When I say non-logical reasoning, I mean reasoning that leads you to incorrect results (predictions about reality that do not actually obtain). I see no reason to ever intentionally do this, nor am I sure you really can deceive yourself in such a way.

I think a lot of people use logic to opt out of actions or paths that still have unknown emergent thresholds. They think themselves out of action. I also think people use logic to give up on other people, ride them off as an “A” or a “B” instead of an unknown.

To me, these people seem to be reasoning incorrectly, so the solution would be to reason correctly, not use something different than reason.

I’m not exactly sure what you expect logic to disagree with in what you are doing.

Is there a difference between reason and logic to you?

~

Einstein says that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

I think this quote, taken as literally stated, is actually incorrect and not an example of what logic would “say”, since there are clearly instances where people have achieved different results from doing the same thing over and over again. Your point that it is probably impossible to do the same thing twice is also well taken.

What I think perhaps this quote is saying is that it is unlikely for you to achieve success if you don’t think critically about why you failed and what you can do to improve, but rather just having an unjustified hope that maybe things will be different this time do to outside circumstances. A bet on luck is not as good as a strategic play in most cases.

Sidenote: This quote was actually said by Rita Mae Brown, and is misattributed to Einstein by many.

Can you give me some examples of these situations?

Einstein says that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. But I would argue that even if you do the same thing, the fact that you have done it before makes it slightly different than the first time you did it. The fact that you have done something 3 times makes it different than the second time and so on. The differences between time 1-X might be negligible but I believe things have emergent thresholds, a point where doing the same thing over and over produces drastically different results. Einstein’s quote and in my opinion rational thinking deny the possibility of emergent thresholds. Logic says “A is A” and it will always be A, but I believe that from the constitution of A can emerge things separate from that constitution.

For example, I started running about a year ago now. The first two months I ran it felt like hell. i ran once a day for two months. I did the same thing over 60 times expecting different results. I did not know when that emergent threshold was, but I was willing to wait for it. And it came around the 70th time. You can argue that each time was different, but that is true for anything we talk about. The point is that your Truth-Apts and Einstein’s logic are based on a principle that you can accurately predict reality based on past experiences. If you were to do something and derive a result you should use that to predict that the next time you did the same thing you would derive the same result. The more times you reach the same result the more you should expect the same thing to happen in similar situations. However the principle of emergent thresholds is that at some unpredictable point “A” will cease to be A. At some point running became incredibly pleasurable, changed how I thought, the constitution of my body, and who knows what else.

I believe any action follows this principle of emergentism. Therefore, even if doing something continues to reap the same unsatisfactory results I do not think it is insanity to continue doing it, it is ritual. Of course this idea can be misused just as logic can. Just because things have emergent qualities does not mean they are good qualities. Furthermore, some actions are socially, psychologically, or physically damaging. Depending on the degree of damage the potential emergent thresholds of such actions are not worth exploration.

I think a lot of people use logic to opt out of actions or paths that still have unknown emergent thresholds. They think themselves out of action. I also think people use logic to give up on other people, ride them off as an “A” or a “B” instead of an unknown.

I didn’t know ambiguous grammars existed, so thanks for pointing that out. I guess I was wrong. But I still think the greater point applies because:

1. There are some programming languages without ambiguous grammars, so we could theoretically appeal to those. We would only be hosed if it was demonstrated that an unambiguous grammar is impossible.

2. Even if the computer encounters an ambiguous grammar, it still flags it, which is what I argue we should try to do in our communications. In human-to-human conversations, we often accept the ambiguity, or interpret it in a way that is fallacious (as in, that interpretation does not logically follow from what was said).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguous_grammar

I do not think that reality is logical.

Can you expand on this?

~

Truth is a reality external to the human mind, logic is not.

So truth is what logic aims to get at. Got it.

~

What I am arguing is that because logic navigates reality-rather than define it- it is not the sole tool of navigation. It is a good tool, but there are instances where there are other tools that are better.

Can you give me some examples of these situations?

~

Most people would probably benefit greatly from your essays because they would moderate their illogicality. However, [...] the people you draw in [to your blog is...] that minority that is already logical enough and to the contrary needs to work on accepting other mediums for interpreting reality.

I am hoping to reach the population that needs to moderate their illogicality, though. They’re the intended audience.