Sense Any of the faculties by which stimuli from outside or inside the body are received and felt, as the faculties of hearing, sight, smell, touch, taste, and equilibrium. Sense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense Humans have a multitude of sensors. Sight (vision), hearing (audition), taste (gustation), smell (olfaction), and touch (somatosensation) are the five traditionally recognised senses. The ability to detect other stimuli beyond those governed by these most broadly recognised senses also exists, and these sensory modalities include temperature (thermoception), kinesthetic sense (proprioception), pain (nociception), balance (equilibrioception), vibration (mechanoreception), and various internal stimuli (e.g. the different chemoreceptors for detecting salt and carbon dioxide concentrations in the blood, or sense of hunger and sense of thirst). However, what constitutes a sense is a matter of some debate, leading to difficulties in defining what exactly a distinct sense is, and where the borders lie between responses to related stimuli. And logic then?! I would submit that we obviously have to have a sense of logic. This allows us to feel intuitively certain that specific logical formula are logical truths and non-sequiturs. Example: If I believe it's true that when it rains the ground gets wet and if I can see it is now raining outside then I will believe that the ground outside will be wet. I will make this inference without even being aware I'm making an inference. It's an intuition. I couldn't possibly verify that we all have broadly the same sense of logic but since we all have broadly the same visual sense, sense of hearing, etc., I see not good reason that we should differ much in respect of our logical sense. So, this leads to the question of why science has not yet recognised, as far as I know, our sense of logic as a sense of perception. Don't scientists also have logical intuitions? Or is it because they think they are good at logic because they are more intelligent, or perhaps because they have received a formal training? We're in 2018, for Christ's sake. And for not very long. Time to wake up. Or maybe they can't be bothered? Recognising our sense of logic as a sense of perception also avoid the embarrassment of having to rely on extrasensory perception to support our reasoning. EB
Doesn't sense perception imply a direct stimulation of the nervous system? I think that's why logic doesn't qualify. The senses are modes of neurological functioning. Logic is more of a cerebral functioning, not really triggered by some external physical stimuli.
I'm not sure what you mean by "direct" stimulation of the nervous system. The nervous system receives input data from a range of perception organs. A large part of what we perceive is our own body, rather than our environment, as noted by the standard presentations of perception senses I provided in the OP. Sense Any of the faculties by which stimuli from outside or inside the body are received and felt, as the faculties of hearing, sight, smell, touch, taste, and equilibrium. Sense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense Humans have a multitude of sensors. Sight (vision), hearing (audition), taste (gustation), smell (olfaction), and touch (somatosensation) are the five traditionally recognised senses. The ability to detect other stimuli beyond those governed by these most broadly recognised senses also exists, and these sensory modalities include temperature (thermoception), kinesthetic sense (proprioception), pain (nociception), balance (equilibrioception), vibration (mechanoreception), and various internal stimuli (e.g. the different chemoreceptors for detecting salt and carbon dioxide concentrations in the blood, or sense of hunger and sense of thirst). However, what constitutes a sense is a matter of some debate, leading to difficulties in defining what exactly a distinct sense is, and where the borders lie between responses to related stimuli. As to your distinction between "neurological" and "cerebral", I would agree that most of the logic there is in our brain is essentially a capacity which is inherent in the way neurons and neuron structures work. As such, anything that the brain does is essentially a logical process, including what the brain does with input data coming from other senses, such as our visual sense etc. As such, I would agree that the logic involved in these basic processes doesn't constitute a sense. I have to assume that's what you mean by "neurological". By "cerebral", probably you mean the kind of thinking we do consciously. One kind of logic which can be involved sometimes here is what I would qualify as "formal logic". Formal logic here would be any explicit logical argument we sometimes produce in debates and discussions. I doesn't happen very often, but it may be exactly what you mean by "cerebral". However, there is another kind of logic which is also involved in our conscious thinking. As I understand it, it's not only involved but its contribution to what we come to think is paramount. Pretty much all our ideas require that sort of logic and it isn't formal logic. I would qualify it as "intuitive logic". Essentially, we are only minimally aware of it. We can sometimes choose to focus on it but usually we don't. There's no difference in this respect with what we do with other types of sensory data. For instance, we don't pay much attention if at all to most of the data from our visual sense, even the bit we are attending to. Our attention doesn't usually linger on what we're looking at. Same for our logical intuitions. However, we can choose to focus on it. Just consider the following: if it's true that it rains and that I'm hungry, then it's true that it rains. We know it's true, and we know it's true outside seeing that it is raining and that we are hungry. We actually know the logical implication as such. And we can consider it