Is logic limited?

[Oaky]

Illogical =/= emotional. Is an electrons trajectory illogical? Is psychology not the logical study of emotions?

And no, logic is not illogical. Logic is a tool, a system. "Action" based on logic is something only a human, or a human constructed program can do.

It is logical that someone does an emotional action but the action itself maybe illogical due to emotions. Therefore something logical can lead to something illogical.
I am angry. I will throw my chair out the window because I am angry.
It can be logical that I became angry. However throwing the chair out the window is an illogical action due to being angry because later I will realise it was illogical and I shouldn't have done it.

 

[Moiety]

It is logical that someone does an emotional action but the action itself maybe illogical due to emotions. Therefore something logical can lead to something illogical.
I am angry. I will throw my chair out the window because I am angry.
It can be logical that I became angry. However throwing the chair out the window is an illogical action due to being angry because later I will realise it was illogical and I shouldn't have done it.

That's exactly the issue here. Throwing a chair out the window is not an illogical action.


What makes an action illogical?

 

[Oaky]

That's exactly the issue here. Throwing a chair out the window is not an illogical action.


What makes an action illogical?

If it does not follow the rules of logic.

 

[Moiety]

If it does not follow the rules of logic.

How does throwing a chair out the window when I'm angry not follow the rules of logic?


What do the rules of logic ever say about human behavior, goals, wants or needs?

 

[EcK]

It seems like we have a categorisation issue again,
One group uses logic as in the concept of logic and another as 'the actual processes'.

From a process oriented standpoint logic is a tool, a way to intermingle data and come up with new data. Now for accuracy's sake logic uses objects as they are easier to define than gestalts such as emotional states and so on.

But in my opinion, if we don't start arguing about bookish definition but focus on the process itself, with enough accuracy emotions and anything at all can be analysed logically, it's just that the level of reliability of "hard-objects" is way higher in a computation process aiming at the obtention of a result(s) that is(are) useable and quantifiable and more importantly that can be reproduced.

SO to conclude the distinction people make between particle-like facts and geshtalt/wave like emotions (uncertain/unquantifiable) is mostly historical and related to our capacity to extract accurate/reliable information from different 'mediums'. For the process of logic to work the 'category' of information is irrelevant as logic only 'cares' about accuracy/stability/quantifiability.

 

[EcK]

Um, Anger is an irrational emotion. But throwing the chair can be a logical expression of that anger. If you think that it is logical for someone to perform an emotional action, it follows that the action is logical. At least, that's the way I read it.

That's not the right way to see it ('m on the phone) logic is a way to compute data not a category of information.

 

[Oaky]

How does throwing a chair out the window when I'm angry not follow the rules of logic?


What do the rules of logic ever say about human behavior, goals, wants or needs?

I understand what you mean. Forget what I said. My example was silly.
Here's something:
1+1=3 <--- logical?

 

[Moiety]

I understand what you mean. Forget what I said. My example was silly.
Here's something:
1+1=3 <--- logical?

No. The principles of mathematics clearly state otherwise.

 

[Oaky]

No. The principles of mathematics clearly state otherwise.

Here is something that's not known because of the limits to our logic.
0/0
0 or 1?
or
1/0

 

[Moiety]

Here is something that's not known because of the limits to our logic.
0/0
0 or 1?
or
1/0

See, it all depends on how you approach such matters. That's a prime example of how one can tell logic is a human construct.

The imaginary numbers had to be invented due to a similar impossibility and illogicality (the root of a negative number). What I'm saying is, there isn't necessarily a "truth" here to be found, because it's we humans that define the boundaries of our own system.

Imaginary numbers have no correlation with the real world unless we choose to make it so. The same happens with logic.

 

[Oaky]

See, it all depends on how you approach such matters. That's a prime example of how one can tell logic is a human construct.

The imaginary numbers had to be invented due to a similar impossibility and illogicality (the root of a negative number). What I'm saying is, there isn't necessarily a "truth" here to be found, because it's we humans that define the boundaries of our own system.

Imaginary numbers have no correlation with the real world unless we choose to make it so. The same happens with logic.

