From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:39:20 GMT

pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:

I'll just give these letters + numbers for easy reference.

A >Axiom:  Identity
B >Axiom:  Existence exists.  Existence provides objects with identity.
C >Axiom:  Consciousness and rational thought based on information
  >        provided by the senses are the only tools human beings have to
  >        know reality.
D >Axiom:  To survive, men must act.  (Obtain food/clothing/shelter).
E >Axiom:  Knowledge of reality is required for effective action.
F >Axiom:  Survival is good, death is evil.

1 >Conclusion:  To survive, men must think rationally.

Because of C,D,E, and the assumption that (D) is restated to mean
"to survive, men must act effectively", and the assumption:
ALPHA AXIOM: Men are conscious.
and the restatement of "C" to mean that consciousness cannot in and of
itself be a tool of knowing reality, without at some point invoking the
process of rational thought.

Note: the last is a VERY shaky point which I will deal with below.

2 >Conclusion:  Men can think rationally without surviving.  Men cannot
  >             survive without thinking rationally.

Because of (1) (implication) restated as an "and" clause.
Y->Z thus (not Y and Z) is possible but (Z and not Y) is not.
  
3 >Conclusion:  To think irrationally allows the possibility of
  >             death.

(1), restated from (Y implies Z) to (not Z implies not Y), assuming that
"to think irrationally" means "to allow one's self to think in a non-rational
manner at least some of the time".

4 >Conclusion:  To think rationally is good.  To think irrationally is evil.

"F" and "3".

Conclusions not reached but nevertheless provable:

5 Corrolary:  To think rationally is also evil because it also allows the
              possibility of death.

"2" and "3"

6 Corrolary:  Survival is the only true good and only rational thought which
              leads to survival is beneficial.  Thus, survival is a greater
              good than rational thought and since even rational thought
              does not lead to survival, survival instinct should supercede
              rational thought, which should supercede irrational thought.

"5" and "F"

7 Corrolary: This set of conclusions is inconsistent

"4" and 5", to think rationally is both "good" and "evil", and the
assumption that "good" and "evil" are mutually exclusive.

8 Correction: Correct "F" to "survival is better than death".

9 Further problems:
  Rational thought is identified with rational action in (1) without
  much formal basis.  That is, to perform an action deemed rational
  you must have reasoned out the action to perform.  This is not necessarily
  the case.
  To misquote the Bible:
  Look at the flowers of the field, they toil not, nor do they spin, yet
  even Rand in all of her logic could not explain them.
  That is, actions can be irrational, or non-rational and still be "right".
  Nature gave us "instincts" far before "reason", implying that use of
  "knowledge of reality" need not be rational or conscious (if you accept
  that sensory devices existed before consciousness which is reasonable
  considering that many appliances we now use have some "sensory" features).
  Survival in and of itself may not require that we "take rational action",
  just that we deal with reality somehow.

  The counter-claim to this is that in modern society, it seems we have
  almost identified rational action with rational thought.  That is, society
  demands rational thought to survive to such an extent that the premise
  (survival <- rational action == rational thought) may be valid in society,
  even though it surely isn't in nature.

  The other counter-claim is that rational thought leads to social growth
  which leads to be "better society" which I basically accept.  That is,
  a more successful society in terms of not only survival but overall
  ability to do things.  

  Another possibility is that if "living" is valued above "life", one may
  state that a better quality of life (living) is provided due to the
  introduction of rationality.  However, this is highly subjective.

  One strange point in this is:  rational thought cannot deal with concepts
  such as "love", "hate", "trust", "fear", "joy", and such, which are the
  basis of people.  That is, one cannot guarantee one's survival in society
  without examining such things and being able to deal with them, and it seems
  to me, being a rather rational creature and yet being capable of understanding
  women, let alone social behavior, that rationality is greatly ineffective
  at understanding and accounting for personal variation.  I believe (although
  cannot prove) that various police officers would say that knowing when
  someone will pull the trigger of a gun and when that person will not is
  a rather subjective matter not suited by any means to rational proof.

I would also like to make a more inclusive statement than shown here:
Perception is necessary for reasonable action.  The more is perceived and
acted upon, the more reasonable the action.  It is hence beneficial for us
to be as perceiving as possible.  What implications does this have?  Hmm...
how about "a closed mind gathers no thoughts"?  That's about all that I can
think of at the moment.

Keep posting and I'll keep being devil's advocate, since you seem to want
one around here... :)

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA