Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dunno if I would ever agree that logic exactly lasted forever and began with matter...I guess if you're defining logic by the rules and laws of the universe and how it functions, then okay. That makes sense.

 

I can see matter existing forever, too. We can't prove it's never existed, at least yet.

Share this post


Link to post

I really do not relate to your perspective at all.  I feel like I'm asking how someone in spells in Chinese or hieroglyphs (a picture-based language that does not use letters).

 

You don't think human life is to be revered, but you revere resources, which in the train example you seem to define as human lives.  What then do you consider to be these resources?  How do you determine what is a resource and what is not?

 

Interesting, the "always existed" paradox is one of the defining facets of God. So I guess your god is truly logic.

God |gäd|

noun

1 [ without article ] (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2 ( god )(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god | an incarnation of the god Vishnu.

• an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.

• used as a conventional personification of fate: he dialed the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once.

3 ( god )an adored, admired, or influential person: he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god.

 

I do not see how logic is being put into this definition of god. Things do not need to be put into religious boxes to be understood. If it was a god, I would not be an Atheist.

 

 

Moreover, always existed is not a paradox in this case. The problem with god always existing is that it defies laws of science and matter. My proposition for the origin of the universe (or lack of, I suppose), defies no laws.

 

It is not revering, it is preserving. Think of a car. How long does it take to make that car functional from basic tools? Now think of a doctor. How much longer does it take to make that doctor? Life (Quit focusing solely on humans) usually takes longer to manufacture and nurture than other resources. A train can be more easily rebuilt than a group of adults, mos likely one of which (at least) attended college. This is why the resource of life here dominates that of the train and the other lives. They took longer to create.

 

I think the feeling is mutual in that regard as I cannot relate to anything you are saying at all. In fact, I'm getting the feeling you're grasping at straws in an attempt to religi-fy my viewpoints.

 

~~~

 

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I mean, I'm still secular. It's just my own personal opinion based upon scientific laws that I know and what can be observed. Show me information that proves my theory false and I will quickly remedy the fault.

 

Logic has no beginning is what I am saying. We can hardly prove the existence of anything (I struggled to prove the existence of pants to my friend, once) so asking how we know logic exists is like asking how we know colors exist. It's an observable something we take for granted. But, assuming that the universe is real and logic is real, it has no beginning. Can you, perhaps, tell me when colors originated? It's the same idea (Only colors are a result of a physical process of wavelengths but you get my idea since it is difficult to imagine color suddenly cropping up from no color at all.)

Share this post


Link to post

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I mean, I'm still secular. It's just my own personal opinion based upon scientific laws that I know and what can be observed. Show me information that proves my theory false and I will quickly remedy the fault.

 

Logic has no beginning is what I am saying. We can hardly prove the existence of anything (I struggled to prove the existence of pants to my friend, once) so asking how we know logic exists is like asking how we know colors exist. It's an observable something we take for granted. But, assuming that the universe is real and logic is real, it has no beginning. Can you, perhaps, tell me when colors originated? It's the same idea (Only colors are a result of a physical process of wavelengths but you get my idea since it is difficult to imagine color suddenly cropping up from no color at all.)

It's neither good nor bad. It's just that since secular science almost univocally declared that the universe had a point of origin, it seems like most atheists/agnostics have had a cosmology centered around some sort of definite, bangy origin to the universe. Most don't like confessing the eternality of matter because then they realize that they're stuck believing in eternal somethings just like theists believe in eternal somethings.

 

So based on observation and reason, we determine that logic exists?

Share this post


Link to post
It's neither good nor bad. It's just that since secular science almost univocally declared that the universe had a point of origin, it seems like most atheists/agnostics have had a cosmology centered around some sort of definite, bangy origin to the universe. Most don't like confessing the eternality of matter because then they realize that they're stuck believing in eternal somethings just like theists believe in eternal somethings.

 

So based on observation and reason, we determine that logic exists?

I'm just following the conservation laws, that's all. If matter cannot be created and destroyed and we have matter, it must have existed forever and will exist forever. There is a point of origin (The site of the repeated big bangs), but not a "birthing" point, per-say. The eternal existence of matter is difference from the eternal existence of a deity because deities (or at least the Christian god) went on to make matter. That's a big no-no for conservation laws.

 

It seems redundant to put it that way but since there is no other way to prove things, logic shall have to be proved that way as well. Unless there is some other manner for proving things that I was not aware of but those seem to be the only two.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

God |gäd|

noun

1 [ without article ] (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2 ( god )(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god | an incarnation of the god Vishnu.

• an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.

• used as a conventional personification of fate: he dialed the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once.

3 ( god )an adored, admired, or influential person: he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god.

 

I do not see how logic is being put into this definition of god. Things do not need to be put into religious boxes to be understood. If it was a god, I would not be an Atheist.

 

 

Moreover, always existed is not a paradox in this case. The problem with god always existing is that it defies laws of science and matter. My proposition for the origin of the universe (or lack of, I suppose), defies no laws.

 

It is not revering, it is preserving. Think of a car. How long does it take to make that car functional from basic tools? Now think of a doctor. How much longer does it take to make that doctor? Life (Quit focusing solely on humans) usually takes longer to manufacture and nurture than other resources. A train can be more easily rebuilt than a group of adults, mos likely one of which (at least) attended college. This is why the resource of life here dominates that of the train and the other lives. They took longer to create.

 

I think the feeling is mutual in that regard as I cannot relate to anything you are saying at all. In fact, I'm getting the feeling you're grasping at straws in an attempt to religi-fy my viewpoints.

 

