|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Apr 19, 2014 21:23:24 GMT -5
Can humans perceive, contemplate, & argue any form of idea that doesn't fall under the description of valid reasoning/logic, or distorted reasoning/logic?
My reason for asking this is to avoid falling into an argument from ignorance, as I can't prove it to be impossible for such thoughts to exist, or I don't believe myself to be able at the moment.
Please do not attack me for using the words "perceive, contemplate, & description." Whether you think so or not, linguistically speaking these are the most concise terms to use.
I hope you enjoy pondering this question.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 22:06:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 23:09:14 GMT -5
Everything we are resides in our brain and thoughts...so I'd say no.
And No Reason.
|
|
|
Post by Colter on Apr 19, 2014 23:18:29 GMT -5
So, the way I take it, this means thinking without any solid logic or reasoning? I wanna get this right before I actually type a response.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Apr 20, 2014 0:34:16 GMT -5
So, the way I take it, this means thinking without any solid logic or reasoning? I wanna get this right before I actually type a response. We know that people think illogically, just look at Charles Manson. The question is whether or not we can think without attempting logic. Can we have ideas, & act on those ideas without a supposed reasoning?
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Apr 20, 2014 0:36:08 GMT -5
Everything we are resides in our brain and thoughts...so I'd say no. And No Reason. By "No Reason," you're including that we can't think without adhering to some form of reason, yes?
|
|
|
Post by Colter on Apr 20, 2014 0:45:28 GMT -5
So, the way I take it, this means thinking without any solid logic or reasoning? I wanna get this right before I actually type a response. We know that people think illogically, just look at Charles Manson. The question is whether or not we can think without attempting logic. Can we have ideas, & act on those ideas without a supposed reasoning? So attempting something with no reason to?
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Apr 20, 2014 0:59:26 GMT -5
We know that people think illogically, just look at Charles Manson. The question is whether or not we can think without attempting logic. Can we have ideas, & act on those ideas without a supposed reasoning? So attempting something with no reason to? Can you have a thought that doesn't follow some form of logic?
|
|
|
Post by BoJack Hogan on Apr 20, 2014 1:23:55 GMT -5
Yes.....and no.
First the yes.
If someone acts on a visceral level, with the sole thought process being zeal for a particular or outcome, it can be argued that there is no logic. There is a reason that in the days of yore armies often consisted of men running with spears, side by side, hoping for the best. Its rare, but if the thought is merely 'go, do', there is no logic. A more reasonable example, in the heat of passion a murder kills his wife who has been unfaithful. At a visceral level it can be argued that if the sole desire is revenge, the murderer is not using logic or reason (logic as to how to escape without reprisal, and reason as to murder being the worst of numerous options). The murderer in this case acts almost as a robot with a mission. This is rare, but it happens.
On the other hand, in most cases armies utilize logistics, tactics, and numerous other methods of logic and reason to efficiently and effectively reach their goals. As far as murder is concerned I have to use a hot-button example since it has been stuck in my craw for seven years. Chris Benoit likely was not exercising logic or reason when he (allegedly) killed Nancy. It was likely a heat of the moment, visceral response to some type of stimuli. No logic, only a flash of thought, 'stop this negative stimulus now!' On the other hand, when he (allegedly) killed Daniel, his flawed logic was that he didn't want his son to have to grow up in a world where he had to live with the fact that he had no parents and his father had murdered his mother.
I don't know. It makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Apr 20, 2014 1:34:09 GMT -5
Yes.....and no. First the yes. If someone acts on a visceral level, with the sole thought process being zeal for a particular or outcome, it can be argued that there is no logic. There is a reason that in the days of yore armies often consisted of men running with spears, side by side, hoping for the best. Its rare, but if the thought is merely 'go, do', there is no logic. A more reasonable example, in the heat of passion a murder kills his wife who has been unfaithful. At a visceral level it can be argued that if the sole desire is revenge, the murderer is not using logic or reason (logic as to how to escape without reprisal, and reason as to murder being the worst of numerous options). The murderer in this case acts almost as a robot with a mission. This is rare, but it happens. On the other hand, in most cases armies utilize logistics, tactics, and numerous other methods of logic and reason to efficiently and effectively reach their goals. As far as murder is concerned I have to use a hot-button example since it has been stuck in my craw for seven years. Chris Benoit likely was not exercising logic or reason when he (allegedly) killed Nancy. It was likely a heat of the moment, visceral response to some type of stimuli. No logic, only a flash of thought, 'stop this negative stimulus now!' On the other hand, when he (allegedly) killed Daniel, his flawed logic was that he didn't want his son to have to grow up in a world where he had to live with the fact that he had no parents and his father had murdered his mother. I don't know. It makes sense to me. Are you stating the abscence of valid reasoning as being the absence of logic? Could it be argued that the desire to remove negative stimuli constitutes distorted logic, even if the brain's attempt to make sense of it was fleeting?
