Thought I might toss it up with a perspective more rooted in phenomenology.
As for the original statement that logic is inherent and "god-given" in some way, I don't really agree. I posit that logic is in it's nature man-made, as a schematic man forces the world through to make sense of it. Our brains seem to be pre-disposed to find order, just try a Rorscach (sp?) test or anything similar. In other words, if there aren't order, we'll create it. If things aren't logical, we will invent a logic that fits. That's how we tick, after all.
That we end up with a similar logic in groups (but not all similar, as a quick check across cultures will show) is not the same as that logic being hard-wired into us or having a natural objective state that we can access.
Scientific logic as we know it today, is a paradigm that has dominated for a while, and to such a degree that it's premises have been internalized by it's institutions. (That's what a paradigm is after all) Its way of seeing the world exclusively through testable theses and what we can in certain ways confirm has brought us much. It is still just one possible perspective of many, and it's scope in what it can know anything about is limited to these things (observable and testable). This works well for some purposes, pertaining to the visible physical world. How to make a car work, determine whether something is strong enough, will fall and so on. This works little when it comes to constructing meaning, however. Humans need meaning, as much as we need order and logic. They actually all interweave into a whole for most of us. Meaning has usually been constructed and maintained through religion and philosophy. But trying to create meaning using hard science, is about as useful as fixing your car with metaphysical concepts.
But my point is that logic in itself is a human thing, or man-made if you will. "Tabula rasa" would certainly warrant a man-made logic, as that theory demands a man-made evrything through experiences.
Peace
Dan
i love this post.
i've read this thread as it progressed, and really had nothing to add. logic to me is man-made...and how can we know truly one way or another in any case? i think many things are simply beyond our human scope to be able to disseminate. and as much as we DO know...so much esle from that, based in educated theory...and many more based heavily on simply opinion. many, many ideas/issues....opinions and ideas....and at this point in time anyway, there is no right and wrong in it....just differeing perspectives. and as much as we do figure out and continue to do...i still think so much will still be theory/opinions.
as an aside, does anyone else get the feeling that anhimus and gue_barium are one in the same, havbing a conversation with himself? just a thought i've had reading a few threads/posts recently. wouldn't be the first time for that, haha, one thing i have definitely learned here...not much is surprising or unique in board behavior.
I don't think this is a matter of opinion. The evidence that logic is innate is overwhelming. I'd say undeniable. But some of you still insist it's something we've conjured up. Maybe you haven't looked at any evidence?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I had two very unusual, creepy and nerve-shaking spiritual experiences in my adult life, which convinced me beyond a doubt there's something other than this life. These had nothing to do with religion or god.
I really don't want to see another thread where you're whining and crying about how you have been mistreated and insulted.
If I do, I'll be the one "LMFAO" and FEDEXing you a teething-ring, a box of diapers and a pacifier.
Learning from past mistakes not really your strong point, eh.
ROTFLMAO!
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"ROTFLMAO" is the last outpost for the desperate Man who has no rebuttal to an intelligent post.
Also- its very circa 2003.
_______________________
Now that you've been broken down
Got your head out of the clouds
You're back down on the ground
And you don't talk so loud
And you don't walk so proud, Anymore..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dont ya know love can start an inferno?
Set a place on fire and youre the one they blame.
"ROTFLMAO" is the last outpost for the desperate Man who has no rebuttal to an intelligent post.
Also- its very circa 2003.
No, it's just a response to something that doesn't really deserve a response. It's like saying, your so dense you won't budge, so all I can do is laugh.
"Causality Inference Machine"
Ursula Goodenough has spent 30+ years studying child cognition and that is how she describes children. From birth, all a child has is the ability to collect and store information logically. They understand quickly how objects interact with each other, using of course, logic. There is no other word to which this ability can be ascribed.
ROTFLMFAO is to say that obviously NMytree doesn't know his stuff. I think I'll take Ursula's word over NMytree.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
No, it's just a response to something that doesn't really deserve a response. It's like saying, your so dense you won't budge, so all I can do is laugh.
"Causality Inference Machine"
Ursula Goodenough has spent 30+ years studying child cognition and that is how she describes children. From birth, all a child has is the ability to collect and store information logically. They understand quickly how objects interact with each other, using of course, logic. There is no other word to which this ability can be ascribed.
ROTFLMFAO is to say that obviously NMytree doesn't know his stuff. I think I'll take Ursula's word over NMytree.
Uh..."instinct"?
You see, your argument uses a lot of big words and theories which could distract a truly non- thinking person.
All animals have some form of logic and instict, Human and otherwise. The difference with Humans is we simply have 'reasoning ability'. Thus- we are set apart from all other Animal life on this planet.
