Mathematics was once my religion, of sorts. I imagined everything else to be temporal and illusive. In those days I determined not to sully my neurons on thought beneath the quality of mathematical proof. I deemed most non-mathematical thought impious, or at least impure. I still love mathematics, however, today I see beauty in mathematics, whereas before I thought I was privy to both truth and beauty; in the sense of Keat's goofy, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

I'm not sure how I could have ever imagined that truth is beauty, The notion seems quite silly to me today. Mathematics is a tool, a beautiful tool to be sure, yet to mistake the tool for an end product is folly. Mathematics contains truths, yet mathematics does not represent "the truth" (whatever that might be).

Consider two paragraphs taken from mathematician, John Barrow's, Pi In The Sky:

"The undermining of the status of classical Aristotelian logic and the status of classical Euclidean geometry removed both of them as candidates for absolute truths about the Universe. Nonetheless, one could see that locally the world did obey the axioms of Euclidean geometry. Even though astronomical observations spectacularly confirmed Einstein's assumption that the geometry of space and time was ultimately non-Euclidean, in our scale of everyday life Euclid’s geometry approximates the world to a sufficient accuracy.

The situation with logics was not quite so transparent. Rather, it is positively incestuous. While we do not need to assume any particular geometry in order to discuss the possible geometrical systems, we do need logic to talk about logic. Our very discussions about which logic one might employ are made using the two-valued logic of ordinary parlance. Moreover, it is impossible to demonstrate the non-contradictoriness of a logical system using only the devices of the system itself. There does not appear to exist some overarching super-logic within which all the possible logics can be seen as specific cases. "

Physicist Frank Wilczek, writing about quantum physics in the book, It Must Be Beautiful; Great Equations Of Modern Science, tells us:

...we have no warrant to expect that naive intuitions about what is weird or unlikely provide any reliable guidance for constructing models of fundamental structure in the microworld, because these intuitions derive from an entirely different realm of phenomena."

Our commonsense notions about the everyday world are fixed along Euclidian and Newtonian lines. These notions continue to be useful in our commonplace world even though Einstein has shown that they are inadequate in more general circumstances. Logic is a tool used by our reason. Reason is a tool employed by our emotion. We gain in efficiency when we employ the proper tool for a given task. The system of logic we choose among the possible candidates influences which system of reason we use.

I employ standard reason when I patiently work through my mathematics. Yet, I've no reason to do pure mathematics in the first place. I do mathematics simply because I enjoy mathematics. My emotion employs my reason to achieve the goals that my emotion sets. This is generally the case. Our emotions, rather than our reason provide us with the impetus to do.

In his book, Within Reason, Donald Calne writes:

"Reason is a facilitator rather than an initiator; we engage reason to get what we want, not choose what we want."

Furthermore, Steven Pinker, writes in, How The Mind Works:

"Emotions are mechanisms that set the brain's highest level goals. Once triggered by a propitious moment, an emotion triggers the cascade of subgoals and sub-subgoals that we call thinking and acting...no sharp line divides thinking from feeling."

I'm beginning to think that we might have been too hasty to separate emotion from reason in the first place. Reason is a tool of the emotion, but it also might be that reason is a form of emotion. Or perhaps emotion is a form of reason? Reason might be an emotion-at-leisure, for example. Reason is a glutton for time, and thus the unconscious mind only bothers to laboriously drag out this emotive tool when time is sufficient for its employment. When you glance up to see boulders tumbling down a mountain towards you, there is little time for reason. You are already running before you are consciously aware that you are acting. The unconscious mind solves the required system of real-time differential equations that allows you to run away and be saved.

The unconscious mind solves similar systems of differential equations when you walk to the refrigerator, though it’s so good at solving these complex everyday equations that it rarely bothers your conscious-self with the details of the calculations. Yet your first step as a child wasn’t nearly so effortless. The unconscious-self is as accomplished at repetitious thought as it is hopeless in producing novel ideas. Our conscious-self once laboriously taught our unconscious-self to walk, to ride a bicycle, to speak a language, and perhaps to play the piano. Learning calls upon our conscious reason. Reasoning requires patience and focus. When we learn, our conscious mind employs our reason to teach our unconscious mind. Once the unconscious mind “gets the hang of it” the activity becomes nearly effortless.

Artists might prefer to think that they live through their emotions. Scientists might prefer to think that they live by their reason. I suspect that we’ve taken too seriously the distinctly compartmentalized concepts of emotion and reason. I tend to agree with the words of Steven Pinker in his above quote, “…no sharp line divides thinking from feeling.” It appears to me that reason is an innate belief, and our beliefs tend to be innately reasonable. However this last sentence does not imply that our reason or our beliefs necessarily correspond with the external world!

There, now I’ve done it. In one paragraph I’ve probably managed to anger both the scientists and the spiritualists. The simple fact is that I can’t tell you where my reason ends and my emotions begin. I rather doubt we are capable of either pure reason or pure emotion. I doubt that our survival as a species ever much depended upon an ability to compartmentalize these two concepts. It seems more likely that the mind might have slipped in bits of emotional pleasure to make the labor of reason more attractive, and slipped bits of reason into our emotions to reduce their self-destructive aspect. This might explain my otherwise inexplicable pleasure in doing mathematics, as well as that tiny vestige of reasonableness that stays with me in my moments of insane anger.

This brings me to the end of yet another irrationally pleasant, yet reasonably boring soliloquy. :)

Michael

Originally posted by orthogonal

I'm beginning to think that we might have been too hasty to separate emotion from reason in the first place.
Who's this "we", white man? (Sorry, it's from some movie, I love saying that.) I see that our emotions are based on our evolution and biological necessities. Not entirely composed of, but based on. I think they have become more than that. Logic does not mean cold-hearted and emotionless; that is a common mistake people make, to think that. For example, it is entirely logical to be afraid of someone pointing a gun at you. Logic and emotions mesh quite well, and always have. Assuming otherwise has always been simply a misunderstanding of the place of each.

Originally posted by Adam
For example, it is entirely logical to be afraid of someone pointing a gun at you. Logic and emotions mesh quite well, and always have. Assuming otherwise has always been simply a misunderstanding of the place of each.

Emotions can cloud logic. For example, Dale Carnegie provides an example. Look at my signature also.

Manager: Put your hardhats on everyone!!!
Workers: He's such a bitch yelling at us to do this and that. These hardhats are so uncomfortable.

Where's the logic in that? Why get mad at someone for telling you to follow the safety guidelines required?

Manager: I know the hardhats are uncomfortable, but you have to wear them, safety regulations, I hate it also, but I have to wear. So everyone should do the same, it's for your safety.
Worker: Yea he's right, stupid hardhats...

Where's Tyler and his "perfectly logical" jargon of this and that??? :D

orthogonal, that was a good and interesting post. Reality is infinite in its complexity, knowledge can only be a series of better approximations, unifying larger realms of experiences. According to Nicholas of Cusa (his work, On Learned Ignorance), the human mind, though finite in its understanding, is infinite in its capacity for understanding and in its desire for truth.

"The eye can never have too much seeing, so the mind is never satisfied with sufficient truth"

In this sense, all learning is still ignorance. Not because it is false, but because it will never arrive at the final truth. Looking at knowledge this way, is the greatest possible challenge to the old concepts of absolute truth, founded on pure reason and authority. This is where religions come in to claim absolute truth...

I'm drunk, and Dale Carnegie is a dweeb for not realising humans are creatures of both emotion and logic.

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~


"The eye can never have too much seeing, so the mind is never satisfied with sufficient truth"

In this sense, all learning is still ignorance. Not because it is false, but because it will never arrive at the final truth. Looking at knowledge this way, is the greatest possible challenge to the old concepts of absolute truth, founded on pure reason and authority. This is where religions come in to claim absolute truth...
Your conclusion that "all learning is still ignorance" is 100% false and unrelated to the quote you base it on. There is no logical connection from one to the next.

Yes, it is a big problem with religions, that absolute truth thing.

Hey Adam,

Who are we Kemosabe?

"There are more "bugs" grazing on or in a single human body than there are people in the entire world."
D. Crawford, The Invisible Enemy, page 5.

"The vast majority of the cells in your body are not your own; they belong to bacterial and other microorganismic species."
E.O. Wilson, The Future Of Life, page 20.

