Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

[Pattern-chaser]

Consider the dictionary definition you quoted. The first offers "the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing", but doesn't mention the target(s). It seems to imply, without actually saying so, that these words are intended to apply to human beings, without regard for anything else in the universe, living or not. The other two sub-definitions offer the same problem.

The consequences of this are obvious: surely what is evil for humans can often be 'good' for other things or creatures? And if so, what does this say about the concept of 'evil'? It says that 'evil' is just humans bleating and whining because some aspect of the Universe has not been optimised for humans! The arrogance and conceit contained in this sentiment is astonishing and (IMO) childish in the extreme.

I have a great deal of sympathy with what you say there. The (human) concept of "evil" certainly is strongly human-centered. I don't personally consider natural events, even those destructive of humans and their property, to be "evils," in any morally relevant sense, but they can be "evil" in the morally-neutral sense of destructive or injurious to people or to the things they care about.

OK ... but I don't see that "evil" can be interpreted to mean anything in a "morally-neutral" way. Evil is, er, evil, after all.

But you need to keep in mind that the God of the Western monotheisms is itself human-centered; we are allegedly created "in His image," and are his crowning achievement, the final work of the six days of creation. Our well-being is His central concern. He dispatched his son to "save" us. So while the problem of evil may not be a problem for you or I, it is a problem for traditional Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

I think the arguments I offered may still apply. I am unaware of any undertaking made by God — Christian or otherwise — that She would make and maintain the universe to keep it comfortable/wonderful/perfect for humans, without regard for, or even at the expense of, any/all of Her other creations.

Then there's the 'evil' person and their 'evil' acts. No court ever tried anyone for being 'evil'. The charges are always much more specific, and more directly connected to RL. The description of such a person as "evil" says nothing except that the person saying it disapproves of the person accused, or of their actions (or both).

Oh, it says more than that --- it says that the act in question was injurious or destructive (per the dictionary).

If it says so, it does so superfluously. We already knew, from context, that the accused stands accused of actions that were "injurious or destructive". To brand them "evil" is to attempt to gain for them a more severe punishment for their alleged crimes. It is bloodthirsty, nothing more. As such, I deem it unworthy of further consideration. Justice and fairness — to/for all — are not bloodthirsty.

BTW, what is "RL" there?

Real Life.

[GE Morton]

Yes, examples include the aforementioned ontological and cosmological arguments that we've been discussing.

Are you suggesting those arguments are demonstrations of the "a priori logic" you keep mentioning? I've always considered those to be examples of logically unsound arguments.

Logical systems begin from some set of axioms which are taken to be true a priori. What are the axioms of this a priori logic you have in mind? Does it have anything at all to do with the logic of Aristotle, et al?

Yes, it's illogical, as we've discussed (driving while daydreaming, Will v. intellect, Time, and other phenomena) because it transcends logical thinking or thought processes relative to either/or, LEM, Bivalence, a priori logic and so forth.

None of those are "illogical," per any well-documented logic, nor do they "transcend logical thinking." While there may be unresolved philosophical or scientific questions about some of them there is nothing "iilogical" about any of them --- at least, per the "standard" logics. And I have no idea why you remain so mystified by that "driving while daydreaming" business, and persist in seeing some "logical impossibility" in it. Driving an automobile and thinking about driving an automobile are two different things. They don't conflict, and there is nothing "logically impossible" about both being true at once.

That might be a better approach since you seem to be struggling with the a priori v. a posteriori kinds of thinking/thought processes. Try it, you might like it! (I'll be happy to participate.)

Well, you can set forth the axioms of your "a priori logic" right here. Keep in mind that the axioms of any theory must be self-evident.

PS: Please construct specific responses to the specific claims made above.

[3017Metaphysician]

Yes, examples include the aforementioned ontological and cosmological arguments that we've been discussing.

Are you suggesting those arguments are demonstrations of the "a priori logic" you keep mentioning? I've always considered those to be examples of logically unsound arguments.

Logical systems begin from some set of axioms which are taken to be true a priori. What are the axioms of this a priori logic you have in mind? Does it have anything at all to do with the logic of Aristotle, et al?

