Absolute Logic

digsbe said:

Why is it part of absolute logic to prolong one's life?

Click to expand...

Something about evolution. I don't know, it's all confusingly illogical.

CriticalThought said:

Very true. But you bring up an excellent point. Limiting such a situation to two options is inherently irrational. Someone using logic would recognize that there were many alternative options available.

Click to expand...

There can certainly be a variety of methods to escape. The logical thing to do is to make a plan. You sit down and say "OK, I'm at point A, I need to be at point B; what are the ways by which I can realistically get from here to there" and then you weight them by probabilities and outcomes. If you put a lot on your survival, you try to take the plan with your best odds. If you put a lot on your mother's survival, you try to tale the plan with her best odds. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Ikari said:

Something about evolution. I don't know, it's all confusingly illogical.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I believe that it's instinct to prolong one's life, but I believe that humans are higher creatures that can act upon more than instinct. I believe absolute logic is something someone creates for themselves and follows.

Wake said:

Again you offer no substantial response. You merely spam and insult.

You're being redundant.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you know what redundant means, you should revise your usage of it. Also I issued a valid inquiry to the hypothetical situation. Does it not suit your ego? Or was it that I challenged your conception of what 'absolute logic' is and you took it to face and were insulted?

Wake said:

So it is emotions and morality over logic with this one..

Is emotion and morality greater than logic, Grim17?

Click to expand...

It's not a question of which is greater, it's more about acknowledging the strengths and limitations of both. One is vital to our personal survival, while the other is vital to society and happiness/inner peace.

I have a very high IQ and am more intelligent than most people, and throughout my childhood and well into my adult life, I allowed that intelligence to rule my life and it not only made me miserable and I hated life, it nearly destroyed me on more than one occasion. Because of the rough home life I had as a child, I relied almost exclusively on my intelligence to protect me. I let logic dictate how to act, react, what I should do and say, every minute, of every day... That worked very well to protect me from physical harm, but I can't begin to tell you how many bad or wrong choices I made because I relied so heavily on intellect. Then I figured it out...

I came to understand many years ago, that human beings are made up of two things, or forces, that govern our existence. We are animals as well as spiritual beings, or put another way, body and soul. The animal side is our brain, our intelligence, our logic. It's the selfish part of us that only believes what it can see, and evaluates everything based on how it looks on paper. It's what guards our survival and protects us from physical pain. While the spiritual side is our emotions, our feelings, fears, and where that little voice inside of us comes from, that tells us things that logic simply can't explain. It's the part of us where moral values and our sense of right and wrong come from. It's where our compassion is derived, and what allows us to see the effects of certain actions that logic simple can't fathom. What I've found is, anyone who relies too heavily on one over the other, is someone who will make a lot of bad decisions, be very unhappy in their life, or won't be on this earth very long.

In your example, it comes down to 2 simple choices for me... Feed your body, or feed your soul. I'd rather face death and be at peace, then survive the ordeal and live a long and miserable existence.

ps... what I just wrote has everything to do with my political beliefs.

Wake said:

There is logic, emotion, "right", "wrong", and every other preconcieved notion out there.

I am posting an ordeal where one chooses between absolute logic and emotion. Stick to the story, make your choice, and explain why.
_

Let us say you and your mother were lost in the frozen barren woods. You had kindling, a lighter, a knife, rocks, and little hope. Your mother was slowly succumbing to the atmosphere and neither of you had food. (Here we go) Would you kill your mother and survie through cannibalism because absolute logic dictates that you must do so to survive? Or would you let her be because you love her and would rather starve?

_

That is all. I'm trying to illuminate why absolute logic cares not for morality or emotions. I am showing why emotions are an important and credible aspect in argumentation. There is no other alternatives in this story. It must be a hard choice with deep reasons.

What are your thoughts and, more importantly, what would you do?

Click to expand...

