Are the Limits of Reason Truly Justifiable?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Tom
I'm going to ask that we forget about god in this thread. It really has nothing to do with the topic.

Continuing along this line...



All systems of logic can be put into one of two categories:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive

I explained all this in detail in my Logic Notes thread, but let me give a rundown here.

Deductive Logic
An argument is deductive if its premises necessarily imply[/color] its conclusions. With a mandate to construct such a system of logic, one is led directly to a formal structural language that strongly resembles mathematics. It contains rules for types of inferences that can always be trusted. This should not be misunderstood to mean that deductive logic can be used to derive absolute truths about reality. In fact, deductive logic is completely silent in this regard. It should be understood as follows:

I may not know whether the premises are correct, but I do know for certain that: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.[/color]

That conditional statement expresses the only idea of which we can be confident using only deductive logic. Deductive logic does not contain a procedure for testing the truth or falsity of propositions (except for some propositions about deductive logic, of course).

Inductive Logic
An argument that is not deductively valid is inductive. The premises of an inductive argument provide only partial support for its conclusion, and as such the conclusions of inductive arguments are accepted only tentatively. This may prompt one to ask, "Why bother with inductive logic?" Good question. The answer is that it is impossible to reason about anything that cannot be known a priori without inductive logic. So, the price we pay for inductive reasoning may be the lack of absolute support for the conclusion, but the benefit is that we obtain the ability to say something meaningful about reality.[/color] In other words, inductive logic provides a means to judge the truth or falsity of propositions, but only in a probable (as opposed to absolute) sense.

The discipline of implementing these two kinds of reasoning to learn about reality is called science.

Isn't there a paradox, when it comes to deductive logic (as you've defined it)? To say that the acceptance of premises A and B means that you must accept Z, is to create another premise (premise C), which states: If you accept A and B, you must accept Z. But, let's say that I were to accept premise C, what then? Well, there is no premise that says that by accepting A, B, and C I must accept Z, so we make one (premise D): If you accept A, B, and C you must accept Z. However, there is no premise that says that accepting A, B, C, and D means I must accept Z...and so on, and so on, forever.

I guess Deductive Logic still works, but there is that little paradox, isn't there?

 

[Mentat]

Oops, I see the paradox has already been brought up. Sorry about that.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Mentat,
I believe that if you read Tom's second part -
about inductive logic, you'll notice he says
that inductive logic is probable - never
certain.

Tom,
I believe that what wuliheron basicly means,
and I'm referring to your enitial "short"
definition version, is that not only should you
recognize the probable nature of inductive logic,
like you said, but also that you can have different
rules (different types of logic) when it comes
to your discription of deductive logic.
This also means that some things may be true/false/
indeterminate for the same sets of premises.
There should, theoreticly, be no limmit to
the possible range of such approaches.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
That's a very tough question to ponder. I've
been trying to remember my first cognitive moments,
my first awareness of "me." One I have I don't
know if it's a dream or not, but it is such a
vivid flash of memory I've always suspected that
it's real. The memory is of being held by someone
in the delivery room and seeing a woman (my mother
I assume) in a prone position, and a dark man
with a thick, black moustache. Later in life I
asked my mom what her doctor looked like, and
she described the man I saw! I have other
flashes too, meaningless events, but things I
remember as an infant.

You actualy remember yourself when you were
born ?! Com'mon !

Live long and prosper.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by drag
You actualy remember yourself when you were
born ?! Com'mon !

I don't know, I could have dreamed it too. My point was that I believe I remember early moments in my life where I wasn't thinking, and that another apparently inborn cognitive part of me was functioning just fine.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by ahrkron

No, actually, the statement is independent of how you define "truth".

The statement itself, If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true, explicitely defines truth as having true premises. Furthermore, it implicitely defines truth as either applying to everything or not being that which is false.

Also, the statement you are referring to is not an argument, but only one of the three conditions for a deductive argument (that contains the mentioned premises) to be valid.

btw, why do you say that Aristotle defined truth using reduction ad absurdum (sp?)? I do not know much about how (and if) he tried to define "truth". Can you provide a reference?

Sorry, I don't have any links to the subject. Aristotle incorporated the Law of the Excluded Middle and the Law of Noncontradiction as the foundations of his logic. Each of these he demonstrated using reductio ad absurdum which can also be derived from both principles.

