SR VII

Leningrad wrote: lmao'd

Would you like a roflburger with some lmaosauce?

MovingPictures07 wrote: It doesn't makes us irrationnal. It makes us what we are. Complex and hard to understand indeed. Not easier to fully rationalize at all though. You can explain an animal's behaviour. You can even predict what he'll do if you do something. However, human mind isn't like that. I only think people who try to rationalize it are just wasting their time personnally. Even if they manage to get to something which is a pretty good explanation of how human is : 1- What will it be for? 2- Will it work for every single person in the world? I really don't think so. 1. I don't quite understand your point here or what you mean.     The point here is simply that I can't understand how someone would want that. 2. I never said it would work for every single person. Each person is an individual and should be analyzed as such, in fact. Trying to generalize results in logical fallacy.     My point was that, maybe you can analyze a couple of simple individuals, but not all of 'em anyways. A game of "rock, paper, scissors" just might be a really good example of how human mind is unpredictable. Think about what goes on in your mind when you play. Is there really a logical way out? Sure. A person chooses one of the three based on his/her evaluation of which would be strategically most effective or completely by chance. Nonetheless, the person chooses based on a certain reason and it can still be explained, despite being a very quick and simplified action. How is a lucky guess based on logic? And if you decide to logically evaluate a strategy, it's logic based on nothing since the other guy does the same thing. Basing your logic on pure luck is not rationnal to me. How can you explain how a person will act when under drugs or alcohol? How can you explain why people fall in love with particular people? Love can be rationalized. People turn to drugs or alcohol abuse just like any other form of dysfunctional behavior. Each person's behavior can be analyzed and explained, given time, effort, and logic as the highest tool. You can't fall in love with someone genuinely if they do not somehow attract you and thereby correspond with what you think and believe in. That isn't love. I actually wrote a very succinct essay on a rational analysis of love (about 9 pages) a while back, for what it's worth. I probably need to extend it though. Of course, you can't fall in love with someone who doesn't attract you. It's the attraction part that is not based on logic. A rationnal analysis of someone is just meant to fail in my opinion. I like to do it myself. I'm good at it. I like to try and predict what some people will do. Every once in a while, though, people do unpredictable things. Human mind changes every day (hell! every second). I'm not half the guy I used to be 6 months ago. To me, explaining such things is all random bullsh*t. Honestly. How? I could think of a well thought response but it would be as useless as trying to analyze humanity. No offense to your opinion though.

He sure as hell will.

Leningrad wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: He sure as hell will. What makes you so sure?

Because I sez so.

Bern wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: It doesn't makes us irrationnal. It makes us what we are. Complex and hard to understand indeed. Not easier to fully rationalize at all though. You can explain an animal's behaviour. You can even predict what he'll do if you do something. However, human mind isn't like that. I only think people who try to rationalize it are just wasting their time personnally. Even if they manage to get to something which is a pretty good explanation of how human is : 1- What will it be for? 2- Will it work for every single person in the world? I really don't think so. 1. I don't quite understand your point here or what you mean.     The point here is simply that I can't understand how someone would want that. I can't understand the opposite. 2. I never said it would work for every single person. Each person is an individual and should be analyzed as such, in fact. Trying to generalize results in logical fallacy.     My point was that, maybe you can analyze a couple of simple individuals, but not all of 'em anyways. Well, of course, I don't know every single person on the entire Earth individually to analyze them, and that's irrelevant. I live my life for myself; why would I want to analyze people who are irrelevant to my life? A game of "rock, paper, scissors" just might be a really good example of how human mind is unpredictable. Think about what goes on in your mind when you play. Is there really a logical way out? Sure. A person chooses one of the three based on his/her evaluation of which would be strategically most effective or completely by chance. Nonetheless, the person chooses based on a certain reason and it can still be explained, despite being a very quick and simplified action. How is a lucky guess based on logic? And if you decide to logically evaluate a strategy, it's logic based on nothing since the other guy does the same thing. Basing your logic on pure luck is not rationnal to me. It's not luck; it's chance. There is a chance that the opponent will choose one of the three options and you try to do your best to somehow win it. Of course you can't always predict what the other person will pick. How can you explain how a person will act when under drugs or alcohol? How can you explain why people fall in love with particular people? Love can be rationalized. People turn to drugs or alcohol abuse just like any other form of dysfunctional behavior. Each person's behavior can be analyzed and explained, given time, effort, and logic as the highest tool. You can't fall in love with someone genuinely if they do not somehow attract you and thereby correspond with what you think and believe in. That isn't love. I actually wrote a very succinct essay on a rational analysis of love (about 9 pages) a while back, for what it's worth. I probably need to extend it though. Of course, you can't fall in love with someone who doesn't attract you. It's the attraction part that is not based on logic. A rationnal analysis of someone is just meant to fail in my opinion. I like to do it myself. I'm good at it. I like to try and predict what some people will do. Every once in a while, though, people do unpredictable things. Human mind changes every day (hell! every second). I'm not half the guy I used to be 6 months ago. Maybe I'm naive here for thinking that something that applies to myself has the potential to apply to everyone else. To me, anyway, love corresponds with responses and can be explained, though in an extremely complex manner and one depending on the individual. To me, explaining such things is all random bullsh*t. Honestly. How? I could think of a well thought response but it would be as useless as trying to analyze humanity. No offense to your opinion though.

Meh. Doesn't look like we're going to convince each other of anything. I've had my run. I don't know if you fully understand what I'm saying either.

Bern wrote: Alright, enough with the colored debates. We both are right. Cause we share 2 completely different points of view and the only one that affects me in some way is mine. Same for you. There you go.

I'm willing to take that.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Meh. Doesn't look like we're going to convince each other of anything. I've had my run. I don't know if you fully understand what I'm saying either.

I'm pretty sure I do understand. However, I was getting tired of that.

Anyways, with a bit of effort, you can turn every sentence someone says into something logical or illogical. That alone makes debates like this useless. This could have went on for hours.

Just how chaotic our minds are.

HughesJB4 wrote: Leningrad wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: He sure as hell will. What makes you so sure? Kill facscists.

Edited by Leningrad - November 23 2008 at 22:33

Bern wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Meh. Doesn't look like we're going to convince each other of anything. I've had my run. I don't know if you fully understand what I'm saying either. I'm pretty sure I do understand. However, I was getting tired of that. Anyways, with a bit of effort, you can turn every sentence someone says into something logical or illogical. That alone makes debates like this useless. This could have went on for hours. Just how chaotic our minds are.

That is true.

Henry Plainview wrote: e

[/QUOTE]