~~~

 

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I mean, I'm still secular. It's just my own personal opinion based upon scientific laws that I know and what can be observed. Show me information that proves my theory false and I will quickly remedy the fault.

 

Logic has no beginning is what I am saying. We can hardly prove the existence of anything (I struggled to prove the existence of pants to my friend, once) so asking how we know logic exists is like asking how we know colors exist. It's an observable something we take for granted. But, assuming that the universe is real and logic is real, it has no beginning. Can you, perhaps, tell me when colors originated? It's the same idea (Only colors are a result of a physical process of wavelengths but you get my idea since it is difficult to imagine color suddenly cropping up from no color at all.)

See, this is where the language barrier comes up again. You are looking at a dictionary definition of "god" where I am referring to a religious description of God. I (and many others) happen to believe God is the only thing that has no beginning; it is a defining facet of what God is to us.

 

"Always existed" is a paradox, no matter what it is applied to. There is always the question of where "it" came from.

 

Your proposition defies no known laws, given the starting point of matter already existing. But just as Newton's laws of motion do not hold as the speed of light is approached, your proposition does not hold as the origin of matter/energy is approached.

 

I took "What I value most of all is" to mean "revering" because you hold it above everything else. I went with human life because you dismissed the lives of the kittens in favor of human convenience. Maybe I misread something when I took "All that matters is the number of people who die as a result of the options and choosing the one with less wasted resources. Even if those resources are kittens." to mean people's lives matter more than kittens do.

 

Colors are energy wavelengths. They came to be when energy/matter did.

Edited by Awdz Bodkins

Share this post


Link to post

While you're observing cause, action, and effect, how do you know you can trust your observations?

So we are going in the direction of "how do you know you exist? No but really, how do you know you exist?" I hate these discussion points. I find them useless and irrelevant to what actually matters.

 

Because I know, in the realm of things that matter and are relevant, that I exist. There needs to be some base point. I can trust my observations because electromagnetic waves reach my eyes, which are reflected or emitted off of objects, which convey information about what the object is, which my brain decodes. I can use past actions and results to predict future ones, and, using said light, as well as my brain, which draws connections between various similar things, such as memory and information, can think and relate patterns and therefore produce a reasonable assumption of what will happen. If the parameters and conditions the observations were done in were reasonable, and not afflicted by too many variables, I can usually trust the observation unless new information comes up, in which case I will revise my thoughts and predictions based upon new proof. That is the basis of science. I don't need a deity to tell me "trust your observations. This is what is moral, according to me. This is what is logical, according to me. This is what is reasonable and valid, according to me. Here is what and what not to do, according to me. I am the law. No thinking is involved; do what I say, because it is law."

