NationStates Jolt Archive

This following statement would make Spock go insane...

It's a fact. Everything is illogical.

Everything we and everything else does, is illogical.

You see, almost everything we do is in an attempt to survive or to make our lives more comfortable, or to make others lives less comfortable. The third one is obviously illogical, and comes from psychopathy. The first and third come from our base desires. The want to survive? A base, primal, illogical desire. The want to be comfortable? A base, primal, illogical desire. So in truth, every single last thing we do is rooted in illogical desire. And it's the same with every other last organism, organic or innorganic. So everything we and everything else does, and therefore everything that results because of our actions is simply illogical.

So as a final statement: Everything is illogical.

Math is logical.

I'm sure there's a better way to refute that. At any rate, I don't think Spock would go insane, you'd at least have to attempt to logically prove your arguments before he'd listen to you.

Math is logical.

But why do we have math?

Curiosity.

And curiosity is just another basic, primal, illogical desire.

fact relies on logic. Your thesis disproves itself.

But why do we have math?

Curiosity.

And curiosity is just another basic, primal, illogical desire.
We didn't invent math. It's a fundamental part of the universe.

This following statement would make Spock go insane...

It's a fact. Everything is illogical.

Everything we and everything else does, is illogical.

You see, almost everything we do is in an attempt to survive or to make our lives more comfortable, or to make others lives less comfortable. The third one is obviously illogical, and comes from psychopathy. The first and third come from our base desires. The want to survive? A base, primal, illogical desire. The want to be comfortable? A base, primal, illogical desire. So in truth, every single last thing we do is rooted in illogical desire. And it's the same with every other last organism, organic or innorganic. So everything we and everything else does, and therefore everything that results because of our actions is simply illogical.

So as a final statement: Everything is illogical.

Are you high?

The human mind is irrational, fortunately it is very neatly contained and has nearly nothing to do with the rest of the Universe.

Well, logic, in its most fundamental sense, is reason, and most things have reasons (see causality), so, no, not everything is illogical.

We didn't invent math. It's a fundamental part of the universe.

But we exercise it. And therefore it becomes illogical.

We didn't invent math. It's a fundamental part of the universe.
Math is the language used to describe the Universe, but it is no more a "fundamental part" than the word "duck" is fundamental to a water-going avian known for its orange bill.

Well, yes, desires do not arise from rationality but the fact that we have these desires is a logical thing. Just imagine how an animal would do without such desires. If we weren't curious then we could never learn and adapt, if we never sought to survive we would never pass on our genetic code. Our irrationality is rational and we were not designed to be calculators so much as we were designed to survive.

But we exercise it. And therefore it becomes illogical.

something logical can't become illogical because of how it is used. 2+2=4, regardless of why we choose to apply it to our lives.

But why do we have math?

Curiosity.

And curiosity is just another basic, primal, illogical desire.
Doesn't make math itself illogical.

This following statement would make Spock go insane...

It's a fact. Everything is illogical.

Everything we and everything else does, is illogical.

You see, almost everything we do is in an attempt to survive or to make our lives more comfortable, or to make others lives less comfortable. The third one is obviously illogical, and comes from psychopathy. The first and third come from our base desires. The want to survive? A base, primal, illogical desire. The want to be comfortable? A base, primal, illogical desire. So in truth, every single last thing we do is rooted in illogical desire. And it's the same with every other last organism, organic or innorganic. So everything we and everything else does, and therefore everything that results because of our actions is simply illogical.

So as a final statement: Everything is illogical.

Your statement is illogical. Illogical properties mean that they do not work within the boundaries of regular logic, or what is accepted. Logic is the study of actions that work upon a structural, systematic formation. You broke it down, thereby making it logical.

Other than your existence, everything is perfectly fine and logical.

Your statement is illogical. Illogical properties mean that they do not work within the boundaries of regular logic, or what is accepted. Logic is the study of actions that work upon a structural, systematic formation. You broke it down, thereby making it logical.
To be fair, he did do an awful job of breaking it down and making it into a logical argument.

We didn't invent math. It's a fundamental part of the universe.

Yes and no. The concept of "Math" is a fundemental part of existance, as you put it. Humans, however, did invent ways to express math by using numbers and symbols.

So in truth, every single last thing we do is rooted in illogical desire. And it's the same with every other last organism, organic or innorganic. So everything we and everything else does, and therefore everything that results because of our actions is simply illogical.

does not follow

To be fair, he did do an awful job of breaking it down and making it into a logical argument.

