It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Logic

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by DB340
 





Therefore, it might be worthwhile never thinking in terms of logic for you are only fooling yourself.


Ever hear of this word "biological"? As in bio-logical, now what would be the difference between the bio-logical and the plain "logical"? And since we are biological creatures, what logic would we function by?

Oh yes you are all fooling yourself's if you think you are thinking logical, and even math and science are products of the biological. So who can say if math is the language of the universe, without actually seeing the whole of the universe instead this one tiny dimension, were we only see a tiny part of a whole we cant comprehend?

And science is that not also based and is a product of the biological thought-stream? In a way everything that we do and think of comes back to our "being" to what we are, and that is... that we are biological creatures. And emotions are our logical predominance, and they are there and exist for a reason. After all it is only logical to assume that everything is there for a reason.

Who can say that there logic is pure logic and did not in some form or way come from there emotions, which in the end is a product of the biological. After all everything we do it is based on something that we have a tie to or something that moves us emotionally. If it were not so we would not even think of it, or consider doing it or thinking about it.

So you can ask, why does anybody do as they do? What moves them or get's them to get moving when it comes down to it, in everything they do? Is it not there emotions. And where do emotions fit into the bigger picture?



“Thoughts are the shadows of our feelings - always darker, emptier and simpler.”....Friedrich Nietzsche


There is more computations in our emotions and feelings then in our thoughts. Or at least there is more going on beneath the surface in our emotions and feelings. And since thoughts are what logic is based on, then what does that actually say about our logic. One thing is for sure we could just be experiencing mass overload of our senses and abilities and thoughts when we feel any strong emotions.

And since we are overloaded then we have to slow the process down, to break it down, and categorize it, to pick it apart at a slower vibration, to know what and why we fell as we do, when we feel anything, or feel strongly about anything. And like science we are only just observing what we see, and only in hindsight, never knowing what actually happens when it actually happened. Were always looking and knowing everything in hindsight, not in real time.

So what can a "biological" creature know of the "logical" in its biological reality?




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by DB340
 



In the logic of Narcissus, the separative mentality, all things are seeking. But the man of understanding perceives the logic of reality and lives as it. Therefore, he is not concerned about meditation. His business is understanding, not ascent, vision, transformation, liberation, or any other goal. The way of understanding belongs to those who recognize the fruitlessness of seeking. I do not recommend that you meditate. There is only understanding. Therefore, understand. And when understanding has become observation, reflection, insight and radical cognition, then the state of consciousness itself is meditation. When understanding has become a radical process, and the avoidance of relationship has become an inclusive and sufficient recognition, when you have understood that seeking is all a function of dilemma, and when you no longer are voluntarily motivated by the physical, mental or spiritual problem, then you are already meditating. Meditation is simply understanding as a radical process in consciousness. It is what understanding is when it has become necessary and profound. There is no right motive for adopting it. There is only the discovery that you are already doing it. Thus when understanding has become founded in you by observation of your life, and you have truly realized the radical process of avoidance on every level of your being, then you have ceased to approach life without intelligence, simply reacting, becoming motivated, and seeking various ends. Instead, you have begun to approach all experience with a simplicity in consciousness, a presence you bring to all things, which is understanding. When you have begun to approach life with understanding, knowing the radical truth of understanding, then you have begun to meditate. Then understanding, the logic of reality, can be extended as itself to conscious or real meditation. Real meditation is not purposive. It has no effect that it seeks to produce. It has no dilemma to solve. It has already become understanding, and understanding is conscious knowing. Understanding is in fact the knowledge that is consciousness, non separation, reality. Therefore, it is that to understand is already to meditate, to contemplate consciousness itself. And it does this not by an act of concentration on consciousness, or any form or center of consciousness, but by understanding experience, the action of consciousness.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Apologies for only reading the OP. I find the subject to be pretty core, so my small and perhaps misguided addition will only reference the opening argument. Apologies to any readers if Im just retracing steps and not adding my own. Ill assume anyone reading this thread is generally familiar with Aristotles 3 laws of logic, which of course are the bedrock of all advancing human thought.



Is is logical to question the logic of logic?


I think it would be illogical not to apply logic to logic itself. Logic simply states that A must = A at all times, and any contradiction in this basic equation must be an indication of error. To assume logic itself is valid without first proving the validity of logic would be itself illogical...or something.

In other words, before we do calculus it would seem wise that we first prove that 2+2=4, and only then, if the equation is true, can we move to more complex equations.



Surely the mere fact of logic's own existence means that a logical ideology exists, but logic's own existence can be proven illogical, can it not?


The question isnt whether 'logical ideology' exists or not, that it does is self evident. The question I think youre asking is not if logic itself exists, (which it does not outside of our minds, in the same way there is no floating number '2' in the material world) but instead I think the question is 'is logic valid?' Or, 'is logic true?'

If logics own existence can be proven to be untrue, you, and i, and everyone, must use logic to do so. Thus the concept of 'disproving logic' is inherently self contradictory, violating the second rule of logic.