 

 

I'm just following the conservation laws, that's all. If matter cannot be created and destroyed and we have matter, it must have existed forever and will exist forever. There is a point of origin (The site of the repeated big bangs), but not a "birthing" point, per-say. The eternal existence of matter is difference from the eternal existence of a deity because deities (or at least the Christian god) went on to make matter. That's a big no-no for conservation laws.

That's assuming the conditions before the universe follow the conditions existing in and of the universe, which is, as far as I'm aware, a completely baseless assumption.

Edited by High Lord November

Share this post


Link to post

Eh, but revering is...different I dunno, I value life above all else usually, but I wouldn't say I revere life... I think it's important.

 

Revere is sort of like...you admire/respect it? You show devotion and honor to it. I guess I honor life but revere just seems weird. I don't think it's incorrect, and I get why you use it, but it's not the best word to use for that context.

Share this post


Link to post

See, this is where the language barrier comes up again.  You are looking at a dictionary definition of "god" where I am referring to a religious description of God.  I (and many others) happen to believe God is the only thing that has no beginning; it is a defining facet of what God is to us.

 

"Always existed" is a paradox, no matter what it is applied to.  There is always the question of where "it" came from. 

 

Your proposition defies no known laws, given the starting point of matter already existing.  But just as Newton's laws of motion do not hold as the speed of light is approached, your proposition does not hold as the origin of matter/energy is approached.

 

I took "What I value most of all is" to mean "revering" because you hold it above everything else.  I went with human life because you dismissed the lives of the kittens in favor of human convenience.

 

Colors are energy wavelengths.  They came to be when energy/matter did.

Why is eternal existence a paradox? In the case of matter, it cannot be created or destroyed. You talk about known laws but the entire function of matter is that it cannot be created or destroyed. If it could, the universe would probably deflate like a balloon with a hole in it (Another part of my multiverse theory but I'll get back to that later). In the case of matter, this does not defy any scientific laws. In fact, origin for the universe defies scientific laws. You need to measure things in known laws because they can be proven to exist. If you refuse to respect them despite this, you don't really don't have a place to be talking about science. Don't say matter can be destroyed simply because we haven't done it yet. That's idiotic and counter productive.

 

Again, I do not value human live as something to be revered. They just happen to take the most time to create out of other things while still having a proper function (Diamonds take eons to form but are limited in application). I think the sun is something greater than humans since it is far more useful and will most likely outlast us. Things do not have to be revered. They can simply be valued in a scale of usefulness. And I never said I dismissed the kittens. You need to stop assuming things, silly.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Why is eternal existence a paradox? In the case of matter, it cannot be created or destroyed. You talk about known laws but the entire function of matter is that it cannot be created or destroyed. If it could, the universe would probably deflate like a balloon with a hole in it (Another part of my multiverse theory but I'll get back to that later).  In the case of matter, this does not defy any scientific laws. In fact, origin for the universe defies scientific laws. You need to measure things in known laws because they can be proven to exist. If you refuse to respect them despite this, you don't really don't have a place to be talking about science. Don't say matter can be destroyed simply because we haven't done it yet. That's idiotic and counter productive.

 

Again, I do not value human live as something to be revered. They just happen to take the most time to create out of other things while still having a proper function (Diamonds take eons to form but are limited in application). I think the sun is something greater than humans since it is far more useful and will most likely outlast us. Things do not have to be revered. They can simply be valued in a scale of usefulness. And I never said I dismissed the kittens. You need to stop assuming things, silly.

Eternal existence is a paradox because if it cannot be created from nothing, but it exists, where did it come from? The fact that it exists without a known source goes against your cardinal law that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

 

It would be helpful if you did not assume the meaning of your wording is as clear to others as it is in your head, "silly". You spoke of "people who die", but the kittens were just "resources". To me, that sounds like the kittens are considered as worth less than people.

 

Do you understand yet why I keep saying a standard of reference is important?

