That being said, to be only rational is to be a machine. To be only irrational is to be an animal. To be human is to be rational and irrational and know how to embrace them both and negotiate the line that separates them.
#16 | Posted by Grendel at 2009-12-13 01:40 PM
Strangely, the religious communities appear to claim that nature is anything less than rational, which seems irrationally opposing to their adoration of the spiritual and recognition of all things holy. We all generally possess a common programming such as "fight or flight" and is that not extraordinarily compunctual? Quite rational for survival, perhaps animals possess other means of exemplifying rationality?
Or, are you referring to those rare creatures who literately oppose the organized religious authority? Scandalous authors and the criminally insane? Perhaps you could also include those with such severe brain impairment they are unable to recognize or respond to their environment, merely existing to abstractly writhe or to complacently mold-over? Do they exist someplace, these people without rational sense whatsoever? In that case I can see how that might compare with an animal in that state, but otherwise your cretin doesn't exist in any one of us, but within all of us. We are all blundering animals witness our own good and our own bad. This applies as our self-absorbed natures generally ignore how clearly we crave and recognize ever our pets intelligence, let alone our own children among other beings of nil vocabulary such as an office plant or my pet assassin bug. Among our Earthly beings the human requires the most time to generally develop, and once we do we formulate astrophysics, macaroni and cheese, commemorative music collections and mascara. Computers offer another brand of intelligence tool use and can mirror our exacting requirements to appear charming, witty or even threatening, but our pets can demonstrate their demeanor without the use of English or writing or a wry tongue in cheek (although I wonder). They are oriented to purring, chirping and barking and even then cannot generally make the sounds necessary for conversational English, disturbing as that might be realized (Scooby Doo parrots aside). But they do communicate, possess personalities and develop relationships among many traits shared by humans. People have been posting threads related to animal intelligence and human comparison - this intensifies the otherwise obviousness that we are existing in a wonderfully diverse place and our limitations exist only as entertainment until we should grow weary of them. So, I'll presume you meant the non-literal "animal" since it's quite obvious that humans are themselves animals.
A machine acts under the direct order of events and pre-existing conditions. There is no rationality in that, merely reiteration. Machines are utterly irrational, possessing none of the rational language of existence or the ability to recognize it's necessity or diversity. You could claim that early life forms are merely machines, acting under select circumstances, but the larger scale of ongoing evolution isn't merely mechanistic, itself evolving to encompass new resources and environmental uses. Evolutionary intelligence could be equated to self-improving machinery capable of invention, but that's indistinguishable from the living.
So, "evolving machines acting with rationality" might be a better definition for humans from your premise. I personally like the idea that detachment is by choice, but who knows.:]
