The Limits of Logical Intelligence

That sounds more like definitions.

Logically, a particle is cannot a wave.
But the fact that it is a wave and a particle at the same time defies logic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey cool skill i think you may find this interesting:
http://www.quantumpsychology.com/Speak.html

G.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting.
I gave a speech about quantum psychology back at the end of October. I never knew there was a website.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A particle cannot be a wave. A wave is dependant upon many particles. These are not contradictory nor paradoxical statements; they are elementary Venn systems. Some "thing" x cannot be a particle and a wave simultaneously; if x were defined as light, we might say the particles were photons, while the light wave was the visible exchange of energy between a number of interacting photons in a given medium.

Logic is not the limiter of human understanding, but rather the enabler. ALL knowledge is dervied by logical means. The derivisions thereof may be limited or even wholly incorrect, but the tools in and of themselves are not to blame, rather the processes by which those tools were applied are at fault. A hammer is the tool by which nails are driven into base boards, but should a nail be improperly driven we don't blame the hammer (unless the hammer itself was flawed, in which case you were not using a hammer at all, but something altogether different, a "broken hammer"), we blame the user.

 

Not really. Logic is the intelligence we live by. The question is whether or not it is possible that an intelligence exists beyond logic to comprehend concpets that we cannot comprehend with our logical mind.

 

That you insist more from what is.

That's the problem.

You want to know why we suffer the Popes and mujahadeens?
The fascinating retards rocking back and forth with their rosaries and salats?
The wanting to tap into a mysterious ideal and swearing on god or En Sof or Plato that this world is not it?


Becuase of this thinking in terms of the act itself being a limit.
Your emotions cry out to you and your mind stumbles in trying to explain it.
This failure you call limit, and this limit you all take to be evidence of their being more and becuase you think there is more you fall in with the psychics and ESP carnival.
The scientist at least realizes the only limit is his current stupidity.

All you are and think is an amalgam of suggestion and Others before you.
There is no metalogic.

Anything past logic isn't. Call it "emotional"......or is that too humble for you?

 

"Logic is the intelligence we live by."

What?

"The question is whether or not it is possible that an intelligence exists beyond logic to comprehend concpets that we cannot comprehend with our logical mind."

The answer is, nothing which can be conceived of is beyond logical comprehension (by definition). The question is a false dichotomy and makes about as much sense as the preceding ("logic is the intelligence we live by").

 

Right thats my point... The thing in reality is neither what we define as a particle nor what we define as a wave... Both of our definitions, to the extent that they are mutually exclusive, are wrong. How can we avoid extending our definitions past what exists in reality? We can start by trying to check our use of metaphorical reasoning.

 

To say that there will never be a process or state to be found in the universe that is not potentially understandable through the application of human logic sounds a bit egotistical to me. The most basic question of "why is there something rather than nothing", the process that gives the universe existence may certainly be beyond any application of logic.
Logic certainly works to find order in some level in the universe, but we are just scratching at the surface here.
Dogs have a world-view to which they apply their own type of logic. They have no idea of the bigger picture. We are a couple of steps ahead of them, but to say our brains have developed the process that can potentially explain everything may be wishful thinking.

 

This whole topic was beaten to death (quite neatly in my opinion), by Douglas R. Hofstadter in his book "Godel, Escher, Bach".

 

Of course. That is the whole idea of the ancient eastern koans.

Lao Tzu. But it is not very explicit.

Take for instance the first verse of the Tao Te Ching:

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name."​

...
I base my entire philosophy on the concept of paradoxical Truth. Just make a search for my threads...!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not by definition.
Nothing which can be conceived of by human intelligence is beyond logical comprehension of human intelligence.
Is that what you are saying?

The question is about whether or not there exists concepts that cannot be conceived by logic, but can be conceived by using more sophisticated intelligence.