long enough to decide whether we feel it's true or false. And we will certainly all have the impression, feeling, or as I would put it, the intuition, that it is true. There's even nothing we can do about that, much like there isn't anything we can do about believing that there is a tree whenever we have the impression that there is a tree we are looking at. And this is what I call our logical sense, because it essentially works like a sense. We can't deny it, it comes all ready, it's always available, and all the processing necessary to produce such logical intuitions is unconscious. We only get the end result, the intuition itself, as a conscious impression, which is exactly what happens with other senses. So, basically, there's no essential difference between our logical sense and our other senses. This also means that what we perceive in this case is logic itself, or logical relations, together with whether the relation concerned is true or false. And I would in fact say exactly the same thing of our memory capability. These cognitive capabilities, logic, memories, visual sense etc. all provide fundamentally the same kind of functions, very different in their specifics, but useful and used in fundamentally the same way by the conscious mind. We can understand our memory capability to provide a perception of our brain's record of our own, personal, past experience. And our logical capability, we can understand it as providing a perception of our brain's "DNA record" of the entire past experience of life itself, starting from the first species to be gifted with at least one neuron. EB
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? EB
In nature there is only logic. Being that everything stems from nature, it follows that all things are naturally endowed with logic as a result of universal evolutionary processes. The trick with logic is to select the proper premise on which to build a valid logical perspective or algorithm.
? battle to wits end form & function for every vowel may acquire its deepest indignation Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why do we use the term "extra-sensory perception"? Perception without using your senses? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation I would argue that a "self-aware brain" would go mad, being locked up in total darkness and absolute silence, without a sense of gravity, without aromatics. The self-aware "I" resides in the conscious part of the brain, the "I" apart from the rest of my body which I cannot feel or control without sensory assistance. Utter madness is sure to follow and I believe I just described Hell, and certainly not an answer to the ability for extra-sensory perception. Quite the opposite, I would argue. However, from the chaos of actual sensory information input, "I" learn to separate useful logical patterns. "I" would argue, the greater the ability for "sensory perception", the greater the resulting logic from experience. Watch the Anil Seth presentation.
And no explanation at all? At least, you did find something to say. That certainly gives a new light to the notion of critical thinking. EB
Don't senses have objects? Our senses seem to involve reactions to objects or states of affairs in objective reality. Light, sounds, mechanical pressure, even orientation of one's limbs in space. So what is the object of a hypothetical logical sense? Treating logic (and mathematics by extension) as if they were senses is the line of thinking that leads to mathematical Platonism, to the assertion that the objects of a hypothetical logical/mathematical sense are abstract objects with some objective existence of their own. (Leaving us with the problem of how the logico-mathematical sense connects with them. Seemingly not causally.) https://www.iep.utm.edu/mathplat/ I lean very much towards mathematical Platonism myself, certainly in some of my moods. But an opposing line of argument, exemplified by Kant I guess, argues that logic arises from how the human mind works, that logical structure is imposed on reality by our mode of perception/conception. Which kind of turns the question of why physical science works, of why physical reality conforms to our impositions and why reality doesn't produce a lot more anomalous, illogical, counterintuitive and seemingly a-nomic events, into kind of a miracle. (Which motivates the "no-miracles argument" for scientific realism). Either that, or the formal structure of our mode of cognition has evolved so as effectively to model the formal structure of how physical events occur out there in reality, which circles us back to something like mathematical Platonism. I have to admit that I don't really have a clue what the foundations of logic are. But that sentence italicized above probably most closely approximates how I'm inclined to think about it. I think that reality possesses form and structure. (What all those mathematical heiroglyphs on physicists' chalkboards hope to capture.) And I think that human cognition is able to (perhaps partially and imperfectly) model that form. (It's not difficult to concoct an evolutionary explanation for why that might be.) Which points toward a possible account for how we can be aware of logic without it being a sense like sight or hearing (it derives from how we evolved to think), and for why physical reality so often cooperates when physicists make logico-mathematical predictions about how reality is going to behave in particular experimental conditions. Sure they do. You're criticizing somebody there. Who, and why? It seems to me that trying to turn logical intuition into an additional sense runs the risk of turning it into something very close to extrasensory perception. Similar causal mechanism problems etc.
Is not all abstract thought a form of extra-sensory perception? (note; perception, not reception) To postulate an inherent mathematical nature to the universe is an extra-sensory perception, no?
