Welcome! You have entered [The Lounge] at 1:20
pm
[Joe] 1:21 pm: ~~~~~Instant Message Forum~~~~~
[Joe] 1:22 pm: November 18th
[Mr. Fight the Power] 1:22 pm: Hey Joe
[Joe] 1:22 pm: Topic: Logical Arguement
construction
[Joe] 1:22 pm: whats up man
[Joe] 1:23 pm: lets wait see if anyone joins in
[Mr. Fight the Power] 1:23 pm: What is this you
are trying to do here?
[Joe] 1:24 pm: dont know exactly, im pretty
bored, and stuuf is on my mind that i have
questions about
[Mr. Fight the Power] 1:26 pm: Are you trying to
set a standard topic for discussion?
[Joe] 1:27 pm: haha........ well logically yeh, but not
a standard. more like a formal introduction on a
particular topic
[Joe] 1:29 pm: why do u think this chat room
is never used? Are people afraid of there
instincts?
[Mr. Fight the Power] 1:30 pm: I see. It might
be a good idea to start a separate room for
such a thing although it probably isn't
necessary. Yesterday afternoon there were
about 8 people in here. Icon, jgweed, Khethil
and others
[The Lounge]: Fairbanks has entered at 1:30 pm
[Joe] 1:30 pm: no kidding
[Joe] 1:30 pm: Its all about Time...
[Mr. Fight the Power] 1:34 pm: I don't think
this forum has enough visitors to really sustain
a chat room. It seems to be growing fairly
well though.
[Joe] 1:38 pm: Im usually unsure about my
approach to subjects when thinking of a
premise. Thats why i want to explore the
structure of a logically based discussion. Petitio.
I want to look at everyone elses method of
trying to share one thought.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 1:43 pm: I'm not sure if I
follow. Are you wanting to discuss formal
logic, or are you wanting to deal with more
common sense argumentation?
[The Lounge]: Icon has entered at 1:46 pm
[Icon] 1:46 pm: Hola
[Mr. Fight the Power] 1:47 pm: Welcome back
Jerimi. Lets see how long we both can stay
on here.
[Icon] 1:47 pm: Haha. I will be on for the
next 3-4 hours
[Icon] 1:48 pm: I am hiding from other
people at work right now
[Joe] 1:48 pm: hard to say, i think im
wondering if logic is useful if your trying to
arrive at a conclusion on any type of topic.
For some reason, comming into the room, it
popped up in my mind. So how can someone
agree that there having a logical arguement if
they are talking about the same thing but also
different in their own conclusions.
[Icon] 1:48 pm: ...
[Icon] 1:49 pm: I am guessing I missed the
part of this conversation that made sense
[Mr. Fight the Power] 1:49 pm: Haha, no that
was the beginning
[Joe] 1:49 pm: pretty much
[Icon] 1:49 pm: Well then...
[Icon] 1:50 pm: So let's simplify.
[Joe] 1:50 pm: please.....
[Mr. Fight the Power] 1:50 pm: There are
universal laws of logic and reason. Different
values and experiences could feasibly lead to
two individuals with impecable logic to come
conflicting conclusions about a certain
proposition.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 1:51 pm: Religion being
one glaring example
[Joe] 1:51 pm: ok ok. so thats the premise for
the premise
[Mr. Fight the Power] 1:51 pm: What?
[Icon] 1:52 pm: Logic is a tool. Just like a
screw driver
[Icon] 1:52 pm: You may use it to remove a
screw while I use it to pop a paint can
[Icon] 1:53 pm: Same tool, different end
[Joe] 1:53 pm: Then it sounds useful
[Icon] 1:54 pm: it is
[Mr. Fight the Power] 1:54 pm: The analogy
doesn't quite fit our discussion. The question
seems to be whether we could use the
screwdriver in the exact same manner yet one
end up with a tightened screw and one end up
with a open can
[Fairbanks] 1:54 pm: Who is arguing the
utility of logic now?
[Joe] 1:55 pm: is it true that llogic surpresses
Dominance
[Icon] 1:56 pm: I would merely like to point
out that two people can never use the screw
driver the exact same way
[Icon] 1:57 pm: There will always be
variations on it because of muscle fiber and
tension and so forth built up from their use of
their hands. In other words, Logic will never be
applied the same by two people because no
two people are alike
[Mr. Fight the Power] 1:57 pm: What do you
mean Joe?
