you're using learning to explain away logic. logic cannot be established. you cannot establish a logical progression of events. you see the logical progression and learn what happened. you try to use mathmatics as examples. so who decided what 2 means? numeric progress could just as well have been: 358794106 with the symbol 5 meaning what we now accept as 2.
using the example of a baby; a baby finds it logical to make a noise when it is hungry. it is then taught the accepted noise to express it's wants. in english it's hungry. and that accepted noise is different for each language.
also; a baby accepts the existance of a superior being. it's mother. this superior being provides food and comfort; also mobility and education. studies have shown a fetus is capable of learning while in the womb.
Learning, what is learning? You want to know how things work, so you logically think about it and try a few things and you get it eventually. Store the information and then down the road things take less effort to figure out. You recognize the shape of a key and can figure out logically how it will fit into a lock without having to try 50 times. A lot of what we learn is just our logical thoughts stored in memory. Learning is just storing sensory and logic data in memory.
Ok, A newborn is a pretty basic part of life. It's pretty simple, baby is born, doctor spanks it or whatever to make sure it can scream, it gets cleaned up and hopefully put with it's mother. That whole experience may be too traumatic to remember. Certainly babies learn in the prenatal environment. I know of a few studies, mostly involving animals. They would play duck sounds for a swan or something and the swan once born was more interested in ducks than swans. Then there is the Mozart effect. Which was originally performed on adults and showed a slight increase in IQ, but barely. It was later retested on unborn and had no effect. Save, maybe a predisposition to like Mozart.
That's why I argue against third trimester abortion.
Then you look at small children. Now, one study had a box with two plastic gears on top that fit on two pins, only one of the pins was powered by a motor inside the box. The other one was powerless and there was an on/off switch on the side. So the idea was for the children to play with it and figure it out. It is documented on video. The children tried all kinds of stuff, spinning the gears on their fingers, sticking them in their ears, tasting them. They tried slamming them on the box. It took them awhile, but they eventually figured it out. Once they noticed the switch and started manipulating it, they figured something out, if they hit the switch the device stops rotating, so they started examining the box more and tried listening to it, after listening they figured out something inside was causing it to move. They eventually tried placing one gear on at a time to see which pin was causing it to spin.
It's interesting, and amusing to see children play and try to figure things out, and it's a great feeling to see them accomplish it. Our species is truly amazing what we can acheive in our environment. We can do that because we can observe things, manipulate them, figure out how they work and remember them. It's the figuring out part that has to be innate for the chain to work. Certainly observation, manipulation and memory are innate. So, point is, I don't see how anyone can say that logic isn't something we are born with. Sprituality isn't something we are born with. A small child cannot perceive God, cannot talk to God, but can figure out how the triangles, squares and circles fit into their toy. I don't like this newage use of the term spirituality, because spirit implies some kind of inner eternal being and they really mean their amusement at the complexity of reality. Remember these myths have been pounded into all of our heads for our entire lives. These myths are as well known to us as the backs of our hands. It's hard to shake that, it's burned in, hardcoded right in our brains, we have feelings associated with them.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think it is incorrect to consider logic as innately human. I mean plenty of animal species attack tasks in a logical manner. Look for example at how dolphins use pack beahviour to catch whole schools of fish or chimps construct tool and collect termites with them from sites where they have had success before. Lions do not pursue prey once the initial chase has failed because it is illogical to expend more energy on something which will not provide any return.To imply that humans are the only logical life form implies that all other organisms go about life in an inherently illogical manner which is not the case.We give ousrelves to much credit I think.
