Man-made Logic

Ahnimus

Well, that's quite the shift in popular opinion.

I started a similar thread over at Skeptics.com and pretty much no one disagrees with me. Even though I'm kind of playing the devil's advocate on the topic.

Check it out http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=92463#92463

Something odd about this forum.

feel_me

Ahnimus wrote:

I read all of what you wrote, even though I honestly didn't find it that interesting. Then I discarded it as crap. So there isn't really any difference. Except I believe in provable things, I have no faith, I don't need it.

Ha, that made me laugh.

Anyway, Im positive faithless people like you are happier.
You have no accountability to anything higher than yourself- sounds blissful actually.

Ahnimus

feel_me wrote:

Ha, that made me laugh.

Anyway, Im positive faithless people like you are happier.
You have no accountability to anything higher than yourself- sounds blissful actually.

The law is above me, and I also have accountability to myself.

That was kind of a cheap shot if you ask me. That's like an assembly line argument. Try something you didn't get from a cracker jack box.

feel_me

Ahnimus wrote:

The law is above me, and I also have accountability to myself.

That was kind of a cheap shot if you ask me. That's like an assembly line argument. Try something you didn't get from a cracker jack box.

I said "higher than yourself"...See!!! I rest my case, you only 'skim' others posts, you think youre so smart that you dont need to fully read them to get the gist I think.

And I think the only law above a mind like yours is The Law of Gravity.

You should try it out- jump off a cliff and see if youre so smart that you can even defy that! (jk- kinda)

Ahnimus

feel_me wrote:

I said "higher than yourself"...See!!! I rest my case, you only 'skim' others posts, you think youre so smart that you dont need to fully read them to get the gist I think.

And I think the only law above a mind like yours is The Law of Gravity.

You should try it out- jump off a cliff and see if youre so smart that you can even defy that! (jk- kinda)

I don't get it. This post doesn't make any sense. Now you are talking about the existence of a supreme deity, which is a completely separate topic from the origins of logic. But if you'd like I can totally debunk your belief in God.

decides2dream

Ahnimus wrote:

Hmm.

I don't think this is a matter of opinion. The evidence that logic is innate is overwhelming. I'd say undeniable. But some of you still insist it's something we've conjured up. Maybe you haven't looked at any evidence?

of course you don't...thus why you hold the opinion you do. i have found that on most points you make you are so convinced that your thoughts are just so 'right'...so obvious and clear, that you cannot see anything from a point of view that at all skews from your own. right or wrong on any particular topic, it is a shame. while i won't say that anyone has ever made me blatantly change my mind on any given topic here...i HAVe learned a great deal from many different posters...even those who come at certain topics from a completely different viewpoint than my own, and i see certain things with an expanded viewpoint, a broader scope.

it's refreshing to have an open mind about things, and even more important to discussion...not to completely discount others' opinions, respected sources, etc...by calling them ignorant or any other completely dismissive terminology. if one is so convinced of their own rightness, why bother calling it a discussion? seems more like 'agree with me, learn from me...or shut up.' just my 2 cents.

feel_me

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't get it. This post doesn't make any sense. Now you are talking about the existence of a supreme deity, which is a completely separate topic from the origins of logic. But if you'd like I can totally debunk your belief in God.

If you scroll back, you are the one who originally mentioned Atheism, usually this brings God to peoples minds.

Anyway, I dont have the energy to lose my Faith tonight.
Perhaps another time on the annihilation of my entire belief system, yes?

Ahnimus

decides2dream wrote:

of course you don't...thus why you hold the opinion you do. i have found that on most points you make you are so convinced that your thoughts are just so 'right'...so obvious and clear, that you cannot see anything from a point of view that at all skews from your own. right or wrong on any particular topic, it is a shame. while i won't say that anyone has ever made me blatantly change my mind on any given topic here...i HAVe learned a great deal from many different posters...even those who come at certain topics from a completely different viewpoint than my own, and i see certain things with an expanded viewpoint, a broader scope.

it's refreshing to have an open mind about things, and even more important to discussion...not to completely discount others' opinions, respected sources, etc...by calling them ignorant or any other completely dismissive terminology. if one is so convinced of their own rightness, why bother calling it a discussion? seems more like 'agree with me, learn from me...or shut up.' just my 2 cents.

Because they are wrong. Logic exists regardless of humans.

I like the way macros put it on skeptics.com

macros_man wrote:

Could 'god' change the value of PI if he/she/it wanted to? Could god make 1+1=3 true, without changing all the other rules of mathematics?

