Humans and logic

[BrianHarwarespecialist]

Right.
That's why you wrote "Humans can be logical chronologically speaking but that does not make it an incontrovertible prediction" is it? Because you weren't talking about humans.

I could of changed that statement with the movement of matter can be logical chronologically speaking but that does not make it an incontrovertible prediction. The phase logic you speak of is dependant on the context of the logical situation you are describing.

 

[BrianHarwarespecialist]

No, it's always true. If it wasn't always true then we would not be logical. Illogical behaviour is not the same as having a logical brain.
If your brain is a thing that can be in an illogical state, does that mean your body is also in an illogical state?

So there must be a possibility that it won't work logically if it's turned on.

So the answer to the question: Are computers logical, is: sometimes, when you turn them on. But that isn't a yes/no answer, so it isn't a logical answer. The correct answer is yes, computers are logical, even when they aren't running or if a hardware or software error occurs.

Yes as is anything else is only temporal logic chronologically valid, you always have to account for probability.

 

[arfa brane]

It's easy, FFS.

Are humans sometimes logical? Yes or No?
Are humans logical? Yes or No?
Is the previous question equivalent to: Are humans always logical? Yes or No?

Are there three respondents to this thread who understand the difference between true/false logic and temporal logic? Yes or No?

 

[Daecon]

Are you not confusing an OR conditional with an AND conditional?

 

[arfa brane]

Are you not confusing an OR conditional with an AND conditional?

I don't understand the question. AND and OR are logical connectives.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No, it's always true. If it wasn't always true then we would not be logical. Illogical behaviour is not the same as having a logical brain.

Behaviour originates (at least to some yet-to-determined extent) in the brain.
How about decisions? Are all decisions (they certainly originate in the brain so far as we know) logical? If the "brain IS logical" why aren't all decisions?
I've never met any human who is logical all the time.
Hell's bells, my ex-wife used to swear that I out-logicked Spock in my every day life but even I admit to illogical decisions now and again.

If your brain is a thing that can be in an illogical state, does that mean your body is also in an illogical state?

I have no idea what having a "human body in an illogical state" means.

So there must be a possibility that it won't work logically if it's turned on.

I don't see how that follows from what I wrote, but certainly there's that possibility since physical errors may occur when it's turned on (or damage caused while off) to prevent logical behaviour on restart.

So the answer to the question: Are computers logical, is: sometimes, when you turn them on. But that isn't a yes/no answer, so it isn't a logical answer. The correct answer is yes, computers are logical, even when they aren't running or if a hardware or software error occurs.

What makes you think Yes/ No isn't logical? That's binary. Either/ Or.
If a computer is turned of it's not doing anything AT ALL - what then is happening that's performing (being) logical[ly]? (Other than: there's no power therefore, logically, it's not working).

 

[Daecon]

"Are humans logical?"
Humans are logical (True) OR Humans are logical (False) = One of those conditions are true, therefore the statement is True.
A OR B is true = True.
Humans are sometimes logical.


"Are humans always logical?"
Humans are logical (True) AND Humans are logical (False) = Only one of those statements is true, not both, therefore the statement is False.
A AND B is true = False.
Humans are not always logical.

I think there should also be an "if and only if" condition in there somewhere, but I'm a bit rusty on my logic operators.

 

[arfa brane]

What makes you think Yes/ No isn't logical? That's binary. Either/ Or.

I don't think that. What makes you think I do?

If a computer is turned of it's not doing anything AT ALL - what then is happening that's performing (being) logical[ly]? (Other than: there's no power therefore, logically, it's not working).

A computer still exists when it's powered off. If you start taking it apart, can you confirm that it should work if it's put back together and powered on?
Of course you can.

If you found something ancient and took it apart, likewise is it possible that you can confirm it should work if it was reconstructed? Consider the Antikythera mechanism, is it a logical device? Is it "logical", yes or no? Does the original still work, yes or no?

 

[arfa brane]

I have no idea what having a "human body in an illogical state" means.

Oh dear.

