|
Post by jonbain on May 22, 2019 23:26:19 GMT
So why are people illogical? You can demonstrate something as true/false, and folks can seem to see the truth, and then you talk to them later and they just revert back to the false perspective.
How is it that so many bad ideas perpetuate in society?
The problem seems to center around free will, in that if we were not free to be contrary, free to be ignorant, we would all know everything instantly, and the universe would lose its aesthetic texture. We would have lost individuality thereby.
So is it reasonable to suggest that illogical thoughts generate aesthetics and creative narratives?
And yet, musically, it is logically correct sounds that give us the pleasant harmonies. Or am I just being too logical?
I have to admit being a bit unsure of this, so any thoughts are welcome.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 29, 2019 23:13:11 GMT
So why are people illogical? You can demonstrate something as true/false, and folks can seem to see the truth, and then you talk to them later and they just revert back to the false perspective. How is it that so many bad ideas perpetuate in society? The problem seems to center around free will, in that if we were not free to be contrary, free to be ignorant, we would all know everything instantly, and the universe would lose its aesthetic texture. We would have lost individuality thereby. So is it reasonable to suggest that illogical thoughts generate aesthetics and creative narratives? And yet, musically, it is logically correct sounds that give us the pleasant harmonies. Or am I just being too logical? I have to admit being a bit unsure of this, so any thoughts are welcome. Define logic through logic without falling into a fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 29, 2019 23:52:26 GMT
So why are people illogical? You can demonstrate something as true/false, and folks can seem to see the truth, and then you talk to them later and they just revert back to the false perspective. How is it that so many bad ideas perpetuate in society? The problem seems to center around free will, in that if we were not free to be contrary, free to be ignorant, we would all know everything instantly, and the universe would lose its aesthetic texture. We would have lost individuality thereby. So is it reasonable to suggest that illogical thoughts generate aesthetics and creative narratives? And yet, musically, it is logically correct sounds that give us the pleasant harmonies. Or am I just being too logical? I have to admit being a bit unsure of this, so any thoughts are welcome. Syllogisms, Too, Are Edited and Photo-ShoppedWhat you accuse people of ignores the fact that so many apparently logical proofs don't go deep enough to really tell the whole story. After being tricked by so many fallacies, people get suspicious. In our bird-brained Planned Parrothood, sophism is considered to be sophisticated.
|
|
|
Post by archlogician on May 30, 2019 1:30:21 GMT
There are a few features at play here. Aside from the issue of ambiguity and amphibole in language, and the fact that many seemingly logical arguments gloss over critical details which may be later attacked, there is the simple issue of different starting axioms. If someone postulates that all life is sacred, and another does not, no amount of logical reasoning by one side will totally convince the other. Sometimes people agree out of politeness, or expediency, but upon further reflection realise they reject one of the axioms the arguer has implicitly assumed.
I don't think that aesthetics are illogical in the sense of being irrational. There is an important distinction between illogicality and irrationality, the former being merely the category of that which is not in the domain of logic, the later that which is in the domain of logic but defiant of it. Aesthetics are often grounded in evolutionary psychology. Creativity is a whole other bag of beans. I don't know that one can categorise the spontaneous character of creativity as irrational. It violates the flow of theme more often than not, but this is hardly irrational.
My contention would be that it is extremely computationally expensive to reason perfectly. As such we have evolved a number of heuristics which work well enough to permit the awesome success which humanity has had by and large at building our civilisation and prospering. Not to say we have had perfect success, but for a bunch of apes we are doing pretty good I would think. These heuristics sacrifice reliability for tractability.
There is a very interesting article in the Cambridge Handbook of Computational Psychology on computational models of human reasoning which exhibit the same fallacies which human beings do. Long story short, we generally consider only positive information rather than negative information in considering possibilities, and this misleads us systematically. Fortunately we have the ability to train ourselves to play the game of formal logic, and internalise more accurate reasoning principles, but this is costly and remains error prone. Hence the need for peer review in any scientific project.