Ontological and cosmological arguments, as discussed, are true based upon definition only (a priori) hence are logically necessary truth's (see the quick 3 min. video I posted yesterday to help you understand).

Yes, it's illogical, as we've discussed (driving while daydreaming, Will v. intellect, Time, and other phenomena) because it transcends logical thinking or thought processes relative to either/or, LEM, Bivalence, a priori logic and so forth.

None of those are "illogical," per any well-documented logic, nor do they "transcend logical thinking." While there may be unresolved philosophical or scientific questions about some of them there is nothing "iilogical" about any of them --- at least, per the "standard" logics. And I have no idea why you remain so mystified by that "driving while daydreaming" business, and persist in seeing some "logical impossibility" in it. Driving an automobile and thinking about driving an automobile are two different things. They don't conflict, and there is nothing "logically impossible" about both being true at once.

Yes they are, hence the proposition that describes that phenomenal experience : I was driving and not driving.

That might be a better approach since you seem to be struggling with the a priori v. a posteriori kinds of thinking/thought processes. Try it, you might like it! (I'll be happy to participate.)

Well, you can set forth the axioms of your "a priori logic" right here. Keep in mind that the axioms of any theory must be self-evident.

PS: Please construct specific responses to the specific claims made above.

Again, I think the video is the best approach (I purposely picked a video that was easy and short), or go back to review some examples of cognitive phenomena that violates, transcends or otherwise goes beyond the axioms of LEM/Bivalence and either/or thinking v. both/and thinking. In the meantime, below is yet another example to monder:

Vagueness
Such puzzles as the Sorites paradox and the related continuum fallacy have raised doubt as to the applicability of classical logic and the principle of bivalence to concepts that may be vague in their application. Fuzzy logic and some other multi-valued logics have been proposed as alternatives that handle vague concepts better. Truth (and falsity) in fuzzy logic, for example, comes in varying degrees. Consider the following statement in the circumstance of sorting apples on a moving belt:

This apple is red.[10]
Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is mottled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. Now consider:

This apple is red and it is not-red.
In other words, P and not-P. This violates the law of noncontradiction and, by extension, bivalence.

[GE Morton]

OK ... but I don't see that "evil" can be interpreted to mean anything in a "morally-neutral" way. Evil is, er, evil, after all.

Sure it can. Per the dictionary it just means injurious or destructive. That is a strictly empirical claim. Nor is it per se confined to injuries to humans. Toxic waste discharge into a river would be an evil for fishes. "Evil" only takes on moral significance when committed by a moral agent (morality being exclusively applicable to the actions of moral agents).

I think the arguments I offered may still apply. I am unaware of any undertaking made by God — Christian or otherwise — that She would make and maintain the universe to keep it comfortable/wonderful/perfect for humans, without regard for, or even at the expense of, any/all of Her other creations.

Well, Ch. 1 of the Bible's Book of Genesis suggests otherwise:

"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

"27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

"28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

For traditional Christians the Earth is Man's property, to do with as he pleases.

If it says so, it does so superfluously. We already knew, from context, that the accused stands accused of actions that were "injurious or destructive". To brand them "evil" is to attempt to gain for them a more severe punishment for their alleged crimes.

Well, now you're gratuitously reading ulterior motives into (say) a prosecutor's use of the term "evil." Could he not just be asking that the punishment be as severe as the injuries the defendant inflicted?

[GE Morton]

Ontological and cosmological arguments, as discussed, are true based upon definition only (a priori) hence are logically necessary truth's (see the quick 3 min. video I posted yesterday to help you understand).

Your video only discusses the difference between necessary and contingent truths, which is common knowledge among philosophers and which I have no problem understanding. It has nothing to say about the validity of the ontological or cosmological arguments. Again, please set forth the self-evident axioms of this "a priori logic" upon which you rely for your claims.

None of those are "illogical," per any well-documented logic, nor do they "transcend logical thinking." While there may be unresolved philosophical or scientific questions about some of them there is nothing "iilogical" about any of them --- at least, per the "standard" logics. And I have no idea why you remain so mystified by that "driving while daydreaming" business, and persist in seeing some "logical impossibility" in it. Driving an automobile and thinking about driving an automobile are two different things. They don't conflict, and there is nothing "logically impossible" about both being true at once.