|
|
|
Post by BoJack Hogan on Apr 20, 2014 2:02:51 GMT -5
Yes.....and no. First the yes. If someone acts on a visceral level, with the sole thought process being zeal for a particular or outcome, it can be argued that there is no logic. There is a reason that in the days of yore armies often consisted of men running with spears, side by side, hoping for the best. Its rare, but if the thought is merely 'go, do', there is no logic. A more reasonable example, in the heat of passion a murder kills his wife who has been unfaithful. At a visceral level it can be argued that if the sole desire is revenge, the murderer is not using logic or reason (logic as to how to escape without reprisal, and reason as to murder being the worst of numerous options). The murderer in this case acts almost as a robot with a mission. This is rare, but it happens. On the other hand, in most cases armies utilize logistics, tactics, and numerous other methods of logic and reason to efficiently and effectively reach their goals. As far as murder is concerned I have to use a hot-button example since it has been stuck in my craw for seven years. Chris Benoit likely was not exercising logic or reason when he (allegedly) killed Nancy. It was likely a heat of the moment, visceral response to some type of stimuli. No logic, only a flash of thought, 'stop this negative stimulus now!' On the other hand, when he (allegedly) killed Daniel, his flawed logic was that he didn't want his son to have to grow up in a world where he had to live with the fact that he had no parents and his father had murdered his mother. I don't know. It makes sense to me. Are you stating the abscence of valid reasoning as being the absence of logic? Could it be argued that the desire to remove negative stimuli constitutes distorted logic, even if the brain's attempt to make sense of it was fleeting? It could be, however I don't feel that the desire to remove negative stimuli would necessarily suggest distorted logic since there are numerous non-deviant methods by which to do this. The means to the end denotes the deviance in this case. I guess the quandary revolves around the definition of 'remove'...or rather even my word choice. There are likely a variety of ways to define this; some which would add up, others which would not. If the main question asks whether I can say with any degree of certainty whether thought can exist without logic, no I can't. It would seem unlikely to a reasonable person, however not everyone is reasonable, at least not all of the time. On the other hand I have acted in ways that others may have questioned as illogical or unreasonable. To escape a lengthy debate my answer was 'I have my reasons'. In some cases that reason was just to be bullheaded. In the example I stated I can only guess since I have never been in such a state of mind, but in my mind I can empathize a situation where the time between thought and action was too short to develop any sort of reason or logic; hence the visceral response. The flash of thought would be indefinable and the subsequent action being a function of what I can only describe as the equivalent of a mental 'phoneme' (possibly a bad choice of words, but I am not sure how else to describe thought at the most basic level) mixed with a physiological reaction. Basically it would be the equivalent of the physiological changes acting as potential energy and the thought acting as a go switch transforming the potential energy to kinetic energy. I may be overthinking this, and there probably is no way to prove this, but there is no way to know what is going on someone else's head. I guess my final answer to the question is....conceivably.
|
|
|
Post by The Mask of Truth on Apr 20, 2014 5:37:35 GMT -5
That's most people on this forum. ![:D](http://www.wrestlingfigs.com/images/grin.gif)
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 22:06:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 5:39:23 GMT -5
If Facebook and Twitter are any indication of the human mind, I've seen a grand number of people that seem to think and react without reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Apr 20, 2014 7:34:49 GMT -5
Are you stating the abscence of valid reasoning as being the absence of logic? Could it be argued that the desire to remove negative stimuli constitutes distorted logic, even if the brain's attempt to make sense of it was fleeting? It could be, however I don't feel that the desire to remove negative stimuli would necessarily suggest distorted logic since there are numerous non-deviant methods by which to do this. The means to the end denotes the deviance in this case. I guess the quandary revolves around the definition of 'remove'...or rather even my word choice. There are likely a variety of ways to define this; some which would add up, others which would not. If the main question asks whether I can say with any degree of certainty whether thought can exist without logic, no I can't. It would seem unlikely to a reasonable person, however not everyone is reasonable, at least not all of the time. On the other hand I have acted in ways that others may have questioned as illogical or unreasonable. To escape a lengthy debate my answer was 'I have my reasons'. In some cases that reason was just to be bullheaded. In the example I stated I can only guess since I have never been in such a state of mind, but in my mind I can empathize a situation where the time between thought and action was too short to develop any sort of reason or logic; hence the visceral response. The flash of thought would be indefinable and the subsequent action being a function of what I can only describe as the equivalent