In short, politeness and over reliance on heuristics account for much of the behaviour you lament.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 30, 2019 20:37:34 GMT
I don't think that aesthetics are illogical in the sense of being irrational. There is an important distinction between illogicality and irrationality, the former being merely the category of that which is not in the domain of logic, the later that which is in the domain of logic but defiant of it. Aesthetics are often grounded in evolutionary psychology. Creativity is a whole other bag of beans. I don't know that one can categorise the spontaneous character of creativity as irrational. It violates the flow of theme more often than not, but this is hardly irrational. Sonic Synthetic a PrioriImpressionists such as Ravel and Debussy have little logical musical structure, but hit the right notes, seemingly coming from nowhere. So, as Kant implies, logic is something imposed by the deficiencies of pure reason that is nevertheless adequate and practical. Impressionist painting, however, bit off more than it could chew. Its fuzziness is its failure.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 30, 2019 21:40:05 GMT
So why are people illogical? You can demonstrate something as true/false, and folks can seem to see the truth, and then you talk to them later and they just revert back to the false perspective. How is it that so many bad ideas perpetuate in society? The problem seems to center around free will, in that if we were not free to be contrary, free to be ignorant, we would all know everything instantly, and the universe would lose its aesthetic texture. We would have lost individuality thereby. So is it reasonable to suggest that illogical thoughts generate aesthetics and creative narratives? And yet, musically, it is logically correct sounds that give us the pleasant harmonies. Or am I just being too logical? I have to admit being a bit unsure of this, so any thoughts are welcome. Define logic through logic without falling into a fallacy. Logic can only be defined by example; by something beyond itself in pure terms.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 30, 2019 21:45:12 GMT
Define logic through logic without falling into a fallacy. Logic can only be defined by example; by something beyond itself in pure terms. So it is grounded in assumptions that are formless in and of themselves.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 30, 2019 21:45:32 GMT
So why are people illogical? You can demonstrate something as true/false, and folks can seem to see the truth, and then you talk to them later and they just revert back to the false perspective. How is it that so many bad ideas perpetuate in society? The problem seems to center around free will, in that if we were not free to be contrary, free to be ignorant, we would all know everything instantly, and the universe would lose its aesthetic texture. We would have lost individuality thereby. So is it reasonable to suggest that illogical thoughts generate aesthetics and creative narratives? And yet, musically, it is logically correct sounds that give us the pleasant harmonies. Or am I just being too logical? I have to admit being a bit unsure of this, so any thoughts are welcome. Syllogisms, Too, Are Edited and Photo-ShoppedWhat you accuse people of ignores the fact that so many apparently logical proofs don't go deep enough to really tell the whole story. After being tricked by so many fallacies, people get suspicious. In our bird-brained Planned Parrothood, sophism is considered to be sophisticated. Its then simply a matter of people ignoring the logic, because maybe there is something missing? And when they cannot point to that which is missing, they just default to the assumption it must be there because the given error is popular idea. And it must be true because it is on TV. What this really shows is a fear of being in the minority. Herd instinct, perhaps? Better to die as a group than to live alone, maybe?
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 30, 2019 21:48:58 GMT
There is an important distinction between illogicality and irrationality, the former being merely the category of that which is not in the domain of logic, the later that which is in the domain of logic but defiant of it. Well the semantic distinctions between those words can switch depending on context. The context here, is that people get things wrong. You seem to be grounded in a materialist/atheist paradigm, and regardless of whether God exists or not, half the people out there have got it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 30, 2019 22:00:53 GMT
Logic can only be defined by example; by something beyond itself in pure terms. So it is grounded in assumptions that are formless in and of themselves. Well here is a good example itself. I say that logic can be shown be example, and you then reach the conclusion that demonstrating example has no form in and of itself. An example has the form of demonstration which implies empirical observation as well as a logical structure. Thus, not purely logical. So, the example: A black hole is said to not be able to emit anything that moves even at light-speed. But the Nobel prize for 2017 is awarded for claiming to prove that gravity has been observed emanating from black-holes, and that gravity was said to be observed moving at light-speed. Now that is just a blatant contradiction. Either black-hole theory is wrong, or the observation is wrong. Now anyone can waffle endlessly about all sorts of sophisticated reasons why that is not a contradiction, but all those arguments boil down to is that it is not a contradiction because it won a famous award. And out of fear of being in a minority, its easier just to pretend that the emperor has very beautiful clothes. Then when the proverb hits the fan...??
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 30, 2019 22:23:24 GMT
So it is grounded in assumptions that are formless in and of themselves. Well here is a good example itself. I say that logic can be shown be example, and you then reach the conclusion that demonstrating example has no form in and of itself. An example has the form of demonstration which implies empirical observation as well as a logical structure. Thus, not purely logical. So, the example: A black hole is said to not be able to emit anything that moves even at light-speed. But the Nobel prize for 2017 is awarded for claiming to prove that gravity has been observed emanating from black-holes, and that gravity was said to be observed moving at light-speed. Now that is just a blatant contradiction. Either black-hole theory is wrong, or the observation is wrong. Now anyone can waffle endlessly about all sorts of sophisticated reasons why that is not a contradiction, but all those arguments boil down to is that it is not a contradiction because it won a famous award. And out of fear of being in a minority, its easier just to pretend that the emperor has very beautiful clothes. Then when the proverb hits the fan...?? Logic can be shown by example...but this example is still subject to an assumption.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on May 31, 2019 18:24:16 GMT
