Logic

Elegy
Posts: 65
Joined: 2006-08-01
Offline
Logic

"Practice"/discuss logic

darth_josh
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
Offline
I use a lot of

I use a lot of 'IF......THEN.....' sentences. Some people hate that.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.

Apokalipse
Posts: 210
Joined: 2006-08-27
Offline
solving a problem using the

solving a problem using the given data, by working out relationships between data pieces, while discarding or ignoring irrelevant pieces

science is tied with logic. science is a logical process.

AntiFaith
Posts: 197
Joined: 2006-08-17
Offline
Quote:Apokalipse: solving a

Quote:
Apokalipse:
solving a problem using the given data, by working out relationships between data pieces, while discarding or ignoring irrelevant pieces

science is tied with logic. science is a logical process.

Do scientist debate with eachother?

Apokalipse
Posts: 210
Joined: 2006-08-27
Offline
Quote:Do scientist debate

Quote:
Do scientist debate with eachother?
yes, all the time. people aren't perfect when it comes to finding answers, and that's what restricts science.

AntiFaith
Posts: 197
Joined: 2006-08-17
Offline
Once we understand logic and

Once we understand logic and the scientific method can everday people use them for evolving their world view, understand people, work, hobbies, things for average people?

Once we have a basic understanding of logic and the scientific method how do we show average people that they can understand it and benefit from it?

Thank you for responding Apokalipse.

Apokalipse
Posts: 210
Joined: 2006-08-27
Offline
Quote:Once we understand

Quote:
Once we understand logic and the scientific method can everday people use them for evolving their world view, understand people, work, hobbies, things for average people?
yes, but it also depends if the poeple are willing to do so. religeon often causes people to build themselves a wall against anything that contradicts with their religeon.

Quote:
Once we have a basic understanding of logic and the scientific method how do we show average people that they can understand it and benefit from it?
we'd have to demonstrate what can be achieved by doing so

Quote:
Thank you for responding Apokalipse.
you're welcome

fattychunks
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
Offline
Elegy

Elegy wrote:
"Practice"/discuss logic

well, i think we should discuss the laws of logic?
i'll point out like, ya know some theists think that logic is something that is universal, and if it is then where'd it come from? is a very common argument in trying to argue for a designer of the universe. maybe we can talk about that? let me know, i'll try to chime in, but anyways, the laws..

Law of noncontradiction (a is not non-a)
Law of Identity (A is A)
Law of Excluded middle (either A or non-A)

we could also discuss how theists think that logic is a precondition to god.. i got my systematic theology number 1 by norman giesler here, so i can give the theist perspective pretty well
=)

so ok, the problem with GOD and logic is that well, he contradicts all sorts of logic. if god is eternal then how did he come to exist? IF he exists, how could he be eternal? i'm pretty noobish still after all these years on which law this creates a problem for, but i believe excluded middle. he either exists or he's eternal.

get it? it gets pretty fun heh.

AntiFaith
Posts: 197
Joined: 2006-08-17
Offline
Law of noncontradiction (a

Law of noncontradiction (a is not non-a)
Law of Identity (A is A)
Law of Excluded middle (either A or non-A)

Some thing has properties.

It can not have contradictory properties.

Is the law of excluded middle a tautology? What are tautology for? What do you do with it? It is a starting point in narrowing things down right?

Elegy
Posts: 65
Joined: 2006-08-01
Offline
I wish so much that I knew

I wish so much that I knew what was going on but I don't and that sucks

todangst
Posts: 2830
Joined: 2006-03-10
Offline
fattychunks wrote: well, i

fattychunks wrote:

well, i think we should discuss the laws of logic?

There's more than one logic.

Quote:

Law of noncontradiction (a is not non-a)
Law of Identity (A is A)
Law of Excluded middle (either A or non-A)

These are the laws of classical or Aristotelian logic. But they are not necessarily axioms for all logical systems.

Quote:

we could also discuss how theists think that logic is a precondition to god..

Their claims make no sense and only serve to demonstrate that they have no education in logic.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

fattychunks
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
Offline
well thanks for handing my

well thanks for handing my ass to me, todangst but i was at least hoping to get something started for Elegy, lol.

i'm sort of familiar with the different types of logic, but the logic of rationality has at least those 3, correct?

Quote:
Their claims make no sense and only serve to demonstrate that they have no education in logic.

but of course they're still used, which is why i thought it'd be good to discuss them. was hoping Elegy might say what she was interested in so i knew where to lead the conversation.

todangst
Posts: 2830
Joined: 2006-03-10
Offline
fattychunks wrote:well

fattychunks wrote:
well thanks for handing my ass to me, todangst but i was at least hoping to get something started for Elegy, lol.

heheheh... I certainly didn't 'hand your ass to you'... you're claims were correct if in fact you were implying classical logic when you said 'logic'. Most people actually mean classical logic when they say 'logic'

The problem is that the rules for classical logic are not necessarily the rules for other types of logic. Some follow the axioms of Aristotle, others don't. In fact, there are logicians who deny the validity of the law of non contradiction as a universal law... they hold that it breaks down in some places and that there are true contradictions. We call this dialetheism.... which is sorta cool, coz it contains the word 'theism' in regard to supporting contradictions....

Others deny that the law of the excluded middle holds.... There are even those who try to deny the law of identity... they often rely on 'quantum physics' as a support, but their arguments are specious

Quote:

i'm sort of familiar with the different types of logic, but the logic of rationality has at least those 3, correct?

The classical logic of Aristotle relies on those axioms, and as most people mean Aristotelian logic, when they say 'logic', you are right.

So it's not really a matter of right and wrong, but of specificity.

You could get a brief overview of logic here, on my logic site:

http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic.html

In brief, classic logic deals with categorical syllogisms.

A category is a term that denotes a class of things.... such as a 'car' or an 'idea'

A syllogism is a two-premise deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two premises. A categorical syllogism - a form of argument first inculcated by Aristotle - is a specific type of syllogism consisting of three categorical propositions that together contain exactly three terms or categories, each of which occurs in exactly two of the three propositions.

You might be able to tell from this that classical logic is a bit restrictive.... so we have more modern forms of logic.... some of them rely on the same axioms of aristotle, why other logics create their own rules.

But if a logic is to 'make sense' it cannot be in discord with basic metaphysics.

Quote:
Their claims make no sense and only serve to demonstrate that they have no education in logic.