All laws of mathematics, or theorems, or whatever you want to call them, are interconnected, and they all stem from immutable concepts that would even transcend god, if he/she/it existed...

Come, my child... you may find safe haven here...

Have you ever heard of Fractals? Fractals follow directly from relatively simple mathematical constructs... and they show correlations to nature... yet they are things we have DISCOVERED... not invented. These patterns existed long before humans even knew what math was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractals

See, what he's saying is, these things are innate to reality, not just to us as human beings. We don't invent them, we discover them, they exist independent of us.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, that's quite the shift in popular opinion.

I started a similar thread over at Skeptics.com and pretty much no one disagrees with me. Even though I'm kind of playing the devil's advocate on the topic.

Check it out http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=92463#92463

Something odd about this forum.

It couldn't possibly be that you're among your own crowd at that site, while this one is much more diverse as the basis for people being here is something as random as a particular rock band we all like... I figure I'd find a lot of people agreeing with me too at "leftie-sociologists.com".

And I still ask you kindly for something written on your claims. I am not going to start watch stuff that goes on for hours, and fundamentally is for the particularly interested. Never mind the pedagogical usefulness for me to absorb it all, just gimme the highlights or anything really. Dont be a one-source pony.

Peace
Dan

eden '07

OutOfBreath wrote:

It couldn't possibly be that you're among your own crowd at that site, while this one is much more diverse as the basis for people being here is something as random as a particular rock band we all like... I figure I'd find a lot of people agreeing with me too at "leftie-sociologists.com".

And I still ask you kindly for something written on your claims. I am not going to start watch stuff that goes on for hours, and fundamentally is for the particularly interested. Never mind the pedagogical usefulness for me to absorb it all, just gimme the highlights or anything really. Dont be a one-source pony.

Peace
Dan

Haha...wow.

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

It couldn't possibly be that you're among your own crowd at that site, while this one is much more diverse as the basis for people being here is something as random as a particular rock band we all like... I figure I'd find a lot of people agreeing with me too at "leftie-sociologists.com".

And I still ask you kindly for something written on your claims. I am not going to start watch stuff that goes on for hours, and fundamentally is for the particularly interested. Never mind the pedagogical usefulness for me to absorb it all, just gimme the highlights or anything really. Dont be a one-source pony.

Peace
Dan

Bad night Dan?

It's an infinite loop though. If I post my summation of material it's passed off as radicalism. If I give a source for my information it's ignored. You can't win with lazy people. People here are diverse, that's for sure. But they don't explore, they don't learn, they are stuck and too absorbed to spend the time reading or watching something intriguing. Instead, watch hours of mind-numbingly stupid sitcoms. Nelson from The Simpsons will tell you that your epidermis is your hair. If you didn't know any better, you might believe it. Skeptics is all about skepticism, not everyone there agrees, but there is certainly a lot more depth to the conversation.

Why can't we have a decent debate here? Is it as you say, because everyone here likes Pearl Jam, perhaps Pearl Jam represents some radical view of reality. I don't know, I just like their music. I thought this was a section for reasoned debate. It's more like an infinite black and white debate.

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

Good. Now if you combine the meanings we like to use the most, you get a system of reasoning that deals with criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. Emphasis on "a" system and "criteria" here. This does not equal science, nor does science equal this. But science as practiced is a such system.

And serisouly, dont be surprised if people on a message board wont necessarily just watch hours and hours of video lectures on a subject to view it your way. I do not doubt that you have found some people who stand at one side of the issues and present their case. Maybe even convincingly for all I know. But you can't with that sole and only reference present that view as undeniable fact that is accepted by all, when it isn't.

Find me a written piece that sums it up, and I may read it. Economy of time is a serious issue on boards like this. Not because I'm not at all interested, because I am, but what you consistently propose people to do is enormously time-consuming and may be viewed as a mere intimidation tactic, as you know noone will call you out on it. I'm not saying it is, just saying how it can be viewed. By all means, link me evidence and pieces supporting your view, that can be read in a timely fashion in a reasonable amount of time. Then I can judge their merit. But having an argument where you basically say: "It's all here in this long movie, and I will argue as if it is the entire and complete truth, and assume if you haven't seen it, you are ignorant and un-enlightened" won't get us very far.

Again, if the consensus and interpretation that you claim is so widespread and matter-of-factly, then getting me some other sources than those videos must surely be possible.

