Total Posts:96|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective logic is impossible to prove

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 9:36:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
P.1 The only way to prove something is through using logic.
P.2 The only way to prove objective logic is to use logic.
P.3 The only way to prove objective logic is to presuppose logic.
P.4 Presupposing the thing you are proving is fallacious.
P.5 Objective logic can't be proven.

Is there a flaw in this?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 9:44:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But logic can be proven empirically. Observing what rules are in play in the universe doesn't necessitate any presuppositions.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 9:44:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think that one can only prove that objective logic is consistent, that it poses no internal contradictions. That can be done within the system of objective logic. then the question is what more do you want?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:14:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 9:44:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
But logic can be proven empirically. Observing what rules are in play in the universe doesn't necessitate any presuppositions.

Disagree. Empirical belief necessitates natural logical deductions from what you observe. You can't make conclusions off of your observations without using logic.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:17:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:14:47 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 9:44:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
But logic can be proven empirically. Observing what rules are in play in the universe doesn't necessitate any presuppositions.

Disagree. Empirical belief necessitates natural logical deductions from what you observe. You can't make conclusions off of your observations without using logic.

You don't draw conclusions from observation. The process of observation is data collection, which doesn't presuppose anything except the accuracy of your perception.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:18:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 9:44:41 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I think that one can only prove that objective logic is consistent, that it poses no internal contradictions. That can be done within the system of objective logic. then the question is what more do you want?

We can prove that our system of logic is consistent using our own understanding of logic, but we cannot prove our understanding of logic is correct because making arguments for logic is presupposing what you are proving in your proving of it, which is utterly falacious.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:20:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:17:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:14:47 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 9:44:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
But logic can be proven empirically. Observing what rules are in play in the universe doesn't necessitate any presuppositions.

Disagree. Empirical belief necessitates natural logical deductions from what you observe. You can't make conclusions off of your observations without using logic.

You don't draw conclusions from observation. The process of observation is data collection, which doesn't presuppose anything except the accuracy of your perception.

What laws can we know purely by emperical means? In order to prove laws by my observation of reality, my brain has to function in a way in which I see reality and make logical conclusions based on what I see.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:22:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Furthermore, that brings up further problems. How are we to know our sensory abilities are accurate and thus our observation of reality?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:23:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:20:52 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:17:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:14:47 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 9:44:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
But logic can be proven empirically. Observing what rules are in play in the universe doesn't necessitate any presuppositions.

Disagree. Empirical belief necessitates natural logical deductions from what you observe. You can't make conclusions off of your observations without using logic.

You don't draw conclusions from observation. The process of observation is data collection, which doesn't presuppose anything except the accuracy of your perception.

What laws can we know purely by emperical means? In order to prove laws by my observation of reality, my brain has to function in a way in which I see reality and make logical conclusions based on what I see.

^ That. There is no independent evidence that your perception is correct
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:29:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:20:52 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:17:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:14:47 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 9:44:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
But logic can be proven empirically. Observing what rules are in play in the universe doesn't necessitate any presuppositions.

Disagree. Empirical belief necessitates natural logical deductions from what you observe. You can't make conclusions off of your observations without using logic.

You don't draw conclusions from observation. The process of observation is data collection, which doesn't presuppose anything except the accuracy of your perception.

What laws can we know purely by emperical means? In order to prove laws by my observation of reality, my brain has to function in a way in which I see reality and make logical conclusions based on what I see.

Yes, but we're not trying to prove any laws, or anything for that matter. We're just sitting and watching. We are not yet making sense of what is occurring, but we are taking note of its occurrence. The patterns that arise from this blank slate process are organized by our brains and developed into a sense of "logic".No where was logic used or presupposed.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:30:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:22:34 PM, phantom wrote:
Furthermore, that brings up further problems. How are we to know our sensory abilities are accurate and thus our observation of reality?

we don't, and I've said before that our perception of logic is probably not fully accurate.

What this does do is solve the problem that logic has no non-circular justification.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:33:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:29:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:20:52 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:17:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:14:47 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 9:44:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
But logic can be proven empirically. Observing what rules are in play in the universe doesn't necessitate any presuppositions.

Disagree. Empirical belief necessitates natural logical deductions from what you observe. You can't make conclusions off of your observations without using logic.

You don't draw conclusions from observation. The process of observation is data collection, which doesn't presuppose anything except the accuracy of your perception.

