Can logic deal with this?

[Mushy-pea]

Hello everyone. I read ~S.O.S.~'s signature today and it reminded me of somthing. The essence of it was a claim that you can't doubt logic or perception. About a year ago I had some experiences that brought logic and perception into direct conflict. These experiences might be called "daylight hallucinations" by some. By this I mean I was sober (on no strange chemicals) and seeing things happen that just "can't" happen. This happened to me intermittently over a period of several months (and at times was very scary).

I'm not going to go into details here, because its somewhat personal. However, suffice it to say I was faced with a choice: whether to believe logic or my own perception. My choice was to believe the hallucinations were reality (for a while) and construct a logical framework into which my strange perceptions would fit. This, however, lead me to the conclusion that I was....erm....dead....and in the after life. Basically, this perception vs. logic conflict opened a rather large can of worms for me :surprised .

Anyway, I'm better now (and certainly alive, I think :p ). So, my question is, has anyone else here faced a similar mental breakdown and how did you cope with it?

Steven.

[mattyd]

Hello everyone. I read ~S.O.S.~'s signature today and it reminded me of somthing. The essence of it was a claim that you can't doubt logic or perception. About a year ago I had some experiences that brought logic and perception into direct conflict. These experiences might be called "daylight hallucinations" by some. By this I mean I was sober (on no strange chemicals) and seeing things happen that just "can't" happen. This happened to me intermittently over a period of several months (and at times was very scary).

I'm not going to go into details here, because its somewhat personal. However, suffice it to say I was faced with a choice: whether to believe logic or my own perception. My choice was to believe the hallucinations were reality (for a while) and construct a logical framework into which my strange perceptions would fit. This, however, lead me to the conclusion that I was....erm....dead....and in the after life. Basically, this perception vs. logic conflict opened a rather large can of worms for me :surprised .

Anyway, I'm better now (and certainly alive, I think :p ). So, my question is, has anyone else here faced a similar mental breakdown and how did you cope with it?

Steven.

I have experienced what you describe. Fortunately, and particularly, this was an isolated event caused by an extreme, traumatic event (as my psychiatrist deduced, in my case); "feelings of disembodiment or observing yourself from afar"-- "am I dead, am I alive?". This was quite odd and frightening.

I know the difference between hallucination and reality, but I do believe logic and reality is relative. The "strange chemicals" you refer to can do strange things to the mind but one usually knows this is the cause of a given, recreational drug; but try to convince the Apache shaman that his visionquests are hallucinations. Drugs (marijuana, LSD, mushrooms) never truly ever worked for me (whereas, the legal, prescribed drugs work wonders: Lithium && Lexapro for Bi-Polar); not until I found the Spirit did I find true knowing of the things I sought a decade ago through recreational tinkering. Try to convince a true Christian his or her belief in Jesus is imaginary and only a subconscious need for a "saviour". That is not only insulting but potentially the spark for a Holy War and wholly untrue in most cases. I am a Christan and I struggle with this belief and my own faith sometimes (and I know for certain that Yahweh is all I truly have going for me!)

Mathematics, Platonic debate, binary, computers, Art, Chemistry, Astronomy, Physics, Programming-- I worship these as almost false gods most days. But, when it truly comes down to it at the end, the things that matter cannot be computed, tested, debugged, or measured. These aforementioned studies (Math, Chemistry, etc) are wonderful humanoid ways to understand our carbon-based selves, and we MUST learn them and evolve while alive but, in my opinion, the only thing to take away from these standards cover everything simply: "energy cannot be created or destroyed".

Regards,
matty d

[~s.o.s~]

Hello everyone. I read ~S.O.S.~'s signature today and it reminded me of somthing.

A good thing..;)

So, my question is, has anyone else here faced a similar mental breakdown and how did you cope with it?

There comes a point of time in everyone's life when one experiences such things.

Believe in what you want, have confidence in your conviction, try to shoulder responsibilites instead of running away from them and it should turn out to be alright.

[mattyd]

There comes a point of time in everyone's life when one experiences such things.

Believe in what you want, have confidence in your conviction, try to shoulder responsibilites instead of running away from them and it should turn out to be alright.