Your examples of the swans are more about perception. The swan has a specific color frequency. The way people perceive the frequency maybe different. That does not mean that the swan has 2 frequencies at the same time. Same with the TV example. It all in how the TV is defined. Whatever it is you wish to define it as, it has not defied logic.
The intelligence that I am talking about is not subjective to perception.
Regardless of what a person defines or perceive something, how is it possible for a swan in nature to have 2 colors at the same time? It is not logical. Therefore, it is impossible. Or is it?
Me seeing as white and you seeing it as black does not mean the swan has 2 colors.
In order for it to have 2 colors, it would have to actually reflect at 2 different frequencies at the exact same space at the exact same time independent of observation.

I'll check it out.

How?

 

Hofstadter used Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Eschers 'Infinite Staircase' and Bachs Crabbe Cannon to explore undecidability, recursivity, strange loops etc. Ken Felder gives a good overview of Hofstadters logic. Felder asks the following question at the end of his paper:

Anyone who claims to understand the power of logical thought but is not familiar with this body of work is pretty much an arrogant moron.

 

It is possible that there are many things out there that we cannot grasp logically. Maybe there are infinitly many things that we cannot comprehend.

 

Is anybody really reading the question?

originaly posted by cool skill

yes there is, but the problem is that we've not yet met them aliens.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Basically here's the thing. An alien race thousands of years superior in advancement of everything! Tech, Philosophy, ethics, etc... Will have a perception of reality we may not yet logically comprehend or can grasp.

So by the hypothesis above, there may be intelligence beyond, "our" logical understanding.

But I do believe that there is nothing unknowable once we begin to search and learn, discover, theorise, concepts that yet are unknowable to us will become clear in the future. Just as everything has so far.

Godless

 

Have you ever read eastern philosophy?

 

Yes. How does it relate to your koans?

 

originaly posted by cool skill

response from Godless

Godless - I know you were being tongue in cheek but in my spare time I've been turning this one over in my head. The formulation of this discussion is enormously vague/ambiguous.

I'm thinking that my dog uses intelligence that is beyond logic, although there is plenty of behaviour that seems to indicate an inate understanding of cause and effect. There are people that think almost exclusively in images rather than thoughts. Are they beyond logic? How are intelligence and logic related. An intelligent person would not keep their hand in a fire. But a person with leprosy might. They're not suffering from a lack of intelligence but a lack of information (awareness). On the other hand a photo-electric cell isn't intelligent (is it?). But when hooked up to the correct arrangement of diodes, capacitors, resistors and a motor, can move away or toward light. The design of the ciruits are logical, but is this even considered 'artificial intelligence'? There are many recognized forms of intelligence in behavioural science, so what are we talking about here? At first I was very excited about this question, but now it seems too broad to attack coherently (or I lack the requisite logical intelligence.

 

Your dog is not using logic, he's using stimulant data. However it's your own logical perception that he's using some type of logic. I.E. When one cuts a worm in half, and it wiggles in agony. Is the agony really the worm's agony or your perception of it been wiggling in what appears to you to be agony? Many claim that the warm grows individually with the two halfs cut, others say that it's your own perception that makes you think it's in agony.

No it's reacting to programed logic. A robot is not a sentient being, unless it discovers a way to self replicate, and self perservation. Thus is "Data" StarTreck Next Generation, a sentient being or not? It was concluded since Data had the capacity of self replicating, and also of self perservation of himself and others, that Data is a sentient being. However not human. The true logic answer would then be is that Data is AI.

Godless

 

I was thinking more in terms of my dog's style of catching a fly-ball. The 'stimulant data' has to be processed. All of the neural networks are established to accomplish the parabolic computations on the fly - which is the type of logic I'm thinking about. The dog would always track the projected course of the ball to where it intersected the ground, even if it bounced off the top of a picnic table - if he didn't see the bounce, he was looking under the table. You can argue that the behaviour is 'instinctive', but it also fits the 'Star Fleet' definition of sentience.

So lets take it one step further. I remember an episode of Nova (I think) some years back that showed squirrels working out ever more complex mechanical problems in order to get food in a bird feeder. Eventually, they were running an obstacle course of 10 or 12 different problematic elements. In one case, two squirrels used cooperation to overcome a counterbalanced guard mechanism in front of a feeder: One squirrel hung off the back, neutralizing the counterbalance, while the other pilfered the seeds. This appears to be an example of logical non-human intelligence - but that doesn't get us closer to a metalogic.