" One pill makes you larger,
And one pill makes you small,
And the ones that mother gives you,
Don’t do anything at all.
Go ask Alice,
When she’s ten feet tall.
And if you go chasing rabbits,
And you know you’re going to fall,
Tell’em a hookah smoking caterpillar,
Has given you the call.
Call Alice,
When she was just as small.
When the men on the chessboard,
Get up and tell you where to go,
And you’ve just had some kind of mushroom,
And your mind is moving low.
Go ask Alice,
I think she’ll know.
When logic and proportion,
Have fallen softly dead,
And the White Knight is talking backwards,
And the Red Queen’s “off with her head!”
Remember what the Dormouse said.
Feed your head, Feed your head!"
Lewis Carrol as he was called was an amazing man, A priest, a mathmetician, an artist. A story goes that Queen Victoria was so impressed with his work that she asked him for his next book which she got called "A treatise on determinants".
How true this is I doubt it but there are a significant ammount of important muses which little ALice Lidel has provided. Whether Dogdeson was paedophilic or not is a meesy issue which we would rather not discussion, because a discussion based on half truths and incomplete deductions is not worth it.
When can we make a logical conclusion: there are essentially two main methods to this
Inductive Reasoning: U use a specific event to make inferences about generalities. For eg This glass with ice is cold. .... hence all ice is cold
I am mad ... everyone in my family is mad
Deductive Reasoning : U use a generality to create logical constructs about specifics.
All great people are mad ..... hence I am mad
The logical systems disucussed above can be said to be robust inspite of mine trying to play havoc with them with a sense of twisted perversion of deconstructing something for the sake of creative destruction. We generally would feel that the systems discussd above will ahve no utility as we can't seem to match it with our rationality. This is because of the fact that the rationality we so trust is bulit on faulty presumptions.
Instead of trying to argue about systems and beliefs in an objective manner we tend to use our experiences whatever be their validity to create our credo for making decisions. This is basically aslo the problem with inductive resaoning. An inductive reason is valid only when the premise underlying the statement is true. Given it is not true , renders the system invalid and makes our conclusions wrong. Right ?
Wrong. This is the same reason that I claim our basis of judgement is wrong. If we are able to accept the fact you will land yourself in a soup. How ? Let me illustrate logically.
Your system is based on A which is Faulty
You refute a fact which is also based on A.
Outcome : Major Contradiction
ALternative b :
You accept the fact based on A.
This makes your system self-consistent but does it make it valid ? NO. From an overall view we find that it is not only important to have a self-consistent system of beliefs but also to have a syetm of beliefs which is consistent with the overall cogent processes. This can be compared very simply with pictures of a closed loop in the box of bounded rationality. An undesirable outcome of the logical process.
So where is penance ? To base our views on the strong logical premsises instead of being driven by subjective parameters. Our experience can act as a check post to reduce cognitive dissonance but not as a driver of cognition. Cognition is to be driven by systems of rationality based on arguments , objective assesment of experience hence becomes important. One needs to reaxmine experience to adjudge the validities of the generalities and specifics and then we can use them to funnel or "Big-Bang" it as we need to, thus we can reconcile our experience with the systems of logic, leading us to be
Homo Rationalus
