correct! the learning process is not relegated to book learning. if you were living in the wild 10,000 years ago you would learn from trial and error. then you would pass that knowledge on to your offspring. you or your offspring would learn the basics of reasoning even though they were not intellectually aware of it. without gaining knowledge you can only be a vegetable and just sit there and do nothing. obama is a perfect example of someone who has never learned to reason, and he quite clearly demonstrated that last night.

I totally disagree. Education is handy, but inherent abilities are more important.

Jan

My belief is that not only is it not acquired at birth, but that many people resist reasoning/logic is favor of emotion. If there is any truth (and anecdotal data would say there is) to the right brain left brain theory then right brained people (creative types/liberals) have a terribly difficult time being logical. It is not in their nature.

I have not asked about a conversation. I think that is a separate discussion. I want to discuss if making decisions based on reason is acquired at birth, learned/taught or both.

if the individual became very good quickly it was because they had the intelligence to know what to do to get better.
I think it is time to understand that education is the very starting block of being able to do anything especially reason.

The simple answer? YES.

All of those things are a factor. But at the lowest common denominator is having a connection to the mind.
Logic and reason, beyond survival necessities cannot occur in the brain alone. A sense, at least, of the big picture and integrating one's accumulated knowledge can only take place in the mind and experiences over time.

While an athlete has to practice to become the best that that individual can achieve, the starting point varies dramatically for different people. I have seen individuals who, after 6 months of basic instruction, out-compete most people who have been doing the sport for decades. These are the 'naturals'. It is not education that produces this difference, it is innate ability.

Jan

The knowledge of the principles of logic have to be used by choice. You can study logic and be an expert at its use in reasoning but even then just having thoughts will not do. Rational thought requires volition. Otherwise you get mostly irrational thoughts. Every animal with a complex enough brain is capable of thought but few, other than humans, are able to use reason and few humans choose to use reason rationally with regard to facts of objective reality and the principles of logic. Having thoughts is not the same as using reason. Thoughts that pass through a mind without volition have to have some subconscious logical basis but it takes volition to apply the implicit logic of a mind to objective facts.

It's the combination.

The 'wiring' and 'components' are available for all humans, but all skills (even walking) have to be practiced to reinforce that 'wiring' and mental process. Basic math involves logic and reasoning as does language and nearly any work task.

Some brains come with wiring and components that are more adept at certain processes than are others, but unless there are birth defects or damage to the brain, any can be trained (with cooperation--volition) to a basic level of comprehension and efficacy. But as with any human attribute, the range of function from individual to individual will cover a broad bell curve.

Whom do you know who routinely speaks logically? First one must know the rules. That knowledge is not innate.

I thought about that comment I made while walking home and realized that an instinct or "awareness" of "past" came later in evolution (even after the advent of language, communication if you like) maybe at around the same time as a feeling for the future, or the "about-to-be".

Certainly language and causal thinking evolved in tandem.

Dear Mountain Lady: Using reason to make de-
cisions means focusing on the facts before one.
And that is the root of going by reason. (Specific
processes may come later, as one learns more
about it).

hear hear

Yes, you cannot think without symbols for concepts. However you have to be careful not to play into the linguists/language where they take words as the primary not reality

In essence, people almost never truly acquire that ability.

They instead develop the ability to fabricate logical constructs and arguments to legitimise decisions that are instinctively/emotionally/culturally based anyway. Bust 'em down to their premises, and you'll find a whole lot of indefensible axioms, chosen along the lines of their culture, ethnicity, upbringing, family principles, early childhood experiences, education and adult experience.

So just to clarify, a person without being taught would not have any power to reason?

Absolutely none innate or mostly none?

hear hear

Personally I am not thinking of any single person. What I'm really trying to ask is if, like your example of the kid with the ability to pick up music quickly, which to me says they were born with that ability, is it possible that some are born with a natural ability to use reason, and catch onto it quickly? I don't know if I have explained my question well but I think you are saying yes it is possible.

Thanks for clarifying. Makes sense now.

I believe that some people's brains function better or differently than others. Savants are an illustration of that, and others do not necessarily need to be autistic to have such abilities. When I was a trombonist and gave private lessons, I found one kid who caught on so quickly it was breathtaking. In 6 months to a year he was as good or better than me, and I knew, I could never catch up to him if I practiced 10 hours a day and had lips of steel. Fortunately, most of us are not born as savants or geniuses and simply have to work harder and longer and do our best. If the gifted person is not as dedicated as the non gifted person, the non gifted person can exceed him. I get the feeling that you are thinking of Rand. I have heard her in conversation and debate. She had as sharp a mind as anyone I ever encountered, and I'd never want to be in a debate as a con to her pro. I'd probably need lots of band-aids to cover the thousand cuts.

As for me, I knew what you meant. :)

Sorry "will not"