We address matters of unworkable complexity by limiting the number of factors involved and simplifying those factors further by establishing a sole purpose and importance. The criteria for what is unworkable complexity is low. To express one's self, in thinking or communication, there needs to be a concise message. Of all the points of possible relevance that could be brought up and used to reach some type of conclusion, it is not feasible to use more than a handful.

The limitation of logic lies in our limited capacity to deal with more than this handful of factors, and that each factor must be limited further still by meaning. — Judaka

I think the factors that can be considered are already limited by the structure of our minds and perceptual machinery. Evolution has already done what you are discussing—created a mind that simplifies reality to a limited range of factors to promote quick decision making. That doesn't mean that more simplification can't be accomplished within that already limited set.

How many choices must be made to reach one's conclusion? To eliminate the number of potential factors to a manageable amount? To give each point the meaning necessary to justify its relevance? The very process of thinking precludes the possibility that one hasn't created a circumstance with parameters resulting from the prerequisites of simplifying for limitations of expression. Maybe an AI that could send millions of bits of information in a second to another would have a chance to go beyond that, but for humans it's impossible. — Judaka

I don't think this is how thinking works, at least it's not how I experience it. Most of my decisions are not rational or logical. That doesn't mean they're irrational, rather non-rational. I think the mind is constructed to take in large amounts of information, seek patterns, and then compare that to a model already created from a combination of experience and inherent capabilities. Often that is below the level of conscious awareness. I think that's what we call intuition, although we always get into arguments when we talk about that here on the forum.

Using the tools at one's disposal to create their truth, one's thoughts should only be evaluated by what one produces with them. Unreasonable arguments that bring a person happiness, therefore, produce happiness. Well-reasoned, intelligent arguments that bring a person despair, therefore, produce despair. Happiness is preferable to despair, and so the illogical and fallacious perspective is correct. — Judaka

Maybe. On the other hand, sometimes facing up to an unpleasant truth now leads to greater future happiness or at least to less future suffering.

It's one's goals, and what's being aimed to accomplish that should be used to measure the value of the perspective or position. The methodology for measuring the various pros and cons is what matters, rather than evaluating the logic or truthfulness of the ideas. Those goals might be personal, social, financial, or for the sake of producing competence at something and so on. — Judaka

I think this is similar to how I see things. I take a pragmatic view - all thinking is aimed at action. Truth is just a tool to help us decide what to do next.

The alternative is to make choices without thinking about them, or pretending like they're done for some nobler reason. Influenced by what you've been taught by your culture, your upbringing, family values, performing gender roles and whatever else. Instead of having an unrewarding loyalty to such influences, isn't it better to instead aim to produce something valuable? — Judaka

I don't know if you are talking about intuition when you say "make choices without thinking about them." If so, I disagree. Intuition is thinking; useful, valuable, effective thinking: just not rational thinking.

Yes, I've written it in an unclear way, but we could replace "we" with "our brains" in many places in my OP. I'm unsure to what extent evolution is responsible for this phenomenon, as the alternative of not simplifying should be unworkable. Nonetheless, I agree evolution has played a significant role here. Much of what I'm describing occurs so quickly that we experience stimulus emotionally before even having a chance to utter a single word. Conscious thought takes a lot longer because it's much slower.

Our brains are highly adaptable though, you've mentioned that you've worked as an engineer, and I'm sure that gives you a unique perspective where it's relevant. One that I wouldn't have, and your brain would use this to instantly pick things up, in this non-conscious way. That's a very highly specific knowledge that has worked its way into your thinking that wasn't there naturally. That's not intuition, it's the result of your education and experiences, it's different, right?

How we interpret, characterise, and emphasise, the narratives we create and the way in which we perceive things, even when done automatically, is influenced by our thinking. Consider how a sophisticated ideologue sees the world, through the narrow lens of his doctrine, that's not intuition, that's the result of their commitment to that ideology.

The simplification is mandatory, yet we do have some control over how it happens. Some ways in which we simplify are strongly determined by biology, but not everything.

Maybe. On the other hand, sometimes facing up to an unpleasant truth now leads to greater future happiness or at least to less future suffering. — T Clark

Certainly. It's complex, and the correct answer isn't to favour immediate gratification over delayed gratification. I'm not proposing we just ingratiate ourselves with whatever we desire. It's necessary to challenge one's self and construct a way of thinking that produces something sustainable and realistic.

I think this is similar to how I see things. I take a pragmatic view - all thinking is aimed at action. Truth is just a tool to help us decide what to do next. — T Clark

I consider truth to be most important in terms of realism, if one's plan relies on a thing being true and it isn't, then that plan is certain to fail. Outside of realism, one shouldn't use the truth to justify themselves, as this world contains many truths and what matters is which ones you're using and how, and that's not justified by something being true. How similar is that to what you meant?

We address matters of unworkable complexity by limiting the number of factors involved and simplifying those factors further by establishing a sole purpose and importance. The criteria for what is unworkable complexity is low. To express one's self, in thinking or communication, there needs to be a concise message. Of all the points of possible relevance that could be brought up and used to reach some type of conclusion, it is not feasible to use more than a handful. — Judaka

I don't much like the this kind of use of 'we'. Let me give an example: I go to a restaurant and order a steak. I have learned from experience in restaurants that I like my steaks medium-rare. And I have learned also the sizes and rough differences between fillet, rump, and T-bone, So I order a medium-rare fillet. This simple classification system of meat cuts, no two of which are identical, has been established over time by the catering industry help ignorami like me get what we want with a little trial and error.

The chef receives the order, and sets to work with his far more sophisticated understanding, adjusting the timings and the pan heat to achieve a result that matches my expectations using his particular experience with his particular stove and pan.

Now the chef knows something about pans; he favours a pan with enough weight to maintain a good temperature when the cold meat is put in, and a composition that will conduct the heat from the stove evenly all over. So he has tried several pans before finding his favourite.

The pan is manufactured by a firm that has specialised in good cookware for many years and has metallurgists, foundry workers, research scientists, ergonomics experts and chefs, all working together to continually refine and improve the design and manufacture of their pans so they are as functional, consistent and reliable as possible.