This was a significant deviation from other logics at the time like that of Heraclitus which either implied everything was ultimately true or in Zeno's case, absurd. All of these logics, however, were ultimately based on the use of reductio ad absurdum. The situation was analogous to a bunch of politicians today arguing that each other's views are more absurd.

Aristotle's logic became the first to take a fundamentalist stance of everything either being true or false. It is widely hailed as the first formal logic, but has been described as a blunt instrument leading to authoritarianism and is not considered very applicable in modern science, but for the time was revolutionary.

Also, the very technique of reductio ad absurdum relies on the assumption that, when you have a self-cotradictory statement, it has to come from either a faulty reasoning or a false hypothesis, which means that it rules out contradictions as valid end points of a deductive argument.

No, that is the law of the noncontradiction from which reductio ad absurdum can be derived. Zeno of Elias was the first to highlight the extreme use of reductio ad absurdum in the west. He argued that the universe is indivisible, indestructable, immortal, and unchanging. His famous paradoxes he proposed as proof that his own beliefs that change and motion are impossible are no more absurd than anyone else's beliefs.

I take it you are referring to the definition of validity given by Tom. I don't think this is a good solution, since the concept of validity is extremely helpful as it is. Also, when you use "may" instead of "must", you need to supply a way to decide if it is indeed the case that the resulting conclusion "may" be true, which means you need to have the stronger version anyway.

You are correct in assuming the classical definition Tom espouses is useful, but today a great deal of attention is focused on creating many valued logics, the simplest of which assert there is truth, falsehood, and the indeterminate, infinite, or synergistic product of truth/falsehood and the most complex being an infinitely valued logic. The more advanced versions are statistical in nature and incorporate nested matricies. Despite any absurdities they may present from a classical view, they have proven incredibly useful for hundreds of years now.

Two valued logics reflect the way the human mind works but Aristotlian logic is built on denial of its own fundamental assertions. What it leaves out is pointedly the more qualitative human attitudes and affects that define words like absurd. For all these reasons and more the science of logic can be described as a pragmatic science of the absurd, but the art of logic is much more.

I don't think it has to do with paraconsistent logic. Maybe with modal logic (in which the "degree of credibility" of statements is added to the description).

Oh really, why do you think that?

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
You're the one who brought up the Problem of Other Minds in the other thread, while it was also emphasized (by both you and heusdens I believe) that by sharing our experiences, we can be more conclusive about their actual existence, if in fact we all concluded the same thing. In other words we're speaking about a "collective experience." Whereas what could that possibly mean if we all didn't share the "same ideals?"

The similarity of experience comes from the facts that:

1. We are looking at the same universe.
2. We are constructed similarly.

Consider "the entity" of the United States government, which rules over the entire nation. Couldn't this be perceived as the "one mind" which consolidates the interests of the entire nation?

No, it couldn't. If you want proof, just ask one senator what another senator is thinking. He won't be able to tell you, I promise.

Or, if we were to say, "We the people of the United States," aren't we referring to a "collective experience" under one "collective mind?" Me thinks so.

Me thinks not, for the same reason.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron The statement itself, If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true, explicitely defines truth as having true premises.

Not even taken by itself,

but remember that the statement was one of three conditions that, if met, define what a deductive argument is:


When an inference is deductively valid, then
1. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
2. If at least one of the premises is false, then the conclusion must be false.
3. If at least one of the premises is undecidable (aka paradoxical), then the conclusion is undecidable.


What you are doing is similar to the following:

Tom says "a lung doctor is reliable if: 1. when he says you're ok, your lungs are ok, 2. If he says you're bad, there's something wrong with you, ..."

Then you blame Tom for defining "OK" as having to do with the lungs, when his aim was at the concept of "reliability", and he provided no general criteria for the definition of "OK" (truth).

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The tautology is that the argument Tom put forth that If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. is based on the the definition of truth which Aristotle first established using reductio ad absurdum.

OK, I think I see where there could be some confusion. First, the "if...then" is not an argument, but a statement (but that's a minor point). The major point here is that statement is not a tautology[/color]. It only makes sense to refer to statement schema (the skeleton of a statement, expressed in terms of variables) as "tautologies".