So Adam...you don't need a mouse in your pocket to say we. Actually, I have to go now. I'm taking around nine billion guests to lunch today. ;)

Chosen,
Thanks for the reply. Oh God, not religion again... :)

Michael (itchy...scratchy)

Originally posted by Adam
I'm drunk, and Dale Carnegie is a dweeb for not realising humans are creatures of both emotion and logic.

Well he knows that, humans listen to their emotions alot more often than their logic. Read his book, he researched quite a bit and tested his findings. Or download his audio books off Kazaa :D Just search with his name.


Your conclusion that "all learning is still ignorance" is 100% false and unrelated to the quote you base it on. There is no logical connection from one to the next.

Hmmm...ignorance is the condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

100% false? Are you positive? It was a theory by Nicholas, a German-bishop. But it is not false.

I stated in a "sense" and in the logical order of my paragraph, I supported it by stating, we will "never arrive at the final truth."

100% false? Maybe you should sober up and come back to me. I consider humans really ignorant, how much knowledge you think we possess? If we limit the realm of knowledge to earth, then we are not ignorant, but to final truth, of course we are.

We are never going to reach "final truth." Comprehende? What's up with you and Tyler anyway? I never go post on a discussion board when I'm high or drunk, you should be out partying or chilling with your crew(s)!!

Where's Tyler? Right here!


Ortho, another great post. Thanks man.
I'm not sure what your point is though. Perhaps you can help me. Are you suggesting that emotion and logic are together? If so, you're right.

There is no such thing as a perfectly logical choice. Adam says that if a person points a gun at you it is perfectly logical to be afraid or to run. Well, no, it's not all about logic. Logic is always, always based on emotion. In this case the emotion is your desire to live. Because I wish to not die at this moment I come to the logical conclusion that I can be afraid and run!

There are at least two views on every situation, right? We can agree that whatever you view on a subject someone, somewhere, will always view the opposite. For a large scale example the Nazi's work nicely. Hitler and his cronies would take their emotion of pride for Germany, desire for global Aryan race... and conclude it is perfectly logical to kill all Jews. An Ally would take his emotion that genocide is wrong and come to the logical conclusion that killing all Jews should not be done and Hitler must be stopped.

If I held a knife to your leg and said I would cut you if you didn't quack like a duck you may say it's perfectly logical to quack like a duck. But what is this logic based on? Your desire to not experience pain. Are there not those who enjoy pain? And for them it would be perfectly logical to not quack like a duck.

Every logical choice is purely based on an emotion, which is generally based on instinct. Chosen, I've altered my opinion on this a little. There is no absolute logic, perhaps, like there is no absolute morality. It all comes down to emotions which all come down to instincts.


"In this sense, all learning is still ignorance. Not because it is false, but because it will never arrive at the final truth"

What is the final truth? Do you mean some large comprehension of the Universe? And why could we never arrive at that?

And more importantly, why do so many people assume there must be some mystical 'final truth' that binds the Universe together? This is one major flaw in theists today. So many people have a problem with scientific answers that they feel there must be some 'Ultimate Truth/Reality' that they can attain before their death. Amazing the ego is to not accept that maybe, just maybe, we don't know everything about life yet.

"We are never going to reach "final truth." Comprehende? What's up with you and Tyler anyway? I never go post on a discussion board when I'm high or drunk, you should be out partying or chilling with your crew(s)!!"

Bah! Marijuana is an aid for thought and enjoyment of music!

Generally I am out with my group when I get high, but I get home by the downing time of it. I do enjoy smoking by myself htough, on the rare occasion I get the chance. I generally just lock myself in this room and listen to music.

Originally posted by Tyler
Bah! Marijuana is an aid for thought and enjoyment of music!

Agreed! :cool: Watch the Windows Media Player visualizations, they are trippy. Winamp has alot of cool ones also.


Generally I am out with my group when I get high, but I get home by the downing time of it. I do enjoy smoking by myself htough, on the rare occasion I get the chance. I generally just lock myself in this room and listen to music.

I know what you mean. Lock the room, blast the music (especially the bass ;)) Gravity Bongs rule!! :D


Chosen, I've altered my opinion on this a little. There is no absolute logic, perhaps, like there is no absolute morality. It all comes down to emotions which all come down to instincts.

Good post Tyler. I think absolute morality does exist as mentioned in the thread with Hippo. An example is, raping an infant, everyone sane would agree that is plain wrong. Adam stated we should discount the insane, since they barely are humans anyways.


What is the final truth? Do you mean some large comprehension of the Universe? And why could we never arrive at that?

Hawking (big headed scientist, I respect him though), believes we will reach a Theory of Everything where it can possible answer almost anything about the Universe. The more we learn, the more we know how much we don't actually know. You agree to that right? What's past quarks and gluons?

That's what I meant by Final Truth, scientifically, I never will speak in religious terms, because I keep those beliefs to myself. Others have greats problems doing this, I believe greatly in individual responsibility.


And more importantly, why do so many people assume there must be some mystical 'final truth' that binds the Universe together?

Well your assumption *if* regarding me is wrong here, but other people, you could be correct. :cool:


This is one major flaw in theists today.

Not all, right?


So many people have a problem with scientific answers that they feel there must be some 'Ultimate Truth/Reality' that they can attain before their death.

Actually, in what I believe, God is ultimate truth, if God exists.


Amazing the ego is to not accept that maybe, just maybe, we don't know everything about life yet.

We will never know "everything." That's human inferiority. We are not ignorant of Earth, but we are definitely ignorant of the Universe. I don't *think* I have an ego...maybe you could enlighten me Tyler.

Your views are appreciated.

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~

100% false? Are you positive? It was a theory by Nicholas, a German-bishop. But it is not false.

I stated in a "sense" and in the logical order of my paragraph, I supported it by stating, we will "never arrive at the final truth."

100% false? Maybe you should sober up and come back to me. I consider humans really ignorant, how much knowledge you think we possess? If we limit the realm of knowledge to earth, then we are not ignorant, but to final truth, of course we are.

We are never going to reach "final truth." Comprehende? What's up with you and Tyler anyway? I never go post on a discussion board when I'm high or drunk, you should be out partying or chilling with your crew(s)!!
I hate trying to explain logic to the incapable, but...

1) That it was stated by a German bishop does not guarantee it is logical or rational. Pointless to mention that.

2) Why will we "never arrive at the final truth"? What could you possibly have to support this assumption? "We are never going to reach "final truth." Comprehende?" Why? An assumption. No logic, no facts, no anything except assumption.

3) Please explain the logical steps from "The eye can never have too much seeing, so the mind is never satisfied with sufficient truth", which clearly states that humans thirst for knowledge, to ... all learning is still ignorance."

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~

Adam stated we should discount the insane, since they barely are humans anyways.

I did? Please prove this.

Hey Tyler,

Oooh, thanks bud, but if I didn't get my main thesis across clearly, then I actually didn't do so well.

Yes, my contention is that I'm unable to see where my reason ends and my emotion begins. The two appear to be hopelessly intertwined. I say "hopeless," though I don't mean that I'm sorry this is the way of things. Emotion plus reason might well be the required constituents of man's incredible creativity. Well, that's another thread...

There are at least two views on every situation, right?
Right! You've reminded me of a 1955 Akira Kurosawa film (yea, before I was even born) titled, Rashomon. Have you seen it? If not, I won't give the story away, but it concerns three men (alright, four if you count the dead man's testimony) who have witnessed a murder-rape of a samurai and his wife. Kurosawa retells each man's honestly recounted version of the same story. It quickly becomes clear that the facts as recounted, are inseparable from the character of the perceiver. Reason and emotion, or fact and fancy, combine to produce very different recollections of the event. It's an interesting film (do bear in mind that it was made in 1955 though).

As for a final "Truth." I remember a while back that someone actually found it. It was the number "7," or something like that. ;)

If some ultimate truth could be condensed into an equation or algorithm, I suspect that it would mean as much as to say that God, or quantum fluxuation is the ultimate Truth. To condense understanding into a tiny ball is as useless as to expand it across an entire universe, and we all know that simply putting a name to something is not the same as explaining it. A Truth is not some "Holy Grail" on a remote mountaintop. A Truth is only of value if it precipitates understanding.

Thanks to all for the discussion. I love this stuff.

Michael

"know what you mean. Lock the room, blast the music (especially the bass ) Gravity Bongs rule!!"

Ohhhhh gravity bong.........!