Peace
Dan

I'm suprised that this even requires proof. The idea that logic is a subjective human construct is absolutely absurd. Logic exists regardless of our experiencing it. Our environment is logical and we are part of it, therefor we are logical. Our brains are tuned to adapting to our logical environment by logical groupings of neurons that serve a logical purpose in our behavior.

What do you think? Newborns just instantly know everything? Or maybe they can't figure anything out. How then do they learn to speak? Is it their alogic that enables them to learn and adapt? How is it different than logic? I don't get the argument against logic, I guess I need to understand that first. So when you can give me a good argument for man-made logic, then I can make an argument.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

Bad night Dan?

It's an infinite loop though. If I post my summation of material it's passed off as radicalism. If I give a source for my information it's ignored. You can't win with lazy people. People here are diverse, that's for sure. But they don't explore, they don't learn, they are stuck and too absorbed to spend the time reading or watching something intriguing. Instead, watch hours of mind-numbingly stupid sitcoms. Nelson from The Simpsons will tell you that your epidermis is your hair. If you didn't know any better, you might believe it. Skeptics is all about skepticism, not everyone there agrees, but there is certainly a lot more depth to the conversation.

Why can't we have a decent debate here? Is it as you say, because everyone here likes Pearl Jam, perhaps Pearl Jam represents some radical view of reality. I don't know, I just like their music. I thought this was a section for reasoned debate. It's more like an infinite black and white debate.

Nah, my night was good.

But that's just the thing. You usually post something pretty radical (and it is, outside of skeptics.com) and at best back it up with one source (your videos or wikipedia). But the reason for most of the flak you get is your attitude, and quick resorting to labelling people stupid and ignorant. Mostly for just not sharing your view. That's a debate-killer if there ever was one.

This site is not a professional site for people within one particular field. This is a site with ordinary different people that take an interest on various issues, and differ on them. So many here may not see the world as you do. If you feel that makes for poor debates, well, find some place else then.

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

Nah, my night was good.

But that's just the thing. You usually post something pretty radical (and it is, outside of skeptics.com) and at best back it up with one source (your videos or wikipedia). But the reason for most of the flak you get is your attitude, and quick resorting to labelling people stupid and ignorant. Mostly for just not sharing your view. That's a debate-killer if there ever was one.

This site is not a professional site for people within one particular field. This is a site with ordinary different people that take an interest on various issues, and differ on them. So many here may not see the world as you do. If you feel that makes for poor debates, well, find some place else then.

Peace
Dan

So, it's just a place for bored and tired average people to spew the same old assembly line statements over and over again, upsetting each other and creating a no-win environment? What's the point?

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm suprised that this even requires proof. The idea that logic is a subjective human construct is absolutely absurd. Logic exists regardless of our experiencing it. Our environment is logical and we are part of it, therefor we are logical. Our brains are tuned to adapting to our logical environment by logical groupings of neurons that serve a logical purpose in our behavior.

That's one philosophical direction, yes. Logic as mode of reasoning and sense-making we have no guarantee latches on to "truth", and certainly not that it latches on to "the complete truth". Your view is then best characterized as logical positivism. That is one perspective. Widespread in scientific circles, sure.

What do you think? Newborns just instantly know everything? Or maybe they can't figure anything out. How then do they learn to speak? Is it their alogic that enables them to learn and adapt? How is it different than logic? I don't get the argument against logic, I guess I need to understand that first. So when you can give me a good argument for man-made logic, then I can make an argument.

I think you read a lot more into "logic" than I do. You equate logic, truth and reality. To you they seem to be interchangable. I dont view them as that necessarily. How newborns learn I do not know, I dont research it, but I do know that those who do research it are not in agreement on anything there. Some claim innate ability, others claim tabula rasa.

And who is arguing against logic? I am merely limiting it's scope, or trying to make you see that logic is a system of reasoning and deducting, and as such, there may be different systems.

I am founding my view in the philosophical tradition of phenomenology, which is pretty often the opposite of the logical philosophers. (a particular direction and reasoning in a particular way in this sense) The key argument against the logics is mainly: "How can you be sure that something holds the same meaning for all universally, and also how can you get around the ambiguity inherent of all concepts to enable only one interpretation?". We're getting into a philosophical argument now, but that's what it is!

