The Dink Network

That's the same process starting again for a new person, hence a new case. I meant for incidual cases/people.

Then tell what you mean. As you said it, it means that it didn't have any point in philosophy at all. It is true that for one specific person, it will become useless. Not for the whole of philosophy.

No it is like saying that one thought of your is not rational, not that you as a whole are. And that comment is not derogative or like saying that your brain is going wrong, since even people like myself that value rational thinking so highly sometimes stuff things up and think irrationally. No one can think rationally all of the time. Also rational thinking is a choice thing that is not effected by brain ability, except in the worst cases of brain damage. It is a Mind thing. Note the distinction of the capital 'M', which even scientists use sometimes. By "choice thing" I mean that we choose to either think rationally or not to, though the choice may not be so blatant and may in fact be quite subtle.

If I specifically say that specifically my brain is going wrong when I don't think rational, then it is still true in specifically my case. Of course, I could have said that while my brain was going wrong, which is probably the case. Thinking of the recursion that would give just makes my head explode.

Based on what I am taught? No. I never take someone else's opinions or statements on face value. I analyse them using reason and decide for myself if they have merit. So in other words, I form my own opinion.

Then it's still based on what you're taught. Even your own opinion is basen on what you're taught, as it uses it as input for a complex (har har, pun, in this context) evaluation process. Based on if the input makes sense or not (to you), you form your opinion.

First I need evidence. I will not believe anything without evidence of some kind, be it the evidence that it stands up to rational thinking or the more typical sort of evidence.

Evidence that it can be logical in another system is the "a+bi" -> (a,b) example I gave a few posts above. In short, you can use complex numbers to describe a place in a 2D plane. In that case "a+bi" just means something like "go a steps to the east, then b steps to the north". You don't even have to use i*i = -1, but if you do, you can use it for coördinate systems transformation. For example, instead of "go 2 steps to the east, then 2 steps to the north", you might say "when facing east, turn 45 degrees counter-clockwise, then go sqrt(8) steps forward".
I'm willing to teach you more about this particular use of complex numbers, as long as you know the concept of polar coördinates (when facing east, turn 'theta' degreas counter-clockwise, then go 'r' steps forward). And even when you don't know that, I think I've made the whole point about those clear with the thing between parentheses.

Oh, I am a maths person. I'm just not a advanced maths person. I strugled alot with calculus and triginometry in high school. However, I excelled at algrebra and numbers (well normal ones anyway) and arithmetic.

Nice. Interesting how your use of "normal" depends on "just not a advanced maths person". Being an advanced math person, more, for you "not normal", stuff, suddenly becomes normal. I guess we're agreeing that it sort of depends on how "normal" you find stuff, and for what systems you have use.

Also interesting is how my use of "non-math" depends on how an advanced math person I am.

Interesting, but trivial to the discussion, as we both agree, but we just post our things from a different point of view (pov, an "advanced math person" against a "not so advanced math person"), thus using the same words with different meanings, dependent on the pov, which causes confusion. I hope I've cleared things up

Oh, I see that there is some real life use for them. it's just that the vast majority of people don't need them.

In that we agree, though we use slightly different words At least, I know that what I mean is just what I think you mean by what you just posted. It might be that it has gone wrong with my interpretation of your post.

Last but not least, a round of nitpicking! Oh, the joy. Ignore me if you wish, as the sole purpose of what now follows is making a point (in the sense that it matters) of things that do not really matter in the discussion.

<nitpick>
Oh, I see that there is some real life use for them.

I believe "them" references to my "freaky mathematical concept" ('my' meant as in my quote, not as in 'my concept', as I have more), with which I (amongst other things) meant complex numbers. This contradicts "First I need evidence".

At least, if with that you meant you need evidence of the fact that "complex numbers can be logical in a logical system".

Since you see that there is some real life use for them, use that real life use you see as evidence.

You posted "Also I'm curious to see if you can come up with any examples at all let alone realistic ones.", with which you meant examples of complex numbers (do a search in this thread).

Same here, use that real life use you see as example.

Either you're not entirely consistent, or not completely saying what you really mean, assuming that I should be able to get it from context (in which case I have obviously failed), or you just use entirely different words, in ways that are totally unknown to me, or you're doing some more evil practice: Saying things first, then later sneaking out of it by saying "that's not what I meant". Truely evil, that one, as it renders a good discussion pointless.

I believe you are (generally, at least) a good person, so I'll just scratch the last possibility. The fact that I think of such things probably says more of me, than anything else

</nitpick>

You can safely stop ignoring here, as I'll try to make sense from now on.