Humans and logic

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...

Much of this has to do with statistical studies. Based on statistical studies, this year coffee can be good for you, while next year coffee can be bad for you. This is not logical and will not appear, reproducible even though the data will be processed with logic. It has to do with the statistical foundation premise. If you have two fuzzy dice data points, curves can have a range of slopes and still touch both points because each point has an area instead of being just a point. This allows slants to logic.

Say we have a study that demonstrates X. Once this is accepted and published, X becomes a premise for the next level of logic; extrapolate from X to get Y. If this follows and Y is accepted, Y becomes a new premise for further logic; cite previous studies, to get to Z.

Say X changes due to new data and later studies, this impacts both Y and Z, since a foundation premise has changed on which both are built. Often Y and Z will remain, since they were already published. Sometimes you need to trace things back to the beginning, to make sure the chain was not broken.

Much of this has to do with statistical studies. Based on statistical studies, this year coffee can be good for you, while next year coffee can be bad for you. This is not logical and will not appear, reproducible even though the data will be processed with logic. It has to do with the statistical foundation premise. If you have two fuzzy dice data points, curves can have a range of slopes and still touch both points because each point has an area instead of being just a point. This allows slants to logic.

Say we have a study that demonstrates X. Once this is accepted and published, X becomes a premise for the next level of logic; extrapolate from X to get Y. If this follows and Y is accepted, Y becomes a new premise for further logic; cite previous studies, to get to Z.

Say X changes due to new data and later studies, this impacts both Y and Z, since a foundation premise has changed on which both are built. Often Y and Z will remain, since they were already published. Sometimes you need to trace things back to the beginning, to make sure the chain was not broken.

Don't we use Conditional Restricted Boltzmann's Machine to detect the trends of coffee benefits throughout the years by modelling time series in a probabilistic manner. Or not ?

IIIIIIII said:
Once again you miss the point...
What point?
I thought I'd presented a particular case of delusion, one that Freud would have been fascinated by. Whether Freud said or wrote anything about Hitler, I have no idea, I'm not an acolyte of Freud, or Hitler.

Everything I said about Hitler (not Freud) is more or less historically accurate, it isn't a theory. In fact, it's taken mostly from a recent program I watched on the History channel . . .

A comment on statistical studies: my doctor has prescribed a different medication for neuropathy (I have a busted shoulder). The medication has a list of side effects, one of which is stomach pain.

I saw (in the doctor's surgery) the results of a clinical trial which said that people receiving a placebo reported more stomach pain than those receiving this medication. Statistically, taking this medication relieves stomach pain. Except the condition "stomach pain" was reported by only a few percent of the total trial subjects.

So, logically, this is a statistical fluke, not a result.

What point?
I thought I'd presented a particular case of delusion, one that Freud would have been fascinated by. Whether Freud said or wrote anything about Hitler, I have no idea, I'm not an acolyte of Freud, or Hitler.

Everything I said about Hitler (not Freud) is more or less historically accurate, it isn't a theory. In fact, it's taken mostly from a recent program I watched on the History channel . . .

I base myself all my posts solely on Cartoon Network... How could I without it ?

I base myself all my posts solely on Cartoon Network... How could I without it ?
rly...

So here's the thing: if humans are logical (true in general, since if all humans were somehow not logical for enough time, evolution should take care of it and remove humans from the list), and also emotional, is the "problem" of irrational beliefs and behaviours some kind of disconnection between emotion and logic?

What, to return to the poster child of delusion, did Hitler "do" to the German psyche? How did all those people believe the delusion, or rather, what it promised them? He used emotional manipulation of course. To do so, Hitler must have been a logical man, he knew what to say and how to say it.
Hitler in the end, didn't have the (military) imagination or the necessary resources, he just believed he did.

So here's the thing: if humans are logical (true in general, since if all humans were somehow not logical for enough time, evolution should take care of it and remove humans from the list), and also emotional, is the "problem" of irrational beliefs and behaviours some kind of disconnection between emotion and logic?

What, to return to the poster child of delusion, did Hitler "do" to the German psyche? How did all those people believe the delusion, or rather, what it promised them? He used emotional manipulation of course. To do so, Hitler must have been a logical man, he knew what to say and how to say it.
Hitler in the end, didn't have the (military) imagination or the necessary resources, he just believed he did.

The general populous are easily manipulated because they are more focused on themselves rather than the bigger picture of where the government wants to direct them.

