Page 2 of 4 [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Erewhon
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2016
Age: 1861
Gender: Male
Posts: 383
Location: Erewhon

12 Oct 2019, 9:18 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Questions Questions Questions.


naturalplastic wrote:
Well...what about Erewhon's question?.


In my posts in this thread i dont ask Questions, i dont even ask 1 single Question :)
It seems you dont understand what i did say, but thats no problem.

I go further with a metaphor i like. A metaphor of a knife with only sharps sides.
Logic is okay, but only logic is a nightmare. Anyway thats my view. No logic at all shoud also be a nightmare for my mind.
Image



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,024
Location: temperate zone

12 Oct 2019, 10:33 am

Erewhon wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Questions Questions Questions.


naturalplastic wrote:
Well...what about Erewhon's question?.


In my posts in this thread i dont ask Questions, i dont even ask 1 single Question :)
It seems you dont understand what i did say, but thats no problem.

I go further with a metaphor i like. A metaphor of a knife with only sharps sides.
Logic is okay, but only logic is a nightmare. Anyway thats my view. No logic at all shoud also be a nightmare for my mind.
Image


So...your questions aren't...questions?

And your pseudo question was meant to show the "danger" of pure logic devoid of emotion ( knife without a handle?)?

Your water thing doesn't really show that. A better way to do that would be make reference to Jonathan Swift's essay "A Modest Proposal" in which he proposes to solve the world's problems by encouraging folks to....eat babies!



Last edited by naturalplastic on 12 Oct 2019, 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,770
Location: Queens, NYC

12 Oct 2019, 10:50 am

We need basic logic—but logic in the syllogistic, academic sense is fraught with many flaws.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,024
Location: temperate zone

12 Oct 2019, 12:42 pm

God is love

Love is blind

Stevie Wonder is blind

Ergo

Stevie Wonder is God.


That shows the limitations of syllogistic logic.

We all KNOW that Stevie Wonder isn't God. It's Eric Clapton who is God!



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,967
Location: Oz

13 Oct 2019, 12:05 am

<tangent mode on>

naturalplastic wrote:
God is love

Love is blind

Stevie Wonder is blind

Ergo

Stevie Wonder is God.


That shows the limitations of syllogistic logic.

We all KNOW that Stevie Wonder isn't God. It's Eric Clapton who is God!


I haven't studied "syllogistic logic" but I don't believe your example is legitimate/valid.
What you have done here is pervert the context of the words/phrases you have used.
"Love is blind" is not a literal statement, it is metaphorical.
"Steve Wonder is blind" is a literal statement.

Assuming "syllogistic logic" is a legitimate discipline, that sort of contextual tampering would not be allowed, ergo, your example is invalid.

So there goes your argument.
Bye, bye. :mrgreen:
Please provide another. :wink:

<tangent mode off>

So there. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,




Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,967
Location: Oz

13 Oct 2019, 12:41 am

<serious mode on>
<intellectual construct construction mode activated>

I am not convinced emotions are necessary in these more modern times with our developed neocortex.
Emotions are a remnant of our evolutionary development.
Emotions are overwhelmingly the cause of "man's inhumanity to man".

It sounds contradictory since emotion dependent qualities such as altruism, sympathy, empathy are positive emotional attributes in a social context.

But consider this:
Context: Human interaction.
Assumption: All of the human biological needs are met such as food, water, air, shelter.

What are the aspects of humanity which causes suffering/misery?
-Greed,
-Lust,
-Envy,
-Fear.
Please feel free to add to the list.

I propose that life would indeed be more "humane" if all emotions were eliminated from the human genome.
I do luv "Irony". :mrgreen:
Selective deletion of negative emotional traits would improve quality of life but the problem with irrational thought would still remain to some significant degree.

A counter-argument would be appreciated,
But I appreciate my intellectual brilliance may be too intimidating for most. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,




Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,024
Location: temperate zone

13 Oct 2019, 1:12 am

Pepe wrote:
<tangent mode on>

naturalplastic wrote:
God is love

Love is blind

Stevie Wonder is blind

Ergo

Stevie Wonder is God.


That shows the limitations of syllogistic logic.

We all KNOW that Stevie Wonder isn't God. It's Eric Clapton who is God!


I haven't studied "syllogistic logic" but I don't believe your example is legitimate/valid.
What you have done here is pervert the context of the words/phrases you have used.
"Love is blind" is not a literal statement, it is metaphorical.
"Steve Wonder is blind" is a literal statement.

Assuming "syllogistic logic" is a legitimate discipline, that sort of contextual tampering would not be allowed, ergo, your example is invalid.

So there goes your argument.
Bye, bye. :mrgreen:
Please provide another. :wink:

<tangent mode off>

So there. 8)


I was being tongue-in-cheek.

And you correctly pointed out how the "logic" of the syllogism is not really logical. The use of the same words, but using them in a different senses.

Love, blind, and even the word "is". Clinton DID have a point that sometimes "is" doesn't always mean the same thing. "God is love" means "God is a force that is the same thing as love". In contrast both of phrases "love is blind", and SW is blind mean that the thing so described "has the quality of blindness", not that the thing "is the same thing as blindness". And then on top of that ofcourse SW is literally blind, and love is just figuratively blind.



Erewhon
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2016
Age: 1861
Gender: Male
Posts: 383
Location: Erewhon

13 Oct 2019, 6:19 am

A mini class Logic.