They buy their steel from another company that ...

The beef for the restaurant comes from a butchers' that ...

The farm raises their cattle ...

The cooker ...

Government regulation and enforcement of standards, weights and measures, public health, gas safety in appliances, etc, etc.

Etc.

I rely on a whole army of people because my little brain could not even slaughter the cow or start a fire, or a hack random piece of flesh off a carcass to hold over the fire on a green stick till it had charred a bit. And that is how I deal with unworkable complexity - I get someone else to do it, who can do it better.

So 'we' (that is, me and my army) can address matters of unworkable complexity by cooperating to break down the complexity into narrow workable specialisms.

To express one's self, in thinking or communication, there needs to be a concise message. Of all the points of possible relevance that could be brought up and used to reach some type of conclusion, it is not feasible to use more than a handful. — Judaka

The limitation of logic lies in our limited capacity to deal with more than this handful of factors, and that each factor must be limited further still by meaning. — Judaka

You make it sound like the process of reaching conclusions goes backwards; when someone addresses an issue of some complexity, I would expect them to both discover and intentionally select points of relevance to integrate into their expression, and this might facilitate something not so concise.

While it may be true that people set out to prove things via some established premises or postulates, perhaps even in the hopes of reaching a certain conclusion, most people are not mathematicians and logicians; most people don't use the logic necessary to forming sound conclusions, so they aren't really bound by it. Nor are most people textbook writers, so I don't see why people must necessarily form conclusions based on points of relevance only.

You seem to be arguing in favor of some sort of ideal thinker, even though you appear to simultaneously assert that logic and reason are irrelevant and that the only thing that matters is that one disregards certain factors when expressing oneself.

What is the process used to sequester these factors if not some form of reasoning?

To give each point the meaning necessary to justify its relevance? The very process of thinking precludes the possibility that one hasn't created a circumstance with parameters resulting from the prerequisites of simplifying for limitations of expression. — Judaka

True, but parameters might genuinely not matter, or be immensely useful, insofar as useful conclusions can be drawn despite what seems to be a selection process centered merely on producing something concise enough to be understood that also works. For instance, when determining how to move your bishop in a game of chess, its possible moves not only exist so long as the rules of chess are agreed upon, but also remain so when you are considering how to move other pieces. You could think about how your adversary's knight might intersect with how you might move your rook. But you wouldn't say that one's strategizing does not matter when considering things other than the movement of your bishop, would you?

I know this example is imperfect, as anyone any good at chess just holds all of the ways the most currently important pieces can be moved in their heads at all times, with no need to partition their thinking. But they do engage in strategies that do not require near omniscience that win them games, so those strategies must pay off, and I find it difficult to believe that reasoning ceases to matter, or becomes less important, the moment you exclude some factor from consideration.

Unreasonable arguments that bring a person happiness, therefore, produce happiness. Well-reasoned, intelligent arguments that bring a person despair, therefore, produce despair. Happiness is preferable to despair, and so the illogical and fallacious perspective is correct. — Judaka

So basically, everyone should believe anything they want so long as it makes them happy because we use arbitrary processes of sequestration to express ourselves. That seems to be what I'm reading here.

The methodology for measuring the various pros and cons is what matters, rather than evaluating the logic or truthfulness of the ideas. — Judaka

 
Are the logic and truthfulness of a belief not important pros or cons, or perhaps even the most important depending upon what we are talking about? And what about morality?

How could humanity possibly function if that was what all of us did? Just weigh the pros and cons without any care for right or wrong, true or false? Maybe that kind of logic applies to aesthetics, or warfare, but in a civilized society we need to have laws that are a result of, or are enabled in some way by, some sort of logic. Science also requires the imposition of parameters yet exists beyond pros and cons.

I see no way around that.

I hope my post wasn't too critical, by the way. I think it is a thought-provoking OP.

I rely on a whole army of people because my little brain could not even slaughter the cow or start a fire, or a hack random piece of flesh off a carcass to hold over the fire on a green stick till it had charred a bit. And that is how I deal with unworkable complexity - I get someone else to do it, who can do it better. — unenlightened

I get the feeling Judaka is concerned with an individual's interactions with complex constructs or issues. Even between the different people in the beef-to-mouth chain you talk about Judaka would probably say those people engage in the pruning of relevant factors when fulfilling their tasks or communicating with each other. That's how I understand the OP, at least.

But I could be wrong, for sure.

Upon reading a few more times: did you actually write this, Judaka? It's like you told ChatGPT to write like a cross between the Joker and someone trying to recruit young men for a domestic terrorist group.

Maybe there's a little Jocko in there too.

edit: hints of lobster?

Yes, I've written it in an unclear way, but we could replace "we" with "our brains" in many places in my OP. I'm unsure to what extent evolution is responsible for this phenomenon, as the alternative of not simplifying should be unworkable. Nonetheless, I agree evolution has played a significant role here. Much of what I'm describing occurs so quickly that we experience stimulus emotionally before even having a chance to utter a single word. Conscious thought takes a lot longer because it's much slower. — Judaka

I'm ok with this as long as you're not equating what I'm calling "intuition" with what you call experiencing stimulus emotionally.

Our brains are highly adaptable though, you've mentioned that you've worked as an engineer, and I'm sure that gives you a unique perspective where it's relevant. One that I wouldn't have, and your brain would use this to instantly pick things up, in this non-conscious way. That's a very highly specific knowledge that has worked its way into your thinking that wasn't there naturally. That's not intuition, it's the result of your education and experiences, it's different, right? — Judaka

As I noted in my previous response, I have run into disagreements about whether what I call "intuition" is really intuition or something else. In my understanding, intuition is a reflection of a model of the world I carry around in my head created by a combination of experience and built-in mental structures. It's something I am aware of in myself in a very substantial way. When I come across something new, I can compare it with my existing understanding of how the world works to see how it fits. All this usually happens before or at the same time the process enters my conscious awareness. I know from past conversations that many people don't experience it that way.