The schema for my statement is: p-->q, which is not tautological. It would only be so if p=q, which it does not here (p and q have different subjects).

Like Ahkron, I don't know about the reductio ad absurdum definition of truth, and I also don't see how it is important.

In other words, using the concept of the absurd Aristotle defined the absurd as definitively false and then went on to declare that everything must be either true or false, which rules out the possibility of genuinely self-referential and self-contradictory paradox to which classical logic cannot assign any truth value.

We don't have to stick with Aristotle. Propositional logic does indeed accommodate paradoxes. Statements are either true, false, or undecidable.

The statement itself, If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true, explicitely defines truth as having true premises.

No, it does not define truth at all--It defines deductive validity. The definition of truth has do be done separately.

Furthermore, it implicitely defines truth as either applying to everything or not being that which is false.

No, it doesn't. Like I said, it simply limits the scope of statements being considered to those statements that are true. It does not rule out undecidable propositions at all. In fact, Goedel's work on undecidable propositions was done in this very same propositional logic, which uses the above definition of deductive validity.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by ahrkron
What you are doing is similar to the following:

Tom says "a lung doctor is reliable if: 1. when he says you're ok, your lungs are ok, 2. If he says you're bad, there's something wrong with you, ..."

Then you blame Tom for defining "OK" as having to do with the lungs, when his aim was at the concept of "reliability", and he provided no general criteria for the definition of "OK" (truth).

Yes, that's it.

Here's what I was thinking. Look at the whole process as a computer program.

The first function is a sorting routine that puts statements in one of three sets. Set 1 is for true statements, Set 2 is for false statements, and set 3 is for undecidable statements. In the sorting function is the definition for "true", "false", and "undecidable". The returned results of the function are sorted statements.

The second function is a function for determining deductive validity. It contains as a definition: If the premises are all from Set 1, then the conclusion must also be from Set 1.. The second function does not know or care how the statements were sorted[/color]; it only cares what Set they are in.

Hopefully it is clear now that:

1. It is not the case that the second function defines truth.

2. It is not the case that the second function rules out Set 3 statements (aka paradoxes).

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by ahrkron

What you are doing is similar to the following:

Tom says "a lung doctor is reliable if: 1. when he says you're ok, your lungs are ok, 2. If he says you're bad, there's something wrong with you, ..."

Then you blame Tom for defining "OK" as having to do with the lungs, when his aim was at the concept of "reliability", and he provided no general criteria for the definition of "OK" (truth).

The other way around, I am debating the validity of his assertions on the basis of semantics and emperical evidence. Read the rest of this post for more details.

Originally posted by Tom

OK, I think I see where there could be some confusion. First, the "if...then" is not an argument, but a statement (but that's a minor point).

For me, it is THE point. Whether you view it as an argument or statement of fact depends upon your point of view. Of course if you take the point of view it is a simple statement of fact it supports classical logic, but then it becomes a tautological argument.

The major point here is that statement is not a tautology[/color]. It only makes sense to refer to statement schema (the skeleton of a statement, expressed in terms of variables) as "tautologies".

The schema for my statement is: p-->q, which is not tautological. It would only be so if p=q, which it does not here (p and q have different subjects).

Again, you are using dialectical logic to assert the validity of dialectical logic. You are saying that truth is not falsehood and then attempting to use this fundamental assumption to prove that truth must lead to truth using these rules and falsehood must lead to falsehood.

Like Ahkron, I don't know about the reductio ad absurdum definition of truth, and I also don't see how it is important.

We don't have to stick with Aristotle. Propositional logic does indeed accommodate paradoxes. Statements are either true, false, or undecidable.

As Kurt Godel proved, any system must be based at least in part on axioms that can only be taken on faith. Hence even logical systems are ultimately based on faith as much as anything else and the roots of this faith can be traced in the west to the pervasive use of reductio ad absurdum in ancient Greece.

Faith in the vague concept of the absurd, in both east and west, is the foundation of all logical systems. In order to prove the validity of the foundations of a particular logic, Godel proved using propositional logic, one must go outside of that particular logic and use something else. Because all systems of logic are based on rules and the natural language concept of the absurd, ultimately semantics and emperical evidence are the only systematic means of varifying their validity.