Yes they are, hence the proposition that describes that phenomenal experience : I was driving and not driving.

Er, no. You were NOT driving and not driving. "Driving" denotes physically operating an automobile. You either were or were not. What you were thinking about at the time has no bearing on what you were physically doing.

Again, I think the video is the best approach (I purposely picked a video that was easy and short) . . .

That video provides no support whatsoever for any of your claims, such as,

. . .or go back to review some examples of cognitive phenomena that violates, transcends or otherwise goes beyond the axioms of LEM/Bivalence and either/or thinking v. both/and thinking.

The video has nothing to say about any such things. And, again, cognitive phenomena do not "transcend, go beyond, etc." logic, because logic has nothing to do with cognitive phenomena. Logic has to do with WHAT WE SAY about cognitive, or any other, phenomena. Describing the universe, or anything in it, except propositions, as "logical" or "illogical" is a misuse of those terms and reveals a misunderstanding of what logic is.

In the meantime, below is yet another example to monder:
[/b]
Vagueness
Such puzzles as the Sorites paradox and the related continuum fallacy have raised doubt as to the applicability of classical logic and the principle of bivalence to concepts that may be vague in their application. Fuzzy logic and some other multi-valued logics have been proposed as alternatives that handle vague concepts better. Truth (and falsity) in fuzzy logic, for example, comes in varying degrees. Consider the following statement in the circumstance of sorting apples on a moving belt:

This apple is red.[10]
Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is mottled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. Now consider:

This apple is red and it is not-red.
In other words, P and not-P. This violates the law of noncontradiction and, by extension, bivalence.

Oh, that is all quite true, but not at all problematic. The problem occurs because "red" is not well-defined. The solution is to give that term a precise definition (which would be done as a matter of course if a computer-controlled machine were sorting the apples by color). You can generate all sorts of logical pseudo-problems if your terms are sloppily defined.

[3017Metaphysician]

Ontological and cosmological arguments, as discussed, are true based upon definition only (a priori) hence are logically necessary truth's (see the quick 3 min. video I posted yesterday to help you understand).

Your video only discusses the difference between necessary and contingent truths, which is common knowledge among philosophers and which I have no problem understanding. It has nothing to say about the validity of the ontological or cosmological arguments. Again, please set forth the self-evident axioms of this "a priori logic" upon which you rely for your claims.

Of course. Would you like me to re-post both the cosmological and ontological arguments?

None of those are "illogical," per any well-documented logic, nor do they "transcend logical thinking." While there may be unresolved philosophical or scientific questions about some of them there is nothing "iilogical" about any of them --- at least, per the "standard" logics. And I have no idea why you remain so mystified by that "driving while daydreaming" business, and persist in seeing some "logical impossibility" in it. Driving an automobile and thinking about driving an automobile are two different things. They don't conflict, and there is nothing "logically impossible" about both being true at once.

Yes they are, hence the proposition that describes that phenomenal experience : I was driving and not driving.

Er, no. You were NOT driving and not driving. "Driving" denotes physically operating an automobile. You either were or were not. What you were thinking about at the time has no bearing on what you were physically doing.

Well, yes, I was. I was driving, yet on the beach. That's why I ran the red light and crashed. My conscious thoughts were clearly of me sitting in the sun getting a nice tan with a cute babe. And so by physical observation, I was in the car driving, but I thought I was on the beach hence, me crashing my car. One might-could even argue that by physical observation I was driving; by metaphysical observation I was on the beach. But having to use the strict rules of logic, I was driving and not driving. Or, I was sort-of driving. Something to that effect... .

Again, I think the video is the best approach (I purposely picked a video that was easy and short) . . .

That video provides no support whatsoever for any of your claims, such as,

. . .or go back to review some examples of cognitive phenomena that violates, transcends or otherwise goes beyond the axioms of LEM/Bivalence and either/or thinking v. both/and thinking.

The video has nothing to say about any such things. And, again, cognitive phenomena do not "transcend, go beyond, etc." logic, because logic has nothing to do with cognitive phenomena. Logic has to do with WHAT WE SAY about cognitive, or any other, phenomena. Describing the universe, or anything in it, except propositions, as "logical" or "illogical" is a misuse of those terms and reveals a misunderstanding of what logic is.

