The vulcan paradox

[motherengine]

what would be the motivation for a completely logical being to survive? i am thinking that it is irrational emotions and impulses which drive humans to continue existing at all. this may sound obvious but i am referring to all philosophy and belief as well. there simply is no logical reason to "fight global warming", "educate the masses", "stop terrorism" or "feed the hungry" unless it is to meet a specific societal end (as in the survival of the species). yet even this societal end is based on non-logical reasoning. one example in the form of a discussion:

 

why should i care about science?

because science is helpful to humanity?

why should i care about humanity?

because you are a part of it.

circular logic.

you don't want to die or be uncomfortable do you?

appeal to irrational emotion.

 

i have no logical reason to want to surive, help others or "reach for the stars". these are thing one wants to do, not things that they "should" or "should not" do. in the end it is essentially just as irrational for me to promote scientific discovery as it is to promote the worship of a god (though the immediate societal justifications are certainly arguable).

 

now all of this could be nonsense, or linguistical ignorance on my part. maybe i should just lay off the weed. but now that i have publicly acknowledged this idea i can dismiss the irrational concern of doing so and move on with my life. thank you very much.

[ronthepon]

This is a question worth asking, and here are the answer I have now.

 

Because I must contribute to the progress of mankind.

 

Because it is my instinct to survive, without the existence of which I would not exist to think like this. (anthropic principle like logic)

[motherengine]

Because it is my instinct to survive, without the existence of which I would not exist to think like this. (anthropic principle like logic)

 

yet is this instinct rational simply because rationality springs from it?

[ronthepon]

No. It is not rational. Not mechanically logical.

 

However, logic is not instinct. It is higher brain processes, which results in making our species more self concious and dominant.

 

Sparrows do not have time to think of this.

[Qfwfq]

now all of this could be nonsense, or linguistical ignorance on my part.

What does the word 'rational' mean?

[motherengine]

No. It is not rational. Not mechanically logical.

 

However, logic is not instinct. It is higher brain processes, which results in making our species more self concious and dominant.

 

Sparrows do not have time to think of this.

 

oh they have the time, just not the inclination.

[ronthepon]

oh they have the time, just not the inclination.

That's what I meant ofcourse...

 

What does the word 'rational' mean?

A number that can be expressed in the form of p/q such that q is not zero and p is an integer.(I'll take you're sarcastic...)

[Qfwfq]

(I'll take you're sarcastic...)

No.

 

That's a very specific definition of the word.

[ronthepon]

Oh, then sorry.

[ronthepon]

Rational refers to... logically useful?

[Qfwfq]

Sorry Ron, ;) I suppose you know Sanskrit better than Latin! :hihi:

 

It is from the same root as 'reason', ratione, from which also comes the 'ratio' of two numbers.

 

Having a reason to live for is, you could say, a rational enough thing! :D

[motherengine]

What does the word 'rational' mean?

 

i would say that something rational can have a definitive answer applied to it: "i feed the hungry because in doing so i feed the chemical impulse that guides me to want to feed the hungry", or "i should feed the hungry if i want to remain in a state of mental comfort because the impulse to do so will cause mental discomfort to arise otherwise". as opposed to "i should feed the hungry because they are hungry and, by god, its the right thing to do". in this case, maybe i am suggesting that rationality is admiting that one is not capable of understanding the definitive nature of one's desires or impulses beyond referring to a non-intelligent system, like evolution. non-rational is not capable of organizing logic-based thought.

 

and now i need a drink to go along with the weed.

[Qfwfq]

The first thing I noticed:

"i feed the hungry because in doing so i feed the chemical impulse that guides me to want to feed the hungry", or "i should feed the hungry if i want to remain in a state of mental comfort because the impulse to do so will cause mental discomfort to arise otherwise". as opposed to "i should feed the hungry because they are hungry and, by god, its the right thing to do"

In each case you are giving a reason for doing the thing.

[motherengine]

The first thing I noticed:In each case you are giving a reason for doing the thing.

 

this is because of my own limitations in communicating the idea, though not a flaw in the idea itself, i think. the point is that there is no logical end to any action. logic gives explanations but not reasons. "why" is not a word for science.

[Qfwfq]

What do you mean by a logical end?

 

The word "why" can be quite useful in science.