;)

[~s.o.s~]

;)

What ...? Did I say something wrong...? :mrgreen:

[mattyd]

What ...? Did I say something wrong...? :mrgreen:

No, it sounds as if you are becoming quite "Pluralistic" LOLLOL :surprised :p

**NOTE: from my background, Pluralism == Political Correctness with a twist

[~s.o.s~]

**NOTE: from my background, Pluralism == Political Correctness with a twist

Glad you mentioned it, otherwise would have taken it for something else...;)

No, it sounds as if you are becoming quite "Pluralistic" LOLLOL :surprised :p

Yeah, quite a few mood swings, maybe I should just stop consuming cocaine..:D

[mattyd]

Glad you mentioned it, otherwise would have taken it for something else...;)

Yeah, quite a few mood swings, maybe I should just stop consuming cocaine..:D

LOL
My mood swings... no drugs required ;)

[~s.o.s~]

Err..btw I was joking (atleast the cocaine part) :mrgreen:

[WaltP]

To be honest, when perception and logic don't coincide, I know better than to trust perception. Being a magician, I rely on being able to make people's perception fly against logic.

An easy case in point -- look at any optical illusions. If you don't doubt your perceptions, then the picture is illogical, in error, physically impossible. Therefore reality is wrong. You must doubt your perception, or go crazy....

;)

Either that, or I don't perceive the logic of ~S.O.S~'s statement.

[mattyd]

To be honest, when perception and logic don't coincide, I know better than to trust perception. Being a magician, I rely on being able to make people's perception fly against logic.

An easy case in point -- look at any optical illusions. If you don't doubt your perceptions, then the picture is illogical, in error, physically impossible. Therefore reality is wrong. You must doubt your perception, or go crazy....

;)

Either that, or I don't perceive the logic of ~S.O.S~'s statement.

Very interesting thoughts. On some levels I agree. Logic is a valuable tool to discern most situations correctly. I do believe there are differences between between external and internal perception(s); I suppose this could be debated also.

Perception can be molded in many ways, some benign, others downright malicious. The only real-time example of perception I can think of or tackle at the moment is:

It is New Year's Eve, 11:00 P.M. I am debugging Python\ Tkinter code:) But, the bloody bugs are hiding and my logic is proving to be unreliable; I have been having obvious problems with my Python compilers (seemingly bad bugs in them too :sad: ) Weird anomalies. Trouble abounds. Where is the trouble truly stemming from? My code\logic, the compiler, my system (missing files, memory errors)? All of the above? Rationally and honestly, I would say it is primarily my own code. :-| :sad: If I was a superstitious person I would hold a digital seance!

So much for my limited capacity to understand my own perception. I guess that is why I talk about coding to my psychiatrist :surprised

Cheers,

Matty D.

[~s.o.s~]

Either that, or I don't perceive the logic of ~S.O.S~'s statement.

Something to this effect, yes.

My take on the signature, suppose you have a person discussing a problem with you, and he is seems to be doing it in an illogical way, being vague, being lost. Would it not discourage you from discussing your problems with him, esp. if he is your peer (on the same level).
Thus if you lack logic, you lose the the people you can discuss your doubts with.

Ditto with perception ( Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving ).

But this is what I personally make of it. But different people might have different interpretations, which just goes out to prove my point..;)

[John A]

To be honest, when perception and logic don't coincide, I know better than to trust perception.

I think that this can be applyed in almost all cases - that is, ones of the material world.

Now, I am not saying that a supernatural world exists. But since we have no evidence that it does not exist, we cannot rule out the possibility that a supernatural world might exist. Modern physics says it flat out can't be done. But then again, if the something follows the modern physics laws, it can't be supernatural, can it?

So if such a possibility exists, there is a chance that if such a world existed, we might at some time and place be able to percieve such things, which would be contrary to the logic we have currently. Now, no matter how much evidence was presented to you that a supernatural world existed, if you were to follow your existing logic, you would not believe that these things were happening. It would be foolish to ignore a possibility that could actually change your existing logic.

I'll give you another reason why logic isn't always correct. Think about all the physics laws, such as The Law of Conservation of Energy, and the Law of Conservation of Mass. How did we come across such laws? We of course, first observed objects and their movement in our everyday world. We had to percieve. In fact, all of our logic comes originally from perception. If our logic didn't include these originally, and following the rule given previously, we would never believe that everyday activies were actually happening, which of course would also be foolish.

So although logic is nearly always correct, we don't know everything about this world and universe, and we certainly don't have any knowledge of things beyond this universe. So we can't always trust logic, although I do agree that this rule can be applyed to most of what happens to us.

[mattyd]

I think that this can be applyed in almost all cases - that is, ones of the material world.

Now, I am not saying that a supernatural world exists. But since we have no evidence that it does not exist, we cannot rule out the possibility that a supernatural world might exist. Modern physics says it flat out can't be done. But then again, if the something follows the modern physics laws, it can't be supernatural, can it?

So if such a possibility exists, there is a chance that if such a world existed, we might at some time and place be able to percieve such things, which would be contrary to the logic we have currently. Now, no matter how much evidence was presented to you that a supernatural world existed, if you were to follow your existing logic, you would not believe that these things were happening. It would be foolish to ignore a possibility that could actually change your existing logic.