Here is the catch for a logical Creationist as I try to think of myself (my faith in the Bible isnt rooted in emotionalism) ok- we were created perfect, but even in the perfect state of the First Humans they had 'free will'. God would have created Robots if he was interested in mindless drones. This Free Will is the crux of all Humanity. It is what makes us fully rounded, multidimensional beings. It can be used for Good or evil and we pay the price for those descisions.
From my studies...God gave us these Amazing Minds but the interesting thing is its who someone is at a HEART level that truly interests him, and ultimately what he judges us by.
_______________________
Now that you've been broken down
Got your head out of the clouds
You're back down on the ground
And you don't talk so loud
And you don't walk so proud, Anymore..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dont ya know love can start an inferno?
Set a place on fire and youre the one they blame.
You see, your argument uses a lot of big words and theories which could distract a truly non- thinking person.
All animals have some form of logic and instict, Human and otherwise. The difference with Humans is we simply have 'reasoning ability'. Thus- we are set apart from all other Animal life on this planet.
Here is the catch for a logical Creationist as I try to think of myself (my faith in the Bible isnt rooted in emotionalism) ok- we were created perfect, but even in the perfect state of the First Humans they had 'free will'. God would have created Robots if he was interested in mindless drones. This Free Will is the crux of all Humanity. It is what makes us fully rounded, multidimensional beings. It can be used for Good or evil and we pay the price for those descisions.
From my studies...God gave us these Amazing Minds but the interesting thing is its who someone is at a HEART level that truly interests him, and ultimately what he judges us by.
Oh I see.
Well, I can't discuss it with you, firstly because you are following a path of belief with no branches. Your system of belief is undeniable because it relies completely on faith and not objectivity.
There is no evidence of Free-will and there is no evidence of God. So all of that is just a far-fetched matter of faith.
If anyone here wants to talk real science and drop all the mysticism and metaphysical nonsense for a change. I'm open. If not, then the discussion is a stalemate.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I mean, I can't see how you can deny Logic from either side, but the interpretation of religion is so vague and unreliable. It's just not worth discussing. A billion people reading the same Bible and not 2 can agree on it's entirety. Just makes me sad.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't think this is a matter of opinion. The evidence that logic is innate is overwhelming. I'd say undeniable. But some of you still insist it's something we've conjured up. Maybe you haven't looked at any evidence?
Well, from what perspective and what references do you build the undeniable evidence on? Where is this undeniable evidence? And is there really nothing that goes against it or suggests other possible answers? Perhaps not after your perspective and opinion, but then please tell us.
Some theorize that we have some innate traits of some kind, while others "tabula rasa" claims it is all added afterwards through experiences. You also seem to mix up these two. "Tabula rasa" is the exact opposite of inherent ability. About this, from what I remember in psychology class, there are no consensus, and multiple theories and perspectives are sported around. There are some evidence to support both/multiple sides in that argument.
And my point is also about logic not necessarily being Truth with a big T. Logic is the way we think. We have no guarantee of it's objectiveness outside our culture and tradition. That's phenomenology for you. Things we in our culture regard as "logical" may not be so outside of it. What inferences are logical, is decided and influenced by our tradition, culture, values and norms.
1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2. 1. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
2. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
3. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
4. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
5. Computer circuitry.
6. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
5. Computer Science
1. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
2. Computer circuitry.
3. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.
It might be helpful if you defined more closely what you mean by logic, which can be a bit of a fuzzy term. I use it as the definion outlined, as a system of reasoning.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Main Entry: log·ic
Pronunciation: 'lä-jik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at LEGEND
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>
- lo·gi·cian /lO-'ji-sh&n/ noun
Without that abilitly we could not learn.
Now, I've posted the lecture series "Brain, Mind, Consciousness" about a gazillion times and I'm guessing no one has watched it, because all this was covered in it, with explanations of the experiments and the results proving beyond a doubt that children are highly logical beings.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, I can't discuss it with you, firstly because you are following a path of belief with no branches. Your system of belief is undeniable because it relies completely on faith and not objectivity.
There is no evidence of Free-will and there is no evidence of God. So all of that is just a far-fetched matter of faith.
If anyone here wants to talk real science and drop all the mysticism and metaphysical nonsense for a change. I'm open. If not, then the discussion is a stalemate.
I agree that some creationists are idiots and blind in their emotionalism toward the bible, so miss the main point of it- though I think you are a bit big for your britches.
