Does Logic Equal Truth? - What Do You Think?

[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 haven't 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.

 

[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.

 

[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.[/color] 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, https://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, https://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.[/color] 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 achieve 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...[/color]

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.[/color] 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.