I didn't say that logic was exclusive to humans. I said it was innate. I agree that most animals, if not all animals exhibit logical thought. Like the crows that drop their nuts on the road and wait for cars to crush them. That's not instinct. Instinct is the hunger in their little bellies that tells them to find food. They eat what they can and learn from each other. Birds communicate through complex bird songs and share parts of their brains with humans, namely wernicke's and broca's areas, responsible for rhythm and language. Interestingly they are also responsible for some motorfunctions which explalins why people like to dance. So yea, animals are just like humans only different. Realistically speaking all life on earth is equally evloved. We've all had the same time period and same mechanism to evolve with. Our genome is almost identical to mice. Our differences aren't very far off at all. I don't think the ape genome has been fully decoded yet, but they are our closes relative, it's going to be a good century for science. The stuff we are talking about right now will be answered in this century, all this stuff about spirituality, religion, free-will and consciousness will be revealed now.
But hey, if they discover parallel dimensions tomorrow and all those bigfoot dudes are proven to traverse interdimensional space to appear in our reality and when they die their electrons are instantly sucked back through their portal, I'll believe it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Thought this thread was about the origins of Logic.
Anyway, all of matter follows a logic and that logic exists regardless of our symbolism.
the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
Makes sense, regardless of our reasoning the logical system produces an outcome. Granted computers are developed by humans. The atmosphere follows a logic with which we use logical reasoning to deduce.
Is this directed at me? In that case you are dodging most of what I say.
Stuff works in given ways, sure. That it works "logically" is our judgement and based on our assumptions, senses and experience. And you also use here the term "a logic" which is what I've been trying to convey, namely that there is no 1 logic.
Atmosphere and weather is logical after we have worked it into a system of interpretations and intercorrelated concepts. Extend to most things. Things are logical, when the logic has been established by us based on our senses and experiences. Before or without that, things happen, processes occur, but there is no "logic" in them before you have an observer.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Is this directed at me? In that case you are dodging most of what I say.
Stuff works in given ways, sure. That it works "logically" is our judgement and based on our assumptions, senses and experience. And you also use here the term "a logic" which is what I've been trying to convey, namely that there is no 1 logic.
Atmosphere and weather is logical after we have worked it into a system of interpretations and intercorrelated concepts. Extend to most things. Things are logical, when the logic has been established by us based on our senses and experiences. Before or without that, things happen, processes occur, but there is no "logic" in them before you have an observer.
Peace
Dan
I'd have to disagree
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
But if you dont want to argue about your own topic, then sure...
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But if you dont want to argue about your own topic, then sure...
Peace
Dan
No, I do, I just don't see it going anywhere. I have a computer background, and when we are wiring a PCB we need to take into consideration the "Logic". It's what we call what the unit uses to decipher data.. so, it's a physical thing, a logic besides our internal reasoning. Then I wonder of the complexity of the atmosphere, if it's not "logical" then what is it?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
No, I do, I just don't see it going anywhere. I have a computer background, and when we are wiring a PCB we need to take into consideration the "Logic". It's what we call what the unit uses to decipher data.. so, it's a physical thing, a logic besides our internal reasoning. Then I wonder of the complexity of the atmosphere, if it's not "logical" then what is it?
Exactly. You create the artificial logic of the computer adapting to the world as we percieve it. Emotions and delusions are also physical if you get right down to it. The computer is just an extension of our logic, and operates on a very limited version of it, as it cannot handle ambiguity or contradictions. The machine and it's components is not logical, we are, and we interpret it as such. Do you see the difference?
The atmosphere IS, and we find it logical, becuase we seem to see how it connects to other things using our logic and our minds. Of course it's logical. That's not the issue here. The issue is the nature of logic, and whether you view it positivistically reflecting the one truth, or whether you see it as a perspective among others. A logic, not the logic.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Exactly. You create the artificial logic of the computer adapting to the world as we percieve it. Emotions and delusions are also physical if you get right down to it. The computer is just an extension of our logic, and operates on a very limited version of it, as it cannot handle ambiguity or contradictions. The machine and it's components is not logical, we are, and we interpret it as such. Do you see the difference?
The atmosphere IS, and we find it logical, becuase we seem to see how it connects to other things using our logic and our minds. Of course it's logical. That's not the issue here. The issue is the nature of logic, and whether you view it positivistically reflecting the one truth, or whether you see it as a perspective among others. A logic, not the logic.
