[bionsuba]

I've had the misfortune of listening to Fresco on a podcast, and he came right out and stated that

1. Humans don't have a capacity for reason

2. If reason existed it couldn't lead to any truth

3. That people only find scientific discoveries via chance

So I wouldn't expect him to be dissuaded by a rational argument.

He also believes in the blank slate theory, so not exactly up to date in the science world.

[btg_1987]

1) Overall, yes. 2) Citation needed. 3) Correct, they react to stimuli.

I agree with you on the blank slate theory and that Fresco was not up to date on this. Genetics has an impact on skull formation, brain tissue, etc.

[bionsuba]

>Overall, yes

So the creatures who invented the conceptual framework of reason and logic have no way to use reason and logic. Got it.

>Citation needed

Here's one example of his opinions on reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQcYZpY9JI0

>Correct, they react to stimuli.

If humans didn't have a capacity for reason, then observing stimuli wouldn't mean anything and we wouldn't be able to transform observation to concepts. His example was people accidentally making a camera obscura by having a hole in the wall. Without reason, you

1. Wouldn't be able to conclude that it was even the hole in the wall causing the effect

2. Would be equally likely to attribute the image to the act of a divine power

And his failings on blank slate theory are not on the genetics side of things, but on human behavior. Much like the conception of the new socialist man, his thinking relies on behaviorism.

[btg_1987]

> So the creatures who invented the conceptual framework of reason and logic have no way to use reason and logic. Got it.

Correct. Perfect example would be Casinos, a person knows the hard odds are against them but continues to not use logic and reason. Perhaps our individual concepts of the words "reason" and "logic" are not synced, thus causing the disparity.

> Here's one example of his opinions on reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQcYZpY9JI0

I must have misunderstood your original stance on this. I believe we are actually in agreement on this topic. What part of this video do you disagree with?

> If humans didn't have a capacity for reason, then observing stimuli wouldn't mean anything and we wouldn't be able to transform observation to concepts. His example was people accidentally making a camera obscura by having a hole in the wall. Without reason, you...

In his example of the hole in the wall, you claim it was not by accident and that they were purposely looking for the intended output in the configuration? It seems the information Jacque was attempting to convey was that through observation and "accidental" tries, output is generated. Edison and Tesla did the same exact thing, only difference being Tesla narrowed his "accident" tests down to less cases. It all comes down to if-statements. If a hand "accidentally" covered the hole, the picture disappears... then another if-statement executes in their mind... if another object obscures the frame, what happens? Everything evolves from these "accidents".

> 1. Wouldn't be able to conclude that it was even the hole in the wall causing the effect > 2. Would be equally likely to attribute the image to the act of a divine power

-Yes, what we call Science -Yes, what we call Religion

> And his failings on blank slate theory are not on the genetics side of things, but on human behavior. Much like the conception of the new socialist man, his thinking relies on behaviorism.

Behavior is mutable. Genetics plays a large factor as well. We both seem to agree that the blank slate theory is blown out of the water. His thinking can seem to rely on behaviorism, but more aptly he would refer to it as "operational conditioning".