A Critique of Pure Reason

[jam454]

I am going to attempt to explain why logic should not be used to define reality. I will also try to explain how logic is a man made construct and an interpretation of the world around us, but by no means the correct one.

The principles of modern logic were born long ago in classical Greece, but before Euclid, Socrates, and Plato time and space were interpreted in different ways. Time was thought to be cyclical and conceptions of space did not have the rigid geometries imposed by Euclid. These ideas stood strong through classical Greece and through the Roman Empire but after the fall of the Roman Empire rational imperial thought, conceptions of linear time and geometrical space were snuffed out. In place of this was the Christian church. Reality was interpreted through the bible. The holy word of God was the only source of truth and there was no place for logic. I say this to make the point that man interprets reality through a filter or a construct. Be it the church or modern science. Some people might argue that a reality built out of logical deduction is the best we have and therefore should be our reality. Now I am going to explain why I think that might be dangerous.

What I am going to do now is try and break down as best I can with my limited knowledge a modern logically constructed reality. All modern science and technology is based on simple logical deductions. Be it mathematics, chemistry, a skyscraper, or a digital computer. Think of a single logical deduction based on recorded observation as a building block to a gigantic framework that is modern science and technology. Now that we have that mental image lets take a look at what modern science tells us.

Lets take a look at numbers. Any numerical calculation based on observed phenomenon is an approximation and a rational number. In nature a rational number is so rare they might as well not even exist. For example the velocity of a baseball at any point between the pitcher and the catcher would not be say 42.453 m/s but 42.4537983264917498236598743218965237856149872518903651094751927589436591273598014375123875890576843695.... and on to infinity without a recognizable pattern. Thus making this number irrational and impossible to calculate with exact precision. You might not think the 5 at the end of that string of numbers above could ever possibly matter anyway, but it does! It is possible that that tiny number could have a very large effect on the world around it. Thus making certain scientific/mathematical predictions impossible and making all other calculations approximations. It’s called chaos, look it up. And that’s not all.

The further we progress in our scientific endeavors the more we are starting to see that our constants that are the basis of all logic really aren’t constant at all. Linear time isn’t so linear and Euclidean space isn’t so rigid (relativity). Even the position of a particle in space cannot be said for certain (quantum mechanics).So basic observation the foundation of logic and the foundation of all modern science, modern technology, and modern reality is not unshakeable.


So what is this logical construct and if it is bunk how do we have all of the science and technology we have? Why does it work so well? A quick answer is that the constants we base our science on, linear time, consistency of matter, Euclidean space, and others although not actually constant are a stable enough foundation on which to build our little western civilization.
A more complete answer follows.
Our entire view of universe is a very tiny sliver of the actual universe, if that. The universe is filtered through our five senses. We get: a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum (vision), vibrations of molecules (sound), two senses to differentiate chemical compounds (smell, taste), a rough description of the composition of matter (touch), and a vastly limited comprehension of time, space, light, and matter. We are designed to live and thrive not to make scientific observations. Use the picture below to help you understand a logically based reality. First imagine that the box is the universe as it actually exits and imagine the divot down into the box (divot #1) as the universe as we can observe it. Now imagine divot #2 as a logically constructed reality. A large body of knowledge that reflects the observable world made to explain what is seen in divot one. This infinitely incomplete body of knowledge is an elaborately constructed framework built by a series of interconnected logical proofs. If something observed in divot #1 contradicts something in the construct we simply rearrange a few pieces to make room for the exception. Theoretically improving the over all strength and quality of the construct. So if we step back and look at all this, what is this construct really? Judging by its properties it looks a lot like a machine. Think about it. This body of knowledge is entirely mechanical. The mechanics of this construct are no different than the mechanics of a steam engine or a digital computer. Just as well this construct cannot be reality and should not be considered close to reality because it has no basis in reality. Yet it exists and it serves a function.

`````````````````````/\
````````````````````/ 2 \
---------------------- --------------------------------------
******************\ 1 /************************|
*******************\/*************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*************The universe as it actually exists.*******|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
*********************************************|
-----------------------------------------------------------

The reason that I say this is dangerous is because of further properties of machines. Machines are inherently hollow. They stand for nothing. They move for nothing. They work for nothing. They are nothing. They are inorganic. They are inhuman. Yet our western society almost entirely works by and for this machine. When we (society) view the world through this machine we cant help but become more mechanical. Modern approaches to A.I. include connecting contextual and factual information in much the same way that knowledge is interlaced in the above paragraph. Is our future mechanical? Judging by current trends to me it seems very clear that the answer is yes. On the brighter side, one property we still retain is the ability to make choices. We must now choose. Do we want our future to be mechanical or do we want our future to be organic?