What laws can we know purely by emperical means? In order to prove laws by my observation of reality, my brain has to function in a way in which I see reality and make logical conclusions based on what I see.

Yes, but we're not trying to prove any laws, or anything for that matter.

*Ahem* >>
At 8/8/2012 9:44:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
But logic can be proven empirically.

We're just sitting and watching. We are not yet making sense of what is occurring, but we are taking note of its occurrence. The patterns that arise from this blank slate process are organized by our brains and developed into a sense of "logic".No where was logic used or presupposed.

How can we deduct objective knowledge from this? You haven't been clear. If we're just sitting and watching, not making any sense of occurance, how does this offer anything in regards to objective logic?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:37:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:30:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:22:34 PM, phantom wrote:
Furthermore, that brings up further problems. How are we to know our sensory abilities are accurate and thus our observation of reality?

we don't, and I've said before that our perception of logic is probably not fully accurate.

What this does do is solve the problem that logic has no non-circular justification.

Wait, what solves the circular problem??
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:40:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Logic is mutual with consciousness, and is therefore not needed to be proven for it to be true. In other words, it's an axiom.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:42:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:33:34 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:29:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:20:52 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:17:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:14:47 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 9:44:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
But logic can be proven empirically. Observing what rules are in play in the universe doesn't necessitate any presuppositions.

Disagree. Empirical belief necessitates natural logical deductions from what you observe. You can't make conclusions off of your observations without using logic.

You don't draw conclusions from observation. The process of observation is data collection, which doesn't presuppose anything except the accuracy of your perception.

What laws can we know purely by emperical means? In order to prove laws by my observation of reality, my brain has to function in a way in which I see reality and make logical conclusions based on what I see.

Yes, but we're not trying to prove any laws, or anything for that matter.

*Ahem* >>
At 8/8/2012 9:44:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
But logic can be proven empirically.

lol yeah....I meant "justified". I'm not clairvoyant :P

We're just sitting and watching. We are not yet making sense of what is occurring, but we are taking note of its occurrence. The patterns that arise from this blank slate process are organized by our brains and developed into a sense of "logic".No where was logic used or presupposed.

How can we deduct objective knowledge from this? You haven't been clear. If we're just sitting and watching, not making any sense of occurance, how does this offer anything in regards to objective logic?

We're sitting and watching, sorting, and organizing. One of the most important pieces of data we collect from this process is that 1) some things are consistently occurring and 2) The past occurrences can be used to predict the future ones. And so logic is born. Logic isn't ever proven or demonstrated. Logic is developed out of pure observation of the nature of the universe. This makes it "objective" (insofar as we're dealing with familiar environments, which precludes the quantum and astronomical).

So it is almost redundant to attempt to prove logic. Something that was arrived out of a series of proofs need not be proven immediately after.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:43:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:40:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Logic is mutual with consciousness, and is therefore not needed to be proven for it to be true. In other words, it's an axiom.

You mean it's dependent on consciousness?? Sounds subjective to me.

Don't know what you mean by "mutual with consciousness".
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:44:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:37:28 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:30:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:22:34 PM, phantom wrote:
Furthermore, that brings up further problems. How are we to know our sensory abilities are accurate and thus our observation of reality?

we don't, and I've said before that our perception of logic is probably not fully accurate.

What this does do is solve the problem that logic has no non-circular justification.

Wait, what solves the circular problem??

Logic isn't born out of logic, it's born out of empirical observation. That solves the cirular problem. We are not presupposing logic in justifying/using it. We start out presupposing nothing, and arrive at logic.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:45:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:43:45 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:40:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Logic is mutual with consciousness, and is therefore not needed to be proven for it to be true. In other words, it's an axiom.

You mean it's dependent on consciousness?? Sounds subjective to me.

Don't know what you mean by "mutual with consciousness".

I mean that you cannot have consciousness without logic (which is the main reason that natural selection developed a conscious- to make logical decisions about the environment and actions to increase survival rate) and therefore they are mutual in the sense conscious pretty much is logic.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:47:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:44:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:37:28 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:30:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:22:34 PM, phantom wrote:
Furthermore, that brings up further problems. How are we to know our sensory abilities are accurate and thus our observation of reality?

we don't, and I've said before that our perception of logic is probably not fully accurate.

What this does do is solve the problem that logic has no non-circular justification.

Wait, what solves the circular problem??

