Human reasoning is different from animal reasoning only in degree.

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Human reasoning is different from animal reasoning only in degree.
OP - May 11, 2011, 09:15 PM

One of a series of lectures delivered by Peter Millican to philosophy students at Oxford University. I found this one about Hume's views, very interesting - here's a quick summary;

All factual inference is founded on experience. The assumption that what has happened in the past will happen in the future. We have no rational basis for making that assumption. All of our reasoning about the world - about any fact beyond those we immediately perceive or remember is based on the assumption that what we have experienced is a reliable guide to what we haven't experienced. This assumption is based on nothing more than animal instinct, there is no rational basis for it whatever. Human reasoning is different from animal reasoning only in degree and not in kind. Does this mean there is no difference between science and superstition? No, since everything we do in life is based on the assumption that we can learn from experience and that the future will conform to the past. We are bound to rely on the assumption of uniformity and systematic behaviour. Therefore the rational thing to do is to accept that. Accept that we are part of nature. Accept that this assumption is one we simply cannot live without and follow through the consequences. Remain faithful to that assumption that the laws of nature are constant over time and systematise the world in conformity to that. That is where science comes from. This gives a reliable basis to preferring science over superstition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET9oRKEwESA
- Fombles
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Human reasoning is different from animal reasoning only in degree.
Reply #1 - May 11, 2011, 09:31 PM

I was learning about Hume's view on reasoning through past experience and applying that to the world we live in. Essentially, what I was taught it that we cannot possibly prove God due to our limited senses and that in itself is rational since what we cannot prove nor experience cannot be rationally thought of.

However it can be said that what we have not experienced can be thought of impossible. For example, sustained flight (unlike gliding, etc..) had not be invented nor experienced by anyone at the time of Hume, therefore it could be said Hume would think of it as a impossibility which we know isn't the case.

But to be honest, I think there is possibility to find new experiences that we havn't found yet, but the experience of God is something that cannot be thought of as rationally in my opinion because it is just too absurd and out of our bounds as Humans.

P.S. Sorry if my wording sucks, still learning

07:54 <harakaat>: you must be jema
07:54 <harakaat>: considering how annoying you are
- Fombles
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Human reasoning is different from animal reasoning only in degree.
Reply #2 - May 11, 2011, 10:07 PM

Hassan do you personally agree with Hume point of view? Sorry if you have stated this somewhere else, still new and I heard you make great vids, will check them when I have more time.

07:54 <harakaat>: you must be jema
07:54 <harakaat>: considering how annoying you are
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Human reasoning is different from animal reasoning only in degree.
Reply #3 - May 11, 2011, 10:17 PM

Yes, largely. I like the way Dawkins put it. We have come across a crime scene and we piece together the clues. Of course we use the only faculties we have and of course we are simply 'trousered apes' as MAB aptly frames it - but we are able to detect laws and improve our world as best we can - limited and flawed as that may be.

What underlies that - the ultimate basis/cause - we don't know. Simple as that.
- Fombles
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Human reasoning is different from animal reasoning only in degree.
Reply #4 - May 11, 2011, 10:36 PM

Thanks for replying, don't mind if I ask a few questions do you?

Quote from: Hassan on May 11, 2011, 10:17 PM
We have come across a crime scene and we piece together the clues. Of course we use the only faculties we have - but we are able to detect laws and improve our world as best we can - limited and flawed as that may be.

Is that a argument against the example I posted about the 'newer' experiences? If so, I agree.

Quote from: Hassan on May 11, 2011, 10:17 PM
What underlies that - the ultimate basis/cause - we don't know. Simple as that.

But do we really have to know or prove that? Can't we just define it as something innate within human's? Would/could you also tie in conscience with this as well?

Quote from: Hassan on May 11, 2011, 10:17 PM
of course we are simply 'trousered apes's as MAB aptly frames it

Haha, I love MAB's posts, but sometimes they are way to complex for me to read without giving it some good thought.

07:54 <harakaat>: you must be jema
07:54 <harakaat>: considering how annoying you are
- cosmicdancer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Human reasoning is different from animal reasoning only in degree.
Reply #5 - May 11, 2011, 10:49 PM

Quote from: Fombles on May 11, 2011, 10:36 PM
Is that a argument against the example I posted about the 'newer' experiences? If so, I agree.

We can make assumptions about what we might experience/discover based on what we have experienced, and reason dictates we must act on that basis, but we cannot ultimately be 100% certain about that. We can only be prepared to adjust our knowledge when faced with new experiences. What we cannot do is make assumptions without any basis at all.

Quote from: Fombles on May 11, 2011, 10:36 PM
But do we really have to know or prove that? Can't we just define it as something innate within human's? Would/could you also tie in conscience with this as well?

Of course we don't have to know and I am happy to say I don't know. Humans generally find that difficult to say. Perhaps because evolution has taught them that trying to find reasons, answers and predict things help them survive.

Re innate/conscience - I'm talking about what is the basis or underlying cause of what we experience. What caused the things we observe. We don't know. Maybe we will. Maybe we won't. We only know that we don't know.

The argument theist use is that since we don't know - then that means 'God did it' - that is nonsense and a baseless assumption. As I say we only know that we don't know.
- Fombles
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Human reasoning is different from animal reasoning only in degree.
Reply #6 - May 11, 2011, 11:10 PM

Aaah, Hassan this is great info, certainly wised me up today! I specially appreciate the usage of Dawkins, we get to learn about him in our second year of philosophy not the first which is a shame.

Quote from: Hassan on May 11, 2011, 10:49 PM
The argument theist use is that since we don't know - then that means 'God did it' - that is nonsense and a baseless assumption. As I say we only know that we don't know.

I 100% agree on this, learnt today about C.S. Lewis's theory that because we don't know how or why our conscience came to be, then it must be God who made it - thus proving his existence. That is almost as laughable as the ontological argument in my opinion. That was why I asked you if conscience links with this as you say 'basis or underlying cause of what we experience'. I merely thought that because we cannot explain the underlying cause of what we experience, surely this may link with conscience.

Thanks again Hassan, your a great inspiration

07:54 <harakaat>: you must be jema
07:54 <harakaat>: considering how annoying you are
1« Previous thread | Next thread »