Because no single logic system has yet been devised that is applicable to all we observe, emperical evidence does not support one logic over another. Nor has any semantic or linguistic approach proven universally applicable either. What we can say, however, is that mathematics, logistics, and linguistics are all converging towards some kind of statistically oriented logic or logics as capable of explaining all we observe at least well enough to narrow our definition of the absurd. In physics, this is known as a Theory of Everything.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by wuliheron
For me, it is THE point. Whether you view it as an argument or statement of fact depends upon your point of view. Of course if you take the point of view it is a simple statement of fact it supports classical logic, but then it becomes a tautological argument.

A few points:

First, no matter how you look at it, logical constructions of the form If p then q. are statements and not arguments. An argument--by definition--has at least two statements.

Second, I don't think that there is any such thing as a "tautological argument". Tautologies are types of statements, not arguments.

Third, statements of the form If p then q. are not tautological unless p=q, which is not true in this case.

Again, you are using dialectical logic to assert the validity of dialectical logic. You are saying that truth is not falsehood and then attempting to use this fundamental assumption to prove that truth must lead to truth using these rules and falsehood must lead to falsehood.

No, I am not proving anything. I am defining[/color] deductive validity. Also, I am not saying anything about the definition of "truth" or "falsehood".

Ahkron has it right with his analogy, and I go into it further with my 'computer program' explanation. The definition of deductive validity is completely independent of the definition of truth.

As Kurt Godel proved, any system must be based at least in part on axioms that can only be taken on faith. Hence even logical systems are ultimately based on faith as much as anything else and the roots of this faith can be traced in the west to the pervasive use of reductio ad absurdum in ancient Greece.

I understand the implications of Incompleteness, but they have no bearing on the definition of deductive validity, unless you want to prove that logic is "right", which is not what I am doing here.

The rest of your post deals with the question, "How can I know which logic is correct?" which is not what I am getting at here. I was dividing logic into two categories (in response to FZ's question), basically to show that logic cannot be used to get to any "absolute truths" about reality, and as you point out, about itself, either.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Tom
A few points:

First, no matter how you look at it, logical constructions of the form If p then q. are statements and not arguments. An argument--by definition--has at least two statements.

Correct, an argument has at least two statements. In this case the two statements can be expressed as p is not q and, therefore, if p then q.

Second, I don't think that there is any such thing as a "tautological argument". Tautologies are types of statements, not arguments.

Third, statements of the form If p then q. are not tautological unless p=q, which is not true in this case.

Again, I agree but with the qualification that whether a tautology is a statement or an argument depends on the intent of the individual. Possession is nine tenths of the law, but intent is the last tenth and the hardest to prove.

This goes to the heart of our difference of opinion here. For me, any system of thought or finite definition is suspect of being an argumentative tautology until proven otherwise. Call me extremely skeptical if you want, but this how I think. Of course, this way of thinking in itself is suspect of being an argumentative tautology in its own rite. That's life.

Ahkron has it right with his analogy, and I go into it further with my 'computer program' explanation. The definition of deductive validity is completely independent of the definition of truth.

So... if the concept of validity has nothing to do with truth what does it have to do with? Falsehood? Indeterminacy? Paradox? What good is it to logic if it doesn't apply to these things?

I understand the implications of Incompleteness, but they have no bearing on the definition of deductive validity, unless you want to prove that logic is "right", which is not what I am doing here.

The rest of your post deals with the question, "How can I know which logic is correct?" which is not what I am getting at here. I was dividing logic into two categories (in response to FZ's question), basically to show that logic cannot be used to get to any "absolute truths" about reality, and as you point out, about itself, either.

Not just which logic is correct, but if any logic is correct in any final analysis. Quantum Mechanics implies everything is utterly random when push comes to shove. Logic may simply be maps we use to because they are particularly expedient from our limited viewpoint. This situation implies, paradoxically, that logic may possibly be used to achieve some sort of absolute truth about reality.

In this manner the argument always leads back to its own foundations and to individual interpretation.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

First of all, I would like to point out this is my first post on this thread and I have not read this thread, so forgive me if I am repeating something.