My view that logic is man-made has some basis. First of all, logic isn't just lying around until we discover it. Human minds actively uses (a) logic to make sense and categorize the world around them. Also all human minds are alone in the sense that noone knows what others are thinking. Speech and communication being flawed at best. To function together we must have a shared outlook on the world as that saves us a lot of time, and together establish what is logical, what values we respect, what tradition and norms we are to observe. Thus we get a shared logic, or just "logic" as we think of it. But that logic is not objective and not found in nature, but has appeared out of humans negotiating with eachother for a compromising agreement we can live with. The outcome of negotiations can be different. Maybe we in our culture happen to have latched onto the real objective truth but we have no way whatsoever to verify that. This doesn't negate science or logical discussion, it just puts it in perspective, and gives a view of it's limits.

Peace
Dan

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

So, it's just a place for bored and tired average people to spew the same old assembly line statements over and over again, upsetting each other and creating a no-win environment? What's the point?

That is not what I said. That interpretation is on you.
You tell me. Why are you here?

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

Peace
Dan

But isn't logic proven to exist. A logical statment like 1 + 1 = 2 is undeniable. It's all symbols which is a logical construct in the sense you've represented. However, the actual logic that exists of which the symbols represent, exists regardless of the symbols. Two objects when placed together makes a "pair" which represents two objects. The symbol "Can of Coke" is used for communication. "I have two cans of coke, would you like one?" represents the fact that you do have two cans of coke and are willing to share one. The logic is there regardless of the symbols. If I said "I have 3 cans of coke" and in fact I only had 1, that would be a false representation of logic in terms of symbols, but the fact that I had 1 can of coke still remains true. My representation of fact was illogical. Everything we know is somehow logical. It's totally speculative to say something exists beyond what we can possibly know. And I don't really see the point of it. Unless you are attributing emotion to something besides logic. I guess it can seem like an opposing force, but I'm not so sure it is.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

But isn't logic proven to exist. A logical statment like 1 + 1 = 2 is undeniable. It's all symbols which is a logical construct in the sense you've represented. However, the actual logic that exists of which the symbols represent, exists regardless of the symbols. Two objects when placed together makes a "pair" which represents two objects. The symbol "Can of Coke" is used for communication. "I have two cans of coke, would you like one?" represents the fact that you do have two cans of coke and are willing to share one. The logic is there regardless of the symbols. If I said "I have 3 cans of coke" and in fact I only had 1, that would be a false representation of logic in terms of symbols, but the fact that I had 1 can of coke still remains true. My representation of fact was illogical. Everything we know is somehow logical. It's totally speculative to say something exists beyond what we can possibly know. And I don't really see the point of it. Unless you are attributing emotion to something besides logic. I guess it can seem like an opposing force, but I'm not so sure it is.

Logically, speculative logic shows us logically that logic can be improved logic tomorrow, logically rendering the current logic illogical.

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

That is not what I said. That interpretation is on you.
You tell me. Why are you here?

Peace
Dan

Well you said people don't want to get in-depth. So isn't it just the same all the time. An abortion thread gets started, you get people on either side fighting it out. You are either all in favor of abortion at any stage, or you think that the soul begins at conception. I'm not so keen to take an extreme view of it. I can see both sides of the argument. But that doesn't fly here, you have to just keep referencing Roe vs Wade or arguing the unborn is part of the mother's person. The law as it stands is pretty much what I think it should be, maybe a bit different, but not much. So it's like a polarization pit, I think if it wasn't such an emotional experience we'd fine more compromise here.

So why am I here? Because I like conversation. I try to talk about important issues, but it's just not registering. I mean, the logic here is you read Michael Talbot and your an expert on everything. The guy is a sci-fi author. I would just look at his background, look at his references, look at his content and put it back on the shelf. I wouldn't read it, who is this guy? If you want to learn about cosmology, you read a book written by a cosmologist who references other cosmologists. This junk science is insane, it's far too much. Obstruction of the truth. Hey, I'm fully open to believing in the boogieman when we have his corpse in a morgue and his genome on our computers. What really is there besides logic? Where does this idea come from that there is something else? I can't think alogically. I just can't.

Anyway, a lot of studies have shown children to use logic. They pick stuff up, examine them, stick 'em in their mouths, twirl them with their toungues, stick 'em up their noses, ears, kids will try anything, with everything they can get their hands on. They are logically figuring everything out. Causality inference in other words. They are discover nature as it exists in objective reality.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

Logically, speculative logic shows us logically that logic can be improved logic tomorrow, logically rendering the current logic illogical.

Or our logical interpretation of logical events becomes clarified. I'm not saying we are perfect causal inference machines, I'm just saying that we are designed to integrate with reality. It's our innate ability to infer causation.