Edited by Awdz Bodkins

Share this post


Link to post

I've already stated that humans are irrational creatures capable of rational thoughts. Whenever I talk about logic, I cast aside my human emotions to answer the problem. Emotions are not logical. You cannot use them in a logic argument. Without emotions, it doesn't matter if the person getting killed is a child or an adult or whatever. All that matters is the number of people who die as a result of the options and choosing the one with less wasted resources. Even if those resources are kittens.

 

I choose the one with less wasted resources. Lives are resources. Kittens are resources. Trains are resources. Everything is a resource, it just depends on the amount of time put into it. But it still isn't something to be revered. You seem to be using strange definitions of words between assuming I revere human life and saying that people who do not believe in god are denying it somehow.

 

I already answered that question. If matter cannot be created or destroyed, it must exist forever. The paradox would be if it had a birthing point. I say that matter has always existed and has no birthing point so there is no paradox. The paradox only exists if you claim that matter had a starting point.

 

No, all I get from you is mixing up what I am saying (typing?), several assumptions, mixed up dictionary definitions and a flawed understanding of how scientific laws are used.

Share this post


Link to post
It's neither good nor bad. It's just that since secular science almost univocally declared that the universe had a point of origin, it seems like most atheists/agnostics have had a cosmology centered around some sort of definite, bangy origin to the universe. Most don't like confessing the eternality of matter because then they realize that they're stuck believing in eternal somethings just like theists believe in eternal somethings.

 

So based on observation and reason, we determine that logic exists?

How is believing in eternity believing in an internal "something" (you're clearly implying a conscious eternal something). And while we don't know whether this is true we do know that the Universe is expanding. Who knows. Trillions of years from now even that may seize to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
It's just because I've grown up only knowing one religion and disagree with a lot that's been taught about it. Others have told me that it's best to consider myself a Unitarian Universal instead. In title, at the moment, I'm Christian, but there are a LOT of things in the Bible I seriously disagree with. I'm on a quest for my own set of truths as it were. That's what's making me a cherry picker for now until I find something that I don't have to cherry pick my way through.

 

Edited for better grammar and typos. (Typo queen here.)

But why do you need the religion, then? If you're going to make up your own version of what's acceptable anyway... I guess you said you're looking, but I don't see the point in needing to swap out one for another when you can just live by what you already think is right.

Share this post


Link to post

I choose the one with less wasted resources. Lives are resources. Kittens are resources. Trains are resources. Everything is a resource, it just depends on the amount of time put into it. But it still isn't something to be revered. You seem to be using strange definitions of words between assuming I revere human life and saying that people who do not believe in god are denying it somehow.

 

I already answered that question. If matter cannot be created or destroyed, it must exist forever. The paradox would be if it had a birthing point. I say that matter has always existed and has no birthing point so there is no paradox. The paradox only exists if you claim that matter had a starting point.

 

No, all I get from you is mixing up what I am saying (typing?), several assumptions, mixed up dictionary definitions and a flawed understanding of how scientific laws are used.

OK, you are missing my point about the language. I'm trying to point out that frame of reference is critical to whether or not something makes sense.

 

Take my saying you use logic as your god. There are some defining characteristics applied to God: omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. Omniscient: you say nothing cannot be explained by logic; Omnipotent: you say everything is subject to it; Omnipresent: you say there is no where it does not apply; and Eternal: you say it has always existed. When you apply god-like characteristics to something and it is what you turn to in your time of need, you are revering it. Logic is your god. Similar reasoning can be applied to how you describe matter/energy.

 

The paradox about matter/energy is inherent in the fact that it exists in the first place, when scientific law absolutely insists that it cannot be created from nothing. I'm not saying the law is wrong, I am saying that the existence of matter/energy in your frame of reference IS a paradox.

Share this post


Link to post

OK, you are missing my point about the language.  I'm trying to point out that frame of reference is critical to whether or not something makes sense.

 

Take my saying you use logic as your god.  There are some defining characteristics applied to God:  omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal.  Omniscient: you say nothing cannot be explained by logic; Omnipotent: you say everything is subject to it; Omnipresent: you say there is no where it does not apply; and Eternal: you say it has always existed.  When you apply god-like characteristics to something and it is what you turn to in your time of need, you are revering it.  Logic is your god.  Similar reasoning can be applied to how you describe matter/energy.

