Is reason just a human quality, seeing as how we're endowed with the ability to reason? Or, is it because humans are higher evolved that they're allowed to reason? Which is to say, has reason always existed? Does that make any sense? I know I keep hearing that reason is specific to human beings and doesn't exist elsewhere in the Universe. If so, then why?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Animals certainly have the ability to reason provided they have the appropriate structures in the brain to facilitate reasoning.

Mammal brains appear to more highly evolved (if there is such a measurable criteria), their brains allow them the unique abilities of foreshadowing, learning, computing, communicating, expressing emotion, etc.

Some of the more well known examples include:
Koko the gorilla has a sign vocabulary of 500 words and does Internet chats. Alex the parrot knows the names of more than 100 different objects, 7 colors, and 5 shapes; he can count objects up to 6 and speaks in meaningful sentences. Dolphins will solve puzzles, cats are known to "negotiate".
Michael the gorilla loved Luciano Pavarotti and refused to go outside when he was on TV. Hoku the dolphin grieved when his companion, Kiko, died. Flint the chimp died of a broken heart after the death of his mother. Elephants are well known to grieve, bats express altruistic tendencies.

So fortunately, the answer is No, "reason" is not a strictly human-centric behavior.

So what you're suggesting is that reason exists indepently from a human source. Or, even if it didn't, how is it possible for two people to draw the same conclusion indepently? For example, how is it possible for most everyone to agree that 1 + 1 = 2? Is it just intrinsic with who we are or, is it possible that it exists outside of who we are and we all have the means by which to tap into it? If so, then how do we access it (in our minds) and, more importantly, whose harddrive is it stored on?


P.S. Forgive me for having brought this up more than once already today but, this was the main thing I wished to convey.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

No, not at all. The behavior of "reasoning" occurs when one possess the appropriate neural structures.

Its a word to describe a behavior, therefore it is logically incoherent to conclude that "reason" exists as something concrete (in the same way, it is logically incoherent to say the adjective "tastey" exists concretely as a substance in objective reality).
1 + 1 = 2 is not intrinsic knowledge, it is observably and demonstratably true.

If I take one apple I have one apple, if I put it next to another apple I have two apples. QED

That is how independent people absent of knowing of the others works or existence can reach the same conclusion.

In other words we have to have a mind with which to reason, right? Now when I put it that way it almost sounds like two separate and distinct functions doesn't it?

And yet reason is the very thing we use to define that objectively reality now isn't it?

Is it demonstrable to someone who doesn't have the capacity to reason?

Through the capacity of reason, right?

So once again what I'm asking is how does the mind access such information (knowledge) and, where is it stored? You yourself seem to suggest the knowledge is external. So where is it stored, in thin air? Or, could it be something intrinsic to how the mind works?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

"Capacity to reason" is a useless explanatory fiction. You cannot--literally cannot--know if someone has the "capacity to reason" unless they actually reason. "Capacity" is, and can only be, defined after the fact. It has no explanatory power whatsoever. To say that someone can reason because they have the capacity to reason is purely circular, and fictional.

But gee, doesn't it sound good? Almost sounds like an explanation...almost...

Well, speaking from my own capacity of reason ... Yes, I can speak as if it were typical for other people to have the capacity to reason as well ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Ah, yes. thank you. A perfect demonstration that a perceived capacity to reason can be purely fictional.

Hey, I don't know what other reference point you might have than yourself? Indeed, you can speak about all the empirical evidence you want but, it's still up to you to maintain the truth-of-the-matter yourself. Otherwise you're just repeating what someone else has told you. Is this what Science is all about? Just a bunch of mynah birds chattering back and forth?

Hmm ... Does Science know what it's like to be a realized human being?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Nah...it's just much much easier to progress when you have a whole bunch of people trying to weed out the stuff that does not work. When you work by yourself, you will be slower to progress (if you progress at all--there is no guarantee), less likely to realize you have made a mistake (thus, no self-correcting mechanism as there is in a scientific community), and more likely to make the mistake in the first place (since you don't have the opportunity to learn from others' mistakes and avoid them). In short, the person who works alone is the one more likely to simply parrot the same spiel over and over.

