Humans and logic

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by arfa brane, Aug 17, 2015.

  1. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,305
    You mean it isn't a contradiction. It's a true proposition because, A OR not A is always true by the absorption law: If A then A OR not A, generally If A then A OR B.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    So using symbolic logic is your answer.

    Do you think arfa that this symbolic logic is the complete answer?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,305
    No, I don't, and I don't think there is such a thing.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    813
    Yeah that's definitely a consequence of living inside time and space.
     
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    We have two sides of the brain, with each side processing data differently. The left brain is more logical and sequential. The right brain is more spatial, which is not the same. Human and logic means left brained.

    For example, if you were in a crowd and were looking for a friend, you might go through logical steps for comparison if A, B and C are true, but not D and E, then it must be her. This is the left brain. The right brain will not see your friend, but rather integrate her and others into a generality; spatial, like oriental. If oriental was one of your friend's properties, the right brain will narrow the data set, and then hand off the left brain to fine tune.

    On the other hand, say we are in the lab, conducting experiments which we observe and record in detail. The data does not make logical sense, due to the variation in the data. We may need to hand off to the right brain, which will integrate all the data to find a general trend, that runs through the data; eureka! We may then need to hand this off to the left, os it can provide a logic path to connect the data to the answer.
     
  9. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,048
    You know that whole left-brain right-brain thing has been debunked, right?
     
  10. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,305
    So much for propositional logic.
    However, I know I can say the universe exists now because it has a history.

    I can say something abstract like: modulo histories, humans exist. Equivalently, humans exist in the history of the universe. The previous statement cannot be false, it's always true.
    There are of course, a lot of events in the history of humans that have been "forgotten"; but, whatever they are, they happened and are a part of the history of the universe.

    Ergo, the logic of (having a) history, or knowing there is one despite not having all the details.
     
  11. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    813
    Probability bubles it's spots of rustyness on the fabric of spacetime. Spacetime however has no defence for this.
     
  12. IIIIIIIIII Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    Funny question... Neurotypical people have never been logical and will never be.

    Didn't Freud himself said that we would not convince them with reason ?

    A few years after, the Nazis took the power and killed the most intelligent and logical people in the world...
     
  13. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,305
    Then why aren't they extinct? How did they survive infancy, assuming they got that far?

    Who cares what Freud said?
    Yeah. So what?
     
  14. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    813
    True.
     
  15. IIIIIIIIII Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    1) The environment was big enough before.
    2) He unveiled unarguable truths of the human brain
    3) Then as I said, most of them are not logical. Never heard "It always worked like that" ?

    My other post quite related to the subject : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/where-will-humanity-be-in-10-000-years.110765/page-5#post-3327351
     
  16. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,305
    I have no idea what that means. How does that stop these neotypical people from being wiped out by natural selection?
    Freud did no such thing. He unveiled a concoction of ideas and half-baked explanations, and he knew it.
    Most of whom are not logical? When you behave emotionally, does your logical brain do the same thing? I don't see how that could be remotely possible.

    Delusions aren't logical: someone believes something without any actual evidence. People who become psychotic don't have illogical brains, they have illogical beliefs, mostly centered on who they are and how important their ideas are, to everyone else. Meanwhile, they know because they are also logical and can't help knowing, that they aren't behaving like everyone else--they have to elevate their own importance to cope with this if they want to maintain their delusion, and deal with the obvious contradiction.

    Or something.
     
  17. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Logic is only as good as the data and premises it uses. Logic can be sound, using poor data and poor premises. If we assume unicorns are real and leprechauns have pots of gold, then it follows that a strong and fast unicorn can be used to steal the gold. The logic is fine, but it still does not add up.

    This is similar to the way math works, since math is a type of logic. The premises and data used by game engines can be modeled with math to get things just as unlikely as the unicorn stealing gold. Math is how science can stay logical, but get illogical.

    One wild card is connected to the foundation premise, called the random universe assumption. How do you logically lead fuzzy dice that have no definitive place in space and time? A recent study has shown that 50% or so of science studies in some disciplines can't be reproduced by others. This is what happens when logic is made irrational because of the random assumption. That assumption is used due to poor foundation logic skills. These actually require a different type of logic; spatial. Random tries to approximate spatial or 3-D logic by adding something that goes beyond cause and effect; 2.5-D spatial illusion. About 50% of these illusions can't be verified by others
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2015
  18. IIIIIIIIII Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    Well that only happens because most scientists are pressured to get "new" ideas working for reputation reasons (which is not at all excusable) or because (utterly) big money consortiums want to hide the truth for concurrence or liability reasons. Not even saying that most of them know that sometimes several years or decades are needed to double check...

    Anyway...
     