Quote:

but of course they're still used, which is why i thought it'd be good to discuss them. was hoping Elegy might say what she was interested in so i knew where to lead the conversation.

Ok, cool.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Elegy
Posts: 65
Joined: 2006-08-01
Offline
We call this dialetheism....

We call this dialetheism.... which is sorta cool, coz it contains the word 'theism' in regard to supporting contradictions....
HAHAHA I LOVE YOU

and thanks fattychunks

of course i'm interested, i'm DEFINETLY going to go look into it now
thanks

AntiFaith
Posts: 197
Joined: 2006-08-17
Offline
Me too Elegy. I think I will

Me too Elegy. I think I will read and google a bit on what was shared here. That way I will have decent questions to ask. These gentlemen, FattyChunks and todangst are very kind.

I should also practice logical fallacies I think. I guess I could try to find a Christian board and start up a debate. Post it here and see what yall think. Elegy please feel free to critique my posts as well as the theists posts. If I am wrong I want to know it. I want what is good.

I will do this this weekend Elegy. I promise. I am going to be on and offline this week.

You are very intelligent for 15 dear. It is good that you are a thinker.

-In reason

DrFear
Posts: 248
Joined: 2006-07-09
Offline
a solid knowledge of logical

a solid knowledge of logical fallacy is the greatest tool for weeding through the asinine pile of bunk that is the theist argument against atheism.
is that bold of me to say? nah, couldn't be.

Fear is the mindkiller.

AntiFaith
Posts: 197
Joined: 2006-08-17
Offline
LOL. Be bold Dr Fear. I am a

LOL. Be bold Dr Fear.

I am a little squeemish, but I do learn from everyone here.

I may not like everything you post, but I do learn from you! I am glad you are here.

todangst
Posts: 2830
Joined: 2006-03-10
Offline
AntiFaith wrote:Me too

AntiFaith wrote:
Me too Elegy. I think I will read and google a bit on what was shared here. That way I will have decent questions to ask. These gentlemen, FattyChunks and todangst are very kind.

Thank you, I love this subject, so I'll discuss it as much as you like!

Quote:

I should also practice logical fallacies I think. I guess I could try to find a Christian board and start up a debate. Post it here and see what yall think. Elegy please feel free to critique my posts as well as the theists posts. If I am wrong I want to know it. I want what is good.

-In reason

Sounds good!

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

fattychunks
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
Offline
Quote:heheheh... I certainly

Quote:
heheheh... I certainly didn't 'hand your ass to you'...

i'm sure if you breathe my way i'm sure there's something that will come across as handing my ass to me.. or i'll at least find something

Quote:
Others deny that the law of the excluded middle holds.... There are even those who try to deny the law of identity... they often rely on 'quantum physics' as a support, but their arguments are specious

yea now i've read into the identity one. types of buddhism actually use this line of thought for the 'no self' i think, right? that's all i could think about when that guy was on reggie's show a while back talking about the 'no self' cuz that's what it sounded like.. or that's what i was relating it to.

and i guess all i see when people, as you said, 'deny' the laws, they're just redefining them but again still excercising logic in the process to prove their case. they all seem almost self defeating. using logic to redefine the laws of logic....

http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic.html

i kicked myself in the face when i responded to yer ass-handing post cuz i knew i should've directed these guys to yer site to begin with.

but ok, this is what i understand some theist presupposationalist (if there is no god, i will some day learn how to spell that word, if it is a word) say is we assume things should make sense because god has created logic as a tool to lead us to him. from what i also understand, this is derived from the First Cause argument. which is, for everything that has a cause, had a beginning, thus the world had a beginning and had to have a first cause, or it would have never began to exist at all.

the problem then is pure logic. notice the exception they have to make to their own rule. everything has to have a cause, except the First Cause. simply put, self refuting.

i'd like to get more indepth maybe into people like gene cook's presuppose shit cuz it's getting more and more practice among believers i've noticed.. but that's enouhg fer me tonight. work in the morning...

Quote:
and thanks fattychunks

np Elegy. i'm no expert, and todangst will be here to remind me of that, but i'll answer yer questions as best i can... and todangst will be here to ass-hand me, but i will take it with a bow baby!

but in all seriousness, it's people like todangst that take time to explain things as simple as possible that helped me see the falacy in theism. there was never a single theist that took the time to explain things to me from the bottom up. i had to do it all on my own... and when i started questioning stuff, i never posted anything on forums for a LONG time. i only read. but the personalities of great minds like todangst encouraged me to challenge myself and i was only encouraged even more when i could actually find myself understanding the problems i was having.. and in turn having people help me see the problems and the solutions led me to where i am today and i'm going to hell. !WOOT!

Quote:
These gentlemen, FattyChunks and todangst are very kind.

whoa there now. never seen my name in the same sentence as gentlemen. i choked on my soda.

ni night

todangst
Posts: 2830
Joined: 2006-03-10
Offline
fattychunks

fattychunks wrote:
Quote:
]Others deny that the law of the excluded middle holds.... There are even those who try to deny the law of identity... they often rely on 'quantum physics' as a support, but their arguments are specious

yea now i've read into the identity one. types of buddhism actually use this line of thought for the 'no self' i think, right?

I bet they do, but as I understand Buddhism, via Ken WIlber, the idea of the 'no self' or the 'no thing' is more of a metaphysical argument concerning what is 'behind nature'

Quote:

that's all i could think about when that guy was on reggie's show a while back talking about the 'no self' cuz that's what it sounded like.. or that's what i was relating it to.

I didn't hear the show, but it sounds like that was the case.

Quote:
and i guess all i see when people, as you said, 'deny' the laws, they're just redefining them but again still excercising logic in the process to prove their case. they all seem almost self defeating. using logic to redefine the laws of logic....

Excellent point! You reminded me of this quote:

Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason. If with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.

- Ethan Allen, Revolutionary War hero

Some of our founding fathers were pretty smart, huh?

To try and refute the law of identity would require an argument relied on it! This is why we say the axioms of classic logic are defended by 'retortion'. All that means is that any argumet that attempts to refute the axiom, must rely on it!

Quote:

...ok, this is what i understand some theist presupposationalist (if there is no god, i will some day learn how to spell that word, if it is a word) say is we assume things should make sense because god has created logic as a tool to lead us to him.

Humans created logic. No god is necessary. All that is required is the existence of sentient brains.