The idea of faith and logic/science being incompatible is very old fashioned. Youre the very person who 50 years ago denied that their is the Mind/Body connection that scientists have come to realize is THE defining connection in the human body and our overall health.
anyway, as per science and the bible not being compatible-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Humans have long noted that the rivers flow into the seas and oceans and yet these do not increase in depth. Some believed, until it was learned that the earth is spherical, that this was because an equal amount of water was spilling off the ends of the earth. Later it was learned that the sun “pumps” up thousands of millions of gallons of water from the seas every second in the form of water vapor. This produces clouds that are moved by the wind over land areas where the moisture falls as rain and snow. Water then runs into the rivers and flows again into the seas. This marvelous cycle, although generally unknown in ancient times, is spoken about in the Bible: “Every river flows into the sea, but the sea is not yet full. The water returns to where the rivers began, and starts all over again.”—Ecclesiastes 1:7, Today’s English Version.
Regarding the origin of the universe, the Bible states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) But many scientists had considered this unscientific, asserting that the universe had no beginning. However, pointing to newer information, astronomer Robert Jastrow explains: “The essence of the strange developments is that the Universe had, in some sense, a beginning—that it began at a certain moment in time.” Jastrow here refers to the now commonly accepted big bang theory, as noted in Chapter 9. He adds: “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same.”
What has been the reaction to such discoveries? “Astronomers are curiously upset,” Jastrow writes. “Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind—supposedly a very objective mind—when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.” But the fact remains that while “evidence uncovered by science” disagreed with what scientists long believed regarding the origin of the universe, it confirmed what was written in the Bible millenniums ago.
~~~~~
(Ahnimus- the proof that the bible is a book rooted in science, logic and yes- Faith and that these 3 things can co-exist is overwhelming, even Darwin had to Admit this, as Im sure you know. The problem with people like you is you think you are too smart to accept the Bible as logic- when in reality- its not intellect, its stubborness and a need to be an "independent thinker" who would never conceive of believing something as old fashioned as Creationism.
A little known fact is that the Bible foretold that Men would become disgusted with Religion, because evil people use it for dishonest gain- so its OK to feel that way, but not to deny its accuracy.)
_______________________
Now that you've been broken down
Got your head out of the clouds
You're back down on the ground
And you don't talk so loud
And you don't walk so proud, Anymore..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dont ya know love can start an inferno?
Set a place on fire and youre the one they blame.
You are right, I really don't care what the bible says. The bible and religion has very little value to us in modern times, it's really just an ancient account of what people had learned. The bible was right about some things and wrong about others, so I don't see at as this grand explanation of all reality. It's mostly wrong.
When metaphysics starts trying to make somewhat concrete assertions, such as "we are all part of the same consciousness", then it begins to enter the territory of science (and linguistics... but I'll ignore that here). So the problem arises that science provides no evidence for or against such things... and indeed, we don't even yet understand a single individual's consciousness - so how are we to even begin to ascertain a universal consciousness, for which there isn't even any evidence?
So typically, with metaphysics, people begin yapping about things that sound intuitively graspable, but for which they haven't a clue about. So until you have an extremely in-depth understanding of physics and science in general, there's really no point wasting your time dabbling in metaphysics, because you could just as easily have ALL of your assumptions be incorrect... if you don't have a scientific grounding, then your metaphysics is nothing more than subjective philosophy... totally useless, in my opinion.
The other area where metaphysics takes footing, is in the formulation of questions - it provides a framework for posing questions that science cannot yet answer, but for which there is a potential for science to address. For example - metaphysics can be used to develop a framework for how one might begin to understand the fundamental nature of reality... but this form of metaphysics can in no way answer the question... it can only frame the question.
I have a great deal more sympathy for this latter form of metaphysics... and I even believe it is necessary, to a degree... as it allows one to dabble in the mysteriousness of reality, without abandoning it altogether. This form of metaphysics is like rolling out the red carpet for science... providing some subjective insights for science to follow, but without doing any science itself.
The former version of metaphysics actually presupposes that humans already have the capability to abstractly and accurately represent reality within their minds alone. In other words... it claims there are qualities of reality that can be discovered independant of science. I believe that this is an unfounded assumption. It may even be that we do possess such a capability - but we are wrong to assume we do.
For example - we have evolved from creatures of whom almost certainly did not have the capability to understand the fundamental nature of reality. So are we so narcissistic to believe that we are necessarily the "end product" of evolution, that suddenly has the capability to understand the fundamental nature of reality? May we do... maybe our minds have reached or surpassed a threshold of abstract thought that allows to comprehend such things... but maybe we don't, and maybe our minds are simply still incapable. We cannot say either way... until we are to have a complete and fulfilling explanation of such things... and since we don't, the only logical alternative is to apply BOTH metaphysics AND science, in our course of trying to understand. If we were to discard science, and make the claim that metaphysics was all we needed... we would be making a fatally wrong assumption. By the same token... science, without the foray into metaphysics, ignores the fact that we are subjective beings, and our comprehension of reality is contingent on the WAY we actually think.
