logic=truth?

[newton1]

i think logic is the logic for the limit of human intelligence
like long time ago
all people believe what aristotle said is very logic
because that time it is the limit of human intelligence
but now human is more clever than before
so people now think aristotle is no logic
what you think about logic??

[Ivan Seeking]

We surely have more information which helps a lot.

Many Greeks thought that all of reality could be deduced by pure logic. This approach obviously leads to errors. Also, one could argue that we are truly smarter now than then because of the world in which we live. The problem comes with how we define smart.

Personally, the first time I read Socrates, and perhaps still, I was sure I had never encountered a smarter or cleverer individual. We just have to filter for the information disparity between our perspective and his.

[steppenwolf]

surely logic isn't dependant on intelligence? you say 'that's logical' not 'that's complicated and intelligently deduced using advanced theorems and knowledge of all that has come before'. logic is like 'gods are immortal, all men are mortal therefore no man is a god', that sort of thinking is even atributed to socrates, if something was 'logical' 2000 years ago it will remain so forever, the only thing that changes is what we use this logic to prove and with what axioms. if things were said back then that are now considered false then it is because the axioms were incorrect.

[newton1]

Originally posted by steppenwolf
surely logic isn't dependant on intelligence? you say 'that's logical' not 'that's complicated and intelligently deduced using advanced theorems and knowledge of all that has come before'. logic is like 'gods are immortal, all men are mortal therefore no man is a god', that sort of thinking is even atributed to socrates, if something was 'logical' 2000 years ago it will remain so forever, the only thing that changes is what we use this logic to prove and with what axioms. if things were said back then that are now considered false then it is because the axioms were incorrect.

maybe logic is come from this ideal
but the problem is even at now we can't say what we learning is truth
you said logic is immortal
but theory of human create is not perfect
so what u mean is no man is logic??

[kyle_soule]

In 1850 it was logical to assume the earth was flat. This is undoubtedly incorrect. Logic today tells us the earth is round. It was logical then to assume the opposite of our logic today. This tells us that logic is not universally or forever true, whereas, truth is universal and forever, so one would see that logic does not equal truth, nor would truth necessarily equal logic. More often than not truth is logical, but logical is not truth.

EDIT: It seems that there are two kinds of logic, one based primarily on ignorance, or relative logic, and one based on universal laws/truths, or true logic, the former is much like a theory. You cannot distinuish between the two unless you either a) have all the facts or b) have an infinite amount of time to test them.

[totoro]

Originally posted by newton1
maybe logic is come from this ideal
but the problem is even at now we can't say what we learning is truth
you said logic is immortal
but theory of human create is not perfect
so what u mean is no man is logic??


i agree with that no man is perfect. but i believe there is no limit to human thinking. i have been thinking that if we want to proceed to higher level, we should go beyond logic and rational thinking. IMO.

but ofcourse we should go through logical and rational thinking before we can go beyond. if you ask me what is beyond that... i still in the middle of searching.



what you think about logic??


i think that logic is what we all use everyday for living. it just like common sense. we use logical thinking to explained everything that happen.

[Kerrie]

logic is truly subjective because it comes from the human mind...that doesn't mean that it is truthful or untruthful, but it depends entirely on the circumstances surrounding the claimed logic...

[wuliheron]

Logic is the science of the absurd.

As Kurt Godel demonstrated, any system requires certain axioms we must simply take on faith. In the case of logic, it is a faith in the absurd. In fact, all the various kinds of logistics that have been developed over the eons are ultimately based on reductio ad absurdum, a systematic way of demonstrating that alternative ways of thinking are at least as absurd as the logic we are using.

Because of this logic can be seen as a systematic means of organizing absurdities into heirarchies. A tautological way of thinking which only has meaning within the context of human perception and specific applications. Before the discovery that the world is round, for example, to think the world was round was considered absurd and illogical. Before Galileo demonstrated the weak equivalency principle, it was considered absurd and illogical to believe objects of different weights could fall to earth at the same rate.

Thus, to say logic is the limit of human perception is to deny the absurd foundations of logic. To deny our own irrational feelings among other things. :0)

[Les Sleeth]

Logic is not open to subjective interpretation, but rather is as close to mathematical reasoning as one can get. In intelligence, and that is reason, there are really two parts: logic and premises. As Ivan said, it used to be believed that one could arrive at truth by logic alone, and this rationalistic view dominated philosophy until the 19th century when empiricism really took off.

Then it was clearly recognized that the information one reasons with must be accurate for logic to lead one to accurate conclusions. Thus experience was solidly incorporated into the reasoning process. Premises began to require the experience of observation to validate them. That combined with the systematizing of logic with works like Boole’s Mathematical Analysis of Logic resulted in great discoveries in logic that came to be used by linguists, scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, electronic engineers and even music composers and psychologists.

There still remains some question about what sorts of experience should be permitted to establish premises. People have argued that intuition and inner experience have relevance, others say only sense experience is to be allowed. But I have to disagree with Wuli that the foundations of logic are absurd. The methods of logic are virtually undisputed and function flawlessly when applied correctly . . . it is the reason of order, and it is used to help understand that which has order. What may be absurd is when people assume order (and therefore logic) is all there is to existence; but that would be due to the absurdity of the premise, and not a fault of logic.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Kerrie
logic is truly subjective because it comes from the human mind...that doesn't mean that it is truthful or untruthful, but it depends entirely on the circumstances surrounding the claimed logic...

Logic is also subjective because there are different reasoning systems that can be used within the realm of "logic". One could make an utterly preposterous conclusion, from sound/reasonable premises - but the fact that s/he is using premises to build toward a conclusion means that s/he is using logic.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Logic is also subjective because there are different reasoning systems that can be used within the realm of "logic". One could make an utterly preposterous conclusion, from sound/reasonable premises - but the fact that s/he is using premises to build toward a conclusion means that s/he is using logic.

If you want to say that people make up their own rules, and ignore the extremely well-established discipline of logic, then I suppose you can say it can be subjective . . . but that's not really logic either.

If people obey the formal rules of logic, and reason with a correct and complete set of premises, then the conclusion will be correct every time. When an incorrect conclusion is found to have resulted from correct logic, it is always because of discovering something was missing from the premises. So proper logic is not subjective.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

But I have to disagree with Wuli that the foundations of logic are absurd. The methods of logic are virtually undisputed and function flawlessly when applied correctly . . . it is the reason of order, and it is used to help understand that which has order. What may be absurd is when people assume order (and therefore logic) is all there is to existence; but that would be due to the absurdity of the premise, and not a fault of logic. [/B]

Without the concept of the absurd to provide context, logic has no meaning. Without the illogical, the logical has no meaning. Hence you contradict yourself when you say, "what may be absurd is when people assume order is all there is to existence."

The highly structured language of logic is built upon a foundation of natural language which is repleate with vague terms such as "absurd". Chaos and order, vague and explicite, define each other and, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, what we have believed to be explicitely ordered has turned out to be random and vague and vice versa. It may be expedient and practical in many respects to assume some things are ultimately ordered, but in the final analysis the map is not the territory by the very definition of logic. To assert otherwise is to invoke absurdity.

[newton1]

so
u all think logic is not equal to truth....right??

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
If you want to say that people make up their own rules, and ignore the extremely well-established discipline of logic, then I suppose you can say it can be subjective . . . but that's not really logic either.

If people obey the formal rules of logic, and reason with a correct and complete set of premises, then the conclusion will be correct every time. When an incorrect conclusion is found to have resulted from correct logic, it is always because of discovering something was missing from the premises. So proper logic is not subjective.

This is incorrect. If I make the premises:

1) Everything we know about reality is known through our senses.

2) We can never experience anything, outside of our own conscious awareness.

And then conclude that reality must come from within. I have come to Lifegazer's Mind hypothesis with perfectly reasonable/true premises. That doesn't mean that lifegazer is necessarily right, does it?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Without the concept of the absurd to provide context, logic has no meaning. Without the illogical, the logical has no meaning. Hence you contradict yourself when you say. . . Chaos and order, vague and explicite, define each other . . .

I suspect your views on paradox make you want to create one in every setting. It may be that being able to recognize illogic is a skill one needs to effectively apply logic, but I don't believe it has much to do with providing the context. Order exists, and we had nothing to do with that. It is here, and it overwhelmingly influences our existence. The rules that link order can be represented in the mind, and the mental linkage between order principles is logic. If everyone were always perfectly logical, then there would be no need to know about illogic. Therefore, logic can stand on its own because it reflects a certain way reality actually works.

Does reality operate chaotically too? Yes, but logic isn't about that. Logic is about what it's about, and in that respect it seems to work perfectly.

Originally posted by wuliheron
. . . as history has repeatedly demonstrated, what we have believed to be explicitely ordered has turned out to be random and vague and vice versa. It may be expedient and practical in many respects to assume some things are ultimately ordered, but in the final analysis the map is not the territory by the very definition of logic. To assert otherwise is to invoke absurdity

What "we have believed" to be ordered has nothing to do with logic. If it really is ordered, then logic can be used with it. Whether or not things are ultimately ordered also is irrelevant. All that matters is that some aspects of reality are ordered, and logic is the mental tool we have for understanding it. Because order has principles, so too does logic. They are not absurd, and they are not subjective (except in the sense they are applied inside one's brain); logic principles simply mirror something that goes on in reality. And it is pointless to object they can't work perfectly on everything. They aren't meant for everthing.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by newton1
so
u all think logic is not equal to truth....right??

There are multiple kinds of logic just as there are multiple kinds of mathematics. Some mathematics say 1+1=5. No, logic is not equal to truth, at least, not outside of a given context. At best logic is a pragmatic pratice and at worste a form of fundamentalism which can lead to all sorts of destructive behavior.

[newton1]

Originally posted by totoro
i agree with that no man is perfect. but i believe there is no limit to human thinking. i have been thinking that if we want to proceed to higher level, we should go beyond logic and rational thinking. IMO.

but ofcourse we should go through logical and rational thinking before we can go beyond. if you ask me what is beyond that... i still in the middle of searching.


i am not discuss is that humam are intelligence at here
i havent say that human brain is not powerful
i just reply to steppenwolf with his view only





i think that logic is what we all use everyday for living. it just like common sense. we use logical thinking to explained everything that happen.

[Moetasim]

logic = truth: when logic is logical.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
This is incorrect. If I make the premises:

1) Everything we know about reality is known through our senses.

2) We can never experience anything, outside of our own conscious awareness.

And then conclude that reality must come from within. I have come to Lifegazer's Mind hypothesis with perfectly reasonable/true premises. That doesn't mean that lifegazer is necessarily right, does it?

Yes, but are his premises correct? (Plus, even if they are I don't see how his conclusion follows.) See, if you want to take philosophy back to the dark ages, then you can assert anything as a premise and then go on a reasoning lark. But today we accept the principle of the empirical method for establishing a premise, and that is it must be verified by experience.

How do you verify "We can never experience anything, outside of our own conscious awareness"? It is true we can only experience our own consciousness, but all appearances tell us we are being fed information from outside ourselves. How can LG prove his premise experientially? And it is one thing to say we can only know reality within, and another to say all of reality itself is within. It doesn't distinguish between the knower and what is known. Again, that contradicts our experience.

[newton1]

Originally posted by Moetasim
logic = truth: when logic is logical.

well
how you defined which logic is logical??

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by newton1
so
u all think logic is not equal to truth....right??