There is such thing as bad logic. It's simply weak, but not illogical. Not to be confused with 'false logic'.

Also, despite working off of an illogically gained premise we can act logically within that context, therefore actions may be logical if we accept that the premises are not necessarily so. Take theology for example, a belief in God(gods) relies on faith and not logic, while theology works logically to find the nature of God(gods) within the premise that he(they) exist. Theology can be very logical despite being based in an assumption which might not be considered as such.

It is not contradicted by logic; it is simply not founded in logic.

There is a distinction.

And it's the same with every other last organism, organic or innorganic.

You're just caught bullshitting. There's a reason why organisms are organic.

Nailiitr, you remind me of her (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMvMzQ4Vu-8).

You're just caught bullshitting. There's a reason why organisms are organic.
If he just used his brain he'd see exactly why. :)

Everything I do is coated with a sticky layer of logic. :)

...*pause*

....wait, no. That's cream cheese. A natural mistake. :)

Nailiitr, you remind me of her (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMvMzQ4Vu-8).


If he just used his brain he'd see exactly why. :)

Alas, he did not.

How is the desire for a continued, comfortable, existence illogical?

Things are not illogical simply because they are rooted in base desires. In point of fact, some of the most logical things are based upon primal instinct. Conflict arises. If the opponent can be bested: Fight. If not: Flight. To do otherwise would be illogical, but the basic reaction of fight or flight is perfectly logical. To claim otherwise is illogical.

I think you have mistaken your own distorted world-view for actual reality.

Alas, he did not.
Methinks too much contemplation hath done him harm.

There's a reason why organisms are organic.

'cause on this planet they are built using carbon compounds, rather than silicon?

Everything I do is coated with a sticky layer of logic. :)

...*pause*

....wait, no. That's cream cheese. A natural mistake. :)

That's hilarious. Mind if I use that in my sig somewhere?

That's hilarious. Mind if I use that in my sig somewhere?

Feel free. :)

logic is overrated anyway.

Well, the problem is that this primarily falls in to the Cretan Liar paradox. If everything is illogical, than the statement "everything is illogical", which is founded on logic, is itself in question.

And, you also have another huge problem: are the concepts in mathematics and the physical laws of the universe dependent on human perception or do they exist independent of us? In other words, if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

And also, altruism does have some evolutionary backing; however not all of it can really be explained in reductionist evolutionary terms. I mean, kin selection can explain acting in that manner for friends or family but seems to fall apart in regard to complete strangers.

Math can be illogical. Imaginary and irrational numbers are examples.

The third postulate ("make others lives less comfortable") is also false, since it rarely applies when a persons family/friends/loved ones are concerned.

Generally the goal in this case is the opposite and can often be selfless in the pursuit of this.

So I instead propose that there is no such thing as "logic"

And also, altruism does have some evolutionary backing

That doesn't make it rational.

Math can be illogical. Imaginary and irrational numbers are examples.

The third postulate ("make others lives less comfortable") is also false, since it rarely applies when a persons family/friends/loved ones are concerned.

Generally the goal in this case is the opposite and can often be selfless in the pursuit of this

Imaginary are numbers that do not exist, but are substituted to make it easier to understand. Irrational numbers are simply numbers that cannot be changed within the parameters it exists.

That doesn't make it rational.

Well, it provides a partial explanation, possibly to better uncover the rationality behind it.

Of course, if we were speaking in terms of a natural moral law, we could argue that the logical and rational justification comes from that natural law, which is translated by us in to various actions depending on whether or not we decide to follow that law.

Well, it provides a partial explanation, possibly to better uncover the rationality behind it.

It tells us why it's there, but it doesn't provide a rational justification for it.

Indeed, it demonstrates an easy way for it to arrive without rationality - directly through natural selection.

Of course, if we were speaking in terms of a natural moral law, we could argue that the logical and rational justification comes from that natural law, which is translated by us in to various actions depending on whether or not we decide to follow that law.

How can a law be wholly based on reason?

It tells us why it's there, but it doesn't provide a rational justification for it.

Indeed, it demonstrates an easy way for it to arrive without rationality - directly through natural selection.

But isn't natural selection in itself a rational process, based entirely on the ability of individuals to survive and procreate? Fundamentally, all of these mechanisms can be justified in terms of the anthropic principle which means they do have a rational basis. The only problem is that the AP itself would not have a justification other than our own existence, which is an ex post facto explanation and really doesn't justify the entire process.

