Why Logic Works

Logic works for one reason and one reason only: it kept humans alive.

Logic is not inherently universal; it is not what the world operates on, at least in a way that we can be sure of.  Logic only works because it kept human beings alive in the world.

Question: Where is the law that says the entire universe has to follow logical principals?

A: In human minds with the limited point of view from a mind that uses logic.

Imagining a world that is not logical is parallel to imagining not existing: impossible for the human mind because logic and existence are two fully inherent facts of the human mind and human nature and we cannot operate without them.

This is not necessarily a negative fact, but it has to be acknowledged so we can know our own place as humans.  Our minds are infinitely complex computers, of a sort, which have a specific operating system: that of logic combined with illogical parts.  This computer has certain ways to input data: touch, sight, audio, taste and smell. Humans can only interpret the world through these things and the limitations of them, the human mind would probably be able to deal with more but our “peripheries” (senses) are limited in certain ways which limit what we can sense: probably due to limits of size.  If we were capable of interpreting more data we would need more brain power.

This data then has to be interpreted in some way.  Just receiving data without a viewpoint would make us cameras, mirrors: not beings.

I have no good way to prove these statements yet; working on it.

I have accepted these as near facts, this leads to some questions of mine such as why this specific way/logic? And why are we so curious as humans?

The first question is asked because there appears to be plenty of other animals that do not use the same sort of “operating system” as we do.  So why build a new one which is like ours?  The second comes from why in the world are humans the organisms that try to understand things like we do: why do we ask questions?  What about our operating system makes us ask the sorts of questions we do and even able to do it? Why is it we have it?

Once I happen to come up with a more solidified answer to my own questions, I’ll return.

Cameras Installed for Your Security

This is just a little thing I saw this week at my university.  Some of this may come off as pseudo-conspiracy theory and I have no solution to that, this is just something that I am astounded by.

In the library of my university recently security cameras have been installed, “for your security,” claims the full announcement.  This just begs the question since when was my security at issue in a library?  This library can only be accessed on the second floor of a building, any sort of “security threats” that could come in would be caught on the cameras on the ground floor first or come in through the window; which the library cameras are not going to catch on film.

I personally have never felt insecure in this library, there is only one way out of this library which has the detectors like in all stores to prevent books from being stolen (I also do not really feel that books being stolen is a security threat, let us be honest here), the fact that the library cannot be accessed unless someone goes up some stairs or in an elevator, the place being a library, none of these seem to indicate there would be a need for security cameras to protect my security, or the security of any of the other students.

This is the part where I do not go on a rant about Big Brother, you were worried weren’t you?

No, no do not worry Big Brother will not have a role in this.  But, I will ask the question: why in the world is a university wasting the resources on these cameras when they seem so utterly useless; this does lead to the question of what in the world sort of use does the university find in them too of course.  The prior I can at least complain about, the latter I will let others deal with for now.

I have no answers, maybe one day I will be able to come back to these questions and figure out what is going on, but for now I am just an unknowing undergrad who worries sometimes about my life.

Random Thoughts

This is more of a rough draft of some ideas than an actually thought out argument for or against anything, so let us explore my thought process.  The question of the day is: why I’m so angry.

Lack of life, this is why I’m so angry.  Too much rot and gray amalgam.  Too much fear, too much similarity.  I’m beginning to finally understand the pain Nietzsche felt when he smelled this world, it is absolutely putrid.

It’s also a tiny world on top of being rotten.  The little box in which everyone seems tow ant to live is simply too small to thrive i.  No one can be larger than life with a ceiling; no one can be larger than life without roots either.  The current box has both a ceiling and floor, with only a microscopic separation betwixt. Many have access to the entire globe anymore yet the worlds are only getting smaller.

It is possible to be on the other side of the globe in hours, yet most of those hours are spent in boxes, literally.  We (mostly the western world, since that is where I am from) can travel the world but we’re more comfortable in front of a screen that never moves.  We could meet people from nearly any country in the world yet we know more about a handful of movie stars.

Why am I so angry? So many possibilities, all of it wasted.  It seems that no one sees these possibilities either.  The preference is to sit and rot away at a desk.  I just don’t get it.

 

Well, there you have it.  Just a random piece written in a class that was a waste of my time more than anything.  Maybe someone will be brought to thought with this.

