i refer to the psychElogical device you describe as a NEURON TORPEDO.
if people realize that Nobel Prize winning economists can’t do grammar school algebra, what will happen?
Dal Timgar
Justhink, your premise seems similar to that of a 1978 short story by Christopher Cherniak, “The Riddle of the Universe and its Solution.” I read this story in The Mind’s I, a collection of essays and short stories about the nature of consciousness edited by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett.
I can’t locate my copy of the book, and the text of the story doesn’t seem to be available online, but from what I recall, the idea is that a philosopher investigating some obscure area is found lying in his office in a mysterious coma. Someone sent in later to sort his notes also falls into a coma. It turns out that the philosopher has discovered a “riddle” so profound that the human mind collapses upon contemplating it. The story explores the consequences when society learns of this riddle’s existence.
It’s a very intriguing story, and I heartily recommend it, as well as the collection.
Jason,
I did a double-take on the book title, and totally forgot about that thing! I remember picking it up and looking at the price on the back (never forget that silver cover with a neon orange eye), it was expensive (hardback … seems like a few years ago at least), and I set it back down. What’s synchronistic about it (welcome to my daily routine of synchronicity grumble), is that the cover stuck with me, and I’d spend time pondering the possible contents of the mysterious book with the neon orange eye over a silver cover. Those names seem like they come up a bit too… hmm… I can’t help but have the feeling that I have some sort of holographic osmosis for philosophy and thought forms in general; but I tend to attribute it to my sensitivity towards: decrypting philosophy from veiwing works of art and technology, instead of something mystical. I swear up and down that just using this computer forces me to know the ideas that went into it; in such means and efficiencies that were not nearly available to our descendants of lore.
A riddle is an interesting way of framing it, I suppose; though, I don’t see how that would be practically applied to the idea of catatonia in general.
As a curiousity (and maybe matter of erm… cough debate?), do you have a recommendation as to how you would handle these questions if they were plopped on your lap, right now, in a rather serious manner? Still haven’t had any help there…
-Justhink
Take off and nuke the site from orbit. only way to be sure. 
The premise is not tenable. It assumes people are compelled by rationality and this is demonstrably not the case. Almost all people are naturally immune to this sort of thing already by instinct. They don’t have to choose because they ‘are’ the choice. The only way to ‘destroy’ them is physically.
I think it’s called waking from the dream, or Nirvana, or something like that. It’s all an illusion.
Please demonstrate to me that man is not compelled by rationality. Of course, if such a demonstration’s conclusion follows rationally from the premise and the evidence I could never understand it, being non-rational.
It took over one thousand years for someone to solve Zeno’s paradox of motion in a formal way (with the differential calculus). The threat of a deadly logic seems inconceivable to me. If it were to come about, I would think it was almost unstoppable.
Logicians and philosophers and mathematicians would become intellectual lepers in whatever society would survive. Of course, many would survive as not everyone could grasp the meaning of the symbols used.
Man’s irrationality is, as you say not demonstrable, it is apparent, like perception.
It is not rational to want to go on living, to breath, eat or reproduce. We do these things without a rationally demonstrable premise.
If you say so. I am not sure if you mean that it is impossible to create a symbolic logic capable of demonstrating a necessity to exist or if you mean that we simply do not go by one, even if there could be.
I don’t find it unreasonable to live. As you cannot demonstrate that, either (I would imagine), then I suppose “living, rationale for” should not be thrown together with “predicate logic, conclusions from”. 
But, even for that, I think man is a rational animal. You are welcome to conclude otherwise, though I offered my statement as a hint at a contradiction, not as an agreement. You cannot demonstrate that man is irrational rationally, not because man is irrational, but because I am a man and if I were to follow the proof then the proof would be incorrect. See the paradox there?
Of course, if I didn’t comment on it, it’s because I see so many paradoxes all the time I consider them normal.
Think about that.
This type of a system collapses paradox by necessity. What I will comment about it, is that the capture is begun at the concept of difference; the ‘algorythm’ is derived from any axiom that negates logic and action as being existentially positive.
I have eluded before to the conception:
Someone mentions that they don’t believe in anything, then they proceed to dip a potato wedge in ranch sauce and savor the flavor. We know axiomically that lack of belief in all things, makes this next act impossible. It is considered the resonance of all things, demonstrably proven with ease; that one must universally admit perception of difference, or else they are lying or not understanding the translation. A simple means to expose their defiance (maybe they’re holding out for attentions sake); is to place them into a cage and taunt them with the food they desire… “Ahh… but how can you tell between yourself and the food, for it is you who said there is no such thing as difference?”
