Logic

Post Reply New Topic

The idea of Logic is interesting in principle. Still, I fear that there may be some things that people, being people, cannot help but have emotional prejudices and phobias about.

That’s a very good point.

Not every is 100% based on logic.

Logic is not superior to emotion

But emotion does not replace logic, in some situations


When doctors and counselors, ask "are you thinking about hurting yourself or someone else?". (Their version of the Mandated Reporter law), they are trying to replace logic, with emotion.

(As though they have never "hurt" anyone before)


This is wrong

Everything "helps", "hurts", both or neither

And it's up to the recipient to say if it "helps" or "hurts"

Anyone could correctly claim anything "hurt" them

For example, when I got a buzz cut, I "hurt" the landlords eyeballs (correct)

When I continue living, I "hurt" some peoples feelings (correct)

They don't have to justify and explain it, to my satisfaction

They don't need logic, in that circumstances

But just because I "hurt" her eyeballs, doesn't mean that I violated the Mandated Reporter law

Nobody has a "right" to be happy

Even Trump does not have a right to be happy

Just because they are not happy, doesn't mean someone violated their stupidass "rights"



Some situations require emotion

Some situations require logic

Some situations require both

Some situations require neither

Some situations require either

I like the book "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, How to know what's really real in a world increasingly full of fake." by Dr. Steven Novella. It is a good discussion on logic fallacies.

Logic deals reasonably well with what is, but often fails miserably on the ought-to-be. There are certain concepts, the evaluative and moral, that don't lend themselves to the kind of concrete, specific, unambiguous, and agreed upon definitions that would be necessary to carry out a truly logical discussion about them. Sometimes people try to but from what I've seen they take a certain stance about those kinds of concepts as self-evident, either to themselves or to a certain group around them, and proceed from there. It can be easy to see a particular view of what is desirable about the world as a simple factual truth when one spends their life intimately tied to the feelings that back those views, especially if they can gather a group around them that share and validate those views, feeding an illusory objectivism.

Part of where people get into trouble is when they underplay the nearly impossible amount of complexity that they have around them. This is where logic often ends up running into trouble - ie. that our logic is limited to what we can readily put into words, it's also limited to what people are willing to converse about or find salient enough to put the effort into, and quite often without monetary incentive, sexual incentive, longevity incentive, prestige incentive, spiritual incentive, etc. topics get brushed over or get light enough treatment to where they're nowhere close to being exhaustively examined.

This is part of why sheer logic or philosophy don't get too far without measurement from science, your outputs only as good as your inputs.

I agree with techstep about logic running into problems because people rely on readily available words, and would like to expand that to the issue of the words themselves:
Words are names for fuzzy concepts, that may or may not have a meaningful correspondence in the real world (the real world is everything that exists, whether we can see it or not, whether we can measure it or not, whether we haveva name for it or whether that name actually describes a bunch of unrelated phenomena, and how things fit together).

For example, imagine you were trying to make an argument about humans.
What humans? A specific group? An average human? Some sort of smallest common denominator?
Is the microbiome, without which humans can't live, part of the humans you're making an argument about?
Where exactly does a human begin, and where does it end?
What about machines that simulate humans- are you including the simulated humans?


Logic is great for numbers and stuff, but most of the world we deal with is made upnof language - which is a kind of poetry on reality

A reasonable, and dare I say logical assessment.

Premise: Humanity is the result of the evolutionary process.
Premise: Emotions are the result of the evolutionary processes.
Premise: Emotions are primarily influenced by the "reptilian" and Mammalian/Limbic" systems.
Premise: Emotions serve some function in a culture sense.
Premise: Emotions server some function in the continuation of the species.
Premise: The evolutionary process is a "blind" process and can lead to evolutionary "cul-de-sacs".
Premise: The evolutionary process has no inherent morality system.
Premise: Natural selection is a brutal process of rewarding survivability at the expense of the less adapted or circumstantially unfortunate.
Premise: Not all manifestations of emotion have moral integrity.
Premise: The locus of reason is housed in the neocortex.
Premise: The neocortex is the most evolutionary advanced section of the brain.
Premise: The neocortex is responsible for personkind's cultural and scientific achievements.
Premise: The reptilian and mammalian aspects of the brain is primarily focused on the instinctual survival and reproductive, err, aspects.

<thinking>
<thinking>
<cogitating>
<processing>

Emotions?
Nah, we can do better.
Go the Vulcans, rah! rah! rah!

Fanta-Logic by Herman Finkers.

A human is for 60% water, so, how more humans how lower the sea level.

"A human is FOR 60% water"

so,

How more humans how lower the sea level."

??????????????????????

Please wait until you sober up. And then please rewrite your post... so we all can figure out what you're asking.

Thanks for your reaction Naturalplastic, i am not drunk

I did start my post with the word Fanta-Logic, a fantasy-logic, a humoristic-logic.
All the water that contains in human body's cant contain at the same time in the ocean, so, how more humans, how lower the sea level
By the way, Herman Finker is the dutch Steve Martin.

I like to make Delft blue tiles.

For counting the era i use the day that Charles Darwin is born, so thats why 207.n.d is in the tiles.
Charles Darwin and the evolution is for me pure logic, not fanta-logic, but real logic.

So...your native language is Dutch, and not English. Am I right?

And that's why you don't quite grasp English grammar?

Whether its facetious, or serious, fanta, or non fanta, what you're asking STILL doesn't make any sense.

My guess is that what you're trying to say is this:"if humans are 60 percent water would an increase in the size of the human world population cause a drop in sea level?"

Is that what you are asking? Or something like that?

^^^ I think he is joking, since humans are 60% water, an increase in the # of humans would cause a decrease in the volume of water in the oceans. But I could be wrong.

I really like what techstepgener8tion and shlaifu said; articulating concepts in my mind I don't know how to put into words.

Blazingstar is right.
I did write in my last post "Fanta-Logic, a fantasy-logic, a humoristic-logic"

Right Naturalplastic, my native language is dutch, and the part of the planet i am living is called the netherlands.
To get the humor of the fanta-logic its important that you realise that a big part of the country here is lower than the sea level.

Questions Questions Questions.

If the pace of world trade were to speed up, increasing the tonnage of imports/exports, and even more cargo crossed the seas on ships, and since Archimedes taught us that "a floating object displaces its own weight in water", does that mean that if the economy improves, the increased number/size of cargo ships plying the seas will displace so much water that....it will spill over the dikes and flood the Netherlands (and New Orleans)?

The better the economy the more stuff will be floating in the sea on ships. So more water in the sea will be displaced at any given time. So...that extra water has gotta go SOME where!

Riddle me THAT!

Well...what about Erewhon's question?

Even if it is a joke...

Humans aren't the only species on earth, nor even the only on land.

So either an increase, or a decrease, in the number of humans just causes a reshuffling in the way the same amount of biomass on earth is "packaged". A decrease in human population means less biomass is our one human species, and more becomes other species of plants and animals. The overall total biomass stays about the same. Same with an increase. More humans means less of everything else. So the total remains the same. Ditto for the amount of water sequestered away from the sea in living organisms. Ergo human numbers don't effect the sea level IN THAT WAY.