We as living organisms’ products of the Universe/God have an intuitive knowledge of reality. It is called spirituality. When we are in harmony with the universe around us one could argue that reality is unfiltered and knowledge is complete. The problem is that an organic/spiritual man is a man of patience, self-discipline, and wisdom. This is a far cry from the mechanical man of greed, instant gratification, and push-button pleasure. So I guess this all boils down to the same problem that has always plagued man. But hopefully now you see how integral it is in who we are and what we will become. And finally I hope we can muster the will power to do something about it.


- Allen Mixon

[John Page]

I will also try to explain how logic is a man made construct and an interpretation of the world around us, but by no means the correct one.
What is the correct one?
We as living organisms’ products of the Universe/God have an intuitive knowledge of reality. It is called spirituality.
Good luck with that definition.

[JohannGoodflag]

I am going to attempt to explain why logic should not be used to define reality. I will also try to explain how logic is a man made construct and an interpretation of the world around us, but by no means the correct one.

[...]

What I am going to do now is try and break down as best I can with my limited knowledge a modern logically constructed reality. All modern science and technology is based on simple logical deductions. Be it mathematics, chemistry, a skyscraper, or a digital computer. Think of a single logical deduction based on recorded observation as a building block to a gigantic framework that is modern science and technology. Now that we have that mental image lets take a look at what modern science tells us.

Lets take a look at numbers. Any numerical calculation based on observed phenomenon is an approximation and a rational number. In nature a rational number is so rare they might as well not even exist. For example the velocity of a baseball at any point between the pitcher and the catcher would not be say 42.453 m/s but 42.4537983264917498236598743218965237856149872518903651094751927589436591273598014375123875890576843695.... and on to infinity without a recognizable pattern. Thus making this number irrational and impossible to calculate with exact precision. You might not think the 5 at the end of that string of numbers above could ever possibly matter anyway, but it does! It is possible that that tiny number could have a very large effect on the world around it. Thus making certain scientific/mathematical predictions impossible and making all other calculations approximations. It’s called chaos, look it up. And that’s not all.

Perhaps that small difference could amount to significant change: however, it won't lead to a significant change immediately. As a result, we can make predications which are reliable for as long as the imprecision in our measurements can be managed.

What is more, we can also predict how long our predictions are good for. If we acknowledge the imprecision of our measurements --- as professionals in the hard sciences must do as a matter of course --- we can also compute how precise our predictions can be while still being reliable. The equations will still let you make predictions about the far-off future, of course; but they will also predict that they will be imprecise. That is, we can show that our predictions will have such large error bars where the expected behaviour could also occur, due to the imprecision of the original measurements, that our predictions of the far-flung future are not only useless, but they are even theoretically useless.

Of course, there's another thing you fail to take into account: we can continue gathering data. We don't have to compute what happens just from "initial data": we can also watch how the system evolves to gather more data, which amounts to obtaining greater precision by continuing to observe. If we always perform our computations with the most recently collected data, we can in principle continue making decently reliable predictions; or at least decent enough to be able to use the predictions to collect more data as effectively as possible.

The issue of precision only implies that in order to be reliable, the scientific framework for interpreting reality must be active, and not passive: one must keep collecting data in order to make both reliable and precise predictions.

The further we progress in our scientific endeavors the more we are starting to see that our constants that are the basis of all logic really aren’t constant at all. Linear time isn’t so linear and Euclidean space isn’t so rigid (relativity).

Apparently, you have a much different idea of the roles space and time play in logic than I do. Logic itself does not make, or require, any assumptions about either space or time: that's the job of physics. It is through physics that we have learned that space and time are not as the Greeks pictured them; and these discoveries were made in part by a judicious application of logic. So, it seems to me that rather than locking ourselves into an antiquarian point of view regarding space and time, logic has helped us to overthrow these old views, in favour of something which is apparently more consistent with how we observe the universe to work.

Even the position of a particle in space cannot be said for certain (quantum mechanics).So basic observation the foundation of logic and the foundation of all modern science, modern technology, and modern reality is not unshakeable.