Peace
Dan
Actually the point is wether or not logic, as a reasoning is an innate ability to humans.
But I still feel that logic exists as a mechanism in reality. Our logical reasoning is just adaptive to allow us to decipher the mechanics of our physical reality. At that point logic in terms of reasoning and the "mechanics" of reality are indistinguishable.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Actually the point is wether or not logic, as a reasoning is an innate ability to humans.
But I still feel that logic exists as a mechanism in reality. Our logical reasoning is just adaptive to allow us to decipher the mechanics of our physical reality. At that point logic in terms of reasoning and the "mechanics" of reality are indistinguishable.
Actually the point is wether or not logic, as a reasoning is an innate ability to humans.
Reasoning seems to be an innate human trait, yes. But that doesn't have to have anything to do with scientific or philosophical "logic" in itself. We react to the world from how we see it, from our developed sense of reason based on experience, and hence, our understanding of logic. If you by logic mean merely "reasoning", then I can agree with the above statement. But you put more into it than that, as the following quote shows.
But I still feel that logic exists as a mechanism in reality. Our logical reasoning is just adaptive to allow us to decipher the mechanics of our physical reality. At that point logic in terms of reasoning and the "mechanics" of reality are indistinguishable.
And that is a valid opinion to have, but it is no absolute undeniable truth. Our logical reasoning is for us to decipher reality, yes. But mostly, to decipher our most immediate environment and react to threats and so on. It does not necessarily extend to highly abstract notions of the ultimate nature of the universe. And if you accept that we have "personal logics" which you seem to be doing here, then the final positivist statement that we see the objective truth is contradicted. That final line is a cause for major divide in philosophy, which is the field we have entered by now.
But my goal has been to make you see that logic can be different for different people in different places, and that the positivist scientific notion is by no means absolute, uncontested truth. These are my major quarrels with you on this subject.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
Learning, what is learning? You want to know how things work, so you logically think about it and try a few things and you get it eventually. Store the information and then down the road things take less effort to figure out. You recognize the shape of a key and can figure out logically how it will fit into a lock without having to try 50 times. A lot of what we learn is just our logical thoughts stored in memory. Learning is just storing sensory and logic data in memory.
Ok, A newborn is a pretty basic part of life. It's pretty simple, baby is born, doctor spanks it or whatever to make sure it can scream, it gets cleaned up and hopefully put with it's mother. That whole experience may be too traumatic to remember. Certainly babies learn in the prenatal environment. I know of a few studies, mostly involving animals. They would play duck sounds for a swan or something and the swan once born was more interested in ducks than swans. Then there is the Mozart effect. Which was originally performed on adults and showed a slight increase in IQ, but barely. It was later retested on unborn and had no effect. Save, maybe a predisposition to like Mozart.
That's why I argue against third trimester abortion.
Then you look at small children. Now, one study had a box with two plastic gears on top that fit on two pins, only one of the pins was powered by a motor inside the box. The other one was powerless and there was an on/off switch on the side. So the idea was for the children to play with it and figure it out. It is documented on video. The children tried all kinds of stuff, spinning the gears on their fingers, sticking them in their ears, tasting them. They tried slamming them on the box. It took them awhile, but they eventually figured it out. Once they noticed the switch and started manipulating it, they figured something out, if they hit the switch the device stops rotating, so they started examining the box more and tried listening to it, after listening they figured out something inside was causing it to move. They eventually tried placing one gear on at a time to see which pin was causing it to spin.
It's interesting, and amusing to see children play and try to figure things out, and it's a great feeling to see them accomplish it. Our species is truly amazing what we can acheive in our environment. We can do that because we can observe things, manipulate them, figure out how they work and remember them. It's the figuring out part that has to be innate for the chain to work. Certainly observation, manipulation and memory are innate. So, point is, I don't see how anyone can say that logic isn't something we are born with. Sprituality isn't something we are born with. A small child cannot perceive God, cannot talk to God, but can figure out how the triangles, squares and circles fit into their toy. I don't like this newage use of the term spirituality, because spirit implies some kind of inner eternal being and they really mean their amusement at the complexity of reality. Remember these myths have been pounded into all of our heads for our entire lives. These myths are as well known to us as the backs of our hands. It's hard to shake that, it's burned in, hardcoded right in our brains, we have feelings associated with them.
