29 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KNow imagine that there is something wrong about B, something counterintuitive anout this deduction.[/b]
[b]You seem to believe that coherence precedes logic. This is incorrect. In your example, your listener concludes that you are being incoherent precisely because he is using logic as a yardstick. But what determines the choice of yardstick? Obviously, we require an ex-ante standard to choose between possible yardsticks. So what we now call "logic" is positions. If there could be some instantiation for A and ~A then it must be coherent.
To determine some rules are "wrong" requires logic. So you again are using a circular argument by pretending we don't need logic to be able to judge that same logic. A logician can only strive to find a set which is not self-contradictory but he cannot chose between such sets.
The real-world interpretation for prepositions is a different animal completely because there we must agree that it cannot be separated from the subjects doing the interpretation.
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOk. So there is a universe, and no God. I would still need to ask where did logic and reason come from..? Where did the universe come from? The universe MIGHT have been able to evolve, but can logic and reason evolve? I would then ask, is logic and reason something that happens in our brains, like a physical response to our senses and experience, or is it law of nature? Where did something that is immaterial come from? If it is something that happens in our brains then why is it consistent with all humanity, why isn't there another line of logic. e.g. where I can say "I have a cat" and "I don't have a cat" and it would be logical. Why wouldn't un-identical brains produce un-identical logic?
Much clearer.
Try this as a thought experiment. Imagine a universe that has no God. What would preclude logic and reason from existing in this universe?
There are no answers for these questions. You need logic in order to find logic. You need reason in order to find reason. In a universe where there is no God I would need to have faith that logic and reason just are and have always been. My only answer for these questions is that there MUST be a God because without one there could be no logic or reason.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28111
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by SharpeMotherThus finally and conclusively proving that there is no god!!! Because surely there is damn little logic and reason on display in this universe (at least the part inhabited by humans.)
Ok. So there is a universe, and no God. I would still need to ask where did logic and reason come from..? Where did the universe come from? The universe MIGHT have been able to evolve, but can logic and reason evolve? I would then ask, is logic and reason something that happens in our brains, like a physical response to our senses and experience, or is ...[text shortened]... stions is that there MUST be a God because without one there could be no logic or reason.
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by lauseyI do not claim that there are no absolutes. There ARE absolutes.
Logic and reason aren't laws but are methodologies that we apply to what we observe to come to conclusions and work out the physical laws.
For example, in Newtonian physics, if you add two velocities (u and v) at slow speeds, the resulting total velocity (s) at the stationary frame of reference will be this:
s = v + u
This can be observed over and ov ...[text shortened]... itely aren't absolutes, and then all of a sudden said, "Therefore, there must be a god!".
What I'm saying is that in a world that exists only physically (materially) there is nothing preventing that material universe from randomly changing. Where do logic and reason come from in a strictly materialistic world?
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by TerrierJackPeople who are intelligent, no matter how much they disagree, still have to use some sort of standard by which to even THINK. I am not questioning or referring to people who are unintelligent and will not / cannot think with the use of reason and logic because they are dumb, I am referring only to the people who are intelligent enough to be rational and ask these types of questions.
Thus finally and conclusively proving that there is no god!!! Because surely there is damn little logic and reason on display in this universe (at least the part inhabited by humans.)
And even if MOST people can't think logically or rationally, that has nothing to do with the fact that logic and reason still simply exist. So the question still remains unanswered, where do logic and reason come from?
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by SharpeMotherYou are assuming that logic and reason are entities that can be encapsulated in some way like a physical object.
I do not claim that there are no absolutes. There ARE absolutes.
What I'm saying is that in a world that exists only physically (materially) there is nothing preventing that material universe from randomly changing. Where do logic and reason come from in a strictly materialistic world?
1 + 1 = 2
This is mathematically absolute.. In english 2 is "two", French it is "deux" and Spanish it is "dos", and in some alien language it will be something else. We have to use words to represent what is universal. The logic of adding 1 unit to another unit to get 2 is also universal. By themselves, the symbols are abstract, but when using them to represent the number of items, it becomes a description of something which we can touch (e.g. 2 bananas).
Logic and reason can apply to observations of things that we can touch, but the logic and reason aren't material themselves. It cannot evolve the same way that what "2" is supposed to represent by itself can evolve. They are abstract, and do not mean anything by itself.
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by lauseyRight, I would agree with that. Hmm… I'm not talking about the words logic and reason, nor the fact that we need them in order to communicate an idea, I am talking about where that idea came from.
You are assuming that logic and reason are entities that can be encapsulated in some way like a physical object.
1 + 1 = 2
This is mathematically absolute.. In english 2 is "two", French it is "deux" and Spanish it is "dos", and in some alien language it will be something else. We have to use words to represent what is universal. The logic of adding 1 u ...[text shortened]... represent by itself can evolve. They are abstract, and do not mean anything by itself.
Ahg, how do I make this clearer...
I agree with you that logic and reason are not materialistic. Just as the number 2 represents an idea, so do logic and reason represent blank.. whatever... But my question is, where does the original idea that is being represented by the words logic and reason come from? Where do we get that which is logical and reasonable? How did it come about to exist?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
30 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaTo determine some rules are "wrong" requires logic. So you again are using a circular argument by pretending we don't need logic to be able to judge that same logic. A logician can only strive to find a set which is not self-contradictory but he cannot chose between such sets.