[Joe] 1:57 pm: i think it does when logic is
supported by scientific fact. I dont know what
else its supported by. Its also expressive on a
"maral" platform
[Joe] 1:57 pm: moral
[Fairbanks] 1:58 pm: Seems the topic should
be rhetoric rather than logic.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 1:58 pm: Hold on Icon,
do you think it is a instance of poor logic or
do you think there simply is no standard logic?
[Joe] 2:00 pm: My real question about logis
is: What information of human action supports
logical thinking?
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:00 pm: You have got
to reword that question.
[Icon] 2:01 pm: There is no standard logic
[Joe] 2:01 pm: how come?
[Icon] 2:02 pm: Standard logic is like saying
standard pant size. Sure they have them but
they will never fit as well as tailored slacks.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:02 pm: I don't
understand your question Joe. What is
"information of human action"?
[Icon] 2:02 pm: In other words, it is similar
logic which gets us to similar conclusions but
we never follow the exact same route as
someone else
[Joe] 2:03 pm: ohhhhh. sort of like logic is
subjective in the sense that it jumps from
different construction between two individuals.
[Joe] 2:04 pm: but it utilizes that we all know
that were speaking the same language
[Icon] 2:04 pm: Correct
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:04 pm: I really don't
want to agree with Icon. Give me a little bit.
[Icon] 2:04 pm: Hahaha.
[Joe] 2:04 pm: hahah.. ok
[Icon] 2:04 pm: I can prove it
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:05 pm: It seems wrong,
but I can't formulate why, and I can't do my
interpretation of the thinker here at work.
[Joe] 2:05 pm: depends if work stimulates,
right?
[Joe] 2:06 pm: certain work i mean
[Icon] 2:06 pm: It's not complete
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:07 pm: I hate relativism.
[Icon] 2:07 pm: Basically, what I am saying
is that the fundamental information is viewed
differently by each person and so we cannot
follow the same logical processes because we
pick out different data from each experience
which finally culminates into our logical
reasoning.
[Icon] 2:07 pm: Example: If someone reaches
to hit you, what do you do?
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:08 pm: Are you saying
that logical reasoning is formulated from
experience?
[Joe] 2:08 pm: yeh wheres the breaking point
between logic?
[Icon] 2:08 pm: correct
[Icon] 2:08 pm: It is
[Joe] 2:08 pm: or whats the common breaking
point
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:08 pm: How can it
be? Reason is about relationships and
patterns. How can we experience these?
[Joe] 2:08 pm: I know that it relies on the
individual , but that still seems weird
[Icon] 2:09 pm: If you work on something
once, you make a great deal of mistakes in
your logic. If it is a car, you may do
something out of order or put something in
backwards. But if you have done it 1,000
times, you will do it quickly and usually
without flaw
[Icon] 2:10 pm: experience alters your logic
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:10 pm: Mistakes imply
a standard.
[Joe] 2:10 pm: That seems to be true. ive
always relied on constant process
[Icon] 2:10 pm: There is a standard, isn't
there?
[Icon] 2:10 pm: the shortest distance.
[Joe] 2:11 pm: would that shortest distance be
instinct then?
[Icon] 2:11 pm: As a creature of limited
existence in this physical plane, the standard is
time. So we use logic to come to conclusions
more quickly and to simplify to make it easier
to process and thus quicker
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:11 pm: So are you
saying that varying applications of logic is not
a measure of logic but a measure on the
inadequacies of the thinker?
[Icon] 2:12 pm: No. I'm not.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:12 pm: But you seem
to imply that one can get "better" at logic.
[Joe] 2:12 pm: iguess that a good point about
how people approach logic differently
[Icon] 2:13 pm: Can you not?
[Joe] 2:13 pm: Sometimes I wonder. haha. but
its something i do have to work on
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:14 pm: There must be
a correct form of logic for one to get better
and if logic is relative to the thinker, then
there is no correct form
[Icon] 2:14 pm: Aha! We are almost on the
same page
[Icon] 2:14 pm: Ok...
