First an admission: I did not read all the comments, there are too many for me, just the top 150 or so, so someone might have mentioned this before, if so never mind. This is for Yvain , an example of the worst argument I ever faced: The logic is as follows, since the sky is blue you are stupid. That is the end of the argument, since you SEE, you are stupid thus your argument is stupid. So what can you do then, except walk out? What can you do when one side is not only unreasonable, but irrational ?

Well, for example, consider a form of insanity X that leads to paranoia but is not compatible with delusion.

Suppose ask a randomly selected group of psychologists to evaluate whether I'm paranoid and they all report that I'm not.

Now I ask myself, "am I suffering from X?"

I reason as follows: 1. Given those premises, if I am paranoid, psychologists will probably report that I'm paranoid.
2. If I'm not delusional and psychologists report I'm paranoid, I will probably experience that report.
3. I do not experience that report.
4. Therefore, if I'm not delusional, psychologists probably have not reported that I'm paranoid.
5. Therefore, if I'm not delusional, I'm probably not paranoid.
6. If I suffered from X, I would be paranoid but not delusional.
7. Therefore, I probably don't suffer from X.

Now, if you want to argue that I still can't rule out X, because that's just a probabilistic statement, well, OK. I also can't rule out that I'm actually a butterfly. In that case, I don't care whether I can rule something out or not, but I'll agree with you and tap out here.

But if we agree that probabilistic statements are good enough for our purposes, then I submit that X is a form of insanity I can rule out.

Now, I would certainly agree that for all forms of insanity Y that cause delusions of sanity, I can't rule out suffering from Y. And I also agree that for all forms of insanity Z that neither cause nor preclude such delusions, I can't rule out suffering from (Z AND Y), though I can rule out suffering from Z in isolation.

Thanks for the welcome.

I raised this pov of logic (reason or rationality when applied) because I saw a piece that correlates training reason with muscle training. If logic is categorical similar to a sense then treat it metaphorically as such, I think. Improving one's senses is a little different than training a muscle and is a more direct simile. Then there is the question of what is logic sensing? Sight perceives what we call light, so logic is perceiving 'the order' of things? The eventual line of thinking starts questioning the relationship of logic to intuition. I advocate the honing of intuition, but it is identical in process to improving one's reason. The gist being that intuition picks up on the same object that logic eventually describes, like the part of vision which detects movement in the field that is only detailed once the focal point is moved upon it.

As for vitalism, the life I speak of is to extend one's understanding of biological life - a self-directing organism - to see stars as having the same potential. The behavior of stars, and the universal structure is constrained in the imagination to be subject to the laws of physics and the metaphor for a star in this frame is a fire, which is lit and burns according to predictable rules regarding combustion. The alternative is to imagine that the stars are the dogs, upon which the earth is a flea, and we are mites upon it. Why does this matter? I suppose it is just one of those world-view things which I think dictates how people feel about their existence. "We live in a dead universe subject to laws external to our being" predicates a view which sees external authority as natural and dismisses the vitality within all points which manifest this 'life'. I think the metaphor for the universe is closely tied to the ethos of the culture, so I raised this question.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

The forms of insanity that you can't tell if you're suffering from invalidate your interpretation that there are specific kinds of insanity you can rule out, no?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by invalidating my interpretation. If you mean that, because there are forms of insanity I can't tell if I'm suffering from, there are therefore no forms of insanity that I can rule out, then no, I don't think that's true.

And, please don't feel obligated to defend assertions you don't endorse upon reflection.

Just as it's impossible to tell whether or not you're a brain in a vat, it's also impossible to tell whether or not you're insane.

Well, it's possible to tell that I'm insane in particular ways. For example, I've had the experience of reasoning my way to the conclusion that certain of my experiences were delusional. (This was after I'd suffered traumatic brain damage and was outright hallucinating some of the time.) For example, if syndrome X causes paranoia but not delusions, I can ask other people who know me whether I'm being paranoid and choose to believe them when they say "yes" (even if my strong intuition is that they're just saying that because they're part of the conspiracy, on the grounds that my suffering from syndrome X is more likely (from an outside view) than that I've discovered an otherwise perfectly concealed conspiracy.

It's also possible to tell that I'm not suffering from specific forms of insanity. E.g., if nobody tells me I'm being paranoid, and they instead tell me that my belief that I'm being persecuted is consistent with the observations I report, I can be fairly confident that I don't suffer from syndrome X.

Of course, there might be certain forms of insanity that I can't tell I'm not suffering from.

It took me a few hours to find this thread like a kid rummaging through a closet not knowing what he is looking for.

As my handle indicates, I am Lloyd. Not much I think is worth saying about myself but I would like to ask a few questions to see what interests readers here, if anyone reads this, and present a sample of where my thinking may come from.

Considering the psychological model of five senses we are taught since grade school is there a categorical difference in our ability to logically perceive that 2+2=4 vs perceiving the temperature is decreasing? The deeper question being is the realness of logic (and possibly other mental faculties not being considered here) the same as the realness of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch? There are questions which unfold from considering logic as a 'sense', but I wish to clarify this question first.

I have not found any proponent of a physical view of the universe as fundamentally alive rather than dead. Is there someone who has proposed, for example, that the stars are living and thus self-directing and the observations of galaxies may be that stars are purposefully forming these structures under their own will much like we form cities? Or maybe the idea that stars induce gravity and feed off of a source of energy from the subatomic regime? Or that different star systems may be fundamentally different on a quantum level like blood types? I mean the language is filled with terms like birth, death, and life, but it sounds like they are disconnected from their biologically meaning altogether.

Does anyone ever discuss the post-industrial society, no, not right question. Why is it that the discussion of post-industrial society is what it is? For example, in mainstream storytelling post-industrial=post-apocalyptic for much of what I have seen. There is Gene Roddenberry who cast post-industrial society as being rescued by aliens. There are Orwell and Huxley who left the world to be forever locked in an industrial nightmare. Zombies. Am I to understand that the culture's mind has settled on imaging the industrial society as its death?

That's a modest thing to say for a vain person. It even sounds a bit like Moore's paradox - I need advice, but I don't believe I do.

(Not that I'm surprised. I've met ambivalent people like that and could probably count myself among them. Being aware that you habitually make a mistake is one thing, not making it any more is another. Or, if you have the discipline and motivation, one step and the next.)

All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher.

Ambrose Bierce

Something is definitely funny with Goyle. He's able to do martial arts, is extremely good with a broomstick, and doesn't trust Draco when Draco lies to him. At first, my interpretation was just that Goyle was much more capable in this version. That's still a possibility, but I feel like if that were the case then maybe Crabbe also would have been made more capable. I feel as though Goyle will do something important soon, definitely.

I even briefly entertained the possibility that Goyle was a Mary Sue, for about ten seconds, but that idea doesn't have anything to recommend it besides the humor of it.

Erm, there are obvious ways of doing it. I tend to just drop my boyfriend into conversation as often as it is appropriate, and make sure I mention him in contexts such as "oh he's really good at such-and-such".