For those who understand dutch or flemisch is the video below a nice way to learn some lessons in Logical thinking.
The class start at 3.08 minute.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,967
Location: Oz

13 Oct 2019, 11:36 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Pepe wrote:
<tangent mode on>

naturalplastic wrote:
God is love

Love is blind

Stevie Wonder is blind

Ergo

Stevie Wonder is God.


That shows the limitations of syllogistic logic.

We all KNOW that Stevie Wonder isn't God. It's Eric Clapton who is God!


I haven't studied "syllogistic logic" but I don't believe your example is legitimate/valid.
What you have done here is pervert the context of the words/phrases you have used.
"Love is blind" is not a literal statement, it is metaphorical.
"Steve Wonder is blind" is a literal statement.

Assuming "syllogistic logic" is a legitimate discipline, that sort of contextual tampering would not be allowed, ergo, your example is invalid.

So there goes your argument.
Bye, bye. :mrgreen:
Please provide another. :wink:

<tangent mode off>

So there. 8)


I was being tongue-in-cheek.

And you correctly pointed out how the "logic" of the syllogism is not really logical. The use of the same words, but using them in a different senses.

Love, blind, and even the word "is". Clinton DID have a point that sometimes "is" doesn't always mean the same thing. "God is love" means "God is a force that is the same thing as love". In contrast both of phrases "love is blind", and SW is blind mean that the thing so described "has the quality of blindness", not that the thing "is the same thing as blindness". And then on top of that ofcourse SW is literally blind, and love is just figuratively blind.


I sort of guessed that.
That you were engaging facetious absolutism.
I saw the opportunity for an exercise in "Critical Thinking" and took it. ;)
I could have researched what "syllogistic logic" is all about, but I do have time limitations as I mentioned to Techy recently.


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,




Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


Erewhon
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2016
Age: 1861
Gender: Male
Posts: 383
Location: Erewhon

18 Oct 2019, 12:26 pm

Logic for beginners.

Image



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,967
Location: Oz

21 Oct 2019, 3:28 am

Erewhon wrote:
Logic for beginners.

Image

Beer is bitter.
How can you guys and gals drink that stuff? :eew:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,




Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


Erewhon
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2016
Age: 1861
Gender: Male
Posts: 383
Location: Erewhon

24 Oct 2019, 10:51 am

If your liver is dear to you then its logic that you don't start drinking. If you already have so much brain damage as a result of drinking it is logic that you can no longer even think logical about what your liver does in your body. For the shareholders of Heineken there is logic that the more alcohol they can sell the better.

I recently read a fanta-logic. Save water, drink Belgian beer.

Image



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,001
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

25 Oct 2019, 6:29 am

Pepe wrote:
Erewhon wrote:
Logic for beginners.

Image

Beer is bitter.
How can you guys and gals drink that stuff? :eew:

Bitter substances increase stomach fluids and aid digestion.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,001
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

25 Oct 2019, 7:02 am

Logic vs. emotion...

Logic is not superior to emotion when it comes to the best outcomes and drawing correct conclusions.

However, logic doesn’t dictate what “best outcomes” are. If “it makes me happy” is my desired outcome, then my reasoning has to work towards conclusions that inform my decisions about finding happiness. Money and what money buys makes me happy. In order to acquire money and things, I must produce something that I can exchange for money. I possess the ability and qualifications for teaching. Teachers get paid. Money makes me happy. If I teach, I earn money. Therefore, teaching makes me happy.

Everything you do in life falls on your preferences and biases. Your thinking is primarily motivated by how you immediately feel about something. To step away from that, you have to be more concerned with longer-range outcomes, thinking more oriented towards ethics/morality, spiritual consequences, temporal impact vs eternal, etc., etc. What SHOULD I do? What SHOULD I think or feel? Is it right? Is it good? Is it beautiful? How do I know if it’s good or beautiful?

I think when you reach a level of thinking more long-range in line with your own sense of identity, it gets easier to shove emotion further and further into the background. You know ULTIMATELY what keeps you healthy, or what makes you happy, and you take logical steps to remain consistent within your measure of happiness or good. You can view things like good, or beauty, as objective things rather than subjective because you are able to adopt a reliable standard. Nature, for instance, is a consistent model for a standard of beauty—harmonic series, Fib series, etc. represented musically produces beautiful music. When musical elements work together with themes that are uplifting and encouraging, the effect is satisfying. Musical elements that have freedom and equality IMPOSED on them, together with depictions of human beings as fools, always comes across as disturbing or even horrific. Preferences for right/wrong, good/evil, beauty/horror are emotional, whereas right/good/beauty and their opposites are objective. But once a preference is expressed, the best decisions towards achieving objectives are logical, objective decisions.



Erewhon
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2016
Age: 1861
Gender: Male
Posts: 383
Location: Erewhon

25 Oct 2019, 10:22 pm

Fantasy-Logic versus Scientific-Logic

Fantasy-logic can be nice, but when you dont realise, or even worst when you dont want to realise that its just a dream-fantasy than you can have the danger of starting to hallucinating. And that's poison for scientific-logic.

Image



Erewhon
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2016
Age: 1861
Gender: Male
Posts: 383
Location: Erewhon

02 Nov 2019, 4:18 am

Alan Turing, a Master of Logic.

Image



He did get "stank voor dank :( " (dutch saying)