Logic isn't born out of logic, it's born out of empirical observation. That solves the cirular problem. We are not presupposing logic in justifying/using it. We start out presupposing nothing, and arrive at logic.

Not even presupposing that our perception is correct. We're just using our perception, and not making any conscious assumptions on whether it is correct or incorrect.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:57:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:42:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:33:34 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:29:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:20:52 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:17:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:14:47 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 9:44:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
But logic can be proven empirically. Observing what rules are in play in the universe doesn't necessitate any presuppositions.

Disagree. Empirical belief necessitates natural logical deductions from what you observe. You can't make conclusions off of your observations without using logic.

You don't draw conclusions from observation. The process of observation is data collection, which doesn't presuppose anything except the accuracy of your perception.

What laws can we know purely by emperical means? In order to prove laws by my observation of reality, my brain has to function in a way in which I see reality and make logical conclusions based on what I see.

Yes, but we're not trying to prove any laws, or anything for that matter.

*Ahem* >>
At 8/8/2012 9:44:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
But logic can be proven empirically.

lol yeah....I meant "justified". I'm not clairvoyant :P

What do you mean by justified? I would say that presupposing logic as objetive is justified simply because discussion becomes literally useless if you don't view logic that way, as well as the fact that objective logic is also impossible to disprove without resorting to falacies. But that has nothing to do with the thread.

We're just sitting and watching. We are not yet making sense of what is occurring, but we are taking note of its occurrence. The patterns that arise from this blank slate process are organized by our brains and developed into a sense of "logic".No where was logic used or presupposed.

How can we deduct objective knowledge from this? You haven't been clear. If we're just sitting and watching, not making any sense of occurance, how does this offer anything in regards to objective logic?

We're sitting and watching, sorting, and organizing. One of the most important pieces of data we collect from this process is that 1) some things are consistently occurring and

What is the meaning of the word consistent? What is occuring? What is data? We have no way to answer these questions but by using logic.

2) The past occurrences can be used to predict the future ones.

What?

And so logic is born. Logic isn't ever proven or demonstrated.

The express purpose of this thread is on whether it's provable.

Logic is developed out of pure observation of the nature of the universe.

I agree. I've said this a few times in the past. Our logical understanding and intuition was formed by empericism, thus all rationality stems from empiricism. One of the reasons I lean close to being an empiricist

This makes it "objective" (insofar as we're dealing with familiar environments, which precludes the quantum and astronomical).

I have a very hard time understanding how you make this leap.

So it is almost redundant to attempt to prove logic. Something that was arrived out of a series of proofs need not be proven immediately after.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:59:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:44:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:37:28 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:30:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:22:34 PM, phantom wrote:
Furthermore, that brings up further problems. How are we to know our sensory abilities are accurate and thus our observation of reality?

we don't, and I've said before that our perception of logic is probably not fully accurate.

What this does do is solve the problem that logic has no non-circular justification.

Wait, what solves the circular problem??

Logic isn't born out of logic, it's born out of empirical observation. That solves the cirular problem. We are not presupposing logic in justifying/using it. We start out presupposing nothing, and arrive at logic.

No, we don't. We presuppose logical principles in our empirical observations. For instance, when I observe a cat on a mat I presuppose that the cat is identical with itself in order to differentiate the cat from other things that aren't the cat. I also presuppose that it can't be the case that I am both observing a cat and not observing a cat at the same time in the same sense.

That, and make out logical principles to be simple empirical generalization doesn't make any sense since empirical generalizations are only contingently true while the laws of logic are necessarily true.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:00:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:44:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:37:28 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:30:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:22:34 PM, phantom wrote:
Furthermore, that brings up further problems. How are we to know our sensory abilities are accurate and thus our observation of reality?

we don't, and I've said before that our perception of logic is probably not fully accurate.

What this does do is solve the problem that logic has no non-circular justification.

Wait, what solves the circular problem??

Logic isn't born out of logic, it's born out of empirical observation. That solves the cirular problem. We are not presupposing logic in justifying/using it. We start out presupposing nothing, and arrive at logic.

But as stated, even if logic is born from empericism, logical deductions are neccessary in any emperically derived belief. We still have absolutely no way to prove logic because we have no way to prove our observation is objective. The problem remains unsolved.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:03:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:40:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Logic is mutual with consciousness, and is therefore not needed to be proven for it to be true. In other words, it's an axiom.

