Defining Insanity

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Inability to understand and make judgements is due to lack of logic right? Or causes lack of logic, either way.

I don't think logic is the normal currency of our thought process except when we're deliberately trying to "figure something out".

For example, your ability to restrain yourself from killing someone who looks at you the wrong way is NOT the result of logic. You have the capacity to judge the importance / lack thereof of his look, the technical / moral / legal implications of killing him, the way such an action would greatly depart from a societal norm (and why this is relevant to a trivial gaze from someone), etc. But these judgements are simply lacking in certain people who have either psychiatric disorders or cognitive disorders (like dementia, mental retardation, etc).

What is the difference between somebody who lacks ability to have intellectual cognition and those who choose logic to have a lesser potential upon their will.

Again, I don't subscribe to the importance of will and logic to a discussion about criminal insanity and clinical mental illness. So I'd conceptualize the issue this way: some people have impaired judgement, some don't. There are some people with the capacity for normal judgement who commit crimes, who do violent or stupid or regrettable things. In most court cases people with normal judgement don't even attempt to claim that they have mental illness; but if they do they're subject to a lot of psychiatric scrutiny in which their capacity to reason, to understand consequences, etc are analyzed. Mental illnesses often fall into recognizable patterns, so it's hard to fake in front of people who are expert in making these diagnoses. Furthermore, it only takes witnesses to contradict a claim of chronic mental illness.

In other words, you don't have to be crazy to be a bad person.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Aedes

I don't think logic is the normal currency of our thought process except when we're deliberately trying to "figure something out".

Yes but in order to act or continue an action one would need to figure something out in order to determine it's intentions, and importance.

In terms of our thought process, what word would you consider it to be if not 'logic'.

[GoshisDead]

It seems to me that Holiday is mistaking "logic" proper for following or not following Cultural and Moral indoctrination. There is nothing inherently moral or ethical about logic. It is a method, a largely arbitrary one at that. Also there is nothing inherently logical about morals and ethics. Its apples and Oranges.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by GoshisDead

There is nothing inherently moral or ethical about logic.

True, but couldn't we say that we are able to act morally because we have the logical capacity, therefore making morality a sort of substituent of logic.


Also there is nothing inherently logical about morals and ethics. Its apples and Oranges.[/quote]

That would depend on whether you believed morals are universal, right? (throughout those of a consistent intellectual margin, like humanity).
You can't deny that there is something humanly universal with morality. Perhaps morality is a product of something universal of humanity, like our survival instinct. Therefore, a way of defining morality would be to look at the causal forces that govern it. Survival instinct promotes the need for virtue. As humanity learns and progresses as a society we realise that surviving individually is nonsense, that the survival instinct relates to a more coalesced view, that of virtue for the whole society, thus establishing an outcome of morality; an action that is moral is one that
perpetuates society in a positive way.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by GoshisDead

There is nothing inherently moral or ethical about logic.

True, but couldn't we say that we are able to act morally because we have the logical capacity, therefore making morality a sort of substituent of logic.

Originally Posted by GoshisDead

Also there is nothing inherently logical about morals and ethics. Its apples and Oranges.

That would depend on whether you believed morals are universal, right? (throughout those of a consistent intellectual margin, like humanity).
You can't deny that there is something humanly universal with morality. Perhaps morality is a product of something universal of humanity, like our survival instinct. Therefore, a way of defining morality would be to look at the causal forces that govern it. Survival instinct promotes the need for virtue. As humanity learns and progresses as a society we realise that surviving individually is nonsense, that the survival instinct relates to a more coalesced view, that of virtue for the whole society, thus establishing an outcome of morality; an action that is moral is one that
perpetuates society in a positive way.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Yes but in order to act or continue an action one would need to figure something out in order to determine it's intentions, and importance.

But not necessarily logically. We have intuition, experience, visceral reactions, and (see below) pattern recognition that inform our conscious decisions LONG before logic enters the picture.

Say a scrawny little girl tells you to give her your wallet. Now say a huge man with a gun tells you to give him your wallet. You are NOT going down a logical algorhithm of what is likely to happen in each scenario given your potential reactions. You know immediately that one is a mortal threat and the other may as well be a joke.

In terms of our thought process, what word would you consider it to be if not 'logic'.

The best known is pattern recognition. You recognize scenarios based on patterns of features. You extrapolate into a new scenario based on a 'best fit' pattern. It's how you can take a novel situation and assess threat, assess consequences, etc.

Logic is almost never part of it until you begin to deliberately think step-by-step.

Do you play chess? It is a great example. Masters of abstract strategy games like Chess and Go mostly do not play by logic under the same conditions that a novice will. Why? Because the experienced master will recognize situations based on patterns and know bsaed on this experience how to efficiently limit his thought process. For instance, it is a position of strength to park a knight on the 5th rank just in front of an opposing pawn. It is a position of weakness to put your pawns along a diagonal that traps your bishop behind them. These scenarios are immediately recognized. But a novice will NOT recognize the advantage and disadvantage of these scenarios, and will have to very deliberately think them through, move by move, possibility by possibility -- i.e. logically.

Why do you go to the shortest line in the supermarket? Why do you answer the door when you hear the doorbell? Why do you brush your teeth before bed? It's not simply unconscious habit -- you're living your life according to a pattern. And that pattern will translate to a new supermarket, or to the door of a hotel room, or a new toothbrush.

