The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CountChocula
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
CountChocula
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 469 times Debate No: 73740
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

there is no logic in fantasy

logic is absolute

if you are lost in the forest and hungry, and you pick up a mushroom and eat it, does it matter what you think is going to happen if the mushroom is poisonous?

you cant read these words on the screen with your eyes closed

if apples became poisonous today, and everyone was aware of it, would it be right to give kids apples if we wanted them to be healthy(logic)? and even if we didnt want them to be healthy, would it be right to give kids apples(morality)?

logic+(and)experience of it=(is)reason(the concept, mental simulation of logic)

reason+intent=morality
CountChocula

Con

Logic operates in a purely symbolic realm, with no underlying obligation to project itself onto consensus-reality in any meaningful way. All that matters is internal consistency within the system. In fact, within abstract mathematics, logic is isomorphic to a Cartesian Closed Category via the Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondance. Informally, categories merely model objects and their structural relationships to one another (incidentally, the objects themselves are less relevant than their actual connections (Yoneda Lemma), and exist mainly to index said connections).

X implies Y
Y implies Z
therefore X implies Z

The ways of projecting the symbols X,Y and Z onto reality are arbitrary and numerous. Customarily, one would choose a mapping that had some utilitarian application, but successfully modelling reality is an art form subject to many pitfalls, perspective biases, incomplete knowledge, and is anything but a strict absolute.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

if you are lost in the forest and hungry, and you pick up a mushroom and eat it, does it matter what you think is going to happen if the mushroom is poisonous?
CountChocula

Con

Preconceptions flavour your subjective interpretation of reality. This has been proven with blind taste trials - if you hit someone over the head with the semiotics of quality, their subjective experience of consumption is altered. Placebo effects exist as well. However, the fact is entirely irrelevant to the topic of logic. Poison doesn't need external validation to function, a rock does not need sentience to be smashed to pieces by a hammer. The cause and effect of reality exists outside the symbolic realm, logic does not.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

you are wrong. logic is matter, logic is like physical math

my old definition of logic was the implication of matter against matter

if you build a cardhouse in a stormy weather, and keep building it while failing miserably every time becasue the window is open, are you resonable in keeping on trying to build the cardhouse with open window, instead of closing the window?

so is it logical to eat the poisonous mushroom?
CountChocula

Con

You are confusing Logic and Reason - the card house scenario only further suggests this. From wikipedia: "Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information". The application of an object is not the same as the object in itself. Interpreting logical conclusion in the context of reality is not the same as Logic in itself (i.e as a system), just like the blow of a hammer is not a hammer - hence why the linguistic distinction exists between hammering and hammer.

Logic is part of the process of Reason, yet is separate and distinct.

Matter acts on matter without regard to human observation, thinking, or deterministic logic. Quantum theory shows that physical events are unpredictable despite full knowledge of the model of interaction and initial input state. By all accounts reality is non-deterministic. Logic, on the other hand, is the complete antithesis to this. Logic exists to draw deterministic conclusions from an initial context based on well defined rules. Logic is not "physical math", i.e. a projection of math onto reality. This type of projection is a separate interpretive step that exists outside the realm of logic itself, despite being required to make any practical use of it's conclusions.

Is it logical to eat the poisonous mushroom? The use of the word logical in the context of that question subtly changes the semantics of the word to the more informal usage denoting rational. Given a blank context, most people would agree that consuming poison mushrooms is unwise. However, we can easily construct a logical framework where the statement is true:

John likes the effects of LSD.
Mushroom-A's toxin causes psychedelic trips.
LSD causes psychedelic trips.
Therefore John likes the effects of Mushroom-A.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

reason is the opposite of logic, i can reason that its a god idea to close the window based on the logic that is its windy and im building a card house

it is physical math, you cant close your eyes and read on, i know this, that statement, is as absolute as any true equation


logic is the measurement of reasonable, I know you can't see my physical body if you close your eyes, like I know you can't read these words on your screen if you close your eyes, cause and effect(logic), so its reasonable for you to continue to have your eyes open, if you want to read on till the end of this message, based on the logic that is you cant see these words with your eyes closed


I know logic, so I know I am reasonable.



cause+effect=logic

logic+experience of it=reason(concept, mental simulation of logic)

reason+intent=morality

fantasy is reason, non sense, there is no logic in fantasy

the blow of a hammer, is the blow of a hammer, cause and effect.
CountChocula

Con

The statement that "reason is the opposite of logic; ... i can reason ... based on logic ..." is clearly a contradiction. If logic is the opposite of reason, then the combination of the two acts would negate each other by virtue of the properties of inverses - this is clearly not the case. By dictionary definition, and your own words, the application of logic is a sub-step performed in the process of reasoning, not a separate inverse act.

