|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 4, 2023 8:07:29 GMT
I don't think that logic is unlimited as well as I don't think that everything can be measured only by a human mind. It would be too simple. But for now I want to introduce why language sometimes better logical, than logic itself.
Here's the law since Aristotle times called 'conversion of the proposition'. It turns the partially affirmative sentences into the partially sentences with the reversed subject S and predicate P:
some S are P, therefore some P are S
Seems correct, doesn't it. But what about this:
some Apes are Human, therefore some Human are Apes
This is definitely incorrect: all the humans are apes (at least according to the "modern" science: all the humans belong to some kind of the Great Apes). Being incorrect this is not already a law, but only a rule.
Do we need logic in many cases? We can't answer it, because some cases are such that we can't be pretty sure what to choose, or what to prefer.
If logic is limited we can still try to find some other methods. I don't follow the same path Kant did, because according to Kant, the limits of logic make our rationality be limited. I don't think that logic is what limits us, while I may be agree that not rarely people think that they've got too powerful knowledge about the universe, and themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Feb 4, 2023 15:55:05 GMT
Eugene,
about: some S is P; hence some P is S
I do not recall what Aristotle said, but I say: if at least one individual is P, then necessarily one P is S. IF one American is stupid, then necessarily [or ipso facto] one stupid person is American -- not de jure, but de facto: not by virtue of being stupid, but accidentally. Maybe Aristotle was being concerned with essential and accidental predicates. [For him, history is not a science -- true knowledge -- since it deals with accidents, not essences.]
|
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Feb 4, 2023 20:55:14 GMT
I don't think that logic is unlimited as well as I don't think that everything can be measured only by a human mind. It would be too simple. But for now I want to introduce why language sometimes better logical, than logic itself. Here's the law since Aristotle times called 'conversion of the proposition'. It turns the partially affirmative sentences into the partially sentences with the reversed subject S and predicate P: some S are P, therefore some P are SSeems correct, doesn't it. But what about this: some Apes are Human, therefore some Human are ApesThis is definitely incorrect: all the humans are apes (at least according to the "modern" science: all the humans belong to some kind of the Great Apes). Being incorrect this is not already a law, but only a rule. Do we need logic in many cases? We can't answer it, because some cases are such that we can't be pretty sure what to choose, or what to prefer. If logic is limited we can still try to find some other methods. I don't follow the same path Kant did, because according to Kant, the limits of logic make our rationality be limited. I don't think that logic is what limits us, while I may be agree that not rarely people think that they've got too powerful knowledge about the universe, and themselves. Logic is limited by human consciousness. When someone is dreaming, he does not feel that the experience of his dream is not logical, but when he wakes up he becomes aware of the insensibility of what he has gone through in his dream. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Feb 5, 2023 6:26:30 GMT
Semantics it's all just a bunch of stuff that are imagination gets in tangled in and captivated with,
While philosophers struggle generation after generation with these words the world and reality is what it is and is unchanged regardless of what words we decide to use here or their
The animal kingdom is not bound by this ball and chain like we are , it is both are weakness and are most powerful weapon,
It can be used to kill hundreds of thousands of people or save hundreds of thousands of people,
It is the webbing that holds this fake reality matrix together it is the substance used to create Maya and we seem to be helpless to defend are selfs against it .
