Logic and Reason

Originally posted by twhitehead
Only if we are talking about the way we say it or write it. I was referring to the abstract concept which is [b]not a convention. Even an animal with no communication whatsoever with humans can arrive at the abstract concept of 2.
Counting (and what is "an element" that we can count) is a convention.
Again, counting is not a convention. Or ma ...[text shortened]... gh probably with a slightly different meaning than the one being employed in this thread.[/b]

The given fact "2" exists solely within the cognitive/ awareness field and therefore its nature is mind-only. "One" is different than "Many", and the sentient beings are able to collapse the wavefunction in accordance to their own cognitive/ awareness abilities which they urge them to grasp the difference between "One" and "Many", "How many?" etc, and thus to proceed with further actions
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Oh I will try from another perspective;

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 ...[text shortened]... oted thanks to the consensus of the majority of the members of all the given Human societies
😵

Haha, I have to laugh because everything you said is very deep, I'm having a hard time grasping it 😲 ... let me read it again and try to give you my arguments... 😵

Ok, you said "Man begat Man, and this means that the Man is amongst else a product of his products". If you are saying that man is a product of his products, then was there a first man, or a first product, and where did that man and/or product come from, if it even needed to come from anywhere/anything? And if man and/or product needed to come from somewhere/something, then where/how did it come into existence? Do you believe that everything exists without a beginning? Or do you believe that everything has evolved over time? I think you are basically saying that everything "just is", if I am understanding you correctly, and you're saying that what we call "laws" is just a collection of our scientific observations, and you're also saying that these "laws" do not exist outside of our observing them..?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Only if we are talking about the way we say it or write it. I was referring to the abstract concept which is [b]not a convention. Even an animal with no communication whatsoever with humans can arrive at the abstract concept of 2.
Counting (and what is "an element" that we can count) is a convention.
Again, counting is not a convention. Or ma ...[text shortened]... gh probably with a slightly different meaning than the one being employed in this thread.[/b]

Really? Do counting animals experience '2' in the same way as you do?

The most powerful chess computers don't understand how to play chess.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
Haha, I have to laugh because everything you said is very deep, I'm having a hard time grasping it 😲 ... let me read it again and try to give you my arguments... 😵

Ok, you said [b]"Man begat Man, and this means that the Man is amongst else a product of his products". If you are saying that man is a product of his products, then was there a fir ...[text shortened]... nd you're also saying that these "laws" do not exist outside of our observing them..?[/b]

Dear Lady, you misunderstood everything I said😵

It is obvious that the physical world that surrounds us, our personal inner world and the world of our ideas are existent. These three worlds are different and they interact: the physical world sets the pace to our emotional field and triggers our senses and our emotions, whilst at the same time we act in the physical world according to our ideas -which they are a product of our intelligence within the cognitive/ awareness field. The moral plexus of ours is solely the effect of the Human invention that is known as "morality".
Then, since morality becomes a vital agent within our societies and therefore it becomes active and real within our physical world, it forces us to act according with the moral laws that we establish (which they are all merely an effect of our invention known as morality).
Therefore the Human is a product (s/he builds a specific attitude that triggers specific actions thanks to her/ his invention known as morality) of her/ his products (morality in this case).

Is it clear now?
😵

Originally posted by SharpeMother
Haha, I have to laugh because everything you said is very deep, I'm having a hard time grasping it 😲 ... let me read it again and try to give you my arguments... 😵

Ok, you said [b]"Man begat Man, and this means that the Man is amongst else a product of his products". If you are saying that man is a product of his products, then was there a fir ...[text shortened]... nd you're also saying that these "laws" do not exist outside of our observing them..?[/b]

edit: "I think you are basically saying that everything "just is", if I am understanding you correctly, and you're saying that what we call "laws" is just a collection of our scientific observations, and you're also saying that these "laws" do not exist outside of our observing them..?"



You came to another false conclusion. I never said that the laws are a collection of our given scientific observations -although many of the laws are deciphered and understood in such a depth that they are finally recognized by us as "laws".

I said that "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."
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
The given fact "2" exists solely within the cognitive/ awareness field and therefore its nature is mind-only. "One" is different than "Many", and the sentient beings are able to collapse the wavefunction in accordance to their own cognitive/ awareness abilities which they urge them to grasp the difference between "One" and "Many", "How many?" etc, and thus to proceed with further actions
😵

The abstract concept "2" does not exist in specific locals nor depend on anything.
It just is.
Otherwise, can you explain how the concept can be known by all humans (I hope), whether or not they have been able to communicate with others with similar knowledge? What is it that is in common between you and I when we think of the number "2"?
If you argue that it is a result of cognitive/awareness that more or less always arises due to the laws that govern cognition, then surely those laws can similarly said to 'just exist' and essentially the concept "2" is a part of those laws.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Really? Do counting animals experience '2' in the same way as you do?

It matters not what way they experience it. The concept itself is unchanged.
I do not know whether you and I experience it in the same way. What I do know is that we must have something in common that is absolute and independent of both of us or communication would be impossible.
I think therefore I am, I communicate therefore you are.

The most powerful chess computers don't understand how to play chess.
Then neither do you as you are a chess computer too. I would be interested to know what 'understanding' or chess you believe you have that an electronic chess computer does not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The abstract concept "2" does not exist in specific locals nor depend on anything.
It just is.
Otherwise, can you explain how the concept can be known by all humans (I hope), whether or not they have been able to communicate with others with similar knowledge? What is it that is in common between you and I when we think of the number "2"?
If you argue ...[text shortened]... similarly said to 'just exist' and essentially the concept "2" is a part of those laws.

Well, two is one and one. Three is one & one & one. So these numbers are just a shorthand, names denoting (1+1+1+1...). Perhaps one is the only real number and the rest are fictions.

