Whence comes logic

[Jeeves]

without knowledge , things that are the basis of knowledge , there is no intelligence .

At what point does that intelligence begin to manifest in a human? At birth, the intelligence will already have collected quite a lot of data, and a whole lot of synapses in the brain have already formed in the second and third trimester. So, where does an eight-week foetus get enough knowledge to start using its intelligence? And why, cttoi, do we bother to build all those schools?

 

[river]

At what point does that intelligence begin to manifest in a human? At birth, the intelligence will already have collected quite a lot of data, and a whole lot of synapses in the brain have already formed in the second and third trimester. So, where does an eight-week foetus get enough knowledge to start using its intelligence? And why, cttoi, do we bother to build all those schools?

intelligence forms before birth , in the womb . and before the womb . both sperm and eggs

that is why the quality of food and drink , intake , is so very important , by both sexes

 

[Jeeves]

intelligence forms before birth , in the womb . and before the womb . both sperm and eggs

that is why the quality of food and drink , intake , is so very important , by both sexes

in panem cognitionis; in vino ratio
I wonder how much wisdom is lost to condoms....

 

[river]

river said: ↑
intelligence forms before birth , in the womb . and before the womb . both sperm and eggs

that is why the quality of food and drink , intake , is so very important , by both sexes

in panem cognitionis; in vino ratio
I wonder how much wisdom is lost to condoms....

Much

But to those who don't want childern , perhaps it is a good thing .

Nothing worse than a parent who hates childern and/or regrets having them

 

[Yazata]

Here is your chance to air your views as to whence comes logic.

I don't think that anyone knows what logic and mathematics are, what kind of being they have or how they became what they are. It's one (or a whole set of) the outstanding unsolved metaphysical mysteries.

As a motivation introduction, I observe that most educated people take logic to be a branch of mathematics, or perhaps whatever mathematicians study that they call "logic" since broadly the beginning of the 20th century.

Or maybe the other way around. Frege, Russell and company seem to have wanted to derive mathematics from logic. But yes, I'm inclined to treat logic and mathematics together, to see them as examples of the same thing and to think that they raise many of the same problems.

Yet, the first systematic presentation of what humans understand of logical rules was made by Aristotle and that was something like 2,400 years ago, and as far as I know, most intellectuals since have accepted Aristotle's presentation as correct. I'm not aware that anything in mathematical logic shows Aristotle was wrong.

Or parts of it at least. There are lots of different logics today, most of which are consistent with Aristotelian logic and represent extensions of it, but others of which deviate from Aristotelian logic at strategic points, such as the 'law of the excluded middle'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic

I'm always exceedingly impressed by Aristotle and consider him perhaps the greatest philosopher of all time. He founded many of the subjects that we study today including formal logic, and he was more or less the father of biological science. He produced incisive analyses of everything he turned his attention to, from ethics and literary studies to embryology and the reproductive physiology of tide-pool invertebrates. His views on things still influence people's thought today in many fields in many ways. It's simply amazing when we remember that he lived in the 4th century BCE.

But his ideas can certainly be extended, improved upon or even corrected when he was wrong.

Whatever the case, is it possible to study anything if there isn't something to study? This suggests logic exists somehow somewhere. But where exactly?

It's certainly objective in some sense. Mathematicians and logicians all around the world agree on particular proofs. If the proof is valid for me, it should be valid in China too. Not only that, physics has also had great success incorporating mathematics in its theorizing. So physical reality certainly seems to display much of the same structure. (Quiet down W4U, I'm not saying that physical reality is mathematics.)

Traditionally, philosophers see rules of logic as necessary and a priori, rather than contingent and empirical.

I'd probably agree. I'm inclined towards mathematical Platonism, I guess. At least in some of my moods.

Putnam argued they could be empirical, taking the example of Quantum Physics to support this suggestion.

