J30 - A More Developed Definition of Reason

The purpose of this journal is to delineate and elucidate what I mean by the word “reason,” as the term has a long and diverse history and I don’t want to cause confusion by my employment of it here. Given the significance of reason, many intellectuals throughout history have written extensively on the subject and offered their own definitions of the concept, from Plato to Descartes to Hegel. To give a full account of all of these conceptions and ruminations on man’s distinguishing feature would fill many journals and perhaps bore some of you to death (the last time I wrote out a brief history of the idea of reason in Western thought, leaving out the church leaders’ writings, the result was over 5000 words). Instead of going through its history, therefore, I wish to here just better define the word reason as I use it.

Generally, however, I can say that throughout its entire history, reason has been regarded as a relational concept. Before the advent of the Greeks and their use of reason in the search of final ends and meanings, reason was that human faculty which connected means to ends, which discovered more efficient ways to use what we had to get what we wanted. This is much the sense that I’ve been talking about reason. However, the Greeks and later thinkers distinguished reason from human action generally, and began to conceptualize reason as a type of “knowing that” rather than a “knowing how.” In their view, reason was the light that revealed the pattern of the universe, which showed the connections between all things. That is, these thinkers believed that the universe was causally interconnected in a complex web of relationships, which man was capable of understanding, and reason was our tool for doing so. Indeed, understanding this arrangement of everything was man’s ultimate purpose, many of them believed. Personally, the distinction between these two ideas of reason escapes me. I understand the arguments that the thinkers make, saying that their concept of reason attempts to understand man’s place in the universe and thereby determine what ends man should choose, as opposed to the lower form of reason which merely applies means to ends. But man’s ultimate end is happiness (in the strict economics meaning of the word), so even the choice of intermediate ends is really just a means for the attainment of the ultimate end. So I guess it’s not that the distinction escapes me, it’s just that the truth escaped them (which is understandable, as many of them lived and died before Cantillon birthed the science of economics). Regardless, it’s worth stating that almost every thinker in the history of Western thought understood reason as a relational concept.

Brand Blanshard has written that if we take reason to be man’s defining characteristic, as Aristotle suggested, then man’s reason to encompass four features, four features of human thinking that are not shared by animals. These four features, writes Blanshard, are: thought not tied to perception, the use of abstractions, explicit inferences, and self-consciousness. These are the functions of our mind which are denied to lower life forms, and they thus set us apart from other living creatures.

Each of these four functions are crucial, I think, although it could be argued that the first is most important. The first feature, thought not tied to perception, is the basis for imagination, which is what I have previously argued makes man special in the order of things. Man alone imagines different worlds, chooses which imaginary world he believes would suit him best, and acts to bring that world into existence by changing his existing world. Reason is that function of the human mind, I believe, that allows man to imagine, choose, and act. The other features, I believe, serve this human conceptualization and action. 

[To briefly comment on the other features: The use of abstractions allow us to understand general causal laws which are applicable in many areas besides the one from whence we learned the law. That is, this feature allows us to classify phenomenon and objects as of a certain type, and thereby organize and apply far greater sums of knowledge to far more situations than we would be able to without the abstractions. Explicit inferences allow us to reason independent of experience. It lets us see the relationships between abstractions, rather than between concrete experiences. This is very important because this makes possible the hard logic which is often contrasted with the soft emotions that might muddle the logic when applied to situations which elicit our sympathies. Explicit inferences allow us to find the right answer logically without the messiness of emotions. And self-consciousness is important for many reasons, but I’d like to specifically point out that it makes possible self-reflection. Freud and his followers in psychology have argued that humans do not actually reason, that our actions are unconsciously driven by external influences, and that the closest we get to reason is rationalizing our actions in hindsight. But, even if this is true, this indicates that there is something in humans that tend towards reason, and that this self-reflection and rationalization can train us (by influencing later actions) to be more reasonable in the future.]

I have previously defined reason as man’s ability to imagine, choose, and act rationally. Most people would probably limit reason to just the rational action part. But all three of these phenomenon happen in the human mind, and they are all part of the same process, so I group them together. The features elucidated by Blanshard make this function of the human mind possible. So, I think that, in my own world of definitions, I would call these features enablers of reason, but not reason itself. Or perhaps just parts of the whole. I think that I could define reason as the four functions listed by Blanshard, infused with purpose. Reason allows us to think of more satisfactory ends, allows us to classify the objects around us as means for the attainment of these ends, plan for the utilization of these means for the attainment of our ends, and act to so utilize the means economically. Reason is itself an enabler; it allows us to be what we are: creators.

I really want to stress this idea of reason as purposeful, because it’s taken as an assumption through much of my writing but, in fact, sets my theory of reason apart from almost every other philosopher in Western history. This is in large part due to my understanding of economics, and the accompanying rejection of the premise underlying much of Western thought in this area, that reason is something different and greater than the minutia of human action, more akin to the gods than the foxes. My theory of reason is distinct in that it holds fast to the belief that an explanation of reason cannot lose sight of the fact that it is human reason. That reason is the defining feature of acting man, and that it must be defined thusly. This is something that almost everyone in history has missed. 