Be that as it may, I wouldn't say 'the concept is known by all humans'. I'd say all people can count. But some not so far. Some cultures have not needed to count past five, going '1,2,3,4,5, lots'. Chances are they'd be hard pressed to provide an abstract conception of number.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It matters not what way they experience it. The concept itself is unchanged.
I do not know whether you and I experience it in the same way. What I do know is that we must have something in common that is absolute and independent of both of us or communication would be impossible.
I think therefore I am, I communicate therefore you are.

In the first place, I understand that I am playing chess. I understand that I have an opponent, I have a concept of the Other. A computer does not, it's just programmed to crunch numbers very effectively. Kasparov has written interestingly on the difference between human and computer attitudes towards chess.

How can something be held in common and be absolute and independent at the same time?

Did 0 exist before it was invented?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]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.

Wow. You hold a very pessimistic view of logicians. Do you think logicians have any place in a university?[/b]

Not at all. I hold mathematics and logic in a very high esteem. They are particularly good languages at helping us make sense of what's inside the box.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
That quote was the last thing you said in that particular message. What explanation are you referring to?

Sorry, I meant in the following post where I said this

Even if we take the step to claim that it is unique among humans, then nothing guarantees than it is not our brain structure that creates a convergence of paradigms into one that seems to "work" for us. But you need to remember that to evaluate if something "works", then you need to use the paradigm for which you are testing it against. From the inside of the box.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Only if we are talking about the way we say it or write it. I was referring to the abstract concept which is [b]not a convention. Even an animal with no communication whatsoever with humans can arrive at the abstract concept of 2.
Counting (and what is "an element" that we can count) is a convention.
Again, counting is not a convention. Or ma gh probably with a slightly different meaning than the one being employed in this thread.[/b]

"Counting" is not an object or entity that "exists" in the real world. It is simply a rule that we've defined. If an action satisfies the properties we've assign to "counting" then we call it counting. But it only makes sense because we've defined those properties beforehand. In that sense, it is a convention because it requires agreement on what the rules are. This is true for all operators. We define them as string manipulating rules and after we've built an abstract edifice, we try to fit this to the world.

Computers were created and programmed by humans, so the "logic" that they may exhibit is not independent from ours.

Edit - Imagine someone who like Dr. Manhattan in the Watchmen experiences space-time in a completely different way. How would that affect the way he views causality or even existence? I imagine that the logical rules that would be required could be potentially remarkably different. Of course, it's even hard to imagine other possibilities due to the problem that I'm also inside the box...

Originally posted by twhitehead
The abstract concept "2" does not exist in specific locals nor depend on anything.
It just is.
Otherwise, can you explain how the concept can be known by all humans (I hope), whether or not they have been able to communicate with others with similar knowledge? What is it that is in common between you and I when we think of the number "2"?
If you argue ...[text shortened]... similarly said to 'just exist' and essentially the concept "2" is a part of those laws.

The abstract concept “2” is solely a notion and it does not exist alone -a notion exists solely as a convention of ours, as Palynka said earlier. This notion is used simply because we have to decipher and to offer specific details (regarding the reality that we grasp) according to our nature. So when I see “two” trees and you see the same “two” trees we see both of us “two trees” because there is a consensus between us regarding a specific quality of the Event Tree -How many?

The concept “2”, along with every number and every abstract concept, became a conceptual uniformity, and thus it is “known” by all humans as you pose it, because the humans we are collapsing the wavefunction according to our very nature -and there are specific uniformities at the level of our 6 senses that they enable this common understanding between each member of our species. All in all, we are just using a language in order to bring up an accurate map of the reality that we grasp -and, if we are both accurate, then the trees can well be “2” not because the notion “2” is real but because the event/ fact “two trees” is real
😵

Originally posted by SharpeMother
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.

There are specific scientific and philosophic fields regarding each one of your questions, which in my opinion they are badly mixed. Therefore regarding, say, the origins of the universe, you can keep up philosophising, however you will end up a bad philosopher in case you do not back up your philosophy efficiently with validated scientific facts and evidence.

So, over here, one is obliged to study and to check the miscellaneous validated theories and the validated scientific finds regarding this matter, and then s/he has to evaluate them accordingly in order to become able to bring up her/ his personal theory of reality according to her/ his intelligence. Of course this means that one’s string of thoughts must be free from religious impurities and from false theories.

Anyway there is not the slightest evidence that could force us to assume that the final explanation of the universe is "God", because reality arises solely from a field of infinite potentiality for experiences by means of its inner mechanism of the unfolding of each one of these events. Therefore the nature of reality of the universe contains the field of experience/ awareness, and also it contains the collapsing of the wavefunction by means of another observers within the observer universe; these observers are everything: a cloud, a rock, a planet, a galaxy, a black hole, a river, the sentient beings, the Human -you name it. My thesis is that a separate and independent so called “creator” able to collapse ad infinitum and at the same time each one of the infinite wavefunctions is out of order simply because then I have to accept blindly that an entity, totally independent from its creation and thus totally independent from the process of reality, is somehow connected within and into the events of reality from an external field. Of course such a blind belief is as acceptable as Thales’ theory of reality because, since a total and complete otherness implies too a complete absence of connecting agents and qualities at every level, the establishment of a connection between “God” and his “creation” is impossible.

Finally, regarding your questions about the essence of logic, once more I redirect you to my first post of this thread -the first one on page 4

😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Well, two is one and one. Three is one & one & one. So these numbers are just a shorthand, names denoting (1+1+1+1...). Perhaps one is the only real number and the rest are fictions.

As I said, how you choose to represent it, or write it is irrelevant. The abstract concept of "2" remains universal, real and independent of a thinker.