Most of logic is like that. It started with Aristotle as a formalization of the rhetorical thought-patterns displayed in speech. That's where Aristotelian logic has proven rather weak, since it can't really capture how we reason when we talk about possibility and necessity, the future and the past, degrees of certainty, and all kinds of everyday things like that. (To his credit, Aristotle was aware of some of these weaknesses.) Over the last century or so, philosophical logic has devoted much of its effort to extending classical logic in these ways to better encompass real-life reasoning, both in its everyday and its scientific applications.

https://books.google.com/books/abou...ml?id=5ycgFGs_0iYC&source=kp_book_description

So I'd say that the everyday reasoning that everyone practices is a far more powerful instrument in many ways than the formal logic that logicians have invented. What logic seeks to do is model it. Nevertheless, the structure of these relationships do seem to be objective in some sense and seem to be the same for everyone. Logic isn't just a matter of individual psychology.

If we all have our own personal sense of logic, why is it most intellectuals agreed with Aristotle's logic (and I would assume most people here)? But if we all have the same logic, how come?

My own more speculative metaphysical view is that reality has objective structure. While each of us finds him/herself in a particular individual situation, the way things behave in those situations displays regularities that beings like us can pick up on by abstraction and seem to be the same for all of us. That's what theoretical physics seeks to capture in its arcane mathematical net.

Human beings are biological organisms that evolved in this structured reality (we actually embody it in our own physical beings) and have nervous systems and thought-patterns that evolved to improve our survival and reproductive chances in the situations in which we find ourselves. So a great deal of our thought process seems to mirror the structure of how the reality around us behaves. (If it didn't, we probably wouldn't be here.)

And where are we supposed to look when we want to produce a method of logic that, somehow, would be correct?

I don't know.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think that anyone knows what logic and mathematics are, what kind of being they have or how they became what they are. It's one (or a whole set of) the outstanding unsolved metaphysical mysteries.

You are needlessly confusing the two situations. We don't know what logic is but we certainly know what mathematics are just like we know what formal logic is. They are just what we think they are. Academic disciplines, theoretical research, formal expressions, etc. Nothing mysterious at all. Logic itself, yes, we don't know what it is.

Or maybe the other way around. Frege, Russell and company seem to have wanted to derive mathematics from logic. But yes, I'm inclined to treat logic and mathematics together, to see them as examples of the same thing and to think that they raise many of the same problems.

The drive for a formal theory of logic at the time of Frege was part of a long trend towards more rigorous proofs in mathematics. Formal logic was expected to provide the means to make mathematical proofs more formal and hence more rigorous. Didn't happen. What you are referring to is something else that came later, somewhat like an unexpected byproduct. And formal logic is definitely a part of mathematics. The delusion is to then infer from that that logic itself is all mathematics.

Or parts of it at least. There are lots of different logics today, most of which are consistent with Aristotelian logic and represent extensions of it, but others of which deviate from Aristotelian logic at strategic points, such as the 'law of the excluded middle'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-classical_logic
As I see it, non-classical logic are either not logic at all or nonsensical. There is a lot a nonsense proffered in the name of logic these days.

I'm always exceedingly impressed by Aristotle and consider him perhaps the greatest philosopher of all time. He founded many of the subjects that we study today including formal logic, and he was more or less the father of biological science. He produced incisive analyses of everything he turned his attention to, from ethics and literary studies to embryology and the reproductive physiology of tide-pool invertebrates. His views on things still influence people's thought today in many fields in many ways. It's simply amazing when we remember that he lived in the 4th century BCE.

Yes. It's rather unbelievable. Aristotle himself and the whole lot of Ancient Greek thinkers, but particularly Aristotle. His work on logic remains unfalsified, and the proper mathematical expression of it was only produced in 1920 by Gentzen.

But his ideas can certainly be extended, improved upon or even corrected when he was wrong.

Sure, though not in logic.

It's certainly objective in some sense. Mathematicians and logicians all around the world agree on particular proofs. If the proof is valid for me, it should be valid in China too.

Which disqualifies non-classical logics.

Not only that, physics has also had great success incorporating mathematics in its theorizing. So physical reality certainly seems to display much of the same structure.