How we interpret, characterise, and emphasise, the narratives we create and the way in which we perceive things, even when done automatically, is influenced by our thinking. Consider how a sophisticated ideologue sees the world, through the narrow lens of his doctrine, that's not intuition, that's the result of their commitment to that ideology. — Judaka

Hmm.. that's a good question—are ideological beliefs part of intuition. I'll have to think about that more.

The simplification is mandatory, yet we do have some control over how it happens. Some ways in which we simplify are strongly determined by biology, but not everything. — Judaka

Sure, and what you said about my engineering background is relevant. In a sense what engineering has to do to actually decide how to proceed is to snip off a lot of specific information, e.g. use averages rather than individual data points. In engineering, when we say "rational" we generally mean calculable using accepted engineering and mathematical methods; what we would call "standard practices."

I consider truth to be most important in terms of realism, if one's plan relies on a thing being true and it isn't, then that plan is certain to fail. Outside of realism, one shouldn't use the truth to justify themselves, as this world contains many truths and what matters is which ones you're using and how, and that's not justified by something being true. How similar is that to what you meant? — Judaka

I agree with this, although I tend to describe it differently. I need valid information, i.e. knowledge, in order to make decisions. Knowledge has to be justified. Most importantly, that justification must take into account the uncertainty of the information and the consequences of being wrong. What you call "realism" is not a yes/no approach.

What is the process used to sequester these factors if not some form of reasoning? — ToothyMaw

Of course, and that's what thinking is, one can only handle so many factors, and so must consider the factors they wish to include, and how to include them.

Even if one picked factors based on what made them happy, that would be a form of reasoning, it's not as though I am arguing against this point.

I find it difficult to believe that reasoning ceases to matter, or becomes less important, the moment you exclude some factor from consideration. — ToothyMaw

I am not arguing against using reason. Chess is not an example where reason determines what perspectives or ways of thinking are good, only what produces good moves in chess does that.

A way of thinking about how to play chess could be entirely logical and reasonable, and one may have made an effort to select the factors that would bring them victory. So, the view is logical, rational, and reasonable, but what if it doesn't work? What if the perspective didn't produce a high rating?

Then it wouldn't matter that your perspective is logical and rational, it's trash because only winning matters.

That's common sense in chess because chess is a game where everyone is playing to win. The measuring stick for the effectiveness of your thinking is determined by the game. Any attempt to justify a way of thinking that doesn't help you to win chess, but has some kind of esoteric value is rejected.

What my OP is arguing for isn't necessary for chess because we already evaluate the perspective by the outcome.

So basically, everyone should believe anything they want so long as it makes them happy because we use arbitrary processes of sequestration to express ourselves. That seems to be what I'm reading here. — ToothyMaw

It's not my goal to promote happiness as the ultimate objective, but maybe if it was broadened to "so long as it's beneficial" and benefit is determined by one's private reasoning, then yes. Could their reasoning be flawed? It could be. Efforts should be made to determine what the best reasoning is, but the measuring stick is the outcome. Please understand that I am giving you responses of pretty much, the absolute bare minimum to avoid my post being an essay, of course, it's complex, and I know that things could go very wrong here. I am promoting an endeavour, not guaranteeing its success.

Are the logic and truthfulness of a belief not important pros or cons, or perhaps even the most important depending upon what we are talking about? And what about morality? — ToothyMaw

Only so far as they help to produce the desired outcome. However, I'm not endorsing any methodology for what outcomes are desired.

Say I plan to leave to arrive at work thirty minutes before my shift, but it takes sixty minutes to get there. I've embraced an apathy about whether my beliefs are logical or accurate, and the prospect of having to travel for sixty minutes is unpleasant, so it makes sense for me to decide it'll only take thirty minutes. Therefore, I arrive thirty minutes late, and I get fired for it, not to mention, I ended up taking sixty minutes to get there anyway.

I'm not endorsing such a completely absurd way of thinking... I should've left at the time necessary to get to work on time, and I should've had more sensible priorities. Again, I'm not rejecting logic, reason or accuracy as having no value, I'm saying that judging the outcome should be the priority.

The stakes here are whether logic, reason and accuracy are mandatory qualities for a belief to be considered good. Not whether they're ever important. Do you think that an unreasonable opinion that produces happiness is better than a reasonable opinion that produces misery? Or is the quality of your opinion dependent upon being accurate, truthful, logical and valid?

Upon reading a few more times: did you actually write this, Judaka? It's like you told ChatGPT to write like a cross between the Joker and someone trying to recruit young men for a domestic terrorist group. — ToothyMaw

Someone is finally understanding that I'm this forum's villain.

I am talking about formulating a perspective or opinion.

You're right that we don't need to do everything by ourselves though. I guess the question would come down to when a person needs to formulate their own opinions, and when can they simply leave it to someone else?

In philosophy, should we think about things for ourselves, or listen to someone smarter than ourselves and soak up what they say like a sponge? It's only tangentially related to my OP but it's an interesting question nonetheless.

I'm ok with this as long as you're not equating what I'm calling "intuition" with what you call experiencing stimulus emotionally. — T Clark

No problem then.

In my understanding, intuition is a reflection of a model of the world I carry around in my head created by a combination of experience and built-in mental structures — T Clark

That is an unorthodox way of defining intuition, but I'll work with it.

When I come across something new, I can compare it with my existing understanding of how the world works to see how it fits. All this usually happens before or at the same time the process enters my conscious awareness. I know from past conversations that many people don't experience it that way. — T Clark

Right, I think it works that way for everyone, I don't believe those who say it doesn't.

I wouldn't say it's just about pre-existing models though. It's about the habits one has in terms of favouring factors for interpretation, relevance, narrative, characterisation etc. It happens in an instant. Take a simple comparison between a stereotypical introvert and an extrovert. Their preferences, how things make them feel, what their interests are, they're going to manifest in what things they choose to focus on, and how to characterise those things, or feel about them, interpret them and so on.