"Good post Tyler. I think absolute morality does exist as mentioned in the thread with Hippo. An example is, raping an infant, everyone sane would agree that is plain wrong. Adam stated we should discount the insane, since they barely are humans anyways."

Absolute morality is to suggest that there is something binding us all and basically assumes there is a god. However, you have no proof what so ever that raping a baby is evil to every human being. Hell, there's enough wierd fucking fetishes out there that I wouldn't be too surprised. As far as I've read, common pedophaelia can go to girls as young as 5 or 6. I don't know how you can think that if this is fairly common (compared to what most think) there is surely someone as sick as going younger. Again though, that raping an infant is 'wrong' is not proof of absolute morality. All it is evidence of is that raping an infant is not an attractive idea to any human being. Which follows logic nicely as the normal human tendancy is to mate someone who has the ability to reproduce (or, at least uh, well, fit you). So maybe all you've shown evidence for is evolution. I'm not saying I'm right on this, just that there is definetly an answer without absolute morality being necessary.


"Hawking (big headed scientist, I respect him though), believes we will reach a Theory of Everything where it can possible answer almost anything about the Universe. The more we learn, the more we know how much we don't actually know. You agree to that right? What's past quarks and gluons?"

So what is proof, hard line proof, that we can never reach this? Personally, I doubt we will. I don't know that we're an intelligent enough species (yet) to reach this kind of understanding. But I have no proof at all.


"Well your assumption *if* regarding me is wrong here, but other people, you could be correct."

Not regarding you.


"We will never know "everything." That's human inferiority. We are not ignorant of Earth, but we are definitely ignorant of the Universe. I don't *think* I have an ego...maybe you could enlighten me Tyler."

Again, not relating to you but denominational (what's the word I'm looking for? fuck!) theists.

"Oooh, thanks bud, but if I didn't get my main thesis across clearly, then I actually didn't do so well."

Just clarifying what I thought man!


"Yes, my contention is that I'm unable to see where my reason ends and my emotion begins. The two appear to be hopelessly intertwined. I say "hopeless," though I don't mean that I'm sorry this is the way of things. Emotion plus reason might well be the required constituents of man's incredible creativity. Well, that's another thread..."

Once in a drug-induced frenzy I wrote down the single line 'Logic creates knowledge, emotion breeds beauty.' Made a lot of sense at the time. Think of instinctual actions as emotion. Love, fear, hate, desire..... all emotions. Every decision you make off of these emotions are part of your reasoning or logic ability. - I'm scared, better run - logic being that if you're scared then you are in danger and because you wish to live (another emotion) you will try and escape. Perfectly logical decision reached off an emotion.


I haven't seen that Akira, it sounds interesting, I'll try and find a copy!


As for the 'Absolute Truth'........
Things are as they are.

Or maybe even more precice.........
Stuff is.

Originally posted by Adam
I did? Please prove this.

In this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/f22/s/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8405&pagenumber=4)

You stated, "Society works by consesus. The voices of deranged killers and such are discounted. And since we are talking of consenus among society, that would pretty much rule out those twisted individuals."

Quit being so damn wry. I don't assume very often like you do, comprehende?


I hate trying to explain logic to the incapable, but...

Look in the mirror. Where have I shown that I am incapable of logic?? eh? can you answer specifically?


1) That it was stated by a German bishop does not guarantee it is logical or rational. Pointless to mention that.

Your point? Why did you superfluously extrapolate my information about him being a German bishop? Did I explicitly mention that because Nicholas was a German bishop that it guarantees it is logical or rational?

Pointless to mention that? Look at your abject statement, what the hell did you just do?!


2) Why will we "never arrive at the final truth"? What could you possibly have to support this assumption? "We are never going to reach "final truth." Comprehende?" Why? An assumption. No logic, no facts, no anything except assumption.

Do you know what an inductive argument is? Inductive and deductive logic? You ever frickin debated at all in your entire life?

Do you think there is a limit to knowledge? What does final mean Adam? It means occuring at an end;last, will we ever reach the end of truth? What do you think? Are you going to let your human ego consume your better judgement again?

Here is my strong inductive argument:

Humans have never reached an end to knowledge yet in the entire history of mankind, the more we know, the more we learn how much we don't know.
Therefore, humans will probably never achieve an end to knowledge (or final truth).

Now Adam, do you disagree with this inductive argument? Qui? Non?


3) Please explain the logical steps from "The eye can never have too much seeing, so the mind is never satisfied with sufficient truth", which clearly states that humans thirst for knowledge, to ... all learning is still ignorance."

Why don't you take English classes again? You ever take AP English or anything of that sort? Maybe high school Honors? Do I need to explain this to you? What's the point of paragraph separation? You think it's there for a decoration or for transitioning to another idea? Why don't you exercise your brain more for once.

And please, DO NOT insult my intelligence, your flippant insults are definitely not welcomed. And denigrating me without reasonable cause is utterly disrespectful.

I have debated almost all my life. Internet (over 10 forums), through high school, Model United Nations, Keystone, law, so please do not tell me "logical" this and "logical" that. Have you checked out that website I gave you?

You are such an obstinate fellow Adam. How far up the education ladder did you climb?

Originally posted by Tyler
Absolute morality is to suggest that there is something binding us all and basically assumes there is a god. However, you have no proof what so ever that raping a baby is evil to every human being. Hell, there's enough wierd fucking fetishes out there that I wouldn't be too surprised. As far as I've read, common pedophaelia can go to girls as young as 5 or 6. I don't know how you can think that if this is fairly common (compared to what most think) there is surely someone as sick as going younger. Again though, that raping an infant is 'wrong' is not proof of absolute morality. All it is evidence of is that raping an infant is not an attractive idea to any human being. Which follows logic nicely as the normal human tendancy is to mate someone who has the ability to reproduce (or, at least uh, well, fit you). So maybe all you've shown evidence for is evolution. I'm not saying I'm right on this, just that there is definetly an answer without absolute morality being necessary.

Well, I would say that it is a moral absolute. It's not evil, but it is wrong. Evil is subjective, it's more of a concept.


So what is proof, hard line proof, that we can never reach this? Personally, I doubt we will. I don't know that we're an intelligent enough species (yet) to reach this kind of understanding. But I have no proof at all.

Yea, give us another 100 million years so we can evolve into the near-perfect life-forms :D

I have no proof of my claim either, there even such thing as "final truth"? An end to knowledge? But lack of proof doesn't always equate to invalidity.

You said:


Adam stated we should discount the insane, since they barely are humans anyways.


Now, let's go see what I actually said, what you based that on:


Society works by consesus. The voices of deranged killers and such are discounted. And since we are talking of consenus among society, that would pretty much rule out those twisted individuals.


Hmm. Not one mention of "insane". Not one mention of anyone being "barely human". Where do you get your ideas?



) That it was stated by a German bishop does not guarantee it is logical or rational. Pointless to mention that.
---
Your point? Why did you superfluously extrapolate my information about him being a German bishop? Did I explicitly mention that because Nicholas was a German bishop that it guarantees it is logical or rational?
---
Pointless to mention that? Look at your abject statement, what the hell did you just do?!

Should all of your pointless statements be completely ignored then? You made a pointless statement, to which I responded. Perhaps in future you should mark your pointless statements, such as that Bishop passage, in a different colour, so I know not to respond to it.

Probably should not use "extrapolate" there.





2) Why will we "never arrive at the final truth"? What could you possibly have to support this assumption? "We are never going to reach "final truth." Comprehende?" Why? An assumption. No logic, no facts, no anything except assumption.


Do you know what an inductive argument is? Inductive and deductive logic? You ever frickin debated at all in your entire life?

Do you think there is a limit to knowledge? What does final mean Adam? It means occuring at an end;last, will we ever reach the end of truth? What do you think? Are you going to let your human ego consume your better judgement again?

Here is my strong inductive argument:

Humans have never reached an end to knowledge yet in the entire history of mankind, the more we know, the more we learn how much we don't know.
Therefore, humans will probably never achieve an end to knowledge (or final truth).

Now Adam, do you disagree with this inductive argument? Qui? Non?

1) I do not think there is a limit to knowledge. We have covered this before. History has demonstrated that we continue to gain knowledge. There is no reason to suspect that trend will cease. And the more we know, the more we theorise, leading to more knowledge. History would seem to indicate that your "strong" inductive argument is baseless. So what is your "final truth"? Why will we never reach it? Don't say "probably" without any reason.

