Illative Force - A Lament

About: Weak interactions in nuclear physics

It struck me strange, like an epiphany followed by deep depression, that there really is no "force" in illative force. I was mostly examining the phenomenon called "female logic" where emoting is used instead as the motive force pushing a train of thought rather than logical argumentation. The chance to emote or reach a certain feeling was more important in directing the discourse between my wife & I (on her part) than a particularly eloquent & marvelous set of logical points along the way I was pointing out.

Alas! I concluded she wanted to feel a certain way at the conclusion of the argument - I think it was "righteously right" about not liking politics & I wanted a feeling of having shared a delicate & brilliant train of thought with her. My rational approach would only serve up a weak feeling - somewhat like having proved a mathematical theorem. Her emotional proof would yield a much more juicy emotion similar to the "R" in the RWG. Please note this is not about the RWG. But, that is about the only way I could describe what I think she was going for. She wanted to hold onto the idea that "politics was shit" somewhat like 4571.

We were like aliens using words for different purposes.

Her words I could only hear were for the purposes of destroying talking about politics (as a worthless pursuit). I could only press forward with the logical argument.

In the end there was an even more startling conclusion. The words "illative force" passed before my inner ear & I noticed that indeed a person could do something that was illogical - something that although it made no sense at all could be motivated by a much stronger force arrived at by "female logic" - too powerful for my weak interaction!

picture credit

Comments

Seth says
Interesting

.

I have no doubt that the emotional end state of social discourse is far more important than any so called "logical" end point. In fact, for most subjects of discourse, logic should not even come up. Why? Well just because the "logical objects" being discussed are not the type for which we can even apply the rules of logic, eg the exclded middle. See mentograph ... if the conditions of the mentograph are met, then and only then, does logic have illitive force ... and it is not the logic which forces ... that is only meta-descriptive .... no it is the reality of that which the symbols represent that have force. But each person in the discourse needs to be using symbols which refer to exactly the same thing ... and that is almost never the case. So it comes down to this: "my logic" or "your logic". So my advise would be to forget about logic in discourse ... instead pay attention to what is happening socially. Is the discourse contributing to some kind of social change ... or not ... is it going to leave a bad taste in a person's mouth ... or not. Foget about being right or wrong ... think instead about how what you say changes what we are.

Mark de LA says
Well that is a very strange way to use words. It is not unlike NLP practitioners & the people who inspired 4532 use words. The latter are more in alignment with what Seth said. This item really was not about the RWG. It is a essay on an aha! used as a bookmark for me to figure out why I can do illogical things. Why do people do things that do not make sense logically. I don't think free will covers the subject well enough!

Maybe it goes to the distinction of using words .
When I do something I don't necessarily describe it in words first. As a matter of fact I rarely do. Maybe just a little conversation with myself on the way.

Seth says

M 2006-10-04 14:06:12 4583

Illative force only has force in a conversation within the world of words.

It does not even have any "force" there, because we can say whatever. Perahps a conversation taking place withing a computer would be forced because it is constrained to follow the rules of the program.

The will is outside that world except the part which is necessary to form & think words & carry out the conversation!

Yep, the will is quite outside of words and logic. Words and logic are always about the world ... they have no effect on it. You do not act logically. You simply act. Logic usually follows your actions and explains, or justifys them. Sometimes we get ahead of the game by learning habits that can be described by logical rules. When we behave according to those habits, we can call ourselves being logical. The business of most professions, sciences and commerce depend on people being able to follow those habits. To act outside of those habits is to be human ... but those actions outside of habits have nothing to do with being logical.

Mark de LA says

M 2006-10-04 13:59:59 4583

Maybe I should have a conversation with Mr. Spock. (;-))

Illative force only has force in a conversation within the world of words. The will is outside that world except the part which is necessary to form & think words & carry out the conversation!

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-10-04 14:34:03 4583

-snip-

Illative force only has force in a conversation within the world of words.

I acknowledge that from your point of view there is no force in words. Alternatively, I would suggest that the words illative force must mean something - it is used quite often google illative force, <- 10,900 times . I submit that the force in illative force is that which is described by formal logic. "because we can say anything" from my point of view does not contradict that the logical processes, the metamorphosis of attention from input to output via logic is a subtle force - certainly forcing the conclusion. One can deny the conclusion or hate it but it is still there at the end of a chain of reasoning if your logical faculties are intact. The haggle point in most argumentation surrounds figuring out exactly what you are talking about.

