Thread: Pure Logic

I myself has always thought that balance is the most important thing here in life - never too much, never too little.

Would a life controlled by logic be pointless?

Discuss!

EDIT: Topic changed...

too much of anything is bad

Originally Posted by marnixR

too much of anything is bad

Agreed.

What would happen if you were too rational? Is it even possible to be too rational?

Would a rational person care about social matters? What would rationality ultimately lead to? (Desperately trying to keep this topic going)

not all problems in life can be solved through purely rational means

Originally Posted by marnixR

not all problems in life can be solved through purely rational means

How come?

Define rationality?

Given a situation where you have a choice of actions, is it rational to choose the action that benefits yourself, or that benefits your family, or that benefits the community at large, even if it harms you? You can follow the logic of cause and effect, but knowing the outcomes of different choices doesn't automatically tell you which choice is the rational one.

Argh, this topic was a miss

logic and rationality are different things. To put it simply, I like to think of rationality as a blend of your subjective emotions and objective logic. While pure logic is just that. Logic.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

logic and rationality are different things. To put it simply, I like to think of rationality as a blend of your subjective emotions and objective logic. While pure logic is just that. Logic.

In that case I'll change this topic. How would a life run purely by logic be?

It wouldn't. The pure logic is, that humans as a species are detrimental to the planets survival (and the universe in general). Therefore, the prompt course of action would be total mass suicide of the species.

Alternatively, if we were "run" by logic alone without emotions from the "start" (an evolutionary impossibility), we'd probably rank somewhere between the gods and demons. Logic may be objective, but it can definitely be cruel.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

It wouldn't. The pure logic is, that humans as a species are detrimental to the planets survival (and the universe in general). Therefore, the prompt course of action would be total mass suicide of the species.

Alternatively, if we were "run" by logic alone without emotions (an evolutionary impossibility), we'd probably rank somewhere between the gods and demons. Logic may be objective, but it can definitely be cruel.

As you point out, logic can provide neither motivation, nor moral judgement. Ergo, the notion of Mr Spock or a Vulcan, is incoherent (although I suppose Trekkies will point out that Vulcans have emotions but have learned to 'control' them...)

If humans were ruled by pure logic, then motivation would simply come from a wide array of logical conclusions. Why do nothing, when it's more productive to do something?

I did not point out that it can't provide motivation. Merely, that it can't be moral as we define morality. Yet, logically, morality is nothing but subjective emotional tripe. Heh. Aren't we lucky there's nobody running on logic alone.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

If humans were ruled by pure logic, then motivation would simply come from a wide array of logical conclusions. Why do nothing, when it's more productive to do something?

Because 'productive' is a value judgement too - something that logic cannot give us. No?

My understanding is that logic can clarify issues, but not create or resolve them - those matters are down to emotions and all the other messy things that go into making us up...

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Because 'productive' is a value judgement too - something that logic cannot give us. No?

Um. No? Productivity is a purely logical variable. I fail to see any emotion or other factor with it. Reasons for being productive can be logical instead of emotional as well.

My understanding is that logic can clarify issues, but not create or resolve them - those matters are down to emotions and all the other messy things that go into making us up...

Uh. What? I fail to see how the creation of problems, or resolution, is an emotional problem. Logic is used to create, clarify, or solve various problems. Also other applications such as estimation and prediction.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Uh. What? I fail to see how the creation of problems, or resolution, is an emotional problem. Logic is used to create, clarify, or solve various problems. Also other applications such as estimation and prediction.

I think using logic within an already established set of rules is of course without emotion. However, if you want to get really technical and get down to the very bottom of things, why those rules are established, why we want to solve certain problems and achieve certain goals - the answers are ultimately subjective.

For example. You're trying to design a car that can achieve more miles to the gallon. Why? Consumers want it that way. Why? Because it's good for the planet and cheaper to fuel. Why do we care about what's good for the planet? Because we want to keep it an enjoyable, livable place for us human beings. Why? Well - because we want to live, and live enjoyably if we can. Can pure logic justify why a living thing wants to stay alive? Within the problem of designing the car, pure logic will do the job. But go beyond that as to why we're trying to solve this problem in the first place, and I don't think pure logic can stand up anymore. That's my thinking, anyhow.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

It wouldn't. The pure logic is, that humans as a species are detrimental to the planets survival (and the universe in general). Therefore, the prompt course of action would be total mass suicide of the species.