Is this making sense to you? The gist is that metaphysics should only be used to frame question for reality... but science (both practical and theoretical) should be the tool we use to answer those questions. In my opinion, both tools are necessary to advance our understanding of reality... and further, I believe that this is the only reasonable usage thereof. http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=5173&sid=c8ffc86d488a892c2e842ba8691c81ba
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Believer wrote:
Science itself is based upon an unprovable assumption that reality is an objective thing. Subjective realiy is a more likely theory about reality.
Are you kidding me? The evidence for evolution ALONE is enough reason discard the belief in a purely subjective reality. The fact that so much of reality had to exist and culminate independantly of consciousness, before consciousness could ever come to being (according to our observed experience) tells us that that we are subordinate to the objective reality.
If the subjective reality was true, then why do we even need physical bodies that are grounded by, and subject to, laws which can be virtually, if not entirely, defined mathematically? Why does none of our experience even momentarily step outside of these physical laws?
We have no evidence of consciousness existing independantly of the corporeal forms... and what's more, evolution gives us a great deal of evidence that this is nonsense.
What is more likely? A simple mathematical relationship? Or a fully-formed intelligence? Can an intelligence exist independantly of its physical reality? If so, what are its properties?
To me, the VASTLY more likely scenario is that the universe is simply a mathematical entity, existing by virtue of the elemental relationships defined by even the most basic logical properties.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You are right, I really don't care what the bible says. The bible and religion has very little value to us in modern times, it's really just an ancient account of what people had learned. The bible was right about some things and wrong about others, so I don't see at as this grand explanation of all reality. It's mostly wrong.
This guy explains things quite well.
So you are as inpenetratable as you accuse someone like me of being.
The diff. with us, is- I will read what you have to say, ponder it- then either discard it as crap or make it my own.
_______________________
Now that you've been broken down
Got your head out of the clouds
You're back down on the ground
And you don't talk so loud
And you don't walk so proud, Anymore..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dont ya know love can start an inferno?
Set a place on fire and youre the one they blame.
So you are as inpenetratable as you accuse someone like me of being.
The diff. with us, is- I will read what you have to say, ponder it- then either discard it as crap or make it my own.
I read all of what you wrote, even though I honestly didn't find it that interesting. Then I discarded it as crap. So there isn't really any difference. Except I believe in provable things, I have no faith, I don't need it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Main Entry: log·ic
Pronunciation: 'lä-jik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at LEGEND
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>
- lo·gi·cian /lO-'ji-sh&n/ noun
Without that abilitly we could not learn.
Now, I've posted the lecture series "Brain, Mind, Consciousness" about a gazillion times and I'm guessing no one has watched it, because all this was covered in it, with explanations of the experiments and the results proving beyond a doubt that children are highly logical beings.
Good. Now if you combine the meanings we like to use the most, you get a system of reasoning that deals with criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. Emphasis on "a" system and "criteria" here. This does not equal science, nor does science equal this. But science as practiced is a such system.
And serisouly, dont be surprised if people on a message board wont necessarily just watch hours and hours of video lectures on a subject to view it your way. I do not doubt that you have found some people who stand at one side of the issues and present their case. Maybe even convincingly for all I know. But you can't with that sole and only reference present that view as undeniable fact that is accepted by all, when it isn't.
Find me a written piece that sums it up, and I may read it. Economy of time is a serious issue on boards like this. Not because I'm not at all interested, because I am, but what you consistently propose people to do is enormously time-consuming and may be viewed as a mere intimidation tactic, as you know noone will call you out on it. I'm not saying it is, just saying how it can be viewed. By all means, link me evidence and pieces supporting your view, that can be read in a timely fashion in a reasonable amount of time. Then I can judge their merit. But having an argument where you basically say: "It's all here in this long movie, and I will argue as if it is the entire and complete truth, and assume if you haven't seen it, you are ignorant and un-enlightened" won't get us very far.
Again, if the consensus and interpretation that you claim is so widespread and matter-of-factly, then getting me some other sources than those videos must surely be possible.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
To be honest with you Dan, I got the name wrong Ursula was a biologist. I'm going to have to watch that video for the 4th time to find out what the woman's name was, and then I'll try to find some soundbytes for you. But to fully understand it, you really need to absorb a lot more, the video is good at it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I started a similar thread over at Skeptics.com and pretty much no one disagrees with me. Even though I'm kind of playing the devil's advocate on the topic.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I read all of what you wrote, even though I honestly didn't find it that interesting. Then I discarded it as crap. So there isn't really any difference. Except I believe in provable things, I have no faith, I don't need it.
Ha, that made me laugh.
Anyway, Im positive faithless people like you are happier.
You have no accountability to anything higher than yourself- sounds blissful actually.
