Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 12:15 PMNot at all.
Feeling good is a quick calculation on a number of different systems on different levels. Emotionally, physically, across the body, and potentially even including the environment.
Love is a complex emotional response based on a number of feedback points.
These things themselves are very rapid and complex processing... not simply a state of being.
To call them operands seems to identify a fundamental misunderstanding of emotional processing, and taking it for granted. Probably because it is so quick, and native... whereas logic is often learned, often learned wrong, and often corrected in a continuous cycle. You went to school for 16+ years, yes? Almost all of that follows logical instruction, breaking and relearning what you already know.
How much time have you spent learning how to love? For most... they simply find themselves there.
That, like a great deal of logic, assumes a lot...
One of the beauties of being a programmer... I have vb6 studio on my machine. For those who don't know, people haven't written in vb6 in close to 15 years. I have it there to maintain old code. The advantage of that... is that while I get to play in an almost purely logical environment, I get to relive myself and others from over a decade ago. It's amazing to look back and see the coding from a decade ago, and the assumptions I made.
Logic makes a lot of assumptions, and is based off of learning. It's also often wrong, or incomplete. "Common sense" is logical.All of which was once believed - based on logic and current understanding.
We make assumptions based on learning and build on them. If I have two apples, and I get two more, then I have 4 apples. But math can say that 2 + 2 = (3/4/5).
Religion and religious belief is logical. As is the scientific method. Both are valid within their own scope, though they may conflict on a larger scale.
Learn or perceive something false... and the logic built on it may work, and still be completely false.
The beauty of emotion... it is raw, extremely quick, and primal... but also very accurate and simple to understand. We instantly know what we are draw to, or away from. We know to be cautious or afraid, we know to be curious. They are the things that literally keep us alive and functioning. They might be wrong, but they generally aren't about the greater world... but how we perceive it and what parts of it we perceive.
Meanwhile... we have spent human history making regular errors in logic even more than correcting them. To say religion is wrong, because everyone else believes it wrong... That's just more logic
One person's logic to say another's logic is wrong. It's "irrational" to then jump on that same self-negating mechanism and hold it up as right.
So yes, I have to disagree. Logic says your logic is flawed, and thus I accept logic as useful but not always best or correct.
Hmm, Bob, I'm beginning to doubt your logical abilities.
The logic makes no assumptions whatsoever. In fact, it cares nothing for semantics at all.
I can make a simple logical argument:
If A and B, then C.
If you know logic at all, then you read this if both A and B are true, then C is true. In that argument 'A' and 'B' are operands, 'and' is the operator and 'C' is the result your testing, or aiming for. There are no assumptions in the logic, and the logic doesn't give a rat's p'tute what A, B or C are. Like I said before, the tough devil is in how you determine the value of your operands.
We could set:
A = the cat is hungry
B = there is food available
C = I will feed the cat
We could set:
A = it's a beautiful day
B = it's okay with work
C = I'll take the day off and go swimming in a river with my family.
Now, the same logical argument works for both those very different cases. This is admittedly a very simple logical argument, and the value of the the operands are easily determined by a simple true/false test, but it is not different in practice to a very complex situation. All you have to do is break it down to smaller problems.
BTW, have you ever done machine language programming? You'd get a much better lesson in logic by using ML than you will by using F# or VB6 any day, and write more efficient code to boot.
I keep and Apple II around and write programs in Applesoft Basic for fun 'n' games. One of may last projects was to simulate recursion in Applesoft. Another was to write an extensible RPN calculator. I actually use that one. I also did a multi-body celestial mechanics simulation using step-wise numerical methods to solve the calculus. That one's a bit sllllooow, but it works.
In any case, you'll get real good at breaking logic problems down to manageable units writing ML code. Try it.