  19. IIIIIIIIII Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    Q1 : Because "before" the environmental constraints were weak. But now, as the human population exponentially grows, those constraints are starting to be too strong to allow an illogical mass behaviour without utterly violent and evident consequences.... China made the right decision in 1979 even if it meant other horrible actions at the family cell level.
    Q2 : Freud made some conjectures and lyrical works which can, IMHO, only add-up to his scientific qualities (creativity, extrapolation and vision) if one is not narrow-minded. But the underlying and basic instincts he helped to unveil to the world are a fact from which psychanalysis is an artifact.
    Q3 : As I just touched in Q2, Freud in the last quarter of his life qualified himself as a neurotic being driven compulsively toward the realization of his work in the expense of everything else. It doesn't mean that one cannot have a larger vision than himself and a better understanding. I recommend the reading of the "Future of an Illusion" one of the last (easy) writings of S. Freud.

    One must be very careful not to confound logic and sophism... Which is quite well presented in "Rhinoceros" from Eugene Ionesco.

    2 cents...
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2015
  20. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,305
    I disagree, considering humans were reduced to a very small group containing at most three fertile females (via the mitochondrial Eve), environmental constraints have never been weak.

    That is to say, the environment we have isn't really any less dangerous than it's always been; the growth of human populations brings in another kind of danger--competition for resources, conflict and wars. That's a recent development in our history though.

    So, just for the hell of it, consider WWII. This can be considered the result of a deluded psychotic managing to convince a disillusioned German people that he could usher in a new Reich; on the other hand, it was really about land and resources. Taking them off other people, enslaving those you conquer is something humans have been doing for a long time; it's actually quite logical in terms of a survival tactic.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2015
  21. IIIIIIIIII Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    I like your educated answer and couldn't avoid to have an amused laugh with your voluntary comical vision of the mitochondrial Eve (which is probably the first harem in human history

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ). Even if anthropoids weren't "reduced" but kinda "started" with that sort of model...

    Then, if you allow me to have an evolutionist interpretation of your "survival tactics" description, I would add that it -logically- must be the result of totally unconscious "thoughts" and directly caused by the underlying instincts... Never wondered why the first primitive males that were attracted by the mitochondrial Eves never needed sexual education ?

    Amazing, isn't it ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,305
    Freud would no doubt have been fascinated by Hitler.

    That he was psychopathic appears in his early life, that he had an elevated sense of self-importance was underlined by his behaviour in prison--he wrote a book excusing himself and placing blame elsewhere, a common tactic of those who feel entitled (to think and do as they please): minimise the consequence of ones actions, and maximise the fault of others. It sounds like what politicians do a lot.

    His art even from an early age is sterile and lifeless--the man did not see the world like other artists. He came to control the kinds of imagery that German artists were allowed to create, all like his, all like echoes from an empty mind, one devoid of what most would recognise as imagination. Hitler had serious emotional problems--he didn't have normal emotional responses and his artistic expressions echo this, a "pretty" scene to him was like any other and evinced the same emotional response.

    Even when the war was being lost, he continued to rage against others failures and minimise his own. He possibly saw suicide as a last kind of denial of his own failure. His emotional being was seriously out of synch with his logical one.
     
  23. IIIIIIIIII Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    Once again you miss the point...

    1) If anyone but me followed your posts till now you would have confused that person
    2) First you say (I cite yourself) "Who cares what Freud said?"...
    3) Then you say that Freud would have been fascinated by Hitler (I'm not so sure that Freud meant that when he said "Thank the Fürer" for his late life productivity)
    4) Which adds to the fact that Freud always chose the "bright" illusion. (Cf : The future of an Illusion, where he explains the love he has for good people and cite his own beloved son)
    5) Freud was also fascinated with creative spirits and strong minded individuals (the one who can counter Nazism with science and logic, for example, and helped to preserve the good in society)
    6) If you want any good presentation of the people he really cared about and analyzed, please read "Prophets without Honour: Background to Freud, Kafka, Einstein and Their World" from Frederic Grünfeld.
    7) But... as scientists, we are all sure that "your Hitler" interested him most in order to understand what's going so wrong with the kind of people that killed most of his family and burnt his books.

    Finally, I will avoid what seems to be your only goal of posting, that is, make people (or only you) think that you are right on something, whatever it is...

    I personally do not have this kind of "objectives" or "tactics" on these forums or in life in general. Then I would conclude by a quote that I especially love from Freud (obv.) which is :

    “By withdrawing their expectations from the other world and concentrating all their liberated energies into their life on earth, they will probably succeed in achieving a state of things in which life will become tolerable for everyone and civilization no longer oppressive to anyone. Then, with one of our fellow unbelievers, they will be able to say without regret, ‘we leave heaven to the angels and the sparrows’”

    No go convince yourself and maybe others of your Hitlerian theories for which I have NO interest...

    My 2 cents...
     

Share This Page