You think logic defines a goal, it doesn't, logic can't even define the route to that goal. Why is survival the answer "absolute logic" would give? What makes it the "best" option? I say there is no "best" option that is universal, and the only reason any person finds a "best" option is because of their personal opinions. For example lets go back to the two starving people, lets say you two belong to a tribe and you know the other individual is much more valuable to the group than you are, would logic still dictate its better for you to kill and eat him and not the other way around? And what about his logic, if there is such a thing as absolute logic it must transcend personal opinion, or "personal logic," as it in must be universal? From his perspective he could claim the same absolute logic that he should survive, because from his personal perspective he wants to live.

I don't think you are talking about anything "absolute" here because the answer to the question changes based on whos asking the question, and the answers often contradict each other, ie like both individuals thinking the other should die for them. For something to be absolute it can't change simply by who's viewing or understanding it, it must be a constant regardless of anything else. This "logic" isn't that.

Wake said:

There is logic, emotion, "right", "wrong", and every other preconcieved notion out there.

I am posting an ordeal where one chooses between absolute logic and emotion. Stick to the story, make your choice, and explain why.
_

Let us say you and your mother were lost in the frozen barren woods. You had kindling, a lighter, a knife, rocks, and little hope. Your mother was slowly succumbing to the atmosphere and neither of you had food. (Here we go) Would you kill your mother and survie through cannibalism because absolute logic dictates that you must do so to survive? Or would you let her be because you love her and would rather starve?

_

That is all. I'm trying to illuminate why absolute logic cares not for morality or emotions. I am showing why emotions are an important and credible aspect in argumentation. There is no other alternatives in this story. It must be a hard choice with deep reasons.

What are your thoughts and, more importantly, what would you do?

Click to expand...

This isn't a hard choice at all. I'd let her be -- do everything I could to save her and we'd sink or swim together. I see you're equating it to emotion or morality. It's neither one for me. It's instinct.

Wake said:

What is logic?

Can someone obey logic in its purest form?

Machines have no emotion or morality. They only follow logic. When people strive to be more logical than others, they do not realize that to be utterly logic is to focus on logic alone and leave all else behind.

Click to expand...

Logic is irrefutable evidence that stands by itself, everyone can relate with, no one doubts it, and it is detectable by one or more of our senses.

Cars run on fuel, elevators go up and down, night follows day, the sun shines, the earth orbits the sun, April follows March, death is inevitable, etc.

ricksfolly

digsbe said:

I disagree. I believe that it's instinct to prolong one's life, but I believe that humans are higher creatures that can act upon more than instinct. I believe absolute logic is something someone creates for themselves and follows.

Click to expand...

It's called a conscience.

Wake said:

There is logic, emotion, "right", "wrong", and every other preconcieved notion out there.

I am posting an ordeal where one chooses between absolute logic and emotion. Stick to the story, make your choice, and explain why.
_

Let us say you and your mother were lost in the frozen barren woods. You had kindling, a lighter, a knife, rocks, and little hope. Your mother was slowly succumbing to the atmosphere and neither of you had food. (Here we go) Would you kill your mother and survie through cannibalism because absolute logic dictates that you must do so to survive? Or would you let her be because you love her and would rather starve?

_

That is all. I'm trying to illuminate why absolute logic cares not for morality or emotions. I am showing why emotions are an important and credible aspect in argumentation. There is no other alternatives in this story. It must be a hard choice with deep reasons.

What are your thoughts and, more importantly, what would you do?

Click to expand...

I would scape away the outer bark of the pine trees and feed both my mother and myself the inner bark.
Make tea type drink out of the needles.

Would also look for other potential foraging items before I'd let my mother and myself get that far into starvation.

Definitely more logical to go my route, then let us starve and die to test a philosophical theory.

Ikari said:

Actually, given what they had on them; the most "logical" solution is not to kill your mother and eat her. But rather to build a fire, build shelter, and go forage for food. There is greater strength in number and if your mother can be nursed back so that she can then contribute, your collective survival probabilities increase.

Click to expand...

