Logically inconsistant, my ***

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All we have to work with when deciding what to do is what we believe we want.

[/ QUOTE ] which is true. That doesn't allow us to conclude that what we believe we want is what we want, we're not internally omniscient either .

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how it matters. In deciding how to act we apply logic to what we believe we want and what we believe the consequences of our actions will be.

If we later have reason to modify our beliefs then so be it.

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
In deciding how to act we apply logic to what we believe we want and what we believe the consequences of our actions will be.
If we later have reason to modify our beliefs then so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Although I agree that as far as assessing the logical worth of a decision that's the assumption we make, and the only assumption we can make in that framework, still, there is evidence that the process may actually be reversed in at least some of our actions. Decision first, reasons to follow. I think that process is observable in posting on internet forums. Any further comments of mine would need to be in the psychology forum.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In deciding how to act we apply logic to what we believe we want and what we believe the consequences of our actions will be.
If we later have reason to modify our beliefs then so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Although I agree that as far as assessing the logical worth of a decision that's the assumption we make, and the only assumption we can make in that framework, still, there is evidence that the process may actually be reversed in at least some of our actions. Decision first, reasons to follow. I think that process is observable in posting on internet forums. Any further comments of mine would need to be in the psychology forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure much of the time you're right and we make the decision first and then attempt to justify it - I know I do that a fair bit. Is this type of behavior illogical? Seems kinda necessary for learning - try it on for size and if it fits then work out why?

Its quite a good method for testing beliefs/actions (although it can be hard work for all involved). I have an intuitive feel that B is true so I boldly state that B is true and then try to justify it/defend it against all comers. (Isn't that what your doing with this thread?). I like to think I'm honest so if I discover the position is unsupported I will tend to abandon it (this can be a painful process).

The problem is its often completely bogus. Some people will maintain their position even if the argument is clearly faulty because they have no interest at all in whether their belief is logical (that may be fair enough but if honest they wouldn't pretend it was as a result of logic). The clearest example of this is the ID argument for god - most people who spout ID do not believe in god because of ID and would not have a weaker belief in god if they understood that the ID argument is faulty.

Don't take it to physcology, philosophers are better at sorting this mess out [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I like to think I'm honest so if I discover the position is unsupported I will tend to abandon it (this can be a painful process).

[/ QUOTE ] The pain is correlated to the amount of shifting it causes in any broad-ranging assumptions. I have difficulty thinking in terms of 'positions' ( an normally concieved), even though I realize I must translate my thinking into those terms to have any hope of communicating with 73% of the population. I detest examples because it's impossible for them to convey all the implications of the general principles underlying them. A 'position' is just a single point where the forces exerted from general principles and current variables intersect. [ QUOTE ]
I have an intuitive feel that B is true so I boldly state that B is true and then try to justify it/defend it against all comers. (Isn't that what your doing with this thread?)

[/ QUOTE ] At least related, I'd say. Usually I don't care where stating the position leads and my 'defense' is more of the integrity of the 'position' so the examination has value, rather than actually defending it as 'true'. Typically, when the examination is over I'll notice new more interesting intersections and move on.
I have very few premises that I treat as true ( regardless if they are or not) that I've settled on over time. a) there is an external reality. b) I have free will. and I've slowly moved into accepting c) there is a correlation between my perceptions and external reality, strongly supported by the evidence of evolution.
I spent so much time getting comfortable with those that I don't bother with most discussions about them ( the other person likely doesn't have their gold watch in those areas, let them do their own work).
Does any of the above seem familar to you?

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
Killing people like Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Michael Moore , Stalin, etc. is not at all a sin, because these are evil people.

Killing 1000 of these people is the moral equivalent of killing one "normal" person, and about 1/10th of a "very good" person (think Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf??

and how did you get these numbers?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Killing people like Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Michael Moore , Stalin, etc. is not at all a sin, because these are evil people.

Killing 1000 of these people is the moral equivalent of killing one "normal" person, and about 1/10th of a "very good" person (think Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf??

and how did you get these numbers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes there's so many things wrong with a statement that the idea of challenging it is just too overwhelming.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes there's so many things wrong with a statement that the idea of challenging it is just too overwhelming.

[/ QUOTE ]
I love Pauli's "It's not even wrong."

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I have very few premises that I treat as true ( regardless if they are or not) that I've settled on over time. a) there is an external reality. b) I have free will. and I've slowly moved into accepting c) there is a correlation between my perceptions and external reality, strongly supported by the evidence of evolution.
I spent so much time getting comfortable with those that I don't bother with most discussions about them ( the other person likely doesn't have their gold watch in those areas, let them do their own work).
Does any of the above seem familar to you?


[/ QUOTE ]
Very familiar, I wonder how few of us there are who take this type of approach. Mine are a bit different and I don't treat them as true but test any other view against them. Unless some other view can actually be differentiated from 'mine' then I assume its the same.

I call 'mine' humble skeptical realism. That is that:

1) something that seems like me currently exists
2) a real world exists that I can interact with
3) I am a non-special part of this real world

So far, everything that I can understand about the world seems at least as understandable under this view than under any other.

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Very familiar, I wonder how few of us there are who take this type of approach.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think there's a chunk of related views out there but many of them would be uncomfortable with my "treat as true" or your "test other views against them". Most people ( outside the very self-selecting grouop on SMP) need a stronger grip on something than what either of us start from.
[ QUOTE ]
Mine are a bit different and I don't treat them as true but test any other view against them. Unless some other view can actually be differentiated from 'mine' then I assume its the same.
I call 'mine' humble skeptical realism. That is that:
1) something that seems like me currently exists
2) a real world exists that I can interact with
3) I am a non-special part of this real world

So far, everything that I can understand about the world seems at least as understandable under this view than under any other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Darn.. now I want a name for mine.
Flexible Occamism with a Twist of Reality.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless some other view can actually be differentiated from 'mine' then I assume its the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

An expansion on this process and what you mean my 'same' would be interesting and helpful,
thanks, luckyme

[ QUOTE ]
Killing people like Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Michael Moore, Stalin, etc. is not at all a sin, because these are evil people.

Killing 1000 of these people is the moral equivalent of killing one "normal" person, and about 1/10th of a "very good" person (think Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

THANK YOU! I'm glad someone can just give a strait answer to the damn question. Enough with this wishy-washy debateble nonsense.

Honestly though I was crying laughing at that, especial to peoples responses like "where did you come up with those numbers?" could you have anymore not-gotten it? Awsome.