Whence comes logic

[RainbowSingularity]

Apparently the subconscious physical control mechanisms act in a logical manner. And we don't even know it!

However, the sensory and/or chemical processing mechanisms may become defective and the logical functions become impaired.
We experience a "disability".

is "thought" a dissability ?[etc...](arguementative, could awarenes be defined as an interruption in logic)

 

[Write4U]

is "thought" a dissability ?[etc...](arguementative, could awarenes be defined as an interruption in logic)

We can have a defective brain which would affect the logical thinking process.
Alzheimers does qualify as a disability in thought processes.

Seth proposes that "observation" (mental processing of external information) is a form of "controlled hallucination" and only when we get confirmation from others can we be reasonably sure that our own perception of reality is correct.

One of the reasons why mainstream scientific theories must be accepted by concensus, but even then additional information may falsify the theory.
Newton was correct at local scales, but Einstein added to the basic theory and made it more complete.

Theories of the physics of gravity were first developed by Isaac Newton in 1687 and refined by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1905 to allow light bending. While it is the earliest-known force, gravity is still very much a mystery with theories still unconfirmed by astronomical observations in space.

Google.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Alzheimers does qualify as a disability in thought processes.

[passing thought] [mechanics] lack-of vs no function ? non functional has no logic value ? (etc...)

and only when we get confirmation from others

generaly i never say what im studying but since you cross its path.
subconscious narcissistic defence as a formative self actualisation of social cultural normalisation.

 

[Jeeves]

Herd senses danger and stampedes
Herd blindly follows the leader and runs off the cliff.

Exactly: emotioal/instinctive/reflexive behaviour; not reasoning behaviour. All animals have these non-cognitive attributes, and need them, because reasoning takes time that we don't always have available before reacting to danger. The stampede makes sense in this context. The cliff, if present, is a piece of information the herd might have acquired in time, but did not possess at the moment of reaction, so their subconscious calculations did not take it into account. (Which is why the humans, being more intelligent, deliberately drove them in that direction.)

Apply the Boolean logic and you will see the answer.

To what question?

could this be considered as humans playing with their food like cats, dogs, Birds of prey, & orca ?

No, this is a different psychological phenomenon. Humans are able to compartmentalize and rationalize. Pigs are one class of thing; pork is quite another. Lamb, oddly enough, in various depictions, is a sweet personification of the virtue of innocence (There are four things seriously wrong with that phrase.) and the food product it becomes after a rather gruesome process has the same name, and yet is regarded quite differently. This ability to detach object from meaning and concept from function is - I believe - exclusively human.
Just as well, too: we've been losing our uniqueness in all the other areas we used to claim. You know how humans hate not being special!

 

[Write4U]

Exactly: emotioal/instinctive/reflexive behaviour; not reasoning behaviour. All animals have these non-cognitive attributes, and need them, because reasoning takes time that we don't always have available before reacting to danger. The stampede makes sense in this context. The cliff, if present, is a piece of information the herd might have acquired in time, but did not possess at the moment of reaction, so their subconscious calculations did not take it into account. (Which is why the humans, being more intelligent, deliberately drove them in that direction.)

No, this is a different psychological phenomenon. Humans are able to compartmentalize and rationalize. Pigs are one class of thing; pork is quite another. Lamb, oddly enough, in various depictions, is a sweet personification of the virtue of innocence (There are four things seriously wrong with that phrase.) and the food product it becomes after a rather gruesome process has the same name, and yet is regarded quite differently. This ability to detach object from meaning and concept from function is - I believe - exclusively human.
Just as well, too: we've been losing our uniqueness in all the other areas we used to claim. You know how humans hate not being special!

Our perceived uniqueness is also causal to our woes. We believe we are exempt from natural logical constraints.
Scripture is a perfect example of this. "made in His image"? Please, spare me the hubris.

But humans also are herd animals and when exposed to stress groups act as a single body, often called a "mob psychology".

