Rational Thought
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-04-2016, 04:35 PM
RE: Rational Thought
Hey Unbeliever

All of your definitions are self-referential though, surely? Where you say "logic" - you mean what your own brain has concluded to be logical, based on its own interpretation of what it comprehends this universe to be.

Say you are really locked in a padded cell right now, but you are imagining you are sat at your computer screen typing to me - where does that leave all of your supposed "logic" and "empiricism"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 04:36 PM
RE: Rational Thought
(02-04-2016 04:32 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  If your brain is nothing but the product of "stardust", ie the matter of this universe, then on what basis can you ever fundamentally conclude that anything it derives for you has any meaning or rationality?

(02-04-2016 04:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The rationality of a statement is completely unrelated to the origins of the entity making that statement.

Logic is like math, to the point that the analysis of formal logic boils down to what is called propositional calculus. Whether or not a statement is rational is a matter of whether or not it abides by the rules of logic, not where the brain making it came from.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
02-04-2016, 04:37 PM
RE: Rational Thought
Also Unbeliever, you state with utter certainty that entities of higher orders don't exist. Based on what, simply because you as a finite-dimensional being lacks the technology to detect them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 04:37 PM
RE: Rational Thought
(02-04-2016 04:35 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  All of your definitions are self-referential though, surely?

No.

(02-04-2016 04:35 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Where you say "logic" - you mean what your own brain has concluded to be logical

No. I mean "follows the rules of logic".

(02-04-2016 04:35 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Say you are really locked in a padded cell right now, but you are imagining you are sat at your computer screen typing to me - where does that leave all of your supposed "logic" and "empiricism"?

Still valid within the hallucination.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
02-04-2016, 04:38 PM
RE: Rational Thought
(02-04-2016 04:37 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Also Unbeliever, you state with utter certainty that entities of higher orders don't exist.

No. I state with utter certainty that the phrase "entities of higher orders" is gibberish. "Higher orders" is a non-phrase with no coherent definition. It sounds "deep", but means nothing.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
02-04-2016, 04:41 PM
RE: Rational Thought
Higher orders is a logical premise of dimensions. A three dimensional being would be of a higher order to a two dimensional being. That is simple mathematics, not gibberish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 04:42 PM
RE: Rational Thought
If a two dimensional being declared three dimensional beings to not exist and to be plain gibberish, just because it lacked the capacity to detect the third dimension, that would be a bit silly/arrogant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 04:51 PM
RE: Rational Thought
(02-04-2016 04:41 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  Higher orders is a logical premise of dimensions. A three dimensional being would be of a higher order to a two dimensional being. That is simple mathematics, not gibberish.

So you define "higher orders" to mean "possessing more dimensions". Presumably, you mean spatial dimensions. Fine.

I would ask a follow-up question regarding how you think that an entity with more spatial dimensions than we have could exist in a universe that only has three spatial dimensions, but it's largely irrelevant anyway. The main point, which you seem to have ignored, is that all of this is irrelevant unless you can actually establish that these entities exist.

If the Doctor and the TARDIS were real, our understanding of time would be conclusively demonstrated to be false. But he isn't, so who cares?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
02-04-2016, 04:55 PM
RE: Rational Thought
(02-04-2016 04:32 PM)diversesynergy Wrote:  All the replies seem to argue semantics over the definition of "random". Call it random; unguided; evolution - the logical problem you face is the same.

If your brain is nothing but the product of "stardust", ie the matter of this universe, then on what basis can you ever fundamentally conclude that anything it derives for you has any meaning or rationality?

Who cares if it has meaning?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
02-04-2016, 04:57 PM
RE: Rational Thought
I don't necessarily mean spatial dimensions - they could be dimensions of time, or a totally different type of dimension we have utterly no comprehension of within our own universe.

An entity with three spatial dimensions NECESSARILY exists within two dimensions also. Eg a cube exists in 3 dimensions as a cube, but also exists in 2 dimensions as a square.

Actually, the main point was my OP - I wanted the explanation of why you can declare any rationality (or logic, or math or whatever you choose to call it) behind anything your brain concludes, if your very premise is that you are just a product of the matter of this universe. You'd need a benchmark separate to what your own brain tells you is logically valid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: