AuthorTopic: Zombie Rehab  (Read 49031 times)

Offline Ka

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
    • View Profile
Re: Zombie Rehab
« Reply #255 on: June 17, 2013, 11:07:39 PM »
Let me try to put it another way.  To me it seems we are splitting hairs...or arguing with each other because we've been arguing.  My language is not as academic or refined as yours.  I'm more arm chair and empirical.  The things I know that are ultimately true are not things I've read.  They are experiences that I take to be true because I believe in my sensing ability that gives me perception to work with to begin with.  My perceptions must be at least real as an experience that I'm witness to.  So I'm saying I believe them as a transmission of something true.

Now we are closer to just splitting hairs, but we weren't when you said "faith is antithetical to logic", while I (in our previous go-round) had said "faith and logic are complementary". The plain meaning of those two phrases indicates a difference significantly larger than a hair's breadth. But after discussion, we can now see that our positions are not as different. But I think they are still different.

On experience as truth-giver, yes, mostly. But there are limits there as well. For example, based on thinking -- not experience -- I (and some others) conclude that space, time, and mass are created in the act of perception. How is one going to conclude this from sense experience? One cannot. One can conclude it from mystical experience, but only if one has had it, which I haven't.

Quote
Logic is useful until it's not anymore.  It stops being useful and you just have to decide for yourself what is ultimately true once your brain activity stops. 

I agree that it is incapable of making that leap to faith. But it doesn't thereby stop being useful. For example, one's leap may be to a false faith (as occurred to me when as an adolescent I acquired a faith in naturalism). Logical thinking cured me of that. Further, I think that with logic one can deepen one's faith, though of course if one's leap was into a false faith, one is then just getting into a deeper hole. However, I hold (following Barfield) that even in that case one is doing oneself good in the long (reincarnational) run, which is to say, that learning to exercise reason is a necessary stage in the evolution of consciousness.

Quote
I believe there is consciousness beyond my brain.  I believe there are other levels of existence which are described as spiritual in nature.  I believe when my body has rotted away I will still be participating in some form of consciousness be it via reincarnation or other levels of existence.  Where does logic come in there Ka?  I mean I can make a case for all of my beliefs logically...until I can't anymore...and that's where the logic stops working and we just have to be comfortable in the agnostic corner we are forced into due to requiring monkey brains to exist in this manifestation of consciousness. 

Well, as you say, logic comes in when you can make a case for your beliefs. When challenged you can strengthen that case. Or decide a belief or two should be modified or abandoned.  I would add that the same complementary relation between logic and faith occurs in other areas than religion. Political stance is one. What kind of doomer one is is another, with major implications in how one prepares. I would assume you agree that in these cases, further exercise of logic is a good thing. Why not in one's faith? Another reason is to find out further implications of one's faith. For example, you say you believe (as do I) that there is consciousness beyond the brain. That implies that the brain is not the source of consciousness. Nor of thinking, since one can also think after one dies. Nor of sense perception (if one has had, or accepts that others have had, OOBE's). So basically you are rejecting the whole mindset of contemporary society's view of the mind. Going further, as mentioned, one can conclude that space, time, and mass are created in the act of perception. What does that do to one's understanding of physical (or social, or personal) evolution? The Big Bang theory? Rather a lot, I would say.

Quote
We can't know until we die.  We can't know, and so where does logic fit into not knowing?  How does logic make any sense when what we know is that we don't know?  That's why I say that in the end Faith is not a product of logic.  We can arrive at the door of faith with logic, but that leap we must take is not logical.

What I mean to say is that leap can be composed of logic but it's not in fact logic once taken.  It's something different.  Intangible as Agelbert said.  The intangible nuances that breath the life out are not logic. 

But they are not illogical either, which to me was implied when you used the word 'antithetical'. And one may speculate that what got you to make the leap is a higher logic. In any case, how is this situation of "not knowing" any different from any other situation in which one applies logic as best one can, e.g., in the examples of politics or doomer stance?

Quote
Logic is nothing more than a tool of the mind.  In the end it might not even be real...just another dream we dreamt up to have something to argue about.  To feel we are being understood amongst our peers.  Which is ultimately what we crave...I believe.

Well here I do disagree, but to spell it out would be a major undertaking. Briefly, I agree with Nishida (of 'logic of contradictory identity' fame) who claims that with it, the logical, the epistemological, and the ontological coincide. If you read further in my 'path of reason' essay, this idea shows up where I say (following Wolff) that contradictory identity isn't just something to say about consciousness, but is consciousness.

Offline luciddreams

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3328
    • View Profile
    • Epiphany Now
Re: Zombie Rehab
« Reply #256 on: June 18, 2013, 06:54:04 AM »
LD, it seems like you're using the word "logic" to be synonymous with, or limited to, various qualities such as physical, tangible, known, knowable, scientific, empirical, unemotional, etc., when it really isn't.

I think it's useful to just substitute the word "trust" for "faith" sometimes. You have faith in nature and/or your experiences with nature, meaning you trust in them. But does that mean you have no underlying logic or reason to do so?

I think it would help to have a definition of logic that we all agree on don't you? 

Quote
1.the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

2.a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.

3.the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

4.reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.

5.convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/logic?s=t

Not sure dictionary.com is very helpful here...sort of vague in their definitions I think.

got any suggestions for a definition?  Are reason and logic the same things?  Maybe I'll try this way.  Take three people of equal intelligence.  All of them are the same age.  All of them use logic to decide which religious faith they believe.  They come to three different conclusions.  One is Christian, one is Buddhist, and one is Wiccan.  Is one more correct than the other?  They all used different logic to arrive at their conclusions. 

Logic seems pretty malleable to me in this case.   

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
    • View Profile
Re: Zombie Rehab
« Reply #257 on: June 18, 2013, 07:46:10 AM »
I think it would help to have a definition of logic that we all agree on don't you? 

...

Take three people of equal intelligence.  All of them are the same age.  All of them use logic to decide which religious faith they believe.  They come to three different conclusions.  One is Christian, one is Buddhist, and one is Wiccan.  Is one more correct than the other?  They all used different logic to arrive at their conclusions. 

Logic seems pretty malleable to me in this case.

Yes it would help to have a definition. I still don't think the issue of which worldview is "more correct" is very relevant to whether logic can be used. Logic COULD be used to determine whether it is likely (not certain) that none are correct, one is correct, all 3 are correct or it's impossible to determine who is more correct.

But I'll let Ka continue with this and provide the definition (though, dictionary.com's isn't too bad). I'll just say for the record I agree with everything is his last response (except for his spiritual conclusions)
« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 07:51:28 AM by Ashvin »

Offline luciddreams

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3328
    • View Profile
    • Epiphany Now
Re: Zombie Rehab
« Reply #258 on: June 18, 2013, 09:34:01 AM »

Yes it would help to have a definition. I still don't think the issue of which worldview is "more correct" is very relevant to whether logic can be used. Logic COULD be used to determine whether it is likely (not certain) that none are correct, one is correct, all 3 are correct or it's impossible to determine who is more correct.


so then logic could be used to determine that you are correct and the other two are incorrect in their beliefs?  Does that mean the other two are using logic incorrectly and are therefore arriving at an incorrect spiritual answer to truth? 

If that's the case, then how could they know they were using logic incorrectly?  Further, how do you know that you used it correctly? 

My stance is that all three could use logic to determine that their beliefs are correct, if indeed nothing but logic could be used.  And by your admission all three COULD be correct using logic.  But if we are to use more than logic, what is it that we use?  If it's not logic it has to be something different from logic.  And if logic can't take us all the way, then what is that other something? 

That point is where I'm saying that logic is antithetical to faith.  Because if all three are correct and used correct logic to form their conclusions than logic could be used to decide the truth about anything you want.  You could say virtually anything is true.  A Jew is correct as is a Christian...but they don't agree with each other. There is a paradox there. 

I maintain that something other than logic must be used to make the final decision about where to place your faith. 

Offline Ka

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
    • View Profile
Re: Zombie Rehab
« Reply #259 on: June 18, 2013, 10:45:51 AM »
I think it would help to have a definition of logic that we all agree on don't you? 