Same with moral decisions, which are very well established in the cognitive science literature as visceral and not logical. People will superimpose a logical rationale upon moral decisions, but that doesn't mean the moral judgements were initially made logically. Furthermore, while I find it impossible to talk about moral universals (because that's a metaphysical presumption that cannot be reconciled empirically), there is no reason to presume that common moral positions that transcend cultures must be logically-based as opposed to anything else.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Aedes

But not necessarily logically. We have intuition, experience, visceral reactions, and (see below) pattern recognition that inform our conscious decisions LONG before logic enters the picture.

Doesn't experience rely upon perception and the logical ability to make sense of it. As for intuition, I never thought of it as separate from logic, I sort of thought of it as a single instance of thought, as opposed to connecting the dots; but still in the same framework as logic. To me, intuition is like an advantage that one has with a higher level of intellect. As one gets smarter, they see patterns that they can compile into a package so as to never have to look at the substituents of the package but merely the entirety in itself as an instance, much easier to process.... But I suppose that people nowadays know the true nature of intuition so I'd better discard this trail of intuitions before I get carried away in false predicates.
Actually, (sorry for this); at the end of that blurb I thought to use the word predicate as if it were to make sense in the sentence without knowing what that word actualy meant, so I looked it up and found it quite suitable. Perhaps intuition is when neurons form a pattern like some aromatic link (but with a center); that becomes bigger as the aromatic becomes bigger due to more substituents being collected. These substituents could be pattern recognitions that can all link to a 'package'. The brain could decide to access the center of the aromatic, package, compilation of thoughts for outcome of intuition instead of accessing the substituents, actual ring of aromatic for the purpose of logic (as you define it to be)
( I will make a visual and post it some time ).

Originally Posted by Aedes

Logic is almost never part of it until you begin to deliberately think step-by-step.

But it is still the brain accessing information (and thats the importance), so should the word that I use be cognition?

Originally Posted by Aedes

Do you play chess?

Yes, but didn't like it enough to become any more than a novice.

Originally Posted by Aedes

there is no reason to presume that common moral positions that transcend cultures must be logically-based as opposed to anything else.

So really, moral positions are a result of an outcome registered by the mind. We take an action and we process it to see what results occurred, thinking about what effect it had on the self, and on everybody else that we feel has potential on the self. ( I don't see humanity really showing the tendency to think for what has no potential upon the individual, nor should it ever start doing so).

Then that action can become a pattern and can thus become a form of intuitive moral sense, opposed to having to do moral reasoning.

Thanks for reading, let me know if I'm on the right track

[GoshisDead]

If there is really such thing as a universal moral, it is likely to be coded in the DNA not a universal moral constituent of Logic. Inferencial/Experiencial logic isn't formal logic it's accessing memory and acting accordingly. Dogs do it, and dogs have a fairly universal set of "morals", or rather, behavioral tendencies. One problem here is defining morals versus behaviors. One of the few almost universal "morals" is the taboo of cannibalilsm. So if morals are universal and logical one of the only ways of being deemed insane is to eat someone? Or could it be more simple to explain the taboo as a general behavioral tendency not to eat people? A universal behavior can really only be described as a moral by labeling the already existing behavior. Whereas the tendency to steal (take what you want) is also a universal behavior, yet in most cultures and societies it is considered immoral, depending on from whom something is being stolen. A universal behavioral tendency to protect what is yours from beng stolen, on the other hand, is sometimes considered a good moral, and sometimes considered a bad moral. So a monk who has taken a vow of poverty and non-violence would be considered immoral if he were to defend his cloister from being robbed. His adopted logical framework would say that he should not defend his property, yet the general population would not likely consider him insane for protecting his cloister and its belongings, although its illogical to break a vow and risk the assumed condemnation of the Lord. In Nevada, however, it is still legal to shoot someone who is on your property, they don't even have to be posing a threat to life or property in any way. This poses another problem, confusing logic with law. In nevada I would not even be ordered to have a psych eval if this were to happen, yet in Rhode Island I might be charged with murder and forced to undergo some sort of psychological eval. In nevada it is logical by law to kill an tresspasser, whereas in Rhode Island it wouldn't be. So would I be insane in Nevada but not in Rhode Island? ... and it goes on.

[GoshisDead]

Er ..... Insane in Rhode Island but not in Nevada

[Holiday20310401]

( like 'universal' = humanity ) I did not mean like the entire universe.

If somebody is moral as opposed to immoral what outcome in the long run would that person have to society, and society's progression. That person would have more virtue and supply more virtue to society.
Not to mention if the society is placed in a system that is immoral all together there would be virtue placed in a small group of people rather than coalesced throughout the whole society, and is that really getting the society anywhere; no it would be a stagnant race.
I don't know how to word this but I see acting morally as having outcomes of universal-like constituents, thus making morals universal in respect to that society.
Lets say society's progress can be labeled as an exponential line. I believe that society corresponding to moral righteousness would steepen the equation, quickening society's perpetuation, not just morally but in general. so the sort of equation would be y= Ax3

and the society corresponding to immorality would cause the exponential line to flatten. say the equation becomes y= Ax1.1


Therefore we can label sane as intent upon right over wrong, not just the ability to 'know' right vs. wrong. Potentially, whats the difference. Sane would be more rationale to assume fundamental virtue for the society.
If somebody knows the difference between right and wrong, for the most part, their intentions are for right as opposed to wrong. If a person is strictly otherwise that labels them with a disorder ( I'm talking about somebody who seriously lacks wanting to act morally ), as if every action has amoral intentions.; therefore the will for virtue coalesced becomes indifferent just as if somebody who is logically flawed can't know the difference; like society is themselves and therefore immoral and thus insane.