First of all: there are interpretations of quantum mechanics where particles have certain positions, i.e. the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation. So, on its' own, quantum mechanics does not in fact imply that particles have "fundamentally uncertain" positions. Until it can be proven that the world cannot be described by such a model (which would entail the overthrow of quantum mechanics --- which is to say, although possible in principle, an extremely tall order in practise), the only imprecision that you can say necessarily holds about particle positions is the one due to imprecision of measurement.

Even if you assume for the sake of argument that these interpretations are incorrect, and that particles simply have no determined position except when observed (and even then somewhat imprecisely determined), we can still make predictions based on these measurements to obtain future knowledge about the particle --- albeit less than totally precise knowledge.

Even so: interesting things tend to happen when you start making predictions about large numbers of particles. Part of the success in quantum mechanics is that it gives us a very accurate description of radiation absorbption and the behaviour of metals and semimetals. This knowledge is as accurate as classical thermodynamics is in the domain of, e.g. steam engines and gas canisters: which is to say astoundingly accurate. Modern consumer electronics (DVD players, computers, USB sticks, LEDs, laser pointers, etc) are a direct consequence of this accurate statistical knowledge. Which is to say: not only does it work, it works so well that we can build factories to sell $5 gadgets which demonstrate the reliability of statistical predictions based on quantum mechanics.

So what is this logical construct and if it is bunk how do we have all of the science and technology we have? Why does it work so well? A quick answer is that the constants we base our science on, linear time, consistency of matter, Euclidean space, and others although not actually constant are a stable enough foundation on which to build our little western civilization.

Yes: and to the degree that they are otherwise, we can actually use logic to discover how it differs from the old Euclidean-Gallilean model. And should our current model of logic fail to be adequate --- something which, I will note, you have so far failed to demonstrate --- we may still use logic to craft other models of logic which works more effectively with the world as we observe it.

What would have to happen in order for "(A and B) implies A", for example, to fail to be a good way of scribing a part of the world, is beyond my current imagining. But that's the point of science: you don't just sit around contemplating what could possibly be, you go out to investigate what actually is.

So if we step back and look at all this, what is this construct really? Judging by its properties it looks a lot like a machine. Think about it. This body of knowledge is entirely mechanical. The mechanics of this construct are no different than the mechanics of a steam engine or a digital computer. Just as well this construct cannot be reality and should not be considered close to reality because it has no basis in reality. Yet it exists and it serves a function.

The scientific engine for knowledge aquisition is not reality: agreed --- the map is not the territory, nor is the technique of map-drawing the territory. However, your claim that it is not close to reality is unfounded. Sure, just from the sheer volume of things to learn about the universe, it is plausible that there is an infinite amount of things left to learn at any given time. But what is a more useful question is how well it models the part of reality it does describe.

As for having no basis in reality: it is unclear how you support this statement.

The reason that I say this is dangerous is because of further properties of machines. Machines are inherently hollow. They stand for nothing. They move for nothing. They work for nothing. They are nothing. They are inorganic. They are inhuman. Yet our western society almost entirely works by and for this machine.

How much emotional energy and bias there is in these statements! WHat does it mean, that a machine is "hollow"? What is the basis for your statements that they stand for, move for, and work for nothing?

Do I stand for nothing? If not, what are the salient differences between me and a machine, that I stand for something and a machine does not? I can ask the same for working-for and moving-for. Is your objection that it is a tool, rather than an independent agent?

As for inhumanity: are dogs and cats to be considered sinister for their inhumanity? What about birds: they aren't even mammals! Should we deplore the rain-forests, a haven for all sorts of non-human and non-mammalian life, the foundation of which aren't even animals? Oh, the horror! And then, the worst atrocities of all, our own tools --- they aren't even organic! (Or would you hate them even if they were?) And then there is that poltergheist, "logic" --- it isn't even demonstrably material!

To be honest, I can't figure out exactly what it is that you're trying to communicate, unless it's a general feeling of xenophobia arising out of the fact that we cannot understand and manipulate the universe with our bare hands, or telekinesis. You seem to distrust machines, and tools more generally: and I would hypothesize that it isn't because they are inorganic per se, but because you don't feel that they act reliably as tools in your (or perhaps by extension, societies') best interest. But to blame the tool is the sign of a poor artisan.

It is our responsability to ensure that our tools work properly. And by all indications, the tools of logic and science in particular seem to be doing well in terms of efficacy. If you're dissatisfied with the use they're being put to, that's another topic than whether or not logic and science are good ways to try and understand the world.