[Icon] 2:14 pm: Give me a moment to type
this one
[Joe] 2:17 pm: For me, the problem starts at
the beggining proposition. I cant define my
own propositions.
[Icon] 2:17 pm: There is no standard for
logic. It is completely relative to the individual.
However, the purpose of logic is to reason out
information, sort it and apply it in a way that
best benefits the individual. Thus, it is
completely self contained. The individual sets
the bar and then sets forth to reach it. Now,
when interacting with other people, you have
to understand something about how their logic
works which means you need some sort of
standard which you can measure against. This
standard is
[Icon] 2:18 pm: considered social intelligence.
just like most things, we have created a
standard which we can all agree is almost
accurate, though still flawed
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:18 pm: Hmmm....
[Joe] 2:18 pm: yeh
[Icon] 2:19 pm: So, we use this social
intelligence to meassure each others reasoning
skills within the confines of what we have
created. For instance, what seems perfectly
logical to you in the US would be considered
horrid in say, Bangalor
[Joe] 2:19 pm: based on local institutions
[Fairbanks] 2:19 pm: Rhetoric will do.
Aristotle saved us the trouble of reinventing all
this.
[Icon] 2:19 pm: The very conclusions you
come to are a combination of your experience
of similar matters
[Joe] 2:20 pm: agreed
[Joe] 2:20 pm: it takes longer sometimes to get
to the top of the hill
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:21 pm: I would like to
point out that reason doesn't produce
conclusions on its own. Reason is merely free
floating rules. The fact that we may reach
different conclusions than those in Bangalor
can more likely be attributed to different values
[Icon] 2:22 pm: Free floating rules
determined by what?
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:22 pm: Determined by
nothing. They aren't justified, they just are.
[Icon] 2:23 pm: nothing just is
[Icon] 2:23 pm: Everything has a root
[Icon] 2:23 pm: a source if you will
[Joe] 2:23 pm: i want to write a theory on the
struggle in the individual to conform to a idea
for the benifit of cause and action in a
structure of debate
[Icon] 2:23 pm: So what is the source of
reason?
[Joe] 2:23 pm: Cause and action(Reality)
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:24 pm: It has its
natural roots in the evolution of the human
mind, but this is an indirect relationship to
reality. For it to have evolved, it needn't be
correct, just have utility.
[Joe] 2:24 pm: Debate (debate of conscious)
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:24 pm: We can only
say reason is related to reality (and even this
is circular because we form this opinion
through reason)
[Icon] 2:24 pm: So tell me, were you to be
born to a modern human but raised by a
llama, would you use the same logic?
[Icon] 2:25 pm: or would you use the logic
of a llama
[Icon] 2:25 pm: ?
[Joe] 2:25 pm: not likely based on the pattern
that i concieve
[Joe] 2:26 pm: the pattern of local institutions
of morals
[Icon] 2:26 pm: You would have no words
to put logic into, no language. You would have
no understanding of math or science or
philosophy. You would reason like a llama
reasons
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:26 pm: I think logic is
hard-wired into the mind.
[Joe] 2:27 pm: hard-wired as in biological?
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:27 pm: Yes.
[Joe] 2:27 pm: then that means i might not
reason like the llama
[Joe] 2:27 pm: right?
[Icon] 2:27 pm: I think the desire to logic is
hard-wired but not the logic itself
[Icon] 2:27 pm: perhaps even the ability
[Joe] 2:28 pm: yeh i think that is true
[Joe] 2:28 pm: it really is a confusing circle
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:28 pm: If I raised a
llama as my child would it reason like a person.
[Icon] 2:29 pm: No, it doesn't have the
capacity. But it would not reason like a llama
either
[Joe] 2:29 pm: you think we train animals like
humans for a knowledge based reason?
[The Lounge]: Fairbanks has left at 2:29 pm
[Icon] 2:30 pm: so I guess the best word is
capacity. I think we have the capacity for logic
but not the logic itself. Without motivation, we
would never develope past instinctual
obligations such as eating and sleeping and
drinking.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:30 pm: Let me ask you
this. You are arguing that people have an
inherent capacity for reason but not an
inherent ability, correct?
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:30 pm: Motivation is
instinctual obligations.