It's rational to a point, before which it stops.

How can a law be wholly based on reason?

Well, if it were possible for a law to be wholly logically justified including its axioms, the law would be fully based upon reason.

However, that would imply that there is a supreme logic that justifies all axioms and yet is justified by its very existence without some prior reasoning supporting it.

But isn't natural selection in itself a rational process, based entirely on the ability of individuals to survive and procreate?

What does that have to do with rationality?

Well, if it were possible for a law to be wholly logically justified including its axioms, the law would be fully based upon reason.

If its axioms were axioms of reason, they would not need to be justified rationally; that justification would be self-evident.

The problem is that a moral law is something that says a certain act is "good" (and makes it obligatory) or "bad" (and prohibits it), and neither good nor bad are qualities that can be assigned to things purely through reason.

Nalitir... I need to introduce you to my good friends Hume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume) and Berkeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley). You'd get along well, methinks.

Now me? I think everything is perfectly illogically logical.

1 is 2, 3 is 4, and (at least according to Xeno's Paradox) nothing moves. Ever.

So.... Me, I just assume that God is a sadist or a psychopath (or, alternatively, a sadistic psychopath).

What does that have to do with rationality?

Well, doesn't it provide an optimal process for the transmission and spread of the best genes through the most efficient method possible without external intervention?

Isn't a rational process is one that is logically sound? Natural selection has a logical basis (gene transmission/dissemination), and so it would seem to fit the concept of rationality in terms of logic.

If its axioms were axioms of reason, they would not need to be justified rationally; that justification would be self-evident.

That's true.

The problem is that a moral law is something that says a certain act is "good" (and makes it obligatory) or "bad" (and prohibits it), and neither good nor bad are qualities that can be assigned to things purely through reason.

Unless there were an objective standard to which good and bad could be compared.

Nalitir... I need to introduce you to my good friends Hume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume) and Berkeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley). You'd get along well, methinks.
Ugh, the Bishop of Cloyne... I have to write an essay on his subjective idealism for my philosophy class.

Well, doesn't it provide an optimal process for the transmission and spread of the best genes through the most efficient method possible without external intervention?

Yes, but "optimal" is inherently tied to a goal that is not rationally justified.

It may be "optimal" for the "trasmission and spread of the best genes" and so on, but why should we assume that that is the what it should be optimal for?

Isn't a rational process is one that is logically sound? Natural selection has a logical basis (gene transmission/dissemination), and so it would seem to fit the concept of rationality in terms of logic.

Its aim is not logically justified.

Unless there were an objective standard to which good and bad could be compared.

True. Where are they?

sniptastic

So as a final statement: Everything is illogical.

uhm... since "everything is illogical" we cannot rationally believe this argument.
So...

0_o

:confused:

This following statement would make Spock go insane...

It's a fact. Everything is illogical.

Everything we and everything else does, is illogical.

You see, almost everything we do is in an attempt to survive or to make our lives more comfortable, or to make others lives less comfortable. The third one is obviously illogical, and comes from psychopathy. The first and third come from our base desires. The want to survive? A base, primal, illogical desire. The want to be comfortable? A base, primal, illogical desire. So in truth, every single last thing we do is rooted in illogical desire. And it's the same with every other last organism, organic or innorganic. So everything we and everything else does, and therefore everything that results because of our actions is simply illogical.

So as a final statement: Everything is illogical.

Let's try not confuse the source of a thing with the thing itself. Are you your mother? Am I evolution? Is the building the same as its builders?

Really. You'll have to do much better than that.

Ugh, the Bishop of Cloyne... I have to write an essay on his subjective idealism for my philosophy class.

Or, alternatively, you could just tell your professor that God forgot to observe your paper and it dissappeared.

Or, alternatively, you could just tell your professor that God forgot to observe your paper and it dissappeared.
In which case I'd get a very real failing mark. :( Berkeley and his damn natural order of ideas...

I rather enjoyed his work, myself.

I rather enjoyed his work, myself.
Indeed, so did I. Moreso than I enjoyed what little I read of Locke anyway. Out of the philosophers we've gone through so far I like Descartes best though.

Are you high?

I re-posit this query.

This following statement would make Spock go insane...

It's a fact. Everything is illogical.

Everything we and everything else does, is illogical.