When we (society) view the world through this machine we cant help but become more mechanical. Modern approaches to A.I. include connecting contextual and factual information in much the same way that knowledge is interlaced in the above paragraph. Is our future mechanical? Judging by current trends to me it seems very clear that the answer is yes. On the brighter side, one property we still retain is the ability to make choices. We must now choose. Do we want our future to be mechanical or do we want our future to be organic?

Again, you will have to explain what it is you mean by "mechanical" and "organic", seeing how it is doubtful that you literally mean "mechanical" and "organic". I would sooner guess that you mean something much more like "intellectual" and "emotional": is this reasonably correct?

We as living organisms’ products of the Universe/God have an intuitive knowledge of reality. It is called spirituality.

It is noteworthy that intuitions about reality is precisely what the Greeks wrote about: and as you seem to agree, they were wrong about a great many things. So much for intuition.

When we are in harmony with the universe around us one could argue that reality is unfiltered and knowledge is complete. The problem is that an organic/spiritual man is a man of patience, self-discipline, and wisdom. This is a far cry from the mechanical man of greed, instant gratification, and push-button pleasure.

I think you are confusing "mechanism" with "consumerism". It's a common, but extremely annoying, mistake. And it was my impression that harmony with the universe at large is something to be approached asymptotically, not achieved; although you are speaking in terms of having it right now. What does this imply about your urges towards instant gratification?

What you are describing is not a search for knowledge, but an abandonment of knowledge. Not because you seek harmony, but because you disdain the search for understanding. You are content to let reality happen and to react --- or possibly not react --- to it. What knowledge can arise from this? Only that which presents itself to your limited senses and your mental prejudices (read: your unalloyed intuitions).

This is not the route to knowledge: this is the route to the ignorance of our primitive ancestors. They had no moral flaws from not knowing everything; but to wish to regress to their state of knowledge and society in order to have better knowledge of the universe than we have or can achieve with logic is a moral failure of the highest magnitude.

[JohannGoodflag]

As an additional point: I would like to point out that the title of this thread is inaccurate. This is not a critique of pure reason: it is a critique of using reason at all, which is another (and much more dangerous!) thing entirely.

[jam454]

Ill admit that the article is emotionally charged, but it is meant to be a mix of fact and emotion. I have no problem using scientific knowledge as a tool. What I am saying it that giving a purely intellectual thing absolute authority over how we view the world is probably a bad idea. Also just because I used the word inhuman doesn't mean that I hate everything that inst human. Its just a word that came out while I was trying to express an idea. Finally the whole point of the article whether i expressed it clearly or not is that we can progress forward in any direction we choose be it intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, or a mix of the three. It is our choice, but if we choose to progress forward in a purely intellectual/mechanical way and just disregard the rest of what it means to be human we are bound to become something that is purely mechanical. In my opinion something that is purely mechanical, a machine, is inferior due to its lack of spiritual or emotional capacity to experience the universe.

[JohannGoodflag]

I have no problem using scientific knowledge as a tool. What I am saying it that giving a purely intellectual thing absolute authority over how we view the world is probably a bad idea.

To be honest, I don't know how "we" could do this, even if we wanted to --- at least, if I take the phrase "how we view the world" almost literally.

The way I look at the world involves interacting with people. I have some theories about how some of these people act --- which amounts to my ideas about what their personalities are like --- but even then, it would be silly of me to presume that I can predict their behaviour like clock-work. I wouldn't expect to be able to put probabilities on their behaviours for particular situations, even if I wanted to. I just have this vague idea of how they work. It would be laughable to call it mechanistic. The same holds for large sweeps of the rest of my life as well.

This instance of not-really mechanistic thought even applies to my work. (I'm a doctoral student in mathematics.) My job is to advance the state of knowledge in a particular domain of mathematics; and by its' very nature, this means studying things which, while "mechanistic", are not well understood. In principle, the "facts of the matter" are already fixed; but what I must do is come up with something in particular to investigate, to demonstrate how those things behave, and to motivate why someone might care. In the course of doing so, I must consult my intuitions on the subject and see to what degree they are correct (and additionally adapt my intuitions should I prove to be wrong) --- that is, while I understand my subject is "mechanistic", there is no obvious mechanism that I employ for studying it and learning about it. Even though I am in a sense acting as much as an advocate of the "mechanistic" as possible, I can only do my job by not limiting my line of thought to those parts of the mechanism which are already understood; it is inherently impossible otherwise.