Logic is:

The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
Computer Science.
The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions

I know the last definition is for computers, but are "yes-no" descisions what the aim of logic is?

logic

n 1: the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference 2: reasoned and reasonable judgment; "it made a certain kind of logic" 3: the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation; "economic logic requires it"; "by the logic of war" 4: a system of reasoning [syn: logical system, system of logic]

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Correct, an argument has at least two statements. In this case the two statements can be expressed as p is not q and, therefore, if p then q.

You've lost me.

p=The premises are true.
q=The conclusion must be true.

My compound statement is

If the premises are true then the conclusion must be true.
or If p then q.

Your compound statement is

The premises are true is not the conclusion must be true.

Which is not true, and indeed makes no sense.

Again, I agree but with the qualification that whether a tautology is a statement or an argument depends on the intent of the individual. Possession is nine tenths of the law, but intent is the last tenth and the hardest to prove.

Again, this is not a matter of proof, but of definition.

Definition: A tautology is a statement schema for which it is not possible for the statement to be false, regardless of the truth values of the independent logical variables.

That's what I mean by tautology. If you mean something else, then we aren't speaking the same language.

Tom:
Second, I don't think that there is any such thing as a "tautological argument". Tautologies are types of statements, not arguments.

Third, statements of the form If p then q. are not tautological unless p=q, which is not true in this case.

Wuli:
This goes to the heart of our difference of opinion here. For me, any system of thought or finite definition is suspect of being an argumentative tautology until proven otherwise.

These second point is a matter of definition, which you consistently seem to confuse for a matter of proof. There is no proof or disproof of a definition.

The third point is a matter of proof, and here it is:

If p is true and q is false, then the compound statement p-->q is false. If p is true and q is true, then the compound statement p--q is true. Since the truth value of p-->q is contingent on the truth values of p and q seperately, it is not a tautology.

So... if the concept of validity has nothing to do with truth what does it have to do with? Falsehood? Indeterminacy? Paradox? What good is it to logic if it doesn't apply to these things?

First, the concept of validity has only to do with the structure of an argument. This is what I have been saying all along. When using valid logic: If the premises are true, we can be sure the conclusion is true. Unfortunately, deductive logic does not provide us with the means to determine if the premises are true. That brings me to...

Second, there is a class of logic that applies to truth and falsehood, and that is inductive logic.

 

[quantumdude]

Not just which logic is correct, but if any logic is correct in any final analysis. Quantum Mechanics implies everything is utterly random when push comes to shove.

QM would seem to imply that if one cannot rid oneself of the notion that subatomic particles really do behave like little BB's. But if one can accept that these constituents of matter are really excitations in a quantized field, then there are constraints and symmetries in the theory, and it is readily seen that everything is not utterly random.

I mean, think about it: If "everything is utterly random" were the true implication of QM, there would not be so many courses devoted to it. It would be one 2-minute lecture in which everyone writes those 4 words down in their notebooks and collects their PhD in physics.

Logic may simply be maps we use to because they are particularly expedient from our limited viewpoint. This situation implies, paradoxically, that logic may possibly be used to achieve some sort of absolute truth about reality.

That would be a hard sell, because as I said the only logic that we have for judging the truth or falsity of a proposition is inductive logic, and that logic does not tell us absolutely whether or not a proposition is true.

In this manner the argument always leads back to its own foundations and to individual interpretation.

Well, everyone does have their own interpretation, but it is important for everyone involved to know and agree on the definitions of a subject. Definitions are created to facilitate communication, but when one insists that definitions be justified (as if they were contingent propositions), then communication gets all muddled up.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
I know the last definition is for computers, but are "yes-no" descisions what the aim of logic is?

More detailed answers can be found in this thread and in my Logic Notes thread, but roughly speaking:

The aim of deductive logic is to evaluate reasoning.

The aim of inductive logic is to evaluate the truth of a proposition.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Tom

You've lost me.

Your compound statement is

The premises are true is not the conclusion must be true.

Which is not true, and indeed makes no sense.

Exactly, it makes no sense. I'm saying that the premises may be the conclusion, that these are merely words and the distinction could be entirely artificial and ultimately a tautology.

Again, this is not a matter of proof, but of definition.

Definition: A tautology is a statement schema for which it is not possible for the statement to be false, regardless of the truth values of the independent logical variables.