2) The majority of that drivel of yours that I just quoted was insults, unrelated to the topic, and rather childish.

3) Where exactly does ego come into any of it?



2) Why will we "never arrive at the final truth"? What could you possibly have to support this assumption? "We are never going to reach "final truth." Comprehende?" Why? An assumption. No logic, no facts, no anything except assumption.

I notice you did not ever get around to responding to this at all, but instead dished out purely childish insults, as follows:



Do you know what an inductive argument is? Inductive and deductive logic? You ever frickin debated at all in your entire life?

Do you think there is a limit to knowledge? What does final mean Adam? It means occuring at an end;last, will we ever reach the end of truth? What do you think? Are you going to let your human ego consume your better judgement again?

Why don't you take English classes again? You ever take AP English or anything of that sort? Maybe high school Honors? Do I need to explain this to you? What's the point of paragraph separation? You think it's there for a decoration or for transitioning to another idea? Why don't you exercise your brain more for once.

And please, DO NOT insult my intelligence, your flippant insults are definitely not welcomed. And denigrating me without reasonable cause is utterly disrespectful.

I have debated almost all my life. Internet (over 10 forums), through high school, Model United Nations, Keystone, law, so please do not tell me "logical" this and "logical" that. Have you checked out that website I gave you?

You are such an obstinate fellow Adam. How far up the education ladder did you climb?

I have to add my two cents on this whole topic, something that really hits home for me. See in my life (especially now) I feel it has been a constant battle between emotion and reason, and I've had to listen to one and disregard the other or create a solution which appeases both. Right now I am in a state of constant turmoil over things I wish to do but realize that they are illiogical do to punishment, problems, and consequences of such things. But then again Tyler's theory quite a ways above would work into my problem by stating that the logic has different emotional needs behind it. But if I read this correctly then I have a question to pose:

There is no such thing as a perfectly logical choice. Adam says that if a person points a gun at you it is perfectly logical to be afraid or to run. Well, no, it's not all about logic. Logic is always, always based on emotion. In this case the emotion is your desire to live. Because I wish to not die at this moment I come to the logical conclusion that I can be afraid and run!

Now does this not mean there can not be any pure logic? That all desires in which logic is used to fill are emotions? And if these emotions are based on instincts what are the instincts based upon? No I'm not trying to look for some universal binding quality but however I feel perhaps the instincts are there to achieve logical ends, a circle if you will. Just would like some clarification man.

Also I agree with your opinions on morality Tyler, even though as I said my Emotions and my logic/morality seem to be two distinct things to me and that I value my moral/ethical beliefs, I still belive ethics are as you say.

PEACE OUT ~Cactus

"Now does this not mean there can not be any pure logic? That all desires in which logic is used to fill are emotions? And if these emotions are based on instincts what are the instincts based upon? No I'm not trying to look for some universal binding quality but however I feel perhaps the instincts are there to achieve logical ends, a circle if you will. Just would like some clarification man"

What it means is there is no purely logical choice made by an individual. Myself included, many members of sciforums have stated that it is logical to seek out what you desire. Say I desire chocolate (incidentally, I don't like chocolate at all) and there is a piece of untouched chocolate that my mother bought for me on the table. Now, my emotion is that I desire chocolate and my logic follows through to say that the logical action is to pick up the chocolate and eat it. However, we get no where without the initial desire.

Instincts are based on the chemical reactions in our brain. Evolution has given us certain necessary (or, what were necessary when we had minimal technology) instincts to survive as a species. Hunting, greed (to keep enough food for yourself), desire to have sex, and the sorts.

Perhaps you can clarify for me now. 'Instincts are there to achieve logical ends.' I believe what you mean is what I just stated, but I don't know for sure. Again though, if this is what you're saying you're missing the main point here. It may seem like a logical ends to have the instinct to reproduce because we'd die otherwise. But consider....if you were COMPLETELY indifferent you would care neither about death or life. So, the instinct of desire to reproduce is still emotional ends because we desire to live. Am I making sense? Maybe not!

What it means is there is no purely logical choice made by an individual. Myself included, many members of sciforums have stated that it is logical to seek out what you desire. Say I desire chocolate (incidentally, I don't like chocolate at all) and there is a piece of untouched chocolate that my mother bought for me on the table. Now, my emotion is that I desire chocolate and my logic follows through to say that the logical action is to pick up the chocolate and eat it. However, we get no where without the initial desire.

Allright, but what if we know that we will be castrated if we pick up the chocolate? Actually while typing I thought of a response, our desire to save our testicules would overcome our desire for chocolate and the logic would be not to pick it up. And for your last paragraph, no I don't need to explain you cleared everything up.

I guess the real question is, is it inherently logical and therefore ruins this system that creatures on a whole want to ensure the survival of their species? In other words does it transcend emotion considering evey species as a whole wants to ensure it's survival?

"I guess the real question is, is it inherently logical and therefore ruins this system that creatures on a whole want to ensure the survival of their species? In other words does it transcend emotion considering evey species as a whole wants to ensure it's survival?"

Nope. It is just what's going to happen. Evolution creates species designed to exist, not to die off. That is the point of evolution. (Note to self and Cactus: do not go off considering the logic of evolutionary progress or you will begin to wander off about a creator!). So every species has this as part of their instincts. Remember, simple answer is most often the best Holmes!

Originally posted by Adam
Hmm. Not one mention of "insane". Not one mention of anyone being "barely human". Where do you get your ideas?

Adam, that was my opinion mentioning "barely human."

So twisted individuals and DERANGED killers are NOT considered to be insane?

Show me your way of thinking and enlighten me with your wisdom. I'm a strictly dictionary person (you need to be for debating) and I suggest you look up the word DERANGED.

So you think we should count the voices of the insane?


Should all of your pointless statements be completely ignored then? You made a pointless statement, to which I responded.

Pointless? Right, so if I stated "Hawking, who has has twelve honorary degrees..."

Are you going to extrapolate off that statement and mention some crap like, "It does not mean becaus he has twelve honorary degrees it is logical or rational." Then you go on saying "it's pointless".

You are clearly insulting my statements. And you call me "not capable of logic"?

All I did was add a little info more about the poor guy, and then you go off on it. Maybe because the phrase was "a German-bishop"?!

Adam WHATEVER.


Perhaps in future you should mark your pointless statements, such as that Bishop passage, in a different colour, so I know not to respond to it.

No, don't try to run away, admit that you are wrong here.


Probably should not use "extrapolate" there.

Right, like I shouldn't have use apropos in the other thread either? You are Australian, correct? How well do you know the American language?


1) I do not think there is a limit to knowledge. We have covered this before. History has demonstrated that we continue to gain knowledge. There is no reason to suspect that trend will cease. And the more we know, the more we theorise, leading to more knowledge. History would seem to indicate that your "strong" inductive argument is baseless. So what is your "final truth"? Why will we never reach it? Don't say "probably" without any reason.

Ummm, my reason is in my inductive argument for it.

How about this inductive argument Adam:

All known planets are round.
Therefore, all planets are probably round.

Is that a baseless argument? If it is, go read your introduction to logic books please.

You agreed that you think there is no limit to knowledge correct? In order to reach something, there has to be a limit there.

Why don't you educate yourself with AP Calculus? graph y = 1/x

Did it? There is no limit, apply that to the limitless knowledge, we will never reach a "final limit/end to knowledge" So why is that a baseless argument??


2) The majority of that drivel of yours that I just quoted was insults, unrelated to the topic, and rather childish.

*yawns* Just like how you defended yourself against Tiassa, cause you can't quote against my statements. I did not insult you, I insulted your statements and ideas of ME. That is the problem here.


3) Where exactly does ego come into any of it?

When I mentioned it.


I notice you did not ever get around to responding to this at all, but instead dished out purely childish insults, as follows:


Uh huh, "childish" insults. If you say so Adam, if you say so.

You insulted my intelligence, correct? Am I incapable of logic or what? Answer me.

How far did you get in your studies anyway?

EDIT: If you resort to, "I'm not going to argue with you because of your 'childish' insults or whatever you will probably say." Then you just showed me you can't argue intelligently, just look at your arguments with Tiassa.

Going into an argument with me stating I am incapable of logic...how banal. It's just like you are seeing an orange and say the color of this fruit is orange, then I tell you, "Wow, you are incapable of seeing colors." Why don't you first understand my position then argue against me?