I don't know if you are talking about intuition when you say "make choices without thinking about them." If so, I disagree. Intuition is thinking; useful, valuable, effective thinking: just not rational thinking. — T Clark

I am not criticising intuition as you describe it, I am saying that one's intuition should be evaluated by what it produces. And that what it produces is of the utmost importance, and one should aim to determine their desired outcomes and influence their intuition in the ways one believes are likely to produce them. Do you agree with that?

I agree with this, although I tend to describe it differently. I need valid information, i.e. knowledge, in order to make decisions. Knowledge has to be justified. Most importantly, that justification must take into account the uncertainty of the information and the consequences of being wrong. What you call "realism" is not a yes/no approach. — T Clark

Your description is better because it's more nuanced and I agree with you.

I am not arguing against using reason. Chess is not an example where reason determines what perspectives or ways of thinking are good, only what produces good moves in chess does that. — Judaka

Okay, but - and you seem to agree with this - the formulation of good moves is still informed by reason in chess, even if it isn't the same kind of reasoning that determines if a perspective is good or bad. It does determine usefulness, however, which you claim to be the most important measure of the validity of a belief, so there is a parallel.

Thus, my point in bringing up chess was to demonstrate that, even given a context in which outcome is all that matters, imposing parameters often does not diminish the value of reasoning (whatever kind of reasoning that might be); I'm not saying that the goal is to form logical, reasonable opinions about chess, but rather that parameters, even if they must exist to do something as basic as thinking, do not inhibit the importance of using reason to "win". Reason is not a choice, but rather a necessity, for forming opinions with useful outcomes.

Only so far as they help to produce the desired outcome. However, I'm not endorsing any methodology for what outcomes are desired. — Judaka

The stakes here are whether logic, reason and accuracy are mandatory qualities for a belief to be considered good. Not whether they're ever important. Do you think that an unreasonable opinion that produces happiness is better than a reasonable opinion that produces misery? Or is the quality of your opinion dependent upon being accurate, truthful, logical and valid? — Judaka

I would say that reasoning is imperative as a means of extending one's useful conclusions, and also of measuring the usefulness of extending or broadening a conclusion: if the forming of opinions existed in a vacuum with no logical extensions or prerequisites for forming them, then any belief could potentially be justified via weighing of subjectively valued pros and cons. If this were the case, then no belief would have any more value than another unless its value was consensually agreed upon by all, and there would be no way of resolving many significant disagreements.

I know you aren't arguing that logic doesn't exist, but you do argue that it is a choice to use it when forming valid opinions. If the methodology by which an opinion is formed is the only measure of its validity, disregarding the logic that might help you form beliefs based on other beliefs, then there would be a collapse into what I just described; we would be stuck with a bunch of contradictory opinions whose conflicts could not possibly be resolved except to introduce some sort of reasoning and/or logic.

I don't know how this translates into logic being necessary for an opinion to be good, but logic is an absolute necessity for us to have any means of sorting reality in cases less trivial than leaving for work late because one is a dunce.

Someone is finally understanding that I'm this forum's villain. — Judaka

You took that dig well.

That is an unorthodox way of defining intuition, but I'll work with it. — Judaka

Yes, and that bothers me. I don't think it's really a different phenomenon, just a different understanding of where it comes from. I'm not sure about that.

I wouldn't say it's just about pre-existing models though. It's about the habits one has in terms of favouring factors for interpretation, relevance, narrative, characterisation etc. It happens in an instant. Take a simple comparison between a stereotypical introvert and an extrovert. Their preferences, how things make them feel, what their interests are, they're going to manifest in what things they choose to focus on, and how to characterise those things, or feel about them, interpret them and so on. — Judaka

That's one of the things I meant when I wrote "a combination of experience and inherent capabilities." That probably should have read "experience and inherent capabilities and tendencies."

I am not criticising intuition as you describe it, I am saying that one's intuition should be evaluated by what it produces. And that what it produces is of the utmost importance, and one should aim to determine their desired outcomes and influence their intuition in the ways one believes are likely to produce them. Do you agree with that? — Judaka

Yes, I agree.

Reason is not a choice, but rather a necessity, for forming opinions with useful outcomes. — ToothyMaw

I agree with you, and as I said, I am not arguing against the use of reason. I am proposing that one should use reason to find the most useful perspective for themselves, and carefully consider the pros and cons of their perspective before deciding upon it. Exactly as is done in chess, only, in chess it is already determined that a useful perspective is one that wins chess, it's not usually so simple.

I would say that reasoning is imperative as a means of extending one's useful conclusions — ToothyMaw

What does "extending" mean?

If this were the case, then no belief would have any more value than another unless its value was consensually agreed upon by all, and there would be no way of resolving many significant disagreements. — ToothyMaw

It would be far easier and simpler than it is currently since the outcome is the only concern, you'd need only convince others that they'd be better off believing something different.

I don't like these kinds of "what if everyone did this" hypothetical though, even if everyone thinking as I advise did cause a problem since we know that'll never happen, why would it be cause for concern? What if everyone decided to like the same type of music as me? There'd only be a handful of different types of music, and that'd be so sad, would you advise then that I should expand my tastes to avoid such a travesty?

It's not that I admit there would be significant problems, I'm just not sure it's worthwhile debating how the fields of law and science would operate under my system. It's not something I spend time considering.

I don't know how this translates into logic being necessary for an opinion to be good, but logic is an absolute necessity for us to have any means of sorting reality in cases less trivial than leaving for work late because one is a dunce. — ToothyMaw

One must take context into account when deciding how critical the quality of their opinion is in producing their desired outcome or causing likely consequences. One may wish to err on the side of caution in cases where the possible consequences are too severe or just outweigh the rewards. It's really only when it seems highly unlikely for there to be meaningful consequences for their inaccuracies that they should contemplate pursuing an understanding optimised towards their desired outcomes.

You gravitate towards areas of the highest stakes, the ones where there's no reason to desire anything but the most accurate, robust opinion. If those are the circumstances, then I'd advocate for aiming to have the most accurate, robust opinion, there's no disagreement there. Opinions in culture would be a better starting place, or in philosophy, or politics. The ideal circumstance would be one where "there is no wrong opinion". In the case where there is a wrong opinion, a compromise might be possible. For example, you might agree that "X" is necessary, but emphasise some flaws to condemn as it suits you.