Seth says

M 2006-10-04 14:56:14 4583

I submit that the force in illative force is that which is described by formal logic. "because we can say anything" from my point of view does not contradict that the logical processes, the metamorphosis of attention from input to output via logic is a subtle force - certainly forcing the conclusion. One can deny the conclusion or hate it but it is still there at the end of a chain of reasoning if your logical faculties are intact. The haggle point in most argumentation surrounds figuring out exactly what you are talking about.

Well yes if you somehow actually follow the rules of formal logic and if every time you use a symbol you use it to refer to exactly the same thing, then the symbolic conclusion about the world is forced ... except of course where there are still choices to be made in logical methadology. However human attention rarely, if ever, actually metamorphosis in that manner. Don't forget that the rules for formal logic are a relatively recent invention which emerged in our culture in just the past 3 millienia. The processess of "metamorphosis of our attention" evolved over millions of years and is now burned into our biology* and habitual behaviors in our culture. The two different processes have very little, if anything, to do with each other. People do not think in FOPL.

* If you don't want to accept evolution, then a similar observation could be made from a thelogical perspective ... as such it would have the same effect.

Mark de LA says
Maybe that tweek or aha! that happens at the end of a logical argument is built into my biology or maybe not. I remember always having that sense when the right elements were in the ongoing conversation . I did not go through the symbolic logic to get there.
If A is B and B is C -> A is C is pretty fundamental and produces a subtle force/feeling when I recognize the truth of it ; using words to express it notwithstanding.

Mark de LA says
I suppose one could brainwash & hypnotize someone into taking a certain set of anchors & producing a feeling of "true" out of it. OTOH, that is not the usual case. If we all had different senses for logic there would be no reason to write books about it since Aristotle & Socrates. Some madrassas have brainwashed children into thinking martrydom & killing Jews is a good thing to do & that death is preferable to life. Again I say that is a perversion or degenerate case of the natural sense for logic & truth. It's not all quantum fields & random coincidence that mathematics, physics & your beloved scientific method work - is it ?

Seth says

M 2006-10-04 16:06:28 4583

Maybe that tweek or aha! that happens at the end of a logical argument is built into my biology or maybe not. I remember always having that sense when the right elements were in the ongoing conversation . I did not go through the symbolic logic to get there.
If A is B and B is C -> A is C is pretty fundamental and produces a subtle force/feeling when I recognize the truth of it ; using words to express it notwithstanding.

well i suspect that pattern recognition is a biological process that has a "aha!" feeling to it. But i remain skeptical of a biological basis associated with "having a sense when right elements" are present. My problem there being, of course, that pesky word "right". I suspect that you do recognize when things match a particular pattern that might occur usually in some context. But me thinks your attributation of "right" to it must be something you learned from your personal experiences ... other people might not experience the same usualness or associate it with what you would refer to as a "rightness". Iow, not only is the pattern subjective but also the feeling of rightness is subjective. You are not forced by your biology here, you are forced by your history ... different history different patterns, different rightnesses.

Mark de LA says
Yep, this did get out of hand. I still say there is a sense for logic which is part of the sense for language.

Seth says
I don't know if i would call it a "sense", but yes i agree there is an aptitude for language.

Seth says

M 2006-10-04 21:50:14 4583

I suppose one could brainwash & hypnotize someone into taking a certain set of anchors & producing a feeling of "true" out of it. OTOH, that is not the usual case. If we all had different senses for logic there would be no reason to write books about it since Aristotle & Socrates. Some madrassas have brainwashed children into thinking martrydom & killing Jews is a good thing to do & that death is preferable to life. Again I say that is a perversion or degenerate case of the natural sense for logic & truth. It's not all quantum fields & random coincidence that mathematics, physics & your beloved scientific method work - is it ?

It seems to me, you are talking about three different things here: (1) logic - which is just a set of rules for manipulating signs to preserve their relationsip to their signans, mathematics being one variety of those rules (2) some alleged biological (or spiritual) sense of truth and or what is right, and (3) why math, physics, and the scientific method works. To me those are three different topics which are only marginally related. Tackeling all of them in one short paragraph is difficult, but, ... lol ... i'll take a stab at it.

Physics works because the processess of the world are regular. Events can be predictued by mathematics, logic, and physics, just because things in the world keep happening the same regualr way. Civilization has developed a bag of tricks for making predictions and controlling events based upon those regularities. That bag of tricks has been developed by trial and error (the scientific method) over several thousands of years. Mathmatics and physics works because trial and error works. There was no innate sense of truth (or logic) necessary. There is no mystical coincidence necessary either. The mistakes that were made did not get preserved. But when intentions were satisfied by doing things that worked, those were repeated over and over again. Eventually we got to where we are today.