I don't get it. Why would the mass suicide of the human species even pop into your head in response to a question about logic?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

It wouldn't. The pure logic is, that humans as a species are detrimental to the planets survival (and the universe in general). Therefore, the prompt course of action would be total mass suicide of the species.

I don't get it. Why would the mass suicide of the human species even pop into your head in response to a question about logic?

Why not?

Jeremy

What Paralith said. Them's the points I was trying to make, anyway: logic can offer no telos.

cheer

shanks

I fully understand the points trying to be conveyed. But in my response, I started a train of thought that ended with speculation and unanswerable existential questions.

Lets just say I think too deeply into this subject to reply coherently.

Emotion is fundamentally important. Without emotion you could achieve little or nothing. Pure logic would lead you to endless assumptions of ''it cannot be done'' whereas emotion provides an unending motivation even against all odds. Do you think logic is what drove Thomas Edison to testing the thousands of different metals in making a lightbulb or do you think his emotion to create something truly revolutionary was the cause?

If you want to know what pure logic is, you're sitting in front of it. Your computer is pure logic.

Barry

LOGIC is the MODUS OPERANDI of our homeostasis as a SPECIES.

The ULTIMATE "modus operandi" would "cleave" to the flow our space-time enviroment, as though we are one with it, as though it is not chewing us up and spitting us out into a thousand pieces.

Now, to "cleave", as I put it, to space-time, ideally we OBSERVE space-time for what it is, to work with it, to USE IT to our survival advantage.

This is our quest, as scientists, namely to find the ultimate LOGIC of space-time..................ONE that is symbiotic with our thought process, our perception modus operandi, one would think.

But then again, maybe we hate life, and more especially, one another.

Originally Posted by Obviously

I myself has always thought that balance is the most important thing here in life - never too much, never too little.

Would a life controlled by logic be pointless?

Discuss!

EDIT: Topic changed...

I'll ask my washing machine next time I'm in the kitchen

Originally Posted by Megabrain

I'll ask my washing machine next time I'm in the kitchen

My question wasn't very well thought through it seems

This is what animals and humans are normally born with. Everything we do is logical, but our target, is almost always survival. The target priority can vary from survival to 'for the greater good' which are controlled by emotions. (forinstance the love from a mother to her child) They also can be changed by drugs, mental disturbance (and other things).


[things you do, can influence ect.]=survival of child
[things you do, can influence ect.]=survival
ect.

Jeremy mentioned that it is evolutionary impossible that creatures with no emotion exist. I think you forget our computers.

The question is: Would a life controlled by logic be pointless?

In my opinion if everyone lived a life based on logic then we, as a race, would survive but we would not live. It is those that operate on the extreme edges outside logic that make life interesting.

Penicillin was NOT discovered using logic, Mendelev however using logic predicted the existence of unknown elements and details of their atomic structure which were subsequently discovered.

I do not know the ratio of serendipitous to logical discoveries but I'll warrant it's the absolute disregard of logic that has been reponsible for man crawling out of the trees.

Why should a species change or mutate if it is successful and therefore risk a chance that such a mutation could be detrimental to the species, my belief therefore is that evolution is (at least in some ways) illogical.

"If women were logical, men would never succees in having affairs" - anon. (I wonder why this quote is anonymous...).

I believe we need both as the previous poster also indicated..

Its impossible to be completely objective at all times, in terms of your actions. I think that it is possible to be purely objective in yourself, though.
Since we all reside on a plane of living governed by irrationality and subjectivity, being completely objective would likely lead to your demise. Within your mind though, its a matter of defeating the infinite digression that you go through (This "fact" is correct because I know 1, I know one because I know 2, I know 2 because I know 3, etc...). I have actually defeated some minor infinite digressions before through an almost mathematical method; If I were to use a similar method for for this I.D., then I could formulate a key to solve it, and potentially become purely objective. I don't think that will happen for a while though.