And what also aggravates me is when someone comes in with no prior knowledge of the subject or isn't very-well educated and then vextiously stating, "oh, you have baseless assertions, no proof, no logic, just plain assumptions." When I am the person that holds assumptions in inexpedience.

So twisted individuals and DERANGED killers are NOT considered to be insane?

"Insane" does not appear in psychology, only in law. In future, if you do not wish to imply a legal term, do not use it. Consider yourself enlightened.



How well do you know the American language?

The American language? You're joking, yes?



Ummm, my reason is in my inductive argument for it.

No, it's not. You gave an assumption based on an assumption. I showed quite clearly that history demonstrates that your base assumption was incorrect. You went from "planets are round" to "all planets are probably rectangles".



You agreed that you think there is no limit to knowledge correct?

Don't assume. You do that far too often. In fact it's all you do. Dmeonstrate to me that there is either a limit or no limit to knowledge.



When I mentioned it.

Purple elephants. There, I have mentioned purple elephants. Although irrelevent, they have now been mentioned and are now part of the topic. Why did you mention ego?



How far did you get in your studies anyway?

Does it really matter? Let's just say "more than you", since that is clearly what you are after.

And finally, as in other threads, I invite you to respond to the points I have made previously, rather than continue with this stuff.

Originally posted by Adam
"Insane" does not appear in psychology, only in law. In future, if you do not wish to imply a legal term, do not use it. Consider yourself enlightened.

Good good, I will take a course in Psychology next year, a college one. So I'm hoping you are right here.


The American language? You're joking, yes?

I guess you could say so.


No, it's not. You gave an assumption based on an assumption.

You are the baseless one. Point it out, true my conclusion of the premise is an assumption but the premise is not an assumption. Why don't you enlighten yourself on inductive logic?


I showed quite clearly that history demonstrates that your base assumption was incorrect. You went from "planets are round" to "all planets are probably rectangles".

You showed quite clearly?? WHERE?! I'm tired of this crap. YOU JUST MAKE CLAIMS.

Be more specific for crying out loud.

That is all you are capable of, stating "you're baselss, no logic." REFERENCE YOUR CLAIMS.


Don't assume. You do that far too often. In fact it's all you do. Dmeonstrate to me that there is either a limit or no limit to knowledge.

You are so out there. No one can demonstrate it. It's a theory based on facts. Do you agree that knowledge is limitless or what? Can we put an end to learning? Once again, look up inductive logic, I have a feeling that you don't quite understand it.

How is asking a question of you assuming?

I'm sorry but you are getting more and more frivolous.

And what's this?

Adam stated, "I do not think there is a limit to knowledge."

Hmmm...such bullshit Adam...


Purple elephants. There, I have mentioned purple elephants. Although irrelevent, they have now been mentioned and are now part of the topic. Why did you mention ego?

My advice: Go educate yourself with some real math, Calculus preferbly, if you haven't taken it already. Math and science are great buddies together.

You stated in this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/f22/s/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7996&pagenumber=2).


By Adam
Again, our evolution and technology always raise those limits. Maybe we will some day be able to make, as you say, a perfect sphere.

You clearly are uneducated stating that. That is why I am questioning how far you climbed up the education ladder. You actually said humans can some day construct a perfect sphere. This is the sign of ignorance.

How does ego come in here you say? Look at that statement, I'm still wondering if you still possess such an ego.


Does it really matter? Let's just say "more than you", since that is clearly what you are after.

Sure you may be older, but closed within this thread, you don't know much. And it does matter, my impression of you isn't too nice. You post thousands of links here and there, then make blanket statements "you're baseless" without reasonable cause and you don't specifically point out exactly where.

Look here, taking courses in college, graduate study, and so on - you educate yourself 1000x more than reading little websites off the internet. Comprehende? Correct me if I am wrong, but I have a feeling that all you do is read websites and rely on them for your source of knowledge. There is more to websites Adam. You asking about "conservation of momentum" and so on in the Physics & Math forum leads me to question how much you actually EDUCATED yourself, not on matters of websites but COURSES where you absorb and perceive a great amount of knowledge.


And finally, as in other threads, I invite you to respond to the points I have made previously, rather than continue with this stuff.

You respond to my points. I quoted you word for word. To make sure I don't miss anything, this is how you debate, understand?

I'm calling you on your bullshit.

The American language? You're joking, yes?

I guess you could say so.

Okay, so I understand your incorrect use of words now. Understood.



You are the baseless one. Point it out, true my conclusion of the premise is an assumption but the premise is not an assumption.


Your recent assumptions:



Adam stated we should discount the insane, since they barely are humans anyways.

Therefore, humans will probably never achieve an end to knowledge (or final truth).

You ever frickin debated at all in your entire life?

So twisted individuals and DERANGED killers are NOT considered to be insane?

So you think we should count the voices of the insane?

There is no limit, apply that to the limitless knowledge, we will never reach a "final limit/end to knowledge".

Once again, look up inductive logic, I have a feeling that you don't quite understand it.

My advice: Go educate yourself with some real math, Calculus preferbly, if you haven't taken it already. Math and science are great buddies together.

You clearly are uneducated stating that.

Sure you may be older, but closed within this thread, you don't know much.

Look here, taking courses in college, graduate study, and so on - you educate yourself 1000x more than reading little websites off the internet. Comprehende? Correct me if I am wrong, but I have a feeling that all you do is read websites and rely on them for your source of knowledge. There is more to websites Adam. You asking about "conservation of momentum" and so on in the Physics & Math forum leads me to question how much you actually EDUCATED yourself, not on matters of websites but COURSES where you absorb and perceive a great amount of knowledge.


Assumptions.

And on...



You showed quite clearly?? WHERE?! I'm tired of this crap. YOU JUST MAKE CLAIMS.

Be more specific for crying out loud.

Very well, I shall paste it once again for you:



Adam stated we should discount the insane, since they barely are humans anyways.

To which I pasted in the comment you based this on:


Society works by consesus. The voices of deranged killers and such are discounted. And since we are talking of consenus among society, that would pretty much rule out those twisted individuals.

This is actually quite indicative of your entire presence at sciforums.

Quite specific.

And now onward...



No one can demonstrate it. It's a theory based on facts.

True, nobody can demonstrate it. What facts is this idea of yours based on?



You actually said humans can some day construct a perfect sphere. This is the sign of ignorance.

No. Let's see what I actually said:


Maybe we will some day be able to make, as you say, a perfect sphere.

I see the word "maybe" in there. A possibility. Please read more carfeully in future.

Originally posted by Adam
Okay, so I understand your incorrect use of words now. Understood.

"incorrect" how is it incorrect? Americans speak differently compared to people from England. Color and colour.

Answer this question.


Your recent assumptions:

Questions aren't assumptions for your information.

Here's an example:

Adam is an idiot.

Are you an idiot Adam?

Hmm...I wonder which one is the assumption??


Assumptions.

And on...


Very well, I shall paste it once again for you:

Impertinent. Why are you trying to change the subject here?



Adam says:

I showed quite clearly that history demonstrates that your base assumption was incorrect. You went from "planets are round" to "all planets are probably rectangles".

Chosen says:

You showed quite clearly?? WHERE?! I'm tired of this crap. YOU JUST MAKE CLAIMS.

Be more specific for crying out loud.

That is all you are capable of, stating "you're baselss, no logic." REFERENCE YOUR CLAIMS.

Why are you trying to twist the subject into another? :rolleyes: How banal and pathetic. You're such a joke Adam. That's how "baseless" you are.

You can't even argue relevantly, you go tangent, what a joke. Where's your "logical connections" eh?


To which I pasted in the comment you based this on:

This is actually quite indicative of your entire presence at sciforums.

Quite specific.

And now onward...

Disrespectful I see.


True, nobody can demonstrate it. What facts is this idea of yours based on?

Once again I'll post my inductive argument for your stubborn brain.

Premise: Humans have never reached an end to knowledge yet in the entire history of mankind, the more we know, the more we learn how much we don't know.
Conclusion: Therefore, humans will probably never achieve an end to knowledge (or final truth).

The premise is a fact, the conclusion is not.

Gee, you can't even understand that? Go educate yourself more.


No. Let's see what I actually said:

I see the word "maybe" in there. A possibility. Please read more carfeully in future.