IIIIIIII said:
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 just noticed this comment, the aim of this thread is a discussion of logic, also humans and human brains.

If you think you're right about what you say in the quote, then aren't you doing a selfie with that?
Seems like a logical conclusion to me.

I just noticed this comment, the aim of this thread is a discussion of logic, also humans and human brains.

If you think you're right about what you say in the quote, then aren't you doing a selfie with that?
Seems like a logical conclusion to me.

I say for the last time that I won't respond to sophism anymore... (did you notice that if you say Arfa Brane out loud it sounds like Half a Brain ?)

Humans are logical, however, many are willing to accept bad premises often due to emotional appeal. In the case of Hitler, he told the German people what they wanted to hear. The people would then reason, if this and that are true (premises) then it follows that x,y and z will happen.

An interesting parallel, that is more common to liberalism, is connected to celebrities who promotes social issues. Many people reason, if they are good at writing hit songs, and if they have lots of money and if they are well known and well spoken, then they must also be able to do other things, like resolve social issues. Therefore, what they say must be true or at least will be better that the awkward low paid professor.

Al Gore, for example, became a leader of the man made global warming movement, even though he is not a meteorologist but a career politician. His appeal was connected to his celebrity allowing him to make unsubstantiated premises; polar bears will go extinct. Once this is premise is accepted due to celebrity, people will reason, if indeed the polar bears go extinct this is not good, therefore we much stop drilling for oil. The logic is fine but irrational due to using poor premises that only appealed to emotions like fear and insecurity, but not to the scrutiny of science and reason.

There is another topic about faith and knowledge. Much of what we learn is accepted via faith, since few people have the time and resources to prove everything to themselves. It is easier to assume teachers are telling the truth and memorize.

The main avenue for faith is faith in people to think for you. The child may have faith that his dad's prejudice is valid; premise. He may not question him or the premise, due to his prestige as dad. He will then reason from that premise.

Last edited:
.

[...] 2. Humans are logical. [...]

Only in the sense of being vessels and carriers of rule-like schemes, and thereby people can be agents of reason. But this does not equate to consistency overall in our regulated social behavior, decision & conclusion-making, domestic and workplace practices, etc.

Another way to put it: Avoiding contradiction or "performing logically" is not a necessary characteristic of humans in the environment of change / becoming they evolved in. Which via that very nature of the latter does not feature ideal circumstances that otherwise would always favor adhering to an immutable strategy for dealing with it. We actually subscribe to multiple formal systems and traditional / informally learned tacit principles and procedures, which inevitably conflict with each other during the course of the contingencies of everyday life. As well as our native emotional and survival-oriented instincts contributing to the mix of ideological contradictions we manifest. Deception, for instance, involves a conflict between standards, but is a natural tool of Earthly organisms for sometimes achieving their interests.

At best, any reasoned-out plan for cataloging "what is" and plan of governance for "what we ought think and do" should be regarded as a defined boundary for what one should not stray too far from (into deeper waters from which one might not return); rather than robotically never venturing beyond or defying it to any degree whatsoever. Exceptions might be models of authority which must be strictly followed in job performance. But even there the consequences (punishments and rewards) of adhering so rigidly to the system can be unreliable (compromised by nepotism / individual and group favoritism, lobbying, intruding priority of personal obligations, intruding priority of company's welfare coming before that of facts and community, etc).

Last edited:
We must not base our intentions on either logic or emotion, as both are at odds and continue to fight a never ending battle with each other. What we must base all of our intentions on are not qualia or the past and our emotional conditionings, but rather on nothing.

IIIIIIII said:
(did you notice that if you say Arfa Brane out loud it sounds like Half a Brain ?)
Wow, really? And after all this time, I thought I was being clever.

Wow, really? And after all this time, I thought I was being clever.

Then maybe you fell as a Hero for our cause arf... or not (as a Hero)...

Last edited:
We must not base our intentions on either logic or emotion, as both are at odds and continue to fight a never ending battle with each other. What we must base all of our intentions on are not qualia or the past and our emotional conditionings, but rather on nothing.

Disagree, to your very last statement.

I realise that this thread is about humans and logic ; but what is missing is the ability to REASON.

Without Reason where does logic come from?

Without Reason where does logic come from?
It's the other way around. Logic is one of the tools used in reasoning.

It's the other way around. Logic is one of the tools used in reasoning.

How so ?

So you are saying that Reasoning is based on logic?

Explain

If humans were completely logical, we would have died out long ago!