The Experience Machine

In class last week the, seemingly famous, thought experience about the “Experience Machine” was discussed.  I’m not going to go into the history of the experiment itself; you can look that up yourself.  The general idea of the machine is that there is this computer made into which you can program any and every possible human experience.  Someone can go ahead and basically pick from a menu any experience that they want to have and then “plug into” the machine and have those experiences.  This machine makes it possible to program an entire life of experiences into it and while experiencing these things one’s body is just sitting in the physical world not moving at all.  After getting this sort of machine the question is: would you plug into the machine to live your life attached to a computer?  Generally people say no, but that is not what I am interested in.

I am most interested in the “why” people generally say no to plugging into the machine.

I propose the idea that generally people say no to plugging into this machine because people want to attempt to leave something to “pass-down,” i.e. a form of immortality.  I am not saying anything that has a value of “good” or “bad” just something which will be remembered and known after one dies.   Leaving something behind after one dies is a sort of “victory” over life because a person becomes in a way immortal; which pretty much every one wishes for because no one wants to let go of life and “lose.”  A place that this is discussed more in-depth is Plato’s dialogue Phaedo, an online version found by simply searching for it on Google. (I do not have permissions so I have no direct links) The important part is when Socrates begins his speech on love, but read the entirety, it is good for you.

This want for immortality is what leads people to not wanting to plug into the experience machine even if they can program all of the pleasant experiences that they want into it.  No one can leave anything behind in that machine.  The example used in class was writing a novel.  In the machine one can experience writing a novel, but no novel is actually, physically written.  People would generally prefer to actually have the novel though instead of just experiencing it.  It lets someone have a sort of “victory” over life which is the natural want of most people, animals and plants even.

Why the U.S. Will Never Be Original

The U.S.-Canada too probably- will never actually have original thought. There may be original ideas, or original technologies but there will be not ever be fundamentally new thought in the U.S  No philosophical “break-through” which will change how we view the world or consider our place in the world or how to function as humans.  This simply will not happen in the U.S. anymore.  It probably will not happen anywhere in the Western World at this point, but Europe still has a much bigger chance than the U.S.

Now, to explain why I think this since I cannot just make an unqualified claim like above without something:

The reason the U.S. will not ever create original thought is because of our opinions of activity and time.  In the U.S. a person should not ever be found alone and just sitting, one has to always be doing something, some sort of physical movement or something that could be seen as “progress”: smoking, walking somewhere, writing, reading, driving, talking to someone else, playing video games something just something to occupy your mind and body.  It is impossible to find people in the U.S. just observing the world in a park or sitting in a bar alone just pondering the world (it’s nearly impossible to find this anywhere now with smartphones overall too).  This lack of relaxation; lack of being “okay” to be by oneself, take slow strolls or just sit somewhere quiet and alone is one of the main differences between the U.S. and Europe that makes it impossible for the U.S. to create original thought.

In Europe, on the other hand, (or at least the parts of it I have experienced) it is still acceptable for one to take slow strolls, take one’s own time, sit in a bar or restaurant alone, sit on a park bench and observe the world, sit with friends for hours on end discussing whatever happens to come up in conversation.  It is acceptable for one to simply take time to think about everything and anything.  This is where original thought can, and most likely will, come from.  Just taking some alone time to walk and think about something is where new ideas come from, new ideas then are planted and can grow into new ways to see the world or even entirely new world.  These thoughts are, probably quite often, entirely superfluous though for someone from the U.S.

To make sure I am clear: I am not saying the U.S. will not and cannot create anything new, there are plenty new technologies, tools and things that come out of the U.S.  That is what the U.S. is good at-creating things, not thought.  In the U.S. since we are so busy running around, being busy and doing things the only sort of ideas that could be thought of would be “how to I make more money out of this,” “how do I make this better/faster,” overall: “how do I get more done?” these are questions you can ponder relatively quickly.  It is more of the idea of improving the wheel, or using it in new places; not reinventing or entirely removing the wheel from the world.  In order to make new thought one must be able to get rid of the wheel entirely: that takes time and a lot of thought which simply is not socially acceptable in the U.S.  but, so far, seems to still be acceptable in the parts of Europe I have seen.

As such, fundamentally new, original, unique and different thought simply will not be created in the U.S.  in the U.S. people are too busy improving upon everything to actually make something new.  It is sort of like constantly adding onto a house instead of tearing it all the way down and rebuilding the foundation first.  In Europe it is still socially acceptable for a person to take the time to think (hence, tear down the “house” of current thought), whereas that is and requires superfluous thought by U.S. standards.  That superfluous-ness is what is needed to get “out of the box” though to create something fundamentally new.