Quote:
from what i also understand, this is derived from the First Cause argument. which is, for everything that has a cause, had a beginning, thus the world had a beginning and had to have a first cause, or it would have never began to exist at all.

In other words, presuppers confuse logic for physics... same old error.

Quote:

the problem then is pure logic. notice the exception they have to make to their own rule. everything has to have a cause, except the First Cause. simply put, self refuting.

Right! They attempt to get around it by saying that 'everything that had a beginning has a cause' and 'god had no beginning' but why not eliminate god and just say that existence always existed?

(And not, the 2nd law does not forbid that)

Quote:

i'd like to get more indepth maybe into people like gene cook's presuppose shit cuz it's getting more and more practice among believers i've noticed.. but that's enouhg fer me tonight. work in the morning...

hehe... the infidelguy site has some good refutations of their nonsense...

But if you like, we can cover it here, in depth...

Quote:

but in all seriousness, it's people like todangst that take time to explain things as simple as possible that helped me see the fallacy in theism. there was never a single theist that took the time to explain things to me from the bottom up. i had to do it all on my own... and when i started questioning stuff, i never posted anything on forums for a LONG time. i only read. but the personalities of great minds like todangst encouraged me to challenge myself and i was only encouraged even more when i could actually find myself understanding the problems i was having.. and in turn having people help me see the problems and the solutions led me to where i am today and i'm going to hell. !WOOT!

Thank you, you are a gentleman.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

fattychunks
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
Offline
Quote: Those who invalidate

Quote:

Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason. If with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.

- Ethan Allen, Revolutionary War hero

Some of our founding fathers were pretty smart, huh?

that is a pretty neat quote

Quote:
Humans created logic.

i laughed when dan barker answered 'no' when paul milenata (sp?) asked him if he thought logic exists because that was obviously not what paul wanted to hear. did you hear that debate? that was a nightmare... paul was so far out in left field...

what some christian apologists want to prove is that logic DOES exist in some sort of physical sense 'which is why they ARE universal'. but what barker explained very simply was that logic is not a thing, just like digestion is not a thing. they are functions.'

and maybe for those who can benefit from it, what theists try to do with logic is define it as some THING so that they can try to force the atheist to give an account for it's existence. in other words, why is there logic? it must have had a designer, or a creator for it being so uniformed and universal. (this is how i understand the argument, correct me if i'm wrong). but what needs to be done is understanding that logic (rational thought) is a function of a brain just like digestion is a function of a stomach.

Quote:
Right! They attempt to get around it by saying that 'everything that had a beginning has a cause' and 'god had no beginning' but why not eliminate god and just say that existence always existed?

yup there's no reason to assume god had anything to do with it. it's simply a god of the gap, filling in an unknown with the idea of GOD. it's funny.. i mean, i use to be like 'wow! this is where god comes in! it makes so much sense!' when i use to be a christian...

Quote:
But if you like, we can cover it here, in depth...

i think it'd benefit us here as well, maybe even help passer-bys that might fall upon the RRS site and maybe passer-bys dont even know who infidelguy's forums are. i dont know if i've seen them there myself actually.

Quote:
Thank you, you are a gentleman.

well and i mean it. i dont know how many times pastors.. PASTORS said to me as a response to tough questions 'god is not the author of confusion, so if you're confused, where are these questions coming from?' countless times was i told this shit and made me realize i needed to look elsewhere for answers. people like you really helped me.

fattychunks
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
Offline
i'm going to post this link

i'm going to post this link here
http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-20346-days0-orderasc-20.html
the first post on this page does a good job describing presup arguments and is a good reference if someone gets confronted by a presup.

Jutter
Posts: 65
Joined: 2006-08-24
Offline
This thread is a nice excuse

This thread is a nice excuse to refer to my sig again. I think that falicious thinking can translate into "being unreasonable". One thing we could also discuss is the importance of "being reasonable". Examine what one would consider mistreatment of humans, or injustice, an expose the falicious thinking underneath for illustration.

There's religious bigotry for starters...

~Let us be reasonable~

You want to claim there's such a thing as "the supernatural"? Fine. I hereby declare you to be "paracorrect" in doing so.

fattychunks
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
Offline
Jutter wrote:This thread is

Jutter wrote:
This thread is a nice excuse to refer to my sig again. I think that falicious thinking can translate into "being unreasonable". One thing we could also discuss is the importance of "being reasonable". Examine what one would consider mistreatment of humans, or injustice, an expose the falicious thinking underneath for illustration.

There's religious bigotry for starters...

importance for being reasonable... hm, well, a reason for reasonable? i'd like to say reason alone is reason, but we cant say that heh. i suppose todangst will hafta help me out with a more accurate answer, but mine would be that if one agrees that facts correspond with reality, then the importance of being reasonable would simply be if you wish to find out the facts, then you must be reasonable. there's no other method that we have found that produces positves results like logic and reason when we try to determine facts or truths. so i would say, yea, the importance would only apply to those that are concerned with facts and truth.

AntiFaith
Posts: 197
Joined: 2006-08-17
Offline
Hey

Hey fattychunks!

Quote:
FattyChunks:
..there's no other method that we have found that produces positves results like logic and reason when we try to determine facts or truths. so i would say, yea, the importance would only apply to those that are concerned with facts and truth.

The heart and the mind prompts us to do, or to believe with the evidences it percieves. Can logic amplify the heart and mind in reasonably meeting its goals. Through logic can the heart and mind be more reasonable than it was?

fattychunks
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
Offline
"The heart and the mind

"The heart and the mind prompts us to do, or to believe with the evidences it percieves. Can logic amplify the heart and mind in reasonably meeting its goals. Through logic can the heart and mind be more reasonable than it was?"

well i ahve to be technical with you here, but the heart is a blood pumping organ
=P
i think you're assuming there's perhaps more then the material world, perhaps pointing to a sixth sense. the jury is still out on these issues, but the case is closed to me.. there's no sixth sense that we can rely on as accurately as we can rely on our ability to reason.

now, on a personal note, i would love to assume that yes, perhaps there's a higher sense in us tha we can't yet detect. i mean, i can testify in truth to my own personal 'spiritual' experiences that i saw things happen before they happen. if people accept that or not as truth, it's up to them and i expect no one to simply believe my word. the only thing i have as evidence is my word and my friends whom i had told these things to in confidence... many of them were christians at the time like i was, but now since i've abandoned the faith they relly dont associate with me. now, i'm convinced that there could perhaps be a better explanation than a god who seeks to divide the human race by laws of his own creating. IF there is a sixth sense, it proves nothing about the spiritual world. all that is proves is that there would be physical evidence of a physical phenemona that we need to learn more about... and harness this phenemona!