CriticalThought said:

Very true. But you bring up an excellent point. Limiting such a situation to two options is inherently irrational. Someone using logic would recognize that there were many alternative options available.

Click to expand...

Precisely.

The most logical solution, if your intent is to live, is to build shelter, find (and purify) water and forage for food.
And that's before you starve.

I think there is logic in morality

Depends on the parameters of what you consider the logic to be.

ricksfolly said:

Logic is irrefutable evidence that stands by itself, everyone can relate with, no one doubts it, and it is detectable by one or more of our senses.

Cars run on fuel, elevators go up and down, night follows day, the sun shines, the earth orbits the sun, April follows March, death is inevitable, etc.

Click to expand...

There are some people who rely far too much on logic, and all too often use it to explain or dismiss things they can't see, hear, smell, or touch, and sometimes use it to determine conclusions about things, that they don't fully understand. Human logic is a wonderful trait we possess, but there are some things logic simply can't explain, that are never the less, very real.

Logic can't explain my grandmother springing out of bed at 4am in a panic and crying because she knew something bad had happened to her husband (my grandfather) who at the time was a soldier serving in France during WWII. Then learning several days later that at the exact time she had woke up in that panic, my grandfather had rushed into a burning building to save 2 children, and the building collapsed on him and he had to be hospitalized.

Logic also can't explain the morning I woke from a dream I had about my other grandfather who lived 3000 miles away in Maryland. A man I hadn't seen, talked to, or even thought about for several years, and someone I had never dreamed about before. In the dream he walked by me in his house, gave me a pat on the head, and said goodbye to me (using my name), and then I watched him walk down the hall away from me. At that point I awoke, scratched my head because that was such a strange dream, looked at the clock which said 7:30, so I got up, got ready and went to work. Shortly after I got home from work that day, my mother called to tell me that my cousin had called her from back east and informed her that my grandfather passed away at his home in Maryland at 9:30 that morning... 9:30am eastern time, just happens to be 7:30am mountain time, the time zone that I lived in.

Religion is also one of those things that logic simply can't explain, and the reason why such a high percentage of the so called "intellectuals" of our society, who rely almost exclusively on logic to determine what does and doesn't exist, are atheists who see the 100's of millions of people of faith in this world, as nothing but fools... I don't know myself whether there is a God or not, but what I do know, is that the people who believe logic holds all the answers in the universe, are just as big of fools as they believe people of faith to be.

Except if you value her life more than yours then it is logical to not kill her.



For instance if if it was either my mother or 1000 people I didn't know were to die and I could choose to save one, my mother would be the logical choice because I value her infinitely more than I value those 1000 people I don't know or have attachment to.

Then wouldn't that be based on the emotional attachment to your mother overriding your consideration for the lives of 1000 people? Need logic even be applied!?

OH! the futility!

SE102 said:

Then wouldn't that be based on the emotional attachment to your mother overriding your consideration for the lives of 1000 people? Need logic even be applied!?

OH! the futility!

Click to expand...

Not just emotional attachment but the value from it. Those people have no value to me, my mother does. How in earth would it be logical for me to save people that don't help me in any tangible way rather than my mother who I do have an attachment to and helps me?

Numbers don't matter, I'd rather have one mass effect game than a million ****ty games. Would it be logical for me to choose all of the garbage instead of the gem?

You'd be quite a dog to do something like that. But nonetheless the decision doesn't even boil down to logic. Really it boils down to acting on your personal impetus...

but what drives that?


Oh, the confoundity of it all!

CriticalThought said:

Someone using logic would recognize that there were many alternative options available.

Click to expand...

There are always logical options if you know what they are.

Getting from point A to point B, for example, logically, you could fly, take a car, a bus, a train, walk, run or crawl.

Wake said:

There is logic, emotion, "right", "wrong", and every other preconcieved notion out there.