This is not to say that my thinking might not be embodied in an even more elaborate mechanism --- as would be the case, for instance, if consciousness is merely a physical phenomenon governed by rules not too unlike those we already know, as why should it not be --- but it means that even in order to advance the "mechanistic" approach to understanding the world, we cannot allow ourselved to be constrained by any one particular, familiar "mechanistic" view of the world. By logical necessity, we can only innovate when we move beyond what it safe and well-tested. This is not a "flaw" in logic, or in the enterprise of the mechanistic world-view; it is just a simple fact of what is necessary, for the most part, to discover new and interesting facts or ideas.

Also just because I used the word inhuman doesn't mean that I hate everything that inst human. Its just a word that came out while I was trying to express an idea.

I gathered that. But that part of the argument lent itself so well to charicature that it seemed like the best way to make my point. What I wanted to emphasize was that you ought to say what you mean, rather than rely on a metaphor (emotion/intuition~human, logic~inhuman) which is not only cliche, but isn't even very good at communicating the real issue.

Finally the whole point of the article whether i expressed it clearly or not is that we can progress forward in any direction we choose be it intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, or a mix of the three. It is our choice, but if we choose to progress forward in a purely intellectual/mechanical way and just disregard the rest of what it means to be human we are bound to become something that is purely mechanical. In my opinion something that is purely mechanical, a machine, is inferior due to its lack of spiritual or emotional capacity to experience the universe.

In my opinion, it is impossible for society at large to dedicate itself to advancing itself intellectually --- mainly because it's not everyone's bag, and brainwashing everyone into being only interested in the intellectual is not only more trouble than it's worth, but likely to be impossible in practise.

I will admit that, personally, I have put more emphasis on the intellectual for myself. But it seems to me (painfully at times) that the vast majority of people aren't interested in the intellectual at all. If these people also fail to be interested in advancing society emotionally (perhaps by caring about social programs or social liberties, or even just watching films which aren't just re-hashing old cliches) or spiritually (by actually thinking about religion and spirituality rather than accepting old dogmas or inventing new dogmas), then it is more a problem that they aren't interested in developping at all rather than a fixation on the mechanical.

---- It occurred to me, as I was writing the above paragraph, that what I would consider emotional or spiritual development is just more of the intellectual, perhaps with a bit of emotional catharsis added to it. I find it deeply satisfying to go for a walk in an alpine forest, so that it is an activity charged with emotion; but I wouldn't call it a "development". On the other hand, understanding myself and maturing emotionally is emotional development, but to me it seems to have an irreducible intellectual component. Similarly for spirituality: going to church isn't a spiritual development, while contemplating and refining one's religious ideas is spiritual development. (All of this is on a personal level, rather than a social level, of course.) If you have a substantially different concept of what emotional/spiritual development is, as opposed to development brough on by intellectual activity, I would be interested in hearing it; and also, perhaps, what exactly you consider these developments to entail on a social level rather than a personal level.

[Amedeo]

...................

We as living organisms ...have an intuitive knowledge of reality. ...


- Allen Mixon

Add:... which is normally completed in the first two years of infancy.

Question: Is there something you want to construct??? Start from your intuitive knowledge of reality!

[jam454]

In response to JohannGoodflag:

First of all I love math and science, I am a computer science major and I think it is great that you have gone as far as you have with your studies. That doesn't mean I think that it is unquestionable. As far as society advancing in spiritual or emotional ways I think that there is plenty of room for improvement. Ill start with art, an area where advancement can be made. When we look at art and science in our modern society we see that science is much more prevalent, the reason being that science is profitable and art is not. Our economy runs on technology not Picasso. If art, poetry, and literature were as important in our society as science and technology, then i guarantee you that the overall condition of our society would be vastly improved. People would be much more independent and much less susceptible to manipulation. I assume concern for nature, appreciation of beauty, and overall consciousness would rise and that people would be less likely to eat at McDonald's, less likely to shop at Wal-Mart, and generally suck less. That is why i associated pure mechanism with consumerism earlier.

The difference between a mathematician and artists, poets, mystics, shamans or whatever is that the latter experience reality holistically instead of constructing it bit by bit. They are just struck with it. It has no logical basis but it still seems to make sense. I think that this form of understanding has a lot to offer. I think that scientific advancement along with spiritual advancement is probably the best route to go.