What I believe is that logic plus correct premises (you cannot leave either out of the equation) leads to insights about the nature of ordered things.

But if you mean truth and logic are the same thing, then no because there are things which do not lend themselves to order (such as love) but which nonetheless exist and so are "truth." It isn't by logic that one knows and understands love, but through another avenue.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by newton1
well
how you defined which logic is logical??

It's obvious that all logic is logical. That's like trying to figure out which aliens are alien to us.

[Moetasim]

This is a difficult question. But I think truth is always truth and need not the help of logic. Logic is only needed when there is some doubt. So if someone satisfies others with his logic or reasoning then its said to be logical and if he is not able to do so then ....I think I must reply it sometime later in a better way!

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by newton1
well
how you defined which logic is logical??

I wonder if you know how well established the discipline of logic is (you can study it in any decent university in the world). It is quite mathematical, and not open to casual manipulations.

In the sense that logic is reasoning math, when you put good information into proper logic formulas, you get good results. If you use incorrect or incomplete info (i.e., premises), and/or your formula is wrong, or if you try to apply logic to something it won't work with, then you will not get good results.

[newton1]

If people obey the formal rules of logic, and reason with a correct and complete set of premises, then the conclusion will be correct every time. When an incorrect conclusion is found to have resulted from correct logic, it is always because of discovering something was missing from the premises. So proper logic is not subjective. [/B][/QUOTE]


yes....my opinion is logic is the way to pursue the truth
but logic is not equal to truth
because starting of logic maybe is wrong
like i say in my 1st post
logic is the limit of the human ability at that moment

[newton1]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I wonder if you know just how well established the discipline of logic is. You could fill a library with books on it, and study it in any decent university in the world. It is very mathematical, and not open to casual manipulations. If you haven't read Tom's thread on it, that would be a good place to get the basics.

In the sense that logic is reasoning math, when you put good information into proper logic formulas, you get good results. If you use incorrect or incomplete info (i.e., premises), and/or your formula is wrong, or if you try to apply logic to something it won't work with, then you will not get good results.

i think you get the wrong ideal what i say
did u read about the history of mathematics??
when human start develop the maths
they go many wrong way
but it's also a logic at that time

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Moetasim
logic = truth: when logic is logical.

The problem with this statement is that we can begin with false premises, yet reach a true conclusion nonetheless. Logic is a wonderful tool, but sometimes I use a wrench to hammer things, etc. and it works just fine. It can also save a lot of time and inspire a great deal of creativity.

[newton1]

the whole ideal of devalop the science is trial and error
even logic of mathematic also like that

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by newton1
i think you get the wrong ideal what i say
did u read about the history of mathematics??
when human start develop the maths
they go many wrong way
but it's also a logic at that time

It is true that the rules of logic have gone through the discovery process . . . but I thought you were talking about the "ideal" of logic, not misunderstandings we've had (and have).

What has really sent logic ahead leaps and bounds is empiricism because there you actually work with what is ordered. You better get it right or you will fail to produce. That failure won't just be in your head, but it will be out there for everyone to see. But then, so are the successes.

That is why this philosophy section of PF is stronger, in my opinion, than one you might find at a purely philosophical forum. It's because people here are more determined to reconcile facts and observations with their philosophies, and not just string a bunch of ideas together which may be logical, but have little relevance to observed reality.

[newton1]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It is true that the rules of logic have gone through the discovery process . . . but I thought you were talking about the "ideal" of logic, not misunderstandings we've had (and have).

What has really sent logic ahead leaps and bounds is empiricism because there you actually work with what is ordered. You better get it right or you will fail to produce. That failure won't just be in your head, but it will be out there for everyone to see. But then, so are the successes.

That is why this philosophy section of PF is stronger, in my opinion, than one you might find at a purely philosophical forum. It's because people here are more determined to reconcile facts and observations with their philosophies, and not just string a bunch of ideas together which may be logical, but have little relevance to observed reality.

i know this is the way of logic
i think u should learn how to put your subjective and pride away when discuss
something at here

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by newton1
i know this is the way of logic
i think u should learn how to put your subjective and pride away when discuss
something at here

I am sorry Will if I've seemed some way that's disturbing to you. No insult intended. I have just been attempting to take the ambiguity out of the way you've been presenting logic. My only point has been to insist there is no ambiguity about logic as a discipline. Outside the discipline . . . well, the world is a crazy place.

[newton1]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I am sorry Will if I've seemed some way that's disturbing to you. No insult intended. I have just been attempting to take the ambiguity out of the way you've been presenting logic. My only point has been to insist there is no ambiguity about logic as a discipline. Outside the discipline . . . well, the world is a crazy place.


i am sorry too because my misunderstanding
anyway
thank you your suggestion
and go on
if you have more idea about logic

[newton1]

i get the answer from a professor
he say logic is a skill we prove something or find a conculsion
the process of logic will not be wrong
the problem is starting condition we assume must be right
to decide the conculsion is truth or wrong is depend on what we assume at 1st
and not depend on the logic

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by newton1
i get the answer from a professor
he say logic is a skill we prove something or find a conculsion
the process of logic will not be wrong
the problem is starting condition we assume must be right
to decide the conculsion is truth or wrong is depend on what we assume at 1st and not depend on the logic

This assumes that we think logically. Within our process of logic are assumptions. I think that Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem is the mathematical equivalent of this statement

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Yes, but are his premises correct? (Plus, even if they are I don't see how his conclusion follows.) See, if you want to take philosophy back to the dark ages, then you can assert anything as a premise and then go on a reasoning lark. But today we accept the principle of the empirical method for establishing a premise, and that is it must be verified by experience.

How do you verify "We can never experience anything, outside of our own conscious awareness"? It is true we can only experience our own consciousness, but all appearances tell us we are being fed information from outside ourselves. How can LG prove his premise experientially? And it is one thing to say we can only know reality within, and another to say all of reality itself is within. It doesn't distinguish between the knower and what is known. Again, that contradicts our experience.

LW Sleeth, you cannot disprove the Mind hypothesis, by talking about empirical testing. What's the use of empirical testing in a universe where the Mind produces all of our reality, and thus everything that we see will just be a "Mind-ful" projection?

Besides, it was just the only example I could think of at the time. Other members have come up with much better examples, in other threads. I'm just making the point that logic can be used to prove things that the same logic, but with different reasoning systems can disprove. IOW, logic is always the same, but the reasoning systems used can be differen, even contradictory, and thus none of them can be "right" or "true".

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
See, if you want to take philosophy back to the dark ages, then you can assert anything as a premise and then go on a reasoning lark.

I think this post is very unfair LW. Firstly; I base my arguments upon facts (such as that 'existence' is known via sensation and then reason). And secondly, if I had any authority in philsophical-circles, I'd be doing my utmost to drag philosophy out of what I consider to be the dark-ages of materialism. Please note that I said 'materialism' - and not science. Do not make the mistake - like most members in this forum - of believing that the death of materialism renders all physical-knowledge as useless. It doesn't. That's why I use it in most of my arguments.

But today we accept the principle of the empirical method for establishing a premise, and that is it must be verified by experience.

I build my arguments upon what can be seen & reasoned, also.

How do you verify "We can never experience anything, outside of our own conscious awareness"?

You verify it with the Laws of physics themselves. For the Laws of physics should really be called The Laws of our sensations. That's exactly what they are.

[FZ+]

And secondly, if I had any authority in philsophical-circles, I'd be doing my utmost to drag philosophy out of what I consider to be the dark-ages of materialism. Please note that I said 'materialism' - and not science. Do not make the mistake - like most members in this forum - of believing that the death of materialism renders all physical-knowledge as useless. It doesn't. That's why I use it in most of my arguments.
Precisely the problem. Since you have created yourself this mission and goal to discredit a philosophy, and then seek proof for this belief, you have ceeded your objectivity. And nothing is wholly reason, and objective facts simply do not exist.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
Precisely the problem. Since you have created yourself this mission and goal to discredit a philosophy, and then seek proof for this belief, you have ceeded your objectivity. And nothing is wholly reason, and objective facts simply do not exist.
The 'mission' is an effect of my philosophy. Not the reason for it.
I find no fault in scientific-knowledge. I find fault in the belief that all effects have a material-cause. I think that this 'belief' is stagnating future-progress... scientific & philosophical. Not to mention spiritual/theological.
Edit: Ultimately, I think that all three will meet at the same destination. And that's when humanity will come of age. Imo.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The 'mission' is an effect of my philosophy. Not the reason for it.
I find no fault in scientific-knowledge. I find fault in the belief that all effects have a material-cause. I think that this 'belief' is stagnating future-progress... scientific & philosophical. Not to mention spiritual/theological.
Edit: Ultimately, I think that all three will meet at the same destination. And that's when humanity will come of age. Imo.

I agree, but it is most pointedly a question of attitude than of anything else. Change someone's heart, and the rest will follow. Change their behavior or beliefs, and likely they'll just find something else to attack and drag their feet over.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
LW Sleeth, you cannot disprove the Mind hypothesis, by talking about empirical testing. What's the use of empirical testing in a universe where the Mind produces all of our reality, and thus everything that we see will just be a "Mind-ful" projection?

Besides, it was just the only example I could think of at the time. Other members have come up with much better examples, in other threads. I'm just making the point that logic can be used to prove things that the same logic, but with different reasoning systems can disprove. IOW, logic is always the same, but the reasoning systems used can be differen, even contradictory, and thus none of them can be "right" or "true".

I am not saying one can disprove it, nor should anyone have to -- the burden of proof rests with those who assert a hypothesis. I am saying LG cannot make his case using the standards of reason prevalent today.

The standard today for premises is experiential validation; that is, you make a hypothesis with the explicit commitment to find supporting experience, and it has to be experience others can repeat and observe. The nature of LG's argument is such that I cannot see how it can be tested.

Remember, I am speaking solely about the ideal of reason. What I said was that reasoning with correct logic and correct premises always lead to a correct conclusion. I did not say we are always able to tell what premises are correct, but I did say we can know if the logic is correct because for that there are very strict rules. It doesn't mean clever people can't manulate logic so it only seems they are being logical; but that still doesn't violate the trustablity of correct logic principles.

One last point about LG's theory. Even if it is true, what then is science doing? It clearly achieves things, and more effectively than any mental discipline ever has. Even if it all is within Mind, something at least appears external which allows us to alter it to our advantage. If someone wants to say little parts of the Mind are altering other parts of the Mind, okay. But whatever is going on still works in very specific ways which logic is able to follow quite well or, that is, when one logically reasons with correct premises or, that is, when one logically reasons with all the correct premises needed to reach a correct conclusion.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I think this post is very unfair LW. Firstly; I base my arguments upon facts (such as that 'existence' is known via sensation and then reason). And secondly, if I had any authority in philsophical-circles, I'd be doing my utmost to drag philosophy out of what I consider to be the dark-ages of materialism. Please note that I said 'materialism' - and not science. Do not make the mistake - like most members in this forum - of believing that the death of materialism renders all physical-knowledge as useless. It doesn't. That's why I use it in most of my arguments.

I build my arguments upon what can be seen & reasoned, also.

You verify it with the Laws of physics themselves. For the Laws of physics should really be called The Laws of our sensations. That's exactly what they are.

First let me say that only after you responded did I realize what I said about "going on a reasoning lark" could be interpreted as me talking about you. I wasn't. I was referring to the old rationalistic style of reason when I said "dark ages." There are people who still buy that old stuff, Heusden seems taken with it. But even if someone is, what's the problem?