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 6, 2023 1:07:24 GMT
Eugene, about: some S is P; hence some P is S I do not recall what Aristotle said, but I say: if at least one individual is P, then necessarily one P is S. IF one American is stupid, then necessarily [or ipso facto] one stupid person is American -- not de jure, but de facto: not by virtue of being stupid, but accidentally. Maybe Aristotle was being concerned with essential and accidental predicates. [For him, history is not a science -- true knowledge -- since it deals with accidents, not essences.] Here's a thing: I guess we use words rather to express something, not necessary to claim a fact. For instance, a person can bring plenty of examples, however, he chooses the one from the scope. Sure thing, and nobody would be arguing it that Aristotle himself did a great job that works during the present days. Let's say Jam Lukasiewics published a book on London about Aristotle logic translating it into the modern logic. And Lukasiewics presented an interpretation that holds today along the others that Aristotle could be not less modern logician in his works, despite his views on logic as a secondary thing, the tool. But again, it doesn't mean any rules are without exceptions. I also agree, sure thing, that if one element that is shared by both sets A and B, therefore (A & B) or (B & A) is true. Notably that it works in a math way! "S is P, then P is S" looks like a law of commutativity. (Yes, it only looks like, however, theoretically – Lukasiewics, etc – may be taken as such a version.) I guess when we read that "Some humans are apes" it sounds incorrect (according to Darwinism). Well, here's example about me: being a dramatically bad English speaker I may sound terrible, funny, or chaotically, and so forth. I might be still logical, while all that logical effect dies under weird phrases. Briefly: logic supposes (somehow) aesthetics. And I'd rather think Aristotle, and not only him, viewed logic in that way after many claimed that Stagirit thought logic was just a tool. Also one thing too add: if language can discover/extract?/ that aesthetic essence from the inside of even chaotic images what kind of powers it stores within it then? |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 6, 2023 1:28:32 GMT
I don't think that logic is unlimited as well as I don't think that everything can be measured only by a human mind. It would be too simple. But for now I want to introduce why language sometimes better logical, than logic itself. Here's the law since Aristotle times called 'conversion of the proposition'. It turns the partially affirmative sentences into the partially sentences with the reversed subject S and predicate P: some S are P, therefore some P are SSeems correct, doesn't it. But what about this: some Apes are Human, therefore some Human are ApesThis is definitely incorrect: all the humans are apes (at least according to the "modern" science: all the humans belong to some kind of the Great Apes). Being incorrect this is not already a law, but only a rule. Do we need logic in many cases? We can't answer it, because some cases are such that we can't be pretty sure what to choose, or what to prefer. If logic is limited we can still try to find some other methods. I don't follow the same path Kant did, because according to Kant, the limits of logic make our rationality be limited. I don't think that logic is what limits us, while I may be agree that not rarely people think that they've got too powerful knowledge about the universe, and themselves. Logic is limited by human consciousness. When someone is dreaming, he does not feel that the experience of his dream is not logical, but when he wakes up he becomes aware of the insensibility of what he has gone through in his dream. Oh, yeah. I would agree with it. Right at the moment I can't type more, than I wish – it's 3:00 am for me right now... But shortly: in general our dreams is just on the top of the iceberg. Our eyes see only a tiny part of the light waves. Our ears hear only some diapason from 20 Hz to 20 KHz. But why only the viewable is what "real"? No, I think I can't stop writing..... I don't know about our minds more, however let's ask ourselves what are the dreams for us? Why the ones occur to be vivid or frightening, they are variate from sweety to nightmares. But! they are happening only while our bodies rest! We are calm, and at the moment out minds are seemed like dancing holes for hundreds of drunken sailors. Why such tiniest changers may have such a highest influence to our ability to see pictures or images? My personal answer: our Universe has been tuned absolutely in the most tiniest way. Yes, for me it is a reason to believe there is God. Anyway, why we see things being good or quite normal only under some certain precise conditions? Why do we need those conditions be set or tuned for some certain waves to reflect and to accept the world?.. Again, I guess it is something the eldest called peace and harmony. The balance. ... Can't be stopped, I shall continue... If only the balance was set, and all what we saw was the balance it seemed like there were no changes at all, and if there were only the asymptomatically movement towards the balance we might be observing it. The waves is the major part of our "reality"; they represent the way things exist. In this key we need to see something just right under the right angle. Logic is rather a product, not the predecessor of language. What language is I don't know. Maybe it is a part of our epistemology? Maybe a medium between the senses and the mind? Symbols and gestures are also language as well as many culture features like gathering, rawhide, smiths, etc. I also wonder does logic has its tactics and strategies? If the logic has strategies, then it is a big surprise. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Feb 6, 2023 7:12:00 GMT
I don't think that logic is unlimited as well as I don't think that everything can be measured only by a human mind.
Logic can become unlimited, albeit not instantly. Any complex system can be reduced to many simple logical connections.
I can record all the simple logical connections using paper or a computer,
and my limited mind just has to evaluate each single logical instance clearly.
Emotion and creativity is where logic itself is limited.
But any logical process, no matter how virtually infinite, can be measured by mind, by virtue of formulae, algorithm or even common notation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 6, 2023 15:54:00 GMT
I don't think that logic is unlimited as well as I don't think that everything can be measured only by a human mind.
