Irrationality and illogicality - Psychic pheno

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Quantum Quack, Feb 2, 2007.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Test statement:

    "It is quite logical and rational to realise and acknowledge that many events that happen in our lives will appear to be innitially both irrational and illogical in their causation and effect.
    In fact it would be quite irrational to believe other wise."


    This statement springs from many discussions about how "universal truths" must be logical and rationally premised.

    Whilst I tend to agree that ultimately all truths are rational and logical, I would condition this agreement by sayng that some truths would take eternity to rationlise, there for for practical purposes are irrational and will always be so.

    This would apply especially to transient truths or truths that are fleeting in duration, yet truths all the same. Moments that appear to be illogical and may be proven to be logical if time permited the discovery of that logic.
    [this is partularilly pertinant to the field of psychic phenomena]

    Another example would be the question of "universal creation" and if one assumes that the universe came from absolute nothing-ness then this appears to be an illogical assumption only because we have yet to discover the logic that makes it logical.

    So, in my opinion, it is important to be able to accept illogical and irrationality until the appropriate logic and rational can be found. With out this acceptance, the truth may be considered as false, delusion or illusion and discounted as fiction or fantasy... and therefore never validated or understood.


    Care to discuss?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    The truth is, most people can't handle the truth. Thus irrationality exists...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,011
    I fully agree, QQ. If we were to try to figure out many things that appear illogical now, most would go insane before finding a rational answer. And this is because we are not ready for it yet. Either we don't have enough acumulated knowledge, or we, as humans, are too limited to figure it out at all.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Isn't a universal 'truth' culturally-specific?
     
  8. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,011
    then it wouldn't be universal.
     
  9. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Only in an idealist sense. We could say there is a culturally-specific consensus reality...or that there are parallel universes where truth holds in each.
     
  10. jessiej920 Shake them dice and roll 'em Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,678
    Would you then say that it is quite rational to believe in the existance of a soul or a higher power? This may be illogical in the sense of the lack of logic we have to prove that it is exists, but then exceptance of this truth, of this irrationality, makes it rational in itself because we must acknowledge our own lack of logic to disprove it? Just as you say that it is an illogical assumption that the universe came from nothingness then the higher power theory is just as illogical, making both theories just as irrational, yet the the willingness to believe in them may be rationalized because of this lack of proof and until the proof or logic is discovered, must be considered to both be as true or as false as the other? I am rambling...I agree with your statement, how can we discount what we cannot prove or disprove?
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I see that the guist of what I am saying is coming across...hmmmm rationally...[chuckle] but yes I agree Jessiej.

    For me this brings up the question of open mindedness or should I say the decision to not believe or disbelieve and allow the notion to rest easy waiting for a logic or rational to become more evident.

    Your example of the soul is such a case. As it stands currently there is no scientific rational to explain the logic of a human soul. To be honest there probably never will be yet so many in the world have maintained a strong interest in such a notion. To say that the soul does not exist because we are unable to logically and rationally determine it would be IMO an erroneous position yet simultaneously to declare the truth of the "soul" without a logical premise is also.


    So we are left in a state of vexation and continous inconclusivity, which I think we will find is exactly a part of why the "soul" cannot be rationalised as it is a part of the "soul" truth to maintain just this vexation. In other words understanding the human souls' reality is supposed to be vexatious and it's not hard to understand why this might be so...given that certain truths are best left unexplained and un-rationalised.

    This is in part why psychic pheno is unable to be conclusively proven as a reality and logically disected because to do so would IMO corrupt the very thing we need to maintain our ability to rationalise in the first instance.

    [ Psychic pheno in this context refers not only to normal associations such as telepathy etc but also to normal every day functioning of thought feeling and expression ]
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328

    I agree with this statement......
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    so acceptance of events that appear as irrational and allowed to remain as irrational is essential to avoid "going crazy" trying to rationalise them....[ this relates to theories on the causation of some serious mental illnesses - the attempt to rationalise what which can not be rationalised]

    Thanks for your post Roy.....
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I tend to agree with Roy in that truth of a "universal" kind is immutable and unreducable and not subject to conditionalities such as culture or even intelligence to be frank.....and certainly not dependant on our ability to rationalise it and determine the logic of it.
     
  15. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    The anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss had an interesting perspective (as relates to the thread):
    Levi-Strauss thought that early man had a logical, natural and undomesticated stage of thought - this stage ties in with irrationality being rational; later, man's mind became concrete and based on rationality and he was now unable to understand the primitive self which springs up subconsciously in art and beliefs and traditions.
     
  16. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,011
    Yes, I agree with this. Perhaps its an evolutionary benefit, to keep us from going nuts thinking about one thing for too long. Or maybe its because we are just now progressing enough to start having this problem.