This is like saying 2+2=4 can be dis proven using mathematics.



When something is attributed the 'logical' adjective, we logically accept without question what is logical.


Steady...when you use the word 'we' you include all of us. Since logic basically is questioning, accepting any premise that is unproven as fact is indeed 'illogical'.

Accepting without question is better known as 'faith', and 'faith' is the opposite of logic.



Can we thus say that the concept of logic is a factual constant;


The 3 laws of logic were not invented by a human mind. Instead, they were discovered, in the same way that e=mc2 was. (and e=mc2 was proved via logic) Logic does not exist in the real world in the same way a tree does, but instead exists as a concept in our minds that is derived from the real world itself.

Logic, and its three rules, arise in our minds to describe the real, physical world that we use logic to describe. A=A and 2+2=4 can be said to be true because these basic equations correspond to our objective experience of the world around us, and our concepts adherence to the real, objective world is the only measure of truth that is valid.

So even though math and logic do not exist materially, as there are no calculus equations floating around in the ether somewhere, this does not make math or logic subjective, or whatever one wants them to be, in any way. That the equation 2+2=4 only exists in the mind does not make its truth value open to interpretation. 4 trees exist regardless of if we measure and conceptualize them or not, and the equation that describes that grouping is only true to the extent that it describes what exists materially.

2+2 is just a metaphor for 4.

Im sure the above didnt read well, so, to sum up, the laws of logic arise from the laws of the universe, which at the sensual level are non contradictory. Thus logic is valid independent of our acceptance of it.



that when something is logical, it is the most logically correct answer possible for a given premise?


Logic is just a methodology to separate truth from falsehood. Thus any 'falsifying' of logic must use logic itself to do so. This is a self contradictory premise and thus is disproven via logic. (and logic is valid via its adherence to universal rules.)

Trying to disprove logic through reason is a little like yelling in my ear that sound waves dont communicate english. Or mailing me a letter that states that the mail system never works.

Any attempt to disprove logic and reason must, by the very nature of proof or disproof, use logic itself as the method.

Unless you can use reason to convince me that there is a higher method than logic. (but youll have to use logic and reason to do so, so....)



Isn't it illogical to assume that the concept of logic is the most correct assertion?


Since logic only arises out of the universal rules of reality, and is only logical to the degree that it adheres to said rules...maybe you could show us a better methodology than logic to determine truth from falsehood.

Thing is, youll have to use logic to do so.




This would lead to the premise that there is always 'one' answer, the logical response, the response of most sense which follows A through B through C, ad nauseum, sometimes resulting in a non-response or resolution.


This assumes that the logical actor has complete, godlike knowledge of every variable and factor that goes into each decision.

This is impossible, If we, as beings, were omnipotent, we wouldnt need logic. The purpose of logic is to fill in the blanks left by our limited cognition and to use our limited information in understanding a slightly less limited understanding.

Logic is a blind mans walking stick. Each tap and sweep provides him with valid information about a world he can never see but must exist in, and maneuver. That we as humans can never have total knowledge and thus are blind to it, does not invalidate the mechanism by which we explore reality in our limited capacity.

We poke our way through the unknown with reason as our only light.



I conclude that it is illogical to accept the concept of logic because that logically means that there can only always be one correct, logical answer.


Im sure a thinker like yourself must have had some unease about your conclusion, and perhaps this uncertainty is what led you to start this thread. I feel youre like %50 devils advocate right now, which is a super healthy place to be, as no premise should be accepted on faith, and especially a foundational premise like true/false, which is of course the only on that really matters. (logically)

Im certainly no grand guru, but you and I both know where you went wrong in your above conclusion. The very first thing I noticed, and you might have as well, is that the second word in the above is 'concluded'. A conclusion is what follows the = in a logical equation. Thus right off the top we both know that youve used reason and logic to reach your conclusion.

If it is 'illogical to accept' something, you are indeed using the standard of logic to arrive at your conclusion. Since you didnt say to us 'i have randomly arrived at the conclusion to my query = X', but instead used the logic of reasonable persuasion, I simply have to accept that you are using the methodology of logic to disprove logic itself.

So if logic = F, your logical argument against logic must also = F, and thus the falseness of logic is proven via logic, and thus logic = T. If logic = T and you are correct, the falsehood of logic has been proven to = T via logic, which = T, and thus logic = F.

This tangled mess is solved simply by the equation A=A. (where A = the individual) and (A=objective reality)



This results in free will of thought being redundant because it would be illogical to accept any other conclusion as it would logically be false.


Is the above conclusion based on any other criteria besides reason and evidence? If youve got a better way, Id love to hear it.



Is it, thus, logical to question the logic of logic?


Always check every premise always. Use logic to separate truth from falsehood. 2+2 always = 4.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Gödel's incompleteness theorem dealt with this topic.
en.wikipedia.org...
Also, a new logic ( where A does not have to = A) was developed for quantum mechanics.
plato.stanford.edu...



