Philosophy Now Forum

Is it possible to be too rational? The illustrative example that comes to mind is iRobot, when the machine claims that her logic is undeniable, that humans need to have certain freedoms given up in order to preserve humanity.

The one thing I'd point out is that this is law, and the machine could have concluded that it was possible for humans to do it themselves. But if we assume that isn't possible, does it mean that there is such a thing as being too rational, and if there is such a thing, what should replace it? Perhaps there is a clue in what replaces it in the movie.

Jaded Sage wrote:Is it possible to be too rational?

Don't you think you should wait untill you've got the hang of rational before you start worrying about being too rational?

Was his response rational or emotional? If emotion should replace reason, what emotion? (Clearly, not that one.)

My response (the first paragraph) was measured, as opposed to purely rational. By that I mean it was a mixture of emotional and rational. This second paragraph is purely rational.

Jaded Sage wrote:Is it possible to be too rational? The illustrative example that comes to mind is iRobot, when the machine claims that her logic is undeniable, that humans need to have certain freedoms given up in order to preserve humanity.

The one thing I'd point out is that this is law, and the machine could have concluded that it was possible for humans to do it themselves. But if we assume that isn't possible, does it mean that there is such a thing as being too rational, and if there is such a thing, what should replace it? Perhaps there is a clue in what replaces it in the movie.

Humans are rationalizing animals who believe they are rational. So even if we design something to be completely rational, chances are that our definition of completely rational will be slightly irrational.

It's definitely possible to rationalise to the point where we interfere with normal instinctive functioning, psychosomatic illness being an example.

Also, being too analytical can interfere with the capacity to throw oneself into the reverie of life. Hence the widespread use of booze and pot; they help people unwind and enter flow states without interference from a mind busied by the day's work.

Jaded Sage wrote:Is it possible to be too rational? The illustrative example that comes to mind is iRobot, when the machine claims that her logic is undeniable, that humans need to have certain freedoms given up in order to preserve humanity.

The one thing I'd point out is that this is law, and the machine could have concluded that it was possible for humans to do it themselves. But if we assume that isn't possible, does it mean that there is such a thing as being too rational, and if there is such a thing, what should replace it? Perhaps there is a clue in what replaces it in the movie.

I did not view the I-Robot machine as female -- it struck me as an academic emasculated effeminate male.

You cannot program emotions. Arthur Clarke taught us that already in "2001 Space Odyssey". The same issue comes up in "Blade Runner".

"They were having an entre of boiled dog ... ."

The sequel "2010 Space Odyssey" was pretty good. I love tough Russian babes.

I am looking forward to the sequel for "Blade Runner" now.

Conscience is an emotional faculty. If someone deserves to die then you kill them with a clear conscience about it.

Normally the families of the murder victims are the best equipped to pull the switch. If they cannot do it then the State should not have to do it for them.

If your conscience does not allow you to administer capital punishment, then life imprisonment without parole would seem the next most just thing.

Otherwise complete banishment.

We have 318.9 million+ population in the USA today with Federal and State constitutions and codes of law. So that issue has been settled as of the day that I was born here to a father and a mother who immigrated to here from Europe. The said their whole lives that the USA was paradise compared with the rat hole of Europe.

But if SHTF and I was hanging out alone or with a small band, then justice and punishments would become a local issue again as in ancient prehistoric times. We would all eat together or we would all starve together. Everyone would get a proportional ration.

Food, water, warmth, air, shelter, protection, health care, community -- we all need all these things from each other.

It is both based on the rational and the emotional. Conscience however is emotional.

Greta wrote:It's definitely possible to rationalise to the point where we interfere with normal instinctive functioning, psychosomatic illness being an example.

Also, being too analytical can interfere with the capacity to throw oneself into the reverie of life. Hence the widespread use of booze and pot; they help people unwind and enter flow states without interference from a mind busied by the day's work.

Pot is easier to grow than booze.

I like to make my own booze and I don't smoke anything.

Seems like you could try making a pot tea however and just drink the cannabinoids.

Never tried the cannabis though. Never needed it.

Wine is better.

yiostheoy wrote: I like to make my own booze and I don't smoke anything.

Well I'm sure everyone is fascinated with that information. No doubt it will be the main story on this evening's news.

Jaded Sage wrote:Is it possible to be too rational? The illustrative example that comes to mind is iRobot, when the machine claims that her logic is undeniable, that humans need to have certain freedoms given up in order to preserve humanity.