You see, almost everything we do is in an attempt to survive or to make our lives more comfortable, or to make others lives less comfortable. The third one is obviously illogical, and comes from psychopathy. The first and third come from our base desires. The want to survive? A base, primal, illogical desire. The want to be comfortable? A base, primal, illogical desire. So in truth, every single last thing we do is rooted in illogical desire. And it's the same with every other last organism, organic or innorganic. So everything we and everything else does, and therefore everything that results because of our actions is simply illogical.

So as a final statement: Everything is illogical.
this is incorrect, to me everything is illogical.

Yes, but "optimal" is inherently tied to a goal that is not rationally justified.

[QUOTE]It may be "optimal" for the "trasmission and spread of the best genes" and so on, but why should we assume that that is the what it should be optimal for?

Quite frankly, we aren't. Our sole knowledge is that the process did occur, and that it was structured according to optimization of gene transmission, but that is not proof that it is necessarily in its optimal state. Our ex post facto observations and contemporary predictions show that the mechanism does produce the ends predicted by our current theory of natural selection, but that says nothing of whether or not that is the truly optimal state.

I imagine it is similar in some ways to making economic predictions using past data and based on a particular economic theory; prior observations confirm the market mechanism works and testing the methods can produce the desired results, but there is no guarantee that such a system is in its optimal state. It may be that a new explanation comes along that can better explain and optimize the system; however, this example also has problems because economics is not as exact or objective a science as evolutionary biology.

Its optimal state may be something entirely different and gene transmission is the mechanism it has been forced to use in order to achieve whatever ends the process is moving towards. Needless to say, it would turn the entire debate upside down if we were to find that the purpose of natural selection were not solely for gene transmission but rather the emergence of sapience in organisms, and the ramifications of such a discovery would single-handedly alter both the philosophy of science as well as instantaneously revive the concept of natural theology and give theistic evolution a huge boost in feasibility.

Its aim is not logically justified.

Do we necessarily know that for sure? Our knowledge of evolution and the processes that drive it is still limited and developing as information comes in, so I would wait until we have a clearer understanding of the process before labeling its aim in terms of logic.

True. Where are they?

I don't know. Perhaps either we are not looking at things at the proper scale or timeframe. Objective morality may only exist on a very large scale, with individual actions occurring in a much less structured and less deterministic method than the development of society or our species as a whole. Perhaps things like the apparent lack of objective morality or meaning is a failure more of our own observational faculties than any actual lack of the two.

Again, it may be free will within an objective macro-deterministic structure as we were discussing in another thread.

Bump just in case Soheran is on.

Indeed, so did I. Moreso than I enjoyed what little I read of Locke anyway. Out of the philosophers we've gone through so far I like Descartes best though.

Ah, Descartes. The Meditations were quite interesting.

Ah, Descartes. The Meditations were quite interesting.

...but fundamentally flawed. He should have called it a day with 'there is thought', after that it all goes to pot. His whole cogito malarky was just a rehash of early Christian philosophy, and fell for the very same traps his predecessors had.

...to say nothing of the rather dubious status of his whole 'clear and distinct' epistemology.

...to say nothing of the rather dubious status of his whole 'clear and distinct' epistemology.

dubious maybe, but damned convenient. and really, isn't that what matters?

dubious maybe, but damned convenient. and really, isn't that what matters?

The problem I always had in epistemology lectures was that I kept ong etting hung up on the truth (or, if you prefer THE TRUTH!!!), and lost interest in the whole internalist/externalist/whatever yadda yadda.

The problem I always had in epistemology lectures was that I kept ong etting hung up on the truth (or, if you prefer THE TRUTH!!!), and lost interest in the whole internalist/externalist/whatever yadda yadda.

I find the internalist and externalist notions of epistemic justification fascinating, personally, though both seem to have their disadvantages, and neither is particularly satisfying to me. I recently wrote a paper on that very subject.

...but fundamentally flawed. He should have called it a day with 'there is thought', after that it all goes to pot. His whole cogito malarky was just a rehash of early Christian philosophy, and fell for the very same traps his predecessors had.

...to say nothing of the rather dubious status of his whole 'clear and distinct' epistemology.

Indeed. It was a nice attempt at establishing a foundation for knowledge, but sadly riddled with holes. Perhaps we could call it holy?

I plan on taking a course on epistemology and methodology next year in addition to my Economics courses. I think it's complex enough to merit me giving it that much effort. From little I've read so far, the dichotomy between a priori and a posteriori is seeming more untenable. Neither is useful to the exclusion of the other as a form of epistemology.