Supposing for an instant that weren't any conscious beings before the existence of them on earth (e.g. no God, aliens, etc) are you saying that before conscious agents came onto the scene it was possible that a star was both a star and not a star at the same time in the same sense?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:04:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:59:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:44:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:37:28 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:30:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:22:34 PM, phantom wrote:
Furthermore, that brings up further problems. How are we to know our sensory abilities are accurate and thus our observation of reality?

we don't, and I've said before that our perception of logic is probably not fully accurate.

What this does do is solve the problem that logic has no non-circular justification.

Wait, what solves the circular problem??

Logic isn't born out of logic, it's born out of empirical observation. That solves the cirular problem. We are not presupposing logic in justifying/using it. We start out presupposing nothing, and arrive at logic.

No, we don't. We presuppose logical principles in our empirical observations. For instance, when I observe a cat on a mat I presuppose that the cat is identical with itself in order to differentiate the cat from other things that aren't the cat. I also presuppose that it can't be the case that I am both observing a cat and not observing a cat at the same time in the same sense.

That, and make out logical principles to be simple empirical generalization doesn't make any sense since empirical generalizations are only contingently true while the laws of logic are necessarily true.

I disagree. We don't assume any of that,...that is simply how it appears to us. It appears that the cat is a cat and nothing else. And it appears that the mat is only blue and not simultaneously yellow. We didn't presuppose this things, we saw them.

We didn't even presuppose that our perception is correct. We organizing these observations as they appear to us. Logic is a prerequisite to making sense of anything. But in the rawest and earliest stages of observation, we aren't making sense of anything, just observing.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:05:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 10:45:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:43:45 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:40:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Logic is mutual with consciousness, and is therefore not needed to be proven for it to be true. In other words, it's an axiom.

You mean it's dependent on consciousness?? Sounds subjective to me.

Don't know what you mean by "mutual with consciousness".

I mean that you cannot have consciousness without logic (which is the main reason that natural selection developed a conscious- to make logical decisions about the environment and actions to increase survival rate) and therefore they are mutual in the sense conscious pretty much is logic.

We know little on consciousness or why we possess it. It's reaching to say natural selection developed consciousness for logic. And if consciousness is logic, how does that mean it's objective logic? And if natural process formed our understanding of logic, how are we to know it's an objective understanding? And if logic was not objective, would natural process not still give us some sort of viewpoint regarding logic?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:06:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:04:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:59:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:44:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:37:28 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:30:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:22:34 PM, phantom wrote:
Furthermore, that brings up further problems. How are we to know our sensory abilities are accurate and thus our observation of reality?

we don't, and I've said before that our perception of logic is probably not fully accurate.

What this does do is solve the problem that logic has no non-circular justification.

Wait, what solves the circular problem??

Logic isn't born out of logic, it's born out of empirical observation. That solves the cirular problem. We are not presupposing logic in justifying/using it. We start out presupposing nothing, and arrive at logic.

No, we don't. We presuppose logical principles in our empirical observations. For instance, when I observe a cat on a mat I presuppose that the cat is identical with itself in order to differentiate the cat from other things that aren't the cat. I also presuppose that it can't be the case that I am both observing a cat and not observing a cat at the same time in the same sense.

That, and make out logical principles to be simple empirical generalization doesn't make any sense since empirical generalizations are only contingently true while the laws of logic are necessarily true.

I disagree. We don't assume any of that,...that is simply how it appears to us. It appears that the cat is a cat and nothing else. And it appears that the mat is only blue and not simultaneously yellow. We didn't presuppose this things, we saw them.

We didn't even presuppose that our perception is correct. We organizing these observations as they appear to us. Logic is a prerequisite to making sense of anything. But in the rawest and earliest stages of observation, we aren't making sense of anything, just observing.

You're assuming that we were trying to make sense of the observations,....the doing of which would result in those unwarranted presumptions.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:14:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:04:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:59:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:44:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:37:28 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:30:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:22:34 PM, phantom wrote:
Furthermore, that brings up further problems. How are we to know our sensory abilities are accurate and thus our observation of reality?

we don't, and I've said before that our perception of logic is probably not fully accurate.

What this does do is solve the problem that logic has no non-circular justification.

Wait, what solves the circular problem??

Logic isn't born out of logic, it's born out of empirical observation. That solves the cirular problem. We are not presupposing logic in justifying/using it. We start out presupposing nothing, and arrive at logic.