On the Nature of Truth

Truth is an incredibly important thing our world.  Scientific truth, religious truth, objective truth(s); this thing is the basis for a lot of our lives in this world.  It basically helps to hold everything together.  Sadly though (for some), it is not actually accessible to us humans.

Truth in the idea we like to ascribe to it, i.e., universal is impossible for us actually approach and understand.  Every little piece of “data” we receive in the world comes from our senses meaning everything is interpreted and computed in our mind/brains.  These interpretations follow the rules of logic and rules-human thought- these interpretations apply patterns and rules to the world for us humans to function.  This computational ability is one part of what makes us essentially human, it also means that our minds run very much like the computers and machines which we have built.  Refer to cognitive sciences to see proof of our interpretation of everything in the world and applying patterns and rules to it in our minds.  One simpler example I can think of is Descartes’ example of a square tower in the distance appearing round.  Something else you could test yourself: just record yourself speaking normally, not announcing or trying to be extra clear, just speak like normal.  Use a program where you can see the sound waves and then try to find where the “words” are in the sound waves.  You will find the words do not actually exist in the world as things; they are interpreted when we hear them.  Other proof abounds, but I do not have enough interest in trying to pursue this further for now, do your own research.

As such, all of our scientific and evidential truths are interpretations, organizations and applications of our logic upon the world.  These things may work mathematical formulas to predict physical occurrences in the world (I am not claiming these things are wrong), but we cannot ever know with absolute and pure certainty that they are the actual truth.  These formulas and this evidence are simply the patterns we have found in the world that seem to work within the rest of our interpreted universe.  Hence, all of our truths in the world are actually logical truths.  Simply logical truths for how we see, understand and interpret the world NOT necessarily universal truths, we will never know those.  The best we can do is work off of what we can know, which is our logical truths.

This may just be a pointless bit of writing for readers, but this has been an important step in my personal development, as such I wrote about it.  Good luck sleeping tonight if your mind has been blown by this idea or if you want to try to find proof to argue against this statement.

Theories On The Good

As the title says, this is a new idea on the current good man, with a focus on where it came from.  I am dealing with this since it is an interesting theory that came to me and creating a complete system is daunting and intimidating so putting that off for longer is something I will naturally do.  Plus I am writing this post later than I usually prefer.

The topic now is the “good” and why it is “good.”  This time by “good” I mean the actions themselves-what people call doing good.  Volunteering, giving and helping someone out when they ask for it, even something as simple as holding the door.  That type of good is what I am talking about now, I just do not know of a good way to define it.

If you want further information on how some people think that this type of good came about I recommend reading Nietzsche since his writings have been a large influence on me.  Although, my approach takes a different view than he discusses but I do not believe the theories are mutually exclusive, I think they can actually work together overall.

So now, onto the theory.

The theory is: that doing good in the way I previously loosely defined was a way for someone to show off their “vitality.”  Vitality in this sense can mean many different things: a person’s power, wealth, strength, sheer will, their connection with their life, essentially vitality as I understand it, I just want to make sure I am clear.  Doing good then, was a way for someone to basically display their vitality since they could spare the time, money, energy or combination thereof to give/apply to another person/people without gaining anything back other than pride and getting to display their power: this is that warm fuzzy feeling people claim they get when doing good.  People like having power and being able to show it off (reference every status symbol that exists).  Those that do not have vitality to spare are then grateful for being able to get some extra for free or very little effort and not being crushed by those with more vitality since, that could have been an option too (I did not mention before, but this theory is supposed to have basically been carried out before modern times.  I am not sure when but think more tribal society and it will help with perspective I think).  So, that warm fuzzy feeling people claim is accounted for, what about feeling guilt or shame for not helping?

This feeling of guilt or shame for not doing good comes from embarrassment in this theory.  A person feels ashamed because they do not have the vitality to spare to another and therefor are considered weaker and arguably, below those that do have the vitality to spare.  That is an embarrassment to end up in that position (see: how everyone always wants status symbols and many feel inadequate if they do not have them).  Maybe someone did have the vitality to share to do good for another though, but they were afraid to let it go in case those that he helped became his enemy.  This is another reason to be embarrassed and thus, feel shameful or guilty for not doing good-fear.  Those that do have the vitality to spare and do spend it are showing that they are certain that even if those they help become antagonists they will be able to overcome them and are not afraid of having to go against them.  So it was more impetus to do good, to show your vitality, whether or not you actually have it, and show bravery; both of which bring honor and pride to the actor from the others who help or who see the good being done thus moving the actor up in society.

I hope to come back to this theory at some point but for now I had to get something down in writing and give some food for thought to anyone who may come around this blog at some point.