I dislike the logic that has prevailed in our reality, because it is a primal and simple one. Children cling onto their parents the more they get hit and screamed at, because on their own they'd probably not survive, and thus they need to invoke some sort of sympathy from someone who can help them live long enough for them to live by themselves.

The child is ignorant of what choices it has, and even if it were to be informed there are set boundries in its head that are hard to overcome, thus it sticks with its abusive parents. Our minds are limiting, and in our limitation we fail to do what we later realize would've been the right action. In this case the child would've been able to go to some adoption house where it'd be treated better than where he/she currently is, but because of commitment to the parents that idea isn't even gonna get any consideration. The child is a slave to poor decisions.

My proposition to solving the case of what to do in some situations, and the need for guidance is for one to create their own morals and goals that are absolute rules that can only be questioned if one were to change to another side completely. As an example there is pro-life vs anti-life. If you're against life you either kill yourself, or others, whereas if you're for life you do w/e you've decided to do. There is no in-between; either you're committed, or you change side.

Without any sort of self made guidelines, we ask what the purpose of life is, as if there is one that would illuminate you once you heard it. It annoys me to hear this from my peers, and even older people.

If we had full control over our brains we'd not only be able to survive more injuries, be able to sleep quickly knowing that we won't be harmed in our sleep, and we'd be able to be productive.

History isn't real.  As far as I'm concerned anything pre 1900 never happened

You lost me.

It's hard for me to put myself out of the loop when I'm in it.

If there are any points that are unclear that you'd want me to clarify, then you'll simply have to point them out.

Quote from: Deadtrap on October 04, 2015, 02:30:12 PM

You lost me.

It's hard for me to put myself out of the loop when I'm in it.

If there are any points that are unclear that you'd want me to clarify, then you'll simply have to point them out.

The entire thing seems abstract as fuck. I feel like a complex and unorthadox line of thought led to that summary. By the time I get halfway through I've already forgotten the starting points.

Quote from: Deadtrap on October 04, 2015, 02:42:40 PM

Quote from: Desty on October 04, 2015, 02:33:58 PM

Quote from: Deadtrap on October 04, 2015, 02:30:12 PM

You lost me.

It's hard for me to put myself out of the loop when I'm in it.

If there are any points that are unclear that you'd want me to clarify, then you'll simply have to point them out.

The entire thing seems abstract as fuck. I feel like a complex and unorthadox line of thought led to that summary. By the time I get halfway through I've already forgotten the starting points.

Yeah, I should really get down to Earth with my replies more.

That might help a bit. Although that's just me. I'm not exactly the best at putting things together these days. Takes a little bit of time to collect all my marbles, I think.

Quote from: Deadtrap on October 04, 2015, 02:52:34 PM

Quote from: Desty on October 04, 2015, 02:51:16 PM

Quote from: Deadtrap on October 04, 2015, 02:42:40 PM

Quote from: Desty on October 04, 2015, 02:33:58 PM

Quote from: Deadtrap on October 04, 2015, 02:30:12 PM

You lost me.

It's hard for me to put myself out of the loop when I'm in it.

If there are any points that are unclear that you'd want me to clarify, then you'll simply have to point them out.

The entire thing seems abstract as fuck. I feel like a complex and unorthadox line of thought led to that summary. By the time I get halfway through I've already forgotten the starting points.

Yeah, I should really get down to Earth with my replies more.

That might help a bit. Although that's just me. I'm not exactly the best at putting things together these days. Takes a little bit of time to collect all my marbles, I think.

The blame is on me, trust me.

I'll blame it on you then, akon.

Does that mean we stab people?

Yeah. The cycle of mass extinctions every few million years is a pain in the arse.

Quote from: OnionBeetle on October 05, 2015, 11:41:08 AM

Your argument (I suppose you are trying to outline one?) is incredibly disjointed. Your area of inquisition states that you wil be looking into history, I was curious when I read that and thought you would have an interesting point to make.

However, from my understanding you are arguing for a literal mind of binary. Black or white, yes or  no, 1 or 0. Where is your dislike of all of history present here? Did you forget that that was relevant to your argument? Also, the idea of having a binary mind, is inherently impossible. Not only that, it is objectively inferior to having a 'flowing' mind as Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Virgil, Homer, Cicero, Plautus and Aeschylus will confirm.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make, if any. What does your example of abortion have to do with your distaste of common occurances in reality and history and why is a binary mind even remotely preferable? What are you referring to by reality?

Abortion? I'm talking about parents abusing a child, and that instead of being intelligent and walk away from the relationship and survive on its own, it's incapable of doing so, and thus it tries to be even closer to the parents. It's a reaction to a situation that has been seen as the most favourable to surviving, and thus the reaction has been inherited by most of us.

