How consistent are your beliefs?

farfromglorified

Laz wrote:

I am mistaken, nature isn't random, my apologies... that's why the single sperm that fertilized that one egg was the only spermatozoan released...

You think sperm is evidence that nature is random? I think you're accepting the term "random" as a rejection of the concept that nature is "predestined". Nature is neither random nor predestined. Nature simply exists and its form is altered over time based on its laws and the interactions of entities within it.

That single sperm fertilized that one egg because both had attributes that supported fertilization.

Did logic exist before Aritstotle?

Logic was born on whatever day man first understood himself, his surroundings, and the separation between them.

Laz

is nature a closed system?

farfromglorified

Laz wrote:

is nature a closed system?

Not necessarily.

Laz

hmmm

farfromglorified

Laz wrote:

hmmm

Welcome to the board.

Laz

farfromglorified wrote:

Welcome to the board.

lol, thx

spnoone

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets.

OutOfBreath

farfromglorified wrote:

(What is logic?) The process by which true is seperated from false.

and it would go on something like "based on given premises and axioms".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_logic

Of which that would be an example, surely.

For something to be logical, it must be consistent within a set of premises. These premises are not set in stone, and might give different logics if altered. An example from bookreading here. I like reading imaginative books in the sf/fantasy vein. The settings and worlds are often not logical according to our own true world, but the plot may develop logically, given the new premises of these worlds. So although the plot in itself would be illogical to our experienced standards, it may very well be logical according to it's own premises, for instance presence of timetravel, hyperspace, and above lightspeed engines. At least the really good fiction does that.

Logic does not equal truth, but is a way of reasoning by which one can determine the quality and truth/falsity of statements given that the set of premises that builds under the logic is true. A bit like math really, just with propositions.

Just thought I'd embellish, as your answer seemed a bit on the short side.

Peace
Dan

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Laz wrote:

Who said consistency was something to be achieved?

Nature.

I agree with what Laz is alluding to here: it is perfectly valid to look at life through the context wherein inconsistency is perfectly acceptable, and merely the state of "what is". Considering it is 100% natural and "what is" it is therefore 100% absolutely valid.

At the same time, I also agree with what farfromglorified is saying: That there is consistency all around us as well. We seem to move towards consistency.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Nature is neither random nor predestined. Nature simply exists and its form is altered over time based on its laws and the interactions of entities within it.

I believe nature is both random and predestined as well as being not random and predestined. And I agree with the rest that you said.

When one learns to comprehend infinity in action, one realises all that ever existed before us, exists all around us right now, and that all that ever will exist exists all around us in the now. While we choose with free will in the now, from a higher sense of awareness, one comes to understand that we're programmed/predestined for such choice--this including our ability to wake up to our programming. When we wake up, we need not be programmed, but we recognise that we are everything all at once and in order to be whole, we must align to that power far beyond our small-ego sense. Upon doing so, we recognise that there is a perfect order and a predestination beyond our individuality, and that predestination includes our individual choice in the moment.

baraka

OutOfBreath wrote:

Logic does not equal truth, but is a way of reasoning by which one can determine the quality and truth/falsity of statements given that the set of premises that builds under the logic is true. A bit like math really, just with propositions.

Peace
Dan

dan, this is an interesting supposition. Are you suggestion that 'Truth' can be illogical and paradoxical? (I'm playing devil's advocate, btw). I would love to hear you expound on this. ffg, would suggest that if something is illogical or paradoxical then its premise is faulty. I asked this question earlier (angelica had a great reponse) and I like to get your take on it. How important is it to be consistent in your beliefs and does lack of consistency show a misunderstanding of the 'Truth'?

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

dan, this is an interesting supposition. Are you suggestion that 'Truth' can be illogical and paradoxical? (I'm playing devil's advocate, btw). I would love to hear you expound on this.

Uh-oh

ffg, would suggest that if something is illogical or paradoxical then its premise is faulty.

Yes I would.

farfromglorified

OutOfBreath wrote:

and it would go on something like "based on given premises and axioms".


Of which that would be an example, surely.

For something to be logical, it must be consistent within a set of premises. These premises are not set in stone, and might give different logics if altered. An example from bookreading here. I like reading imaginative books in the sf/fantasy vein. The settings and worlds are often not logical according to our own true world, but the plot may develop logically, given the new premises of these worlds. So although the plot in itself would be illogical to our experienced standards, it may very well be logical according to it's own premises, for instance presence of timetravel, hyperspace, and above lightspeed engines. At least the really good fiction does that.

Logic does not equal truth, but is a way of reasoning by which one can determine the quality and truth/falsity of statements given that the set of premises that builds under the logic is true. A bit like math really, just with propositions.

Just thought I'd embellish, as your answer seemed a bit on the short side.

Peace
Dan

For something to be logical, it must certainly be "consistent within a set of premises". However, those premises must also be logical if one is interested in truth. What you're describing above is where the term "good fiction" comes from

angelica

Kenny Olav wrote:

Well, I took no direct hits but did bite two bullets. I was then awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction, which is undoubtedly the greatest honor ever bestowed upon me by a computer program/philosophy book advertisement.

I've been meaning to point out how funny I find this --not to mention very true! and dead on in representing the agenda beneath such "objective" tests.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes I would.

Just like that silly field of science called quantum physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

Just like that silly field of science called quantum physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference

Hey, people will believe anything:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

Hey, people will believe anything:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

No doubt! I know exactly what you mean!

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx

angelica

Somebody has done their homework!

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

No doubt! I know exactly what you mean!

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx

Now that's just a low blow

thankyougrandma

i stopped at the lock ness question...