I think, of interest to the lines of reasoning that we’ve been following in private phenomenon, a priori and the like, is that a moral code can be discerned as fact rather than opinion. We haven’t had a mechanism to authorize such a code (or it hasn’t been printed as of yet). Rationality can be defined. Morality can be defined as that which is rational. Such a moral code would be akin to Law, with a capitol “L”. One of these behavioral laws would be:
It is unlawful to speak of disbelief in everything as your absolute held opinion of existence.
Sentence for violating this law: Solitary confinement until such time as death sets in from malnutrition and/or dehydration.
What occurs is that law takes on a logically consistant representation of the moral and existential damage that the act incurs upon society at large. These axiomic derivations carved from absolute hypocrisy, are nothing short of the social contract.
If you do not act a certain way, or speak a certain way; you are violating the social contract.
The sentence is always: Solitary confinement until death sets in from malnitrition/dehydration.
The type of law that is being spoken of, is built algorhythmically; such that no single brick can be removed, without removing the very first brick. It’s really quite holographic in that sense. Which may also give you an idea of how such a logical virus might be constructed; as mentioned in this thread.
Hmm… you may want to tweak with the ‘difference’ capture to really get a sense of how superior such a constitution would be, to any currently existent.
I would not under-estimate the sway of influence that logic holds over a people of language. You could probably affect a larger percentage with a very crude existential bomb; but with effects akin to the prolonged deterioration of cancers; rather than the optimal catatonia; which is by all accounts inducable IMO.
-Justhink
One curiosity of mine is whether people want a constitution that renders opinion obsolete. If, in that same stroke; they’d want goal to be obsolete - a wash, over counter-intelligent structure?
I’ll be very blunt in asserting that many resources must by necessity be collapsed in the process; invention invention itself, as I’ve eluded to from time to time. Derivations for omni-scient AI, and all that ‘fun’ stuff…
How far do people want to take it, must they take it, in order that rationality rule? So many complain about ideas considered socialistic; yet they are not taking the responsibility of offering cash to those, who by necessity of species sustaining work, are lacking perpective; the most valuable commodity we have. There is a socialistic contract woven into the very fabric of logic itself; underlying even our own abstraction of it. The promise of reparation and reconciliation. People do not work to create more work; they work to create more cognitive space in the species as a whole. Those who work are placing trust in those who have the cognitive space to propell the species. This trust is continuously violated in means not logically consistant with ones sense of life validation. I am suggesting that there is a very lethal socialistic virus; ingrained into the fabric of nature - and that stubborness only seeks to incite it. The effects of a constitution derived from the primary indentured system; rather than counter-intelligently hooking it, will, by necessity slaughter counter-intelligently simulated indentured systems. This should be of great concern to a lot of people.
-Justhink
This, my boy, is your problem in a nutshell. Or, to phrase as you would:
“This categorically exemplifies the Pavlovian singularity of discord.”
You use words you don’t quite understand in nearly random juxtaposition. You are either an idiot or a random word generator. Perhaps both.
Yes, and one must also admit the difference of perception, or else they are crippling their own understanding. With such crippled understanding might come the idea that a “logic” exists that could destroy the human mind. It does not take into account the variety of the human mind and perceptive differences between individuals.
To Wit: Not everyone would have died from Monty Python’s Killing Joke. Some people would not have laughed.
The existance of a “killing logic” which works on humans actually assumes two things, not just one as Uncle Toby posited, or else this “logic” would not live up to it’s name. It assumes humans are rational, logical beings(an arguable assertion, unprovable in either direction); AND it assumes all humans share a common base of premises to draw our conclusions from. The second is clearly false. Just as the British soldiers were not harmed by reciting the joke in German, there will be large subsets of the population who do not posess the premises this “killing logic” is predicated upon, or who don’t give these premises enough weight to have the requisite terminal effect. They may have the premises, they may understand the logic, but the final result shows the premises to be false. You would have to demonstrate the premises are of such a nature that no human could look at the premises and say “Ok, so they’re false.” and toss them out without going into a lethal state of shock at having the premises invalidated. It might have worked on the Borg(Star Trek reference), but it won’t work on humans.
Enjoy,
Steven
There already is a logic that is slowly destroying everyone. Slow enough such that people can breed like rabbits before they understand. Read Mark Twain’s “Letters from the Earth” on the chapter entitled “The Lowest Animal”. Pay particular attention to the logic around the notion of “Moral Sense”. I will not attempt to quote or paraphrase his logic here as I cannot do it the justice it deserves. It is better to read it for yourself. Once you get it your brain will explode. I hope you already have kids to carry on your legacy.
Please don’t try to guess at the logic behind “Moral Sense” before reading the chapter. Mr. Clemens had it all worked out for us.
For me the clock is ticking…