Logic can become unlimited, albeit not instantly. Any complex system can be reduced to many simple logical connections.
I can record all the simple logical connections using paper or a computer,
and my limited mind just has to evaluate each single logical instance clearly.
Emotion and creativity is where logic itself is limited.
But any logical process, no matter how virtually infinite, can be measured by mind, by virtue of formulae, algorithm or even common notation.
Oh, yeah - I almost forgot - the creativity. Yes. Being formal logic keeps staying on that formal path. I mean whatever logic is or about it will be completeing its job within its own scope. It's like a machine that keeps working in its previously switched regime. While creativity works in other way - it struggles the boundaries. An example of Oscar Wilde's speeches during the courtesy were notable also for what he tried to be witty and speak like he continued to write his pull fictions. Maybe he didn't use exactly logic in that common sense, while his answers broke the boundaries. And the same is about literature at all - what made lady Macbeth to advice her husband to kill the king? Why the fortuneteller in the forest - whoever or whatever it was - became an important link within the sequence of the play's plot? And so on. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Feb 7, 2023 7:26:23 GMT
Logic can become unlimited, albeit not instantly. Any complex system can be reduced to many simple logical connections.
I can record all the simple logical connections using paper or a computer,
and my limited mind just has to evaluate each single logical instance clearly.
Emotion and creativity is where logic itself is limited.
But any logical process, no matter how virtually infinite, can be measured by mind, by virtue of formulae, algorithm or even common notation.
Oh, yeah - I almost forgot - the creativity. Yes. Being formal logic keeps staying on that formal path. I mean whatever logic is or about it will be completeing its job within its own scope. It's like a machine that keeps working in its previously switched regime. While creativity works in other way - it struggles the boundaries. An example of Oscar Wilde's speeches during the courtesy were notable also for what he tried to be witty and speak like he continued to write his pull fictions. Maybe he didn't use exactly logic in that common sense, while his answers broke the boundaries. And the same is about literature at all - what made lady Macbeth to advice her husband to kill the king? Why the fortuneteller in the forest - whoever or whatever it was - became an important link within the sequence of the play's plot? And so on. There is a mystical connection between emotion and creativity, that does defy logic, it even creates logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 7, 2023 8:21:49 GMT
I wonder what origins of logic? It should have been created on some day in history. If God was the creator of it, then logic was one of the best creation of Him, I suppose; if not, God challenged it, and did everything contrary to the requirements of logic.
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Feb 21, 2023 23:31:57 GMT
It is entirely possible for a statement or assertion to be logical, while it is completely false.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 21, 2023 23:41:36 GMT
It is entirely possible for a statement or assertion to be logical, while it is completely false. This is an interesting, but, how do we suppose to check it out whether or not a certain sentence is logical? Usually I take 'logical' as being correctly inferred or entailed. A sentence or a sign may have a correct or suitable form, be true or false, but not 'being logical' |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 21, 2023 23:45:07 GMT
It is entirely possible for a statement or assertion to be logical, while it is completely false. Usually new members post in the invitation section, but it's not necessary. Welcome to our forum! Thank you for joining! Now it's not so overcrowded as it was few years ago, but it occurs time to time to see hot debates here. |
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Mar 19, 2023 20:56:04 GMT
Contrary to popular belief, logic is not a validation of truth, but rather a system of creating and validating reason, thus giving us the value of correctness in logical thought. Problems arise for instance, when a system of logic is pushed beyond its range with nuanced thoughts, emotions, and language. Most systems of logic can only determine a statement to be true or false in purely linguistic terms. I think a lot of confusion about logic comes from people equating the term logical with the academic term logic. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 19, 2023 21:07:48 GMT
Contrary to popular belief, logic is not a validation of truth, but rather a system of creating and validating reason, thus giving us the value of correctness in logical thought. Problems arise for instance, when a system of logic is pushed beyond its range with nuanced thoughts, emotions, and language. Most systems of logic can only determine a statement to be true or false in purely linguistic terms. I think a lot of confusion about logic comes from people equating the term logical with the academic term logic. Cheers! Can't disagree. "Help in syntax" - that's how I'd describe logic briefly. Of course it might have some fruits working with complicated models, but with certain limits. |
|
