generalmandrake

generalmandrake t1_j5175rj wrote

No, wasting time is looking up the Latin prefixes instead of the actual dictionary definitions(which I provided the links to in my response).

Non-rational and irrational are two different words with two different meanings. I’m not sure what to say other than if you are maintaining that they mean the same thing you are simply wrong.

1

generalmandrake t1_j50z4k3 wrote

Prefixes aside, the definition of the word "irrational" is normally taken to mean unreasonable and illogical, whereas non-rational is normally taken to mean not based in reason. There is an important distinction between the two. One goes against reason, while the other is not rooted in reason, but is not necessarily unreasonable in nature.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irrational https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonrational

1

generalmandrake t1_j4zvhkd wrote

You are confusing irrational with non rational. Irrational actions are normally ones that are actually harming you are frustrating your goals. You are going against all reason. Non-rational can either be effectively rational or irrational depending on the outcome, the key feature is that those things are driven more by instinct and mental shortcuts rather than higher order rationality.

Things like falling in love or following a sports team are non-rational, not irrational. Evolution has fine tuned the brain so that non-rational actions are often in line with rational goals, or at least won’t interfere with rational goals, but obviously this is not foolproof and is on a case by case basis.

1

generalmandrake t1_j4zut8a wrote

I think climate change is more of an individual vs the collective thing. Collectively barreling towards major climate change is suicidal, institutions like governments are especially at risk because major turmoil historically normally involves the collapse of regimes.

Individually the story is different. From a purely individualistic perspective the contemporary benefits of fossil fuels can outweigh costs that won’t be borne until after you are dead. Even when you consider things like genetic legacy, the economic wealth you accumulate from fossil fuels could actually put your descendants at an advantage in the future world, their survival may actually be improved. Also, there is a free rider problem as well, no one individual is the deciding factor in how much emissions we emit and how severe climate change will be. The lifetime CO2 output of a given person is marginal. If voluntarily economically hamstringing yourself and your family is not going to make a difference as far as the existential threats of climate change goes then it really is not rational to take that course of action.

1

generalmandrake t1_j4zt5hf wrote

I’m pretty sure I had that exact same thought once. Humans might build a super computer one day they can actually determine the true nature of existence. But because it involves concepts that the human brain can’t grasp it wouldn’t make any sense to us and people just assume that the computer is broken and turn it off.

I like the analogy of trying to explain to a dog how a car engine works. You could sit there all day for years explaining it to the dog and you’ll never get through to them because the dog brain simply isn’t built to understand something like that since it involves concepts and processes that are beyond a dog’s reach cognitively.

For some reason many people seem to think that humans are capable of understanding almost anything, but this doesn’t really make much sense. We are just a more sophisticated version of dogs when it comes to cognition, but it is downright illogical to think that the human brain doesn’t have a ceiling when every other animal brain on earth has a ceiling. I mean, just ask anyone what physical reality actually is or where everything came from and you’ll never get a logical answer from anyone. I don’t necessarily think it’s even due to a lack of information and scientific data, I think the answer to the big question most likely involves certain concepts which the human brain had no evolutionary reason for being able to comprehend. Maybe we could build a computer that could do it, but like I said, the answer may not make any sense to us. I guess that is basically H.P. Lovecraft’s theory as well.

3