From: [email protected]


In article <[email protected]>,
  [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >   [email protected] wrote:

[...with respect to 'holistic rationality'...]

> > > I don't know how this feature could have
> > > arisen, since from his perspective it goes against the grain of natural > > selection.
>
> As a maladaptive by-product of an adaptation which is sufficiently
> advatageous to warrant a significant down side.  The physical cost/
> benefit analysis still comes out in the black, because the massive
> increase in the FACILITY to survive (the epistemic component of
> our rationality, e.g., printing, the scientific method, etc.)
> is sufficiently beneificial to outweigh the negative effects of
> a significant reduction in THE WILL to survive (a red-shift
> away from the optimal valuative profile for maximizing reproductive
> success) which must be tolerated to reap those benefits.

Now, I'm not big on this whole 'rationality' idea to start with and I'm
still not sure what 'holistic rationbality' is about so I'd appreciate a
restatement of that...


...but, having said that, let me say this - in common usage it's
frequently so that 'objectivity', 'rationality' and 'sanity' are
interchangeable. We seem to think that someone who is 'sane' (mentally,
psychologically, psychiatrically, emotionally healthy) will be
'objective' (make accurate observations about the world and have a
consistently accurate cognitive model of the world) and 'rational' (make
wise and logical decisions about themselves and the world, well
contextualised and justified within an accurate model of the world).

Empirical evidence from psychology suggests this is not so, IIRC. I can't
remember references right now but Seligman's 'learned helplessness'
research had something about it. 

If my memory's being nice to me it goes
something like this: People who are depressed or pessimistic score better
on accuracy of observation and recall than controls or people who are
optimistic. 

People who are consistently optimistic, however, tend to live
longer and are not 'mentally disordered' or less than 'sane'. 

People who
are depressed do not always score well on logic and reasoning, though,
ordinary controls do better there than either depressed or optimistic
people. 

Interesting, isn't it? Perhaps we get to choose whether to be
'right' objectively, 'intelligent' rationally or 'sane' and live
longer... It doesn't seem that we can excel in all three or that they can
easily co-exist.

> > > Perhaps he thinks humans did not evolve by being naturally selected.
> >
>
> Fat chance.
>
> > I get the impression this is exactly why he's looking hard at these
> > subjects - in order to avoid that conclusion. It seems that there is
> > substantial evidence for a 'selfish gene' approach to evolution, in fact
> > it seems to be an essential foundation of evolutionary science, but we
> > still find various things that just do not seem to fit that model - many
> > sociological and psychological elements have been mentioned. Do we thus
> > throw the model out? I would hope not and it seems Phil is trying to find
> > ways to reconcile these anomalies.
> >
>
> And you're the guy who was apologizing for buttin' in.  Jesus!  Why
> couldn't I have said what you've just said.  Come to think of it I did.
> But yours is so much clearer.  Thank you, thank you, thank you.
>
> To try to put a little frosting on Mick's cake, there are three ways
> you can achieve a synthesis between natural science as it stands
> and the humanities.
>
> 1. You can achieve a synthesis by convincing yourself the science is
>    something other than what it is, as I believe Owleye has been
>    trying to do.

I don't know enough to hold a firm view on what the science says.
However, I note that natural science and the humanities have frequently
had an uneasy truce if not an outright war through the centuries. To me
this has always suggested that the philosophical perspectives of those
who bridged the gaps might be more balanced than those who tended to
emphasise one over the other.

> 2. You can achieve a synthesis by convincing yourself that human
>    nature is something other than what it is, as I believe some of the
>    posters to the group that Owleye gets infuriated with are trying
>    to do.

I haven't picked up what features of human nature are being referred to
here. 

{snipped - see 036a, 036c, 036d}