Why? How? - ultimate truth

Originally posted by knightmeister
You are saying that because logic is a concept that can be universally understood therefore it's not a concept but something else? Why?

The only thing we can ascertain about logic is that it is based on probability. Any concept is based on consistent observation of the universe. We say 1+1=2 or the sun will rise tomorrow , or apples fall to the gr ...[text shortened]... logically might just fade away overnight . We can only say that it is unbelievably unlikely.

You are saying that because logic is a concept that can be universally understood therefore it's not a concept but something else? Why?
Of course there's still the concept of logic.

BUt all this won't get us nowhere. It's just the way I see things, and you have you're way of seeing yours. Neither is right or wrong, neither can I prove or disprove it. For me there's a different category you could call "language of reality". It exists by itself, and it's immutable, and independent of any concepts.

The only thing we can ascertain about logic is that it is based on probability.
Logic has nothing to do with probability...
1+1=2 is completely different from sun rising up tomorrow. One is always true, the other is based on your observation and knowledge of reality. The sun might not rise up tomorrow, that's a possibility, although unlikely giving our present knowledge.
1+1=2 will always be that way.
Yes, the laws of the Universe can change. No one tells us planck constant will rise exponentially suddenly and change the whole universe. We simply don't know, and it's impossible to know, because science is based on observation.

When we say something is behaving illogically what we mean is that it's very unusual.
No. That's a wrong use of the word "illogical". That would be unreasonable, or unusual, or unrealistically.

Laws of the universe know nothing about logic. They simply are that way, we don't know why. Maybe they are mutable, but they have nothing to do with logic.

(I'm applying logic all through this post)

Originally posted by serigado
[b]You are saying that because logic is a concept that can be universally understood therefore it's not a concept but something else? Why?
Of course there's still the concept of logic.

BUt all this won't get us nowhere. It's just the way I see things, and you have you're way of seeing yours. Neither is right or wrong, neither can I prove or disprov y have nothing to do with logic.

(I'm applying logic all through this post)[/b]

The sun might not rise up tomorrow, that's a possibility, although unlikely giving our present knowledge.
1+1=2 will always be that way. -----serigado====

Prove it!

You see it's impossible to prove that 1+1=2 is an immutable , independent constant that can never change , just like it's impossible to prove that God's holiness is immutable.

If you can't prove it , it's most likely a concept. A very true concept at this point in the universe but that only makes it probable.

Here's another way of looking at it . Imagine existence itself is a vast unimaginable sea of chaos and irrationality. An existence where apples are televisions and 2+2 = dead fish. No constants or laws. Just plain old chaos. Now imagine this reality stretches infinitely in all dimensions surrounding our very universe . Imagine it's so huge that the universe itself is swallowed up by it like a grain of sand in a trillion oceans.

Ok, stop laughing now and think. Imagine the universe is basically just a freak occurence and that it's "logic" is actually out of step with the real reality of absolute chaos.

Now there's no way of knowing if this is true or not. It could be , it might not be. Something akin to this might be true , or the logic we conceptualise might be reflected in a higher reality as well. We just don't know , but we conceptualise that logic is an eternal constant , something immutable.

When we conceptualise logic and project it into the unknown in my book that's faith. And this is my point. You see I happen to agree with you that logic is immutable and eternal (because for me it is rooted in God -the very furnace of reality itself) . But for me I can own this as faith , because I cannot prove it nor know this. What you need to do is own it as faith and stop pretending it's some universal "given that we just accept.

It's a concept you believe in that you can't prove or know. For all you know that sea of chaos might really be out there. It's highly improbable but you can't know. And when we believe in something we can't know or prove that's faith.

For me when you say....

"It exists by itself, and it's immutable, and independent of any concepts." .............

It just sounds exactly like the kind of language you hear in churches.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The sun might not rise up tomorrow, that's a possibility, although unlikely giving our present knowledge.
1+1=2 will always be that way. -----serigado====

Prove it!

You see it's impossible to prove that 1+1=2 is an immutable , independent constant that can never change , just like it's impossible to prove that God's holiness is immutable.