_______________________
Now that you've been broken down
Got your head out of the clouds
You're back down on the ground
And you don't talk so loud
And you don't walk so proud, Anymore..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dont ya know love can start an inferno?
Set a place on fire and youre the one they blame.
Anyway, Im positive faithless people like you are happier.
You have no accountability to anything higher than yourself- sounds blissful actually.
The law is above me, and I also have accountability to myself.
That was kind of a cheap shot if you ask me. That's like an assembly line argument. Try something you didn't get from a cracker jack box.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The law is above me, and I also have accountability to myself.
That was kind of a cheap shot if you ask me. That's like an assembly line argument. Try something you didn't get from a cracker jack box.
I said "higher than yourself"...See!!! I rest my case, you only 'skim' others posts, you think youre so smart that you dont need to fully read them to get the gist I think.
And I think the only law above a mind like yours is The Law of Gravity.
You should try it out- jump off a cliff and see if youre so smart that you can even defy that! (jk- kinda)
_______________________
Now that you've been broken down
Got your head out of the clouds
You're back down on the ground
And you don't talk so loud
And you don't walk so proud, Anymore..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dont ya know love can start an inferno?
Set a place on fire and youre the one they blame.
I said "higher than yourself"...See!!! I rest my case, you only 'skim' others posts, you think youre so smart that you dont need to fully read them to get the gist I think.
And I think the only law above a mind like yours is The Law of Gravity.
You should try it out- jump off a cliff and see if youre so smart that you can even defy that! (jk- kinda)
I don't get it. This post doesn't make any sense. Now you are talking about the existence of a supreme deity, which is a completely separate topic from the origins of logic. But if you'd like I can totally debunk your belief in God.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't think this is a matter of opinion. The evidence that logic is innate is overwhelming. I'd say undeniable. But some of you still insist it's something we've conjured up. Maybe you haven't looked at any evidence?
of course you don't...thus why you hold the opinion you do. i have found that on most points you make you are so convinced that your thoughts are just so 'right'...so obvious and clear, that you cannot see anything from a point of view that at all skews from your own. right or wrong on any particular topic, it is a shame. while i won't say that anyone has ever made me blatantly change my mind on any given topic here...i HAVe learned a great deal from many different posters...even those who come at certain topics from a completely different viewpoint than my own, and i see certain things with an expanded viewpoint, a broader scope.
it's refreshing to have an open mind about things, and even more important to discussion...not to completely discount others' opinions, respected sources, etc...by calling them ignorant or any other completely dismissive terminology. if one is so convinced of their own rightness, why bother calling it a discussion? seems more like 'agree with me, learn from me...or shut up.' just my 2 cents.
I don't get it. This post doesn't make any sense. Now you are talking about the existence of a supreme deity, which is a completely separate topic from the origins of logic. But if you'd like I can totally debunk your belief in God.
If you scroll back, you are the one who originally mentioned Atheism, usually this brings God to peoples minds.
Anyway, I dont have the energy to lose my Faith tonight.
Perhaps another time on the annihilation of my entire belief system, yes?
_______________________
Now that you've been broken down
Got your head out of the clouds
You're back down on the ground
And you don't talk so loud
And you don't walk so proud, Anymore..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dont ya know love can start an inferno?
Set a place on fire and youre the one they blame.
of course you don't...thus why you hold the opinion you do. i have found that on most points you make you are so convinced that your thoughts are just so 'right'...so obvious and clear, that you cannot see anything from a point of view that at all skews from your own. right or wrong on any particular topic, it is a shame. while i won't say that anyone has ever made me blatantly change my mind on any given topic here...i HAVe learned a great deal from many different posters...even those who come at certain topics from a completely different viewpoint than my own, and i see certain things with an expanded viewpoint, a broader scope.
it's refreshing to have an open mind about things, and even more important to discussion...not to completely discount others' opinions, respected sources, etc...by calling them ignorant or any other completely dismissive terminology. if one is so convinced of their own rightness, why bother calling it a discussion? seems more like 'agree with me, learn from me...or shut up.' just my 2 cents.
Because they are wrong. Logic exists regardless of humans.
Could 'god' change the value of PI if he/she/it wanted to? Could god make 1+1=3 true, without changing all the other rules of mathematics?
All laws of mathematics, or theorems, or whatever you want to call them, are interconnected, and they all stem from immutable concepts that would even transcend god, if he/she/it existed...
Come, my child... you may find safe haven here...
Have you ever heard of Fractals? Fractals follow directly from relatively simple mathematical constructs... and they show correlations to nature... yet they are things we have DISCOVERED... not invented. These patterns existed long before humans even knew what math was.
See, what he's saying is, these things are innate to reality, not just to us as human beings. We don't invent them, we discover them, they exist independent of us.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I started a similar thread over at Skeptics.com and pretty much no one disagrees with me. Even though I'm kind of playing the devil's advocate on the topic.