I fail to see any physical structures that really correspond to that of logic. In fact, our logic is literally falsified by nature. Think of any implication and see how it doesn't hold in the natural world. Logic is properly a mental process for processing the data coming through our perception senses. Logic isn't about the universe. It's about the data our brain process. The brain would keep carrying out the same logical process even if isolated from the universe.

It started with Aristotle as a formalization of the rhetorical thought-patterns displayed in speech. That's where Aristotelian logic has proven rather weak, since it can't really capture how we reason when we talk about possibility and necessity, the future and the past, degrees of certainty, and all kinds of everyday things like that. (To his credit, Aristotle was aware of some of these weaknesses.) Over the last century or so, philosophical logic has devoted much of its effort to extending classical logic in these ways to better encompass real-life reasoning, both in its everyday and its scientific applications.

That sounds like asking for logic to be the name of science. We just don't call logic something that would be including the notion of metaphysical necessity and possibility just like we don't think of logic as including the notion of energy and matter. However, a proper logical calculus would be able to derive one thing in terms of another just like we derive the conclusion from the premises. But that's not for today.

So I'd say that the everyday reasoning that everyone practices is a far more powerful instrument in many ways than the formal logic that logicians have invented. What logic seeks to do is model it. Nevertheless, the structure of these relationships do seem to be objective in some sense and seem to be the same for everyone. Logic isn't just a matter of individual psychology.

Yes, but we all have access to the basic facts of logic through our own intuitions. You only have to try.
EB

 

[arfa brane]

I fail to see any physical structures that really correspond to that of logic. In fact, our logic is literally falsified by nature.

I fail to see how that can possibly be true.

Take the example of tossing a coin. Logic says the coin will land with heads up or tails up. If, that is, it lands on a flat surface and gravity does the rest.
The logic used here gives us the ability to predict an outcome. Much like the logic that tells you taking your hands off the steering wheel when cornering will mean you have an accident, crash into something etc.

We understand motion in a way that means we can predict events. This isn't very surprising or even controversial.

But, by all means post some examples of physical structures that don't correspond to logic (or perhaps explain what that means).
Given that a physical object with structure is already logical (but how exactly?). Actually a physical object must have structure a priori, it exists, it has measurable properties like size, weight etc.

I'd like to see you give at least one example of nature "falsifying our logic".

Logic isn't about the universe. It's about the data our brain process. The brain would keep carrying out the same logical process even if isolated from the universe.

More sweeping and unsubstantiated "conclusions". How do you know what your brain would do if it was isolated from the universe? What do you mean by "isolated"?

How is it that logic isn't about the universe? What universe?

We just don't call logic something that would be including the notion of metaphysical necessity and possibility just like we don't think of logic as including the notion of energy and matter.

We don't? Are you saying energy and matter aren't logical?

However, a proper logical calculus would be able to derive one thing in terms of another just like we derive the conclusion from the premises.

What's a "proper" logical calculus? Do you mean a "useful" calculus? An "easy to understand" calculus? A "complete" calculus? A category?

 

[DaveC426913]

In fact, our logic is literally falsified by nature.

Then it is flawed logic, and must be revised.

Name something in nature that falsifies logic, and I will show you some flawed logic.

I'd say it is a truism that nature - being a physical reality - trumps any logic that disagrees with it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I fail to see how that can possibly be true.
Take the example of tossing a coin. Logic says the coin will land with heads up or tails up. If, that is, it lands on a flat surface and gravity does the rest.
The logic used here gives us the ability to predict an outcome. Much like the logic that tells you taking your hands off the steering wheel when cornering will mean you have an accident, crash into something etc.
We understand motion in a way that means we can predict events. This isn't very surprising or even controversial.
But, by all means post some examples of physical structures that don't correspond to logic (or perhaps explain what that means).

For example, logic says the coin will land with heads up or tails up if it lands on a flat surface and gravity does the rest.

Given that a physical object with structure is already logical (but how exactly?). Actually a physical object must have structure a priori, it exists, it has measurable properties like size, weight etc.

Here, I don't see how you are responding to anything I said, so I'll pass on this one.