One might admire Hegel, for example, but then what do you do with all his intellectualizing? How is it applied to reality? If you can't apply it in any way, then how do we know it is real, and what good is it? Or take Marx. He figured all this stuff out in his head without testing parts of it to see if it worked. This is the problem with rationalization . . . it just goes on and on without validation.

So where we tend disagree (I agree with you about materialism, as you know, and the sensation point as well) is how far one can go with inference without supporting evidence. It is one thing to propose a model of creation, and then try to support it by showing how elements of creation fit your model. But it is another to try to prove your model that way.

Proof has much stronger standards than simply modelling; it requires more evidence, and the standard for evidence is experience. Yet you have openly said you believe that you can prove your hypothesis through reason alone. I assume that's because you think there already is enough evidence around, and so all that's required is for someone to put it together properly to show it proves something.

So I object, to try to stay within the theme of this thread, when I think you leap (inferentially) too far from the evidence to your statement of proof. Science reasoning is more conservative than rationalistic thinking, more "step-by-step." To be allowed the stamp of "proof" all the premises need to be experientially verified and logically connected every step of the way, and there cannot be equally or better alternate conclusions from the facts.

This is why the answer to the question of if logic equals truth is not exactly simple. Establishing realistic premises is of first order importance, and that can be very difficult. Then there's the issue of completeness. Does one use cold temperature and cream to make ice cream? Yes. So does that mean ice cream can be made by joining coldness and cream? No. That example does not reveal anything wrong with logic as a discipline; what it shows is that reason can operate without all the elements needed to make the answer come out right.

[Ted Lew]

THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN BE CERTAIN OF IS OUR IGNORANCE .
WE ARE INFLUENCED IN OUR LOGIC BY
MANY THINGS-HEALTH-AGE-ENVIRONMENT ETC. TRUTH LIES HIDDEN IN HOW WE THINK

TED LEW

[Iacchus32]

Forgive me if I seem out of line for posting here, as I was responding to LW Sleeth's post without realizing the thread was about truth vs logic ...

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
But then, what is science doing? It clearly achieves things, and more effectively than any mental discipline ever has. Even if it all is within Mind, something at least appears external which allows us to alter it to our advantage. If someone wants to say little parts of the Mind are altering other parts of the Mind, okay. But whatever is going on still works in very specific ways which logic is able to follow quite well or, that is, when one logically reasons with correct premises or, that is, when one logically reasons with all the correct premises needed to reach a correct conclusion. If in fact it's all within the mind, then science must all be within the mind as well, therefore all that science is capable of confirming is "all that's within the mind."


From the thread, The Heart of Reality (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1649&perpage=15&pagenumber=4) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Hmm ... I was just telling Mentat that our feelings allow us to validate and give definition to what we perceive. Maybe you need to take some time out from all this brain work and listen to your heart for a change?


Originally posted by FZ+
But that isn't validation. Validation requires objectivity. Here's my model...

The heart, or irrational self creates the system of virtual concepts in the mind from sensations, impulses, memories, instincts etc, defining our assigned essences to existent form. Ie. the irrational pins our internal universe to the external one.What is the ability to see, touch, smell or whatever, without the sensation that goes along with it? These are the sensations which comprise "the experience," which then becomes the validation.


Originally posted by FZ+
The brain, or really rational self performs deductive logic on the created concept-web of the internal image, and transforms it into decisions. Ie. it sifts the jigsaw and makes patterns, compares data, balances inputs. And yet how can you say the brain is rational or, capable of being objective, when we turn around and say everything that stems from the brain, at least in terms of thought, is abstract? While we also say everything that exists outside of it is concrete? And yet here we are using "abstractions" to define what is concrete. Hmm ... must be another one of those "paradoxical moments."

But then we have the five senses, which exist outside of the brain, and therefore "must" be concrete which, we describe as irrational? Now how rational does that sound?


Originally posted by FZ+
Touch smell etc are sensations. Rather, my use of sensation here is rather broad. Basically anything that deals with sensed notions and inductive reasoning is a product of what you refer to as the "heart".Please refer to the thread, Seat of Consciousness (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1719) ...


Originally posted by FZ+
I am being figurative... By brain I really refer to the processing side of the mind. By this I mean the find that does not create data, but merely transforms it. Ok, objective is the wrong word. But basically, this system processes the data, that is supplied as abstractions. It is linked to the real world via the irrational mind. It uses only deduction... not induction. Our understanding of the concrete can only come through the abstraction data. Only by creating the ideals and glossing over the details we do not know can we come to a conclusion. As an analogy, let me use the example of using analogies in discussions. The analogy itself is always simply a hypothetical scenario, that probably does not exist. But it is useful in furthering understanding. In the same way, the deductive mind can only deal with concepts and if thens. The data can only be taken in virtual form - plugging the photon impacts on the retina directly onto the cortex does not acheive useful results, as neuroscientists can tell us.Does that mean objectivity doesn't exist then? Or, does it only exist with respect to what is subjective? But then again if you can view them in terms of form (outer dimension) and the space within form (inner dimension), then maybe it isn't such a difficult idea to grasp? In fact one might say one is capable of being objective if one could see the form (three dimensional) of anything, even if it occurs within "the form" of our brain? Much like picking up an apple and looking at it round abouts and "observing" its form (as an object). Hmm ... Is this a valid means to prove that objectivity exists? Of course you would have to be able to look at it in the "ideal sense."


Originally posted by FZ+
Indeed, the brain may not be actually separated in the way I imagine. But I think the evidence points to the idea that it carries out these two distinct functions. Just excuse me when I heinously misuse rational and irrational again.... [;)]Well excuse you and everybody else!

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If in fact it's all within the mind, then science must all be within the mind as well, therefore all that science is capable of confirming is "all that's within the mind."

I am fine with it all being in the mind. I don't think you are LG can prove it, but let's assume you are correct. How does it follow that science is only capable of confirming it is all within the mind? Even your mind works certain ways, and if you were to isolate its various functions so you could understand them better, then you would be ]understanding mind, not verifying it's happening inside the mind (since you already know that).

Whether we are in a Mind or not has nothing to do with the fact that sound reasoning leads to predictable results. Science is a method for reasoning about materiality, and so far it has proven itself very well indeed. Whatever "materiality" is makes no difference to the fact that science "works" by way of reason and personal experience.

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet how can you say the brain is rational or, capable of being objective, when we turn around and say everything that stems from the brain, at least in terms of thought, is abstract? While we also say everything that exists outside of it is concrete? And yet here we are using "abstractions" to define what is concrete. Hmm ... must be another one of those "paradoxical moments."

We can say it because that is what the brain does, that is how it works. Why resist that? Everything outside is concrete relative to abstract thought.

It might be, using the all-is-mind hypothesis, that "ouside" is merely a more concentrated thought (say of God) than your brain type thought, but the differences are still apparently there. If all we get to work with are appearances, then so be it. But since we cannot do any differently on the material level (whatever that is), then logic and personal experience are all we have.

The point is, if you make everything the same we cannot think or work. It is the distinctions which allow us to use our brains. The fact that there is a reality "outside" us does not diminish the reality of "inside" us. Why not keep the two distinct, even if it's strictly for the purpose of developing expertise in each?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
First let me say that only after you responded did I realize what I said about "going on a reasoning lark" could be interpreted as me talking about you. I wasn't.

Okay. It did look as though you were; hence my comment.

I was referring to the old rationalistic style of reason when I said "dark ages." There are people who still buy that old stuff, Heusden seems taken with it.

Heusden is a diehard materialist. There's no possible way you can label him a rationalist.

This is the problem with rationalization . . . it just goes on and on without validation.

'Knowledge' is derived via reason of sensation. I.e., we contemplate our sensations, and then make judgements about them, using reason.
This is a fact, so it appears.
Hence, 'knowledge' is about the sensations. 'Knowledge' is a reflection of things perceived (sensed). Hence, I also state as fact that 'knowledge' is about internal-reality - things perceived.
Sensations are representations of 'a reality'. Reality is not the sensations themselves. Sensations are distinctly different to the physical-processes they mirror.
Thus 'knowledge' is centred within sensation. And this is why 'knowledge' must be verified via sensation.
And so, your objection is a little naive; because any argument which seeks to find the origin of all sensation, is obviously going to have to look outside of the box, and to look beyond 'knowledge' & visual-verification.
This is pure philosophy here. Philosophy which seeks to find the origin of all sensation, rather than what is in those sensations.
Anybody who wishes to step outside of the box (including yourself), must release this burden of physical-verification, and get down to some pure-reasoning. The essence of sensation is not those sensations themselves. Therefore it is 'daft' to impose scientific-criteria upon meaningful philosophy.
The 'essence' does not reside "within the box". The box resides within It.

So where we tend disagree (I agree with you about materialism, as you know, and the sensation point as well)

It's impossible for you to agree with me on the one-hand, and then continue to impose scientific-criteria as the standard for all 'fact', with the other.

is how far one can go with inference without supporting evidence. It is one thing to propose a model of creation, and then try to support it by showing how elements of creation fit your model. But it is another to try to prove your model that way.

My argument mirrors all known knowledge. I.e., it is compatible with all known laws. It can even "make sense" of quantum mechanics. I.e., I can explain the indeterminancy of fundamental-energy, in relation to my own argument.
My argument makes use of "knowledge within the box", to reason about the origin of all sensed-existence.

Proof has much stronger standards than simply modelling

That rule only applies inside the box.

I assume that's because you think there already is enough evidence around, and so all that's required is for someone to put it together properly to show it proves something.

Yes.

So I object, to try to stay within the theme of this thread, when I think you leap (inferentially) too far from the evidence to your statement of proof.

I don't mind objections. I just ask people to judge my philosophy correctly, using reason. Not 'knowledge', or knowledge-criteria required to validate sensed-knowledge (visual [sensed] verification).
Alot of people judge my philosophy like this. And everyone of them is in philosophical error. For some reason, people here just don't get the fact that the origin and essence of "the box", cannot be found within its contents (the sensations).

Science reasoning is more conservative than rationalistic thinking, more "step-by-step." To be allowed the stamp of "proof" all the premises need to be experientially verified and logically connected every step of the way, and there cannot be equally or better alternate conclusions from the facts.

Science is the reasoning of sensation. Philosophy (my philosophy) is the reason for sensation. Until you note the distinction, your own philosophy will suffer, I feel.

This is why the answer to the question of if logic equals truth is not exactly simple.

What is simple, is that logic sees that 'reality' is the essence of sensation. Therefore, essence is not those sensations. Therefore, it is impossible to confirm 'essential arguments' using the sensations.
Therefore, science is not the benefactor of any 'essential knowledge'.
Philosophy is. Namely: Rationalism.
Pure-logic does take us to a sound conclusion. The resistence to this conclusion, comes in the form of materialistic (external) bias, and incredulity at the conclusion itself.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I am fine with it all being in the mind. I don't think you are LG can prove it, but let's assume you are correct. How does it follow that science is only capable of confirming it is all within the mind? Even your mind works certain ways, and if you were to isolate its various functions so you could understand them better, then you would be ]understanding mind, not verifying it's happening inside the mind (since you already know that).