Syllogisms, Too, Are Edited and Photo-ShoppedWhat you accuse people of ignores the fact that so many apparently logical proofs don't go deep enough to really tell the whole story. After being tricked by so many fallacies, people get suspicious. In our bird-brained Planned Parrothood, sophism is considered to be sophisticated. Its then simply a matter of people ignoring the logic, because maybe there is something missing? And when they cannot point to that which is missing, they just default to the assumption it must be there because the given error is popular idea. And it must be true because it is on TV. What this really shows is a fear of being in the minority. Herd instinct, perhaps? Better to die as a group than to live alone, maybe? Defensively Conforming to Non-ConformityYou're assuming that because they can't immediately see the fallacy, they have no grounds for suspicion. Second, you assume that their reaction is fearful conformity, when it may be from individual experience at being tricked. Then you get more predatory about your illusion of being above the masses when you jump off into calling us all "couch potatoes." Man cannot be part of a herd, because man is not an animal. So you yourself are conforming to the supercilious Snob Mob, who have no reason to be proud of themselves. Escapism onto an imaginary higher level leads to falling and crashing.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 31, 2019 22:28:25 GMT
Well here is a good example itself. I say that logic can be shown be example, and you then reach the conclusion that demonstrating example has no form in and of itself. An example has the form of demonstration which implies empirical observation as well as a logical structure. Thus, not purely logical. So, the example: A black hole is said to not be able to emit anything that moves even at light-speed. But the Nobel prize for 2017 is awarded for claiming to prove that gravity has been observed emanating from black-holes, and that gravity was said to be observed moving at light-speed. Now that is just a blatant contradiction. Either black-hole theory is wrong, or the observation is wrong. Now anyone can waffle endlessly about all sorts of sophisticated reasons why that is not a contradiction, but all those arguments boil down to is that it is not a contradiction because it won a famous award. And out of fear of being in a minority, its easier just to pretend that the emperor has very beautiful clothes. Then when the proverb hits the fan...?? Logic can be shown by example...but this example is still subject to an assumption. Assumptions are inevitable, like I assume you are not just a bot regurgitating words. But there is a radical difference between questioning assumptions for genuine reasonsand questioning points simply for the sake of filibuster and pedantic argumentativeness. Let me take the example further. Let us suggest that the gravity escapes the black-hole for reason X. In order for any such escape to occur, events need to unfold in time, but in the black-hole, time has stopped at the event-horizon, which means that all values of X fail as a basic point of logic. The gravity still cannot escape even if it could move at 1 million times light-speed. Not enough for you yet? How can the a black-hole spin if time stops at the event horizon? The alleged black-hole that 'won' the 2017 Nobel prize was said to rotate at 0.6 light-speed. Not possible if time has stopped. More? That 'black-hole' was said to have formed from the merger of a binary pair of black-holes orbiting, each other, then merging. But black-holes that orbit each other have to have event horizons which are also in those orbits. If time stops for something, it cannot move; so such an object could not move at all. I make zero new observations, the assumptions of their observations simply fail due to their own internal logic. Do you think it matters that the highest awards are for blatant junk theory? More? Here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htm
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 31, 2019 22:38:56 GMT
Its then simply a matter of people ignoring the logic, because maybe there is something missing? And when they cannot point to that which is missing, they just default to the assumption it must be there because the given error is popular idea. And it must be true because it is on TV. What this really shows is a fear of being in the minority. Herd instinct, perhaps? Better to die as a group than to live alone, maybe? Defensively Conforming to Non-ConformityYou're assuming that because they can't immediately see the fallacy, they have no grounds for suspicion. Second, you assume that their reaction is fearful conformity, when it may be from individual experience at being tricked. Then you get more predatory about your illusion of being above the masses when you jump off into calling us all "couch potatoes." Man cannot be part of a herd, because man is not an animal. So you yourself are conforming to the supercilious Snob Mob, who have no reason to be proud of themselves. Escapism onto an imaginary higher level leads to falling and crashing. No I do not. I had hoped you had read the rest of the thread, but I shall repeat the solid logic which proves my point. (If I was such a snob, I smugly would not even have need to make any point.) The Nobel prize 2017 was for the claim that gravity moved at light-speed, and it was claimed this gravity was observed emanating form a black-hole binary merger. But the premise of this fake award was that nothing that moves at light-speed can escape the black-hole at all. Not only because of the gravity of the black-hole itself, but also because time is said to stop at the event horizon, so even if gravity moved at 1 million times light-speed it could not escape. Moreover, after the merger, the resultant black-hole was said to be rotating at 0.6 light-speed. But time has stopped for the event horizon, so the black-hole could not possibly rotate. Now you can choose to ignore pure logic and just believe the TV, most people are terrified of being in defiance of 'big brother', so you will be 'comfortable' in your dissonance. Or you can realize that the Nobel prize is just pop culture; and look more deeply at the reality of the logic in the ontology here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htmOr you can just shrug than think that truth does not matter. When it matters more than I can even begin to try and explain. Lord, oh how it matters.
|
|
ckyap
New Member
Posts: 42
Likes: 12
Country: Malaysia
Ancestry: Asian Jewish
Politics: Monarchist
Religion: Tao Buddheo-Christian
Relationship Status: single
Age: 42
|
Post by ckyap on Jun 1, 2019 7:54:43 GMT
logic and illogic or truth and lies comes not from philosophy but closer to actual world or galactic conflict. I'm not sure if you've ever been in a conflict so delicate and treacherous as to discover why people cheat themselves, i'm in one now with a power and principality
|
|