The statement (when divorced from context) "you cant close your eyes and read on", is not an equation, not "physical" math, nor is it an absolute. Context matters and the existence of, e.g. braille, negates any universality. Logic is limited to a closed universe of discourse.

Logic is not about measurement or metrics. Logic is about structural relationships between entities. What you know about the real world, through observation of cause and effect, is separate from the mechanistic operation of logic. As mentioned in an earlier round, the propositional calculus of logic, like category theory, concerns itself with the structural interaction between opaque objects. The objects themselves are unimportant arbitrary symbols merely used to index binary relationships. P -> Q -> Z implies that P -> Z exists, by the law of composition of morphisms. What P,Q,Z actually represent in the real world is a matter of subjective interpretation.

The statement "cause+effect=logic" is incorrect. The logical proposition "John is human" is not a cause-and-effect relationship. John is not a cause, and Human is not an effect. Yet the statement remains a valid logical proposition because any binary relationship between objects is allowed. Logic is not constrained to be the union of cause ---> effect relationships. As mentioned earlier, the symbols and objects used as sources/destinations of an arrow exist only to uniquely identify the arrow. Logic is an algebraic structure defined over a collection of arbitrary objects, and a collection of binary relationships (i.e. arrows) between these objects, with the required property of composition of arrows. This chaining of arrows is what produces logical conclusions that are structurally sound.

Also, the assertion that the statement "the blow of a hammer, is the blow of a hammer" (i.e. A ---> A) is a cause-and-effect relationship is logically inconsistent, because it would require that cause=effect, which is false based on the dictionary definition of the words. The original statement holds under the law of identity morphisms - not cause-and-effect.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

so close your eyes and read on... that is what you are arguing for.. that you can do that.
CountChocula

Con

Your statement in round 5 is a straw-man fallacy - a misrepresentation of the argument, and demonstrates a lack of comprehension. You are confusing physical constraints with logical constraints, which are entirely unrelated. Logical constraints are purely a means of symbolic computation that have no obligation to conform to reality.

To bring the argument back to point: the original statement that "cause+effect=logic" is incorrect. Cause-effect relationships are but one of myriad forms of binary relationships. Logic does not care what these binary relationships actually represent in the real world, or if they even physically make sense at all, it cares only that a structural link exists between two objects.

e.g:
OpenEye --gives--> Vision
Vision --allows-for--> Reading
therefore: OpenEye --allows--> Reading

is structurally equivalent to:
(A ----> B) + (B ----> C) = (A ----> C)

All symbolic substitutions for A,B,C are equivalent because they do not alter the structure - they are merely interpretations.
e.g. the statement:

Tongue --gives--> Vision
Vision --causes--> Flying
therefore: Tongue --causes--> Flying.

Is logically sound, despite being unreasonable, unrealistic, and incongruent with our expectations of reality. Reason is what anchors logical conclusions in reality. Reason is what maps the symbolic to the real, and the real to the symbolic. The nature of this interpretive bijection, between the real and symbolic, effects all branches of applied mathematics, not just logic. This brings to mind the quote popularized by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" referring to the rhetorical use of data as a masked appeal-to-authority fallacy. Reason lifts interpreted facts about reality into the symbolic realm of logic, mechanically applies the propositional calculus, and then draws the results back down to reality again through another interpretative projection. These dual layers of interpretation allow for all sorts of errors, manipulations and distortions to creep into the results. As an amusing aside, consider the amount of authority placed in science by the general public. Science is the new religion. Yet scientific "truths" can be manufactured through careful, deliberate, manipulation far easier than any priest could have managed.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
thank you communistdog :)

logic is, cause and effect

any cause and effect relation is logic

reality is logic
Posted by zommunist 1 year ago
zommunist
Could you please clarify what you mean by 'logic' and 'is logic' please?
Posted by CommunistDog 1 year ago
CommunistDog
The person that comes up with these debates is both a genius and abstract o-o
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
vi_spexCountChoculaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: once again, pro fails to make a single coherent argument