Whether we are in a Mind or not has nothing to do with the fact that sound reasoning leads to predictable results. Science is a method for reasoning about materiality, and so far it has proven itself very well indeed. Whatever "materiality" is makes no difference to the fact that science "works" by way of reason and personal experience.
But the whole point, at least for me, is that if in fact confirmation only exists in our minds, then why can't we in the same "abstract sense," travel the same route "via reasoning" and determine the reality of God?

What's the difference between trying to prove that which is concrete and that which abstract, when in fact the only means we have available is through that which is abstract? No matter how you look at it, it's still abstraction! So I think the key word here is "reasoning."

And it's like I said before ... Is the acknowledgment of truth inborn? (i.e., inherent with the faculty of being human). If not, then you will "never" know anything. Period.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
What is simple, is that logic sees that 'reality' is the essence of sensation. Therefore, essence is not those sensations. Therefore, it is impossible to confirm 'essential arguments' using the sensations.
Therefore, science is not the benefactor of any 'essential knowledge'.
Philosophy is. Namely: Rationalism.
Pure-logic does take us to a sound conclusion. The resistence to this conclusion, comes in the form of materialistic (external) bias, and incredulity at the conclusion itself.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with anything you said about the perception of the world outside of us. I don't think the essence is the sensation, and I do see the senses as providing us what to reason about when it comes to science.

But I don't see the relevance of "science is not the benefactor of any 'essential knowledge'." What difference does it make whether we are experiencing the essence of an object or an electromagnetic analog? It is all we have to work with, and it works well enough to be able to fly to the moon.

Maybe you are trying point out it is an illusion to believe material existence is something essential; that the essence, for a human, remains within because that is what experiences; i.e., for a human, that is reality. Again, I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but it doesn't in anyway negate the reality outside ourselves, and the avenues we have (the senses) for perceiving it.

I also cannot see how pure rationalism gets at the essence of reality. No matter how profound, a thought is never more than an abstraction, an analog, a facimille -- it is an image that can never be more than a fleeting ghost. So I don't believe thinking, logically or illogically, is any way an experience of my essentiality. Thinking may make it more obvious that I exist, but I personally don't need to think to know I exist because I can (and prefer to) feel that. And what is more essential than existence?

[FZ+]

I also cannot see how pure rationalism gets at the essence of reality. No matter how profound, a thought is never more than an abstraction, an analog, a facimille -- it is an image that can never be more than a fleeting ghost. So I don't believe thinking, logically or illogically, is any way an experience of my essentiality. Thinking may make it more obvious that I exist, but I personally don't need to think to know I exist because I can (and prefer to) feel that. And what is more essential than existence?
Good post, LW Sleeth. I agree wholeheartedly...

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I also cannot see how pure rationalism gets at the essence of reality. No matter how profound, a thought is never more than an abstraction, an analog, a facimille -- it is an image that can never be more than a fleeting ghost. So I don't believe thinking, logically or illogically, is any way an experience of my essentiality. Thinking may make it more obvious that I exist, but I personally don't need to think to know I exist because I can (and prefer to) feel that. And what is more essential than existence?
What about thoughts about those things which are concrete? You've just defeated what you're saying here.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But the whole point, at least for me, is that if in fact confirmation only exists in our minds, then why can't we in the same "abstract sense," travel the same route "via reasoning" and determine the reality of God?

What's the difference between trying to prove that which is concrete and that which abstract, when in fact the only means we have available is through that which is abstract? No matter how you look at it, it's still abstraction! So I think the key word here is "reasoning."

And it's like I said before ... Is the acknowledgment of truth inborn? (i.e., inherent with the faculty of being human). If not, then you will "never" know anything. Period.

Yes, I thought that is what you have been trying to say (as in your debate with Tom). But let me point out a couple of possible problems with this.

First, it is not just reasoning, it is reasoning with information. The empiricist says, I have experienced (i.e., observed) various things; those things which can be experienced are considered as providing information. So once again we are back to need for proper premises to be joined with proper logic in order for proper reasoning and conclusions to occur.

Now, what is the source of the information about God you are going to reason with? What is the experience you know of that we can investigate, and then use for ourselves to confirm what you say is true?

This is where the analogy between science reason and spiritual reason breaks down because spiritual experience can only be witnessed inside a single individual. Others cannot have access to that information, at least not inside you. They might be able to have their own inner experience, but there is no way to "objectify" that experience to create an objective proof.

And this is exactly what I see you and LG trying to do. You are mixing apples and oranges, as they say. The very meaning of proof has been devised for the objective setting, not the subjective setting. So you can't come along and demand that those using the objective standard of proof must allow a type of subjective proof in the game. And in my opinion, I don't think the two should be mixed up either. They are about completely differentiated aspects of reality (even if they share a common essence).

But this works both ways too. I am very critical of pure materialists who act as though they have all the answers, and if they don't they soon will. Such "scientism" proponents as I call them, talk like they've already explained the origin of life and what consciousnes is. But if you take apart their arguments, you find all they have is a few of the mechanics of life and consciousness, and then that is followed by a HUGE leap of faith that these mechanics are going to completely explain things. Maybe mechanics will, but they are still a long way from proving it. So I, as someone who doesn't think life and consciousness are purely material and mechanical, find it quite two-faced to hear them squealing about the lack of evidence of spiritually-oriented people while they commit the same sorts of sins.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
But I don't see the relevance of "science is not the benefactor of any 'essential knowledge'." What difference does it make whether we are experiencing the essence of an object or an electromagnetic analog? It is all we have to work with, and it works well enough to be able to fly to the moon.

My view is that science is the reasoned-analysis of the sensations.
We find order in those sensations, and have manipulated that knowledge-of-order to get us to the moon. But I am neither knocking scientific-knowledge nor being ungrateful for its achievements.
All I am saying is that science is solely concerned with our sensations... and therefore, that science pertains to knowledge of those sensations. Indeed, science is only concerned with knowledge which can be sensed. Therefore, theories must be validated by observation (sense).
But philosophy pertaining to the origin of sensed-existence is obviously free from the restriction that its 'facts' should be sensed.
As I've stated before: you cannot see the artist himself in his art. But you can see him because of his art.
I feel that your philosophy is 'contaminated' with scientific-criteria. You somehow feel that you cannot go beyond sensation. As such, you have not taken us beyond sensation. But there is no reason to confine reason within the sensations.
I like reading your stuff. But I feel that your bias confines your mind. I feel that you're flogging a dead horse; because you advocate an 'essential-energy' for everything. Yet you must know that such an essential-energy cannot be confirmed by 'sense' (because sensation is the product of this energy) . Therefore, your "criteria" for 'knowledge' means that you yourself should condemn your own argument.
I feel - with all sincerity - that you are "on the fence" (philosophically) - and that you need to make a jump to one side or the other. And if you truly do see the flaws of materialism, then you should not impose scientific-criteria upon all 'facts'. Just those that are centred "within the box".
I hope you aren't offended by my opinion. I'm trying to be honest and helpful. I regret that this isn't possible without criticism. Your opinions about my own philosophy are testimony to that... so I have to be objective about what you say, too. And I have been.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
All I am saying is that science is solely concerned with our sensations... and therefore, that science pertains to knowledge of those sensations. Indeed, science is only concerned with knowledge which can be sensed. Therefore, theories must be validated by observation (sense).

Okay, no problem so far.

Originally posted by Lifegazer But philosophy pertaining to the origin of sensed-existence is obviously free from the restriction that its 'facts' should be sensed. . . . you advocate an 'essential-energy' for everything. Yet you must know that such an essential-energy cannot be confirmed by 'sense' (because sensation is the product of this energy) . Therefore, your "criteria" for 'knowledge' means that you yourself should condemn your own argument.

If you mean by senses the physical senses, then I would agree. If you mean there is no way to experience the origin or essence, I can't agree. I do believe it can be experienced, though it takes dedication and practice, because I make an effort every single morning to do so. Therefore I continue to believe you must reason with experiential information, whether it is "outer" info, or inner info. Minus that experiential information, it is all just speculation and bad philosophy.

Originally posted by Lifegazer I feel that your philosophy is 'contaminated' with scientific-criteria . . . I feel that your bias confines your mind . . .I feel - with all sincerity - that you are "on the fence" (philosophically) - and that you need to make a jump to one side or the other. And if you truly do see the flaws of materialism, then you should not impose scientific-criteria upon all 'facts'.

I am neither contaminated nor biased. What I am, however, is someone who wants to keep the inner and outer worlds separate. That's not because I don't think they share the same origin and essence, but because I think they have different rules. It is like saying because both the human body and cars are made of atoms, one should care for them both the same. But though they share the commonality of atoms, how they've differentiated during their development gives each fully separate rules for enduring.

So when you see me strongly advocating the rules of science or reason, it is because we are discussing things in that realm; talk to me about purely spiritual matters and you will find me just as strong of an advocate for those rules. It isn't fence-sitting, it is paying attention to how far the material and spiritual have differentiated.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What about thoughts about those things which are concrete? You've just defeated what you're saying here.

I don't see how [?]. A thought is not the thing it is representing whether it is a thought about material or God. One doesn't "know" by thinking alone. It is primarily through experience that one comes to know. Thinking is mostly a way of calculating, understanding, etc. It is like if you want to know love, but each time you try you freeze up. Now, no amount of thinking is going to give you love, but it might help you figure out why you freeze up, and then stop that. Then, the next opportunity you have for love, you can actually experience and so come to know love.

See, I am arguing against the rationalistic belief that one can come to knowledge through reason alone. I am trying to say that in addition to good logic, one needs to reason with information that has been acquired through experience. Something I see going on all the time at this forum is people reasoning so far beyond their experience, everything becomes just speculation.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Yes, I thought that is what you have been trying to say (as in your debate with Tom). But let me point out a couple of possible problems with this.

First, it is not just reasoning, it is reasoning with information. The empiricist says, I have experienced (i.e., observed) various things; those things which can be experienced are considered as providing information. So once again we are back to need for proper premises to be joined with proper logic in order for proper reasoning and conclusions to occur.

Now, what is the source of the information about God you are going to reason with? What is the experience you know of that we can investigate, and then use for ourselves to confirm what you say is true?Well let's just say for starters, I were able to achieve a 90% percent success rate by getting people to achieve the effect I describe below? An effect which is totally created within the mind? Do you think that might turn a few heads?

And what about a lot of these "near death" experiences people experience? Aren't these pretty well documented?


From the thread, A proof for the existence of God? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1307&perpage=15&pagenumber=9) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you see my avatar to the left? Now this is an actual effect that I've been able to produce over and over again in my mind when I meditate. Now, unless you know how to do this for yourself, then the whole idea becomes pretty abstract. But, if I were to teach you how to do this (notice how I'm addressing "you" as an actual person?), i.e., you and so and so, and any one else who was willing to participate, then we all might have what we term a "collective experience," and yes, then we would be able to compare notes ...

If you're interested, I briefly describe what it entails in the following thread, The Advent of Color (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=429). Also note that this is my 373rd post, as corresponds to the colors yellow (3), violet (7) and yellow (3), which portrays both sides of the yellow rings (303) incorporating the "violet patch" within (373). I explain the relationship between the numbers and colors in the thread. Hence it's a synchronistic event (I didn't plan it this way) which seems to coincide with today being Easter, the Day of Ascension. For indeed once this effect is achieved (in my mind), it signifies a resolution or "coming to terms" of the things I had been meditating on, at which point I begin to experience the sensation of everything being "lifted up" to a higher level (i.e., ascension).If you would like to visit this thread, please follow this link (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=429) ...