[Vivo]

Woah nelly!

The difference between a mathematician and artists, poets, mystics, shamans or whatever is that the latter experience reality holistically instead of constructing it bit by bit. They are just struck with it. It has no logical basis but it still seems to make sense. I think that this form of understanding has a lot to offer. I think that scientific advancement along with spiritual advancement is probably the best route to go.

First off, I wouldn't put artists and poets in with the same lot as mystics and shamans: they might not appreciate it, and it's just plain wrong.

I really don't think people can experience reality any different from other people anyway; I must say that is a strange way of looking at things. We may interpret our experiences differently, that is certain.

I think art has quite a logical basis, and I even consider art a science, something capable of being understood and improved. And I really don't know what you mean by "this form of understanding" having more to offer, because, frankly, that is not understanding. That is emotion and unreason, a way of "understanding" that has in the past led to sacrificing animals to pagan demons in the hopes of a better harvest.

Yeah, we humans aren't perfectly reasonable, but we gotta try, cause it's the only way.

[Oldal.]

I am going to attempt to explain why logic should not be used to define reality. I will also try to explain how logic is a man made construct and an interpretation of the world around us, but by no means the correct one.That should be easy, since logic is not used to define reality nor is it an interpretation of the world around us. As Copi defines logic:[Logic is][t]he study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning.

Oldal.

[kennethamy]

That should be easy, since logic is not used to define reality nor is it an interpretation of the world around us. As Copi defines logic:

Oldal.

It is baffling where people get these ideas about what logic is supposed to be.

I imagine, though, that he means something like, for instance, logic rejects contradictions, but there are contradictions in nature. That, of course, might need some discussion.

[JohannGoodflag]

When we look at art and science in our modern society we see that science is much more prevalent, the reason being that science is profitable and art is not. Our economy runs on technology not Picasso. If art, poetry, and literature were as important in our society as science and technology, then i guarantee you that the overall condition of our society would be vastly improved. People would be much more independent and much less susceptible to manipulation. I assume concern for nature, appreciation of beauty, and overall consciousness would rise and that people would be less likely to eat at McDonald's, less likely to shop at Wal-Mart, and generally suck less. That is why i associated pure mechanism with consumerism earlier.

You have neglected the other side of the coin. Technology can be used as a tool of consumerism, but art can just as easily: you simply choose to ignore those art-forms which have become tools of consumerism. What about corporate logos? Corporate slogans? Funny or well-crafted commercials --- or at any rate, ones that stick in your head? (They have film-festivals for those, you know.) What about commerical jingles? The visual design of a product? The graphic design of a magazine or billboard ad? The wording of an advertisement? To say nothing of Hollywood blockbusters and the typical byproduct of the coprorate (er, I mean corporate) music industry.

All of these are things desgined painstakingly to capture your attention and cause you to have a reaction, and to stick in your head as much as possible. Is this not art, or at least a craft which is almost indistinguishable in its' aims from art? Sure, it may be art made by shills, but it's still art; the only thing is that it is art with the aim of getting you to spend money --- but that just makes it a subclass of art used in the service of propaganda in general. It is not selling the message of the artist, but that is the artists' business; the fact that he has become an advocate for some company is not relevant to whether the product is art, and whether he is emotioanlly honest in doing so is his own concern.

In fact, while it is the technological craft which are used to make products of questionable value, it is the artistic craft which is being used to induce the consumerist drive to buy them.

The moral challenge facing society is not to focus less on thecnology and more on art, but to focus less on profit motive and more on that which enriches our understanding of the world, be it mathematically/scientifically, or artistically/existentially. Profit can also happen, but the fixation on it has certainly twisted our culture into something significantly less than optimal, and perhaps less than is actually healthy.

The difference between a mathematician and artists, poets, mystics, shamans or whatever is that the latter experience reality holistically instead of constructing it bit by bit.

What is this word "holistically" you bandy about? As the nominal opposite of "reductionistically", do you mean that they don't view the world as a collection of parts which interact with one another? This doesn't jive with what (admittedly, little) I know of music theory, for example, wherin there are individual themes and ideas which create and resolve tension. Nor does it jive with what a number of visual artists I am familiar with did, the most memorable being Escher; most of whose work could be best described as producing a whole from a collection of parts (either in his tilings, or in his space-got-screwed-up-somewhere pictures). Certainly, many artists are interested in presenting a harmonious (or articulately disharmonious...) whole to their audience, but it seems to me that for many (if not most!) of them, their world is a world of interacting parts and not an inscrutible, indivisible whole.