That's what I mean by tautology. If you mean something else, then we aren't speaking the same language.

Well... yes and no. Here is a good article on general semantics which focuses particularly sharply on this issue:

http://www.general-semantics.org/Basics/SM_logic.shtml

Essentially the argument by modern scientific standards is that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be disprovable. You must be able to falsify the theory. Hence, a tautology by this definition is not scientific. Nor is it logical by the standards of logic when analyzed semantically.

First, the concept of validity has only to do with the structure of an argument. This is what I have been saying all along. When using valid logic: If the premises are true, we can be sure the conclusion is true. Unfortunately, deductive logic does not provide us with the means to determine if the premises are true. That brings me to...

Again, check out the article on semantics. I would argue that this is tautological and that the real purpose of deductive logic is not prove validity of structures, but falsehood. Logic is based on the concept of the absurd, hence the most concise way of describing logic is as a science of the absurd that attempts to prove the falsity of things.

Sorry if this is confusing and distracting you from making your point. However, it is another way of approaching the issues of logic and reason. An approach I might add that is not dependent upon any single kind of logic.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, no, I wasn't saying that all man-made things were in fact just random occurances. I was merely illustrating the fact that not all actions are thought-out first. Some actions don't require any thought at all.

If it doesn't require thought then I would say it was a random act. Even so, I don't believe we are here strictly by random. There's too much evidence against it, even if that meant we are here by means of our "own devices." Or, would that be "device-iveness?"

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Exactly, it makes no sense. I'm saying that the premises may be the conclusion, that these are merely words and the distinction could be entirely artificial and ultimately a tautology.

That doesn't help. You said that the two statements:

p-->q
and p is ~q

formed an argument. It is clear to me that the second statement has nothing to do with anything here.

What is your point here? That one can construct nonsensical statements if one wishes? I already knew that!

Well... yes and no. Here is a good article on general semantics which focuses particularly sharply on this issue:

http://www.general-semantics.org/Basics/SM_logic.shtml

Essentially the argument by modern scientific standards is that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be disprovable. You must be able to falsify the theory. Hence, a tautology by this definition is not scientific. Nor is it logical by the standards of logic when analyzed semantically.

I will read the article, but there really is no "yes and no" issue here. A tautology is exactly what I said it is (at least in logic textbooks it is). Also, I am aware that tautologies are not falsifiable, but that really has nothing to do with anything here either. If your point is that "logic is not scientific", then you don't have to convince me because I already knew that. No one claims that logic is science.

But also, we are getting sidetracked because, as I said before, the statement If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true is not a tautology. That error is carrying through this discussion, and it is getting combined with other errors to make things really hairy. The next mistake is coming up...

Again, check out the article on semantics. I would argue that this is tautological and that the real purpose of deductive logic is not prove validity of structures, but falsehood.

You are confusing the methods of science and deductive logic here. Falsifiability is necessary to science precisely because of the inductive element involved in scientific logic (IOW, no proposition can be proven true absolutely, but it can be proven false absolutely). The inductive element is necessary because we have no a priori understanding of physical reality. Deductive logic, on the other hand, is a mental construct of which we do have a priori understanding. More specifically, deductive logic is that mental construct which was developed for analysis and construction of structurally correct arguments[/color].

That's what it is, and that's what it was designed for. Again, if you disagree with that definition, then we simply ain't talking about the same thing.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
The similarity of experience comes from the facts that:

1. Are looking at the same universe.
2. Are constructed similarly.

In other words we're all in this together. Meaning we all share the same universe "collectively." By which we can conclude that we have a similar capacity to reason, "collectively." Of course we may not always agree? ...

No, it couldn't. If you want proof, just ask one senator what another senator is thinking. He won't be able to tell you, I promise.

Then who's running the country? A runaway brain? ... Actually that might be closer to the truth. Hmm...

Me thinks not, for the same reason.

Of course I'm speaking more in a "reprentative sense." Maybe we should confer with the House of Representatives instead?

 

[quantumdude]

Getting back to the topic...

If truths about reality are destinations, then deductive reasoning is the car that gets you from one to the other. The initial post of the thread boils down to: How far can that car get us?