of a mental 'phoneme' (possibly a bad choice of words, but I am not sure how else to describe thought at the most basic level) mixed with a physiological reaction. Basically it would be the equivalent of the physiological changes acting as potential energy and the thought acting as a go switch transforming the potential energy to kinetic energy. I may be overthinking this, and there probably is no way to prove this, but there is no way to know what is going on someone else's head. I guess my final answer to the question is....conceivably. First off, let's go back to your assessment of revenge. Technically, revenge would fall under a distorted reasoning. The idea of consoling one's self by inflicting the suffering they went through on the person responsible, or assumed to be responsible. Secondly, when the brain attempts reasoning, it's attempting to compute, to make some form of sense, be it valid or invalid. A slogysm can be logically valid, but can be composed of incorrect premises. It can be proposed that a living being's instinctual response, is an act that is justified enough to the brain to allow the person to carry out the otherwise, illogical action. This is also why I prefaced my question with the mind attempting to reason, even if it was a terrible attempt based on illusions perceived to be reality.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 22:06:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 8:06:30 GMT -5
Can humans perceive, contemplate, & argue any form of idea that doesn't fall under the description of valid reasoning/logic, or distorted reasoning/logic? My reason for asking this is to avoid falling into an argument from ignorance, as I can't prove it to be impossible for such thoughts to exist, or I don't believe myself to be able at the moment. Please do not attack me for using the words "perceive, contemplate, & description." Whether you think so or not, linguistically speaking these are the most concise terms to use. I hope you enjoy pondering this question. I don't believe so, no. It couldn't fall under the definition of 'contemplating' without at least an attempt to understand what is logical & what isn't (for the individual). If someone's goal is to be irrational...then they've used logic to form their argument (playing devil's advocate for example).
|
|
|
Post by BoJack Hogan on Apr 20, 2014 9:18:01 GMT -5
First off, let's go back to your assessment of revenge. Technically, revenge would fall under a distorted reasoning. The idea of consoling one's self by inflicting the suffering they went through on the person responsible, or assumed to be responsible. Secondly, when the brain attempts reasoning, it's attempting to compute, to make some form of sense, be it valid or invalid. A slogysm can be logically valid, but can be composed of incorrect premises. It can be proposed that a living being's instinctual response, is an act that is justified enough to the brain to allow the person to carry out the otherwise, illogical action. This is also why I prefaced my question with the mind attempting to reason, even if it was a terrible attempt based on illusions perceived to be reality. I must have missed the part where you mentioned the brain attempting to reason. If in your base situation the mind is attempting to reason, then couldn't even the most impoverished form of reasoning still follow some form of reasoning? It seems that you answered your own question.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Apr 20, 2014 9:22:45 GMT -5
First off, let's go back to your assessment of revenge. Technically, revenge would fall under a distorted reasoning. The idea of consoling one's self by inflicting the suffering they went through on the person responsible, or assumed to be responsible. Secondly, when the brain attempts reasoning, it's attempting to compute, to make some form of sense, be it valid or invalid. A slogysm can be logically valid, but can be composed of incorrect premises. It can be proposed that a living being's instinctual response, is an act that is justified enough to the brain to allow the person to carry out the otherwise, illogical action. This is also why I prefaced my question with the mind attempting to reason, even if it was a terrible attempt based on illusions perceived to be reality. I must have missed the part where you mentioned the brain attempting to reason. If in your base situation the mind is attempting to reason, then couldn't even the most impoverished form of reasoning still follow some form of reasoning? It seems that you answered your own question. Thank you presenting that perspective. I failed to take it into consideration. ![:)](http://www.wrestlingfigs.com/images/smiley.gif)
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Apr 20, 2014 10:02:54 GMT -5
My wife sure can.
|
|
|
Post by RybackV1 on Apr 20, 2014 10:29:50 GMT -5
Not sure if TRW or Corporate Kane . But yeah I do see this a lot. I think it's nothing more than all of the "behavioral " disorders and whatnot in today's society. It fits right in with pathological lying. Also self pride, people do not want to be wrong. No matter what it takes.
|
|
|
Post by Colter on Apr 20, 2014 11:31:39 GMT -5
Of course, you can have a thought that doesn't follow any sort of logic/reasoning.
The way I see it, every thought we have starts out as nothing. It is up to us and our minds to try and comprehend the thoughts that enter our brain and psyche. Even then, something can still not make any real sense.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 28, 2024 22:06:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 11:32:56 GMT -5
Have you seen the internet trolls?
|
|