[extropy-chat] Changing Other Poster's Minds

[Jef Allbright]

On 5/1/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> Please define "rational".  Without a working agreed definition
> statements about the rationality/irrationality of X are without
> meaning.  By my working definition, rationality is adherence to reality,
> seeking to understand and perfect one's understanding of reality.
> Beliefs that start with rigorous adherence to a particular dogma without
> any appreciable evidence and even in contradiction to what is know of
> reality can in no wise be "rational" by such a definition.  Beliefs that
> are self-contradictory cannot be based in reality.

Interesting that I see this in nearly opposite terms.

Rather than "beliefs that are self contradictory cannot be based in
reality", I see all beliefs being based in reality and contradictions
tending to resolve with increasing context of awareness.

Rather than rationality being "adherence to reality", I see
rationality as necessarily subjective decision-making based on what
remains after discarding what seems to be unreality.

Of course we're both describing the same process, but your view
assumes both consistency and objectivity.  Mine assumes only
consistency.

While this might appear to be polemical hair-splitting, it is very
pertinent to understanding how independent subjective agents progress
toward increasing agreement about the nature of their common reality.

- Jef