[Icon] 2:31 pm: for certain things. I think we
got tangled up in semantics somewhere along
the way
[Joe] 2:31 pm: maybe, so if you have the
ability based on your biological instincts, what
stops your natural process?
[Joe] 2:31 pm: semantics is a good one
[Icon] 2:32 pm: define logic
[Icon] 2:32 pm: As you conceive it
[Joe] 2:32 pm: ok
[Joe] 2:33 pm: well logis is not an absolute
which governs the unviverse. And so It is a
biological process that is different for each
individual.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:34 pm: The relationship
between propositions.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:35 pm: Per the rules of
human understanding
[Joe] 2:35 pm: yeh the rest is just struggle
common ground
[Joe] 2:35 pm: for common ground i mean
[Icon] 2:35 pm: Per the rules of human
understanding. That sentence. Where do we get
these rules?
[Joe] 2:36 pm: large social acceptence?
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:36 pm: Evolution has
put them into our nature.
[Icon] 2:36 pm: Can you prove that?
[Joe] 2:37 pm: Some evidence would be politics,
religion, the common acceptence of the money
system
[Joe] 2:38 pm: politics are defined by a
governing of rules
[Joe] 2:38 pm: but how they are incorperated
into society
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:39 pm: I cannot prove
that.
[Icon] 2:39 pm: ok.
[Icon] 2:39 pm: fair enough
[Icon] 2:39 pm: I am not trying to attack
your argument BTW. I am trying to find a
source for these rules
[Icon] 2:40 pm: I think it will give us a
better understanding of each other
[Icon] 2:40 pm: As a child, we have the
ability to see and react. Monkey see, monkey
do.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:40 pm: I pretty much
accept that by default. I believe that the laws
of reason are a priori knowledge. I don't
believe that they can be observed as they
aren't material.
[Joe] 2:41 pm: hmmm...
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:41 pm: We simply can't
observe cause.
[Icon] 2:41 pm: non material things can
certainly be observed within the self.
[Icon] 2:41 pm: Can you not observe love?
[Icon] 2:41 pm: or anger?
[Icon] 2:41 pm: or fear?
[Icon] 2:41 pm: or excitement?
[Icon] 2:41 pm: logic falls in this category of
internal observation
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:42 pm: We can observe
the mechanical properties that lead to
emotions. But these are relationships. Reason
deals with the relationship between things.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:42 pm: We can
understand that we reason, but we cannot
understand that everything abides by our
reason.
[Icon] 2:42 pm: ok. Let's accept that for now.
[Icon] 2:43 pm: Dog ear this page and
continue
[Icon] 2:43 pm: So as a child we do not
use logic very well
[Icon] 2:43 pm: would you agree to that?
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:43 pm: Yes, I agree
with that. I think reasoning needs seasoning.
[Joe] 2:43 pm: thats not true
[Joe] 2:43 pm: logic seems constant from birth
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:44 pm: why would you
say that?
[Icon] 2:44 pm: I agree and disagree
[Joe] 2:44 pm: since we agreed it natural from
a biological stance
[Icon] 2:44 pm: The capacity is there
[Icon] 2:44 pm: not the process
[Icon] 2:45 pm: So as a child we do not
logic well. We have to do things and learn.
Once we learn, our logic developes. With our
tool getting stronger, the reasoning gets better.
[Joe] 2:45 pm: but change is constant whether
its agreed that its benifitial
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:45 pm: Not all
biological traits are fully formed at birth.
[Icon] 2:46 pm: If they were, I feel sorry for
your manhood
[Joe] 2:46 pm: but you could say that logic is
there because of a natural reasoning to survive.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:46 pm:
[Icon] 2:46 pm: A type of logic but not a
fully developed logic
[Joe] 2:47 pm: right
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:47 pm: Do not think
teleological about this. Reason is not there to
promote your survival, it is there because it
promoted your ancestor's survival.
[Icon] 2:47 pm: Somewhat.
[Icon] 2:48 pm: I do submit to the theory
of related knowledge thorugh genes.
[Icon] 2:49 pm: but in an almost
subconscious way
[Joe] 2:49 pm: thats an interesting thing to
think about
[Icon] 2:50 pm: Logic developes with you.