I am posting an ordeal where one chooses between absolute logic and emotion. Stick to the story, make your choice, and explain why.
_

Let us say you and your mother were lost in the frozen barren woods. You had kindling, a lighter, a knife, rocks, and little hope. Your mother was slowly succumbing to the atmosphere and neither of you had food. (Here we go) Would you kill your mother and survie through cannibalism because absolute logic dictates that you must do so to survive? Or would you let her be because you love her and would rather starve?

_

That is all. I'm trying to illuminate why absolute logic cares not for morality or emotions. I am showing why emotions are an important and credible aspect in argumentation. There is no other alternatives in this story. It must be a hard choice with deep reasons.

What are your thoughts and, more importantly, what would you do?

Click to expand...

The Survival is not an “absolute logic”,

The “absolute logic” satisfies all concerned,
Otherwise, This is not “absolute logic”.
But, this is “self service”!!!

You tell a story of two people,
This is your imagination that sees nothing in the circumstance except cannibalism,

When a powerful and a weak sit together, this is the responsibility of the powerful to protect weak!!! This is “absolute logic”!!!

Snake eats own babies in “absolute hunger”,
Pigeon do not eat pigeon in “absolute hunger”,
So, “absolute logic” is different for different minds,

There is a hope when you have wood, knife, rocks, kindling, lighter,
They can survive!!!

You know?
To plan a condition or to deliver a lecture on an imaginary condition is different, and,
To act in a condition is entirely different,
This is ability,

Many experts talk on economy,
But, in a situation they fail to produce results,
They just continue to swim in the recession like ducks,

Have you or Christiana Amanpur or any TV ever asked financial experts about “absolute logic”???

What you call “absolute logic” is a joke and absolutely irrelevant to others.

Well, I think what that's trying to get at is "are some beliefs/ideas worth dying for". I think the answer for most people is yes.

Some people may very well believe that not killing the person that brought you into this world, is more important than their own survival.

But as people point out, that's only because you introduced the concept of precognition, being certain your mother will die. Typically that's not the case.

Let's assume you are correct, your mother will die in 4 days even if you reasonably find some food/shelter. How do you know a rescue party won't show up tomorrow? You're there licking your fingers after eating your moms and the rescue party looks around and then says "WTF is going on you sick ****!" and then they shoot you out of rage and disgust.

That's logical too you know

Mach said:

Well, I think what that's trying to get at is "are some beliefs/ideas worth dying for". I think the answer for most people is yes.

Some people may very well believe that not killing the person that brought you into this world, is more important than their own survival.

But as people point out, that's only because you introduced the concept of precognition, being certain your mother will die. Typically that's not the case.

Let's assume you are correct, your mother will die in 4 days even if you reasonably find some food/shelter. How do you know a rescue party won't show up tomorrow? You're there licking your fingers after eating your moms and the rescue party looks around and then says "WTF is going on you sick ****!" and then they shoot you out of rage and disgust.

That's logical too you know

Click to expand...

So, you are saying the rescuers will look at the cooked mom and say "omgwtfbbq"?

megaprogman said:

So, you are saying the rescuers will look at the cooked mom and say "omgwtfbbq"?

Click to expand...

Exactly, the power of brainstorming at work.

Or that many intended rescuers get stranded themselves, they may have all been starving too. It may have been the aroma of Mom on the barbe that lead them to the camp in the first place.

I think it should be standard practice to carry a dry-rub packet in survival gear just in case you need to put a friend or loved one on the spit.

Wake said:

I'm trying to illuminate why absolute logic cares not for morality or emotions. I am showing why emotions are an important and credible aspect in argumentation.