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I don't see how [?]. A thought is not the thing it is representing whether it is a thought about material or God. One doesn't "know" by thinking alone. It is primarily through experience that one comes to know. Thinking is mostly a way of calculating, understanding, etc. It is like if you want to know love, but each time you try you freeze up. Now, no amount of thinking is going to give you love, but it might help you figure out why you freeze up, and then stop that. Then, the next opportunity you have for love, you can actually experience and so come to know love.

See, I am arguing against the rationalistic belief that one can come to knowledge through reason alone. I am trying to say that in addition to good logic, one needs to reason with information that has been acquired through experience. Something I see going on all the time at this forum is people reasoning so far beyond their experience, everything becomes just speculation.
Like you, I'm all for the experience itself, and yet as I explain above, I believe it's possible for people to achieve the same "abstract effect" in their minds, which is to say we all have a basis by which to start. If, anyone would care to take the test.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Well let's just say for starters, I were able to achieve a 90% percent success rate by getting people to achieve the effect I describe below? An effect which is totally created within the mind? Do you think that might turn a few heads?

And what about a lot of these "near death" experiences people experience? Aren't these pretty well documented?

You say, ". . . note that this is my 373rd post, as corresponds to the colors yellow (3), violet (7) and yellow (3), which portrays both sides of the yellow rings (303) incorporating the "violet patch" within (373). I explain the relationship between the numbers and colors in the thread. Hence it's a synchronistic event (I didn't plan it this way) which seems to coincide with today being Easter, the Day of Ascension. For indeed once this effect is achieved (in my mind), it signifies a resolution or "coming to terms" of the things I had been meditating on, at which point I begin to experience the sensation of everything being "lifted up" to a higher level (i.e., ascension)."

To you, those coincidences seem significant. Maybe they do indicate an underlying symmetry and maybe they don't. There's not enough there to prove anything either way. But to me, all of it gives me the feeling of "so what?" If such symmetry exists, how does that help me to know about it? I am already alive and able to partake in life. Likewise, so what if people have had near-death experiences? How does that help me? Soon enough I will be having my own real-death experience. It isn't death that I want to understand, but rather life while I still have it.

I read that post of yours earlier about your avatar. You might have read in one of my previous posts that I've been meditating every day for nearly 30 years. So I know a little about it. From my practice I have become convinced that there is no way to "prove" objectively what one experiences in deep meditation. The proof is 100% personal, subjective. Only I occupy the little space known as "me." External reality, however, is apart from us in a way that allows us share it with billions of other people. We can all look at it and cooperate trying to figure out how it works.

In my opinion, as long as you want to mix the inner and outer worlds together, all you are going to have nothing but one big plate of mush.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You say, ". . . note that this is my 373rd post, as corresponds to the colors yellow (3), violet (7) and yellow (3), which portrays both sides of the yellow rings (303) incorporating the "violet patch" within (373). I explain the relationship between the numbers and colors in the thread. Hence it's a synchronistic event (I didn't plan it this way) which seems to coincide with today being Easter, the Day of Ascension. For indeed once this effect is achieved (in my mind), it signifies a resolution or "coming to terms" of the things I had been meditating on, at which point I begin to experience the sensation of everything being "lifted up" to a higher level (i.e., ascension)."

To you, those coincidences seem significant. Maybe they do indicate an underlying symmetry and maybe they don't. There's not enough there to prove anything either way. But to me, all of it gives me the feeling of "so what?" If such symmetry exists, how does that help me to know about it? I am already alive and able to partake in life. Likewise, so what if people have had near-death experiences? How does that help me? Soon enough I will be having my own real-death experience. It isn't death that I want to understand, but rather life while I still have it.

I read that post of yours earlier about your avatar. You might have read in one of my previous posts that I've been meditating every day for nearly 30 years. So I know a little about it. From my practice I have become convinced that there is no way to "prove" objectively what one experiences in deep meditation. The proof is 100% personal, subjective. Only I occupy the little space known as "me." External reality, however, is apart from us in a way that allows us share it with billions of other people. We can all look at it and cooperate trying to figure out how it works.

In my opinion, as long as you want to mix the inner and outer worlds together, all you are going to have nothing but one big plate of mush.
Then please, by all means do not bother to bring up any more of your "personal relations," for indeed, they all do sound like mush!

If if on the hand mine were to taste like chocolate pudding, well that might be another story!

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
In my opinion, as long as you want to mix the inner and outer worlds together ...
What are you talking about? We do it all the time! There is nothing about "how" we view the world which is concrete, period!

What was that song by Sting? (AKA, The Police) ... "We are all spirits living in the material world ..."

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
If you mean by senses the physical senses, then I would agree. If you mean there is no way to experience the origin or essence, I can't agree.

But that's a spiritual matter. And you know that. If you were to ever attempt to describe that experience, your words would become lost in un-scientific terms such as 'love'; 'awe'; 'beauty'; 'wholeness'; 'grandeur'; etc..
Science has no interest nor any means of explaining such an experience.

I do believe it can be experienced, though it takes dedication and practice, because I make an effort every single morning to do so. Therefore I continue to believe you must reason with experiential information, whether it is "outer" info, or inner info.

I wont doubt your testimony of experience. What I doubt is whether anything scientific is the reason for this experience.

Minus that experiential information, it is all just speculation and bad philosophy.

I use the information myself, remember. All I'm trying to point-out to you is that there is a distinction to be made between:-
1. Reason of the senses.
2. Reason for the senses.
... And it is clear that '2' produces 'facts' that cannot be sensed - for '2' talks about things which caused those sensations. They don't talk about things which can be verified by sensation.
This point is highly-relevant. I would ask you to ponder it carefully.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I am not saying one can disprove it, nor should anyone have to -- the burden of proof rests with those who assert a hypothesis. I am saying LG cannot make his case using the standards of reason prevalent today.


Perhaps that is true. However, all progress in understanding has relied on changing the "prevalent" reasoning.


The standard today for premises is experiential validation; that is, you make a hypothesis with the explicit commitment to find supporting experience, and it has to be experience others can repeat and observe. The nature of LG's argument is such that I cannot see how it can be tested.


It really can't be (at least not to the extent that Lifegazer has currently postulated on the Forums). However, neither can the idea of infinite space, for example. Yes, that does definitely mean that Lifegazer's idea is not even a hypothesis (because a hypothesis must be testable), but neither is the idea of an infinite universe.


Remember, I am speaking solely about the ideal of reason. What I said was that reasoning with correct logic and correct premises always lead to a correct conclusion.


"Correct logic"? Logic is just the system of using reasoning systems, and who can judge which of these reasoning systems is "correct"?


I did not say we are always able to tell what premises are correct, but I did say we can know if the logic is correct because for that there are very strict rules.


No, the strict rules = logic. That which must abide by the "strict rules" = reasoning systems.


One last point about LG's theory. Even if it is true, what then is science doing?


Studying the projections of the Mind.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What are you talking about? We do it all the time! There is nothing about "how" we view the world which is concrete, period!


Where is the the "IMO" here? There is no evidence of this, it's just your opinion.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Where is the the "IMO" here? There is no evidence of this, it's just your opinion.
IMO, I noticed you didn't bring it up here either. So put up or shut up! Or, better yet, why don't we all just put up or shut up! ... IMO, of course.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
IMO, I noticed you didn't bring it up here either. So put up or shut up! Or, better yet, why don't we all just put up or shut up! ... IMO, of course.

Please calm down, there is no cause for this.

Besides, my post has nothing to do with opinion. It is a fact that there is nothing supporting your view, except for other people who happen to believe the same way.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Please calm down, there is no cause for this.

Besides, my post has nothing to do with opinion. It is a fact that there is nothing supporting your view, except for other people who happen to believe the same way.
Sure it does. And if you want to debate about it, then you obviously have an opinion about it.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Sure it does.


No it doesn't, it's an observation about your opinion, and not based on my own personal opinion, but based on the lack of evidence that you have left me with (as have all others who have tried to convince me of similar beliefs).

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
"Correct logic"? Logic is just the system of using reasoning systems, and who can judge which of these reasoning systems is "correct"?

You have it wrong Mentat. Logic is the "math" of reason. It is exactly the principle that helps you understand why if you have three chickens, and you give one away, then you have two chickens left. In reason, things have to "add up." Logic is the rules of order, an order which exists prior to and independent of us. It is why the inverse square law works, why atoms and EM oscillate rhythmically rather than chaotically, why cycles in nature tend to be steady, why the speed of light is constant, why the laws of physics are not subject to relativity . . .

Logic is not arbitrary, but follows the structure of nature. It is we humans which can be arbitrary with reason by ignoring logic and the need for evidence in our thinking. If you think there is no "correct logic," I suggest you check out some books on it from the library. Math and every scientific pursuit is founded on it (along with observation of course). None of this is in dispute by any informed logician.

It seems you are projecting the average human's poor reasoning skills onto the process itself. For what reason is intended -- understanding the order of things -- it works perfectly when perfectly practiced.

Originally posted by Mentat
No, the strict rules = logic. That which must abide by the "strict rules" = reasoning systems.

Yes logic is the strict rules, and reason must obey the rules of logic and evidence. But within that there is incredible room for creative thinking. It is like you are saying the rules of football or other games are the entire system. But the rules really create the game because if literally everything were possible, then it would be insane and no fun at all. It is the structure which gives us the opportunity for creativity within it.

[Iacchus32]

Reality is like a two-edge sword. Be careful how you wield it, lest ye slice your own self ...

As far as this thing about my avatar is concerned, that's strictly general information (at least for now). While I can assure you, I have no intention of putting myself in the line of fire the way Lifegazer has, not at this time nor, anytime in the near future. You only need to crucify somebody once in order to demonstrate its effectiveness ... although it seems Lifegazer has developed a liking for it!

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
No it doesn't, it's an observation about your opinion, and not based on my own personal opinion, but based on the lack of evidence that you have left me with (as have all others who have tried to convince me of similar beliefs).
I'm afraid all we have my kind sir, is our opinion. Which I'm afraid, amounts to very little.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
[You have it wrong Mentat. Logic is the "math" of reason. It is exactly the principle that helps you understand why if you have three chickens, and you give one away, then you have two chickens left. In reason, things have to "add up." Logic is the rules of order, an order which exists prior to and independent of us. It is why the inverse square law works, why atoms and EM oscillate rhythmically rather than chaotically, why cycles in nature tend to be steady, why the speed of light is constant, why the laws of physics are not subject to relativity . . .


You are missing the point. All I was saying was that reasoning systems are falsifiable, and all reasoning systems are within the framwork of "logic".


Logic is not arbitrary, but follows the structure of nature. It is we humans which can be arbitrary with reason by ignoring logic and the need for evidence in our thinking.


Or, it could be human folly that leads you to this conclusion (just teasing your mind).

I just don't think that all logic follows the structure of nature, because there are no reasoning systems that are outside the realm of logic, but many reasoning systems contradict each other, and thus many of them are probably not consistent with nature.


If you think there is no "correct logic," I suggest you check out some books on it from the library. Math and every all scientific pursuit is founded on it (along with observation of course). None of this is in dispute by any informed logician.


Yes, these are based on Logic. So are all religions, because they are reasoning systems, and no reasoning system exists outside of Logic.