Crowd psychology, also known as mob psychology, is a branch of social psychology. Social psychologists have developed several theories for explaining the ways in which the psychology of a crowd differs from and interacts with that of the individuals within it.

Crowd behavior is heavily influenced by the loss of responsibility of the individual and the impression of universality of behavior, both of which increase with crowd size

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology

The "mirror function" (involuntary empathic responses)?

 

[Write4U]

non functional has no logic value ?

Good question. You're making me work...

In logic, a three-valued logic (also trinary logic, trivalent, ternary, or trilean,[1] sometimes abbreviated 3VL) is any of several many-valued logic systems in which there are three truth values indicating true, false and some indeterminate third value.

This is contrasted with the more commonly known bivalent logics (such as classical sentential or Boolean logic) which provide only for true and false

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
.

 

[Jeeves]

Our perceived uniqueness is also causal to our woes. We believe we are exempt from natural logical constraints. Scripture is a perfect example of this. "made in His image"?

Ah, but what a great tool for crowd-control!

But humans also are herd animals

Not herd animals - pack animals. More like predators than prey: the human mob tends to attack, rather than run away. (except, of course, in panic response, as to fire or gunshots, but that fear reaction would be much the same if each individual were alone.) The size of the mob - and the perceived confidence of the leader - matters substantially when the driving emotion is aggressive - anger, greed, pride, defense of the tribe or property, etc.
This attribute is very useful in building team spirit for tasks that require courage, perseverance and co-ordination of effort. But keeping it under civilized control is difficult. Hence, religious and patriotic ritual to formalize the actions and install trigger-words in the psyche of the pack, so that they'll respond to commands, rather than go off in random directions.

 

[Write4U]

Ah, but what a great tool for crowd-control!

Yes, and if you think about it, it is a logical contradiction.

Reminds me of the old NAZI proclamation; "Arbeit macht frei"! or "Work (in a concentration camp) sets you free"!

 

[Write4U]

Not herd animals - pack animals. More like predators than prey

"Give us your poor huddled masses" would suggest a herd mentality.
OTOH, "We must build a wall to keep the predatory pack (mothers and children) outside our borders from "invading" the US, would suggest the other.

 

[Jeeves]

"Give us your poor huddled masses" would suggest a herd mentality.

It might suggest that, but the masses didn't write it - a single individual, looking down on them from a privileged position did.It doesn't describe their mentality; it describes their condition at a particular juncture.

"We must build a wall to keep the predatory pack (mothers and children) outside our borders from "invading" the US, would suggest the other.

Prejudiced labelling doesn't describe the real attributes of anything - not the proletariat, not Wall street, not a nation of shopkeepers, not the free market...
A collective description of a group of anything, by any individual, inside or outside of that group, should be cautiously examined for booby-traps before accepting as accurate.

 

[Jeeves]

Yes, and if you think about it, it is a logical contradiction.

Reminds me of the old NAZI proclamation; "Arbeit macht frei"! or "Work (in a concentration camp) sets you free"!

And Orwell's linguistic exercises in his political novels.
Yes, religion does exactly that: tell the little man: "You are unique and precious. Now, kneel and kiss my...." ring, robe, floor, foot, whatever

 

[Write4U]

It might suggest that, but the masses didn't write it - a single individual, looking down on them from a privileged position did.It doesn't describe their mentality; it describes their condition at a particular juncture.

Prejudiced labelling doesn't describe the real attributes of anything - not the proletariat, not Wall street, not a nation of shopkeepers, not the free market...
A collective description of a group of anything, by any individual, inside or outside of that group, should be cautiously examined for booby-traps before accepting as accurate.

I keep it simple, human societies are build on three philosophical levels. 1/3 Progressives, 1/3 Moderates, and 1/3 Conservatives, each with their own justifications, which are not necessarily logical.