I agree to the extend that specifically when we try to explain or describe phenomenal experiences, logic has its limitations. Hence, it's beyond or transcends the usual categories of rational thought.

In the meantime, below is yet another example to monder:
[/b]
Vagueness
Such puzzles as the Sorites paradox and the related continuum fallacy have raised doubt as to the applicability of classical logic and the principle of bivalence to concepts that may be vague in their application. Fuzzy logic and some other multi-valued logics have been proposed as alternatives that handle vague concepts better. Truth (and falsity) in fuzzy logic, for example, comes in varying degrees. Consider the following statement in the circumstance of sorting apples on a moving belt:

This apple is red.[10]
Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is mottled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. Now consider:

This apple is red and it is not-red.
In other words, P and not-P. This violates the law of noncontradiction and, by extension, bivalence.

Oh, that is all quite true, but not at all problematic. The problem occurs because "red" is not well-defined. The solution is to give that term a precise definition (which would be done as a matter of course if a computer-controlled machine were sorting the apples by color). You can generate all sorts of logical pseudo-problems if your terms are sloppily defined.

Precisely. Conscious experience using your words, is "sloppily defined". So if you mean that the nature of conscious existence is some-thing that lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought, you'd probably get little argument.

"We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek such explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational explanation."

So in effect, or in broad simple terms, you yourself, are not a rational human being because not only can you behave irrationally, when you try to explain or describe the nature of your own conscious existence, you cannot. In the daydreaming-driving example (among other previous examples of reality) it's logically impossible to do so.

Epistemically, one could say that much like a proposed-theoretical mind of God, your truth is a "mottled color of red". Remember, a priori is either/or and is pretty easy to discern; living and experiencing life is both/and. Hence mottled.

As an ancillary note, perhaps you would understand this statement (from your discussion with PC); you yourself are both 'good and bad'. If correct, ethically or epistemologically, which parts are good and which parts are bad?

[Astro Cat]

Huh? My comment above related to your claim that ""The nature of realty or existence is more often than not both/and." I said that was too vague. Where does consciousness/subconsciousness enter the picture? There is nothing vague about those concepts.

Quoted just the bottom bit because it was easiest to do on my phone, but this was the best post in this thread so far.

AC!

Are you thinking that consciousness and subconscious working together transcend things like LEM too?

What's LEM again? Sorry, I'm just waking up here!

[3017Metaphysician]

Huh? My comment above related to your claim that ""The nature of realty or existence is more often than not both/and." I said that was too vague. Where does consciousness/subconsciousness enter the picture? There is nothing vague about those concepts.

Quoted just the bottom bit because it was easiest to do on my phone, but this was the best post in this thread so far.

AC!

Are you thinking that consciousness and subconscious working together transcend things like LEM too?

What's LEM again? Sorry, I'm just waking up here!

AC!

No problem, all good. Law of Excluded Middle.

Have a cup of tea on me!

[Pattern-chaser]

OK ... but I don't see that "evil" can be interpreted to mean anything in a "morally-neutral" way. Evil is, er, evil, after all.

Sure it can. Per the dictionary it just means injurious or destructive. That is a strictly empirical claim.

OK, but my view would be that this is using my own definition, that "evil" means "undesirable", especially as "it just means injurious or destructive". But we'll let this one go, I think.

I think the arguments I offered may still apply. I am unaware of any undertaking made by God — Christian or otherwise — that She would make and maintain the universe to keep it comfortable/wonderful/perfect for humans, without regard for, or even at the expense of, any/all of Her other creations.

Well, Ch. 1 of the Bible's Book of Genesis suggests otherwise:

"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Ah, I'd forgotten that one. I had thought that the accepted translation had changed from "dominion" to "stewardship", but maybe I'm imaging that. I am very far from expert on pre-Christian scriptures (Genesis pre-dates Jesus, being originally a Jewish scripture).

But if "dominion" is accurate, then I don't accept it. But I reject it on religious grounds, which you will (I imagine) find difficult to accept for your own reasons. So I guess that's the end of our little sub-thread?

[Astro Cat]

Quoted just the bottom bit because it was easiest to do on my phone, but this was the best post in this thread so far.