I'd like to see you give at least one example of nature "falsifying our logic".

You did it yourself.

More sweeping and unsubstantiated "conclusions". How do you know what your brain would do if it was isolated from the universe?

I didn't claim to know. I just claimed it was true.

What do you mean by "isolated"?

Nothing unusual...

Isolated
Electronics (of circuits) prevented from interacting

How is it that logic isn't about the universe?

Logic isn't about the universe because t's about the data our brain process.

What universe?

What time is it?

we don't think of logic as including the notion of energy and matter

We don't?

No, we don't.
If you think we do, please quote a standard textbook of logic explaining how logic includes the notions of energy and matter.

Are you saying energy and matter aren't logical?

I don't need and I don't feel like saying that.

What's a "proper" logical calculus? Do you mean a "useful" calculus? An "easy to understand" calculus? A "complete" calculus? A category?

"Complete" is good.
If complete then presumably "useful".
"Easy to understand" would be a bonus point.

Hey, no need to get upset again.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Then it is flawed logic

Why would it be "flawed" at all? How would you go about justifying this bold statement?

and must be revised.

Easier said than done. You're welcome to offer suggestions as to how to go about that. It's our logic after all. Do you suggest we reverse-engineer our brain or our DNA? And if our logic is really flawed, is it at all reasonable to try such a risky move?

Name something in nature that falsifies logic, and I will show you some flawed logic.

I already did. Nature itself.

I'd say it is a truism that nature - being a physical reality - trumps any logic that disagrees with it.

And you think logic is what? God given?
EB

 

[arfa brane]

You did it yourself.

I did what myself?

Up to this point in your response to my post, all you do is parrot me.
Please give an example of nature falsifying itself . . . ?

Or an example of a physical object which isn't logical.

Logic isn't about the universe because t's about the data our brain process.

I have no idea how anyone might begin to show how the data in their brain isn't 'the universe'. Or at least, isn't their brain's response to a conjectured external world, which logically they cannot deny could be mostly an illusion, something invented by their own brain as part of a feedback process.

Or Something.

In which case, "the logic of energy and matter" is somewhere in this response/feedback loop.

 

[river]

↑

Given that a physical object with structure is already logical (but how exactly?). Actually a physical object must have structure a priori, it exists, it has measurable properties like size, weight etc.

Because the physical form , or physical object with structure , its not about logic , but more importantaly , it is the consequence of the Nature of the object its self

 

[DaveC426913]

Why would it be "flawed" at all? How would you go about justifying this bold statement?

See next.

I already did. Nature itself.

Show me an example of Nature itself.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I have no idea how anyone might begin to show how the data in their brain isn't 'the universe'.

Sorry, that doesn't seem to be about what I said, so I let it pass.

Or at least, isn't their brain's response to a conjectured external world, which logically they cannot deny could be mostly an illusion, something invented by their own brain as part of a feedback process.

And?

In which case, "the logic of energy and matter" is somewhere in this response/feedback loop.

Where's the quote I asked of some logic textbook?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Show me an example of Nature itself.

???
EB

 

[DaveC426913]

???
EB

Your answer was a non-answer.

I asked for an example of something in nature that defies logic, and said I would show you some flawed logic.

So give me an example.

By "nature itself" I have to assume you're referring to the physics of the universe - the four fundamental forces.

How does that defy logic?

 

[river]

Your answer was a non-answer.

I asked for an example of something in nature that defies logic, and said I would show you some flawed logic.

So give me an example.

By "nature itself" I have to assume you're referring to the physics of the universe - the four fundamental forces.

How does that defy logic?

Define these four fundamental forces

 

[DaveC426913]

Define these four fundamental forces

Weak nuclear, strong nuclear, EM and gravity.

The entire universe and all its properties is an emergent property of these four phenomena.

 

[river]

Weak nuclear, strong nuclear, EM and gravity.

The entire universe and all its properties is an emergent property of these four phenomena.

All which are based on matter .

 

[DaveC426913]

All which are based on matter .

No. Matter is a consequence of the fundamental forces. The forces preceded matter.