Are you high?

No, he's 14.

No, he's 14.
And oh so very emo.

And oh so very emo.

*nods*

Hmm.. are emos logical?

*nods*

Hmm.. are emos logical?
How can a being that practises self-mutilation possibly be logical? :eek:

*nods*

Hmm.. are emos logical?

On occasion. They are generally capable of logical thought.

...but fundamentally flawed. He should have called it a day with 'there is thought', after that it all goes to pot. His whole cogito malarky was just a rehash of early Christian philosophy, and fell for the very same traps his predecessors had.

...to say nothing of the rather dubious status of his whole 'clear and distinct' epistemology.
I liked his writing style in general. He's a very engaging author. The idea of the "malin genie" was also quite a treat. Locke bored me, by comparison.

Quite frankly, we aren't. Our sole knowledge is that the process did occur, and that it was structured according to optimization of gene transmission, but that is not proof that it is necessarily in its optimal state. Our ex post facto observations and contemporary predictions show that the mechanism does produce the ends predicted by our current theory of natural selection, but that says nothing of whether or not that is the truly optimal state.

But natural selection does give us the idea that over time, we move towards the optimal state, as far as gene transmission.

Optimality is fundamentally relative; something is optimal with regard to a given objective.

Its optimal state may be something entirely different and gene transmission is the mechanism it has been forced to use in order to achieve whatever ends the process is moving towards. Needless to say, it would turn the entire debate upside down if we were to find that the purpose of natural selection were not solely for gene transmission but rather the emergence of sapience in organisms, and the ramifications of such a discovery would single-handedly alter both the philosophy of science as well as instantaneously revive the concept of natural theology and give theistic evolution a huge boost in feasibility.

That is true, but it still doesn't explain whether this tendency can be rationally founded.

The process may be optimizing human beings for a given set of ends, and insofar as its optimization it may be perfectly rational (that is, it uses the most efficient means for the ends), but the ends themselves are not rationally founded. (What kind of rational foundation would exist for an end, anyway?)

This seems to be what Naalitr was getting at, and while he confused acting contrary to reason with acting (partially) independently of reason, his general point is accurate.

Do we necessarily know that for sure? Our knowledge of evolution and the processes that drive it is still limited and developing as information comes in, so I would wait until we have a clearer understanding of the process before labeling its aim in terms of logic.

All aims are not rationally justified. In order to have an aim we must value something, and I cannot show, using reason alone, that something is valuable. I can use a pre-existing value, add reason, and justify another value, but I cannot come to value purely with reason.

I don't know. Perhaps either we are not looking at things at the proper scale or timeframe. Objective morality may only exist on a very large scale, with individual actions occurring in a much less structured and less deterministic method than the development of society or our species as a whole. Perhaps things like the apparent lack of objective morality or meaning is a failure more of our own observational faculties than any actual lack of the two.

If I cannot know objective morality, it cannot be binding on me, because I have no reason to follow it for its own sake; as a morality (as opposed to what punishments I may earn by violating it) it is irrelevant to me, and is thus not truly objective.

Again, it may be free will within an objective macro-deterministic structure as we were discussing in another thread.

Yes, but I still don't see how this leads us to an objective morality.

How can a being that practises self-mutilation possibly be logical? :eek:
:eek:

*ponders*
On occasion. They are generally capable of logical thought.

It's rare, yes?

:eek:

*ponders*
Don't overdo it, you might hurt yourself. As I said with Nailiitr, methinks too much thinking hath done thee harm. :D

Don't overdo it, you might hurt yourself. As I said with Nailiitr, methinks too much thinking hath done thee harm. :D

Oh, don't worry, I know my limits! :p

*nods*

Hmm.. are emos logical?

Emos, like all human beings, are driven by the same innate drives and desires as everyone else. They lust, hunger, seek attention, and desire self-actualization. Like all other humans, so long as logic does not stand in the way of attaining those goals, they have no problem using it. If it stands in the way they drop it like a two-bit whore.

Emos, like all human beings, are driven by the same innate drives and desires as everyone else. They lust, hunger, seek attention, and desire self-actualization. Like all other humans, so long as logic does not stand in the way of attaining those goals, they have no problem using it. If it stands in the way they drop it like a two-bit whore.

Is it really as common to drop two-bit whores as it is to ignore logic when convenient? I see the latter happening far more often.

Oh, don't worry, I know my limits! :p
I'm sure I could push you past them. <.<