 

The paradox about matter/energy is inherent in the fact that it exists in the first place, when scientific law absolutely insists that it cannot be created from nothing.  I'm not saying the law is wrong, I am saying that the existence of matter/energy in your frame of reference IS a paradox.

You aren't getting the fact that if it always existed in the first place, there is no paradox. Unlike deities, this is supported and encouraged by science. There is no starting point for matter. It always was and, therefore, there is no paradox.

 

You are using a flawed definition of god as many gods are not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal. In fact, the ones I would be more likely to worship would be further away from these perfections. But you are incorrect in your reasoning. I'm saying that our universe is run by logic but humans, animals, anything with emotions are illogical. And I do not 'turn to it in my time of need', it is the principle in which I base my actions off of. Logic is my philosophy, not my deity.

 

Why do you need to center things that have absolutely no grounding in religion in religious terms. This is like saying there is no such thing as platonic love and all love is automatically sexual and then describing asexual in these terms. It doesn't work. You need to accept that not all people have a god and their viewpoints cannot be summarized in religious terms.

Share this post


Link to post
http://500questions.wordpress.com/2011/04/...t-always-exist/

 

I think this link is pretty relevant to the discussion at hand.

There is much waste and disorder in the Universe. Why would God carefully design hundreds of billions of galaxies if He only really needed one? And why design them, and then crash mindlessly into one another? Or continuously pelt random planets with space-debris? Is He bored? Nature’s behavior is wasteful, unguided, indifferent, not the stuff you might expect from a thoughtful designer.

This made me laugh. Seeing as this is something humans do, and humans are supposedly made in God's image xd.png

 

And Pudding, Awdz is somewhat right. A different starting point will give a different result

 

Might I ask, is Law always good and Chaos always bad?

Share this post


Link to post

This made me laugh. Seeing as this is something humans do, and humans are supposedly made in God's image xd.png

 

And Pudding, Awdz is somewhat right. A different starting point will give a different result

 

Might I ask, is Law always good and Chaos always bad?

If that starting point is past experiences or emotion, it should have no play in your logical proof.

 

And no, that is not the case. Chaos within a herd is bad but the universe requires it. If there was no chaos, chemical reactions would not have occurred and we would not have the atoms we have today. I'd say if you have a creature or some kind of ecosystem, chaos is bad for it. But anything else (planets, universe, atoms, etc.), chaos is favorable.

Share this post


Link to post

Your starting point is equally emotional as anyone else' starting point, so then how can you discount theirs and say yours is correct?

 

I would disagree that Chaos is bad for creatures. Chaos brings change. If you'll forgive me for using an overdone reference, it's like a forest fire

 

Then again, I'm Chaotic, so my views are logically going to be very different from yours

 

Also, my apologies for my lame half-posts, I have little time to truly fill out these posts

Share this post


Link to post
Your starting point is equally emotional as anyone else' starting point, so then how can you discount theirs and say yours is correct?

 

I would disagree that Chaos is bad for creatures. Chaos brings change. If you'll forgive me for using an overdone reference, it's like a forest fire

 

Then again, I'm Chaotic, so my views are logically going to be very different from yours

 

Also, my apologies for my lame half-posts, I have little time to truly fill out these posts

Emotions are illogical so they should have no place in a logic proof. That is why in all situations, they should be discredited. Notice in my proof earlier, there was no reference to emotion of any kind. That's because it has no place in logic or reason.

 

That kind of chaos is acceptable, just like disease. But too much of it can drive animals to extinction. Extreme weather change caused the extinction of many creatures. For the animals, the chaos is bad because it kills them. But in the grand scheme of things, it could be beneficial for other animals (say, if the animals were an invasive species).