anyways, taht's kind of a passionate subject fer me because yea i had some pretty amazing..personal things happen to me, yet i allow the reality of rational thinking be my master since these are the things that prove true more times then any sixth sense has ever proven to be. in other words, there's no reason to think we have any BETTER way to determining the facts then reason and logic... if your 'heart' or 'mind' assist you in the matter, i'd suggest simply trying to understand what's happening, really.

like ok, how many times have you thought about someone, and they dont show up. but when you think about someone and BOOM they come in the door, whoooa freeky coincidence, eh? no it's just us making a big deal out of nothing. get whati mean?

now that i'm finished i'm not sure if i read into what you were asking too much lol... think i did. my bad.

AntiFaith
Posts: 197
Joined: 2006-08-17
Offline
Quote:fattychunks: well i

Quote:
fattychunks:
well i ahve to be technical with you here, but the heart is a blood pumping organ
=P
i think you're assuming there's perhaps more then the material world, perhaps pointing to a sixth sense. the jury is still out on these issues, but the case is closed to me.. there's no sixth sense that we can rely on as accurately as we can rely on our ability to reason.

I still think like a Christian in a lot of ways I guess. I am keenly aware of what my heart needs, but not good at meeting its goals sometimes. I am irrational still. Hehe. Bigotry is a blight on the heart, where as rational descrimination can possibly cure what ails the heart. Irrational fears and hatred's also comes from the heart unfortunately...the more you know the better you can descriminate. I would rather know what is truly harmful or a threat than simply react to something alien to me or fall back on what our ancestors taught us. They could be wrong about many things.

We are social animals and so we might want to try and understand the human condition ( understand others) perhaps in order to find what is truly nourishing for the heart. For a sense of well being. I sense some how that logic will help us in rationaly descriminating in regards people and their ideas. To maintain a sense of well being much of the time as well as developing better ideas that are useful. I am trying to find a way to fill a void. I sense that logic can help everday people. That a person of average intelligence can learn it.

Quote:

fattychunks:
now, on a personal note, i would love to assume that yes, perhaps there's a higher sense in us tha we can't yet detect. i mean, i can testify in truth to my own personal 'spiritual' experiences that i saw things happen before they happen. if people accept that or not as truth, it's up to them and i expect no one to simply believe my word. the only thing i have as evidence is my word and my friends whom i had told these things to in confidence... many of them were christians at the time like i was, but now since i've abandoned the faith they relly dont associate with me. now, i'm convinced that there could perhaps be a better explanation than a god who seeks to divide the human race by laws of his own creating. IF there is a sixth sense, it proves nothing about the spiritual world. all that is proves is that there would be physical evidence of a physical phenemona that we need to learn more about... and harness this phenemona!

I am an atheist 95% of the time, but my mind sometimes twists things in hopes of making sense of things. Which is silly. Maybe for me certain emotional values are that higher sense. Higher self.
I need values. I need hope. But I reject blind hope.

Quote:
fattychunks:
now that i'm finished i'm not sure if i read into what you were asking too much lol... think i did. my bad.

Hehe. I was not very clear. I still feel the same way as a religionsts sometimes and I do not make myself clear because of it. There is some kind of connection, commonality with human beings that we see sometimes. Can't logic be used to improve in our values? To change our values for more useful ones? Can logic amplify our higher self?

Maybe I am asking the wrong questions for logic.

fattychunks
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
Offline
"I still think like a

"I still think like a Christian in a lot of ways I guess."

ya know, i still catch myself praying even after 3 years. it's in our blood fer a looong time, especially fer people like me who were in the ministry.

"I sense that logic can help everday people."

i think perhaps it's your wording that is limiting the scope of logic here. see, you're not really 'sensing' what youre doing is reasoning. there's not a lot of need to call this 'sensing' because the real valuable thing that's happening is you're reasoning. you're inductively reasoning, is what i think smarties like todangst would say although i'm not totally sure what inductive reasoning is to a T.

we relate things back to first principles, i think, which are self evidence truths. i think everything can be related back to self evident truths, and from there we inductively reason to common truths about the world around us. like... i exist would be a self evidence first principle, self evident truth. (or in your case, when YOU say 'i exist' it's a self evidence truth) so from there we inductively (deductive, i need a clarification on the difference, maybe i'll find it before the nights over, i'm tired) reason to our conclusions, as in 'i can reason that logic can help everyday people' instead of 'i can sense that logic can help everyday people'.

"I am an atheist 95% of the time, but my mind sometimes twists things in hopes of making sense of things. Which is silly."

actually that's only natural. i wouldnt call it silly, but it's good you recognize what you're doing.

"Maybe for me certain emotional values are that higher sense. Higher self."

i actually think raw emotions or blind faith IN raw emotions are destructive to the psyche. much like what some forms of buddhism teaches when you try to find the 'no self'. a very very very interesting philosophy there, and it's, as far as i can tell, rational with no leap of faith in the supernatural...

"I need values. I need hope. But I reject blind hope."

well i'll just comment, hope in something beyind this world is blind hope. and value, well, is life for a secular humanist or atheist. nothing should be a higher value then life.

"Can't logic be used to improve in our values?"

i should think so because it helps us get rid of the fluff and fairy tales of irrational dogma. in turn then it helps us focus on what's real, like, the wars against supernatural beliefs and how irrational they are. is that what you mean?

" To change our values for more useful ones? Can logic amplify our higher self?

yes, i think becuase it helps us see reality for what it is, and well, 'higher self' sounds like a buddhist term kinda. but i think perhaps from a completely rational perspective our 'higher self' would just us being at our highest intellectual capacity.

"Maybe I am asking the wrong questions for logic."

whatever question you ask it cant be the wrong question.
=P
cuz at any rate it's making the wheels turn, so i'll keep respondng
=P

AntiFaith
Posts: 197
Joined: 2006-08-17
Offline
I need time to think about

I need time to think about some things. I will slowly absorb what I can about logic.

What I meant about hope was a sense of well being as well as understanding for improvement. Hope that can build bridges. Hope that we can figure out where we want to go from here. Hope that we can inspire eachother to reason and be open minded. We as in humanity.