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


I read your reply with much joy. I was delighted to read someone expressing thoughts parallel with my own.

Allow me to pick on some particularly adherent comments:

1. To assume logic itself is valid without first proving the validity of logic would be itself illogical...or something.

Exactly the purpose of my opening post. I do recommend you read some of the responses because they are most insightful. We spoke about emotion playing a large part in 'man-made' logic which was a new idea to me and bodes well with what I feel logic represents... a man-made desire to fit rules to what he observes without actually understanding the real truth. We also touched upon 'absolute truth' being a 'universal constant' and how yes, that most likely is the case in the universe but not for us mere mortals here on 3rd Rock.

2. Accepting without question is better known as 'faith', and 'faith' is the opposite of logic.

This was what my comments were based on in the 'Homosexuality is a Gift from God' thread a few weeks back - if you search, you will find my comments based upon 'logic'. It was actually that thread which made me consider if my own logic (what I had thought was a 'factual constant' in itself) was indeed correct or valid. I believe it was. To believe in something: A belief is not a fact otherwise the option of belief would not be possible; as Plato stated (and to which we still adhere today) "A fact is justifiably true knowledge". The mere fact of all religion being a belief inversely proves it is not a fact... until it is deemed justifiably true knowledge. You can't believe that water boils at 100degrees... it just does (and yes, 1 degree less per thousand feet in altitude; even that is justifiably true so is not open to belief).

3. The 3 laws of logic were not invented by a human mind. Instead, they were discovered...

This comment challenges my previous position that logic is man-made as well as logic having an emotional component. I am unable to find a come-back position at present but I will ponder its place in this discussion.

4. Thus any 'falsifying' of logic must use logic itself to do so.

On the assumption that logic is inherently flawed, how might one prove flawedness with flawedness? Surely it is a case of the blind leading the blind, or fighting fire with fire? I fail to see how 'logic' could ever be falsified. If it can be so, it was never logical in the first place... no?

5. The purpose of logic is to fill in the blanks left by our limited cognition and to use our limited information in understanding a slightly less limited understanding.

It might appear now as if you are leaning in the direction of logic being a man-made creation, rather than being discovered, as you initially stated.

And to conclude...

6. "Logic is a blind mans walking stick"

Amusing metaphore but potentially deep. I fear that us blind humans to logic might not be holding a stick of logic afterall, but rather something we either want to believe is a walking stick of logic or have walking stick we have designed ourselves, blindly I hasten to add, just to help us wobble along our already faltered path.

Best to you.
edit on 7-7-2011 by DB340 because: too hasty to respond



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DB340
 


Truth and logic are inextricably linked, and if truth exists, then logic is how truth is established. If you refuse to accept that there is a sub-structural "true", or can't understand why a hyper-sophisticated reality (like the one that we exist within) is completely dependent on such a sub-structural "true", then no one will ever be able to explain the need for logic to you.

Circumstantially, truth and logic are overwhelmingly relative (meaning that what is true is dependent upon a shifting blend of contextual conditions in most instances), but beneath that dynamic slurry of roiling influences is an extremely stable "real" that is rigidly anchored in truth by way of logical "yes"s and "no"s. We know this because of how extraordinarily stable and predictable physical existence is, and how complex physical development has become by simple default.

You can play with semantics and let your arguments run like water, but nothing can change the fact that without a definitive "true" and the logical yes/no structural discipline that turns default into progressive development, you would not be available to present your ideas on the matter. In fact, no one would be, and there'd be no conceptual premise for anyone or anything to dismiss.
edit on 7/7/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird

Ever hear of this word "biological"? As in bio-logical, now what would be the difference between the bio-logical and the plain "logical"? And since we are biological creatures, what logic would we function by?

Oh yes you are all fooling yourself's if you think you are thinking logical, and even math and science are products of the biological. So who can say if math is the language of the universe, without actually seeing the whole of the universe instead this one tiny dimension, were we only see a tiny part of a whole we cant comprehend?

And science is that not also based and is a product of the biological thought-stream? In a way everything that we do and think of comes back to our "being" to what we are, and that is... that we are biological creatures. And emotions are our logical predominance, and they are there and exist for a reason. After all it is only logical to assume that everything is there for a reason.

Who can say that there logic is pure logic and did not in some form or way come from there emotions, which in the end is a product of the biological. After all everything we do it is based on something that we have a tie to or something that moves us emotionally. If it were not so we would not even think of it, or consider doing it or thinking about it.

So what can a "biological" creature know of the "logical" in its biological reality?


Geesh.

Biological - the term, and the concept - is based off the word "biology", and has nothing at all to do with logic or logical....anything.

Reminds me of the guy who slobbers on you at a bar and say "Dude. Y'know what, man. Live is - like - Evil spelled backward. Man. Yep, it's true. It's true." And then he leans in real close and breathes, "Live. Evil. Think about it."

And then he blows chunks all pver the floor and gets thrown out on his *ss.