You work by yourself, don't you?Please point to two people, one of whom is realized and one who is not. Tell me what this difference is so that I can understand your sentence. Or are you just throwing out another word that sounds good but is functionally meaningless?

However, if you follow the crowd, you're more likely to perpetuate the same mistakes.

Currently yes, but that doesn't mean there haven't been those to offer instruction along the way.

A realized person is someone who knows his own mind and is perfectly capable of functioning on his own. A realized person who, because he knows his own mind, can choose to go against the grain if need be, to by-pass his peers altogether, and indeed, establish something which is genuine. Which is to say, without an original mind, one cannot establish the truth.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

If you ever picked up a scientific journal and saw the quality of the debate there, you would realize how silly you sound.have there been any you actually listened to? Current evidence suggests this would be a rare event.So did you make up this term all by yourself? Or is it part of some organized perspective? It is not terribly different from Rogers or Maslow's concept of a self-actualized person...also a flawed concept, but at least one with a supporting philosophy. (some say, of course, that there is no such thing as being self-actualized, that there is only the process of self-actualization...would you say that one can be realized, or is it only a never-ending process?)

Of course, you did not point to the two people--one realized, one not. You can choose public figures, if you like. I cannot take your definition and see it as anything but an after-the-fact label...which would make it a useless concept, so I know that cannot be what you mean.

Silly? Yes, I enjoy being silly. That's what you call entertainment. Besides, I find it very difficult to take science too seriously, especially when it comes to matters which are entirely out of its league.

That isn't to say science is not without merit, because it's not, however, there's a greal deal lacking in terms of what it understands about the religious perspective. Unless of course it wishes to insist there's no such thing as an ethereal quality to things, and that would be sheer stupidity.

I have provided four or five references in the Related Resources section, most of which I find little to disagree with, except of course Roy Masters, but that's another story. While there comes a point if, in fact you've been listening, that it isn't necessary to hear something repeated over and over again.

I credit Roy Masters with coining the term self-realized ... regarding the true self that is. In fact he's the one who taught me how to think for myself or, shall I say think more like him which, is no doubt why I have disagreements with him (in part). I found out I wasn't being true to myself.

And yes, we're speaking of an ongoing process here.

I would credit someone like Ronald Reagan for being his own person (however, not anymore since he has alzheimer's) versus someone like Jimmy Carter, who was more the sychophant.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Read this. And Carter may have been a lot of things, but sycophant is not one. His weakness was arguably quite the reverse--he did not have the connections, the insider perspective that was required.

But thank you for your examples--they have been quite illuminating. I am now more certain than ever that you decide what you believe first, then fit the data to your belief.

The difference between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter? The one got the job done in a convincing manner and the other one didn't. One knew who he was and what it was he set out to do and the other one didn't. I don't know, doesn't appeasement coincide with being a sycophant?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Of course this is the only possible way, aside from the fact that God does exist.

Oh and by the way, what is it about us intangible beings which allows us to place the tangible label on things?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Please invest in a dictionary. The rest of us have agreed upon meanings for some of the words you seem to use....rather differently.

Oh, what do I mean by intangible being? First off I'm not saying an external reality doesn't outside of our senses, because it does. However, it's our perception of that reality -- which, is internal and subjective -- that determines how we interact with that reality. Therefore with us, reality is an internal affair. And, since we're aslo referring to that which is subjective, we're referring to that which is intangible, right? Not to mention that our consciousness is our soul which, is all the more intangible.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I agree with Nietzsche, Digital Cuttlefish. He said we all let our guts decide what to believe, and then we come up with supporting reasons after the fact.

__________________
Once you find your way, you're there.

FYI, I split the thread here and created a new one called, Is Energy Conscious? ... Thanks!

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?