It is interesting to note that lower animals function by instinct. They do have an innate sense of right and wrong ... they always just do what it is right for them to do. One thing about them, however, they do not develop culture ... they are frozen patterns of behavior within a particular ecology which can sustain them. Me thinks that is all you get with your "beloved" innate sense of truth.

Mark de LA says

I guess that if you go back all the way to the meaning of the word logos & In the Beginning was the word (John 1,1) then you might understand why the lament.
Some say that keeping one's word is god-like; see 4532.

I wonder what it would be like if our words become this powerful again.

Mark de LA says

Some light may be thrown on the subject (illative force) by this commentary on hex#23 line 1 - link is here.

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-03-05 09:54:48 4583

M 2007-03-05 06:32:42 4583

Some light may be thrown on the subject (illative force) by this commentary on hex#23 line 1 - link is here.

This must have been written in the 80's when i was in the back house working on CyberMind and he was workin on Fermat ... notice the mention of Semantic Network. I like how he says "Mathmatics helps in the persuit of 'Truth' only if it can break out of any self-imposed prision [Semantic Network]", notwithstading that it was a strange sentence for a Mathmatician to have written. But in the end he acknowledges that the nature of Illative Force is Empirical ... experience, and I agree.

Yep, I liked the whole discourse. It moves from axioms to self-evident, to evidence to proof & somewhere in there truth! Very nice!

BTW, somewhere near that page is some mention of Bozo's Lemma!

Seth says

M 2007-03-05 06:32:42 4583

Some light may be thrown on the subject (illative force) by this commentary on hex#23 line 1 - link is here.

Seth says

M1g0r 2014-02-07 10:17:48 4583

seth 2014-02-07 09:51:18 4583

seth 2014-02-07 09:44:58 4583

i liken the situation to taking a small circuit out of one extremely complex system and installing it into another similarly complex system and just presuming that it would work in the same way in the different system. our history and contexts are so very very specific and interrelated. they are not generalized modular simplifications. they do not travel well.

... especially if one is invested in them not traveling

For something & some value of "the situation"
.. & some purpose for your use of words.

the situation i'm talking about is the perdicament of you thinking inside your mind with its own history and experiences and the context of that which you focus into a thought ... and me over here doing the same thing inside mine. That is the situation of which i speak. Lifting a thought from your mind and inserting it in my mind is not something that just happens without quite a bit of back and forth and feedback to align what we mean. Especially when the topic is quite so hairy as is "illative force".

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-05-31 11:45:13 4583

M 2009-05-30 13:15:34 4583

~ but then there is the acronym...

CAN'T UNDERSTAND NORMAL THINKING

Yeah those are the people who deny common sense and choose their opinions based on partisan talking points.

That would be you DUDE! This wasn't a partisan item until you arrived! (It was sexist)

M1g0r says

seth 2014-02-07 09:31:16 4583

very interesting train of thought here that we had .... good find

... especially:

source: mark
It struck me strange, like an epiphany followed by deep depression, that there really is no "force" in illative force.

... of course, that is pretty much the same epiphany that i got which formed my conceptions of truth. it is not so very depressing to me because i was not all that invested in it being otherwise as i never could experience that force myself.

so when people say to me, "be reasonable", or "be logical" ... early on, i learned to flash that what they must mean is for me "to use their reasons", "to use their logic". but you know me ... i must use my own

Great! Glad you could relate somehow! Notice I tagged this with beat goes on. This item is circa 2006. It is also about cunt logic.

Seth says
very interesting train of thought here that we had .... good find

... especially:

source: mark
It struck me strange, like an epiphany followed by deep depression, that there really is no "force" in illative force.

... of course, that is pretty much the same epiphany that i got which formed my conceptions of truth. it is not so very depressing to me because i was not all that invested in it being otherwise as i never could experience that force myself.

so when people say to me, "be reasonable", or "be logical" ... early on, i learned to flash that what they must really mean is for me "to use their reasons", "to use their logic". but you know me ... i must use my own

M1g0r says

seth 2014-02-07 09:51:18 4583

seth 2014-02-07 09:44:58 4583

... especially if one is invested in them not traveling

For something & some value of "the situation"
.. & some purpose for your use of words.

Illative Force - A Lament

About: Weak interactions in nuclear physics

Tags

Comments

See Also