That's some pretty weak thinking happenin' right there, son.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Biological - the term, and the concept - is based off the word "biology", and has nothing at all to do with logic or logical....anything.


Shows what you know. Off course it has to do with logic and is a type of logic.



That's some pretty weak thinking happenin' right there, son.

What are you slow or something? There is no logic in this world that does not come from the basic things that make up the said logic, duhh biological creatures. You probably cant even think of one thing that cant be traced back to your being, and what you are "a biological creature", and the core principles of biology.




Reminds me of the guy who slobbers on you at a bar and say "Dude. Y'know what, man. Live is - like - Evil spelled backward. Man. Yep, it's true. It's true." And then he leans in real close and breathes, "Live. Evil. Think about it."


Words are more then ways of expressing things, the words you use define you and make up your world.

So actually he is right, live is evil. When this language was created the creators of it put all kinds of funny things in it to make it more interesting. To live you must consume other biological creatures or plants or any matter of biological's, so really the whole act of the living is eating itself up. To cut into the living is the path of living, and the path of its overcoming. It's physical structure can even be found in the metaphysical such as in words and debates, and pretty much anything else that you can think of.

Now the devil and god and any meaning there of, well who cares they sure don't.

You know who you remind me of....everybody else.

edit on 7-7-2011 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-7-2011 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
There is a difference between truth and logic ( validity).
For example, the below is a valid argument.
1. All ants eat snakes.
2. Bob is an ant.
3. therefore, Bob eats snakes.
3 follows logically ( is valid) from 1 and 2.
However, the argument is not true because ants do not eat snakes.
Validity is about the form of the syllogism.
Truth = a valid form plus true premises.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   


I read your reply with much joy. I was delighted to read someone expressing thoughts parallel with my own.


Honestly I felt somewhat the same in knowing that there are some real thinkers out there in this crazy world. ++ to you bro.



Exactly the purpose of my opening post. I do recommend you read some of the responses because they are most insightful.


I totally would, and I fully admit my deficiency in knowledge in what was surely a super intelligent convo. (as anyone who would even think to ask these basic questions must by definition be brilliant.)



We spoke about emotion playing a large part in 'man-made' logic


I think ideally emotions and reason (and action) would all be on the same page. At least that is the ideal I strive for.



This was what my comments were based on in the 'Homosexuality is a Gift from God' thread a few weeks back - if you search, you will find my comments based upon 'logic'.


Logic itself specifically bars any self contradictory entities. (law of non contradiction) Gods, demons and faeries fall in to this category.



It was actually that thread which made me consider if my own logic (what I had thought was a 'factual constant' in itself) was indeed correct or valid. I believe it was.


Is 'gravity' a 'factual constant'? Do you 'believe' in gravity, or do you 'know' gravity exists?

If you dont believe in gravity, could you float?




To believe in something: A belief is not a fact otherwise the option of belief would not be possible; as Plato stated (and to which we still adhere today)


I might caution you on throwing around universals like 'we' when attempting to make your case. (unless the universal is fact, of course. ie we humans adhere to the law of gravity.) I certainly do not adhere to basically anything Plato 'believed', and in all honesty I see his thinking as rabid lunacy. So 'I' certainly do not fall in to your 'we' category~ (not that my opinion means anything besides that it invalidates the universal 'we')



"A fact is justifiably true knowledge".


This quote alone is meaningless to me (and perhaps im just slow) as no definition of 'justifiably' is given, here anyways.

Justifiable to whom, and by what standard?



The mere fact of all religion being a belief inversely proves it is not a fact... until it is deemed justifiably true knowledge. You can't believe that water boils at 100degrees... it just does (and yes, 1 degree less per thousand feet in altitude; even that is justifiably true so is not open to belief).


Right so reality exists in a factual manner independent of our perception of it, and our perception is only true to the degree that it conforms to physical reality. (the opposite of what Plato preached.)



This comment challenges my previous position that logic is man-made as well as logic having an emotional component. I am unable to find a come-back position at present but I will ponder its place in this discussion.


And I shall place you among the wise for admitting that you dont know, and you know that you dont know. Awesome. I might not know much, but I know the above is pure gold as far as human progress and enlightenment go!~

What I might further suggest is that logic is simply a description of physical reality, and since physical reality is not man made, it follows that a system to describe said reality (while conceived within the human mind) is only valid to the extent that it can describe reality. In any instance that logic conflicts with observable tangible reality, our logical constructs must give way as false and an updated model must be devised.

Objective reality > logical constructs. Objective reality = logical constructs = truth.



On the assumption that logic is inherently flawed, how might one prove flawedness with flawedness? Surely it is a case of the blind leading the blind, or fighting fire with fire? I fail to see how 'logic' could ever be falsified. If it can be so, it was never logical in the first place... no?


Yes.




It might appear now as if you are leaning in the direction of logic being a man-made creation, rather than being discovered, as you initially stated.


Good catch~ Perhaps my logic was off! Allow me to clarify, and please correct me if im in error in any way.