It couldn't possibly be that you're among your own crowd at that site, while this one is much more diverse as the basis for people being here is something as random as a particular rock band we all like... I figure I'd find a lot of people agreeing with me too at "leftie-sociologists.com".
And I still ask you kindly for something written on your claims. I am not going to start watch stuff that goes on for hours, and fundamentally is for the particularly interested. Never mind the pedagogical usefulness for me to absorb it all, just gimme the highlights or anything really. Dont be a one-source pony.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
It couldn't possibly be that you're among your own crowd at that site, while this one is much more diverse as the basis for people being here is something as random as a particular rock band we all like... I figure I'd find a lot of people agreeing with me too at "leftie-sociologists.com".
And I still ask you kindly for something written on your claims. I am not going to start watch stuff that goes on for hours, and fundamentally is for the particularly interested. Never mind the pedagogical usefulness for me to absorb it all, just gimme the highlights or anything really. Dont be a one-source pony.
Peace
Dan
Haha...wow.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Everybody's fightin' for the Promise Land.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wine goes in at the lips
and love comes in at the eye
Thats all we shall know for truth
before we grow old and die..
I lift the glass to my lips
I look at you and sigh."
Comments
i love this post.
i've read this thread as it progressed, and really had nothing to add. logic to me is man-made...and how can we know truly one way or another in any case? i think many things are simply beyond our human scope to be able to disseminate. and as much as we DO know...so much esle from that, based in educated theory...and many more based heavily on simply opinion. many, many ideas/issues....opinions and ideas....and at this point in time anyway, there is no right and wrong in it....just differeing perspectives. and as much as we do figure out and continue to do...i still think so much will still be theory/opinions.
as an aside, does anyone else get the feeling that anhimus and gue_barium are one in the same, havbing a conversation with himself?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I don't think this is a matter of opinion. The evidence that logic is innate is overwhelming. I'd say undeniable. But some of you still insist it's something we've conjured up. Maybe you haven't looked at any evidence?
I really don't want to see another thread where you're whining and crying about how you have been mistreated and insulted.
If I do, I'll be the one "LMFAO" and FEDEXing you a teething-ring, a box of diapers and a pacifier.
Learning from past mistakes not really your strong point, eh.
I had two very unusual, creepy and nerve-shaking spiritual experiences in my adult life, which convinced me beyond a doubt there's something other than this life. These had nothing to do with religion or god.
ROTFLMAO!
"ROTFLMAO" is the last outpost for the desperate Man who has no rebuttal to an intelligent post.
Also- its very circa 2003.
Now that you've been broken down
Got your head out of the clouds
You're back down on the ground
And you don't talk so loud
And you don't walk so proud, Anymore..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dont ya know love can start an inferno?
Set a place on fire and youre the one they blame.
No, it's just a response to something that doesn't really deserve a response. It's like saying, your so dense you won't budge, so all I can do is laugh.
"Causality Inference Machine"
Ursula Goodenough has spent 30+ years studying child cognition and that is how she describes children. From birth, all a child has is the ability to collect and store information logically. They understand quickly how objects interact with each other, using of course, logic. There is no other word to which this ability can be ascribed.
ROTFLMFAO is to say that obviously NMytree doesn't know his stuff. I think I'll take Ursula's word over NMytree.
Uh..."instinct"?
You see, your argument uses a lot of big words and theories which could distract a truly non- thinking person.
All animals have some form of logic and instict, Human and otherwise. The difference with Humans is we simply have 'reasoning ability'. Thus- we are set apart from all other Animal life on this planet.
Here is the catch for a logical Creationist as I try to think of myself (my faith in the Bible isnt rooted in emotionalism) ok- we were created perfect, but even in the perfect state of the First Humans they had 'free will'. God would have created Robots if he was interested in mindless drones. This Free Will is the crux of all Humanity. It is what makes us fully rounded, multidimensional beings. It can be used for Good or evil and we pay the price for those descisions.
From my studies...God gave us these Amazing Minds but the interesting thing is its who someone is at a HEART level that truly interests him, and ultimately what he judges us by.
Now that you've been broken down
Got your head out of the clouds
You're back down on the ground
And you don't talk so loud
And you don't walk so proud, Anymore..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dont ya know love can start an inferno?
Set a place on fire and youre the one they blame.
Oh I see.
Well, I can't discuss it with you, firstly because you are following a path of belief with no branches. Your system of belief is undeniable because it relies completely on faith and not objectivity.
There is no evidence of Free-will and there is no evidence of God. So all of that is just a far-fetched matter of faith.
If anyone here wants to talk real science and drop all the mysticism and metaphysical nonsense for a change. I'm open. If not, then the discussion is a stalemate.