Now imagine that there is something wrong about B, something counterintuitive anout this deduction.
To determine some rules are "wrong" requires logic. So you again are using a circular argument by pretending we don't need logic to be able to judge that same logic. A logician can only strive to find a set which is not self-contradictory but he cannot ch ...[text shortened]... e there we must agree that it cannot be separated from the subjects doing the interpretation.[/b]
Wow. You hold a very pessimistic view of logicians. Do you think logicians have any place in a university?
30 Oct 09
Logic & reason are not laws. We use Logic to reason out something. That's what I think at least. Now our logic can be flawed in some cases. Now I do believe there are laws that govern this universe. A theist will argue that these laws prove a creator. Most of these laws hold up except under certain cases. (Science forum) The laws of motion or gravity or how light behaves or whatever. These can be proven to behave the same way every time. Now morality is a different case I think. I believe there has to be some standard or absolutes with morality otherwise how do we come to agreement about what is right or wrong? The theist will argue that morality comes from God.
Manny
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by menace71So is logic a consensus of our minds? Is logic material or immaterial in nature? How did those laws that govern our universe come to be? How did they begin, or do they even have a beginning?
Logic & reason are not laws. We use Logic to reason out something. That's what I think at least. Now our logic can be flawed in some cases. Now I do believe there are laws that govern this universe. A theist will argue that these laws prove a creator. Most of these laws hold up except under certain cases. (Science forum) The laws of motion or gravity or how ...[text shortened]... nt about what is right or wrong? The theist will argue that morality comes from God.
Manny
If morality doesn't come from God, where does it come from? You believe that there are absolutes when it comes to morality, so if morality isn't just something that happens in our brains then it is immaterial in nature. So how does something like evolution account for something immaterial that exists? Or is morality a consensus of our minds? And if it is a consensus then there might not be absolute morality.
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by PalynkaI second that 😵
You're looking at the box from within. The number 2 is a convention. Counting (and what is "an element" that we can count) is a convention. Mathematics is just a language and, as such, it is a convention. The same applies for logic operators. That we are able to make sense of the world within the confines of one particular convention doesn't mean it is uniqu ...[text shortened]... ed to use the paradigm for which you are testing it against. From the inside of the box.
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by PalynkaOnly if we are talking about the way we say it or write it. I was referring to the abstract concept which is not a convention. Even an animal with no communication whatsoever with humans can arrive at the abstract concept of 2.
The number 2 is a convention.
Counting (and what is "an element" that we can count) is a convention.
Again, counting is not a convention. Or maybe I don't fully understand what you mean by 'convention'?
Even if we take the step to claim that it is unique among humans,...
It seems to me that my computer can count. One is then left wondering whether it is using any form of logic or reason to do so or whether it is really some sort of extension of our minds and thus dependent on our reason and logic. The word 'logic' is used quite heavily in the computer field though probably with a slightly different meaning than the one being employed in this thread.
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by SharpeMotherOh I will try from another perspective;
So is logic a consensus of our minds? Is logic material or immaterial in nature? How did those laws that govern our universe come to be? How did they begin, or do they even have a beginning?
If morality doesn't come from God, where does it come from? You believe that there are absolutes when it comes to morality, so if morality isn't just something ...[text shortened]... a consensus of our minds? And if it is a consensus then there might not be absolute morality.
Logic is an organon that enables me to conceive/ evaluate the process of the reality, and reality is understood as an experiential field in which I have my being activated. The nature of this field is cognitive/ awareness, and this is the reason why reality responds with great sensitivity to my intentional and to my unintentional activities. Therefore the nature of the logic is mind only.
Since this organon is able to bring up miscellaneous patterns, according to them we assume that every given fact is brought up from the Cause/ Effect field. Thanks to this basic thought we are able to archive the miscellaneous patterns/ positions/ conditions regarding every given fact/ probability at specific partitions, and every pattern/ position/ condition is governed by a specific field of cognitive/ awareness -and from there emerges our understanding about the specific nature of each cause/ effect subsystem, which is then understood by means of specific dynamic agents known as “laws”. These laws are merely the footprint of the interacting physical systems of the world that surrounds us, and every physical system (observer) is capable of memorizing and handling specific elements of reality. And the universe is an observer too, whilst an element of reality is every exchangeable and finite packet of physical information -therefore the laws are interwoven with the universe and they cannot stand alone as if they were a so called “absolute truth”. All in all, the “laws” are the “memory” of the observer universe and they can be understood as its complete collection of elements of reality. As you see, the idea of the so called “god” goes down the drain when we are talking about the probability of an epiontic universe -and methinks that the universe is epiontic.
Regarding morality, for me it is obvious that it is just another human invention. Morality is mind-only and in the beginning it existed solely in our mind, and then it was brought up out of social necessity, and then this product of ours began to produce within the members of each society specific ideas and attitude and moral laws (Man begat Man, and this means that the Man is amongst else a product of his products). At every given society, morality has the shape of the given consensus of the members of that society. Therefore the probable absolutes at this field are absolutes solely within a specific society or within specific societies merely because we want (their members want) them to be absolutes. Thus there is not an “absolute morality” for all the societies of the Human through time, however there is absolute morality within every specific society according with the given consensus of its respectful members -and, on the other hand, it is quite probable that due time we could see “absolute morality” within a globalised society if such a thing would be promoted thanks to the consensus of the majority of the members of all the given Human societies
😵