Can we be rational without language?

[gaffo]

Rather moot point now, since we all have lived with language. On the other hand, would anyone define any other species besides human to be rational? Or know what being rational is?

rudementary reason is found in higher mammals.

All Primates can reason (knowing "The self" is a higher form of reason.........and can be tested using mirrors (primates see themselves - other lower mammals like cats/dogs see "another cat/dog" and fail "the self" test)

We can assume whales/dolphins are similar to Primates in the above (maybe smarter even).

.........Cats and Dogs (Bears and Racoons too) seem to at the bottom of the "Reason" threshold.

personal obervation by me of my previous cat's reasoning ability (only one time I noted it and it was no an Einstein moment or anything - but kinda cool and she did show "reasoning".

she was an indoor and outdoor cat (have a catdoor), at the time she was old and deaf so could no longer hear me drive up after work..........anyway i drove up and was in the house for an hour or so - she was very vocal - so when she wanted in she would let me know - she was out roaming around and "saw" my car and so "knew i was home" and cried out to be let in.

used reason to know i was inside after seeing my car in the driveway.

that requires reason.

[Greta]

I agree with the line of thought here that takes into account the sentience of other species. Also, rationality need not pertain directly to social interactions. For instance, hungry vultures will make the rational decision not to approach a carcass until the lions have finished with it. They could have just followed their hunger, but they rationally defer pleasure. Was it a rational decision or just the product of fear? The same kinds of questions can be asked about some examples of apparent human rationality.

Also, are we referring to verbal language only, or does "language" also include body language, emotional vocalisations and chemical signalling?

It should be said that massive amounts of illogic would not exist without the abstractions of human languages.

[gaffo]

I agree with the line of thought here that takes into account the sentience of other species. Also, rationality need not pertain directly to social interactions. For instance, hungry vultures will make the rational decision not to approach a carcass until the lions have finished with it. They could have just followed their hunger, but they rationally defer pleasure. Was it a rational decision or just the product of fear? The same kinds of questions can be asked about some examples of apparent human rationality.

Also, are we referring to verbal language only, or does "language" also include body language, emotional vocalisations and chemical signalling?

agree fully above.

It should be said that massive amounts of illogic would not exist without the abstractions of human languages.

?? I don't follow.

welcome clarification for discussion.

.

[Greta]

It should be said that massive amounts of illogic would not exist without the abstractions of human languages.

?? I don't follow.

welcome clarification for discussion.

.[/quote]
For example, people talk about "God" and the use of the male pronoun has an extraordinary number of people who should have been educated beyond such naivete who believe that there is a large humanlike male spirit that created the universe and is mostly focused on the sexual habits of a type of hominid that lived the surface of one rocky planet for a million or two years (depending on how you define "human") of the universe's 13.8 billion years.

[gaffo]

It should be said that massive amounts of illogic would not exist without the abstractions of human languages.

?? I don't follow.

welcome clarification for discussion.

.

For example, people talk about "God" and the use of the male pronoun has an extraordinary number of people who should have been educated beyond such naivete who believe that there is a large humanlike male spirit that created the universe and is mostly focused on the sexual habits of a type of hominid that lived the surface of one rocky planet for a million or two years (depending on how you define "human") of the universe's 13.8 billion years.
[/quote]

thanks for reply, but still dumb/don't follow

i'm not all that smart sadly - but welcome understanding/becoming smarter.......

on sure about the whole he/she pronoun thing fits in in our reply to me - welcome understanding.

BTW i'm a universal humanist and personally do not place any importance in those pronouns (men (I'm a man if that is important for you to know about me - it is not in anyway for me per my self image - but if it might be for you just informing you of this fact)women) i view human as more - infinately moreso important then one's sex.


13.8....noted, you are informed WRT to what we know to date concerning about the age of our universe (of course in the future that age me change - esp. since we assumed that the universe was "slowing down"................until we found via observation the OPPOSITE!!!!!!!!!!! - talk about a 180 from the prior assumed ................and the observastations must have been "iron clad" - for i never heard any controversy about the conclusions (only about the opposite assumptions) found in 98.


I'm an Athiest BTW - not sure if that matters WRT to you or this thread.

note for anyone reading:

I'm not at "War" with God, nor with anyone of Faith - of any religion. as long as they of goodwill they can beleive in any God or interpret/missinterpret their "Bibles"

I've spent many years reading "bibles" personally as an athiest..............not via "doubt" but via finding if said works conform with my person compass.

my finding is what is to be expected - if one is able (all those who do not mandate a "unified WORD") read each work as separate and ignore the "Sole Scripture" bullshit)- can parse the flowers from the weeds.

this method works for all works - i've read some of the Koran BTW. as i have the "bible"....................1/2 of both are flowers. the other are weeds.