Logic, like math and the scientific method, are of course concepts that only exist within the human mind. (there is no number 2 floating around in the ether somewhere, of course!) In a sense, I think, the above are man made examples in that it takes a human mind to conceive and reason these thought constructs out. So in a sense, logic, and math, *are* invented by human minds, and we know this because lower sentient beings like chimps could never conceive a multiplication table.

So just as '8 planets' do not exist as am objective and definable grouping in reality, the planets themselves certainly do exist, and our conceptual grouping of them into an identifiable group accurately describes these planets. Our conceptual net, that exists solely for our convenience indeed was 'invented', but the physical planets themselves were not 'invented'. Thus it would seem to me that while it may take a human consciousness to label and categorize the physical world, and this process was indeed 'invented', that process is only valid to the extent that it describes what was already there before we cast our conceptual net over the real world, which we did not invent.

I confused myself with the above so let me try to be a little more clear - the physical bodies that we call 'planets' existed long before humans evolved to the point that they were able to apply an objective method of categorization to them. But this does not mean that our system of categorization is subjective or whatever one might want it to be - logic dictates that a concept is only valid to the extent that it adheres to reality.



Amusing metaphore but potentially deep. I fear that us blind humans to logic might not be holding a stick of logic afterall, but rather something we either want to believe is a walking stick of logic or have walking stick we have designed ourselves, blindly I hasten to add, just to help us wobble along our already faltered path.


Sounds to me like youre describing the F word, and not the one where you end up getting laid. Faith, to me anyways, is far more offensive than any cuss~



Best to you.


And to you as well brother. Feel free to challenge or correct me (using logic of course) on any point I may have erred on!~



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ineffable
There is a difference between truth and logic ( validity).
For example, the below is a valid argument.
1. All ants eat snakes.
2. Bob is an ant.
3. therefore, Bob eats snakes.
3 follows logically ( is valid) from 1 and 2.
However, the argument is not true because ants do not eat snakes.
Validity is about the form of the syllogism.
Truth = a valid form plus true premises.


Right! And I might take your insight a step further and say that Truth = a valid form and > true premises. In any instance that a logical construct and a physical instance conflict, the instance wins, hands down every time over an internally consistent logical framework.

Thus truth = our concepts when our concepts = physical instances, and not the reverse as Plato and others might have us believe.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
You know who you remind me of....everybody else.


I see. Well, good luck with that. You obviously have things all sorted out. I continue to learn new things from this Internet we have here. This world is a fascinating place, and this little window to it can certainly be a source of unexpected revelation.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf


Logic, like math and the scientific method, are of course concepts that only exist within the human mind. (there is no number 2 floating around in the ether somewhere, of course!) In a sense, I think, the above are man made examples in that it takes a human mind to conceive and reason these thought constructs out. So in a sense, logic, and math, *are* invented by human minds, and we know this because lower sentient beings like chimps could never conceive a multiplication table.

So just as '8 planets' do not exist as am objective and definable grouping in reality, the planets themselves certainly do exist, and our conceptual grouping of them into an identifiable group accurately describes these planets. Our conceptual net, that exists solely for our convenience indeed was 'invented', but the physical planets themselves were not 'invented'. Thus it would seem to me that while it may take a human consciousness to label and categorize the physical world, and this process was indeed 'invented', that process is only valid to the extent that it describes what was already there before we cast our conceptual net over the real world, which we did not invent.

I confused myself with the above so let me try to be a little more clear - the physical bodies that we call 'planets' existed long before humans evolved to the point that they were able to apply an objective method of categorization to them. But this does not mean that our system of categorization is subjective or whatever one might want it to be - logic dictates that a concept is only valid to the extent that it adheres to reality.


Excellent. Reality simply is, and it is what is true - even if only true as a result of contributing and mitigating factors within a specific instance. Beneath all instances of conditional reality is the foundational reality that allows all instances to exist within their allotted span of emergence, existence, and then their transition to oblivion. That foundational reality must be adhered to, and it is adhered to by simple default. It's extremely simple and primitive in comparison to the conditional versions of reality that rise and dissipate upon it as contextual relationships shift and mutate. The more dense the contextual slurry becomes, the more tenuous the conditions establishing the associated reality becomes. The epitome of this reality sophistication is the slippery nature of human interaction, and it can be incredibly difficult for the human mind to appreciate just how stark and rigid reality is at the foundational level due to the hyper-dynamic version of imminently conditional reality that the human mind must navigate from instant to instant.

What one must avoid is projecting that hyper-chaotic version of conditional reality onto the hyper-static version of reality that provides the foundation for all levels of conditional reality. That foundational reality - by sheer necessity - is immutable. If it were to shift, the ramifications would be insurmountable for all that exists as a result of its fixed stability. Of course, we'd never experience it if it did suddenly shift. We'd simply cease to exist at any level whatsoever. Progressive development itself would be @ square one.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DB340
Is is logical to question the logic of logic?


