Determinism And Rationality.

[seer]

Why would there be any distinction between "rational cause and effect" and "non-rational cause and effect?"

It's all just cause and effect.

Well you brought the computer thing in: Computers, governed by the non-rational cause/effect relation, seem to be pretty good at representing the rational ground/consequent relation.

I don't think you can use a computer as an example of non-rational cause and effect.

[Stoic]

Well you brought the computer thing in: Computers, governed by the non-rational cause/effect relation, seem to be pretty good at representing the rational ground/consequent relation.

I don't think you can use a computer as an example of non-rational cause and effect.

I was responding to this statement: "Non-rational cause/effect relation is different from the rational ground/consequent relation."

Cause and effect is not rational per se, but systems made up of cause and effect are able to represent rationality.

[seer]

I was responding to this statement: "Non-rational cause/effect relation is different from the rational ground/consequent relation."

Cause and effect is not rational per se, but systems made up of cause and effect are able to represent rationality.

But as with computers they represent rationality because they were created by the rational to be rational.

[Stoic]

But as with computers they represent rationality because they were created by the rational to be rational.

So we agree that rationality can be represented with cause and effect.

The only question is whether the system that represents rationality has to be created with that purpose in mind. It appears to me that that part isn't really necessary.

[seer]

So we agree that rationality can be represented with cause and effect.

If the cause and effect was created by the rational.

The only question is whether the system that represents rationality has to be created with that purpose in mind. It appears to me that that part isn't really necessary.

How about a counter example?

[Stoic]

How about a counter example?

You want to shift the burden of proof?

[seer]

You want to shift the burden of proof?

That is silly, I just asked for an example - obviously the computer doesn't work.

[Stoic]

That is silly, I just asked for an example - obviously the computer doesn't work.

The computer example serves its purpose.

[seer]

The computer example serves its purpose.

Only in your fertile mind...

[Tassman]

But as with computers they represent rationality because they were created by the rational to be rational.

Computers were created by rational minds that had evolved incrementally from sea-slime to the intelligent, reasoning creators that we are today. No need for the creator-deity scenario you keep hinting at.

[seer]

Computers were created by rational minds that had evolved incrementally from sea-slime to the intelligent, reasoning creators that we are today. No need for the creator-deity scenario you keep hinting at.

How do you know that Tass?

[shunyadragon]

How do you know that Tass?

. . . by the objective verifiable evidence and not subjective anecdotal theological assumptions. Though in reality nobody 'knows' absolutely.

[seer]

. . . by the objective verifiable evidence and not subjective anecdotal theological assumptions. Though in reality nobody 'knows' absolutely.

What evidence do you have that the natural process did or can create self-aware creatures?

[Stoic]

What evidence do you have that the natural process did or can create self-aware creatures?

The same evidence that evolution created human beings, including DNA and paleontological findings.

[seer]

The same evidence that evolution created human beings, including DNA and paleontological findings.

You are begging the question. DNA does not equal consciousness, and consciousness does not equal survivability.