrocity that is far too long, but I read the first two paragraphs and basically I am down with what you are saying as well. I believe the human experience is comprised in part by things which we are not able to trace back to rational, scientific causes. I think the only place I differ from you and reprise is that just in terms of framing, I don't think it is helpful to say that that kind of thing constitutes the existence of something beyond the realm of the explainable. I think it is better for people to look at it in terms of I don't personally understand this but I acknowledge there is almost certainly science under it, even if my senses are presenting me with this thing which is beyond understanding. I personally don't see that attitude as lessening the significance of "spiritual" or "mystical" experiences in our lives. I think it makes us human that we feel things that are unexplainable. I just also think that saying that literally means there are mystical forces in the universe around us is counterproductive and gives fodder to people who do LITERALLY think there are mystical things flying around us and fucking with shit

So according to the proposed dichotomy, those people are operating at a pre-rational level. I liked the example of literal interpretation of bible myths versus meaning extracted from bible myths, like jeebus for example. The examples jeebus set through his life and death I think are far more meaningful when interpreted as examples of how to live or metaphors for living in a "good" way than reducing it to a bunch of magical occurences, because we know magic is not real (well, some of us anyway). It's actually kind of insulting, it's like here's this guy who was way ahead of his time and had all these awesome ideas and we're like fuck that, we like money in our temple, we like neglecting outcasts, we like magic, we like wars, and not sharing with people. and if we believe in magic we get to live forever. It's fucking retarded.

Originally Posted by Future Boy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ted-times.html

Some people are saying the flames must be the work of a deity, while others suspect the use of combustible phosphorous in the materials used to build the couple’s home.

deity = prerational
combustible phosphorus = rational
??? = transrational ?

[slunken]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

if it has happened, it has a rational explanation and is not the result of supernatural forces

no shit sherlock

[null123]

some long posts in this thread

[null123]

i'm not reading 10 paragraphs written by a supposed adult who's upset about 'jeebus' and 'magic'

[reprise85]

that's a shame, because his post is great. just ignore that part.

[Trotskilicious]

he doesn't realize obama is the real threat

[Starla]

I've grown up in a culture that is strongly based in spirituality, belief of the spirit world, and the fact that your life is governed by connecting with these spirits and listening to them for guidance. None of these things can be measured or proven, but I have experienced many things I cannot rationalize.

Try rationalizing shape shifters, time walkers, and ancestors appearing in dreams to give you messages, or speaking with you in your conscious state. Among the Native culture, it's normal. I know a couple of Navajos who believe in Aliens, and that their ancestors ride on ships, traveling between dimensions, landing in the desert to attend ceremonies.

[Starla]

I think Jesus was ahead of his time, he was the original new ager. Some people believed he was part of the Essene brotherhood or is an ascended master.

[redbreegull]

ok

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by killtrocity

yeah that's pretty much why the "transrational" idea makes sense to me, in addition to your first post. I have an analogy of sorts:

so is a group of people comprised ultimately of atoms? Yes. But can we succinctly or even realistically describe social dynamics in terms of straight-line particle motion? Absolutely not. And that's not to say that we couldn't in theory, or that a supercomputer exponentially more complex than any sort of processor conceivable right now couldn't possibly break down the inner workings of a human body and brain to the simplest components, trace the behavior of each part, and calculate a probable or even inexorable outcome... but the simple physics need to be augmented, or at least benefit from, additional layers of understanding: the biological, the psychological, the sociological, the economic, yes?

Or how about something easier to conceptualize: are the workings of a video game ultimately comprised of zeroes and ones? Yes. Is it possible to describe how to kill a dragon in Skyrim using zeroes and ones? Yes. Is that a practical or succinct way of understand the process of killing a dragon in Skyrim? No. So it's not that the initial system is wrong, it's just that it lacks the complexity which arises from the systems which are layered on top of it, and speaking in terms of this complexity is ultimately beneficial for describing more complex phenomena.

Do "normal" sized bodies follow conventional physics? Yes. Do electrons? No. Are "normal" sized bodies comprised of electron-sized or near-electron-sized particles? Yes. Do electrons and rocks follow the same rules? No. There is a disconnect going on here which must be necessity be caused by an incomplete or inadequate form of thinking (assuming there isn't something huge about the universe which rationality cannot deal with). But our current system isn't "wrong"! So I guess the question becomes "Is the 'trans-rational' really just a "more accurate rational?"