Btw, I care only for the individual's position. The idea that my method might wreak havoc on democracy because people would not be voting responsibly is amusing but not my concern at all.

Unreasonable arguments that bring a person happiness, therefore, produce happiness. Well-reasoned, intelligent arguments that bring a person despair, therefore, produce despair. Happiness is preferable to despair, and so the illogical and fallacious perspective is correct. — Judaka

I am not arguing against the use of reason. I am proposing that one should use reason to find the most useful perspective for themselves, and carefully consider the pros and cons of their perspective before deciding upon it. — Judaka

Truth or logic, they're both irrelevant, just choices, we reach our conclusions by the process of deciding what factors to include and emphasise, and how we interpret these factors. — Judaka

It seems arbitrary to designate the illogical and fallacious perspective to be correct merely because it produces happiness. But I understand you are playing fast and loose with some of these conclusions merely for the sake of conciseness; some people have already done that legwork.

The connection between the assertion that selecting factors to reach conclusions and the idea that all that matters are the outcomes of such conclusions doesn't really follow, I think.

Truth and logic are relevant because they are integral to any process by which factors are considered and disregarded; you seem to be operating under the assumption that we do not apply different types of reasoning when forming conclusions, and the choice of reasoning is certainly paramount to reaching a conclusion that can be deemed useful, just as the selection of factors is.

And reason, even if applied to reach a certain end, inherently arcs towards truth given some correct first premises or postulations. Conclusions that do not have any basic logical prerequisites are by their nature not useful much of the time because they do not have to reflect reality. So, if we want usefulness that extends beyond "this is good because it makes me happy" or "this is good because it will help me become more competent", the application of logic and reasoning isn't really a choice.

I would say that reasoning is imperative as a means of extending one's useful conclusions
— ToothyMaw

What does "extending" mean? — Judaka

I mean using logic and reasoning to form beliefs based on other beliefs. People do that all the time, and it doesn't necessitate the consideration of an arbitrary number of relevant/irrelevant factors.

The connection between the assertion that selecting factors to reach conclusions and the idea that all that matters are the outcomes of such conclusions doesn't really follow, I think. — ToothyMaw

I should probably focus more on this aspect of my OP, as I didn't go over it in sufficient detail.

You made the point using chess as your example, that although our necessity to select factors exists, the question of which factors to use is still very important. There is still a need to produce the most robust perspective, and our ability to do this correlates with our success. It's a great argument.

My response focused on the evaluation of perspectives, I pointed out that the outcomes considered a success in chess are largely pre-defined by the rules of the game. The goal is to make good moves, and so that's the measuring stick of success. However, I appreciate that what you're saying is that the chess example proves that our limited ability to include various factors didn't reduce the importance of a good system of selecting factors.

However, don't you see that we agree on this point? My OP is not arguing for selecting factors at random, it's arguing for selecting factors that create perspectives that produce the desired result. You've actually agreed to the very same thing in your chess example, did you not? In chess, a strategy can be logical, but that doesn't mean it will produce good results. To do that, one must carefully select the factors they are to emphasise. If one has a strategy that involves a heavy focus on aggressive attacking, reasoning that it will pressure the opponent to make mistakes, that makes sense, it's a valid line of thought, but that doesn't mean it will succeed.

Ultimately, the outcome is what matters, not that the perspective was rational. In chess, there is this result that separates right from wrong. It's not just chess, if the goal is to do "X" thing, there probably is a "best way" to do it, and a slew of alternatives ranging from suboptimal to terrible. But isn't it the goal that makes optimisation possible?

The goal is the measuring stick of success, it is how we evaluate whether a perspective has succeeded or not, do you agree? What if one's goal is not to accomplish any specific thing, but simply an aim to be logical and accurate? Even if one's perspective would hurt their mental health, or if it made them unenjoyable to talk to, or justified an unhealthy way of living, regardless of the consequences, one could aim to always express things as they saw them.

It is a circumstance such as this that I'd be interested in invoking my point about selecting factors. As it shouldn't matter if one's selection and use of factors is logical and honestly done. Without that goal to define success, there are countless alternative ways to select which factors to include, and emphasise and means of arguing those factors that are equally valid.

Why shouldn't one, as is done in chess, take these countless alternatives as nothing but possibilities, which succeed or fail by whether they produce the desired result? What if a selection process is even a bit biased, or unreasonable? If that's what helps to produce the desired outcome, why would it be wrong? Would you allow yourself to be biased and unfair if the results of doing so were better than not?
If you agree that we're limited to a few factors, yet often have so many possible choices, then what selection criteria is better? How do you go beyond using truth and logic as measuring sticks, and pick the most robust perspective, and by what means do you know that the perspective is effective?

Say one's goal is to obtain self-respect, from where does their lack of self-respect come? Is it not the product of a way of thinking? Is self-respect the goal or not? Is a method that accomplishes the goal successful or not? Of course, there's room for nuance in evaluating the outcome. The best method isn't one that succeeds at great costs or with great risk. But shouldn't a perspective be evaluated by what it produces, not by whether it's logical or accurate? What does it even mean to be logical and accurate without a goal? What do you think?

Is a method that accomplishes the goal successful or not? Of course, there's room for nuance in evaluating the outcome. The best method isn't one that succeeds at great costs or with great risk. But shouldn't a perspective be evaluated by what it produces, not by whether it's logical or accurate? What does it even mean to be logical and accurate without a goal? What do you think? — Judaka

I think that to say that perspectives only have value insofar as they produce the desired outcomes doesn’t deal with the selection of which outcomes should be pursued (not saying you are saying logic and reason don’t matter). In chess, as you point out, the goal is pre-defined as winning. So yes, I agree that we agree on the fact that in circumstances in which the goal is clear and immutable, the only thing that matters is producing “moves that win”, as opposed to trying to only develop moves that are rational or logical for the sake of being rational and logical. Consequences > reason for its own sake.