Yes logic is the strict rules, and reason must obey the rules of logic and evidence. But within that there is incredible room for creative thinking. It is like you are saying the rules of football or other games are the system. But the rules really create the game because if literally everything were possible, then it would be insane and no fun at all. It is the structure which gives us the opportunity for creativity within it.

But Logic does not equal "rules".

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I'm afraid all we have my kind sir, is our opinion. Which I'm afraid, amounts to very little.

Yes, it is sad that all you have is your opinion. I, OTOH, am not making an opinion about what you said, I am making an observation.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by PorchMonkey
I have much more than my opinion. I have porn.
Now how did I know this was going to happen? ... Different strokes for different folks!

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You have it wrong Mentat. Logic is the "math" of reason. It is exactly the principle that helps you understand why if you have three chickens, and you give one away, then you have two chickens left. In reason, things have to "add up." Logic is the rules of order, an order which exists prior to and independent of us. It is why the inverse square law works, why atoms and EM oscillate rhythmically rather than chaotically, why cycles in nature tend to be steady, why the speed of light is constant, why the laws of physics are not subject to relativity . . .
Now how is it possible to go through your whole life without having ever "experienced" any of the above things, and still wind up being a decent human being?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, it is sad that all you have is your opinion. I, OTOH, am not making an opinion about what you said, I am making an observation.
I understand it's very important to get in the last word here, therefore this is last word I'm going to say about it (to you).

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by SanitationCommitee
I believe logic=lies. All lies. The world is full of them. Take Jamie Lee Curtis. Were you aware she was a hermaphrodite as a child? How about our own former President, Bill Clinton. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Lie. Fulllll of crap.

LOL! Well, I see you are going to fit right in.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Now how is it possible to go through your whole life without having ever "experienced" any of the above things, and still wind up being a decent human being?

You have it wrong about me . . . I think humans have a nature which is inherently consciousness, even divine if you want to use that expression, and destined for something VERY conscious.

What I don't agree with is entering into discussions that are about logic and evidence, and then trying to make your case without much of that. Do you know God? Well, if you do you can never prove it to anyone else through logic and evidence. But if you are smart enough, and sufficiently informed, you might be able to find holes in materialist philosophy providing you are convinced that their arguments can never "add up" to the whole truth.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You have it wrong about me . . . I think humans have a nature which is inherently consciousness, even divine if you want to use that expression, and destined for something VERY conscious.

What I don't agree with is entering into discussions that are about logic and evidence, and then trying to make your case without much of that. Do you know God? Well, if you do you can never prove it to anyone else through logic and evidence. But if you are smart enough, and sufficiently informed, you might be able to find holes in materialist philosophy providing you are convinced that their arguments can never "add up" to the whole truth.
Then why do people write books about it? (the experience). And why do other people read them? If you're going to speak about anything, whether it be your own experience or whatever, then it "has" to entail logic.

And besides, you don't know me well enough to say I don't have the means by which to provide this information to other people.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
What I don't agree with is entering into discussions that are about logic and evidence, and then trying to make your case without much of that.

It appears that you overlooked the gist of my posts. For arguments "inside the box", evidence has to be 'sensed'. Whereas for arguments "outside of the box", evidence has to be reasoned - purely.

Do you know God? Well, if you do you can never prove it to anyone else through logic and evidence.

Incorrect. You cannot prove it by observation. The artist is not to be found within his paint, but by how he paints.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
You are missing the point. All I was saying was that reasoning systems are falsifiable, and all reasoning systems are within the framwork of "logic".

ARRRRgggggggggggg! Of course reasoning systems are falsifiable, but it has nothing to do with whether or not perfect reason works perfectly.

It's like if I give you a a finely calibrated torque wrench to use, and you use it for a hammer. Then you complain to me that torque wrenches are imperfect because they don't hammer so great. Well, use it as a torque wrench is supposed to be use and it will work just fine.

All reasoning systems are NOT in the framework of correct reason. They are lacking in some respect, such as sound logic or adequate evidence. You have to see the difference between the ideal of reason and the application.

Originally posted by Mentat . . . there are no reasoning systems that are outside the realm of logic, but many reasoning systems contradict each other, and thus many of them are probably not consistent with nature.

Give me one bit of reasoning that leads to a false conclusion, and I will show you a flaw in either the logic or the premises. You just are not accepting the formality of logic. It is not open to much interpretation. Just because someone goes "if . . . then," it doesn't make it logical. You can imitate the forms of logic without ever practicing it correctly.

What if several people do addition each with their own rules, so every sum of 2 plus 2 gives a different answer? Does that mean addition leads to contradictions? Or does it mean that those people using it don't addition? Who do you fault, the people or the addition?

Similarly, you are projecting the imperfections on a process, reason, that has very clearly defined rules, and which few people follow correctly. Then, you say it is reason which is ambiguous! No, it is people who can't reason well that confuses things.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
. . . you don't know me well enough to say I don't have the means by which to provide this information to other people.

We are not talking about you, we are talking about the rules of reason, logic, and evidence.

[Iacchus32]

Hey what happened to PorchMonkey? He was just here a while ago, but now he's gone? Instead there's Sanitation Monkey (SanitationCommittee) which popped up in its place. It's funny because I just saw PorchMonkey posted up on the board (new user) and I thought, oh no it looks like he found me, and sure enough two minutes later there was the post. But now it's gone?

While it looks like Sanitation Monkey needs to clean up his act too! ... Oops! Gone again, right before this very post! ...

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
We are not talking about you, we are talking about the rules of reason, logic, and evidence.
It looks like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, because I sit in my chair and look at my computer and sense that I don't know anything? And yet the fact is I don't remember, which only suggests I've "experienced" a great deal. While I'm sure there's something I can say about it, if in fact it were allowed ...

Are we speaking in riddles again? Well, perhaps ...

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It looks like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, because I sit in my chair and look at my computer and sense that I don't know anything? And yet the fact is I don't remember, which only suggests I've "experienced" a great deal. While I'm sure there's something I can say about it, if in fact it were allowed ...

Are we speaking in riddles again? Well, perhaps ...

I am not trying to confuse you, or "win" a debate. I'm too old to care about that crap. I am trying to explain to you that I think there are different sorts of discussions, and what you are going to run into here, at a science-oriented site, are talks that are very logic and evidence oriented. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong your intuitive, poetic style; but it is out of place because no one is going to join with you in that kind of communication exchange.

If you were to acquiese to the standards here, you might find it will strengthen your ability to bridge the gap between what you intuit and what you can explain.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I am not trying to confuse you, or "win" a debate. I'm too old to care about that crap. I am trying to explain to you that I think there are different sorts of discussions, and what you are going to run into here, at a science-oriented site, are talks that are very logic and evidence oriented. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong your intuitive, poetic style; but it is out of place because no one is going to join with you in that kind of communication exchange.

If you were to acquiese to the standards here, you might find it will strengthen your ability to bridge the gap between what you intuit and what you can explain.
I hear what you're saying, really I do, but I'm not abouts to change (give up my beliefs) just because it doesn't jive with other people's "standards." If there's one thing I have learned in this life, it's you have to be yourself. It won't work any other way. I am not a scientist, nor am I well versed on philosophy, yet it's obvious I have an inclination towards both, and this is what I've been given to work with. If people don't like what I say, or how I say it, then maybe that's good, because maybe they might learn something!

Hey man, I can get pretty ornery at times, and I have to admit, I kind of like it ... whereas I might acquiese, if I felt I actually knew something. Yeah right!

[Iacchus32]

LW Sleeth:

Don't be surprised if I don't show up posting one day, as I've been debating for some time on how on usefull it is to continue doing this. So don't take it personally if I'm gone one day and may never come back. This may even happen as early as tomorrow ... but then again I only intended to make a few posts today which, is how it started out, but I believe I've made more posts today then at any other time! So who knows? ...

[Perspectives]

Logic and Truth, 5/3/2003 7:48 PM EST

I agree with the proponents of the belief that logic is a system of reasoning that concludes with an answer that is inherent in the systems design. In addition I agree with those that believe that truth is the antecedent of the premise. Truth is an essence of the systems under investigation. “Logic is to Truth as Mathematics is to myopia.”

Truth is a perspective granted through systems logic. Truth must present a basic connectivity to its logical system to fulfill its possibility. Logic allows conclusion while speculation grants Truth.

Our truths are limited by our ability to understand what we see. We interpret what we see through the use of our systems of understanding. Understanding allows verification, which begets Truth therefore, our reality. Of course there are “two plus two” truths and “God is real” truths. I am addressing the former not the latter.

We receive reinforcement of our reality when objective demonstration is presented. Most closed systems of belief that contain common elements are mutually supporting. Reality is validated every time we turn on a light bulb and it glows. Our explanation of the mechanics of conductors, electron flow, resistance, energy conversion works perfectly since it is demonstrated by incandescent bulbs, florescent bulbs, and electric motors, etc.

To conclude, reality is a subjective explanation of our existence demonstrated through experimentation and or logic. Logic alone without empirical and verifiable proof is maintained through the belief system i.e. “If you can’t disprove it then it is still possible.”

If we can think outside the box, we can move to the next reality. To discover outside our present limits, we must explain elements that we understand under our present system of logic using a new system. The new system of verification must fall outside our present system. We may have reached our limits with our present supportive infrastructure, logic and mathematics, new values, relationships, supportive infrastructure to reach a new reality.

[Lifegazer]

Welcome.
Originally posted by Perspectives
To conclude, reality is a subjective explanation of our existence demonstrated through experimentation and or logic.

'Knowledge' (physical laws) is objective. This can be confirmed by:
1. This knowledge relates to direct experience. It doesn't relate to experiences we do not have (apart from QM, perhaps, and that's a different matter).
2. The knowledge we have can be used to predict physical- events with ever-increasing accuracy. This proves that our knowledge is objective.

Though the sensations are mere representations of 'a reality', they are the objective foundation of 'existence'. The sensations are the only thing we have which allow us to know of existence - apart from our own traits of reasoning and emotion, etc..
Now if you apply 'reason' to your sensations, you come-up with scientific-knowledge. Knowledge which can predict the future-outcome of existential (sensationed) events. Therefore, this knowledge is correct.

Logic alone without empirical and verifiable proof is maintained through the belief system i.e. “If you can’t disprove it then it is still possible.”

That's incorrect. Is mathematics a belief system? Reason extends beyond sensationed-knowledge. Logical arguments can extend beyond the things which we sense. Concepts are born from our sensations - but not by them. There is no 'infinity' in our sensation. There is no 'nothing'. There is no 'equals'. Such things are reasoned beyond sensation. Logic - with its beyond-sensation concepts - allows you (science) to predict the future of universal events. Yet you advocate the fact that 'beyond-sensation concepts' are useless unless sensed.
That's just not true.
There is scope for reason to accurately predict what is "outside of the box". And there is scope for such argument to be taken seriously. Rational scope.

[FZ+]

1. This knowledge relates to direct experience. It doesn't relate to experiences we do not have (apart from QM, perhaps, and that's a different matter).
As you yourself have argued, experiences are subjective.

2. The knowledge we have can be used to predict physical- events with ever-increasing accuracy. This proves that our knowledge is objective.
Or we're just lucky. Or trying to predict the wrong things.

Though the sensations are mere representations of 'a reality', they are the objective foundation of 'existence'. The sensations are the only thing we have which allow us to know of existence - apart from our own traits of reasoning and emotion, etc..
Doesn't make them objective.