I'll take a stab at this, but like most philosophical terms, one can't entirely get universally acceptable definitions (e.g., 'truth', 'reality', 'good'). Anyway....

Most generally, logic refers to patterns of thinking. The study of logic attempts to find those patterns that are trustworthy, that is, which lead to truth, and those patterns which don't, which are called fallacies. By "conventional logic", I have been referring to those patterns which Aristotle identified, that is, which conform to the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle, and the basic syllogisms. One important thing to note is that identifying these patterns and recognizing fallacies is done intuitively -- one cannot use logic to determine what is logical. One just knows, or more commonly, one just knows when someone violates one of these trustworthy patterns. In other words, the study of logic is descriptive, not prescriptive. 

However, the situation gets muddled in that the only place such trustworthy laws operate in a pure fashion is in mathematics. In mathematics, one explicitly states the assumptions one starts with, explicitly defines all subsequently introduced terms, and uses explicit logical rules to prove theorems. In all other rational endeavors, one does not have the luxury of having one's assumptions and definitions and patterns of thinking so explicitly available. Which is why the three individuals in your example came to different conclusions. They had variable cultural, social, and psychological conditions, different experiences, different mentors, different challenges, etc., all of which instills varying habits of thinking, using varying assumptions, and giving varying weights to the same data. This is not to say that given enough time and critical thinking one can make all of that explicit and thus be able to determine the one, true religion through conventional logic alone. And this is not just a matter of practical impossibility, but is a theoretical impossibility. One thing that mathematics can never encompass is the mathematician, or conventional logic the logician. Which is to say that consciousness operates at a level beyond that of conventional logic. If it didn't, there would be no creativity, since conventional logic can only go from given assumptions to implications of those assumptions. Consciousness can create new assumptions. What logic, then, does one use to think about consciousness? Well, you know how I answer that one: the logic of contradictory identity.

Quote
[From your last reply to Ashvin]so then logic could be used to determine that you are correct and the other two are incorrect in their beliefs?  Does that mean the other two are using logic incorrectly and are therefore arriving at an incorrect spiritual answer to truth? 

I would say, no, the other two are not using logic incorrectly, rather, they are using it with faulty assumptions, or on different data, or because they assign different importance to certain data, or they are just unaware of some relevant data, and so forth. But, of course, that also applies to the first person -- as we agree, certainty is just not available. But I would agree with Ashvin that one can make plausibility judgments, and so it is not the case that any faith is just as good, or bad, as any other.

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
    • View Profile
Re: Zombie Rehab
« Reply #260 on: June 18, 2013, 11:26:44 AM »

Yes it would help to have a definition. I still don't think the issue of which worldview is "more correct" is very relevant to whether logic can be used. Logic COULD be used to determine whether it is likely (not certain) that none are correct, one is correct, all 3 are correct or it's impossible to determine who is more correct.


so then logic could be used to determine that you are correct and the other two are incorrect in their beliefs?  Does that mean the other two are using logic incorrectly and are therefore arriving at an incorrect spiritual answer to truth? 

If that's the case, then how could they know they were using logic incorrectly?  Further, how do you know that you used it correctly? 

It could be they are using faulty logic, or it could be their logic is fine but they are applying it to incorrect facts, bad evidence, faulty assumptions etc. This is something I need to watch out for on the bar exam questions! Perfectly coherent logic won't matter a bit if I get the rule of law and fact patterns wrong.

So correct logic won't always get you to the correct conclusions, but faulty logic will definitely get you to incorrect conclusions (unless you just get there by guessing and dumb luck). There is a leap of faith ultimately required to make a firm commitment to ANY worldview, but making a leap of faith is a logical thing to do IMO.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 11:29:01 AM by Ashvin »

Offline luciddreams

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3328
    • View Profile
    • Epiphany Now
Re: Zombie Rehab
« Reply #261 on: June 18, 2013, 12:17:36 PM »


So correct logic won't always get you to the correct conclusions, but faulty logic will definitely get you to incorrect conclusions (unless you just get there by guessing and dumb luck). There is a leap of faith ultimately required to make a firm commitment to ANY worldview, but making a leap of faith is a logical thing to do IMO.

yet that leap is one of faith...not logic...which has really been my point all along.  Seems we've been fighting over a miscommunication.  And if I had to guess I'd say it was due to the loss of nuance that easily occurs via this medium of communication. 