I am ok with my mortality I guess, most of the time. :s

Thank you kindly for responding fattychunks.

AntiFaith
Posts: 197
Joined: 2006-08-17
Offline
I have a brain, so it is my

I have a brain, so it is my responsibily to find meaning. To find a sense of well being. To improve. It is nice though to exchange ideas and knowledge with others. I am grateful for that. Thank you.

I would rather know I am lost than not know that I am lost. -AntiFaith

fattychunks
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
Offline
i think i see a buddhist in

i think i see a buddhist in the making here lol.

i think what's happening is that you are sort of expecting logic to point to a purpose in life. i may be wrong, but let me tell you, i think you're doing just fine in asking the right questions. i dont think i'm the most qualified person to be the one interpretting your questions or even responding to your questions because i'm still a very young non-christian, not even a full 3 years here. but the attitude you have it very encouraging for me to read and i think, i THINK you would do well to look into buddhism. i've always had a thing for it and i know very little except how some of it's teachings come out in the new testament, aka Paul saying 'it is no longer i that lives, but christ that lives in me' is so very close to the idea of finding a 'no self' in buddhist philosophy. trying to die to the self to find nothing is almost like dying to yourself, being empty so christ can dwell in you.

and i like your quote, it is pretty insightful.

and if i say something that doesnt make much sense (it's prolly my fault anyways) dont be afraid to ask me to clarify. i wont take offense. except if you're a racist. then i'll swear at you.

=)

elnathan
Posts: 81
Joined: 2006-09-13
Offline
I had dropped by here

Beware...newbie on board

Sorry for the double post

elnathan
Posts: 81
Joined: 2006-09-13
Offline
I had dropped by here

I had dropped by here because of a suggestion from an acquaintance and actually had just planned to read through a few of the posts and move on. However, when I saw the following comments, I felt compelled to ask the questions, and make a few comments of my own. Thanks in advance for your indulgence, and you're welcome from the response.

Quote:
Once we understand logic and the scientific method can everday people use them for evolving their world view, understand people, work, hobbies, things for average people?

I consider myself an average person, and that question caused me to wonder who it is you consider everyday people, in that comment? It appears that it may be those who may be considered less educated than yourself and your peers. Which leads to another question...is it really necessary to understand logic in order to use it or possess it?

Then you go on to say....

Quote:
Once we have a basic understanding of logic and the scientific method how do we show average people that they can understand it and benefit from it?

Again, (for me) the meaning of that question is unclear. But it causes me to believe that the general concensus here may be, that one must have an advanced education in order to think logically or understand the scientific method; that one must be taught logic in a formal education environment in order to apply logic in one's thinking.

It also seems that anyone that has gone to public or private school in the U.S. beyond the 8th grade has had at the least a rudimentary exposure to the scientific method of study.

To be honest, I have not had extended studies of logic--other than a computer related math class that had some reference to logic in it (those pesky, AND, OR, NOT {&, ||, <>})--but I still consider myself a logical thinker in dealing with many aspects of everyday life and living. Not at the level of Spock or Dr. Smith, but it is still employed.

While reading through some of the other comments on this subject I will admit that I was unaware that there were actual Laws of Logic, but the first too actually appeared to me as, but of course A=A. But the whole missing middle didn't make a lot of sense.

My personal view is that appearently, not enough credit is being given to the average person to apply logical thinking in solving daily problems. My personal experience has also shown that there are many individuals who have low levels of formal education that possess high levels of logic, and apply them on a regular basis. I doubt even a Ph.D. could argue with the logic used by the main character (played by Billy Bob Thorton) in the movie "Sling Blade."

In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers

darth_josh
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
Offline
Believe it or not

Believe it or not
Even though some posts seem to be condescending in nature upon first read, they're just not specific enough for us 'everyday people'. lol. I've always viewed that phrase as 'just us regular people' not a jab at any particular type of people.

You're right. Some 'common sense' just doesn't have a label. 'Street cred' has to have its own definition for an individual.
Something I had to realize is that the majority of the people on this board have seen the same old stuff for so long that it becomes a necessity to label the bad arguments with their respective labels. e.g. ad hoc, post hoc, ad hom, strawman, etc. Each of those terms is defined in Sapient's forum on logic.(See psychology and philosophy with chaoslord and todangst) Occasionally, they'll post a direct link to the definition especially if it is a 'newbie'. If not then there's always Google.

Never underestimate the power of google fu, the cyber martial art. lol.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.

AntiFaith
Posts: 197
Joined: 2006-08-17
Offline
Hehe. To me many atheists

Hehe.

To me many atheists online seem more educated. I lurked and never asked questions, because I figured I might not be able to learn what yall know of logic and science. I am everday people. Average intelligence. Below average education. Many people I know offline are like me. Are they not interested or just discouraged somehow?

I have bits and pieces of Free Thought that I have read from atheists posts at forums. Books. Links. Posts. That they have talked about. I want more. Not satisfied.

I figure maybe others are like I was, interested but intimidated. Lurkers...and maybe others.

I am going to look stupid in the beginning, but I will learn logic...

darth_josh
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
Offline
I was going to say,

I was going to say, "Practice makes perfect."

However, I'm pretty sure that is a logical fallacy. lol.

Let me look.
Yep.
"A false inference on individual outcomes"

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.

AntiFaith
Posts: 197
Joined: 2006-08-17
Offline
"A false inference on

"A false inference on individual outcomes"

Hehe. Also perfect is in the eye of the beholder?

When I post my debate with a theist here I will probably use the wrong latin words for what I see as a logical fallacy. heh.

My thoughts can be scattered sometimes and so I was hoping logic would help with that.....good communication is everything. In my opinion. Debate would be good for practicing listening skills.
Understanding also. To pay attention to what a person says while forming your own thoughts. I do not see people doing this around me offline. Instead people shout over the other without listening. Strawmans.

DarthJosh
"Never underestimate the power of google fu, the cyber martial art. lol."

I do not always understand what I read. My vocabulary is limited. I do use a dictionary& thesaurus though. It is nice when people write in just regular English.

elnathan
Posts: 81
Joined: 2006-09-13
Offline
Personally, I prefer

Personally, I prefer Metacrawler over Google. I am confused by the martial arts metaphor because search engines find several websites related to a particular subject, but don't appear to differentiate between fact, opinion or deception. Martial arts on the other hand, get right to matter at hand with little or no unneccessary action. To me, search engines seem more like cat and mouse rather than a martial art.

I too like things explained in plain english. The use of terms like "strawman, Ockam's/Occam's razor, and the flying spaghetti monster" only seem to obscure the debate, rather than clarify it. The use of these terms make for an interesting read, and project a facade of knowledge and understanding, but often seem to serve little purpose in winning or loosing.

I really find it humorous when people argue about their opponent's method of argument or the terms and words that were used improperly; then completely disregard the subject of the argument/debate. I find it especially funny when the strawman is used as an example when they themselves are attacking said man, and declaring that person a looser.

My biggest problem--which you may have already discovered--is that I have a difficult time commanding the english language to present what I actually mean.

Quote:

When I post my debate with a theist here I will probably use the wrong latin words for what I see as a logical fallacy. heh.

My understanding of Latin is like a speck of pepper when compared to what little English I understand.
(i.e., "Hehe. Also perfect is in the eye of the beholder?" evidently went way over my head.)

In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers

fattychunks
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
Offline
"I consider myself an

"I consider myself an average person, and that question caused me to wonder who it is you consider everyday people, in that comment?"

just wanted to say, i dont think i made the comment heh.

"It appears that it may be those who may be considered less educated than yourself and your peers. Which leads to another question...is it really necessary to understand logic in order to use it or possess it?"

now THAT is a good question! i think the answer is no since the laws of logic vary from place to place because they are not absolute in a material sense or universal sense. people use different logic for different part of their NECESSARY everyday lives. so it's probably only necessarily important to understand the laws that you, well, give a shit about. lol.

"But it causes me to believe that the general concensus here may be, that one must have an advanced education in order to think logically or understand the scientific method; that one must be taught logic in a formal education environment in order to apply logic in one's thinking."

i like you already. i didnt even understand the question as you are taking it, but you're very insightful.

"To be honest, I have not had extended studies of logic--other than a computer related math class that had some reference to logic in it (those pesky, AND, OR, NOT {&, ||, <>})"

yea me 2, and i almost fucking the damn thing too. it was a computer math class, and was all about hexidecimal and binary shit... but when we started the stuff like 'find A in 100101a11 - 10101010 = 0101101 i could not grasp why A didnt have a value and why should i care about the value of A... couldnt grasp it. i understood what i had to do, but somehow my brain could not give a rat's ass about A! lol... i spent hours upon extra hours trying to do that shit. i seriously spent triple the time trying to understand why fukkin A was so god damn important... anyways

"My personal experience has also shown that there are many individuals who have low levels of formal education that possess high levels of logic, and apply them on a regular basis."

agreed, and does the average person even give 2 shakes of a something what the names of the laws of logic are.

welcome aboard NUB!
=)

darth_josh
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
Offline
Notice the 'lol' after the

Notice the 'lol' after the google-fu comment.

Here's an example of another logical fallacy that I see a lot of:

'You're just jealous of my google-fu. You have no idea what the true meaning of google-fu is.'

The offhand response would be:
Jerk, you have no idea what my idea of google-fu is so how can you say that?

Thereby committing the same logical fallacy because of emotions about the initial ad hominem.

When I've heard or read the responses from people whom I consider logical, they merely point to the fact that 'true meaning' is subjective. They completely ignore the logical fallacy part and focus upon the person's misconception. Thus negating the person's ad hom by ignoring it.

Of course, the louder the attack, the louder the response.

Find the logical fallacy in that statement.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.

elnathan
Posts: 81
Joined: 2006-09-13
Offline
FATTYCHUNKS: Thanks for the

FATTYCHUNKS: Thanks for the welcome, and I think I will enjoy your responses. I will admit, I definately like your attitude already. That was funny about the A=(all those ones and zeroes), I felt the same way--only didn't study as much as you.

DARTH-JOSH: I haven't a clue what google-fu actually means. I thought you were referring to the plain ole google. I am especially intreged by what a logical fallacy is though. I will admit, that I am unfamilar with the term, and this is the first place I have encountered that.

I also don't completely agree with your sig. I guess I take a different approach in that I often hate something until I fully understand it--too often that includes people as well. But, I don't hate anyone here yet, so you may have a valid point.

I guess one of the reason that I even posted here in the first place is because I am intrequed by some of the posts and opinions/views that I have read so far. I am also impressed by what seems to be an above average level of intellegence by the majority of the posters. While I hope to learn a few things here, I also hope to interject a few things that may have been overlooked or previously not considered. I guess we will see how it goes.

So far, I think we are off to a good start.

In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers

darth_josh
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
Offline
elnathan wrote:FATTYCHUNKS:

elnathan wrote:
FATTYCHUNKS: Thanks for the welcome, and I think I will enjoy your responses. I will admit, I definately like your attitude already. That was funny about the A=(all those ones and zeroes), I felt the same way--only didn't study as much as you.

I enjoy them as well. Sometimes I get too involved with responses to take time to pat people on the back for thinking and making me think.

Quote:
DARTH-JOSH: I haven't a clue what google-fu actually means. I thought you were referring to the plain ole google. I am especially intreged by what a logical fallacy is though. I will admit, that I am unfamilar with the term, and this is the first place I have encountered that.

Ahhh, elnathan-san, google-fu is the martial art that helps you connect mind, body, and keyboard. It is the fine practice of keeping a search engine window open at all times in order to type in key words to achieve knowledge and spread enlightenment throughout the dark world of confusion and obnoxiously long words that plague our existence with their messages of misconceptions.
For instance when I type 'google-fu' into google, I get 63,900 hits with info on each one.
If I type 'logical fallacy' into it, I get 5,060,000. However, if I type 'logical fallacy ad hom' then I get only 25,700.
When you can enter the most words and get the best specific results, then will your google-fu be powerful indeed, my padawan.

It reads funnier with a chinese accent. Like Kung-Fu the series with David Carradine.

Quote:
I also don't completely agree with your sig. I guess I take a different approach in that I often hate something until I fully understand it--too often that includes people as well. But, I don't hate anyone here yet, so you may have a valid point.

See, you're logical enough already. I'd have to put 'truly hate' in bold for emphasis because the statement is based upon the joining of the core definitions of the two words put together.

