Upon a unique experience, in a sauna, I noticed when the temperature is 60C and you fan yourself, the air is as hot as fire. Remembering a 1967 blizzard
-30C and the strong wind, the air is cold like a sharp knife. When sitting in my hammock on a very hot summer day say 32C, a slight breeze makes a pleasant coolness pass over my body. If you go inland where the temperature on the same day is above 37C, which is normal body temperature, at 45C its again unpleasantly warm, just moving your head from side to side.

We humans then experience cold and hot relative to less than 37C or more than 37C.

What would a lizard have to say being cold blooded?

Is there then, no logic but that which is, only relative to the experience?

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
anti_crank
Logic is a formal method for deriving consequences from premisses; it says nothing about how those premisses are to be established. Hence no paradox.
That being said, some logics attempt to deal with terms like 'hot' and 'cold' that are innately vague. Note that even different humans can argue whether they experience a temperature as hot or cold. Aside: my parents are a case in point. Such logics are termed "fuzzy" logics, and they typically ascribe fractional truth-values to their sentences, with 0 being completely false, 1 completely true, and other less determinate sentences taking truth-values between zero and one.

anti_crank said:
Logic is a formal method for deriving consequences from premisses; it says nothing about how those premisses are to be established. Hence no paradox. .
OK, but then, I take this to mean, only premisses within empirical data?

That being said, some logics attempt to deal with terms like 'hot' and 'cold' that are innately vague. Note that even different humans can argue whether they experience a temperature as hot or cold. Aside: my parents are a case in point. Such logics are termed "fuzzy" logics, and they typically ascribe fractional truth-values to their sentences, with 0 being completely false, 1 completely true, and other less determinate sentences taking truth-values between zero and one.
So then even when we are dealing with empirical data, the logic can not ever reach the value of 1?

Ludwig
We humans then experience cold and hot relative to less than 37C or more than 37C.
That is not entirely correct. Our experience of cold and hot are relative to our body's capacity of maintaining a temperature around 37C. That usually requires an external temperature around 22 degrees Celsius. But that's just a technicality...

What would a lizard have to say being cold blooded?
Some people do not have the experience of temperature. I know a man who burned his feet so bad they had to be amputated, yet he didn't feel a thing. However, since heat and cold can damage any creature's skin, I'm quite sure any animal is capable of experiencing temperature. It's a requirement for survival.

Is there then, no logic but that which is, only relative to the experience?
There is logic. The man I mentioned above experienced nothing while his feet were burning, but the physical results of the process were exactly the same. So even he could attest that his feet were exposed to high temperature, even if he could not experience it.

Another technicality:

What we call 'cold' or 'hot' doesn't have as much to do with the temperature of the object as we usually think, hence your perception that there isn't much logic to the concepts. But the real cause of thermical sensation is a flow of heat between your body and the environment. When an object makes your body lose heat, you perceive the object as 'cold'; when it makes you accumulate heat, you perceive it as 'hot'. So there's nothing paradoxical about an object being hot or cold depending on the observer.

Ludwig said:
What we call 'cold' or 'hot' doesn't have as much to do with the temperature of the object as we usually think, hence your perception that there isn't much logic to the concepts. But the real cause of thermical sensation is a flow of heat between your body and the environment. When an object makes your body lose heat, you perceive the object as 'cold'; when it makes you accumulate heat, you perceive it as 'hot'. So there's nothing paradoxical about an object being hot or cold depending on the observer.
Lets examine my lizard. When it is alive and sits on a rock to observe the suns rays, it knows its hot. When the sun goes down, it can not move and it knows its cold. How do you measure thermical sensation unless something observes it? Will the lizard, measure a thermical sensation, when its dead?
Or can all objects measure thermical sensations?

The paradox seems to be that hot is not hot or cold is not cold until something examines a thermical sensation. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true.

Transitional Logic (TL) habitually deduces:

1) 'WHAT OUGHT TO BE' from 'WHAT IS'

2) 'THE NECESSARY' from 'THE POSSIBLE'

3) 'THE BEAUTIFUL' from 'THE UGLY'

all of which are equivalent to deducing:

4) 'THE PERFECT' from 'THE IMPERFECT'

ironically many people are still trying to comprehend how TL works. If you offer to start explaining it now, the gatekeepers would turn up on your door step and start complaining that you are trying to start a theory. Who has a theory? Do you?

Last edited:
NOTE: TL writes off illusive terms or parameters from its calculus......just like bad debts! A well-known one (and the most notorious one) is time.

Philocrat said:
Transitional Logic (TL) habitually deduces:

1) 'WHAT OUGHT TO BE' from 'WHAT IS'

2) 'THE NECESSARY' from 'THE POSSIBLE'

3) 'THE BEAUTIFUL' from 'THE UGLY'

all of which are equivalent to deducing:

4) 'THE PERFECT' from 'THE IMPERFECT'

ironically many people are still trying to comprehend how TL works. If you offer to start explaining it now, the gatekeepers would turn up on your door step and start complaining that you are trying to start a theory. Who has a theory? Do you?
The theory has always been, its clarity increases with time and the evidence presented upon death.

I think the logic is not that there is relative cold and hot, but rather that we sense a rate of change of temperature.

It's not where its true that is cold or false that it's cold, but where it's true or false there is a magnitude of temperature change in either direction.

Logic has nothing to do with people pertaining to temperatures.I don't understand what this debate is about. :yuck:

Humbucker said:
Logic has nothing to do with people pertaining to temperatures.I don't understand what this debate is about. :yuck:
Maybe these questions will help, to determine the answer. If you took your hand and stuck it in a fire and had no sensory perception, could you determine if the fire was hot? Do you need an observation of a sensation, to perceive hold or cold? How could you logically determine what is hot or cold it you could not sense it?

Hi,

Experience and the patterns observed and learned from it create a super-rational state that is superior to logic.This super-rational state (sometimes called intuition) is a parallel processing state, while logic is serial,

juju