This reaction has been favoured throughout history - or other peoples' realities, or lives, whatever you want to call what has happened in the past - even though it's not an intelligent one. It makes sense from a logical perspective, but the fact that it's logical, yet not intelligent, leaves us with the conclusion that to apply logic that's not intelligent, the situation must be stupid. That situation is us humans; we're stupid, and so is nature.

What I'm saying is that I don't like how nature has brought forth results.

What I propose as an answer to this situation is that we choose our own intelligent results. Logic that is intelligent.

Another example of logic that is stupid:
This bright genius who has the potential to solve the question of converting salt water to sweet water in an efficient way so that there won't ever be any problems concerning drinkable water is killed by his village because he stands out. They don't really think intelligently, but more primally, because in the past, people who stood out could be a danger to your tribe, and this trait has now shown itself.

This is an example of unintelligent logic prevailing because it's good logic.

I'll reread to see if I need to change stuff after I eat food.

Are you purposely trying to contradict every single point you make? I'm not sure if you're trolling or not anymore. But since your reply is so long, you are probably serious.

In which case I see no point in 'arguing' further. There are too many logical fallacies, disconnects and straight up contradictions for me to ignore.

Quote from: Desty on October 06, 2015, 06:08:20 AM

Quote from: OnionBeetle on October 05, 2015, 11:41:08 AM

Your argument (I suppose you are trying to outline one?) is incredibly disjointed. Your area of inquisition states that you wil be looking into history, I was curious when I read that and thought you would have an interesting point to make.

However, from my understanding you are arguing for a literal mind of binary. Black or white, yes or  no, 1 or 0. Where is your dislike of all of history present here? Did you forget that that was relevant to your argument? Also, the idea of having a binary mind, is inherently impossible. Not only that, it is objectively inferior to having a 'flowing' mind as Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Virgil, Homer, Cicero, Plautus and Aeschylus will confirm.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make, if any. What does your example of abortion have to do with your distaste of common occurances in reality and history and why is a binary mind even remotely preferable? What are you referring to by reality?

Abortion? I'm talking about parents abusing a child, and that instead of being intelligent and walk away from the relationship and survive on its own, it's incapable of doing so, and thus it tries to be even closer to the parents. It's a reaction to a situation that has been seen as the most favourable to surviving, and thus the reaction has been inherited by most of us.

This reaction has been favoured throughout history - or other peoples' realities, or lives, whatever you want to call what has happened in the past - even though it's not an intelligent one. It makes sense from a logical perspective, but the fact that it's logical, yet not intelligent, leaves us with the conclusion that to apply logic that's not intelligent, the situation must be stupid. That situation is us humans; we're stupid, and so is nature.

What I'm saying is that I don't like how nature has brought forth results.

What I propose as an answer to this situation is that we choose our own intelligent results. Logic that is intelligent.

Another example of logic that is stupid:
This bright genius who has the potential to solve the question of converting salt water to sweet water in an efficient way so that there won't ever be any problems concerning drinkable water is killed by his village because he stands out. They don't really think intelligently, but more primally, because in the past, people who stood out could be a danger to your tribe, and this trait has now shown itself.

This is an example of unintelligent logic prevailing because it's good logic.

I'll reread to see if I need to change stuff after I eat food.

Are you purposely trying to contradict every single point you make? I'm not sure if you're trolling or not anymore. But since your reply is so long, you are probably serious.

In which case I see no point in 'arguing' further. There are too many logical fallacies, disconnects and straight up contradictions for me to ignore.

How am I contradicting myself?

This is a huge contradiciton.

Me: What I propose as an answer to this situation is that we choose our own intelligent results. Logic that is intelligent.

You: This is nonsencial. Logic is by definition intelligent.

m8 r u srs?

Me: This is an example of unintelligent logic prevailing because it's good logic.

You: Logic cannot be good or bad, it just is.

I was talking about the quality of the logic; and saying that logic is good or bad can also mean that the facts that make up the logic are sequential to each other, or if it's bad logic; not sequential.

Me: we're stupid, and so is nature.

You: This is by far the most nonsensical comment you made. If you believe everything is stupid. Then what you wrote is stupid, because you are not intelligent enough to write anything coherent because you are stupid.

First off, I don't believe that everything is stupid. The fact that anything is possible, yet we choose the poor things is what made me make this thread. Secondly, yeah, I am stupid, but stupid can try to be smart, and it can become smarter. I believe that human beings aren't rational, but rationalising.

Me: and so is nature.
You: Again, nonsensical. Nature is not something that can be 'dumb' or 'intelligent', it just is.

Nature is just what it is, and that's the point. It could be more, but because of simplicity being chosen due to logic, we're left with not-as-good-as-can-be products. Don't get me wrong, I think that it's amazing what evolution has made us into, but we should use the capacity for betterment to its fullest extent.

Me: we choose our own intelligent results.

You: Not as bad as your other comments but how can one determine if a result is intelligent beforehand if the person you said by your definition is already stupid? As is the system of logic they are working under.

I answered this with "stupid can become smarter, but still be stupid"