No, we don't. We presuppose logical principles in our empirical observations. For instance, when I observe a cat on a mat I presuppose that the cat is identical with itself in order to differentiate the cat from other things that aren't the cat. I also presuppose that it can't be the case that I am both observing a cat and not observing a cat at the same time in the same sense.

That, and make out logical principles to be simple empirical generalization doesn't make any sense since empirical generalizations are only contingently true while the laws of logic are necessarily true.

I disagree. We don't assume any of that,...that is simply how it appears to us. It appears that the cat is a cat and nothing else. And it appears that the mat is only blue and not simultaneously yellow. We didn't presuppose this things, we saw them.

We didn't even presuppose that our perception is correct. We organizing these observations as they appear to us. Logic is a prerequisite to making sense of anything. But in the rawest and earliest stages of observation, we aren't making sense of anything, just observing.

There's no such thing as "just observing" - all perception and observation is theory laden* in that we are applying our interpretive frameworks to it.

And if we are "organizing these observations as they appear to us" that means that it can't appear as something that it doesn't appear to us as.

If it appears to us that P (where P is any object of perception), it can't appear to us as ~P which means we are still presupposing the law of non-contradiciton, the law of excluded middle, the law of identity, etc.

*http://plato.stanford.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:20:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:06:04 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 11:04:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:59:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:44:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:37:28 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:30:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/8/2012 10:22:34 PM, phantom wrote:
Furthermore, that brings up further problems. How are we to know our sensory abilities are accurate and thus our observation of reality?

we don't, and I've said before that our perception of logic is probably not fully accurate.

What this does do is solve the problem that logic has no non-circular justification.

Wait, what solves the circular problem??

Logic isn't born out of logic, it's born out of empirical observation. That solves the cirular problem. We are not presupposing logic in justifying/using it. We start out presupposing nothing, and arrive at logic.

No, we don't. We presuppose logical principles in our empirical observations. For instance, when I observe a cat on a mat I presuppose that the cat is identical with itself in order to differentiate the cat from other things that aren't the cat. I also presuppose that it can't be the case that I am both observing a cat and not observing a cat at the same time in the same sense.

That, and make out logical principles to be simple empirical generalization doesn't make any sense since empirical generalizations are only contingently true while the laws of logic are necessarily true.

I disagree. We don't assume any of that,...that is simply how it appears to us. It appears that the cat is a cat and nothing else. And it appears that the mat is only blue and not simultaneously yellow. We didn't presuppose this things, we saw them.

We didn't even presuppose that our perception is correct. We organizing these observations as they appear to us. Logic is a prerequisite to making sense of anything. But in the rawest and earliest stages of observation, we aren't making sense of anything, just observing.

You're assuming that we were trying to make sense of the observations,....the doing of which would result in those unwarranted presumptions.

We are because it's cognitively impossible not to.

Again, theory ladenness of perception and observation is a widely agreed upon phenomenon by both scientists and philosophers.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:23:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 9:36:11 PM, phantom wrote:
P.1 The only way to prove something is through using logic.
P.2 The only way to prove objective logic is to use logic.
P.3 The only way to prove objective logic is to presuppose logic.
P.4 Presupposing the thing you are proving is fallacious.
P.5 Objective logic can't be proven.

Is there a flaw in this?

What's objective logic?

In First Order Logic, it is true that the law of excluded middle holds. In Paraconsistent logic, this is false.

"Logic" is just a system of relations which you can apply to truth-bearers. You cannot prove validity is valid anymore than you can prove an apple is an apple.

There is no "objective logic" only the application of systems of logic.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:26:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:23:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/8/2012 9:36:11 PM, phantom wrote:
P.1 The only way to prove something is through using logic.
P.2 The only way to prove objective logic is to use logic.
P.3 The only way to prove objective logic is to presuppose logic.
P.4 Presupposing the thing you are proving is fallacious.
P.5 Objective logic can't be proven.

Is there a flaw in this?

What's objective logic?

Logic that is absolute, independent of opinion or subjective factors, that one plus one objectively is equal to two for example

In First Order Logic, it is true that the law of excluded middle holds. In Paraconsistent logic, this is false.

"Logic" is just a system of relations which you can apply to truth-bearers. You cannot prove validity is valid anymore than you can prove an apple is an apple.

There is no "objective logic" only the application of systems of logic.

There are different systems of logic but do you hold that non of them are correct?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)