And thus, we humans are imperfect creatures. Our logic has limits.

 

[krunchtime]

That's not the right way to see it ('m on the phone) logic is a way to compute data not a category of information.

Hah, I thought your post covered it pretty well, so I took it off to avoid getting into more argument. I definitely agree that we're using logic differently. I approach logic as a construct, an underlying principle. That's why I couldn't understand why there is an upper limit imposed on logic. But if you consider the logic as a process, a means to an end, there can be limits to its applicability and/or effectiveness.

 

[Moiety]

And thus, we humans are imperfect creatures. Our logic has limits.

No, because we constantly come up with new "imaginary numbers" therefore "solving" previous "problems".

We are imperfect, but we are constantly perfecting ourselves.

 

[krunchtime]

And thus, we humans are imperfect creatures. Our logic has limits.

I don't know whether I should be saying this, but I think it might, might be more accurate to call it logical solutions, instead of logic.

 

[Oaky]

No, because we constantly come up with new "imaginary numbers" therefore "solving" previous "problems".

We are imperfect, but we are constantly perfecting ourselves.

Yea but it currently has limits hmm? Anyways, I feel like I'm talking to the homeless guy in your avatar and it's just weird that he talk about all these theories.

 

[EcK]

And thus, we humans are imperfect creatures. Our logic has limits.

our logic has limits at T(now) yes, but logic is a process(exists in Space ANd Time), and a self improving one at that, so with access to infinite ressources (like the sub planck scale computation and data storage i mentioned earlier) imperfect human logic could have the potential to reach a superlative state.

So one could argue that for example some subplanck data computation / data storage and retrieval unit working within a human brain (or outside, as it's just a matter of degree/rates of communication in the end, and that in and out are just perpectives)
k where was I, yeah so imagine that this 'infinite logical circuit' could be accessed by the human mind, would you say that this mind wasn't human anymore? I don't think that's true(or rather relevant), its just a matter of categorisation, a matter of perspectives.
When caesar lived, his now was 'now', to us 'now' is year 2009 of this era, as the ancients used to say you can never step into the same river twice (or was it cross) and object/ego constancy/permanence is just an illusion brought by the continuity of memory.

So basically, as far as future beings are related to the 2009 humans by a continuity of memory/history, they will be human, therefore imperfect human logic is not an absolute state but one state of a dynamic function at T(x)

 

[Oaky]

I don't know whether I should be saying this, but I think it might, might be more accurate to call it logical solutions, instead of logic.

Feel free to say what you wish. Tis just a discussion.

 

[Oaky]

our logic has limits yes, but logic is a process, and a self improving one at that, so with access to infinite ressources (like the sub planck scale computation and data storage i mentioned earlier) imperfect human logic could have the potential to reach a superlative state.

So one could argue that for example some subplanck data computation / data storage and retrieval unit working within a human brain (or outside, as it's just a matter of degree/rates of communication in the end, and that in and out are just perpectives)
k where was I, yeah so imagine that this 'infinite logical circuit' could be accessed by the human mind, would you say that this mind weren't human anymore? I don't think that's true(or rather relevant), its just a matter of categorisation, a matter of perspectives.
When caesar lived, his now was 'now', to us 'now' is year 2009 of this era, as the ancients used to say you can never step into the same river twice (or was it cross) and object/ego constancy/permanence is just an illusion brought by the continuity of memory.

Yes, yes I haven't disagreed with that. I'm just looking where we currently are. And we have no idea about our future. We can only assume that the humans in the future would have expanded the logic we currently have now.

 

[krunchtime]

Yea but it currently has limits hmm? Anyways, I feel like I'm talking to the homeless guy in your avatar and it's just weird that he talk about all these theories.

LOL And I feel like I'm talking to L! really

Feel free to say what you wish. Tis just a discussion.

Great. People who don't get testy are cool

 

[Moiety]

Yea but it currently has limits hmm? Anyways, I feel like I'm talking to the homeless guy in your avatar and it's just weird that he talk about all these theories.

Yes current logic has limits. If that's the question then the answer is clear imo.