I'll give you another reason why logic isn't always correct. Think about all the physics laws, such as The Law of Conservation of Energy, and the Law of Conservation of Mass. How did we come across such laws? We of course, first observed objects and their movement in our everyday world. We had to percieve. In fact, all of our logic comes originally from perception. If our logic didn't include these originally, and following the rule given previously, we would never believe that everyday activies were actually happening, which of course would also be foolish.

So although logic is nearly always correct, we don't know everything about this world and universe, and we certainly don't have any knowledge of things beyond this universe. So we can't always trust logic, although I do agree that this rule can be applyed to most of what happens to us.

Perception allows me to see what it is before me. The mind may interpret it in a myriad of ways. It is a fact that the brain does this; we cannot at this point illustrate this for others to watch. Although Western Medicine "understands" psychaiatric\psychological illness (although a good doctor will admit that they do not understand it-- they take a calculated shot in the dark and hope to hit with various therapies that sometimes get results) it cannot prove anything beyond chemical equations. Medicine == logic\ logic cannot prove or disprove what is truly happening? This is something to think about when dealing with specifics of logic; logic bores tangible results yet cascades into areas unprovable by logic (in many cases) :surprised Medicine cannot prove Spirit nor can logic. Perhaps someday we will be able to prove "Spirit" and convince those who do not believe in such outlandish concepts. But, this will not even convince them, unfortunately, I fear. Their hearts are hardened. I speak from first-hand experience from my past years (and thankfully, it changed for the better, the best).

What good is logic if it remains an empty shell? So I can count, add, memorize, and regurgitate facts-- so what? We are proving primates (our ancestors) are capable of some of this as well :p . This ability is fueled by something: the Spirit, the life-force. Some people call this "energy" yet we only understand a slim fraction about energy and we still speculate after all this time about "quarks" , the creation of the Universe, wormholes, Blackholes, the existence of life-forms outside our Milky Way, String Theory. It seems the "experts" are really only experts of speculation :confused: ! This is impressive? The Hubble Telescope is impressive. The Atom Bomb is very impressive. A cure for AIDS would be impressive. Are these examples not the fruits of logic as opposed to the philosophical sciences such as String Theory, the very area of science who's own scientists state that it may never be possible to run proper, imperical experiments upon these theoroms and "prove a thing"? People line up to swallow the half-baked (or rather, unbaked) "theories" of Strings yet they will not even attempt to study God even from a secular point of view. This is illogical. This is pure ego based on the sect of "LOGIC". The only thing seemingly logical about Strings, for example, is that it is a hugely growning and over- funded field that thrives based on how many research papers are published and how many Doctorate students are passed through the system. The more apparent "results" these charlatan scientists present the more grants, loans, and awards they receive for their University departments. Please. Of course we should study this, by all (most) means but we must keep it in perspective and not be hasty to gobble up the unproven, illogical, and sometimes silly proclomations these people speak of. :-| Nagasaki was flattened with pure chemistry in the end, Strings being true or not (and, before Einstein is brought up: I believe he regretted ever being involved and later disavowed many of his own theories)

Logic is a valuable tool not unlike a katana sword-- you can destroy, rape, and pillage a village with a katana or you can liberate villages and help the people therein. You can defend yourself or you can commit Hari Kari. The choice is up to you and it is relative. Some of us may see some day see how much logic is truly worth in the span of infinite time and space.

**NOTE! Please do not get me wrong: Physics, Strings, Chemistry, Astronomy, Logic, etc are some of my dearest interests and studies, but I will always question that which (on earth, mortal) cannot be repeated in empirical experiments

sharky_machine

[Mushy-pea]

I'll give you another reason why logic isn't always correct. Think about all the physics laws, such as The Law of Conservation of Energy, and the Law of Conservation of Mass. How did we come across such laws? We of course, first observed objects and their movement in our everyday world. We had to percieve. In fact, all of our logic comes originally from perception. If our logic didn't include these originally, and following the rule given previously, we would never believe that everyday activies were actually happening, which of course would also be foolish.

This is what it all comes down to for me. You percieve things about how the world behaves and "build" a logical framework that helps you to think you understand the world. We all do this without even thinking about it constantly. But somtimes, whatever it is a person is percieving goes "Hmmm, that's nice. But what would you think if I were to do THIS!?!?:!: :eek: :evil: :twisted: " <very weird things kick off>. Suddeny that lovely little framework you've spent years crafting starts to look as fragile as a house of cards. That is a rather disturbing feeling, I can tell you.

Oh, great debate by the way.

Steven.