But in cases where the goal must be established, either by subjective evaluation of one’s own motivations and desires or by knowledge of objective facets of reality, reason seems to be at least partially responsible for the establishment of those goals, as we can always ask ourselves: is this goal, whether it be informed by facts or a way of thinking or something else, actually worth pursuing? If it is, why? Is usefulness not itself relative to the goal, whose relevance is in turn relative to the reasoning used to formulate that goal?

Thus, I think logic and reasoning are inherently valuable because robustness of opinion is the greatest measure of whether or not some perspective is valuable for accomplishing a goal insofar as it represents the realization of a plausible world that we would want to live in - which I think is the greatest goal for any perspective.

Do you think the rules of chess, by which moves are a function of, are based on a logic that makes it a desirable, deeply satisfying game to play? I do. I see the realization of personal goals as being no different; goals must possess some logic to be of value in a world that largely acts sensibly on a human scale. People want there to be rules, they just differ on which rules are correct, and rightly act in accordance with said rules when possible - much of the time.

Something kind of interesting but somewhat off-topic: I think reason plays the long game; if you have a game in which the rules change, the goal becomes to both further the game (so long as it is useful to do so) and to develop new heuristics via experience and reasoning. What you outline, while conceptually efficient, doesn't favor this augmentation of perspectives, but rather provides a schematic for understanding the processes by which people should form perspectives. So, it seems of limited usefulness outside of evaluating the worth of an individual's opinions.

goals must possess some logic to be of value in a world that largely acts sensibly on a human scale. — ToothyMaw

I think this is really wrong in that it doesn't reflect how real people determine value in the real world. It seems like you are trying to stuff how people really behave into your mold of logic and reason where it doesn't fit.

In chess, a strategy can be logical, but that doesn't mean it will produce good results. To do that, one must carefully select the factors they are to emphasise. If one has a strategy that involves a heavy focus on aggressive attacking, reasoning that it will pressure the opponent to make mistakes, that makes sense, it's a valid line of thought, but that doesn't mean it will succeed. — Judaka

Do you really think this is how people who play chess think and behave? I haven't played chess since I was a kid and I was never very good at it, but the process you guys are describing seems artificial. There are billions of possible moves and chains of moves. It makes sense to me that reason would come into play to help evaluate a move once one has been identified, but I don't see how it could possibly be useful in identifying moves in the first place.

goals must possess some logic to be of value in a world that largely acts sensibly on a human scale.
— ToothyMaw

I think this is really wrong in that it doesn't reflect how real people determine value in the real world. It seems like you are trying to stuff how people really behave into your mold of logic and reason where it doesn't fit. — T Clark

I'm only talking about some instances in which there is a deliberate, rational consideration of what to believe. I don't think humans really think this way all of the time. Obviously, people determine value based on a multitude of things. What I am describing is just one facet of that.

I admit I'm not qualified to make serious claims about how people actually think, but I think I can make claims about how the relationship between the evaluation of the worth of goals and their relationship to logic works, which is hypothetical and not grounded in any real understanding of the human mind.

Do you really think this is how people who play chess think and behave? I haven't played chess since I was a kid and I was never very good at it, but the process you guys are describing seems artificial. There are billions of possible moves and chains of moves. It makes sense to me that reason would come into play to help evaluate a move once one has been identified, but I don't see how it could possibly be useful in identifying moves in the first place. — T Clark

There is a difference between strategic thinking (long-term), and short-term tactical thinking, both of which are engaged in in chess, and pretty much every other game of any complexity that there is.

I admit I'm not qualified to make serious claims about how people actually think, but I think I can make claims about how the relationship between the evaluation of the worth of goals and their relationship to logic works, which is hypothetical and not grounded in any real understanding of the human mind. — ToothyMaw

I wasn't questioning your qualifications on this subject. I consider introspection a valid source of psychological knowledge.

I wasn't questioning your qualifications on this subject. I consider introspection a valid source of psychological knowledge. — T Clark

Well, in that case, I at least, try to think that way. I have some overarching principles and really only view that which is logical and reasonable as worth integrating into my worldview. Maybe some of my assumptions are wrong, but I believe that it is one's duty to try to iron that out through dialogue and introspection.

When I'm on here I almost always argue for fun, but sometimes I have to change some beliefs, which is always interesting depending upon how dear to me it is.

I'm above average at chess, and I don't think we're saying anything too silly.

Thus, I think logic and reasoning are inherently valuable because robustness of opinion is the greatest measure of whether or not some perspective is valuable for accomplishing a goal insofar as it represents the realization of a plausible world that we would want to live in - which I think is the greatest goal for any perspective. — ToothyMaw

Of course, one needs to set good goals and determine whether their perspective will deliver on those goals and this requires reason to figure out. However, once you're satisfied that you've done your best to create a goal, then the perspective needs to accomplish producing that desired outcome, and succeeds and fails by whether it does, yes?

Therefore, a perspective that is accurate and logical but does not produce the desired outcome is a failure, and a perspective that mightn't be that accurate or logical which does is a success, do you agree?

Do you think the rules of chess, by which moves are a function of, are based on a logic that makes it a desirable, deeply satisfying game to play? I do. I see the realization of personal goals as being no different; goals must possess some logic to be of value in a world that largely acts sensibly on a human scale. People want there to be rules, they just differ on which rules are correct, and rightly act in accordance with said rules when possible - much of the time. — ToothyMaw

There's no disagreement that goals should be logical, it's inconceivable for me that a goal can be both good and illogical.

However, are you talking about a shared logic, like one built by a society?