That's incorrect. Is mathematics a belief system?
Yes it is. By both the "axiom" and "definition" principles.

Reason extends beyond sensationed-knowledge. Logical arguments can extend beyond the things which we sense.
But there is no garantee these logical arguments are true, is there?

Such things are reasoned beyond sensation.
No. They are reasoned FROM sensation.

Yet you advocate the fact that 'beyond-sensation concepts' are useless unless sensed.
That's just not true.
There is scope for reason to accurately predict what is "outside of the box". And there is scope for such argument to be taken seriously. Rational scope.
They are still reasoned from sensation. And there is no reason (excuse the pun) that such concepts are true, without sensational backing. And even then they may not be true.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
As you yourself have argued, experiences are subjective.

They are only viewed as 'subjective' because they are representative of 'a reality'. But in truth, sensation is the only objective-fact for supporting the notion of ~existence~ (the awareness of those sensations). Reason & emotion are fixated upon experience. And 'that', is what ~existence~ ammounts to. Nothing else.
Humanity interacts with its own sensations, via reason & emotion. That's existence for ya, in a nutshell.
Any and all philosophy of existence is founded upon this "shell".
Therefore, either there is no possibility that anything we know is correct (objective) - which enables me to state that the laws-of-physics are a belief - or, I can argue that certain facts are "absolute". For example, I could state that all observers perceive of existence in an orderly/lawful manner.
Clearly, the laws-of-physics are a proof that ~perception~ is not subjective in itself. But rather, our reasoning of those sensations certainly is.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
ARRRRgggggggggggg!


All is calm, all is happy, we're all friends here [:)].


Of course reasoning systems are falsifiable, but it has nothing to do with whether or not perfect reason works perfectly.

It's like if I give you a a finely calibrated torque wrench to use, and you use it for a hammer. Then you complain to me that torque wrenches are imperfect because they don't hammer so great. Well, use it as a torque wrench is supposed to be use and it will work just fine.


Good enough example, but it doesn't have much to do with my point. What I'm saying is that logic itself does not always lead to good results. To use your illustration: Logic = the use of tools altogether. Thus, using a torque wrench to pound in a nail is "logical", but not applicable.


All reasoning systems are NOT in the framework of correct reason. They are lacking in some respect, such as sound logic or adequate evidence. You have to see the difference between the ideal of reason and the application.


Sure I do. However, misapplied reasoning also falls in the category of "Logic".


Give me one bit of reasoning that leads to a false conclusion, and I will show you a flaw in either the logic or the premises. You just are not accepting the formality of logic. It is not open to much interpretation. Just because someone goes "if . . . then," it doesn't make it logical. You can imitate the forms of logic without ever practicing it correctly.


One example...lifegazer's Mind proposition.


What if several people do addition each with their own rules, so every sum of 2 plus 2 gives a different answer? Does that mean addition leads to contradictions? Or does it mean that those people using it don't addition? Who do you fault, the people or the addition?


Your problem here is that you are likening reasoning altogether to mathematics. Mathematics is a reasoning system.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
All is calm, all is happy, we're all friends here [:)].

Of course! My frustration doesn't diminsh that.

Originally posted by Mentat
What I'm saying is that logic itself does not always lead to good results. To use your illustration: Logic = the use of tools altogether. Thus, using a torque wrench to pound in a nail is "logical", but not applicable. . . . misapplied reasoning also falls in the category of "Logic". . . . Your problem here is that you are likening reasoning altogether to mathematics. Mathematics is a reasoning system.

Here is exactly where we are disagreeing. I think we need to distinguish between the components of reason to continue this discussion, which I fear would diverge from the theme of this thread. So I will see if I can find some time to start a new thread where it can be discussed.

But a quick answer about your logic statement. I say logic always, without fail, leads to good results when it is used properly. If you isolate it from the overall process of reason and evidence, then of course you can plug false information into the formula and get an incorrect answer. But that does not in any way impune logic, it simply reveals that people can pull logic out of the reasoning process and use it like a hammer on every subject there is.

And mathematics can be a reasoning system once you get into higher disciplines, calculus for example. I was referring to math basics -- the fundamental principles of why 1+ 1 = 2. In that respect, logic is to reason what the laws of mathematics are to calculus (by the way, the laws of mathematics are, in fact, established by logic).

[Royce]

LW Sleeth,
My hat's off to you. You are in my mind a true logistician. I have been reading this thread and dispite the obvious references to other threads I have yet to read, I think you made your point and stuck to it. Everytime I wanted to make a remark to support a point you'd made you beat me to it said it better than I could. I, at least, award you the Spock Legion of Merit award.
The only thing I would like to emphasize is the Logic is a tool with which we reason. There are others such as math. Logic like math if done properly will always come up with the correct answer but like any system, GIGO, Garbage In - Garbage Out. And as you so well pointed out like any tool it must be properly applied to the proper job at hand. I find it hard to seperate math and logic. One is useless without the other and the same rules apply to both hense Boolean algebra helped so much in the developement and design of computers.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Royce
LW Sleeth,
You are in my mind a true logistician.. . . I, at least, award you the Spock Legion of Merit award.

Thank you Royce . . .live long and prosper (sorry Drag, it was logical that I borrow that).

[Perspectives]

Please forgive my late answers, I am job hunting as well.

We are as a matter of our existence, subjective. Formal logic is our answer to subjectivity. Formal logic rises above feelings and beliefs that are based on something other than demonstrable and verifiable processes. Formal logic and its resultant proofs are our attempt at creating a solidly objective definition of our existence. Our reality is defined by this formal process. And through them we attempt to interpret what we’ve proven. We have framed our reality by the tools that we’ve chosen to create and the reasoning we’ve chosen to employ to interpret our results. This we choose to call objective methodology or scientific methodology, if we use formal logic.

We have created tools much like a mechanic creates tools to work on his or her automobile. Granted most people pop out and buy the tools but if you’ve ever worked on a machine that needs fixing without the proper tool, you may create one through necessity, even today. Normally we create a mechanism and then design the tools to service the mechanism. Once that is done the mechanism can flourish and when needs be we diagnose and dissemble it for maintenance or repairs. It’s so succinct and predictable. Most of the tools exist to service the new machine before it is created because we choose to create it based on some previously designed mechanism. How much more objective can we be than choosing, defining, operating within a closed system of thought?


We have limited ourselves through selecting previously experienced supportative experiences. We have chosen to use things that will predictable produce an expected result. Granted there are experimental and applied workers that can weave tales till the wee hours of the morning about unexpected results. Either we’re looking at a poorly defined theory without supportative formal processes or a misdirected experiment.
Einstein devised many of his theories with codicils of suggested experimental verification. Why he expected them to work. He knew that a well framed question has at it’s roots, the answer.

This closed system of reasoning is limiting and subjective. We define it, We choose it and we use it to define itself. Philosophy is at the leading edge of thought and some times even before it. It helps ignite the illumination that will expose potential answers to our questions. But it must sometimes go beyond our present system of reasoning by realizing we are enduring a subjective system of thought that is becoming limited in its perspective of reality. “We make reality in our own image.”

[Royce]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Perspectives
[B]Please forgive my late answers, I am job hunting as well.


We have created tools much like a mechanic creates tools Once that is done the mechanism can flourish and when needs be we diagnose and dissemble it for maintenance or repairs. It’s so succinct and predictable. Most of the tools exist to service the new machine before it is created because we choose to create it based on some previously designed mechanism. How much more objective can we be than choosing, defining, operating within a closed system of thought?

This closed system of reasoning is limiting and subjective.

A very good post and I agree with all that you say except that it is a closed system. I think that in the above paragraph you contradict youself when you say on one hand that we create new tools as needed yet operate in a closed system. That we can create new tools to explore new ideas and experiments to me is an open system.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
They are only viewed as 'subjective' because they are representative of 'a reality'. But in truth, sensation is the only objective-fact for supporting the notion of ~existence~ (the awareness of those sensations). Reason & emotion are fixated upon experience. And 'that', is what ~existence~ ammounts to. Nothing else.
Humanity interacts with its own sensations, via reason & emotion. That's existence for ya, in a nutshell.
Any and all philosophy of existence is founded upon this "shell".
Therefore, either there is no possibility that anything we know is correct (objective) - which enables me to state that the laws-of-physics are a belief - or, I can argue that certain facts are "absolute". For example, I could state that all observers perceive of existence in an orderly/lawful manner.
Clearly, the laws-of-physics are a proof that ~perception~ is not subjective in itself. But rather, our reasoning of those sensations certainly is.
Now, if you would care to look at the dictionary definitions of subjective and objective, you have just completely denied your mind hypothesis.

For a quicky, subjective means existing only in the mind. Objective means existing outside the mind. So perception is outside the mind now, eh? Just what are you saying?

[Perspectives]

Royce,

Thank you for considering my thoughts. I have not clarified myself although I do tend to ramble and that is no assurance of clarity.

I submit that as a matter of consequence, we have fashioned a closed system. Even when we create a new tool it is no more than a modification of existing tools or at the very best a tool that is created from the root Logic from which all tools are created. In addition due to it’s imposed limitations we are predisposed to use what is at hand within our reality. The object of our attention through its limits are selected by us through default. This to my mind is subjective since it is all we have but more over it was created by us, through our subjective limitations. We can only know what we choose to know. Despite our attempts to distance ourselves from feelings and irrational beliefs, we have learned to at least separate ourselves from them by putting order to our thoughts even though the outcome will always be predictable. We model our reality based on our predisposed condition.

I have contemplated that we are as all animals, doomed to extinction through our own limitations. It is quite possible that our intellect will perform the job because we cannot “think outside the box.” What box? As the Bard put it, this “Mortal coil.” If this is so them might not this box have imposed limits on our ability to become more? I can only assume the body is of third importance and the mind being second and our essence first.

From our subjective self we must employ new means of consideration if we are to do more that think outside, we need to be outside the box.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Of course! My frustration doesn't diminsh that.


Nice to know [:)]


Here is exactly where we are disagreeing. I think we need to distinguish between the components of reason to continue this discussion, which I fear would diverge from the theme of this thread. So I will see if I can find some time to start a new thread where it can be discussed.


Good idea (although it seems that a thread entitled "logic=truth?" is a fairly good place to discuss this, should you choose to do so).


But a quick answer about your logic statement. I say logic always, without fail, leads to good results when it is used properly.


Ah, but you've used the word, "properly". Who/what determines the "proper" use of logic?


If you isolate it from the overall process of reason and evidence, then of course you can plug false information into the formula and get an incorrect answer.


You can't isolate it from "reason", but you can isolate it from "evidence". But there are those that would argue that it shouldn't matter that there is or isn't empirical evidence to support a certain bit of reasoning. They would say that the idea of always needing "evidence" is a Scientific premise, and that Science is just one reasoning system, and that there are many others that are equally creditable. And, since we're disagreein' here [;)], I think I'll take that stance (for now).


And mathematics can be a reasoning system once you get into higher disciplines, calculus for example. I was referring to math basics -- the fundamental principles of why 1+ 1 = 2. In that respect, logic is to reason what the laws of mathematics are to calculus (by the way, the laws of mathematics are, in fact, established by logic).

Yes, they are established by logic. And so are many philosophies that contradict the (seemingly basic) principle of Causality. Just take a look at the thread "I think therefore I am" (I'm having a hecuva time trying to argue this point against Manuel).