.................

sadly if ranted and got off course.


i sadly still do not follow your point Sir/Madam. ;-/.

[Greta]

Gaffo, my point is that this illogical notion of the Man-God would not be as delusional and fantastic without the vagaries of language and semantics.

Ideally God would be referred to as "it" since gendering such an entity is obviously childish. However, "it" tends to refer to inanimate objects, things deemed "lower" than life, and is thus thought of as disrespectful. In truth, the limiting of a deity to one gender or another is the greater disrespect.

[gaffo]

Gaffo, my point is that this illogical notion of the Man-God would not be as delusional and fantastic without the vagaries of language and semantics.

Ideally God would be referred to as "it" since gendering such an entity is obviously childish.

yes ideally, and also concur with your reasons as to why "He" is not refered to as "it"

i personally don't care about the whole pronoun nonsense. - i indenty with the male God becuase i'm male and refer to "God" (YHWH) s male via social convention.

some other Gods are of course female - like Kali who is Shiva's wife.

if i were to talk to hindus about kali i of course would use "she" in this regard. and "he" wrt to her husband (shiva).

in my mind its all nonsence really.

only a fool can claim to know the nature/mind of a being nearly infinately beyond you and me - assuming He/she/it/they exist.

same as the folly of the ant pondering (hell we know less than that the ant does not even see the sidewalk! - let along think of its nature) the sidewalk. let along its maker.

humility - a virtue for sure - is something the Religious (I play no favorites - its a global world and near 1/2 of religius folks are not even Christian!) need to keep in mind.

there are many (few- majority? minority? - honestly not sure - would love to know which) Religious hindu/muslim/christian/etc that do not claim to know the "mind of God" and leave "His ways" to him and are able to not condemn us athiests and will with us in goodwill.

thankfully they are Humble.

the others - not so much and they IMO are fools to think they know the nature of the God that created them. they are egoists.

have inner demons - personality defects that project upon the rest of us sadly.


I really do not care about the whole "pronoun" thing.

BTW per accuracy, YHWH God is a Male, his wife is Asharah

[gaffo]

BTW what is your avitar? i know its not the romulan "bird of prey" from Star Trek, but sure looks like it - lol.

always liked that old show, bought the blray of it - picture qual of it is outstanding BTW.

anyway, just wondering. i had the old "first TV cartoon" avitar of "Crusader Rabbit" (Jay Ward's first product (co-production to be fair the other guy i forget the name of - but wish to note it and credit him too) in my former forum "bible-discussion" for near ten years - it closed shop last october sadly - i miss that forum.

it is easy or a pain to upload avitar? if easy i'll remake the lovable "Crusader" character - he and i have much in common.............tilting at windmills.

big into pirate FM microradio year ago, and now seting up a new station of 7 full watts!!!!!

lol

[Greta]

BTW what is your avitar? i know its not the romulan "bird of prey" from Star Trek, but sure looks like it - lol.

It is a flying rabbit trombone toilet brush teapot.

[gaffo]

BTW what is your avitar? i know its not the romulan "bird of prey" from Star Trek, but sure looks like it - lol.

It is a flying rabbit trombone toilet brush teapot.

lol i've no clue what that is.

my assignment is to google it!

will do so.

thanks for the heads up.

[Greta]

BTW what is your avitar? i know its not the romulan "bird of prey" from Star Trek, but sure looks like it - lol.

It is a flying rabbit trombone toilet brush teapot.

lol i've no clue what that is.

my assignment is to google it!

will do so.

thanks for the heads up.

You won't find it on Google - 'tis my own invention

[gaffo]

i searched with no luck.

only assume it is form of toilet brush.

to scrub all the sht posts in this forum

[Dalek Prime]

Rather moot point now, since we all have lived with language. On the other hand, would anyone define any other species besides human to be rational? Or know what being rational is?

rudementary reason is found in higher mammals.

All Primates can reason (knowing "The self" is a higher form of reason.........and can be tested using mirrors (primates see themselves - other lower mammals like cats/dogs see "another cat/dog" and fail "the self" test)

We can assume whales/dolphins are similar to Primates in the above (maybe smarter even).

.........Cats and Dogs (Bears and Racoons too) seem to at the bottom of the "Reason" threshold.

personal obervation by me of my previous cat's reasoning ability (only one time I noted it and it was no an Einstein moment or anything - but kinda cool and she did show "reasoning".

she was an indoor and outdoor cat (have a catdoor), at the time she was old and deaf so could no longer hear me drive up after work..........anyway i drove up and was in the house for an hour or so - she was very vocal - so when she wanted in she would let me know - she was out roaming around and "saw" my car and so "knew i was home" and cried out to be let in.

used reason to know i was inside after seeing my car in the driveway.

that requires reason.

Well, let me know when wildlife signs up to argue the point.