One of the roles of artists are to get us to reconcieve the world in some way or another. Because we have long seen the world as composed of interacting parts (and not just because of science; I claim that reductionist science is a result of this tendancy, and not the cause of it), there will always be artists who can be successful (qua artist, and occasionally financially as well) by producing something which suggests more of a wholistic outlook on the world than a reductionist one. But don't paint all artists with the same brush; there are more than just these.

[KeithJM]

In response to JohannGoodflag:

First of all I love math and science, I am a computer science major and I think it is great that you have gone as far as you have with your studies. That doesn't mean I think that it is unquestionable. As far as society advancing in spiritual or emotional ways I think that there is plenty of room for improvement. Ill start with art, an area where advancement can be made. When we look at art and science in our modern society we see that science is much more prevalent, the reason being that science is profitable and art is not. Our economy runs on technology not Picasso. If art, poetry, and literature were as important in our society as science and technology, then i guarantee you that the overall condition of our society would be vastly improved. People would be much more independent and much less susceptible to manipulation. I assume concern for nature, appreciation of beauty, and overall consciousness would rise and that people would be less likely to eat at McDonald's, less likely to shop at Wal-Mart, and generally suck less. That is why i associated pure mechanism with consumerism earlier.

The difference between a mathematician and artists, poets, mystics, shamans or whatever is that the latter experience reality holistically instead of constructing it bit by bit. They are just struck with it. It has no logical basis but it still seems to make sense. I think that this form of understanding has a lot to offer. I think that scientific advancement along with spiritual advancement is probably the best route to go.

And how do you propose to compare the "prevalence" of science to art? Science and technology are two completely different beasts. On what grounds can you assert that art, poetry, and literature would improve our society with their increased production? How do you know that art, poetry, and literature aren't as important as science in our society? Why would that make them more independent and less susceptible to manipulation? You assume an awful lot more than just that art will make people eat McDonald's less frequently. In fact, most everything you've said in this thread has either been an assumption, or an assertion based on an assumption.

I spent the first part of my adult life as an artist, primarily 3D. This didn't give me any concern for nature, didn't increase my appreciation of beauty any more than it was when I started, and didn't raise my consciousness. I wasn't any more independent or less susceptible to "manipulation." I've spent the past few years training to become a scientist, and I can tell you, my education in mathematics and science has greatly increased my appreciation of beauty, it's given me a concern for nature that I entirely lacked previously, it's raised my consciousness to the human condition, the inherent order in the Cosmos, and much else. It's made me vastly less susceptible to manipulation by providing me with a worldview based on empiricism and reasoning. In fact, I would daresay that science has given me a renewed sense of spirituality, as I define it.

Your assertions are baseless without any evidence or reasoning to underlie them.

[NZSkep]

I

Lets take a look at numbers. Any numerical calculation based on observed phenomenon is an approximation and a rational number. In nature a rational number is so rare they might as well not even exist. For example the velocity of a baseball at any point between the pitcher and the catcher would not be say 42.453 m/s but 42.4537983264917498236598743218965237856149872518903651094751927589436591273598014375123875890576843695.... and on to infinity without a recognizable pattern. Thus making this number irrational and impossible to calculate with exact precision. You might not think the 5 at the end of that string of numbers above could ever possibly matter anyway, but it does! It is possible that that tiny number could have a very large effect on the world around it. Thus making certain scientific/mathematical predictions impossible and making all other calculations approximations. It’s called chaos, look it up. And that’s not all.

- Allen Mixon

I'm curious as to why do you think rational numbers are so rare? E.g. on my desk I have exactly 1 (one) apple. Not 1.000000123…..etcetc or any other irrational number.
Likewise I have exactly 2 arms, 2 eyes, 2 legs, 1 mother and 1 father. All rational numbers.

[Cheerful Charlie]

I
We as living organisms’ products of the Universe/God have an intuitive knowledge of reality. It is called spirituality. When we are in harmony with the universe around us one could argue that reality is unfiltered and knowledge is complete. The problem is that an organic/spiritual man is a man of patience, self-discipline, and wisdom. This is a far cry from the mechanical man of greed, instant gratification, and push-button pleasure. So I guess this all boils down to the same problem that has always plagued man. But hopefully now you see how integral it is in who we are and what we will become. And finally I hope we can muster the will power to do something about it.