[Icon] 2:50 pm: It grows as you grow.
[Icon] 2:50 pm: It changes as you change
[Icon] 2:50 pm: So, it is based upon you
and your experiences
[Icon] 2:51 pm: It is not a standard.
[Joe] 2:51 pm: like interaction is the action and
the conscious receives that and a biological
cause affects your genes
[Joe] 2:51 pm: wait....... thats not exactly what i
meant
[Icon] 2:52 pm: So logic is completely
individual. We merely created a loose standard
based upon regional experience in which to
relate similar ideas.
[Joe] 2:53 pm: Thats something i can understand
[Joe] 2:54 pm: So i guess logic isnt a standard
theory for me.....yet
[Joe] 2:55 pm: it will be mine :devilish:
[Icon] 2:55 pm: Haha.
[Icon] 2:55 pm: Great determination
[Icon] 2:55 pm: use it well my friend
[Joe] 2:55 pm: thanks
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:56 pm: Hold on. I take
reason to be individual and subjective, but it
denies the meaning of reason to say that it is
based upon experience. It is solely based upon
you.
[Joe] 2:56 pm: Ftp, that is also the struggle i
have.
[Icon] 2:56 pm: And what are you but the
culmination of your experiences.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:57 pm: I am certainly
not a six foot tall pile of experience.
[Icon] 2:57 pm: Sure you are.
[Joe] 2:58 pm: haha what are you then?
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:58 pm: I am bones,
sinew, and blood.
[Icon] 2:58 pm: Even your physical
attributes are based in experience.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:58 pm: I did not gain
my brown hair from experience.
[Icon] 2:58 pm: Think about it.
[Joe] 2:58 pm: what is your conscious then, or
is it you?
[Icon] 2:59 pm: Scar tissue, blood sugar,
pressure, facial hair growth, approximate size
and shape.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:59 pm: My
consciousness is the byproduct of the
mechanations within my brain and nervous
system.
[Icon] 2:59 pm: All based in what you did
[Icon] 2:59 pm: you built yourself from the
bottom up
[Mr. Fight the Power] 2:59 pm: There is no
experience that causes me to have blood in my
veins. We have substance before we experience.
[Icon] 2:59 pm: perhaps
[Icon] 2:59 pm: Or perhaps not
[Joe] 3:00 pm: we all are survivors, in the
reason of reality
[Icon] 3:00 pm: Can you honestly tell me
that we are not aware in the womb?
[Joe] 3:00 pm: sounds like a slogan. hah
[Joe] 3:01 pm: cant say, if you dont remember.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 3:01 pm: I cannot tell
you whether we are aware or not.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 3:01 pm: I would doubt it.
[Joe] 3:01 pm: memory is under developed
[Mr. Fight the Power] 3:01 pm: Can you
honestly tell me that you were aware as a
zygote.
[Joe] 3:02 pm: whats that?
[Mr. Fight the Power] 3:04 pm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
[Joe] 3:07 pm: thanks for the link, i didnt think
of fertilization like that. Lot to learn about cells
and single cells.
[Mr. Fight the Power] 3:08 pm: I'll tell you. If
we are going to get into this sort of
discussion we could probably use Aedes.
[Joe] 3:08 pm: oh yeh?
[Mr. Fight the Power] 3:09 pm: Yes. This is in
Aedes field, and he is pretty strong on relating
biology to philosophical discussion. He
impresses me quite a bit.
[Joe] 3:10 pm: thats cool man, i would be
interested in his thoughts about biologly with
philosophical comparison
[Joe] 3:11 pm: that seems like linking what is
preceived physically and what is unseen
[Joe] 3:11 pm: lifting a veil, if you will
[Mr. Fight the Power] 3:13 pm: Sort of.
[Joe] 3:13 pm: How about: finding out what the
veil consists of?
[Mr. Fight the Power]: I guess so.
This is an extremely difficult philosophical
question.
[Joe]: yeh, Anyways Im gonna fallback
from the chat room for now. Thanks for going
along with my simple topic questions. Peace
FTP. See ya Icon.
[Mr. Fight the Power]: See you later.
[The Lounge]: Mr. Fight the Power has left at
3:17 pm