Sure, I get this. It's like trying to explain space travel to cavemen. The idea that one could fly like a bird off the planet would be hard to even get to, because there are systems upon systems that you'd have to explain first if they were to really understand it.

An aside: You could explain this concept of space travel by either starting to explain gravity and velocity and all types of mathematical formulas and rules of physics (and also explain that the earth is a sphere that exists in a solar system with other planets and suns and galaxies etc etc, and more simple means of travel like by car) - that is, explain it with physical reality - or you could go the other way and explain how space travel affects our entire race and changes everything and the moral implications of expanding beyond what may seem "natural". As you say, either way is more rational than "birds fly because magic", and the latter explanation may be more advanced as far as importance vs function, but which one is more useful to the caveman? So if we are cavemen in this analogy, how far to the core do we go and how far do we expand beyond it before it becomes irrelevant? And how can we tell when that happens, when our civilization, in an intellectual way, sees value in the more and more complicated?

So both of those thought examples are similar and involve complex systems arising from less complex systems. Not really sure if that's exactly what we're talking about. How about another one:

So primitive cultures would associate things like rain dances with summoning rain, or other rituals with bringing about certain desired effects - voodoo, alchemy, sacrifices to gods, perhaps prayer in the "wishing" sense - it seems like in these cases there is a perceived causal relationship which is usually non-causal. So perhaps sometimes the ritual happens to have some sort of causal relationship to the desired effect, and sometimes it doesn't. Like with alchemy, for example. I don't know much about alchemy except that it involved mixing things based on prior knowledge of mixing things, sometimes based on established experience but also with some sort of mystical affect attributed to the things being mixed. We can talk about these mixing process with pinpoint accuracy and precision in 2013, being able to accurately predict the outcomes of controlled reactions - we have a system of explanations which perfectly fits the observations - but back then it was essentially a ritual for obtaining desired outcomes. And strangely enough I don't think what we do today is dramatically different. We have developed a juggernaut of a school of thought for explaining and predicting alchemical processes based on cause and effect which fits the empirical data, but that initial system of mere association between objects is still central to the process of chemistry, we've only added more complexity and sophistication to the system of understanding, which has led to more sophisticated applications of "alchemy", so to speak. So is chemistry "trans-alchemy" or "more accurate alchemy"?

Yes, I think it is "more accurate alchemy". However, with knowing more about why certain chemicals cause certain reactions and mix with other chemicals in predictable ways, we still don't why this complex reaction exists and why chemicals exist in the first place (in a philosophical way, I mean). So, in that context, is it really being explained significantly differently when we don't know the first cause? It assumes that you value the preservation of life, which will happen whether we create more complicated alchemy or not. Blah, this has turned away from the topic.

So is it conceivable that in 200 years we will add even more complexity to various systems of thought? I think it is inevitable, because there are things we still don't know but which must have explanations, and therefore I think it is reasonable to think of a "trans-rational" system of thought as something which augments rational thought without neglecting it.

So with the archaic or magical systems of understanding, sometimes the association is grounded in reality, sometimes it is not. Sometimes they got lucky with alchemical recipes, but what about rain dances? Isn't that just a happy coincidence when it works? So this system of happy coincidences called the "pre-rational" becomes augmented with a tried and true way to determine causal relationships: the scientific method, or the "rational". So does that imply, if you buy into the pre/trans dichotomy, that or current system for explaining the universe gets lucky sometimes but totally misses as well? Perhaps that systems of equations, while adequate in most cases, are missing something in other areas? So the leap from pre-rational to rational is pretty large, there's a significant improvement being made. My question then is what kind of dramatically significant improvement will come next? Will it have to do with how societies function as wholes? Will it have to do with consciousness as it relates to brains? Will it be some other even more accurate method for determining truth amidst misleads akin to rain dances being associated with rain? Is consciousness arising from complex systems an inherent property of reality itself? If this part strikes you as too metaphysical or theoretical, read this article: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...consciousness/

Okay, I just read that article and asks some of the same questions I just did earlier in my post.

Yeah, I think the next frontier is understanding where chemical reactions and neurotransmitter transmission turns into "consciousness". And the question "Does a system that gets more and more complex always become conscious?" is a good one as long as we don't know why exactly we developed it and what other animals also have it. I'd love to study this and hopefully will get a chance to now that I've started school again.

