Talk:Rationalism

"Rationalism", the scene associated with LessWrong and SlateStarCodex

Perhaps this deserves a section, or its own article? Here are some sources:[1][2][3] Prezbo (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

So, in that context, the word "rationalist" derives from instrumental rationality, not philosophical rationalism. That's why they have tags for things like game theory, economics, utility functions, and empiricism. They are not opposed to empiricism, and in fact they generally agree with Hume and other philosophical empiricists that information comes in from the senses, and that the mind just processes the information to manage models of the world and make predictions. The philosophical frameworks commonly favored over there are bayesian epistemology, consequentialism, reductionism, computationalism, and sentiocentric transhumanist values; they don't use the framework of philosophical rationalism at all, and have no conceptual lineage with it. They probably shouldn't be mentioned here, for the same reason that Bayes Rule goes in the rationality article, not the rationalism article. Rationalism and rationality have very little to do with each other but are commonly confused because of the similar name, and giving a group that discusses rationality a section in the rationalism article seems like a case of that confusion. OrangeCroutons (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting take, I don't know the philosophical history well enough to really evaluate. I would still argue that it makes sense to address the LessWrong people in this article since it's a common use of the word "rationalism" in 2024, but if you can find a source clarifying that that LessWrong "rationalism" has little in in common with philosophical rationalism that would be a useful addition to the article. Prezbo (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

For better or worse, "rationalism" in popular media (see eg the news coverage of the Zizians) these days does tend to refer to the LessWrong flavor, and the referenced rationality article doesn't mention this at all. Jpatokal (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Even so, articles are divided up by concept, not by word. If two different ideas share the same word, they are not merged into a single article, but given a disambiguation page. For example, we have libertarianism (metaphysics) and libertarianism (politics), rather than one article about all things called libertarianism. Perhaps it would be best to create a disambiguation page, and put a small note about LessWrong there (since the section is too small to have its own article, it would go right on the disambiguation page). While it's probably not be usable as a source, if you're interested, Scott Alexander (one of the main thought leaders of the movement) has discussed the confusion on his blog. OrangeCroutons (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Apparent use of pull quotes

A few sections in this article lead with what appear to be pull quotes, which are a well-established no-no. I imagine they are potentially very old, but I wanted to sanity-check before removing them. — Remsense诉 11:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Please create the pages: neo-rationalism (philosophy) and neo-rationalism (architecture)

Old rationalists made some erroneous comments not acceptable by modern science like "with science we can learn literally everything" which is impossible when there is no sufficient data, and the true everything isn't only selecting some out of everything but it is all of it, which isn't definable and it (the everything) isn't trivially guessable. The universal system of logic (mainstream logic is math-based; infinite experimental logical contextualizations are possible; they don't have to be useful to humans), and the universal axiomatic system (infinite experimental axiomatic systems are possible) don't exist due to mutual exclusions.

---

Neo-rationalism and rationalism both explore the role of reason, but they approach it with distinct perspectives and in different contexts.

Rationalism:

This philosophy emphasizes reason as the primary source of knowledge and truth, independent of sensory experience. Rationalists believe that certain truths can be grasped through logical deduction and intellectual insight, and they often rely on universal principles. Think of classical figures like René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz—they argued for innate ideas and the supremacy of the mind's capacity to comprehend reality.

Old rationalism didn't rationally rigorously explained why aseity/self-causation/self-causality leads to an initial ideal person and not the impersonal quantum foundations. Free will is impossible because even in logical pluralism, all logical systems have limitations. The impossibility of the supernatural: even in logical pluralism all logical systems have limitations thus there's no free will (exocausality/ exosystemic causation). The supernatural is atautotic (αταυτοτικός: without identity): it cannot have foundational specifics to exist (supernaturalists are agnostic to the definition of the supernatural substance/essence/ousia,they only provide surrounding stories and general descriptions).

Neo-rationalism:

An evolution or reinterpretation of traditional rationalism, neo-rationalism emerged as a response to modern philosophical challenges and developments. While still valuing reason, neo-rationalists tend to integrate it with empirical and pragmatic considerations, recognizing the complexities of human cognition and the limitations of pure reason. Neo-rationalism often engages with contemporary issues, such as ethics, science, and technology, offering a more nuanced view than its predecessor.

Classical rationalism failed to rigorously justify why aseity (self-causation or self-causality) would necessarily result in the emergence of an ideal, personal entity rather than impersonal quantum foundations. Furthermore, free will is unattainable, as even within the framework of logical pluralism, all logical systems possess inherent limitations. This limitation also underpins the impossibility of the supernatural; since all logical systems are constrained, free will (as exocausality or exosystemic causation) cannot exist. The concept of the supernatural is inherently atautotic (αταυτοτικός: lacking identity), as it cannot possess definitive foundational properties to substantiate its existence. Supernaturalists are agnostic about the essence or substance (ousia) of the supernatural, offering only peripheral narratives and vague descriptions without concrete definitions. Most old rationalists were theists, and most neo-rationalists are atheists (otherwise they reject neorationalistic aseity/self-causation studies, free will studies, etc. Thus neorationalists who reject parts of neorationalism aren't fully neorationalists (we have to mention it, because many supernaturalists try to corrode all antisupernaturalisms).

Old rationalist theist never elaborated on the Brodmannian (Brodmann-like modalities; see: Brodmann areas) structure and function of the immaterial soul-brain of God. The soul being a mereological simple (a simple on mereologicy) lacks structural and intellectual parts. If the soul has more fundamental parts – being a mereological complex – like Brodmannian data-processing modalities and even different memories, then the God's soul isn't the utmost fundamental (thing to exist). Neo-rationalists debunk fallacies of the old rationalists. Separate neorationalists focus on different topics.

Wikipedia doesn't have the page: personhood-yielding computer (biological or digital [mechanical would be impractical]). For example in the year 2025, chatbot aren't built to have Brodmann areas thus not merely mimicking experiences and different data-processing modalities by expressing language. Sabin Hossenfelder and her like are wrong for telling that a huge single-modal chatbot has maximal personhood (personhood is gradient). Personhood (true/ unzombiehood; see: philosophical zombie) isn't only about language results but it is about introspective modalities (enough to cover human-like abilities and data-processing coherence).

---

In essence, rationalism lays the groundwork with its bold commitment to reason, while neo-rationalism adapts these ideals to the dynamic landscapes of today. 2A02:587:4F0C:9300:F519:28AB:63E1:26E3 (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)