Well, from what perspective and what references do you build the undeniable evidence on? Where is this undeniable evidence? And is there really nothing that goes against it or suggests other possible answers? Perhaps not after your perspective and opinion, but then please tell us.
Some theorize that we have some innate traits of some kind, while others "tabula rasa" claims it is all added afterwards through experiences. You also seem to mix up these two. "Tabula rasa" is the exact opposite of inherent ability. About this, from what I remember in psychology class, there are no consensus, and multiple theories and perspectives are sported around. There are some evidence to support both/multiple sides in that argument.
And my point is also about logic not necessarily being Truth with a big T. Logic is the way we think. We have no guarantee of it's objectiveness outside our culture and tradition. That's phenomenology for you. Things we in our culture regard as "logical" may not be so outside of it. What inferences are logical, is decided and influenced by our tradition, culture, values and norms.
It might be helpful if you defined more closely what you mean by logic, which can be a bit of a fuzzy term. I use it as the definion outlined, as a system of reasoning.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Main Entry: log·ic
Pronunciation: 'lä-jik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at LEGEND
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>
- lo·gi·cian /lO-'ji-sh&n/ noun
Without that abilitly we could not learn.
Now, I've posted the lecture series "Brain, Mind, Consciousness" about a gazillion times and I'm guessing no one has watched it, because all this was covered in it, with explanations of the experiments and the results proving beyond a doubt that children are highly logical beings.
I agree that some creationists are idiots and blind in their emotionalism toward the bible, so miss the main point of it- though I think you are a bit big for your britches.
The idea of faith and logic/science being incompatible is very old fashioned. Youre the very person who 50 years ago denied that their is the Mind/Body connection that scientists have come to realize is THE defining connection in the human body and our overall health.
anyway, as per science and the bible not being compatible-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Humans have long noted that the rivers flow into the seas and oceans and yet these do not increase in depth. Some believed, until it was learned that the earth is spherical, that this was because an equal amount of water was spilling off the ends of the earth. Later it was learned that the sun “pumps” up thousands of millions of gallons of water from the seas every second in the form of water vapor. This produces clouds that are moved by the wind over land areas where the moisture falls as rain and snow. Water then runs into the rivers and flows again into the seas. This marvelous cycle, although generally unknown in ancient times, is spoken about in the Bible: “Every river flows into the sea, but the sea is not yet full. The water returns to where the rivers began, and starts all over again.”—Ecclesiastes 1:7, Today’s English Version.
Regarding the origin of the universe, the Bible states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) But many scientists had considered this unscientific, asserting that the universe had no beginning. However, pointing to newer information, astronomer Robert Jastrow explains: “The essence of the strange developments is that the Universe had, in some sense, a beginning—that it began at a certain moment in time.” Jastrow here refers to the now commonly accepted big bang theory, as noted in Chapter 9. He adds: “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same.”
What has been the reaction to such discoveries? “Astronomers are curiously upset,” Jastrow writes. “Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind—supposedly a very objective mind—when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.” But the fact remains that while “evidence uncovered by science” disagreed with what scientists long believed regarding the origin of the universe, it confirmed what was written in the Bible millenniums ago.
~~~~~
(Ahnimus- the proof that the bible is a book rooted in science, logic and yes- Faith and that these 3 things can co-exist is overwhelming, even Darwin had to Admit this, as Im sure you know. The problem with people like you is you think you are too smart to accept the Bible as logic- when in reality- its not intellect, its stubborness and a need to be an "independent thinker" who would never conceive of believing something as old fashioned as Creationism.
A little known fact is that the Bible foretold that Men would become disgusted with Religion, because evil people use it for dishonest gain- so its OK to feel that way, but not to deny its accuracy.)
Now that you've been broken down
Got your head out of the clouds
You're back down on the ground
And you don't talk so loud
And you don't walk so proud, Anymore..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dont ya know love can start an inferno?
Set a place on fire and youre the one they blame.
This guy explains things quite well.
So you are as inpenetratable as you accuse someone like me of being.
The diff. with us, is- I will read what you have to say, ponder it- then either discard it as crap or make it my own.
Now that you've been broken down
Got your head out of the clouds
You're back down on the ground
And you don't talk so loud
And you don't walk so proud, Anymore..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dont ya know love can start an inferno?
Set a place on fire and youre the one they blame.
I read all of what you wrote, even though I honestly didn't find it that interesting. Then I discarded it as crap. So there isn't really any difference. Except I believe in provable things, I have no faith, I don't need it.
Good. Now if you combine the meanings we like to use the most, you get a system of reasoning that deals with criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. Emphasis on "a" system and "criteria" here. This does not equal science, nor does science equal this. But science as practiced is a such system.