Share this post


Link to post

I'm just following the conservation laws, that's all. If matter cannot be created and destroyed and we have matter, it must have existed forever and will exist forever. There is a point of origin (The site of the repeated big bangs), but not a "birthing" point, per-say. The eternal existence of matter is difference from the eternal existence of a deity because deities (or at least the Christian god) went on to make matter. That's a big no-no for conservation laws.

 

It seems redundant to put it that way but since there is no other way to prove things, logic shall have to be proved that way as well. Unless there is some other manner for proving things that I was not aware of but those seem to be the only two.

I would agree with you that it seems to be the only way. My question is, how do you know you are observing and reasoning correctly? How do you validate your senses and reasoning? It seems that the only way to validate your senses and reasoning is with your senses and reasoning. You can test your reasoning by means of observation, but what is your basis for trusting your observations? You can test your observations according to what you would logically expect to see, but what is your basis for trusting your own reasoning?

 

So we are going in the direction of "how do you know you exist? No but really, how do you know you exist?" I hate these discussion points. I find them useless and irrelevant to what actually matters.

 

Because I know, in the realm of things that matter and are relevant, that I exist. There needs to be some base point. I can trust my observations because electromagnetic waves reach my eyes, which are reflected or emitted off of objects, which convey information about what the object is, which my brain decodes. I can use past actions and results to predict future ones, and, using said light, as well as my brain, which draws connections between various similar things, such as memory and information, can think and relate patterns and therefore produce a reasonable assumption of what will happen. If the parameters and conditions the observations were done in were reasonable, and not afflicted by too many variables, I can usually trust the observation unless new information comes up, in which case I will revise my thoughts and predictions based upon new proof. That is the basis of science. I don't need a deity to tell me "trust your observations. This is what is moral, according to me. This is what is logical, according to me. This is what is reasonable and valid, according to me. Here is what and what not to do, according to me. I am the law. No thinking is involved; do what I say, because it is law.

I'm going in the direction of epistemological nihilism, which is what an atheistic worldview is forced into. Your exposition of how you use senses and reasoning to arrive at knowledge is great, but there's still not explanation for its validity within your worldview. You're relying on your senses and reasoning to validate your senses and reasoning. Your basis for knowledge collapses in circularity, but that doesn't sit well with you because you have knowledge, right? You know that you're seeing things. You know that you're thinking. I would even say that contrary to centuries of silly existential philosophy that you know you exist. You just don't know how you can know those things. Within a world of chance that lacks transcendent standards, you can't know anything.

 

Just so I'm making sure I don't misrepresent you, what is your epistemological foundation? How are you able to have knowledge?

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post

I would agree with you that it seems to be the only way. My question is, how do you know you are observing and reasoning correctly? How do you validate your senses and reasoning? It seems that the only way to validate your senses and reasoning is with your senses and reasoning. You can test your reasoning by means of observation, but what is your basis for trusting your observations? You can test your observations according to what you would logically expect to see, but what is your basis for trusting your own reasoning?

 

 

I'm going in the direction of epistemological nihilism, which is what an atheistic worldview is forced into. Your exposition of how you use senses and reasoning to arrive at knowledge is great, but there's still not explanation for its validity within your worldview. You're relying on your senses and reasoning to validate your senses and reasoning. Your basis for knowledge collapses in circularity, but that doesn't sit well with you because you have knowledge, right? You know that you're seeing things. You know that you're thinking. I would even say that contrary to centuries of silly existential philosophy that you know you exist. You just don't know how you can know those things. Within a world of chance that lacks transcendent standards, you can't know anything.

 

Just so I'm making sure I don't misrepresent you, what is your epistemological foundation? How are you able to have knowledge?

The most irritating thing about epistemological nihilism is I cannot logically disprove a negative. So I can't do anything with this and expecting me to do something with it is obviously not understanding the basics of logic at all. I can no more prove the universe exists than you can disprove there were aliens at the Thanksgiving dinner. It cannot be done.

 

However, epistemological nihilism is not what atheists move towards. Not at all. Atheists are usually more inclined to believe the universe because it can be observed (or at least what we believe to be observed [damn semantics]). Deities, on the other hand, cannot be seen, heard, touch, tasted or smelled at all. Their very nature defies observable laws. I am a nihilist but I am not a epistemological nihilist. I am a existential nihilist and a moral nihilist (to some degree as society's influence on me has altered my own perception of other people and their actions). But epistemological nihilism is counterproductive and pointless except to annoy people and get in the way of scientific research by claiming nothing at all is real.