    I like to think that a universal truth would explain cultural truths, but in a way that it is true universally, and not just for the particular culture. I don't see how this would be possible, but that is only because I am human.

    I like this idea, I feel that it agrees with observation. I think that, as an early man, or even as a less aware animal, we were more rational because we did not think about things. We took the environment around us for what it was. We did not interpret it [very] differently.

    Now that we have time to think about things, we try to figure out more than we are able to observe. And so we fail, but we cling to what we've failed because it makes sense to us (based on our limited and perhaps warped perspectives).

    I like the usage of the term "concrete" here. It connotates the idea I've read and observed about people falling into ruts, or habits. These habits affect, more than anything, the way a person acts.
     
  17. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Exactly what Levi-Strauss observed. He thought of this irrational thought - perception and imagination - as the basis of mythological thought.
     
  18. jessiej920 Shake them dice and roll 'em Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,678
    Most people would say that the lack of conclusive evidence of a soul or a higher power dictates the truth. How can this be considered true, when the very evidence that many rely on to logically explain away the truth of these inquiries is not available to disprove the existence of these things either. What makes something true or even logical? The lack of evidence to prove something does not create a truth. I do not believe so, anyway. Logic, to me, is just another way to explain away that which we cannot explain and have no answers for, we call it logical to not believe because there is no answer. People say to believe in a soul is illogical and a fantasy, but it is no more a fantasy then not believing, because there is no evidence to support that either. Only the conscious understands logic, the subconscious does not need it. It is the subconscious that interests me the most. To me, self-awareness, the conscious and subconscious self, makes me believe that there may be, for the lack of a more logical word, a soul. I got into an argument with this Francois guy on here about the logical reality of a soul, but instead of trying to discuss fairly, the how and why people believe, he just was condescending and rude. How logical is it to make fun and disregard something that he, himself, has no idea of? How can his point be any more logical then mine? It is a circular argument and as you say vexatious. There will probably never be an answer and science may never find one. Most science is based on the presuppostion that things such as the soul or a higher power do not exist, therefore any answers they seek will only be to prove that their belief is right. To scoff at something that you cannot explain only makes you look defensive. Soul or no soul, what does it matter? The lack of evidence is obviously not enough to dissaude over half the population from believeing. You posed an interesting discussion and I enjoyed it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    "Most science is based on the presuppostion that things such as the soul or a higher power do not exist, therefore any answers they seek will only be to prove that their belief is right."

    I don't think this is true - after all scientists have souls too. The difference is that many would regard the soul as created by each person through the act of living - a bio-psychological phenomena; whilst others may imagine the soul as created by an imaginary entity.
     
  20. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Yes Superluminal - one can have a soul and be rational.
     
  21. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Whatever one imagines the soul to be...
     
  22. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,011

    Your perspective--to me--seems to be summed by the statement "We investigate the world at extremely fine scales today." So many people I know get stuck in trying to view the world closer and closer, closing their vision from everything surrounding it. We are becoming, individually, too specialized. But we still want to ask questions about things we don't know, or we want to speculize on it. We become specialized and blind to our mental peripherals.

    The best calculator for figuring out the cause of something or the relation among things is the human mind. It just needs the right training, and the right motivation. Even any scientific research is only as true as the person's ability to observe all the variables of the situation. And we all know how probable that is. And yes, math is undeniable indisputable, but we all, as humans, draw the associations to its real implications. The symbols on the paper are meaningless.

    Sometimes it is beneficial to observe the bigger picture, even at the expense of loss of fine detail... temporarily, or in moderation. As far as we know, only the human mind is known to withhold so much readily available information to be recalled in relation in fractions of a second, at command or through stimulus.

    Yes...
    One defines one's own imagry when a word is uttered. It is subjective. When one person says it, it is only in relation to their own experience. And we all live in the same world, we just see different parts of it, and we explain them in different ways. But what we are explaining is the same thing.

    But, on the other side. There are those who desire to adhere to an accepted idea in order to better convey detailed aspects of reality--simple relationships in the ultimate web of connections, all tied to each other. In this way, we can see the finer details of the world around us because we share a vision of the same metaphor for what is really there. And because there are so many minds working on it, it tends to become very intricate and useful.

    This creates a culture of people connected to the same mindset--observing in relatively similar ways. As for science, at essence and under good conditions, it yeilds a very efficient solution methodology. But as always, our human nature requires a heirarchy of acceptance that conflicts with more rational logic of science. So science fails sometimes because humans arent good enough for it. Or, I should say they aren't right for it. Yet. At this stage in our mental evolutionary development, we require a balance between faith and skepticism. We are only human, after all.
     
  23. jessiej920 Shake them dice and roll 'em Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,678
    I am kicking myself for getting into this discussion yet again *sigh*...

    How do you know a soul does not exist?
     

Share This Page