So it would seem the only thing we disagree on now...well the main problem I have with your beliefs at least, all revolves around the question of Hell and who goes there...and the exact nature of...

Which, Hell would be a great topic to embark on seeing as how this is the Zombie Rehab thread... :laugh:

I find that to be pretty damn funny ;D

Although I would participate in another thread that dealt with just the topic of Hell...hell...maybe I'll start it  O0


Offline luciddreams

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3328
    • View Profile
    • Epiphany Now
Re: Zombie Rehab
« Reply #262 on: June 18, 2013, 12:40:21 PM »
But I would agree with Ashvin that one can make plausibility judgments, and so it is not the case that any faith is just as good, or bad, as any other.

"Plausibility judgments" needs to be elaborated on homey...cause that seems pretty vague in nature to me. 

This was the only thing I saw in your comment that jumped out at me.  That is to say, that caused my disagree alarm to go off. 

As in something is plausible? 

Also I'd like to have a small synopsis of an elaboration on the "logic of contradictory identity" by you.  Cause I'm not sure I understand what you mean still...and I did go on to finish that blog of yours btw. 

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
    • View Profile
Re: Zombie Rehab
« Reply #263 on: June 18, 2013, 01:59:41 PM »
yet that leap is one of faith...not logic...which has really been my point all along.  Seems we've been fighting over a miscommunication.  And if I had to guess I'd say it was due to the loss of nuance that easily occurs via this medium of communication.

Yeah, we are all forced to make a leap of faith, even Agnostics who say "we just can't know the real truth". That is a faith-based position. And it's quite likely someone will make the WRONG leap of faith if proper logic and reasoning is not used beforehand.

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
    • View Profile
Re: Zombie Rehab
« Reply #264 on: June 18, 2013, 02:01:05 PM »
Quote from: LD
So it would seem the only thing we disagree on now...well the main problem I have with your beliefs at least, all revolves around the question of Hell and who goes there...and the exact nature of...

Which, Hell would be a great topic to embark on seeing as how this is the Zombie Rehab thread... :laugh:

I find that to be pretty damn funny ;D

Although I would participate in another thread that dealt with just the topic of Hell...hell...maybe I'll start it  O0

Hell, may as well start it here... a mod can just siphon it off if need be.

The issue of "hell" is centered around the concept of ultimate Justice for beings with free moral agency, i.e. punishment for freely chosen evil deeds and reward for righteousness. Every major spiritual belief system embraces this concept, whether is it via some form of karma/reincarnation process or via the "afterlife".

In addition, if you accept the eternal nature of spirit, then punishment can have eternal consequences. In the Biblical Christian context, the eternal consequence for rejecting God is not being forgiven of sin, clothed with Christ's righteousness and inheriting your share of his everlasting Kingdom, which is Paradise restored and renewed.

Some people taking this to mean you are quarantined off in some other realm for eternity, in a permanent state of sin and rebellion and separation from God, which really amounts to eternal torment. The logic here is that, even if God offered you a ticket into his Kingdom, you would choose to remain in Hell. Others would argue this means you are extinguished from existence, which is also eternal separation from God and horrendous compared to the alternative (eternal life WITH God), but it does not require God to sustain your existence in a state of eternal conscious torment.

I lean towards the latter.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 02:15:38 PM by Ashvin »

Offline Ka

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
    • View Profile
Re: Zombie Rehab
« Reply #265 on: June 18, 2013, 03:02:54 PM »
"Plausibility judgments" needs to be elaborated on homey...cause that seems pretty vague in nature to me. 

The Big Bang theory is a plausibility judgment. Concluding that there will be financial/commercial collapse in the next five or so years is a plausibility judgment. Given the data at hand, you make a decision over which of several possibilities strikes you as most likely, or decide not to choose. You asked in your previous post what it is besides logic that leads to making a particular leap to faith. My answer is that it is the same as what makes one choose one scientific hypothesis over another: the data being focused on, and how one interprets it. The only difference is that science works with easier data to collect and interpret, while a religious conclusion works with data that is much muddier, harder to select, and harder to interpret (assuming one is without direct divine revelation, though even there, error is possible). I assume you wouldn't say that science, or history, is antithetical to logic, so why say it of a carefully thought-out move to a religious conclusion? There is a difference of degree, but not of kind. (Mathematics, by the way, is a difference of kind, because it doesn't work with data at all.)