We will NEVER be able to construct a perfect sphere. LMAO, a "possibility"?? Every well-educated scientist that are clearly well educated would definitely agree with me here, that's why we can't get the exact value of pi :rolleyes:

Don't you feel stupid now?

Adam, it's a waste of time arguing with you, and it's probably a waste of your time arguing with me. You don't understand my viewpoint, I tried to express it, but you change subjects or concentrate on one part of the argument rather than the whole argument.

And what pisses me off the most is, you don't answer my valid questions.

Questions for Adam: you don't answer, I'll understand


How is asking a question of you assuming?
How far did you get in your studies anyway?
So you think we should count the voices of the insane?
Now Adam, do you disagree with this inductive argument? Qui? Non? (my inductive argument)
Where have I shown that I am incapable of logic?? (you asserted and you utterly failed to prove, ooh I'm definitely waiting for proof Adam)


You keep avoiding my questions and you don't quote me word for word. Anyone that is experienced in debating knows something is wrong here.

Lots of insults and assumptions in there. I hope you feel better now. If you ever get around to actually responding to the points and questions I raised, let me know. Thanks.

1.How is asking a question of you assuming?

2.How far did you get in your studies anyway?

3.So you think we should count the voices of the insane?

4.Now Adam, do you disagree with this inductive argument? Qui? Non? (my inductive argument)

5.Where have I shown that I am incapable of logic?? (you asserted and you utterly failed to prove, ooh I'm definitely waiting for proof Adam)


The Chosen, I look at this and I think, how does any of this even begin to relate to the topic of the thread. To me it just looks like you are trying to be right.

To put this back on track a little.... Here are some assumptions that you made in the beginning of the thread:


Well he knows that, humans listen to their emotions alot more often than their logic.

and...


Emotions can cloud logic.

When I see statements such as these I can't but help think how immature your definition of emotions must be. Emotions aren't just crying, anger, etc. These are strong emotions yes, but this isn' the whole shabang.

Emotions and Logic work side by side, all the time.

Logic says: 2+2=4
Emotion says: 2+2=4 is right

Logic implements the plan, Emotions give the OK to implement the plan.

Without emotions you wouldn't even be able to carry out a plan to walk across the room. (This is what Parkinson's disease is all about).

Do I need to explain more?

Originally posted by Xenu
The Chosen, I look at this and I think, how does any of this even begin to relate to the topic of the thread. To me it just looks like you are trying to be right.

No, I'm defending myself. Please read the thread. Seriously, I first posted a relevant post, then Adam comes in and ruins the flow of my post and the entire thread. Let me make it clearer.


Originally posted by Adam
I'm drunk, and Dale Carnegie is a dweeb for not realising humans are creatures of both emotion and logic.

Your conclusion that "all learning is still ignorance" is 100% false and unrelated to the quote you base it on. There is no logical connection from one to the next.


Chosen defending himself
Hmmm...ignorance is the condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

100% false? Are you positive? It was a theory by Nicholas, a German-bishop. But it is not false.

I stated in a "sense" and in the logical order of my paragraph, I supported it by stating, we will "never arrive at the final truth."

100% false? Maybe you should sober up and come back to me. I consider humans really ignorant, how much knowledge you think we possess? If we limit the realm of knowledge to earth, then we are not ignorant, but to final truth, of course we are.


To Xenu
I stated this:
the human mind, though finite in its understanding, is infinite in its capacity for understanding and in its desire for truth.

which followed the quote appropiately:
"The eye can never have too much seeing, so the mind is never satisfied with sufficient truth"

then I stated:
In this sense, all learning is still ignorance. Not because it is false, but because it will never arrive at the final truth.

In this sense, right there, you should put yourself in the author's perspective to understand, instead of immediately criticizing without reasonable cause. Adam just made a claim saying, "Your conclusion that all learning is still ignorance is 100% false."

Xenu, where is his support for that claim?

Then Adam, insults me stating...

"I hate trying to explain logic to the incapable, but..."

Xenu, where is his proof showing I am incapable of logic? Put yourself in my shoes. Would you agrue back and defend yourself or what?

1) That it was stated by a German bishop does not guarantee it is logical or rational. Pointless to mention that.

Xenu, why would Adam mention this? I never stated because Nicholas was a German bishop that it guarantees it is logical or rational. Isn't it pointless for Adam to mention that? Do you see the hypocrisy here? Then Adam tells me it is pointless to mention that?? I just inserted a little more info about the poor guy.

2) Why will we "never arrive at the final truth"? What could you possibly have to support this assumption? "We are never going to reach "final truth." Comprehende?" Why? An assumption. No logic, no facts, no anything except assumption.

[list] Xenu, where is Adam's proof for stating, "No logic, no facts, no anything except assumption." Sounds like Adam has contempt for me, doesn't it?

3) Please explain the logical steps from "The eye can never have too much seeing, so the mind is never satisfied with sufficient truth", which clearly states that humans thirst for knowledge, to ... all learning is still ignorance."

Xenu, Adam failed to see the logical connection with: "the human mind, though finite in its understanding, is infinite in its capacity for understanding and in its desire for truth." to the quote, then onward.



Originally posted by Xenu
To put this back on track a little.... Here are some assumptions that you made in the beginning of the thread:

Well he knows that, humans listen to their emotions alot more often than their logic.

Xenu, I have Carnegie's audio files and I read his book. He is a very educated person, I respect his statement and findings on how to influence people to your way of thinking. I am definitely not applying his techniques in this forum.

and...

When I see statements such as these I can't but help think how immature your definition of emotions must be. Emotions aren't just crying, anger, etc. These are strong emotions yes, but this isn' the whole shabang.

Xenu, you are assuming here. I did not say anything about "the whole shabang," then you criticize me stating that you can't help think how immature my definition of emotions must be.

From the statement "emotions can cloud logic"

I then gave an example from Carnegie's audio file. Clearly that shows information to how emotions can actually cloud logic. but in no way am I relating it to the "whole shabang" of things.


Emotions and Logic work side by side, all the time.

Logic says: 2+2=4
Emotion says: 2+2=4 is right

Logic implements the plan, Emotions give the OK to implement the plan.

Without emotions you wouldn't even be able to carry out a plan to walk across the room. (This is what Parkinson's disease is all about).

I totally agree with you here. As orthogonal's and Tyler's post indicated.

If you noticed how Tyler responded to me, he did it in a respectable style and manner. He first asked questions to clarify his perception on my statements then he comments using my answers as reference, instead of assuming and immediately criticizing.

Tyler clarifying my position: "What is the final truth? Do you mean some large comprehension of the Universe? And why could we never arrive at that?"


Do I need to explain more?

Please, don't belittle me here. I am in no way "trying to be right" I am defending my statements, wouldn't you?

I apologize to orthogonal for having an argument with Adam here and nearly almost ruining this thread and be oh so awry to the relevant discussion. Sorry orthogonal.

Sounds like Adam has contempt for me, doesn't it?

Amazing, that. :)

Originally posted by Adam

Amazing, that. :)

Well you could answer, do you or not?


Originally posted by Adam
Lots of insults and assumptions in there. I hope you feel better now. If you ever get around to actually responding to the points and questions I raised, let me know. Thanks.

Adam, what questions and points? Why aren't you being specific? Where have I not responded to your points and questions?

You are ignoring me, that is another sign of disrespect, I don't ignore your posts, I answer and quote back word for word to clarify everything with you.

You are a hypocrite, not answering my questions and points. So please, don't falsely criticize me when you are the hyprocrite.

The Chosen,

Respect is something that is earned and not granted. Adam has earned my respect and you haven't (only because I've never interacted with you before). I don't care who is right or wrong with the pissing match between you and Adam, that's your guys' battle and I know it runs deeper then this thread. Maybe you guys should sort this out in a different manner.

I am trying to steer this back to your original statements, but it seems you have too much emotional business with Adam to stay on topic. I think you are living your conclusion - "emotions can cloud logic." :p


Please, don't belittle me here. I am in no way "trying to be right" I am defending my statements, wouldn't you?

Your extensive post detailing every one of Adam's words with play by play dialogue just shows me even more that your are just "trying to be right". I would have cleared up my emotional business with Adam long ago so that something like this wouldn't have happened, but it really doesn't matter what I would do.

Also, my statement "Do I need to explain more?" was not meant to be belittling. I typed it because, what I detailed was a very loose explanation of what I was trying to say, and wanted to know if I needed to fill in any gaps. I have no idea how much you know or what you believe.