If ...[text shortened]...
It just sounds exactly like the kind of language you hear in churches.

Hmm.. I guess you can say logic is my God, you're right.

It's just the way I see things. I'm not saying "it's like this, and can't be other way".
The Universe you created, only exists conceptually. 2+2 is not dead fish. Unless dead fish is 4. One thing is logic itself. Other is the concepts he use when we make logic inferences. Logic is senseless without concepts.
We have the concept of 1, plus, equal, that associate with things in the real world, but 1+1=2 always.

But I can live with logic being a concept. As long as it's immutable.

As for God, I don't have anything against its existence. He simply didn't give us any sign of existence.

Now... the Christian's God... that one is quite illogical . As it is the whole Bible stuff. I respect someone who says he believes there's a superior being that guides us. That's OK. This is a big world and no one wants to be alone.
I lose respect when he says he believes because it's in the Bible.
Where do you stand?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The simplest logical assertion A=A and A ~= ~A requires no interpretation, no mind.
"I really think you've lost your mind."
"You've lost your mind."
The first statement is my logical conclusion based upon my assessment of the (facts) particulars involving your historical behavior (or, in absence of that knowledge, normal behavior) as compared t ...[text shortened]... ming when the ears hear two pieces of wood being hit together from a radio broadcast.[/b]

For you to assert that A=A does not require interpretation is beyond absurdity: you are either losing your mind or are attempting to be silly.

If you are correct, you should be able to provide multiple, differing, coherent interpretations (not simply restatements) of the rule of identity.

Your error seems to be something like this—

Dr. Scribbles wrote: “The laws of logic are simply abstract representations of the actual ways in which actual facts actually relate to each other.” [An almost poetic use of redundancy there!]

You are essentially substituting the word “interpretations” for his word “representations.”

Either the facts of the world stand in actual relationships, or they do not. If they do, then we are either capable stating those relationships representationally, or we are not. If we cannot, then there is nothing that we can say about the factual world that might not be reasonably construed as a fantasy of our imagination. If you want to take a position of universal and absolute skepticism, you may do so: you simply cannot make any epistemological truth claims, even in support of your skepticism (a fact of which intelligent skeptics, like Sextus Empiricus, have long been aware).

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]For you to assert that A=A does not require interpretation is beyond absurdity: you are either losing your mind or are attempting to be silly.

If you are correct, you should be able to provide multiple, differing, coherent interpretations (not simply restatements) of the rule of identity.

Your error seems to be something like this—

Dr. ...[text shortened]... skepticism (a fact of which intelligent skeptics, like Sextus Empiricus, have long been aware).[/b]

[b]"Either the facts of the world stand in actual relationships, or they do not. If they do, then we are either capable stating those relationships representationally, or we are not."

Would you elaborate on this please?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Prove it!

You see it's impossible to prove that 1+1=2 is an immutable , independent constant that can never change , just like it's impossible to prove that God's holiness is immutable.

Both are quite easily proven.
1. 1+1=2 is not dependent on anything as it follows as a logical conclusion from the definitions and axioms that define its parts and therefore is immutable.
2. God is holy by definition (whether he exists or not).
QED.

Originally posted by vistesd
For you to assert that A=A does not require interpretation is beyond absurdity: you are either losing your mind or are attempting to be silly.

If you are correct, you should be able to provide multiple, differing, coherent interpretations (not simply restatements) of the rule of identity.

Your error seems to be something like this—

Dr. Sc ...[text shortened]... skepticism (a fact of which intelligent skeptics, like Sextus Empiricus, have long been aware).[/b]

Nice of you to finally join the fray!

If you are correct, you should be able to provide multiple, differing, coherent interpretations (not simply restatements) of the rule of identity.
By interpretation here, I mean that the statement only makes sense to the one who is able to conceptualize "A" as well as able to define "equals."

Let's cut to the chase, though, shall we? The word logic finds its roots in (coincidence unintended) word, or logos or representation of the thing. As a field, it concerns itself in the study of relations, principles and reason, among other similar things. Study is possible only with the mind.

