Leading to the point of life etc.Blaggard wrote:It's a good question but one that logically leads to what use is there to try and understand nature, no?
Questioning is understanding
Leading to the point of life etc.Blaggard wrote:It's a good question but one that logically leads to what use is there to try and understand nature, no?
Hmmm I think we have gone full circle in this circularity. I do thank you for pi though it was nice, tasted like chicken though..?Perceiving exists. wrote:Leading to the point of life etc.Blaggard wrote:It's a good question but one that logically leads to what use is there to try and understand nature, no?
Questioning is understanding
Lol nice chatting with you perceiving, livened up a dull hour.Perceiving exists. wrote:Badum.. yeah never mind.
Everything is a circle if you go far enough
Likewise, rarely i turn down an opportunity to debate any form of claimed logicBlaggard wrote:Lol nice chatting with you perceiving, livened up a dull hour.
Logic my ass.Perceiving exists. wrote:Likewise, rarely i turn down an opportunity to debate any form of claimed logicBlaggard wrote:Lol nice chatting with you perceiving, livened up a dull hour.
This is pure nonens, they thought the same in the 70'ies, and made the print card stupidities to calculate the best path for humans, but all aspects of life can't be calculated as they are very relative and subjective, like taste and aestethics is very abstract and can't be calculated to fit humans, and we end up with things with abhore or just can't get used to.Blaggard wrote:So if logic is perfectly true, where does that leave rationality? Is logic a part of intelligence or is it a part of rationality, in having both terms and holding them as pragmatic do we deny logic? And hence is truth just an incorrigible illusion amongst irrational people to hold everyone back?
Yes that's pretty much what it is saying by implication that truth in absolute terms is a comfortable illusion of the incorrigible.HexHammer wrote:This is pure nonens, they thought the same in the 70'ies, and made the print card stupidities to calculate the best path for humans, but all aspects of life can't be calculated as they are very relative and subjective, like taste and aestethics is very abstract and can't be calculated to fit humans, and we end up with things with abhore or just can't get used to.Blaggard wrote:So if logic is perfectly true, where does that leave rationality? Is logic a part of intelligence or is it a part of rationality, in having both terms and holding them as pragmatic do we deny logic? And hence is truth just an incorrigible illusion amongst irrational people to hold everyone back?
There's a reason why we have very expensive CEO's for big companies, if we could just replace them with computers calculating everything it would lead to a Nobel Price.
OP glaringly ignorent about what the subject really is.
I thought the more intelligent you are the more rational you are.Blaggard wrote:So if logic is perfectly true, where does that leave rationality? Is logic a part of intelligence or is it a part of rationality, in having both terms and holding them as pragmatic do we deny logic? And hence is truth just an incorrigible illusion amongst irrational people to hold everyone back?
No, some completely barking mad people may have high rationale within 1 or more field of their intellect, but no rationale in others.attofishpi wrote:I thought the more intelligent you are the more rational you are.
Isn't rationale the mind at work upon the conditions of logic?
A rational thought the result of an intelligent mind analysing multiple sets of logical conditions?
I stand corrected, didn't consider those crazy geniuses!HexHammer wrote:No, some completely barking mad people may have high rationale within 1 or more field of their intellect, but no rationale in others.attofishpi wrote:I thought the more intelligent you are the more rational you are.
Isn't rationale the mind at work upon the conditions of logic?
A rational thought the result of an intelligent mind analysing multiple sets of logical conditions?
If you have seen the movie "Rain Man" you see a retarded person being able to memorize entire phone books, have super math abilities, etc, but he has no overall rationale, thus he can't solve very simple everyday things. Does not comprehend value of things, like the cost of groccary and a car which he deem as being worth a 100$.
I havn't studied the area intensly but I think it was back in the Vietnam days that egg heads examined war casualties who had sufferd brain damage, and found that we had about 9 main intelligences and some could work together and some independantly, like someone could play piano perfectly, but not put 2+2 together, thus concluding math and motor skills was 2 independant intelligences.
Read up on intelligences and neurology.
reconsider yourselfattofishpi wrote:I stand corrected, didn't consider those crazy geniuses!
what do you mean by 'logic being true'?Blaggard wrote:So if logic is perfectly true, where does that leave rationality? Is logic a part of intelligence or is it a part of rationality, in having both terms and holding them as pragmatic do we deny logic? And hence is truth just an incorrigible illusion amongst irrational people to hold everyone back?
must it not be true too in the larger sense, to be true in the smaller sense? I mean, it may not be complete, the truth of the smaller sense that is, but the truth of the smaller sense cannot be true, and at the same be not true in the bigger sense? (it may be imcomplete, but i'm starting to repeat myself here now)Kayla wrote:what do you mean by 'logic being true'?Blaggard wrote:So if logic is perfectly true, where does that leave rationality? Is logic a part of intelligence or is it a part of rationality, in having both terms and holding them as pragmatic do we deny logic? And hence is truth just an incorrigible illusion amongst irrational people to hold everyone back?
there are many different logical systems
formal logic as taught in universities is a self contained system where certain things are true by definition
but is it true in any larger sense