No, it is illogical for something to be compared to itself.
You can't question something by using itself.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   


That foundational reality must be adhered to, and it is adhered to by simple default.


To quote Homer Simpson 'the two most beautiful words in the english language - DE - FAULT!'

In a less silly response, what could one possibly adhere to as a standard *besides* what is perceived as objective and foundational reality? Dreams, or nightmares, perhaps?

Certainly most of human history has indeed been based on nightmares, though.



It's extremely simple and primitive in comparison to the conditional versions of reality that rise and dissipate upon it as contextual relationships shift and mutate.


Since Plato established in many thinkers minds the primacy of concepts over the primacy of sensual experience, man has been prey to illogical and evil concepts that did not adhere to reality, but instead proclaimed invented and incorrect concepts to be ultimately true. Thus any thought system that does not adhere to objective reality (which can be tested and verified by anyone) but instead submits to subjectively asserted irrationality (which cannot be experienced by all and thus be interpreted and enforced by few) must, by its very nature, *require* supreme centralized authority in the form of some sort of dictatorship.

It is no coincidence that Plato advocated a totalitarian dictatorship. His placing of abstract and unknowable concepts (plutonic forms) over the sensual experience of all *requires* and elite class of 'philosopher kings' to interpret the higher realms of form that the lesser humans can never grasp. Thus, as history has shown, when unknowable and irrational concepts are placed above sensual reality which is knowable to all, dictatorships are required in order to force upon all what is not knowable to all.

The above probably reads like #, so as a simple example, there is a reason why an irrational system like christianity has always required some centralized figure who could interpret and universalize its irrational and self contradictory rules. (if its bs, and everyone knows it, it will dissolve without the power of authority enforcing it) Since there can be no rational way of resolving the differences in the thought systems irrational premises, force must be used in order to make all dissenters adhere. Thus all irrational systems of thought rely on force and ultimately violence in order to survive.

Alternatively, when a thought system adheres to reality (and thus logic), and not irrational assertion, it does not require a central figure to enforce itself. There is a reason there is no 'King of science', since scientists (real ones, anyways) submit to a *method* (which is objective), and not an *edict* (which is subjective and preferential) The reason we have 'religious wars' and not 'science wars' is because religious people hold an irrational, absolute *concept* to be the highest truth (just as Plato did), while scientists hold *rational*, absolute concepts to be the highest form of truth.

Thus rational thinkers submit to reality while irrational thinkers subjugate reality.



and it can be incredibly difficult for the human mind to appreciate just how stark and rigid reality is at the foundational level due to the hyper-dynamic version of imminently conditional reality that the human mind must navigate from instant to instant.


And yet from instant to instant a chair remains a chair, and after many more instants, if remained undisturbed, it will still be a chair. Reality itself is remarkably stable. Our perception of it is not. A chair remains a chair regardless of our emotional experience to it. Since we change, it too seems to change, although in reality it simply remains the same. (minus a bit of enrophy) Thus, i think it is usually not physical objective reality that is changing, but instead it is us who are growing and sometimes dying, and our experience of that might give us the illusion that the way we see things might somehow define things.



What one must avoid is projecting that hyper-chaotic version of conditional reality onto the hyper-static version of reality that provides the foundation for all levels of conditional reality.


If we 'project' hyper chaos on to objective static reality, we must surely assume that it is our own subjective chaotic minds that are scewing our vision of static, objective reality. So it would seem the highest priority would be to discover why our minds are hype chaotic, random reality projecting machines~ (or something)

Why are our minds so out of tune with reality?



That foundational reality - by sheer necessity - is immutable. If it were to shift, the ramifications would be insurmountable for all that exists as a result of its fixed stability
.

How dare you question the foundational axiom of all postmodern philosophy - that all reality is subjective and truth does not exist?! Surely its is True that nothing is True, and that is a True statement!

Surely you Know that nothing is Knowable! Surely your Perceptions prove that nothing is Perceptible! How can you Rationally adhere to Rationality when Rationality is clearly Irrational?!

Truth is beyond Knowing, this we Know. Ultimate Truth exists only in the Ultimate Forms, and certainly you and I cannot question this. Us lesser humans must submit our lesser, reality based judgement to the wiser, better bred Masters. They alone can know the Truth, this we know is True.

I Think that Thinking is better left to the Thinkers. Surely I Know that they Know what is best for us.

ect ect apply to any power structure for same results.




posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
I do apologise for extended absence. I've been incredibly busy.

I read all responses with great interest but from it all, I am still drawn to this, one of my quotes:

"To believe in something: A belief is not a fact otherwise the option of belief would not be possible; as Plato stated (and to which we still adhere today)"

Neo_Serf responded with: I might caution you on throwing around universals like 'we' when attempting to make your case. (unless the universal is fact, of course. ie we humans adhere to the law of gravity.) I certainly do not adhere to basically anything Plato 'believed', and in all honesty I see his thinking as rabid lunacy. So 'I' certainly do not fall in to your 'we' category~ (not that my opinion means anything besides that it invalidates the universal 'we').