Quote
Also I'd like to have a small synopsis of an elaboration on the "logic of contradictory identity" by you.  Cause I'm not sure I understand what you mean still...and I did go on to finish that blog of yours btw.

Well, I had thought of those blog entries as being a small synopsis, so I'm not at all sure I can do better here. You might think of it this way. The central maxim of Mahayana Buddhism is that "formlessness is not other than form, form is not other than formlessness". Here we clearly have a claim of identity of two contraries: form and formlessness. Now, assuming one doesn't just reject the maxim, deciding that the Buddha (or at least the Buddhist author of this maxim) is just wrong, how is one to deal with this claim? One way is to basically put it aside, meditate for several years and hope (though you don't admit that you are hoping) that the Truth of the claim appears to you as a mystical insight. But another thing one can do is realize that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of form, nor as formlessness alone, nor as a combination of form and formlessness. It can only be "understood" as a case of form being not other than formlessness, and formlessness being not other than form. And of course, the square quotes around "understood" is because this isn't actually understandable by the static intellect. But one can understand that the answer to the mystery of consciousness lies in what is, to the static intellect, a contradictory identity. Of course, I've left out here how it is that one comes to that realization about consciousness, but that one can find in the second blog entry, where I talk about how the conscious self persists only if it doesn't persist, and doesn't persist (that is, it changes) only by persisting.

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3338
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Re: Zombie Rehab
« Reply #266 on: June 18, 2013, 03:44:35 PM »
Also I'd like to have a small synopsis of an elaboration on the "logic of contradictory identity" by you.  Cause I'm not sure I understand what you mean still...and I did go on to finish that blog of yours btw.

I think this is a case where a picture is worth a thousand words.... Here's three:







What you see depends on what you choose to focus on.
Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

Offline luciddreams

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3328
    • View Profile
    • Epiphany Now
Re: Zombie Rehab
« Reply #267 on: June 18, 2013, 05:27:10 PM »
Also I'd like to have a small synopsis of an elaboration on the "logic of contradictory identity" by you.  Cause I'm not sure I understand what you mean still...and I did go on to finish that blog of yours btw.

I think this is a case where a picture is worth a thousand words.... Here's three:







What you see depends on what you choose to focus on.

beautiful John  :D

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 40264
    • View Profile
Zombie Rehab: The RE Spin
« Reply #268 on: June 19, 2013, 02:52:51 AM »
I am about half way through the Text for the next Sunday Brunch Article, entitled ZOMBIE REHAB.

Instead of doing a Compilation article at this point which is about impossible, rather I am writing a synthesis here of questions that came up in the thread and my own perspectives on them.

I still encourage both Agelbert and LD who have been major contributors to the thread to develop their own articles.  Watson also, since he has posted quite a bit to this thread and he does have a Byline on the Diner Blog also.

I think it would make a nice series overall.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Zombie Rehab
« Reply #269 on: June 19, 2013, 01:58:29 PM »
Quote
I still encourage both Agelbert and LD who have been major contributors to the thread to develop their own articles.

I think you are an excellent editor and a rigorously objective scientist as well. You may say I am being a lazy arse but I'll wait to enjoy your article and post any thoughts I have on it in the comments.  ;) :icon_sunny:

I want to add that I think Monsta is the BEST as far aas page layout and formatting. He redid some my old articles and they were much easier to read IMHO. I like his font selection. Yeah, I know that's just nitpicking but Monsta deserves and At-A-Boy for his formatting skills.   :icon_mrgreen:
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
1306 Views
Last post June 23, 2016, 05:46:30 PM
by Eddie
2 Replies
613 Views
Last post July 31, 2016, 03:41:47 PM
by JRM
0 Replies
324 Views
Last post November 11, 2019, 03:54:41 PM
by azozeo