What Dr. Scribbles wrote simply speaks about the laws of logic, not of logic proper. Big difference. The former concerns itself with describing in representative form the workings of the latter, itself the monopoly of the mind. Describing what the mind does is a separate animal from what the mind does. It's akin to reading the lyrics of a song in contrast to hearing the song being sung.

Skepticism is not my point here.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Nice of you to finally join the fray!

[b]If you are correct, you should be able to provide multiple, differing, coherent interpretations (not simply restatements) of the rule of identity.
By interpretation here, I mean that the statement only makes sense to the one who is able to conceptualize "A" as well as able to define "equals."
...[text shortened]... of a song in contrast to hearing the song being sung.

Skepticism is not my point here.[/b]

Then it seems that whatever was being disputed between you and Nemesio reduces simply to a lack of clarity. I also took your use of the word “interpretation” in a broader sense than you apparently intended it.

Similarly, LJ’s correction of my earlier post on modus ponens and inferential validity reminded me that we have also not been specific about when we’re talking about deductive, inductive or abductive logic.

Despite your differentiation, I would have to say, that “logic”, at least in the context of deductive inference, is the representational process that leads to the representative laws of logic.

With that said, I cannot disagree that the representational process occurs in the mind. Even the representational process of a visual image being “inscribed” in the visual cortex in such a way that we appear to be directly observing that object over there, is only going to occur within a brain-structure wired for such visual imaging. At that level, every seemingly direct perception that we have is an “interpretation” by the brain and our general neurology. Abstraction and conceptualization and reasoning are more complex yet, and that seems to be where the cutting edge of cognitive science is.

Skepticism is not my point here.

I really couldn’t imagine that it would be. 🙂 Again, I understood your word “interpretation” here in a broader sense than you intended it. I was only pointing out the consequences of that broader (and mistaken)—interpretation.

I think I’m going to quit arguing anything, and just spend my limited time on here asking people what they mean by this or that word or phrase.

Originally posted by vistesd

I think I’m going to quit arguing anything, and just spend my limited time on here asking people what they mean by this or that word or phrase.

Just as futile. They rarely know.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Just as futile. They rarely know.

Sigh.... :'(

Originally posted by vistesd
Then it seems that whatever was being disputed between you and Nemesio reduces simply to a lack of clarity. I also took your use of the word “interpretation” in a broader sense than you apparently intended it.

Similarly, LJ’s correction of my earlier post on modus ponens and inferential validity reminded me that we have also not been specific about when ...[text shortened]... just spend my limited time on here asking people what they mean by this or that word or phrase.

Then it seems that whatever was being disputed between you and Nemesio reduces simply to a lack of clarity.
That's what I thought originally, as well. But, as seen below from his post from a few pages back (in addition to my post which more specifically defined the terms being used), Nemesio is having problems between distinguishing what logic is and what logic is about:

Logic is not about interpretation; logic is about relationships. Those relationships exist without minds.

Logic is nothing without the mind; it is the mind's system for identifying and describing the relationships that exist in reality, as well as those which could exist in conjecture.

Facts exist regardless of any observation.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Nemesio is having problems between distinguishing what logic is and what logic is about

Wrong. You are the one confounding concepts and their referents.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Wrong. You are the one confounding concepts and their referents.

Typical blather: make a statement with the appearance of substance, but fail to back it up. Either you haven't been paying attention to the salient point of the debate, i.e., whether logic exists without the mind, or you don't understand the concepts thereof, or--- the most likely scenario--- both.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Then it seems that whatever was being disputed between you and Nemesio reduces simply to a lack of clarity.
That's what I thought originally, as well. But, as seen below from his post from a few pages back (in addition to my post which more specifically defined the terms being used), Nemesio is having problems between distinguishing what logic is ...[text shortened]... s well as those which could exist in conjecture.

Facts exist regardless of any observation.[/b]

Can relationships exist without a mind?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Can relationships exist without a mind?

Yes, relationships exist without a mind. Just as facts exist without a mind to observe them. We've covered that ground already. Logic is the function of the mind in analyzing the relationships which exist.