 

[Jeeves]

I keep it simple, human societies are build on three philosophical levels. 1/3 Progressives, 1/3 Moderates, and 1/3 Conservatives, each with their own justifications, which are not necessarily logical.

They may not conform to Boolian, algebraic logical equations (i.e. conceptual frills) but they make a roughly applicable sense on the ground.
Too, in any given time period, if you listen to the rhetoric, (linguistic frills) the proportion will seem to change (more conservatives now; more moderates in 1995, more progressives in 1970) but remain constant in active principles. Tactics change, though, and that also skews the perception of who belongs in what category.

 

[Speakpigeon]

While Plato and Aristotle may claim to establish the field of logic and set some rules they certainly can not claim to be the originators of it.
Logical reasoning was demonstrated way before Plato and ilk.

Various logical rules have been discussed before Aristotle but Aristotle seems to have been the first to understand the unity of the subject. I don't see why he shouldn't be regarded as the originator of the field of logic.

With the Prior Analytics, Aristotle is credited with the earliest study of formal logic,

As to how did the use of logic come to be?
I tend to feel that it could be blamed on our basic instincts and understandings of ourselves and our environment.

I agree.

The modern use of higher forms of logic evolved from simple beginnings.

May seem obvious but apparently not to all.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's it! The rules and formulas are mere frills added on to a simple tool used by all reasoning animals.
Just as puns, riddles and metaphors are frills added to language.
Because.... we can.

I agree but potentially a proper calculus would be a significant progress. Leibnitz looked for one. Boolean algebra, a calculus applying to subset of formal logic, applies readily to the intimate working of computers. Since the 50's, machines, theorem provers, produce formal proofs for theorems, something mathematicians almost never do. So, perhaps, not exactly "mere frills".
EB

 

[river]

Logic comes from reason(ing) .

Logic is about being focused on a particular point of any reasoning .

 

[Speakpigeon]

There is no "universal logic". There is how the universe functions, followed after a few billion years, by the observations and deductions done by reasoning entities, followed, after another few million years, by a clever ape's recognition of what he's been doing, followed by his organization of that [reasoning] into a coherent system, to which he then - and only then - gives the name "logic".

Yes, exactly, and this is exactly why I would say that logic is an empirical science, not just a potential mathematical theory. It seems we're not quite there yet. Aristotle produced a first formal system based on his observation, probably both of his own mind and of the occasional discussion of logical questions in the literature. Followed by 2,300 years without much. Then Boolean algebra. Then Gentzen's excellent formal method of proof which is just a generalisation of Aristotle. All this seems to have been based on the observation of how the human mind reasons.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Logic comes from reason(ing) .

I would say the exact opposite. Reasoning is formal thinking which tries to comply with our logical intuitions. Nobody tries to reason illogically. And one can certainly do a bad job of it.

Logic is about being focused on a particular point of any reasoning .

I don't see that any particular point of reasoning could possibly be done without trying to do it logically. Each of us has to rely on his own sense of logic, some may take advantage of their training in formal logic but using formal logic requires one to have first a sense of logic. Without logical intuition, nobody could make sense of formal logic. So, our logical intuitions come first. No intuitive sense of logic, no reasoning.
EB

 

[river]

I would say the exact opposite. Reasoning is formal thinking which tries to comply with our logical intuitions. Nobody tries to reason illogically. And one can certainly do a bad job of it.

I don't see that any particular point of reasoning could possibly be done without trying to do it logically. Each of us has to rely on his own sense of logic, some may take advantage of their training in formal logic but using formal logic requires one to have first a sense of logic. Without logical intuition, nobody could make sense of formal logic. So, our logical intuitions come first. No intuitive sense of logic, no reasoning.
EB

Disagree

Inotherwords , reasoning gathers in knowledge , logic does not .

 

[Write4U]

Inotherwords , reasoning gathers in knowledge , logic does not

Logic is complete, reasoning becomes more logical depending on gathering knowledge.
Difference perspectives with common "logical" denominators