The one thing I'd point out is that this is law, and the machine could have concluded that it was possible for humans to do it themselves. But if we assume that isn't possible, does it mean that there is such a thing as being too rational, and if there is such a thing, what should replace it? Perhaps there is a clue in what replaces it in the movie.

I do not think overrationality is the problem.
There is no doubt that people can over think simple things, with the result - indecision. We can weigh up the pros and cons over something, and know the consequences, both advantages and disadvantages, but the real problem comes from not being able to decide what is important, and that ultimately comes from values, and values are informed buy the passions, not be reason.
Say you want to buy a car. Reason can tell you how much the tax, insurance, maintenance; how many seats, how comfortable, and what your requirements are. BUT only your feelings can tell you how much weight your needs must give each of these things. And that is where the problem of indecision lies.
I can't really see how having better powers of reason would cause a problem.
But then I don't recognised how this is relevant to I Robot's opinion, and your problem.

Greta wrote:It's definitely possible to rationalise to the point where we interfere with normal instinctive functioning, psychosomatic illness being an example.

Also, being too analytical can interfere with the capacity to throw oneself into the reverie of life. Hence the widespread use of booze and pot; they help people unwind and enter flow states without interference from a mind busied by the day's work.

A psychosomatic illness is not the result of reason.

Clearly it exists, but is it wrong to admit that which is otherwise unpalatable to sentiment? I don't think so. A properly reasoned conclusion is just that.

circling with Ludwig...

-Imp

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greta wrote:It's definitely possible to rationalise to the point where we interfere with normal instinctive functioning, psychosomatic illness being an example.

Also, being too analytical can interfere with the capacity to throw oneself into the reverie of life. Hence the widespread use of booze and pot; they help people unwind and enter flow states without interference from a mind busied by the day's work.

A psychosomatic illness is not the result of reason.

True, it's not the result of reason, but we are not talking about reason here, but rationality.

Psychosomatic pain is as an attempt to use to mind to monitor ailments due to anxiety (in my own case it's because my sister died of cancer at my age). Monitoring is rational behaviour, but it can be overdone, and concomitant anxiety amplifies fairly normal aches and pains.

Greta wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greta wrote:It's definitely possible to rationalise to the point where we interfere with normal instinctive functioning, psychosomatic illness being an example.

Also, being too analytical can interfere with the capacity to throw oneself into the reverie of life. Hence the widespread use of booze and pot; they help people unwind and enter flow states without interference from a mind busied by the day's work.

A psychosomatic illness is not the result of reason.

True, it's not the result of reason, but we are not talking about reason here, but rationality.

Psychosomatic pain is as an attempt to use to mind to monitor ailments due to anxiety (in my own case it's because my sister died of cancer at my age). Monitoring is rational behaviour, but it can be overdone, and concomitant anxiety amplifies fairly normal aches and pains.

Being a cancer "survivor" myself I know all about the multiplication of minor aches and pains. In my view pains can be amplified by the most basic fear of relapse. Rationality can combat these fears.
Hence a psychosomatic illness is not the result of reason, but a means to over come it.. Hence "t's definitely possible to rationalise to the point where we interfere with normal instinctive functioning, psychosomatic illness being an example" is false.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greta wrote:True, it's not the result of reason, but we are not talking about reason here, but rationality.

Psychosomatic pain is as an attempt to use to mind to monitor ailments due to anxiety (in my own case it's because my sister died of cancer at my age). Monitoring is rational behaviour, but it can be overdone, and concomitant anxiety amplifies fairly normal aches and pains.

Being a cancer "survivor" myself I know all about the multiplication of minor aches and pains. In my view pains can be amplified by the most basic fear of relapse. Rationality can combat these fears.
Hence a psychosomatic illness is not the result of reason, but a means to over come it.. Hence "t's definitely possible to rationalise to the point where we interfere with normal instinctive functioning, psychosomatic illness being an example" is false.

But we are not talking about reason. Over-rationality is where we insert our minds into situations best left to instincts.

Did you ever watch The Big Bang Theory? I know it's trivial but the example is a clear one. A character, Sheldon, was so attached to his spot on the sofa that he'd go into apoplexy whenever someone else sat there. The spot was desirable to him because "in the winter that seat is close enough to the radiator to remain warm, and yet not so close as to cause perspiration. In the summer it's directly in the path of a cross breeze created by open windows there, and there. It faces the television at an angle that is neither direct, thus discouraging conversation, nor so far wide to create a parallax distortion".

His approach was rational, but unreasonable. Over-rational to the point of lacking reason.