Quote:
I guess one of the reason that I even posted here in the first place is because I am intrequed by some of the posts and opinions/views that I have read so far. I am also impressed by what seems to be an above average level of intellegence by the majority of the posters. While I hope to learn a few things here, I also hope to interject a few things that may have been overlooked or previously not considered. I guess we will see how it goes.

Wow. Way to kiss ass and insult at the same time. lol. I'm impressed.
Fun, isn't it? (rhetorical)

Quote:
So far, I think we are off to a good start.

It's definitely addictive. Believe it or not; I read way more than I post. More often than not, there is already someone looking at the same news story or information that you are. Scary huh? It is for me. Somewhere, right now, Ray Comfort is looking at a picture of himself with a rrs badge behind it that Kirk called him and told him about and they're praying over it as I'm typing this. brrr. Chill bumps. lol.

Sorry for straying off-topic.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.

fattychunks
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
Offline
"google-fu is the martial

"google-fu is the martial art that helps you connect mind, body, and keyboard."

LOL
never heard that either, myself

and i've been complimented twice i think... that's a wierd feeling.

also i hope the questions about logic keep coming. and i hope todangst will come correct me on some things that i'm sure i've said wrong. i wanna learn.

elnathan
Posts: 81
Joined: 2006-09-13
Offline
Quote:Wow. Way to kiss ass

Quote:
Wow. Way to kiss ass and insult at the same time. lol. I'm impressed.
(rhetorical)

I didn't mean it either way actually.

Thanks for clarifying the 'google-fu', I guess I was closer than I thought. I often use search engines as you discribed, along with dictionary.com, and Word, for spelling (though I don't always use that one).

Since this isn't my first forum, I already understand how a good debate can quickly digress to pointing out spelling mistakes as a reflection of a lack of intellegence, and deviate from the topic. I generally assume the 'why' behind it is because the opponent(s) don't have a better come back and retort (no missing 's') to such tactics. Personally, when I find myself in such situation, I prefer pointing to mistakes in tense (there<>their, here<>hear--and things like that). But I usually only do that when I am really cranky.

I do enjoy the employment of logic, and try to use it as often as possible. Perhaps I need to study the its more definative side and learn some of those laws a little better (I am still having a very difficult time accepting that third one), but I have been saying the same thing about learning formal debate (evidently there are rules for that too) for quite some time now. I just haven't taken the time (read...lazy). It could also have something to do with the people who belonged to the high school debate team (geeks), and not wanting to be associated with them. And during those high school years I was much more informal (or should that be "less formal"?--nah,.. that would imply I am formal now and that's wrong, sorry), and quickly resorted to shouting and intimidation. (sorry, I digress)

It seems to be unclear how one aquires logic. At times, I believe it is simply instictive in some people and they have it naturally, while others seem to be found lacking. Perhaps it is an aquired skill that can be learned through education and practice. That seems somewhat reasonable, but in everyday usage it seems that in a crisis or for quick decisions, most individuals seem to revert back to the more instictive side of themselves, and those learned skills go out the window. On the other hand it is apparent that logic can be studied, learned and applied in areas where there is more time to apply it to a particular objective and in more 'formal' setting such as a forum or article.

It seems it can be partially explained by the nature/nuture concept though. The instictive logic may have something to do with the chromosomes (those X Y things) and that logic being encoded, but on the other hand, Perhaps it is possible that it can be learned at a young age, at least to some extent. Some kids seem to have a great deal of logic, while others seem to be missing it completely.

Since this thread appears to be a broad topic about "logic", hopefully that's a valid comment in this thread?

In intellectual matters you can think things out, but in spiritual matters you will only think yourself into further wandering thoughts and more confusion. --Oswald Chambers

fattychunks
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
Offline
"It seems to be unclear how

"It seems to be unclear how one aquires logic."

technicaly, it's not something that is even a THING, so it's not aquired. it's a function of the brain. it's thought, rational thought and well, it's as good as it gets.

well, ok, because if you ask 'how do you aquire logic' it makes it sound like logic or rational thought is some THING. theists NEED to think it's a THING so they can try to pin it down for being some universal something that doesnt change and must be evidence for divine design or something and so we would have to try to explain WHY it's universal. but it's not. not everyone is even CAPABLE of comprehending logic, which is a sad fact. logic and rational thought are functions of a properly working brain. just like digestion is the function of a properly working stomach. does your stomach aquire digestion? nope, that's it's function.

anyways, wanted to make that note.

"Perhaps it is an aquired skill that can be learned through education and practice. "

we can improve our usage of logic depending on situations, yes, and different laws will apply to different situations. like todangst said a little while ago, theres even some philsophers that deny some laws of logic. whether or not it's truly possible to do so, it still shows that perhaps we're still refining the laws of logic... and i think that's evident when we look at how many theories of logic there are.

"It seems it can be partially explained by the nature/nuture concept though. The instictive logic may have something to do with the chromosomes (those X Y things) and that logic being encoded, but on the other hand, Perhaps it is possible that it can be learned at a young age, at least to some extent. Some kids seem to have a great deal of logic, while others seem to be missing it completely"

that's interesting and i think there has actually been some studies on how the genes effect our brain capabilities... but the cosmos say i'm a born philosopher cuz i'ma sagatarius. and i didnt spell that right and too lazy to check it. har har. but i'm sure we can agree that some people are simply born prone to critical thinking and then some who really are not capable of it.. to a large extent. which really isnt an insult, but i mean when i went to church, i knew that there were some people there that well, they would not be able to find a purpose to life is they didnt believe in god. they were simple people and lived their lives devoted to the simplicity of faith. that's my observation anyways.

"Since this thread appears to be a broad topic about "logic", hopefully that's a valid comment in this thread?"

agreed!
=)

darth_josh
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
Offline
Did you konw taht spleling

Did you konw taht spleling ins't as improtant as yuor taechres tlod you?

There hvae been stuides condctued concrennig the mind's ablitiy to cmoprheend wrods as lnog as the frist and lsat letetrs are in thier nromal postiions.

With that said, it can be a personal preference. However, I feel that it would logically point to the individual wishing to be completely understood. Thus taking extra time to proofread and correct errors when found means that you care about your words.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.

averyv
Posts: 119
Joined: 2006-08-30
Offline
Quote:Those who invalidate

Quote:
Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason. If with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.
- Ethan Allen, Revolutionary War hero

i have not been keeping with this post very closely, but, i do have a question to ask, i appologize if this is redundant.

the thing about that quote is that it asks me (who would put a case against reason in every instance, tho not reason itself) to _argue about it. which is, to me, like saying 'come play on my field, and then ill correct you for not using my rules'

rationalism, logic, and reason are tools. tools that are good for that which they are good for. however, this, in my opinion (and i think im right on this one), stops short of the whole of subjective experience.

i dont want to argue against reason or logic. i just want to say that they arent appropriate all the time. and i would like to ask: if i have the capacity to directly invoke un-reasoned patterns of thought, why should i not?

