|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 16, 2022 15:15:00 GMT
Two objections to logic:
1. Imagine the next dialogue:
- you don't understand, you just don't have not intelligence
- no, it's you who don't have any intelligence, my logic is clear!
- no way! I can imply anything I want and I am still on the true path
- don't say you can understand anything, your intelligence cannot get my logic!
-...
This can never be ended. Because for logic the intelligence is the dead end. Without intelligence there's no logic, and without logic there's no intelligence. The bad circle for logic.
2. How logic appeared?
When people realized thay were smart they started inventing different laws and rules (well-known codex "Inu Anum sîrum"; XXX century BC ). They tried to pick up the most workable ones laws among the others, and they used to classify them (Aristotle's analytics; near 370's BC). Logic contnued being sharpen (the Middle Ages, 1100-1350's). Then people saw those logical things could be used to upside down their opponents by striking them claiming if you don't know logic, you've got no brains! (Michelle Foucault's "Folie et déraison. Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique"; 1961). People started searching for the answers on the question about as the Philosophy of Mind, so the Studies on AI (nowadays).
Summary. So, anyone is so brave claiming the scientists will never solve those question about consciousness and mind? I thin they will. But I am also sure that what everyone called logic was invented and established like everything else. Just get it - l o g i c - i s a n o r m a t i v e s c i e n c e !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jan 16, 2022 21:43:26 GMT
Two objections to logic: 1. Imagine the next dialogue: - you don't understand, you just don't have not intelligence - no, it's you who don't have any intelligence, my logic is clear! - no way! I can imply anything I want and I am still on the true path - don't say you can understand anything, your intelligence cannot get my logic! -... This can never be ended. Because for logic the intelligence is the dead end. Without intelligence there's no logic, and without logic there's no intelligence.
2. How logic appeared? When people realized thay were smart they started inventing different laws and rules (well-known codex "Inu Anum sîrum"; XXX century BC ). They tried to pick up the most workable ones laws among the others, and they used to classify them (Aristotle's analytics; near 370's BC). Logic contnued being sharpen (the Middle Ages, 1100-1350's). Then people saw those logical things could be used to upside down their opponents by striking them claiming if you don't know logic, you've got no brains! (Michelle Foucault's " Folie et déraison. Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique"; 1961). People started searching for the answers on the question about as the Philosophy of Mind, so the Studies on AI (nowadays). Summary. So, anyone is so brave claiming the scientists will never solve those question about consciousness and mind? I think they will. But I am also sure that what everyone called logic was invented and established like everything else. Just get it - l o gi c - i s a n o r m a t i v e s c i e n c e!!! =======================REPLY: It seems to me that you are trying to determine which -- logic or intelligence -- is more important, and that your answer is really given in the words I boldened. However, your comparison lacks clarity of the subjects in question. What may be compared is "logical argumentation/thinking" [not Logic as the body of formulas of correct thinking], which is deemed to be demonstrative in Posterior Analytics, opposed/criticized by J.S. Mills and others], and intelligence/intellect as the truth discovering [or science-making] mind [not simply as our psychological understanding of anything or, for the moderns, the ability to solve encountered issues/problems]. // Of course there cannot be Logic [as a a science of correct reasoning] without intelligence to begin with,but there can be successful intelligence without Logic, for thinking can occur logically spontaneously, without reference to established norms/formulas/laws of correctness. //Similarly,a person can act morally without reference to an Ethics [established norms of proper behavior]. Logic and Ethics are normative sciences in the sense of their being about norms/precepts rather than historical facts.... |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 17, 2022 7:40:52 GMT
Two objections to logic: 1. Imagine the next dialogue: - you don't understand, you just don't have not intelligence - no, it's you who don't have any intelligence, my logic is clear! - no way! I can imply anything I want and I am still on the true path - don't say you can understand anything, your intelligence cannot get my logic! -... This can never be ended. Because for logic the intelligence is the dead end. Without intelligence there's no logic, and without logic there's no intelligence.