AC!

Are you thinking that consciousness and subconscious working together transcend things like LEM too?

What's LEM again? Sorry, I'm just waking up here!

AC!

No problem, all good. Law of Excluded Middle.

Have a cup of tea on me!

I gotcha. Hey, thanks! LOL.

I don't think that consciousness/subconsciousness violates Excluded Middle. A thought is either conscious or it is subconscious, it is not both at the same time and in the same respect. Seems to remain logical to me.

[3017Metaphysician]

AC!

Are you thinking that consciousness and subconscious working together transcend things like LEM too?

What's LEM again? Sorry, I'm just waking up here!

AC!

No problem, all good. Law of Excluded Middle.

Have a cup of tea on me!

I gotcha. Hey, thanks! LOL.

I don't think that consciousness/subconsciousness violates Excluded Middle. A thought is either conscious or it is subconscious, it is not both at the same time and in the same respect. Seems to remain logical to me.

AC!

Happy Friday! If you don't mind, go ahead and read through the thread and consider those questions (or answer them) about the conscious phenomenon itself...then respond with some counter-arguments if you are able. In short, philosophically, one can think of their own Being as 'logically impossible' in that as GE alluded (which we agreed), when one attempts to use the logic of language and pure reason (a priori) to describe or explain one's cognitive ability (phenomenology), it is logically impossible to do so particularly when formulated into a typical logico-deductive method of reasoning (a proposition). In principle, you yourself (your conscious existence) becomes 'logically impossible' yet still exists. Think of it as an existential condition of finitude if you will. But it's all good, there is hope...

Seriously, in the sprit of Bivalence, think of that grey area (pun intended) of cognition as described from the axiom of Vagueness, as your own 'mottled color of truth'. That metaphor corresponds to the limitations of a priori, either/or thinking and language itself. Remember, conscious life forms are more often than not 'both/and' kinds of thinking. Too, subjective conscious experience itself, presents its own phenomenal experiences which can't be put into words (ineffable/Qualia). To this end, I've always loved this quote from William James:

“Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation.”


As an ancillary note, you did a fantastic job on the OP I must say. As an extension of this topic, would you consider doing one on the philosophical topic of Phenomenology? I would be happy to participate. Maybe start with the intriguing notion of how synthetic a priori judgements are even possible, and how say intuition and intentionality play a role in our foregoing discussion of cognition. But, it doesn't necessarily have to be that, it could be just something relative to phenomenology that might interest you. I think that would be fun. It certainly circles back to your OP/Item 2 relative to ontology/ontological necessity.

Phenomenology (from Greek φαινόμενον, phainómenon "that which appears" and λόγος, lógos "study") is the philosophical study of the structures of experience and consciousness.

Just a thought.

[GE Morton]

I don't think that consciousness/subconsciousness violates Excluded Middle. A thought is either conscious or it is subconscious, it is not both at the same time and in the same respect. Seems to remain logical to me.

Isn't the expression "subconscious thought" oxymoronic?

[3017Metaphysician]

This might also help (I believe you are a curious philosopher). Here James' premise is that one's own perceptions are contextualized or colored by one's own memory, experience, genetics, thought patterns, childhood memories, trauma, education, and so on. Much like the Will v. intellect, logic and emotion, (sub) consciousness, left-right brain; an insoluble mix of both/and thinking. Consider that metaphorical mottled color of red (from the Bivalence/vagueness example), whereby there are two cans of paint, one black and one white, and when mixed together produce a resulting grey color. The result of grey itself is the so-called cognitive phenomenon of Being. Or in a cosmological sense, a spinning ball that appears one color, but may in fact have an infinite number of shades, of mottled coloration.

Anyway, just more food for thought:

[Pattern-chaser]

Isn't the expression "subconscious thought" oxymoronic?

Only if you believe that "thought" must take place in one's conscious mind, and only there.

[GE Morton]

Ontological and cosmological arguments, as discussed, are true based upon definition only (a priori) hence are logically necessary truth's (see the quick 3 min. video I posted yesterday to help you understand).

Your video only discusses the difference between necessary and contingent truths, which is common knowledge among philosophers and which I have no problem understanding. It has nothing to say about the validity of the ontological or cosmological arguments. Again, please set forth the self-evident axioms of this "a priori logic" upon which you rely for your claims.