Is there some limit to the understanding that logic alone can provide? I have answered that question emphatically in the affirmative, on the following grounds:

We have two kinds of logic: deductive and inductive.

The former is concerned with arguments whose premises give absolute support[/color] to their conclusions. The problem is that it gives no decision procedure for determining the truth or falsity of propositions with absolute certainty (actually, it's damn near completely silent on the issue).

The latter is concerned with arguments whose premises give probable support[/color] to their conclusions. The advantage is that this logic does indeed either lend support to, or outright falsifies, the conclusions that are brought under its analysis.

Since those are the only two kinds of logic at our disposal, I state that absolute truths about reality (known absolutely!) are beyond the capacity of human logic.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
Since those are the only two kinds of logic at our disposal, I state that absolute truths about reality (known absolutely!) are beyond the capacity of human logic.

Is that an absolute statement in and of itself? Sorry ...

That only concludes that absolutes can be known, and we were just a witness to it. Otherwise you couldn't possibly suggest otherwise. And that's an absolute statement!

We are all "witnesses" to the truth. Do you know why? Because it's "inborn."

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Tom
In a sense, inductive logic is to natural philosophy (aka science) what definitions are to reasoning on abstract forms. They both determine the truth of propositions: the former relatively, the latter absolutely.

Very nicely said, and I would add that like anything, logic is contextual. It is holistically both linear and nonlinear.

Nobody understands the world they're in,
but some people are better off at it than others."

--Richard Feynman, The Meaning of it all

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Is that an absolute statement in and of itself? Sorry ...

Yes, but not about reality, but about human logic.

We are all "witnesses" to the truth. Do you know why? Because it's "inborn." [/B]

And what is neural plasticity for then? and short term and long term memory centers in the brain? what does the brain do then? why spend so many years learning? what a waste!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
"Nobody understands the world they're in, but some people are better off at it than others."

Is this another absolute assessment about reality? Yes, we're either speaking about reality or we're not. Is it possible for a woman to become "absolutely pregant?" You betcha! ... And I'm sure it becomes an absolute reality for her. Hmm... How can I be sure of that? If you're going to pin a label on someone, then you better be "sure" it's an absolute assessment.

Is there any truth to what I'm saying here? Then why can't "you" acknowledge it? ... But then again, how can we acknowledge anything without the capacity to say, "I don't know." Hmm... Am I saying the same thing you're saying here or what? Hey I don't know man? ...

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Is this another absolute assessment about reality? Yes, we're either speaking about reality or we're not. Is it possible for a woman to become "absolutely pregant?" You betcha! ... And I'm sure it becomes an absolute reality for her. Hmm... How can I be sure of that? If you're going to pin a label on someone, then you better be "sure" it's an absolute assessment.

Is there any truth to what I'm saying here? Then why can't "you" acknowledge it? ... But then again, how can we acknowledge anything without the capacity to say, "I don't know." Hmm... Am I saying the same thing you're saying here or what? Hey I don't know man? ...

Holistic philosophies have been compared to jazz and the avant-gard among other things for their flexibility in bridging the rational and irrational, logical and paradoxical. Often in exceedingly complex mathematical ways. Louis Armstrong said about jazz,

Man, if you got to ask you'll never know.

Sure you can make absolute statements in some sense, but ultimately the art of logic and semantics disappear into the unplumbed depths of human capacity, but of course also remain within a finite human context. Thus anything you can say about jazz or paradox is both absolute and indeterminate, both correct and incorrect. What do you expect? Its a paradox.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Sure you can make absolute statements in some sense, but ultimately the art of logic and semantics disappear into the unplumbed depths of human capacity, but of course also remain within a finite human context. Thus anything you can say about jazz or paradox is both absolute and indeterminate, both correct and incorrect. What do you expect? Its a paradox.

Hey reality is absolute man. Whether or not I can acknowledge everything that that entails? ... Forget it!

But that still doesn't mean we don't have the capacity to "know" what we know.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Hey reality is absolute man. Whether or not I can acknowledge everything that that entails or not? Forget it! ...

Between the drive to understand reality and to accept the paradox of existence, each of us take our individual paths. Some paths are more inclusive than others. Many paths, one mountain Taoists like to say. They all make beautiful music.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Between the drive to understand reality and to accept the paradox of existence, each of us take our individual paths. Some paths are more inclusive than others. Many paths, one mountain Taoists like to say. They all make beautiful music.