"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989

fattychunks
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
Offline
"if i have the capacity to

"if i have the capacity to directly invoke un-reasoned patterns of thought, why should i not?"

if something's not broken, dont fix it.

so i just would like to ask, why would you have a desire to invoke unreasoned thoughts?

the quote you mentioned was an example that once someone tries to argue the laws of logic, they practive those laws consistantly in an attempt to DENY those laws. i think.

averyv
Posts: 119
Joined: 2006-08-30
Offline
Quote:if something's not

Quote:
if something's not broken, dont fix it.

fair. if something is not complete, dont call it complete.

logic just isnt everything there is. its a nice tool with more than a few applications, but there are a number of things it just cant touch

subjective experience being one, but elements like talking to schizophrenic people as well which, as it turns out, is quite a bit of fun. schizotypal in particular. if you spend time at it, and with a real mind to understand, it will vastly change your definition of what 'makes sense'.

or just talking topeople in general. logic is a tool, but there are subjective irrational decisions in every keystroke and every syllable. we have the uncertainty principle...why cant i use it!?

as for my particular uses for irration: big firey lumps of shit covered...and i mean covered...by mislabeled hope. there is just literally no other way to get rid of them! its so old. so new its still goin through emotions. dont trust the time, things will settle down eventually. and until then, i write a lot of nonsense and i like talking to cats, who do NOT appreciate logic nearly as much as you might guess. i enjoy saying things that i dont expect to say and do not mean at all. its a passtime. it helps me pass the time. like i have to feed it through my sleeves to give the day a kickstart.

and its wormholes for your head. intermittent thoughts dont need to make much sense if you can make it from A to B and back again. and you can get yourself quite a ways out if you want. this is EXPERIENCE. this is not a standardized test!!!

and so, most importantly of all, i just can and thats why. i just dont understand why strip one if both exist?

"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989

fattychunks
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-04-09
Offline
"if something is not

"if something is not complete, dont call it complete."

and no one has ever said it is
but it's far from being broken as well

"subjective experience being one"

i'd say the jury is still out on that.

"but elements like talking to schizophrenic people as well which, as it turns out, is quite a bit of fun"

how is this even an argument? they dont have the ability to use the tool we're talking about obviosly... or cannot use it like we can but there's really no reason to assume that logic can not be used against them.

"or just talking topeople in general. logic is a tool, but there are subjective irrational decisions in every keystroke and every syllable. we have the uncertainty principle...why cant i use it!?"

you'll have to explain the uncertainty principle. but you're even assuming these are valid issues based on rational thought so... i'm still not udnerstanding how you think logic isnt a good tool, if that's what you're saying.

no one said logic is complete, but im wondering why you would want to use something other then logic when it has, obviously, an excellent track record in finding facts... i think perhaps you could say that i'm close minded of the fact that logic is the best tool we have, but i would just say to whomever might call me close-minded, what other tool should you expect me to use to find a more accurate conclusion that logic leads me to... know what i'm saying? or you might be speaking over my head, not too sure.

averyv
Posts: 119
Joined: 2006-08-30
Offline
i am sorry to have implied

i am sorry to have implied that you called logic complete. rather, what i was intending to say was that logic is not enough. basically: there is more to understanding daily experience than logical analysis

the subjective experience cannot be experienced logically. it can be viewed from a logical perspective (in retrospect), or dealt with in a logical manner, but to look purely to logic to understand this bizarre aspect of reality is to, in my opinion, ignore the most interesting parts. and even in these cases, 'logic' is built on subjective understanding and not really all that rigid anyway.

as far as speaking with schizophrenics goes, they can use a logic. they just understand connections on a different level than you or i. this is not to say that my perception is more accurate (tho society would certainly tell you so), merely that my mode of communicating typical perception is more dominant (hence the comment about society).

furthermore, using rigid logic to communicate with every individual in every instance is not particularly appealing to me, schizophrenic or otherwise.

Quote:
you'll have to explain the uncertainty principle.

uncertainty principle, more or less, is the inability to know the location and velocity of a particle at any given time. in my reference, i was attempting to indicate that even apparently deterministic reality behaves as a cluster of craziness which more happens to yeild apparently logical conditions than one that is built of them.

Quote:
but you're even assuming these are valid issues based on rational thought so... i'm still not udnerstanding how you think logic isnt a good tool, if that's what you're saying.

i am not assuming anything. i know from experience. i have faith. call it whatever you like, but im not arguing, im saying.

interestingly, your statement of using reason to refute reason is what i was responding to in my initial question with the quote from ethan allen. i do not have to use logic. i am free to think and express myself and do as i choose. when i first read the ethan allen quote, my response was as follows (preceded by two lines of nonsense):

to put it plainly: your understanding is not my concern and your validation is not my want. i am not sorry for wasting your wasted time.

and i agree with me 100%. unified, verifiable experience is just not that appealing (or reasonable to expect). complicated discussion made of some mixture of accepted fact and pure speculation, on the other hand, is.

Quote:
im wondering why you would want to use something other then logic when it has, obviously, an excellent track record in finding facts.

i do think that logic is a good tool, and should be used where it is applicable. a hammer is a good tool, but i dont work on my computer with a hammer. in the same way i dont talk about metaphysics with rigid logic. i accept that subjective bodies do constantly take illogical actions and entertain unreasoned thoughts in ways that i cannot even imagine. therefore, i view unreasoned thought as a valuable tool in understanding the subjective experiences of others as well as my own.

additionally, facts are interesting and everything, but not terribly consequential. the most basic facts of reality that we know and understand in this The Best Time Possible will be recognized as flawed and progress will occur and people will _still_ die.

additionally, i believe the subjective experience to be a function of facts and perspective more than a side-effect of objective reality. subjective truth can justify any 'fact'.

employ logic in decision making, use it in design. let it help you in every wonderful way that it surely can...i just dont think its reasonable to expect it to look into the center of experience and tell you whats going on.

"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989