Something kind of interesting but somewhat off-topic: I think reason plays the long game; if you have a game in which the rules change, the goal becomes to both further the game (so long as it is useful to do so) and to develop new heuristics via experience and reasoning. What you outline, while conceptually efficient, doesn't favor this augmentation of perspectives, but rather provides a schematic for understanding the processes by which people should form perspectives. So, it seems of limited usefulness outside of evaluating the worth of an individual's opinions. — ToothyMaw

What I outline is a focus on the desired result, which entails a process of identifying the method which will produce it. Aren't you just talking about a circumstance where one must change when confronted with a better way of doing things, or look for opportunities for improvement? I would say that this only works when someone knows the desired outcome, and is searching for ways to improve their results. If you tell me the goal is to do "X", then you've made it very clear, that this is the outcome is the measuring stick of success. So, my OP wouldn't be relevant to bring up, since we'd already be evaluating all perspectives or methods by the outcome.

It is only worthwhile to bring up my OP in circumstances where you aren't evaluating a perspective by the outcome. If it's useless, it's because it'd be redundant to tell you to do what you've already been doing.

It's about the measuring stick for success which guides their reason. You keep bringing up cases where the measuring stick is pre-defined to be the outcome. Do you perhaps, secretly agree with me? It's okay to join me on the dark side, you know? We can form a supervillain team together.

Of course, one needs to set good goals and determine whether their perspective will deliver on those goals and this requires reason to figure out. However, once you're satisfied that you've done your best to create a goal, then the perspective needs to accomplish producing that desired outcome, and succeeds and fails by whether it does, yes? — Judaka

I suppose.

Therefore, a perspective that is accurate and logical but does not produce the desired outcome is a failure, and a perspective that mightn't be that accurate or logical which does is a success, do you agree? — Judaka

My point is that even the successful, less logical outcome must contain some logic to be of use given there are some basic logical prerequisites stipulated by a permeating logic.

However, are you talking about a shared logic, like one built by a society? — Judaka

I'm going to call it "permeating logic".

By permeating logic, I mean the logic that operates more broadly than that which is applied to something as local as some packet of premises and desired conclusions. This could be a logic shared by people, or it could be a logic that one desires to abide by for the sake of having a sensible worldview. I am inclined to think that people interact with both.

I think that any given perspective or goal derived at least partially from a permeating logic must agree with some aspects of the permeating logic and also must not contradict it. This means that the ends are indeed a logical perspective or goal, even if that isn't what makes it good, per se. But do we not want to preserve the rules designated by logic, among other things, that guide our forming of perspectives by providing a logic or logical framework?

What you write about is detachment, a means of circumventing the misapplication, or overapplication, of logic and reason. I am starting to agree with you that yes, this is a useful way of looking at things some of the time.

It is only worthwhile to bring up my OP in circumstances where you aren't evaluating a perspective by the outcome. If it's useless, it's because it'd be redundant to tell you to do what you've already been doing. — Judaka

Good point.

It's about the measuring stick for success which guides their reason. You keep bringing up cases where the measuring stick is pre-defined to be the outcome. Do you perhaps, secretly agree with me? It's okay to join me on the dark side, you know? We can form a supervillain team together. — Judaka

So long as I get to be the evil, big brain mastermind that ultimately spells his own doom with his unchecked hubris.

My point is that even the successful, less logical outcome must contain some logic to be of use given there are some basic logical prerequisites stipulated by a permeating logic. — ToothyMaw

What do you mean by "some logic"? Are you saying it can be illogical, but it must fit into an individual's wider narrative of their world? Or something else?

I think that any given perspective or goal derived at least partially from a permeating logic must agree with some aspects of the permeating logic and also must not contradict it. This means that the ends are indeed a logical perspective or goal, even if that isn't what makes it good, per se. But do we not want to preserve the rules designated by logic, among other things, that guide our forming of perspectives by providing a logic or logical framework? — ToothyMaw

Adopting a perspective that is likely to produce the desired result, but is entirely foreign to someone's overarching views is not feasible, because it is likely to be simply too difficult for them to adopt that perspective. One cannot choose to believe whatever would be practical for them to believe. There are prerequisites for belief that must be followed or this entire endeavour will be pointless.

If someone has a perspective that is producing undesirable results, the reason for disbelief can't be just "it's not useful to be this way". Instead, one needs to attack that perspective using their true beliefs, making purposeful but minor adjustments, that's the path of least resistance. Usually, simply rearranging the same beliefs in a new order of priority, or characterising a premise differently by finding reasons to exclude or include factors or interpretations will do the trick. The less that needs to change, the easier the change will be.

Again, I'm oversimplifying but perhaps you'll understand my point is just that one, of course, can't just insert any perspective or thought into their heads on the basis of utility. I do think that these "permeating logics" are much more flexible than they seem, and there are lots of tricks at one's disposal to change their perspective without feeling like they're betraying their identity or trying to believe something entirely contrary to their current views. Especially once things such as reason and truth value are removed as shields.

What you write about is detachment, a means of circumventing the misapplication, or overapplication, of logic and reason. I am starting to agree with you that yes, this is a useful way of looking at things some of the time. — ToothyMaw

Cool. There is definitely an entirely separate conversation about what outcomes should really be prioritised. If the reason behind what "desired result" they are to pursue is flawed, then there will be consequences for that. It's complicated, and I'd encourage a risk-averse approach, one should aim not to deprive themselves of opportunities to grow, the goal should still be to be the best "you", I think.

So long as I get to be the evil, big brain mastermind that ultimately spells his own doom with his unchecked hubris. — ToothyMaw

Haha, alright, I'll reserve that role for you.

sometimes I have to change some beliefs — ToothyMaw

On a regular basis, it's not so much that I change my beliefs as that I refine them and become more aware of them. But then there are a few issues where I have come to question my basic understanding in a more fundamental way. That feels unsettling, but that's how it's supposed to work. That's what philosophy is for.

I'm above average at chess, and I don't think we're saying anything too silly. — Judaka

Sure. Different people experience their mental processes differently. I can only speak for myself.

I've noticed that I seem to be using two different meanings of the word "logic". I am designating goals as being logical, and also using the more scientific definition of logic that just means a system or set of principles underlying the arrangements of elements (or beliefs or factors that contribute to belief). I think that it is valid to say that there could be an underlying logic that governs one's beliefs in scientific terms, and also that these beliefs could be logical, as in they were produced by a logic that roughly adheres to the standards of formal logic. That's my understanding, but if I'm wrong please correct me anyone who knows more about this.