Come and join us... you know want to!

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough regarding which group 'we' actually represented. I think you understood it to be those who still go with Plato's thinking; I was actually grouping the 'we' as those of us (you included, and everyone/thing else) who are subject to the 'fact' of what a 'fact 'is': "justifiably true". He said it, and that is still what 'truth' means today.

A while back, you said:

"The 3 laws of logic were not invented by a human mind. Instead, they were discovered..." and I said that this was interesting and didn't have a comeback.

Now I do!

The problem with human interaction in all its forms, locations and reasonings is based on this very discrepancy:
1. "My (man-made) logic is perfectly logical (in my world) and so I am logically right and you are logically wrong"

and

2. "The (discovered) logic that I use is perfectly logical because I have not applied any emotion to it because it already existed before humans".

I believe here lies an interesting difference to which I am not indifferent! It's a case of 'you have your logic and I have 'the real one''.

The argument thus ensues regarding which one is actually correct. Who can know? Who says 'this is the factual logic' and 'this is your man-made logic'? Like you said, a 'philospher king'? I suppose, but who is that? Shouldn't it be everyone? We would certainly be living in a much more stable world if we all 'knew' (in some way) the real logic, the one we would all know to be factually/universally constant and which is not an 'influenced logic', n'est-ce pas?

I guess I'll make it a new ambition of mine: To discover real logic's source fountain of knowledge. I think it lies within each of us, which means my search would be well-begun from within.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DB340
 



Is is logical to question the logic of logic?


Why do people insist on asking questions that make absolutely no sense?

That's like questioning the Up, of Up.... it is a redundant stupidity, and absurd affront to language itself.


Surely the mere fact of logic's own existence means that a logical ideology exists, but logic's own existence can be proven illogical, can it not?


Are you on Drugs or something?

First of all, Your first premise, that the Existence of a "Logical Ideology" follows from the Existence of logic is absurd.

Logic is by definition not an Ideology, it is a Tool for identifying Truth, and separating it from Non-Truth.


When something is attributed the 'logical' adjective, we logically accept without question what is logical.


Like your entire OP for example? thinking that putting the word "Logical" in there to describe things actually gives your perspective some form of Weight?

No.... When you attribute "Logical" to your premise, it is actually a False statement, and I can prove it.


Can we thus say that the concept of logic is a factual constant; that when something is logical, it is the most logically correct answer possible for a given premise?


There are no degrees to logic, something is either logical, or it is not logical.

Your statement of "Most Logical" has absolutely no merit.


Isn't it illogical to assume that the concept of logic is the most correct assertion?


For WHAT?

You are asking a question with some VERY VITAL information missing, while pretending that it is a complete question.

Like if I asked you what the most correct answer to blue was.

You are merely playing with words, and badly at that.



This would lead to the premise that there is always 'one' answer, the logical response, the response of most sense which follows A through B through C, ad nauseum, sometimes resulting in a non-response or resolution.


You see? here it is again... You are attributing false characteristics to "Logic" that are Not True.


I conclude that it is illogical to accept the concept of logic because that logically means that there can only always be one correct, logical answer.


No such thing is ever implied, or stated of logic, except by you.

Your own premise is a straw man, that is as embarrassing as it is WRONG.

Logic does not mean that there is only one true answer to any given problem or question, and to even CLAIM such is to display your fundamental ignorance on the subject of logic itself.

STOP DOING THIS!


This results in free will of thought being redundant because it would be illogical to accept any other conclusion as it would logically be false.

Is it, thus, logical to question the logic of logic?


You don't even know what Logic *IS* dude... I mean, seriously!

Let's start with the Law of Identity, ok?

It's one of the three foundations of all logic.

IT states, that a Thing is Itself.

It is a tautology that describes the intrinsic nature of identification.

A = A

An apple is an apple, a pear is a pear, a car is a car, and a star is a star.

Second, there is the law of noncontradiction... which states that two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

Such as:

"An apple is all Red"
and
"An apple is all Green"

They both cannot be true at the same time, of the same thing, and to believe so would be a contradiction, and thus, reveal a flaw in either perception, or your logic.

If logic was illogical, then it would not be logic, thus the thing that you are questioning is not the thing that you claim to be questioning, but it's opposite, hence, your statement that logic is illogical is a meaningless verbal contrivance, and a contradiction.

Hence, You don't know what logic *IS*

Logic is by definition, LOGIC.

And this brings us to the Law of the Excluded middle, that either a proposition is true, or its negation.

Such as:

A. OP knows what logic is
OR
B. OP doesn't know what logic is.

You see, these two statements are contradictory, they both cannot be true at the same time, and thus, either one is true, or the other, but not both.

(Hint: B is true)



No star, No Flag.





posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   


I do apologise for extended absence. I've been incredibly busy.