Now for on-topic stuff:

I'm sorry that you took the "immature" word wrong. Immature was meant to mean more like "an incomplete view", while you seemed to take it as "childish". Your statements lead me to believe that you have an incomplete definition of what emotions are. Most people do. You seem to say that you have a more complete definition of an emotion, but I don't understand how you can and stand by the phrase: "When dealing with people, let us remember, we are not dealing with creatures of logic, we are dealing with creatures of emotion." Could you enlighten me with what you define as an emotion?



Manager: Put your hardhats on everyone!!!
Workers: He's such a bitch yelling at us to do this and that. These hardhats are so uncomfortable.

Where's the logic in that? Why get mad at someone for telling you to follow the safety guidelines required?

Manager: I know the hardhats are uncomfortable, but you have to wear them, safety regulations, I hate it also, but I have to wear. So everyone should do the same, it's for your safety.
Worker: Yea he's right, stupid hardhats...

When I read this I first think "stereotypes", but these probably come from actual situations. In that case, we still have an incomplete picture. We have no idea the emotional context that this dialogue is taking place. We have no idea what the extensive relationship between the boss and workers are. Maybe the situation is much deeper than hard hats? Has Carnegie's analysis of the situation, his logic, clouded the emotions within it?

Originally posted by Xenu
The Chosen,

Respect is something that is earned and not granted. Adam has earned my respect and you haven't (only because I've never interacted with you before).

Great, agreed.


I don't care who is right or wrong with the pissing match between you and Adam, that's your guys' battle and I know it runs deeper then this thread. Maybe you guys should sort this out in a different manner.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a "pissin match." We aren't cussing or vituperating each other out at all. :D


I am trying to steer this back to your original statements, but it seems you have too much emotional business with Adam to stay on topic. I think you are living your conclusion - "emotions can cloud logic." :p

It "seems"? Nah, I have no emotional business with Adam, whatsoever. You understand that I'm very argumentative, that's me. :) So if someone who doesn't understand your points and then comments "you are incapable of logic" - how would you feel?

What if I told you, you aren't making any sense right now?


Your extensive post detailing every one of Adam's words with play by play dialogue just shows me even more that your are just "trying to be right".

No, you have the wrong perspective here. I consider arguing with anyone a debate. You answer everything word for word to clear things up. Avoiding or changing subject is unacceptable. I have debated almost my entire life. Debates are most useful for learning others' viewpoints.

Go here: Debate (http://www.triviumpursuit.com/speech_debate/what_is_debate.htm)


I would have cleared up my emotional business with Adam long ago so that something like this wouldn't have happened, but it really doesn't matter what I would do.

Cleared? I try my best, he constantly makes statements without "backing them up." Then he calls my statements "baseless, no logic" and so on. These are insolent actions. I clearly tell him, "be more specific" and he fails being more explicit.


Also, my statement "Do I need to explain more?" was not meant to be belittling. I typed it because, what I detailed was a very loose explanation of what I was trying to say, and wanted to know if I needed to fill in any gaps. I have no idea how much you know or what you believe.

Understood.


Now for on-topic stuff:

I'm sorry that you took the "immature" word wrong. Immature was meant to mean more like "an incomplete view", while you seemed to take it as "childish". Your statements lead me to believe that you have an incomplete definition of what emotions are. Most people do. You seem to say that you have a more complete definition of an emotion, but I don't understand how you can and stand by the phrase: "When dealing with people, let us remember, we are not dealing with creatures of logic, we are dealing with creatures of emotion." Could you enlighten me with what you define as an emotion?

Immature indicates "young, silliness" - basically I took it as if you were saying I lacked maturiy. But I understand your view.

Emotions are of a conscious mental state, they are our sensibility, feelings, impulses, they mostly come from our reptilian brain. Love, hate, jealousy - emotions.

Now you could enlighten me with your "mature" definition of emotions. Maybe you study human psychology or something, I'm interested.

As for my signature, read Carnegie's book. He is right, humans run mostly by their emotions.


When I read this I first think "stereotypes", but these probably come from actual situations. In that case, we still have an incomplete picture. We have no idea the emotional context that this dialogue is taking place. We have no idea what the extensive relationship between the boss and workers are. Maybe the situation is much deeper than hard hats? Has Carnegie's analysis of the situation, his logic, clouded the emotions within it?


Here's the passage directly from his book:

George B. Johnston of Enid, Oklahoma, is the safety coordinator for an engineering company, One of his responsibilities is to see that employees wear their hard hats whenever they are on the job in the field. He reported that whenever he came across workers who were not wearing hard hats, he would tell them with a lot of authority of the regulation and that they must comply. As a result he would get sullen acceptance, and often after he left, the workers would remove the hats.

He decided to try a different approach. The next time he found some of the workers not wearing their hard hat, he asked if the hats were uncomfortable or did not fit properly. Then he reminded the men in a pleasant tone of voice that the hat was designed to protect them from injury and suggested that it always be worn on the job. The result was increased compliance with the regulation with no resentment or emotional upset.

My summary was off so I see how you arrived at that viewpoint.

Our emotions will take control and when someone yells at you, would you like it? Of course not. Do you listen to your parents when they yell at you? Even if they are right? Logically you will, but most people will follow their emotions and refuse to listen.

Carnegie mentions you need to approach people always in a pleasant emotional manner that they would like, then they will listen to you.

That is what he meant by his statement of: "When dealing with people, let us remember, we are not dealing with creatures of logic, we are dealing with creatures of emotion."

Here are his 9 principles, he's definitely not a "dweeb" Adam.

PRINCIPLE 1
Begin with praise and honest appreciation.

PRINCIPLE 2
Call attention to people’s mistakes indirectly.

PRINCIPLE 3
Talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other
person.

PRINCIPLE 4
Ask questions instead of giving direct orders.

PRINCIPLE 5
Let the other person save face.

PRINCIPLE 6
Praise the slightest improvement and praise every
improvement. Be “hearty in your approbation and lavish in
your praise.”

PRINCIPLE 7
Give the other person a fine reputation to live up to.

PRINCIPLE 8
Use encouragement. Make the fault seem easy to correct.

PRINCIPLE 9
Make the other person happy about doing the thing you
suggest.

Emotions are of a conscious mental state, they are our sensibility, feelings, impulses, they mostly come from our reptilian brain. Love, hate, jealousy - emotions.

Most psychologists would call what you described as "feelings". I reserve that word for other things, so I'd say something like "intense emotions". But overall I don't like to differentiate them from other emotions.

My understanding of emotions is a system rather than a set of "feelings". Emotions and Reason are interlinked heavily, and to say that emotions are irrational or reason is unemotional is silly. Emotions are normally thought to emerge in the Paleo-Mammalian brain of McClane's Triune Brain theory, not the Reptilian brain (although I'd say there are emotional centers in the Neo-mammalian brain too). Most physiologists would say that reptiles have no emotions, they are purely reflexive. I would guess that reptiles do have a simple emotional system, but this is only a hunch.

So what is this emotional system? When the senses enter the brain they all pass indirectly (olfaction goes directly) to the Amygdala, which is the most noted emotional center of the brain. The Amygdala places an evaluative label on the sensory info. The info from the sense also mainly go to the Thalamus which relays it generally to the cortex area of the sense. The cortex generally figures out the "what?" and the "where?" of what's being sensed. Eventually these two systems (this is a very simplified understanding here) meet and you get a complete "picture" of what you're sensing. Not only what or where or who, etc., but your evaluation of it too.

In the frontal lobe is where rational thought is thought to be. This is where an organism devises a plan of action, or a sequence of thoughts. In order for such a plan to be carried out, say walking across a room, it needs to get feedback from the emotional centers of the brain, basically asking "is this action a good thing to do?" Only once this feedback is obtained that the plan is carried out. This is what happens in Parkinson's patients. This feedback is disrupted and so planned movement is lost.

So if I were to offer a basic definition of emotions it would be: Evaluation. Emotions are always active, people always have some sort of evaluation going on. Most people aren't in touch with this or try to deny their emotions, only seeing the "intense" emotions. So statements like "humans run mostly by their emotions" reflect a lack of knowledge about these systems to me. Humans are completely run by emotions! In an evaluative sense at least, but evaluation is always present.

