A logical argument against the absolute nature of logic

Page 3 of 5 [ 68 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Apr 2010, 11:36 pm

Then the human mind is unnatural?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Apr 2010, 11:59 pm

Sand wrote:

Then the human mind is unnatural?

The brain is natural in the same sense as a computer is natural. In another manner though, the mind can be said to be unnatural.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

13 Apr 2010, 12:06 am

Sand wrote:

Then the human mind is unnatural?

Yes, of course. Absolutely artificial. I mean, that's the only logical explanation left for the distinction being gotten at, Sand! Only logical explanation! Did the robots give us brains? Aliens??? :roll:

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Apr 2010, 12:21 am

And aside from human brains, do not any living creatures learn to figure their actions have predictable consequences? Living creatures with even limited learning abilities are then, I assume from your comments, are somehow excluded from nature.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Apr 2010, 4:05 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

Then the human mind is unnatural?

The brain is natural in the same sense as a computer is natural. In another manner though, the mind can be said to be unnatural.

Both computers and brains are material entities and operate according to physical laws. This is not the same as saying the brain is a kind of computer or the computer is a kind of brain.

ruveyn

DaWalker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,837

13 Apr 2010, 4:05 am

+ =

danlo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,079
Location: Western Australia

13 Apr 2010, 4:09 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Umm.... I don't think that most people who argue against logic really are going to argue for mathematics much. Especially given that the foundations of mathematics are likely more questionable than the foundations of logical analysis. As it stands, we cannot know all of the right math in the universe.

As for your argument, on ranked numbers, it is fallacious. Rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper, does not mean that rock beats paper. Instead, rock beats scissors. All that one has to do is claim that some issue gets in the way of the transitivity.

All of that being said, danlo, you cannot put forward an argument that logic is correct or that logical truths are absolute/non-relative. The entire affair would beg the question.

You're right. How can anyone argue for logic, without presenting a logical argument, to someone who doesn't believe in logic? It's like trying to explain science to someone who believes in magic. However, I would like to say that equating a number logic with a ranking system based on invented rules is quite absurd. To say that if 1 is less than 2, and if 2 is less than 3, then 1 is less than 3, is not the same as saying 1 'beats' 2, 2 'beats' 3, so 1 'beats' 3.

_________________
"Hitting bottom isn't a weekend retreat, it isn't a goddamned seminar. Stop trying to control everything and just let go!"

DaWalker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,837

13 Apr 2010, 5:45 am

That is logically sound.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

13 Apr 2010, 9:48 am

danlo wrote:

Well, in order to establish transitivity, you actually had to have some more explicit assumptions. The issue is that without those assumptions, the relationship to rock-paper-scissors is possible to think of.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

13 Apr 2010, 9:57 am

ruveyn wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

Then the human mind is unnatural?

The brain is natural in the same sense as a computer is natural. In another manner though, the mind can be said to be unnatural.

Both computers and brains are material entities and operate according to physical laws. This is not the same as saying the brain is a kind of computer or the computer is a kind of brain.

ruveyn

If a brain is not a kind of computer, then what else is it? Just a lump of flesh? Are we going back to Egyptian biology now?

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

13 Apr 2010, 10:44 am

Sand wrote:

Absolutely! How could I ever mean any more sensible interpretation? Obviously, I must be committing to something so ridiculous and outlandish because that's somehow what you manage to read it as. :roll:

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Apr 2010, 10:57 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Sand wrote:

It's good to get your confirmation although your conclusion is rather revolutionary.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

13 Apr 2010, 12:02 pm

Sand wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Sand wrote:

It's good to get your confirmation although your conclusion is rather revolutionary.

Yippie-ki-yay la revolución then.

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

14 Apr 2010, 1:43 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

I notice you guys do reach deep on logical processes, its not a bad thing but sometimes it seems like it rips free of Kansas and spirals off to Oz. The only thing I worry about though, with all the formulas, just be sure you don't lose grounding in common sense or too wrapped up in words or floating points - I'd imagine your keeping your gut-level common sense well guarded but, losing the forest for the trees causes you to lose something that it took a lifetime to accrue.

That said though logic is a very useful tool, I have to agree though with the quote from the original post though that its grounding is largely governed by a person's a priori statements and, while someone can indeed change their foundations it takes often more substantial proof than what's available. So, logic helps people further articulate and lean-up what they already believe, make a more and more stable structure of their beliefs (which is a definite human need for safety and protectorate rolls), though it quite often won't shatter the fundamentals that they started from because they're coded into the entire process of how they logically got to where they are now in terms of their beliefs.

I agree 100%. I also liked how you pointed out that logic structures beliefs we already hold.

fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

14 Apr 2010, 3:38 pm

The only absolute I believe in is absolute relativity. Oxymorons make me smile.

_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.

DaWalker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,837

14 Apr 2010, 4:08 pm

fidelis wrote:

The only absolute I believe in is absolute relativity.

Oxymorons make me smile.

As in;
logical argument
or
against the absolute
or
nature of logic

Page 3 of 5 [ 68 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

A logical argument against the absolute nature of logic Post Reply New Topic

A logical argument against the absolute nature of logic