Since you dont owe me anything, no apology is necessary! (although I do admit to some anxious check ins to the thread)

I read all responses with great interest but from it all, I am still drawn to this, one of my quotes:



Come and join us... you know want to!


Muuust...resist...conformity...arrrrrrg!



Perhaps I wasn't clear enough regarding which group 'we' actually represented. I think you understood it to be those who still go with Plato's thinking; I was actually grouping the 'we' as those of us (you included, and everyone/thing else) who are subject to the 'fact' of what a 'fact 'is': "justifiably true". He said it, and that is still what 'truth' means today.


Hmm interesting. I agree to a point. To Plato what was 'justifiably' true included such madness as a totally undetectable, unobservable and unverifiable realm of magical 'forms' that he somehow held to be the true realm of absolutes. Everything in what you and I might call 'reality' was merely a flickering shadow on a wall and was thus vastly inferior to his imaginary realm.

So when you say 'justifiably true' my first question is 'justifiable to whom?' Plato might have responded 'to the Philosopher Kings, duh! Now stop asking questions and get back to slaving!'

So I would much prefer we drop the 'justifiable' and just go with 'true' which requires no intermediary to determine.




A while back, you said: "The 3 laws of logic were not invented by a human mind. Instead, they were discovered..." and I said that this was interesting and didn't have a comeback. Now I do!


No! I much preferred when you didnt have a comeback!




The problem with human interaction in all its forms, locations and reasonings is based on this very discrepancy: 1. "My (man-made) logic is perfectly logical (in my world) and so I am logically right and you are logically wrong" and 2. "The (discovered) logic that I use is perfectly logical because I have not applied any emotion to it because it already existed before humans".


Hmmm i'll admit Im a little confused by the above which might just indicate im easily confused. So help me out.

When you say 'my world' are you referring to 'our world', the 3 dimentional reality that we both exist in? Or have you floated off into the realm of pure subjectivism...?

Im not sure why your logic should be any different than mine if we both inhabit the same 3d space? What are you right about, and why does that necessitate that Im axiomatically wrong? Im not even sure the proposition that were debating over...

As for 2, im not sure how emotion plays are part in the validity of logic, or its relationship to logics pre-existence in regards to man. Im certainly very confused by the above! (not that this means im right, it could just mean, logically, that im dumb~)



I believe here lies an interesting difference to which I am not indifferent! It's a case of 'you have your logic and I have 'the real one''.


Hmmm...if we accept that logic is only valid to the extent that it adheres to objective reality, and objective reality exists absolutely independent of our perception of it, then there can be no 'your logic' or 'my logic', in the same way there is no 'your or my' reality.



The argument thus ensues regarding which one is actually correct. Who can know? Who says 'this is the factual logic' and 'this is your man-made logic'?


Remember, logic is only factual and valid to the extent that it adheres to objective, sensual reality. There is no subjective logic in the same way there is no subjective math.

There is no 'my multiplication table' just as there is no 'your calculus'. There is only objective, conceptual mathematics, and this concept is only valid to the extent that it adheres and describes objective, sensual, empirical reality.



Like you said, a 'philospher king'? I suppose, but who is that? Shouldn't it be everyone? We would certainly be living in a much more stable world if we all 'knew' (in some way) the real logic, the one we would all know to be factually/universally constant and which is not an 'influenced logic', n'est-ce pas?


Logic cannot 'influence' reality any more than counting stars influences how many are in the sky. Our count, and our logic, is only a methodology by which we make sense conceptually of the sensual world around us.



I guess I'll make it a new ambition of mine: To discover real logic's source fountain of knowledge. I think it lies within each of us, which means my search would be well-begun from within.


Read Ayn Rand if you have a passion for logic and truth, brother. Pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged and prepare to be blown away~



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Logic can never be wrong...If your logic proves you wrong, then it's illogical.

Well, be definition, that is.

Oh and my head hurts from that OP...



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Haha brother, your post mirrors my own in many ways~ I realize it can at times be frustrating to go step by step with someone who seems to be confused by the most elementary questions, but the very fact that he is here, questioning his most basic (flawed) premises should be cause for joy and not condemnation. If we were all raised in some perfect Randian world of pure reason and rationality, your consternation might be well placed, but you have to remember that basically no one in our modern world is taught logic or deduction, and in fact they are taught the opposite from a very young age.

So here we have one who is struggling mightily to break free of his mental cage, a cage that he has had no part in the making, and I think it would be logical to make his transition from irrationality to sanity as smooth and welcoming as possible!

His OP CRIES OUT to be disproven and corrected, and I say that without a hint of false smugness that might be perceived from what might seem to be my high horse of reason. I was there with him once too, just as you almost surely were (unless you had some super awesomely rare logical parents) and I see him as myself, making the same blunders and errors we all made when we took up the sword of reason.

So not to tell you how to behave, but i would ask that you show a little empathy for this guy, who is surely as smart as you and I, but simply hasnt been schooled in the sweet science of reason.

Extend a hand man! Sneering at him will only deter him from the true path.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join