It's evaluation that makes reason work. Emotions are integral to being rational. In order to understand something as simple 2 + 2 = 4, you had to learn that when you see this sequence, it is correct. Emotions determine whether the reasoning is right or wrong, based on past knowledge/experience.

If someone has an anger outburst, then this is a correct response to that organism. To that organism, it is completely a rational course of action based on past experiences.

Hope this helps. I'm relatively immature at this myself. I've only begun to learn about this, reading several books at once, in my own directed study.

-Xenu

Carnegie mentions you need to approach people always in a pleasant emotional manner that they would like, then they will listen to you.

That is what he meant by his statement of: "When dealing with people, let us remember, we are not dealing with creatures of logic, we are dealing with creatures of emotion."

Here are his 9 principles, he's definitely not a "dweeb" Adam.

PRINCIPLE 1
Begin with praise and honest appreciation.

PRINCIPLE 2
Call attention to people’s mistakes indirectly.

PRINCIPLE 3
Talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other
person.

PRINCIPLE 4
Ask questions instead of giving direct orders.

PRINCIPLE 5
Let the other person save face.

PRINCIPLE 6
Praise the slightest improvement and praise every
improvement. Be “hearty in your approbation and lavish in
your praise.”

PRINCIPLE 7
Give the other person a fine reputation to live up to.

PRINCIPLE 8
Use encouragement. Make the fault seem easy to correct.

PRINCIPLE 9
Make the other person happy about doing the thing you
suggest.

To me this looks like a plan of creating very fake people. An "office nice-ness". At times I would rather have someone blow up in my face than to see another fake smile (I'm guilty of this too).

People need to learn to express their emotions not hold them in and try to be nice. It's from this holding in, that you generally get the offensive explosions that people don't like to see in the office. If you hold it in too much without releasing, you get anxiety. Too much anxiety, you get psychological disorders. If people learned to understand and express emotions, such outbreaks would probably never occur in the first place.

Originally posted by Xenu
To me this looks like a plan of creating very fake people. An "office nice-ness". At times I would rather have someone blow up in my face than to see another fake smile (I'm guilty of this too).

If you have trouble influencing people, you need to change how you react with them. I admit having an "arrogance" problem sometimes, since I do debate so often. How would you know it is a "fake smile"?

An old saying goes, "Sincerity is everything. If you can fake that you've got it made."

Same goes for women, if they tell you "just be yourself" and "yourself" is a "nice guy" you better change. In no way I believe you are becoming a fake, you are improving, evolving as I would say. :D


People need to learn to express their emotions not hold them in and try to be nice.

Sometimes their emotions are violent outbursts and anger clouds the mind. Speaking on a simplistic view here. Most people don't understand, they don't bother to understand. This world lacks understanding greatly.


It's from this holding in, that you generally get the offensive explosions that people don't like to see in the office. If you hold it in too much without releasing, you get anxiety. Too much anxiety, you get psychological disorders. If people learned to understand and express emotions, such outbreaks would probably never occur in the first place.

It depends on the level of self-control the person may exhibit and his perspective. In no way are you "bottling-up" your feelings, you are changing your viewpoint and forgetting. I think you are refering to a very extremem situation, psychological disorders? If you train yourself on how to deal with people, you've got it made. I plan to become a businessman, and this trait, tactfulness, charm, is needed or I won't simply succeed.

If people learned to understand? We have lazy people, who don't care and don't want to understand, hence "weak-minded." That is why there is a need for leaders in the world. I advice you read his book, it's interesting.

But that other post you made was very interesting also, I enjoyed reading it. You extended the view of emotions, my view is restricted, thanks.

How would you know it is a "fake smile"?

A typical giveaway is the eyes. If the eyes (particularily the lower eyelid) don't smile with the rest of the face, it's most likely fake. Also tone of voice and context can be dead giveaways.


In no way I believe you are becoming a fake, you are improving, evolving as I would say.

Evolution, hardly. People may be "evolving" coping skills, but this is just fooling oneself. People are just setting up internal conflict within themselves, which leads to pressure and anxiety, just like pressing the gas and brake at the same time on a car. You may get there, but highly inefficient and heat buildup.


In no way are you "bottling-up" your feelings, you are changing your viewpoint and forgetting. I think you are refering to a very extremem situation, psychological disorders?

When a person has an intense emotion, the body creates energy, to carry out what needs to be done (fight, flight, etc.). If there is no activity, this energy turns into anxiety, wasted energy. If you understand this simple concept, you can use this "wasted energy" for whatever you like. Many performers utilize stage fright to fuel their performances, and become dissappointed when they lose stage fright.

Psychological disorders come from anxiety. I can't think of a psychological school that wouldn't deny this. Most people do have symptoms of psychological disorders. When psych students read through an Abnormal Psych book, many think, "hey that's me". It doesn't become diagnosable however, until the problems are so severe that one can't function normally. I don't think my reasoning was too extreme.


If you train yourself on how to deal with people, you've got it made. I plan to become a businessman, and this trait, tactfulness, charm, is needed or I won't simply succeed.

Yes, but I would suggest to not lie to yourself about your feelings. I don't agree with success equating to money either.


We have lazy people, who don't care and don't want to understand, hence "weak-minded

I feel that "lazyness" doesn't come from not wanting to do anything, but wanting to do things and being afraid of being judged, or saying "it's hopeless anyway".

-Xenu

Originally posted by Xenu
A typical giveaway is the eyes. If the eyes (particularily the lower eyelid) don't smile with the rest of the face, it's most likely fake. Also tone of voice and context can be dead giveaways.

Can you tell an actor is faking? How so? And would you actually spend the time notice little things like this?


Evolution, hardly. People may be "evolving" coping skills, but this is just fooling oneself. People are just setting up internal conflict within themselves, which leads to pressure and anxiety, just like pressing the gas and brake at the same time on a car. You may get there, but highly inefficient and heat buildup.

Like for example:

PRINCIPLE 3
Talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other
person.

People would feel more comfortable with you, you are showing empathy stating that you do too, make mistakes. This works great with people, never noticed it until I tried it.


Psychological disorders come from anxiety. I can't think of a psychological school that wouldn't deny this. Most people do have symptoms of psychological disorders. When psych students read through an Abnormal Psych book, many think, "hey that's me". It doesn't become diagnosable however, until the problems are so severe that one can't function normally. I don't think my reasoning was too extreme.

Yes anxiety isn't good, people should let go or vent.


Yes, but I would suggest to not lie to yourself about your feelings. I don't agree with success equating to money either.

Yes success doesn't equal money. My goal is to become, a businessman, a leader, he must be good with people, maintain good comfortable relaionships, if not he's doomed to fail. I'm in no way lying about my feelings. I'm improving them, changing for the better.

Changing for the better is always a good thing. Thanks Xenu. :cool:

Can you tell an actor is faking? How so? And would you actually spend the time notice little things like this?

I guess it depends on how good the actor/actress was. It doesn't matter for me so much because I don't run into actors/actresses on a daily basis, so they wouldn't bother me. If they could pull it off, then good, I wouldn't be bothered by it either.

Sometimes I do, most of the time I pick up on it unconsciously, it's not always just the smile that bothers me, the whole package, i.e. intonation, body movements, language, etc. I'm sure that most people do pick up on it, but to varying degrees.


PRINCIPLE 3
Talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other
person.

People would feel more comfortable with you, you are showing empathy stating that you do too, make mistakes. This works great with people, never noticed it until I tried it.

I was talking about hiding your emotions and being fake. I agree that this principle is a good one to use, but has nothing to do with hiding emotions. It's more about expressing them. I think somewhere we misunderstood each other.

Also, I don't disagree with all of the principles, some of them I use quite a bit, unconsciously.


Yes success doesn't equal money. My goal is to become, a businessman, a leader, he must be good with people, maintain good comfortable relaionships, if not he's doomed to fail. I'm in no way lying about my feelings. I'm improving them, changing for the better.

Well, good and good luck to you.

Also, thank you for the book recommendation, maybe it'll help round out my studies on emotions.

I completely agree with Tyler with the connection on how decision making comes down to emotion. This idea can be explored futher by the work of Antonio Damasio try for a quick run down on one of his books http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/lab/nlp/gazdar/teach/atc/1998/revman/o_hagan.html.
Problems with pure logic decisions is bound by the infinite hierachy problem also explained as strange loops in Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas R Hofstadter (Great Book).