Share this post


Link to post

Pudding - you are, unfortunately, missing something quite major in your view and application of logic. Logical progression has to come from a defined starting point. There can be no [x] therefore logically [y] if you do not define [x] to begin with. It is impossible for a human (*any* human, including yourself) not to drawn on life experience when understanding something. That is the reference points with which we frame our understanding of the universe. But differing experiences will lead people to percieve [x] differently, which can lead to very different logical progressions from the same point. You have even noted of yourself that your experiences have changed the way you perceive things - and your perception of anything will colour your logical progression, because your perceptions form the basis of your understanding.

 

It is possible for two entirely different, but both utterly logical, conclusions to be drawn from the same set of data. This does not mean that one conclusion is false and the other true - especially in circumstances where 'false' and 'true' are not quantifiable. A large number of human experiences cannot be reduced to numbers, and it is also impossible for every person to be aware of every possible variable.

 

It is also impossible for decisions based purely and soley on logic that takes no account of emotion to be broadly beneficial to society. For the simple reason that, as you have pointed out, humans are creatures of emotion. Emotion therefore becomes a variable - and if you deliberately discount variables from your calculations then the end result of an action will not be the one you expect it to be.

 

One cannot possibly hope to understand the world around them if one discounts a major variable in the behaviour of ones fellows. They will constantly do things that one is not expecting. And it will appear illogical. If, however, one was to factor emotions in as a variable in the logical reasoning then ones predictions become that much more accurate.

Share this post


Link to post

Abstention is NOT the same thing as consciously deciding.

Choosing to not do something *is* choosing. If you see something happening and opt to just walk past it, you've made the decision to not intervene.

 

 

(I am, amongst other things, a person who very strongly believes that inaction should, under many circumstances, be considered a crime.)

Share this post


Link to post

Pudding - you are, unfortunately, missing something quite major in your view and application of logic. Logical progression has to come from a defined starting point. There can be no [x] therefore logically [y] if you do not define [x] to begin with. It is impossible for a human (*any* human, including yourself) not to drawn on life experience when understanding something. That is the reference points with which we frame our understanding of the universe. But differing experiences will lead people to percieve [x] differently, which can lead to very different logical progressions from the same point. You have even noted of yourself that your experiences have changed the way you perceive things - and your perception of anything will colour your logical progression, because your perceptions form the basis of your understanding.

 

It is possible for two entirely different, but both utterly logical, conclusions to be drawn from the same set of data. This does not mean that one conclusion is false and the other true - especially in circumstances where 'false' and 'true' are not quantifiable. A large number of human experiences cannot be reduced to numbers, and it is also impossible for every person to be aware of every possible variable.

 

It is also impossible for decisions based purely and soley on logic that takes no account of emotion to be broadly beneficial to society. For the simple reason that, as you have pointed out, humans are creatures of emotion. Emotion therefore becomes a variable - and if you deliberately discount variables from your calculations then the end result of an action will not be the one you expect it to be.

 

One cannot possibly hope to understand the world around them if one discounts a major variable in the behaviour of ones fellows. They will constantly do things that one is not expecting. And it will appear illogical. If, however, one was to factor emotions in as a variable in the logical reasoning then ones predictions become that much more accurate.

 

Of course logical deductions need an axiom but they do not need emotions. Emotions are actually notorious for distorting reason and should be minimized in any logical deduction. You keep referencing different, logical conclusions but I have yet to see a single one where one logical conclusion was more logical than another. I invite you to provide me with such a case where the logic is not distorted too much by emotions (which are considered illogical and, thus, should not be included in a logical argument) and the answers are both logically sound, where one is not more rational than the other.

 

 

And Shievien, I agree. Inaction is an action and choosing not to stop something when you can (if you can, reasonably) should be a crime. Depending on the circumstances, naturally.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.