[Perspectives]

Royce,

I should indicate the basis of why I believe our system of reasoning is subjective.

Logic =Truth cannot be correct. Logic is a formalized process of reasoning and Truth is a judgment pronounced regarding what we see, Not what we’ve calculated. Formal Logic as applied to a problem such as the supportative mathematics Einstein used in the Special Theory of Relativity is irrevocable and irrefutable. Within the framework of the logic all is correct. It is but an explanation of his General Theory of Relativity; His interpretation through mathematical modeling of the universe.

The verbalizing, the interpretation as presented to his peers is an explanation, a truth-small t. There are places where it does not mesh with Quantum Physics. No GUT. Big G.
Is TOR and GT a very opportunistic explanations of reality for lack of a new view? Will SST support it? It certainly has provided a possible bridge between Einstein and Bohr.

The breakdown of any system occurs when it must be applied to the “Outer Limits” of our view of reality. We have limited ourselves by our creation of subjective tools and our application of them. While objectivity may be pronounced when we use Formal Logic and experimentation, the framework that their very existence creates limits us.

Our tools propose, through logic possibility. Experimentation verifies we are correct and those two attributes beg objectivity, then our interpretation must announce a truth. However the framework within which we operate, that which is outlined above surely limits our treatment of existence when we choose to explore it. We are in my view subjectively examining existence and pronouncing it reality.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Ah, but you've used the word, "properly". Who/what determines the "proper" use of logic?

It seems like you are unfamiliar with this field. I don't like telling someone they need to study, but I can't debate with you if won't acknowledge something that is well established.

There is a formal system of logic that has developed over the last couple of thousand years. It is taught in all major universities of the world, and by and large all the experts are in agreement about its main principles. That is proper logic. It is not "my" logic and it isn't yours, it is THE logic I am referring to.

Originally posted by Mentat
You can't isolate it from "reason" . . .

For the sake of isolating the formal system of logic in our discussion I made "reason" the overall process, as I did in my thread on pragmatism.

Originally posted by Mentat
. . . but you can isolate it from "evidence". But there are those that would argue that it shouldn't matter that there is or isn't empirical evidence to support a certain bit of reasoning. They would say that the idea of always needing "evidence" is a Scientific premise, and that Science is just one reasoning system, and that there are many others that are equally creditable. And, since we're disagreein' here [;)], I think I'll take that stance (for now).

That a priori ratiionalistic (as it is called) type of philosophy has been declared dead by most experts. People still do it at this site isolated from that reality. It had 2000 years to prove it could achieve something, it it never did. It was when reason was linked to evidence that philosophy really showed its stuff. Otherwise, you can speculate about anything, and there is no test for its efficacy. However, I don't see why the evidence has to empirical only however ( i.e., based on sense experience). I've said before that I think there are other sorts of experience, including what some call "spiritual" experience.

Originally posted by Mentat
. . . many philosophies that contradict the (seemingly basic) principle of Causality.

Like I said, you can dream up any philosophy you want if you don't ever have to test it in reality. It is feedback from reality that it "works" which verifies a philosophical proposal.

[Royce]

Persepectives,
While Logic and Math (I still can't seperate them) are in and of the mind they are not subjective but abstract. They do not in anyway, in their pure form, attempt to represent reality but instead are pure thought, abstracts. As Logic and Math are defined solely in the mind and the rules are defined solely in the mind of Man they cannot be wrong. Unless you want to go very deeply into the metaphysical they are abstract concepts invented in the mind for the mind by the mind and as definitions they cannot be wrong. There is no intent to related them to Truth only that they are true. As tools they can be and often are applied to Truth and Reality sometimes successfully sometimes not. I've said this before in other places. I think it appropriate to repeat this as often as necessary, wherever and whenever necessary, because they are basic truths and we all too often try to make more of logic than it really is or try to dispute the validity of logic. You can't. You can only dispute whether or not the application or premise is valid.
I am not being dogmatic or a Nazi about this. I'm just explaining the rules and facts and why so many common beliefs of Logic and it's uses are wrong and do not apply.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It seems like you are unfamiliar with this field. I don't like telling someone they need to study, but I can't debate with you if won't acknowledge something that is well established.


No, you are right. I've been spending too much time debating with Manuel_Silvio (on "I think therefore I am"), and it's making me question everything that someone might be taking for granted.


There is a formal system of logic that has developed over the last couple of thousand years. It is taught in all major universities of the world, and by and large all the experts are in agreement about its main principles. That is proper logic. It is not "my" logic and it isn't yours, it is THE logic I am referring to.


I agree. However, while there is a certain form of Logic, there are many different reasoning systems, and that's where wrong conclusions can come in. You see, there are many reasoning systems that directly contradict each other, but they all exist within the realm of "Logic". For example: Causality. It is commonly held as "obvious" fact, but there are a few alternatives (see "I think therefore I am" (last couple of pages) for some examples) to it, and they are all "logical" but only one can be correct.


For the sake of isolating the formal system of logic in our discussion I made "reason" the overall process, as I did in my thread on pragmatism.


But, if there are many different ways to "reason", how can we refer to "it" as though "it" were an overall process (when it is, in fact, many different processes).


That a priori ratiionalistic (as it is called) type of philosophy has been declared dead by most experts. People still do it at this site isolated from that reality. It had 2000 years to prove it could achieve something, it it never did. It was when reason was linked to evidence that philosophy really showed its stuff. Otherwise, you can speculate about anything, and there is no test for its efficacy. However, I don't see why the evidence has to empirical only however ( i.e., based on sense experience). I've said before that I think there are other sorts of experience, including what some call "spiritual" experience.



Like I said, you can dream up any philosophy you want if you don't ever have to test it in reality. It is feedback from reality that it "works" which verifies a philosophical proposal. [/B][/QUOTE]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It seems like you are unfamiliar with this field. I don't like telling someone they need to study, but I can't debate with you if won't acknowledge something that is well established.


No, you are right. I've been spending too much time debating with Manuel_Silvio (on "I think therefore I am"), and it's making me question everything that someone might be taking for granted.


There is a formal system of logic that has developed over the last couple of thousand years. It is taught in all major universities of the world, and by and large all the experts are in agreement about its main principles. That is proper logic. It is not "my" logic and it isn't yours, it is THE logic I am referring to.


I agree. However, while there is a certain form of Logic, there are many different reasoning systems, and that's where wrong conclusions can come in. You see, there are many reasoning systems that directly contradict each other, but they all exist within the realm of "Logic". For example: Causality. It is commonly held as "obvious" fact, but there are a few alternatives (see "I think therefore I am" (last couple of pages) for some examples) to it, and they are all "logical" but only one can be correct.


For the sake of isolating the formal system of logic in our discussion I made "reason" the overall process, as I did in my thread on pragmatism.


But, if there are many different ways to "reason", how can we refer to "it" as though "it" were an overall process (when it is, in fact, many different processes).


That a priori ratiionalistic (as it is called) type of philosophy has been declared dead by most experts. People still do it at this site isolated from that reality. It had 2000 years to prove it could achieve something, it it never did. It was when reason was linked to evidence that philosophy really showed its stuff. Otherwise, you can speculate about anything, and there is no test for its efficacy. However, I don't see why the evidence has to empirical only however ( i.e., based on sense experience).


Isn't this contradictory? You are saying that the criterium for a "good" philosophy is that it be testable. But then you say that it need not be physically testable (last sentence quoted above).


Like I said, you can dream up any philosophy you want if you don't ever have to test it in reality. It is feedback from reality that it "works" which verifies a philosophical proposal.

That's the point. Even your concept of "reality" could be entirely wrong, and thus there is no certainty in empirical testing.

[Perspectives]

Royce,

As you say Logic and Math are abstract concepts, they support objective thought. Therefore they provide an acceptable explanation of our existence, being clean of human weakness.
However, if the tools you are given cannot allow you to work on what you choose, then you are limited to a way of limited thought. An established portion of the scientific community cannot and will not think outside the box they have constructed. We have not devised an acceptable method of dealing with the unknowable. I said acceptable to the pragmatist, you and I on the other hand are content to discuss Philosophically the unknowable. We believe that some form of understanding within reason can and will be realized.
We also agree that established principles are true not the big T True.
You can't. You can only dispute whether or not the application or premise is valid.
I am not being dogmatic or a Nazi about this.
I couldn’t agree with you more, which is what I’m doing in my previous comments, maybe badly. The difference to my application of your statement of the basic statement is that in order to validate the rightness or wrongness we use the same tools that helped create them.
And as regards being a Nazi, I’m sure you are persistent, complete and willing to examine all sides of an argument but never a Nazi.

Perspectives

[Royce]

Thank you, perpectives, I've been very busy over in the Religion forum and am just now getting back to where I feel I belong. I apologize for not replying sooner.
-----------------------
"However, if the tools you are given cannot allow you to work on what you choose, then you are limited to a way of limited thought. An established portion of the scientific community cannot and will not think outside the box they have constructed."
-----------------------
Exactly so. I receintly read a book concerning the short comings of Logic and Philosopy in light of Quantum Mechanics. His main point was that our logic and Philosophy must change as they are more limiting now than helpful.
-------------------------
"We have not devised an acceptable method of dealing with the unknowable. I said acceptable to the pragmatist, you and I on the other hand are content to discuss Philosophically the unknowable. We believe that some form of understanding within reason can and will be realized."
---------------------------
Of course I do as do you but it takes a split personality to be able to do it. I find that I am contending with on person, espectially wuliheron on one subject, facet or level of philosophy and even greater concerning Logic in this "pragmatic" Philosophy formum but agree with him to the point of brotherly love for a mentor in the Religions Forum. I almost feel like a traitor at thosr times.

--------------------------

"The difference to my application of your statement of the basic statement is that in order to validate the rightness or wrongness we use the same tools that helped create them."
------------------------------
Yes, and that makebe its major falicy (sp?)but what choice do we have. There are no other tools to use.
The thing that I find so impressive is the the same tools we use in the material pragmatic world can also be use just as effectively in the subjective, immaterial, spiritual world. This encourages me in my belief that God is logical and rational. He may play dice but he doesn't play tricks.

[Perspectives]

Royce,

I am elated that you have shown me that you understand my thoughts. Yes, there are two aspects of my proposition that rear their interesting heads, How do we entertain the unknowable? And Are these the times that reaffirm faith in God? The problem with solving the milestones that are considered outside the ability of knowing, Gods realm, is that once we know it, we consider it a renunciation of God. There will always be a great gulf between Man and God. For how can Man know Gods mind? How? Study Gods creation!

The Universe and all it’s trappings are truly enough to keep us busy and yes I agree with you, God does not play dice with the Universe, it is very logical, it has all the boundaries or lack thereof as we choose to define. One does not have to believe in God to use the same logic and tools that are defined as scientific or objective if you will.

Having said all this, I have been pondering for a while the next steps that we are taking about regarding a new way of thought. Surly fuzzy logic plays a part, which in my mind is an exercise in going back to the basics. That of grouping things together, defining relationships, and creating new forms of linkages that evoke understanding.

Of course developing new tools without knowing the machinery that one is ask to apply is shaky therefore a challenge may be in order to find the machinery. Or an iterative approach is in order, as we more clearly see the machinery, we develop the tools to move us closer to a truth, small t.

Don’t be concerned about the delays in communications as we all have day jobs or trying to get them. I do appreciate the conversation.

Perspectives