And serisouly, dont be surprised if people on a message board wont necessarily just watch hours and hours of video lectures on a subject to view it your way. I do not doubt that you have found some people who stand at one side of the issues and present their case. Maybe even convincingly for all I know. But you can't with that sole and only reference present that view as undeniable fact that is accepted by all, when it isn't.
Find me a written piece that sums it up, and I may read it. Economy of time is a serious issue on boards like this. Not because I'm not at all interested, because I am, but what you consistently propose people to do is enormously time-consuming and may be viewed as a mere intimidation tactic, as you know noone will call you out on it. I'm not saying it is, just saying how it can be viewed. By all means, link me evidence and pieces supporting your view, that can be read in a timely fashion in a reasonable amount of time. Then I can judge their merit. But having an argument where you basically say: "It's all here in this long movie, and I will argue as if it is the entire and complete truth, and assume if you haven't seen it, you are ignorant and un-enlightened" won't get us very far.
Again, if the consensus and interpretation that you claim is so widespread and matter-of-factly, then getting me some other sources than those videos must surely be possible.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
http://www.tsntv.org/Events/2005%20Skeptics%20Society%20Annual%20Conference/
I started a similar thread over at Skeptics.com and pretty much no one disagrees with me. Even though I'm kind of playing the devil's advocate on the topic.
Check it out http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=92463#92463
Something odd about this forum.
Ha, that made me laugh.
Anyway, Im positive faithless people like you are happier.
You have no accountability to anything higher than yourself- sounds blissful actually.
Now that you've been broken down
Got your head out of the clouds
You're back down on the ground
And you don't talk so loud
And you don't walk so proud, Anymore..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dont ya know love can start an inferno?
Set a place on fire and youre the one they blame.
The law is above me, and I also have accountability to myself.
That was kind of a cheap shot if you ask me. That's like an assembly line argument. Try something you didn't get from a cracker jack box.
I said "higher than yourself"...See!!! I rest my case, you only 'skim' others posts, you think youre so smart that you dont need to fully read them to get the gist I think.
And I think the only law above a mind like yours is The Law of Gravity.
You should try it out- jump off a cliff and see if youre so smart that you can even defy that!
Now that you've been broken down
Got your head out of the clouds
You're back down on the ground
And you don't talk so loud
And you don't walk so proud, Anymore..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dont ya know love can start an inferno?
Set a place on fire and youre the one they blame.
I don't get it. This post doesn't make any sense. Now you are talking about the existence of a supreme deity, which is a completely separate topic from the origins of logic. But if you'd like I can totally debunk your belief in God.
of course you don't...thus why you hold the opinion you do. i have found that on most points you make you are so convinced that your thoughts are just so 'right'...so obvious and clear, that you cannot see anything from a point of view that at all skews from your own. right or wrong on any particular topic, it is a shame. while i won't say that anyone has ever made me blatantly change my mind on any given topic here...i HAVe learned a great deal from many different posters...even those who come at certain topics from a completely different viewpoint than my own, and i see certain things with an expanded viewpoint, a broader scope.
it's refreshing to have an open mind about things, and even more important to discussion...not to completely discount others' opinions, respected sources, etc...by calling them ignorant or any other completely dismissive terminology. if one is so convinced of their own rightness, why bother calling it a discussion? seems more like 'agree with me, learn from me...or shut up.' just my 2 cents.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
If you scroll back, you are the one who originally mentioned Atheism, usually this brings God to peoples minds.
Anyway, I dont have the energy to lose my Faith tonight.
Perhaps another time on the annihilation of my entire belief system, yes?
Now that you've been broken down
Got your head out of the clouds
You're back down on the ground
And you don't talk so loud
And you don't walk so proud, Anymore..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dont ya know love can start an inferno?
Set a place on fire and youre the one they blame.
Because they are wrong. Logic exists regardless of humans.
I like the way macros put it on skeptics.com
See, what he's saying is, these things are innate to reality, not just to us as human beings. We don't invent them, we discover them, they exist independent of us.
It couldn't possibly be that you're among your own crowd at that site, while this one is much more diverse as the basis for people being here is something as random as a particular rock band we all like... I figure I'd find a lot of people agreeing with me too at "leftie-sociologists.com".
And I still ask you kindly for something written on your claims. I am not going to start watch stuff that goes on for hours, and fundamentally is for the particularly interested. Never mind the pedagogical usefulness for me to absorb it all, just gimme the highlights or anything really. Dont be a one-source pony.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Haha...wow.
Everybody's fightin' for the Promise Land.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wine goes in at the lips
and love comes in at the eye
Thats all we shall know for truth
before we grow old and die..
I lift the glass to my lips
I look at you and sigh."
~ W.B. Yeats