So, reason, in my conception, is the unique feature of the human mind, the ability to imagine, choose, and act rationally to bring about the imagined world. The rational action is obviously related to reason, but it takes a little more thought to see that there is no action without choice and no choice without imagined options. So, my definition can be a little confusing if not carefully considered and in light of the weight of what has been written on this topic by other thinkers. I have written extensively on this topic and my own theory of reason in other places, but hopefully this reasonably-lengthed post has provided enough clarification for purposes of this project.

J29 - Man, Matter, Means, and Machines

While computers and robots are not my areas of specialty, I have been doing some thinking about them lately in light of an essay in the latest issue of Lapman’s Quarterly that Feb shared, which discussed the future as one “made by and for machines,” and in light of some recent journals from Ved, the most recent of which marveled at the possibility of a digital world for robots to exist in. Because I feel that this issue, our future with machines, is connected to my project, I want to offer a few comments.

As I’ve explained in a number of previous journals, man is the source of meaning in the universe. That is, because man is the sole possessor of consciousness, of self-awareness and conceptualization, it is man alone who defines things and draws connections between them. Because man recognizes this arrangement of elements as iron, or as a house, does not mean that other creatures do so as well. The universe appears as it does to us because that is how we see it. Moreover, man cannot make use of his material environment until he ascribes it with meaning. Until man understands that a tree is made out of wood, and that the wood can be used to keep him warm or keep out the rain, the tree is not a resource for material to aid in those tasks. Oil, for many years, was not an economic good, despite the great value it currently holds for mankind, because man did not understand it or its uses, and thus did not ascribe to it the meaning it holds today. The human mind did not classify it as a good, and thus is was not one. Furthermore, the status of an economic good, whether it is a present good or a future good, a consumer’s good or a producer’s good, a valuable good or a negligible one, are all determinations that are made by the human mind, regardless of the physical properties of the good. The material is judged based on its relation to a human need that the mind perceives. 

Man generally views his material surroundings in one of two ways: as givens, which he cannot change or control, or as means, which he can change and control. Much of the development of civilization can be attributed to the progressive tendency of man’s material surroundings to be viewed as means to be manipulated rather than givens that must be accomodated. Means are goods or services that are used by acting man to attain his ends. Because our means are limited by the scarcity inherent in the physical environment, contra the world we imagine in our heads, there are not enough means available to attain every end, and man must choose which ends he values more so that his means can be allocated in the most economic fashion. More ends can be attained either through an increase in the amount of means available, or through the technological development of means that can be used to produce more ends. Tools, machines, and computers are all advanced means, capital goods that man has created to aid him in his quest to attain as many ends as he can.

Because machines are material means, man has every incentive to make them as effective as possible. And, to that end, much research and advancement has been made in recent years to make our machines smarter, to give them artificial intelligence that will allow them to make their own decisions and learn on their own and communicate with each other. Theoretically, this will make the machines more efficient and better able to serve humans, but many are concerned that once machines reach a certain point, where their intelligence surpasses humans, they will, like humans, begin remaking the world in their image, and this image may not include humans. Lapham’s article, while noting the differences between human consciousness and machine intelligence, expresses this concern.

I have expressed elsewhere, years ago, my doubts about the abilities of machines to approximate the mental processes of man. My work this year has done nothing to shake me from that view. I have no doubt that machines may be made to imitate man, and to do many of his mental tasks far better than he can. But I do not think machines can imagine. They are separated from us in this, like all other forms of life. As I described it on YouTube once, there are two parts of the human mind: there’s the calculating part, the part that connects means to ends. This is the part that computers approximate, and may surpass us at. But, for humans, there’s also the part that chooses ends. Or, rather, creates ends. Machines can be told to make decisions, can be told to create tasks for itself. But these themselves are tasks. We input the computer’s ends. And, as uneducated about computers as I am, I do not see how we can program computers to do something that we can hardly understand ourselves. I don’t see how we could ever program something to think for itself beyond the program. It seems like an insoluble contradiction. This doesn’t mean that machines might not get to a point where they try to wipe us off the face of the Earth because they interpret their instructions thusly. But I think that humans will survive such an attempted extermination, precisely because we can imagine something new, while machines can only complete the task they have before them.

But, I think that this trait of human beings, our ability to see things unseen and drive to change the world into our own image, is what will make this war between machines and man unnecessary. First of all, even if we do somehow make machines think like humans, in that they’ll have desires and want to create new worlds, it seems quite likely that they will, in fact, create a new world, rather than take over ours. That is, why would machines want to conquer our world of scarcity when they could inhabit a world of limitless potential: the digital world. Why would machines choose our world over their own, when theirs is not subject to the same limits as ours. Human beings are defined by our struggle against scarcity; all we do is an attempt to overcome it. If we really gave that human spark to a computer, it would flee immediately into the superabundance of the cyberworld. What a marvelous idea, Ved!