Well, you do seem to have an idea that the brain can be in either a logical, or an illogical state. So, are you saying the brain can be in these states independently of the state of the body?

 

[Dywyddyr]

So, are you saying the brain can be in these states independently of the state of the body?

Like I said, I have no idea what you mean by this.

I don't think that. What makes you think I do?

My bad, I misread your post.
I'll address what you wrote, rather what I read:

Are computers logical, is: sometimes, when you turn them on. But that isn't a yes/no answer, so it isn't a logical answer.

It is a logical answer if you specify the condition you want talk about.
YES a computer [operates logically] IF it's turned on and working correctly.
No it's not [operating logically] IF it's turned off or faulty.

A computer still exists when it's powered off. If you start taking it apart, can you confirm that it should work if it's put back together and powered on?
Of course you can

If it's not doing anything at all then how IS a computer logical?

If you found something ancient and took it apart, likewise is it possible that you can confirm it should work if it was reconstructed? Consider the Antikythera mechanism, is it a logical device? Is it "logical", yes or no? Does the original still work, yes or no?

Likewise.

There's a difference between BEING logical and operating/ behaving logically.

You haven't answered my earlier question: If the "brain IS logical" why aren't all decisions?

I dunno, perhaps we're at cross-purposes here.
I certainly agree that the "construction" of the brain (or computer) follows a logic (albeit in the case of the brain not entirely known to us), and the way it functions is, presumably/ possibly, some sort of process that has an underlying logic.
But the output of the brain (decisions) isn't always logical (so far as we can see).
There may, at some time, be a complete enough description, so that we can see the processes involved and "Yup, I can follow that. Should'a seen it earlier".
But to claim that the brain IS logical is to imply that a given input will produce a logical, predictable output. That's not the case.

 

[arfa brane]

There's a difference between BEING logical and operating/ behaving logically.

And there, I think, we have it at last.

So therefore, the statement: "Computers are logical", is not the statement: "Computers operate logically".

But to claim that the brain IS logical is to imply that a given input will produce a logical, predictable output. That's not the case.

No. There is no input or output in the logical truth of brains being logical, or computers being logical devices whether or not they operate. Computers, and presumably brains, transform information (inputs) into outputs. We can program computers to do things that don't look useful, the programs have no output, but the computers are still operating according to logical rules.

 

[Dywyddyr]

And there, I think, we have it at last.

Okey doke.

So therefore, the statement: "Computers are logical", is not the statement: "Computers operate logically".

Agreed.

No. There is no input or output in the logical truth of brains being logical

Then, once again, I have no idea whatsoever what you mean.

or computers being logical devices whether or not they operate. Computers, and presumably brains, transform information (inputs) into outputs. We can program computers to do things that don't look useful, the programs have no output, but the computers are still operating according to logical rules.

Oh wait, when you say the brain/ body/ computers ARE logical what you're saying that there is a logic that defines the workings?

And all this time I thought you were using the word "logic" (and thus "logical") in the sense of valid reasoning.
IF/ THEN/ ELSE/ OR etc.

 

[arfa brane]

Oh wait, when you say the brain/ body/ computers ARE logical what you're saying that there is a logic that defines the workings?

And what, if it's worth asking, is the difference between a logic that's defined over digital computers--I think this is Boolean logic, no wait, I know it is--and a computer being logical, since it is a logical device?

And all this time I thought you were using the word "logic" (and thus "logical") in the sense of valid reasoning.
IF/ THEN/ ELSE/ OR etc.

Well, I thought I might, OR might not be trying to deal with people who could think beyond temporality, clearly I was mistaken, therefore I am still mistaken because the three of you are still dickheads AND I don't give a fuck.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Got it.
You can't, or won't, explain precisely what you're talking about so it's everyone else's fault.
BTW reported: deliberate alteration of a user name is an offence.

 

[arfa brane]

Look, thick one, your grasp of the statement "computers are logical" extends to computers that are running programs, and are therefore "operating".