This part gets abstract and is just a vomiting of thoughts:
This is a side note, but one thing which rationality does not account for is systems of values - what makes one thing aesthetically pleasing? Films, music, artwork, faces, sunsets... some of these can be attributed to evolutionary tendencies in a pretty logical way. But there is a gargantuan lack of understanding of values, esthetics, and morals when it comes to rationality alone. But if one were to poll an audience or look at aggregate ratings or opinions of the aforementioned things, there is usually some degree of consensus. Another example: a strong case can be made that love is the only truly rational act (read "The Art of Loving" by Erich Fromm), a conclusion arrived at via logic, but traditional empiricism totally neglects the idea that certain things are inherently "better" than others, and certainly that humans are capable of putting others before themselves - this violates self-preservation according to evolution! Maybe...

Ok so perhaps the whole idea of putting others before oneself is just another evolutionary mechanism for perpetuating groups of species (to me this seems as odd as describing a human in terms of electron distribution, but ok). But it's also strangely aligned with the teachings of that Jesus dude, who was arguably ahead of his time, whom everybody has been freaking out about for 2000 years. Logic denotes that living things have survival mechanisms built into them, but where does the will to survive come from? The lesson IMO is that systems are self-perpetuating independent of motive. So we're all supposed to be motivated according to our DNA by the desire to create the most evolutionarily advantageous offspring to perpetuate our own genetic data and therefore lead to a fitter species, yes? So not only is the individual perpetuating itself, the collective of individuals is self-perpetuating, for subsequent generations. So maybe we all get together and form culture and therefore similar tastes as an extension of evolution, to self-perpetuate, to not kill leach other due to lack of common ground and values, to reinforce each other and therefore the continuation of the species and by extension the new collective system known as society which has emerged form this coming together of parts. But if values are culturally relative, than how can they arise from DNA? And so we have a situation where things like collective values and behaviors are arising from a collection of parts, the parts being people in this case, in the same way that a person is a collection of other self-perpetuating systems. And if this complexity arises based on probability in the same way that life arises from non-life due to retention of individual mutations and therefore incrementally increasing complexities, then how can "values" or perceived quality be subjective? Unless quality (what is good, beautiful or efficient/situation appropriate in an Aristotelian way) is a distinct property of the universe. What if truth is a subset of quality, and therefore just one aspect of it parallel to goodness and beauty as measures of quality? Could the "trans-rational" incorporate these things to augment rationality? Can the subjective be quantified and predicted using a calculus even more exponentially complex than that required to predict the outcomes of societies based on straight-line particle collisions, with the caveat that "subjective" carries with it a connotation of a unique set of circumstances and experiences specific to one person or situation which has it's own ideal set of conditions which might be refereed to as "good", "beautiful", or "true"?

So - is nothing "subjective" - is the main thought here? What if we think about different values and how they may seem diametrically opposed but really, in the scope of the universe, not really be all that different? A democrat who is pro-choice and a republican who is pro-life seem to have different ideals, but the first really group values preserving the quality of life that already exists (and perhaps creating more viable offspring later in the same individual) and the latter values preserving any offspring, regardless of the circumstances in which it was conceived or how it will fare after it is born. Both value life, but which way they go is largely based on what they were exposed to growing up, though there are exceptions. What if there is a third force that says the perpetuation of our species via use of abortion or non-use of abortion is arbitrary, because if we cease to propagate, it will trigger a response where another species take up the slack, so to speak. So if we think of it in that way, is abortion related to subjective "morality" or different "values" in the population at all - if the entire point of life is to perpetuate and either outcome is a means to that end?

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Starla

I know a couple of Navajos who believe in Aliens, and that their ancestors ride on ships, traveling between dimensions, landing in the desert to attend ceremonies.

that is awesome

but i can rationalize it but then you'd get mad at me

[Starla]

lol why would I get mad. I've probably already heard it before

[Starla]

I've also had a couple glasses of wine and feeling very chill atm.

[null123]

is this thread the death of the simplistic science bro mentality that prevails in liberal 20-something circles

it's hilarious that this concept has to be called something like trans-rationalism though. sorry the mooslems and jebus freaks are way ahead of you on this

kinda reminds me of those "atheist churches" that are popping up

Only Neil Tyson can save us all from the eternal void

[yo soy el mejor]

oh god oh god