Furthermore, it must be remembered that machines are means. They are, at this time, the most effective means we have in our struggle against scarcity. But, they are also merely the latest iteration in a long line of evolving means. Just like we cast aside the carriage for the car and the spear for the gun, so we may one day cast away the computer for something better. Humans are special because we can imagine new worlds and build them. There may come a time when that world does not include the same kind of machines we deal with today. It does, indeed, seem that the future will be one of increasing technological advancement and domination. But that future isn’t necessary and unchangeable. In fact, it is the nature of man to change it.

Some Factors Contributing to the Decline of Farsighted Solutions

*Originally written 08/09/2015*

We are finite beings; therefore, we prefer more of a good over less of a good. We are mortal beings; therefore, we prefer the use of a good sooner over the use of the good later. This latter phenomenon is known as time preference. Affected by time preference as he is, man will exchange present goods for future goods only if he expects the sum of future goods he will gain to be greater than the sum of present goods he will give up. The surplus of future goods necessary to induce the exchange of present goods represents the rate of time preference, which is different for every person and for the same people at different points in their life. Conditioned by time preference, acting individuals will choose the shortest production process to obtain a given satisfaction. Moreover, even if he knows of a longer production process that will lead to a greater satisfaction, an acting individual will only choose this longer production process if his rate of time-preference is sufficiently low enough for him to forsake present consumption and invest in the aggrandizement of future consumption. 

It is quite possible, even likely, that one will know of multiple possible solutions to a problem before him. Which solution he chooses will depend on his preferences, including his rate of time preference. Because these preferences are subjective, we are not in a position, as scientists of human action, to judge his choices as “right” or “wrong.” Choosing to consume a smaller amount today rather than a larger amount tomorrow is not a “bad” choice if one genuinely prefers less now over more later. However, we are not just scientists, and we can say, as human beings in a world of scarcity, that investment in more productive production processes is a generally desirable trend for those of us who wish for rising standards of living. That is, long-term solutions should be generally favored over short-term solutions. This principle is manifested in action only if people have rates of time preference that are sufficiently low. Therefore, the advancement of civilization depends on the lowering of time preference rates.

There are many factors that influence the rates of time preference in society. For the sake of brevity, I will discuss only one: the government. The existence of government limits the decline of time preference rates by institutionalizing the practices of theft (the confiscation of property) and regulation (the limit of control over property). This introduces a measure of risk and uncertainty into the valuations of acting individuals. The government may currently allow them to use 75% of their property as they wish. They may either consume or invest these owned resources. Due to the continued existence of government, however, individuals are less likely to invest in the future because (a) they have less resources to invest, and (b) they are uncertain of how much of their future product they’ll be allowed to keep control of. The growth of government increases the intensity of these effects. It is unsurprising, then, to find Americans’ savings rates at all-time lows with the size of their government at an all-time high. 

Furthermore, government has also contributed to the decline in farsightedness by taking responsibility for many farsighted projects, such as building and maintaining national transportation systems, exploring space, and tackling climate change. These are all sectors that the free market is more than capable of working in successfully, but the government activities too-often crowd out the private investments and innovations. This is bad for two reasons. First, the government doesn’t know what’s important and valuable and what’s not. Was it cool that we put a man on the moon? Of course. Was it worth $200 billion? We don’t know, and, in fact, we have no way of knowing because government operates outside of the profit and loss system of the market. It therefore is incapable of economic calculation, and cannot know if and when it has chosen the right projects/solutions to pursue. Second, and this is especially true of a democratic government, government officials are by their very nature short-term thinkers. Their goal is everywhere and always to get re-elected, and so they aim to create some tangible benefit for their constituents sometime before the next election, in order to gain their votes. This is not to say that politicians don’t talk about and occasionally enact a long-term project, but they are predominantly focused on quick-fixes that will make them look good next election season.

Finally, another big factor contributing to the decline of farsightedness is a change in attitude among people. Perhaps it is because of the improper study of history, as I discussed in my last post, or because of the indoctrination received in government schools, but people seem to believe now that progress just happens. Their parents were better off than their grandparents, and their grandparents were better off than their great-grandparents. Everyday new inventions and technologies and software is released to make the world a new and better place. People have lived their lives watching the world change all around them, and have come to assume that this change is automatic. They have lost sight of the fact that the world only changes through the actions of real individuals, and that, had those individuals made other choices, the world would have turned out much differently. So, in considering long-term problems, too many people mistakenly assume that they will take care of themselves, or that the government will solve them. Too many people shrug responsibility for crafting long-term solutions to persistent problems and put their faith in a “path of history” that is totally fallacious. 

There are, of course, other reasons for the shortsightedness of the current generation. Some part of it is purposeful, such as when the Federal Reserve institutes quantitative easing rather than allowing the malinvestments in the economy to liquidate by means of recession because “in the long run, we are all dead.” But other factors, like the ones listed above, do not receive the attention they deserve. Indeed, the decline in farsightedness (and savings rates) itself does not receive the attention it deserves. Realizing this current trend is important, but it is only the first step. The future of civilization is at stake, and only a proper understanding of economics and the long-term effects of every action can save it.