- Allen Mixon


First of all, God is a rather self contradictory idea that thus cannot be true. See the thread "Omnigenesis" in the existence of God forum for a more full treatment of that claim. Thus god has notihng to do with the Universe. Even if there may be a god, which "spirtuality"? The Deist view, God as the great clockmaker that wound up the Universe and does not intevene in its operation? The transcedent god that created it and does intevene, miracles? The Islamic spirituality that says there is no son of God, or the Christian one that says there is? Elron Hubbard's world of thetans? The Vedic claim all is an illusion in the mind of God? The Mormon spirituality that says God was once a man like us and we will if we are good Mormons, become likewise exalted and own our own universe?

A Greek style hylozoic universe, Nous where all is a sort of mind-stuff, the universe a living thing? Or Logos, the universe as logic-stuff? Theosophy's theories? Monotheism, or Polytheism? Pantheism? And 1000 other theories besides. Yes, obviously innate ideas is a good idea, we all get the same answer. Not.

To keep people from having innate ideas different from innate ideas of various religions, religious wars and heresy hunts have been all too common to date.

Cheerful Charlie

[jam454]

I'm curious as to why do you think rational numbers are so rare? E.g. on my desk I have exactly 1 (one) apple. Not 1.000000123…..etcetc or any other irrational number.
Likewise I have exactly 2 arms, 2 eyes, 2 legs, 1 mother and 1 father. All rational numbers.

The idea that you have 1 pencil on your desk is a mathematical abstraction you create in your mind. But as far as actual numbers, say the exact distance from your head to the pencil, are virtually all irrational.

[Blackbeard]

To the OP:

It seems you are trying to use a logical argument to criticize logic and reason.

Does that seem at all ironic to anyone but me?

[Blackbeard]

The idea that you have 1 pencil on your desk is a mathematical abstraction you create in your mind. But as far as actual numbers, say the exact distance from your head to the pencil, are virtually all irrational.

"1 pencil" is a mathematical abstraction created in the mind???? :huh:

And to say that there is a greater chance that any given distance results in an irrational number is simply irrational. There exist no more irrational numbers in our number system than there are rational numbers. It can easily be argued that there are an equal number of both rational and irrational numbers, namely an infinite amount of each, so it seems to me that there is a 50-50 chance of a distance being most accurately described by a rational number as an irrational number. In addition, the term "irrational" when used in mathematics to describe numbers such as pi can not be considered to be synonymous with "illogical" as you seemed to suggest in your OP.

Although I said it was ultimately ironic that you tried to use logic to criticize logic, I neglected to say that you failed miserably in your use of logic to do so ... but maybe that was your intent. Perhaps it is because you consistently fail to use or comprehend logic that you find logic inherently flawed.

BTW: JohannGoodflag ... excellent rebuttals! :notworthy:

[JohannGoodflag]

Thanks. But I'm afraid that on the count of the number of irrational numbers, you're a bit off:

And to say that there is a greater chance that any given distance results in an irrational number is simply irrational. There exist no more irrational numbers in our number system than there are rational numbers. It can easily be argued that there are an equal number of both rational and irrational numbers, namely an infinite amount of each, so it seems to me that there is a 50-50 chance of a distance being most accurately described by a rational number as an irrational number.

There are in fact more irrational number than rational numbers. There is more than one size of infinite set; and the number of irrational numbers is provably larger than the number of rational numbers, in a meaningful sense which mathematicians care about. The rational numbers are "countable" (that is, you can match them off one-by-one with the positive integers), whereas this cannot be done with the irrational numbers (there are simply too many of them to do this). This would be pertinent to the point of the OP if it weren't for the fact that we're okay with knowledge which is merely approximate.

[Blackbeard]

More than one size of infinite set? Wow, that's an interesting abstract concept that makes absolutely no sense to me. I am not doubting you, mind you, just having trouble with the concept. I would like to explore this more, but feel that it should not be done on this thread as it is off-topic. If you have the time, I would love to discuss it further. I will call the new thread "More than one size of infinite set?" (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=206754) I put it in the "Miscellaneous discussions" forum because it didn't truly seem to fit anywhere else. I linked to it. Hopefully the link works, I am new to these boards.