Of course. Would you like me to re-post both the cosmological and ontological arguments?

No. Those arguments are not the axioms of the logic they employ, which is what I asked for.

None of those are "illogical," per any well-documented logic, nor do they "transcend logical thinking." While there may be unresolved philosophical or scientific questions about some of them there is nothing "iilogical" about any of them --- at least, per the "standard" logics. And I have no idea why you remain so mystified by that "driving while daydreaming" business, and persist in seeing some "logical impossibility" in it. Driving an automobile and thinking about driving an automobile are two different things. They don't conflict, and there is nothing "logically impossible" about both being true at once.

Yes they are, hence the proposition that describes that phenomenal experience : I was driving and not driving.

That proposition does NOT "describe the phenomenal experience." A correct description of the phenomenal experience would be something like, "I imagined I was driving," or "I was thinking about driving," or "I remember driving to . . ." The proposition, "I was driving" describes a physical act, NOT a phenomenal experience.

Er, no. You were NOT driving and not driving. "Driving" denotes physically operating an automobile. You either were or were not. What you were thinking about at the time has no bearing on what you were physically doing.

Well, yes, I was. I was driving, yet on the beach.

Unless you were physically operating an automobile your claim "I was driving" is FALSE. Imagining you were driving is not driving.

The video has nothing to say about any such things. And, again, cognitive phenomena do not "transcend, go beyond, etc." logic, because logic has nothing to do with cognitive phenomena. Logic has to do with WHAT WE SAY about cognitive, or any other, phenomena. Describing the universe, or anything in it, except propositions, as "logical" or "illogical" is a misuse of those terms and reveals a misunderstanding of what logic is.

I agree to the extend that specifically when we try to explain or describe phenomenal experiences, logic has its limitations. Hence, it's beyond or transcends the usual categories of rational thought.

The limitations, if there are any, are with language, not logic. Moreover, that something complex can be difficult to describe doesn't mean that it "transcends the usual categories of rational thought." It only means you have to work harder to describe it, in terms that actually convey information about it to whomever you're speaking. There is nothing transcendental or mystical about experiential phenomena, though there are mysteries around just how those experiences are generated by physical systems. No "transcendental realm of being" is necessary, or even helpful, in illuminating those mysteries. That is a spurious and uninformative sidetrack leading to a dead-end.

Oh, that is all quite true, but not at all problematic. The problem occurs because "red" is not well-defined. The solution is to give that term a precise definition (which would be done as a matter of course if a computer-controlled machine were sorting the apples by color). You cn generate all sorts of logical pseudo-problems if your terms are sloppily defined.

Precisely. Conscious experience using your words, is "sloppily defined". So if you mean that the nature of conscious existence is some-thing that lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought, you'd probably get little argument.

Egads. No, by "sloppily defined" I don't mean, "Outside the usual categories of rational human thought." Nor is consciousness "outside the usual categories of human thought." The thought of consciousness is itself a human thought; even the notion of things "outside of human thought" is a human thought --- one which has no referent in experienced phenomena and no explanatory utility.

So in effect, or in broad simple terms, you yourself, are not a rational human being because not only can you behave irrationally, when you try to explain or describe the nature of your own conscious existence, you cannot. In the daydreaming-driving example (among other previous examples of reality) it's logically impossible to do so.

Nothing prevents a rational human being from occasionally behaving irrationally. A "rational human being" only means, "A person who is capable of rational thought." And I certainly can describe the "nature of my own conscious existence." I do so every time I say something, e.g., when I say, "I'm tired," or "I saw a bluebird today," or "I was thinking about the problem of consciousness." And, of course, your "driving" example does not reveal any "logical impossibility;" it is just a confused and self-contradictory proposition, as explained above.

As an ancillary note, perhaps you would understand this statement (from your discussion with PC); you yourself are both 'good and bad'. If correct, ethically or epistemologically, which parts are good and which parts are bad?

"I am both good and bad" doesn't mean that the person per se is good or bad. It means that he is good at some things, bad at others, or acts properly at times and improperly at other times. The proposition presents no logical "impossibilities."