2. How logic appeared? When people realized thay were smart they started inventing different laws and rules (well-known codex "Inu Anum sîrum"; XXX century BC ). They tried to pick up the most workable ones laws among the others, and they used to classify them (Aristotle's analytics; near 370's BC). Logic contnued being sharpen (the Middle Ages, 1100-1350's). Then people saw those logical things could be used to upside down their opponents by striking them claiming if you don't know logic, you've got no brains! (Michelle Foucault's " Folie et déraison. Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique"; 1961). People started searching for the answers on the question about as the Philosophy of Mind, so the Studies on AI (nowadays). Summary. So, anyone is so brave claiming the scientists will never solve those question about consciousness and mind? I think they will. But I am also sure that what everyone called logic was invented and established like everything else. Just get it - l o gi c - i s a n o r m a t i v e s c i e n c e!!! =======================REPLY: It seems to me that you are trying to determine which -- logic or intelligence -- is more important, and that your answer is really given in the words I boldened. However, your comparison lacks clarity of the subjects in question. What may be compared is "logical argumentation/thinking" [not Logic as the body of formulas of correct thinking], which is deemed to be demonstrative in Posterior Analytics, opposed/criticized by J.S. Mills and others], and intelligence/intellect as the truth discovering [or science-making] mind [not simply as our psychological understanding of anything or, for the moderns, the ability to solve encountered issues/problems]. // Of course there cannot be Logic [as a a science of correct reasoning] without intelligence to begin with,but there can be successful intelligence without Logic, for thinking can occur logically spontaneously, without reference to established norms/formulas/laws of correctness. //Similarly,a person can act morally without reference to an Ethics [established norms of proper behavior]. Logic and Ethics are normative sciences in the sense of their being about norms/precepts rather than historical facts.... That's true. The written isn't good. Anyway, I wrote without int. there's no log, and with. log, there's no int., because to find out or to understand what the intelligence is we need some logic. I mean we need to prove it. Of course I can say that there is such a thing as the intellect, but in this case it's just a sum of words. So, I have to check this out - whether something is intelligent or not. If instead of the intelligence it was something different, let's say the emotion of pity. Then I would need to check it in a different way. How can I find out that pity without having this emotion at all? When someone claims he's an intelligent (or he's got the intelligence), then it's the same that this person has got logic, or can use logic. Even if to have intelligence we need to have logic, and vice versa doesn't prove anything that logic is to be something. No, logic is determined by the intellect, and the intellect is determined by logic. A circle. I should infer from there there there is no standard in logic, or there might be different intellects. Each time we're appealing to logic, we appeal to the intellect, or to one of such. By such a strategy logic has no chances to be proved. As you might see I said that it wasn't impossible for intellect to be other ( logical intellect is the intellect, not a one). I wouldn't disagree. I think for intellect to have an ability to calculate is needed. Even animals know math at some plain level. Sorry, I didn't understand your first part - about lacking of the subject or something. Could you help me to understand it? I might be wrong, so that's why I decided to ask, instead of hurrying to give answers. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jan 17, 2022 16:42:42 GMT
You set out to deal with logic and intelligence, but it was not clear to me how you used these two words. Sometimes you seemed to be concerned with predicates as in "I am intelligent, are you logical?".... Sometimes by Logic you intend to refer to the science/theory called LOGIC [ such as the Prior Analytics], and by intelligence as the study of intelligence . So, please focus on these related key words. Stay well; cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 17, 2022 19:13:20 GMT
You set out to deal with logic and intelligence, but it was not clear to me how you used these two words. Sometimes you seemed to be concerned with predicates as in "I am intelligent, are you logical?".... Sometimes by Logic you intend to refer to the science/theory called LOGIC [ such as the Prior Analytics], and by intelligence as the study of intelligence . So, please focus on these related key words. Stay well; cheers.No, it's really okay. Thank you for your asking. Logic - is a method or a procedure about the inference. So, in other words we can say that logic is a way of proof something. Intelligence (or being intelligent) - is an ability to calculate, and to make inferences. If I a living being can calculate, it has intelligence (for me), but usually the others say that a living being should have an ability to infer. Let me deteil that inference. What is it, or how I understand it? Briefly, it's about how can something can be gotten from something. Or how one set of arguments produce another set of arguments. Another way is to say, how can one set of arguments can be transformed (or changed) to have those arguments be as they've been. Further, let me explain why I was using that word arguments constantly. I didn't wanted to use it in its usual form or sense, instead by the argument (in my understanding) this is something you can differ from something else. So, let me clear this above up: if one has things being differ from other things, and that one asks how can those things can be changed without loosing or with savings. So, let's say {A, B, C...} - are those things, and then some changes have occurred, then if {A, B, C...} equal to {B, A, C...}, then {B, A, C...} is the inference from {A, B, C...}. As you can see all we used here were the senses (to differ one things from another ones), and the equality (the mathematical operations that compares things). And we used a name inference. So to do this inference one is supposed to be intelligent, along with it, to infer things from things requires logic. Again, the intelligence can provide it in some other way (I don't know by which one; maybe there were other ways to do something), but to say that this inference is logical - is to perform this operation using intelligence. Sorry, if I've explained it roughly another time. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jan 19, 2022 9:58:29 GMT
Two objections to logic: 1. Imagine the next dialogue: - you don't understand, you just don't have not intelligence - no, it's you who don't have any intelligence, my logic is clear! - no way! I can imply anything I want and I am still on the true path - don't say you can understand anything, your intelligence cannot get my logic! -... This can never be ended. Because for logic the intelligence is the dead end. Without intelligence there's no logic, and without logic there's no intelligence. The bad circle for logic. 2. How logic appeared? When people realized thay were smart they started inventing different laws and rules (well-known codex "Inu Anum sîrum"; XXX century BC ). They tried to pick up the most workable ones laws among the others, and they used to classify them (Aristotle's analytics; near 370's BC). Logic contnued being sharpen (the Middle Ages, 1100-1350's). Then people saw those logical things could be used to upside down their opponents by striking them claiming if you don't know logic, you've got no brains! (Michelle Foucault's " Folie et déraison. Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique"; 1961). People started searching for the answers on the question about as the Philosophy of Mind, so the Studies on AI (nowadays). Summary. So, anyone is so brave claiming the scientists will never solve those question about consciousness and mind? I thin they will. But I am also sure that what everyone called logic was invented and established like everything else. Just get it - l o g i c - i s a n o r m a t i v e s c i e n c e !!!
Its a cop-out to say "you are not intelligent enough to understand" because saying something to someone implies that you expect them to be able to be smart enough to understand what you are saying.
Many people who appear illogical are really just corrupt morally. They will pretend to not understand ; but what they are really saying is "whats in it for me?"
They asking for a bribe or worse to "persuade" them. Logic is only half of the logos. Courage and backbone ; ethics ; morality ; spirit - whatever you call it is what is really lacking.
|
|