If someone has a perspective that is producing undesirable results, the reason for disbelief can't be just "it's not useful to be this way". Instead, one needs to attack that perspective using their true beliefs, making purposeful but minor adjustments, that's the path of least resistance. — Judaka

What determines if beliefs are true or not true? Are true beliefs just the beliefs that don't change when one has a perspective they want to change due to a lack of usefulness? Or are they more robust opinions that strictly reflect reality?

Adopting a perspective that is likely to produce the desired result, but is entirely foreign to someone's overarching views is not feasible, because it is likely to be simply too difficult for them to adopt that perspective. One cannot choose to believe whatever would be practical for them to believe. There are prerequisites for belief that must be followed or this entire endeavour will be pointless. — Judaka

The difficulty of integrating something that is largely incompatible with one's beliefs into their worldview doesn't really address the point that for any given belief there must be some similar logic and reasoning with one's held beliefs to integrate said beliefs into their worldview in a coherent way, even if to do so is a matter of making small, deliberate changes that do not presuppose general reasonableness. However, I don't see how the vectorized logic and reasoning can be separated from the making of these adjustments, and I can only think that one's "true beliefs" are exactly a representation of a source of a permeating logic (which is probably very flexible) that provides some of the necessary pre-requisites for forming beliefs.

My point is that even the successful, less logical outcome must contain some logic to be of use given there are some basic logical prerequisites stipulated by a permeating logic.
— ToothyMaw

What do you mean by "some logic"? Are you saying it can be illogical, but it must fit into an individual's wider narrative of their world? Or something else? — Judaka

Upon re-reading that I'm not sure what I meant. I think I meant that there must be some overlap between any number of similar goals and an ideal goal that would be considered totally in line with a permeating logic for those goals to be useful, and that the goal that is most in line with the latter might make less sense on a global scale and more sense in terms of individual outcome compared to the other goals.

On a regular basis, it's not so much that I change my beliefs as that I refine them and become more aware of them. But then there are a few issues where I have come to question my basic understanding in a more fundamental way. That feels unsettling, but that's how it's supposed to work. That's what philosophy is for. — T Clark

:ok:

Well said, sounds about right for me too.

It's called hindsight.

What determines if beliefs are true or not true? Are true beliefs just the beliefs that don't change when one has a perspective they want to change due to a lack of usefulness? Or are they more robust opinions that strictly reflect reality? — ToothyMaw

I meant beliefs that are held by the individual, what they truly believe.

The difficulty of integrating something that is largely incompatible with one's beliefs into their worldview doesn't really address the point that for any given belief there must be some similar logic and reasoning with one's held beliefs to integrate said beliefs into their worldview in a coherent way, even if to do so is a matter of making small, deliberate changes that do not presuppose general reasonableness. — ToothyMaw

I think it directly addresses that point and I don't understand why you think it doesn't. That it's difficult to incorporate incompatible beliefs means it's easier for one to integrate beliefs with a similar logic or reasoning, that fits into their current worldview. Do you think it's possible that we're saying the same thing in slightly different ways? If not, could you restate the difference between our views?

I've noticed that I seem to be using two different meanings of the word "logic". I am designating goals as being logical, and also using the more scientific definition of logic that just means a system or set of principles underlying the arrangements of elements (or beliefs or factors that contribute to belief). — ToothyMaw

I don't think there's a way for all the different uses of the words logic and logical to be unambiguous. Especially "logical", which just has way too many meanings that overlap and apply in the same contexts. So, if there is a way that sidesteps the problem, I don't know about it. For me though, logic has no qualitative value, whereas "logical" might or might not have one. You can say one's "logical chain" purely descriptively, but generally "logical" means correct, valid, rational thinking. If someone's logic was invalid, then their conclusion wouldn't be logical. Maybe that helps? However, I'm no expert on the topic.

Anyway, I think I'll have to ask you to re-explain what you mean by "permeating logic", as I'm just completely lost as to what this refers to.

I don't think there's a way for all the different uses of the words logic and logical to be unambiguous. Especially "logical", which just has way too many meanings that overlap and apply in the same contexts. So, if there is a way that sidesteps the problem, I don't know about it. For me though, logic has no qualitative value, whereas "logical" might or might not have one. You can say one's "logical chain" purely descriptively, but generally "logical" means correct, valid, rational thinking. If someone's logic was invalid, then their conclusion wouldn't be logical. Maybe that helps? However, I'm no expert on the topic. — Judaka

Anyway, I think I'll have to ask you to re-explain what you mean by "permeating logic", as I'm just completely lost as to what this refers to. — Judaka

By "permeating logic", I mean a system or set of principles underlying the arrangement of factors that contribute to belief and, thus, beliefs themselves, that roughly adheres to the standards of logic.

For example, you might believe that we all have intangible but very real souls that pop into existence at conception. You also think people with souls should not be killed or murdered, although this does not only apply to fertilized eggs. Your reasoning that it is wrong to throw out an egg follows the standards of formal logic:

1. A fertilized egg has a soul.
2. It is wrong to kill beings with souls.
3. It is wrong to throw out fertilized eggs.

Not only is this logical, there is an underlying logic that gives more value to beings with souls than, say, octopi. The same person who believes that it is wrong to throw out fertilized eggs could be the same person who eats a live octopus, all according to what I would call a "permeating logic". The rigorous logic is a vehicle for the underlying logic, which I suppose could be construed as "true belief". The two may interact, but I would say mostly only when integrating new elements into one's worldview.

That it's difficult to incorporate incompatible beliefs means it's easier for one to integrate beliefs with a similar logic or reasoning, that fits into their current worldview. Do you think it's possible that we're saying the same thing in slightly different ways? — Judaka

I think we do indeed agree, yes. I'm just emphasizing the fact that reason and logic are to be desired, partially because I think people should always at least try to make their worldviews coherent according to general reasonableness regardless of any difficulty in doing so. This might be less efficient and healthy than just taking the path of least resistance, and I admit that. Both things have a time and place, for sure.