Absolutely! ...

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Absolutely! ...

And paradoxically. :0)

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
And paradoxically. :0)

What a fine fresh scent it has! ... And I like it too! ...

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
That only concludes that absolutes can be known, and we were just a witness to it. Otherwise you couldn't possibly suggest otherwise. And that's an absolute statement!

You must be spending way too much time staring at your avatar. That's the only explanation I can think of for you consistently getting my straightforward points all topsy-turvy. Go outside and get some air, man!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
You must be spending way too much time staring at your avatar. That's the only explanation I can think of for you consistently getting my straightforward points all topsy-turvy. Go outside and get some air, man!

I tend to rely on my inner-experience more than my outer-experience. Why? It's a long story. This was one of my main reasons for writing "the book." I had all these things going on inside my head, and yet come to find out there's a whole world of synchronicities to coincide with them. So I tend look at things a little differently, while my main focus is on the ability to see things for myself. This is very important, because when you see things (especially in your mind), you have to have a means by which to validate it. Which requires a great deal of honesty as well as consistency.

It also means I have a bit of a problem when it comes to people telling me how to think. I just have a problem with putting my brain in "formalized situations" and someone saying, "This is the way it is" or, This is how it has to be!" It just doesn't jive. But rather than get all worked up about it, I tend to keep it to myself and try not put to myself in those kind of situations. But then there are times when it's actually kind of nice to be able to convey what's on your mind. Which, I guess is why I'm here, just to bug you ... well, perhaps a little. Ha ha!

Are you at all familiar with the "shamanistic experience?" This usually entails somebody going wacko with their brain shattered into a thousand pieces, only to discover a means by which to put everything back together again, and bring back from the "other side" a different (but more extensive) view of reality. This is what happened to me, and it's what my book is about. If you would like to read more about my experience here please follow the link:

http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by wuliheron
Between the drive to understand reality and
to accept the paradox of existence, each of
us take our individual paths. Some paths are
more inclusive than others. Many paths, one
mountain Taoists like to say. They all make
beautiful music.

Damn ! How did those guys get so smart ?!

Wu Li, is there a link to a site where all
their philosophies on as many issues as possible
are summed up in the above manner ? (I'm
simply too lazy and do not have time to read
most of the links posted here, I try to look
at the main ones. If I can find a site like that
I believe I can understand most of these
quotes and spare a lot of time reading and
partially - thinking or getting confused due
to bad sources. And, of course, these guys
certainly look to me like the only ones
I can really study philosophy from !)

In any case, thanks !
You truly enrich this philosophy forum immensly !
(Do you have a fan club ? )

Live long and prosper.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Damn ! How did those guys get so smart ?!

Wu Li, is there a link to a site where all
their philosophies on as many issues as possible
are summed up in the above manner ?

...In any case, thanks !
You truly enrich this philosophy forum immensly !
(Do you have a fan club ? )

Live long and prosper.

I can recommend the two following websites for a well rounded look at the subject. By-the-way, thanks for asking, by chance I checked the link to my old favorite Taoist forum which went offline for a long time and found they are back online. There website is in my opinion by far the most poetic and elegant yet comprehensive in every respect. If you hang around long enough, you may even discover a few masters hanging out.

http://www.edepot.com/taoism.html

This second website is a less elegant western philosophical look at the subject that can help clarify intellectual aspects for those of us who have trouble plumbing the depths of poetry at times.

http://www.apophaticmysticism.com/Index.html

I'm sorry, I don't know of any fan clubs or single website that sums up everything the way I do. That's exactly why I express myself so much, I've spent years attempting to express in my own unique way what I can't find anywhere else. However there are a number of modern authors who convey the subject better than I do in many respects. Notably Deng Ming Dao and D. C. Lao.

Deng's book "Tao 365" is a collection of meditations for each day of the year along the lines of what I just wrote above that you like so much, but much more poetic. Mr Lao is a tremendously elegant and capable writer and scholar in the western tradition and I'd recommend his book, "Yuan Tao" for beginners. Allan Watt's, "The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are" and Benjamin Hoff's "The Tao of Pooh" are classics as well.