Suppose I build a computer (using "construction logic") and claim it can solve a certain problem, and I can prove it does using logic and without "operating" it. Does such a thing exist in your universe? A device (already a logical thing) which can solve a problem, a mathematical one, and that can be proved to do so without actually doing it?

Jesus Christ, it's like trying to communicate with children.

 

[wellwisher]

Logic is based on cause and effect, which is 2-D, with cause the x-axis and effect the y-axis. If we used 3-D thinking (x,y,z), which is cause and effect and (something extra) one can reach conclusions that might appear illogical in 2-D, but will nevertheless be valid in 3-D.

Innovation often starts with the answer or hunch before a rigorous solution. This answer will not acceptable for publication, even if correct. One has to go back to the lab and create the solution, before the answer will be accepted. One has to go from 3-D, back to 2-D.

Rational or 2-D thinking is a plane (x,y), while 3-D is a sphere/volume (x,y,z). We can approximate a 3-D ball with a large number of 2-d planes, all with the same center, but each at different angles. For example, everyone has an opinion on politics. The particular matter is the common center, while each opinion is one of the planes at a given angle. Together all opinions on the matter express the 3-D ball.

What I will do now is hit the ball with a tennis racket, and deform the 3-D ball in 3-D. This is based on 3-D logic of how force is transmitted. What this will do is move many 2-D planes; opinions, out of their original plane into position of other planes. The logic may not follow from the original logic, because it happens in 3-D. It will seem illogical to any of the rational planes since it may imply what appear to be disconnected is actually connected. The right side of the brain is integral and brings together logic planes into a 3-D whole. This side also processes emotions, which is why good 3-D is often mistake for irrational.

 

[origin]

Logic is based on cause and effect, which is 2-D, with cause the x-axis and effect the y-axis. If we used 3-D thinking (x,y,z), which is cause and effect and (something extra) one can reach conclusions that might appear illogical in 2-D, but will nevertheless be valid in 3-D.

WTF? So if someone throws a snowball (cause) and the effect is the snowball hits me (effect) then I am in 2d. If that is true then all I have to do is turn sideways and it would be impossible to hit me. Thanks, I will try that this winter.

Some of the stuff you come up with is illogical as hell but pretty entertaining.

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

If people are incapable of conducting themselves in a proper fashion in accordance to this site's rules, then further moderation, thread closure and even post deletion if they contain insults will occur.

You are all adults. Start acting like it.

 

[BrianHarwarespecialist]

And what, if it's worth asking, is the difference between a logic that's defined over digital computers--I think this is Boolean logic, no wait, I know it is--and a computer being logical, since it is a logical device?
Well, I thought I might, OR might not be trying to deal with people who could think beyond temporality, clearly I was mistaken, therefore I am still mistaken because the three of you are still dickheads AND I don't give a fuck.

Don't get upset man, I know you are a really smart guy from reading your threads and conversing with you on other threads. I just think it's sad that it's seems a consensus was already reached in this thread but some how not acknowledged.

 

[wellwisher]

WTF? So if someone throws a snowball (cause) and the effect is the snowball hits me (effect) then I am in 2d. If that is true then all I have to do is turn sideways and it would be impossible to hit me. Thanks, I will try that this winter.

Some of the stuff you come up with is illogical as hell but pretty entertaining.

Logic uses two thought dimensions; cause and effect. This is 2-D thinking and not 2-D space. The 2-D thinking is done by the left brain; differential thinking. The right brain s more spatial and uses 3-D thinking, which is based on a different type of logic approach.

As an example, left brain differential thinking will allow us to see the distinction in people's faces, with each face having unique properties differentiate it in cause and effect. This is 2-D thinking. This allows us to know Joe from John even though both are twins.

The right brain approaches the same data differently, It finds commonality and generalities that are more spatial and therefore will apply across the spectrum of the data; oriental faces. This generality is an integration of billions of face data,; area under the face curve. This 3-D ball; oriental, is composed of a large number of 2-D planes; distinct faces, with the center for all called oriental.