I didn't say that logic was exclusive to humans. I said it was innate. I agree that most animals, if not all animals exhibit logical thought. Like the crows that drop their nuts on the road and wait for cars to crush them. That's not instinct. Instinct is the hunger in their little bellies that tells them to find food. They eat what they can and learn from each other. Birds communicate through complex bird songs and share parts of their brains with humans, namely wernicke's and broca's areas, responsible for rhythm and language. Interestingly they are also responsible for some motorfunctions which explalins why people like to dance. So yea, animals are just like humans only different. Realistically speaking all life on earth is equally evloved. We've all had the same time period and same mechanism to evolve with. Our genome is almost identical to mice. Our differences aren't very far off at all. I don't think the ape genome has been fully decoded yet, but they are our closes relative, it's going to be a good century for science. The stuff we are talking about right now will be answered in this century, all this stuff about spirituality, religion, free-will and consciousness will be revealed now.
But hey, if they discover parallel dimensions tomorrow and all those bigfoot dudes are proven to traverse interdimensional space to appear in our reality and when they die their electrons are instantly sucked back through their portal, I'll believe it.
Ja man.
Is this directed at me? In that case you are dodging most of what I say.
Stuff works in given ways, sure. That it works "logically" is our judgement and based on our assumptions, senses and experience. And you also use here the term "a logic" which is what I've been trying to convey, namely that there is no 1 logic.
Atmosphere and weather is logical after we have worked it into a system of interpretations and intercorrelated concepts. Extend to most things. Things are logical, when the logic has been established by us based on our senses and experiences. Before or without that, things happen, processes occur, but there is no "logic" in them before you have an observer.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I'd have to disagree
That was enlightening.
But if you dont want to argue about your own topic, then sure...
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
No, I do, I just don't see it going anywhere. I have a computer background, and when we are wiring a PCB we need to take into consideration the "Logic". It's what we call what the unit uses to decipher data.. so, it's a physical thing, a logic besides our internal reasoning. Then I wonder of the complexity of the atmosphere, if it's not "logical" then what is it?
Exactly. You create the artificial logic of the computer adapting to the world as we percieve it. Emotions and delusions are also physical if you get right down to it. The computer is just an extension of our logic, and operates on a very limited version of it, as it cannot handle ambiguity or contradictions. The machine and it's components is not logical, we are, and we interpret it as such. Do you see the difference?
The atmosphere IS, and we find it logical, becuase we seem to see how it connects to other things using our logic and our minds. Of course it's logical. That's not the issue here. The issue is the nature of logic, and whether you view it positivistically reflecting the one truth, or whether you see it as a perspective among others. A logic, not the logic.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Actually the point is wether or not logic, as a reasoning is an innate ability to humans.
But I still feel that logic exists as a mechanism in reality. Our logical reasoning is just adaptive to allow us to decipher the mechanics of our physical reality. At that point logic in terms of reasoning and the "mechanics" of reality are indistinguishable.
so, logic is personal. That's a twist, for you.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
And that is a valid opinion to have, but it is no absolute undeniable truth. Our logical reasoning is for us to decipher reality, yes. But mostly, to decipher our most immediate environment and react to threats and so on. It does not necessarily extend to highly abstract notions of the ultimate nature of the universe. And if you accept that we have "personal logics" which you seem to be doing here, then the final positivist statement that we see the objective truth is contradicted. That final line is a cause for major divide in philosophy, which is the field we have entered by now.
But my goal has been to make you see that logic can be different for different people in different places, and that the positivist scientific notion is by no means absolute, uncontested truth. These are my major quarrels with you on this subject.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965