Click to expand...

well, we have a few problems with the set up.

firstly, your initial premise is loaded. you are honest in that, anyway. you are "trying to show" what you have already concluded. there would seem to be little room for debate. of course, that is not going to stop anyone who loves this sorta thing.

secondly, you begin with a supposition that is seriously flawed - emotion and reason are not in opposition, nor are reason and morality. in its best guise, morality is a product of reason. That "emotions are an important and credible aspect in argumentation" is perfectly rational without your attempting to show that logic is amoral.

logically, you have four possible outcomes:

• i survive
• my mother survives
• we both survive
• neither survives.

logic takes a different approach than morality. logic goes for (most) certain, morality goes for 'most good'. the latter puts the definition of 'good' into question, but we can delay that for now. let us quantify our options:

• best resolution: both survive.
• least good resolution: neither survives
• most probable resolution: one survives by eating the other.
• optimal resolution: if only one survives, the one that survives, survives best (that is, the one in the better condition to start with)

note, that "I survive" is not in there. that "I survive" is not necessarily the most rational conclusion. killing my mother in order that i survive by eating her is no more rational than allowing her to kill me so that she may survive by eating me. That "I survive" is a personal psycho-emotional preference. as you posit the scenario, it sounds as if "i survive" is the most rational option. except that it may not be.

it is not rational, to chose to harm oneself. It is not rational, per se, to choose to harm another. to harm another to defend oneself may be rational, if in defending yourself you do not cause greater harm to yourself than in not harming the other.

if it hurts to do something, even if that something is needed to survive, it is still rational to choose not to do so if the pain of doing so is greater than the pain in NOT doing so. If the pain in killing, butchering, cooking and eating your mother causes you greater psychological harm than in closing your eyes and accepting your fate, it is perfectly rational to accept your fate.

the question you are asking is like asking 'which is better? a claw hammer or an acetelene torch?". the answer depends a lot on what you are going to use it for. reason and nonreason are tools, both of them useful, but not necessarily for the same things. is your objective to be moral or to survive? there are times ya know, when those two objectives are not wholly compatible - ask any soldier come home from the war.

finally, morality does not exist in a vacuum. arguably, it is not moral or immoral to act in anyway that does not affect another.

morality is subjective. is it moral to eat another to save yourself? many would say yes.
is it moral to kill another in order to eat them in order to save yourself? many would still say yes but more would say no.

reason, is less subjective. the two propositions above are rationally equal, but not morally equal.

if we 'objectify' the question - if we determine that there is a GOOD that is not subective (hard to do, but for argument's sake...), can we still address the question?

we again start with a difficulty - you have not established a relationship between reason and good. good is an objective, reason is a path. reason can lead you to the objective, but reaching the objective without employing reason is still reaching the objective. sometimes, **** happens... sometimes, some really GOOD **** happens.

whaddya do when you meet a Grizzly inna woods? your emotions tell you to RUUUUUUUUUUN! if you have any knowledge of grizzlies, though, reason tells you that running will likely lead to your abrupt dismemberment. reason tells you to harness your fear, roll into a ball protecting the soft parts and do not move.

importantly, fear here is still very much at work. reason would have no fuel on which to operate without the fear that tells you that you MUST do something and do it quick. reason and passion work hand in hand when they work best.

again, we come back to apt useage. when your girlfriend is considering leaving you for another guy because he makes her laugh... do not try to reason her out of it... get down on your knees and beg.. cry.. wail and plead. probably won't work, but it stands a better chance than reason because her cause for leaving is not based on reason but emotion. IF she says yes, reason might help in determining how to KEEP her... and that reason may tell you to be more passionate.

in debate, we have pretty specific ends. for some, WIN at any cost - for others, get the rightest and truest answer. (i am lucky in that. In my case, those two things tend to go together). in your arguments, bring your passion. let your passion propel you, but let your reason guide you. passion is an important part of rhetoric, of convincing speech. but reason leads more often to right answers.

no, i would not kill another to save myself. if the other died, yeah, i would probably eat them, but probably not if it were someone i loved.

geo.

Wake said:

Of course not. Many don't.

I see that emotions and notions of morality are keeping people from doing what logic in its purest form dictates.

Survival. (Is that not what evolutionists pine for, or do they not believe in thier notions to the fullest extent?)

Click to expand...

ya gotta learn a bit more about evolution. survival is the driving force of life.. of living things. that does not mean that it is the first law for every living thing... or suicide would be unknown.

logic does not dictate that you sacrifice another to save yourself.

geo.