What is Logic? (Logic 101)

[BionicSeahorse]

I really want to respond fully, but I must sleep.
From a quick scan, the problem we face seems to be that you are unsatisfied with my invalidations of logic.
I am limited in my scope, but logic is not.
I tried to illustrate examples where humans held premises, had conclusions, and then had those conclusions shown wrong by some god-being.


Premises --> Logic --> Conclusions

Truly, logic is never invalid, it is a medium.

If a premise is incorrect, and you apply logic, you may not get a correct conclusion (as in the story).

Humans may not have access to all premises.
So?

[CliveStaples]

Truly, logic is never invalid, it is a medium.

That's a tautology--logic is never illogical.

[BionicSeahorse]

That's a tautology--logic is never illogical.

Thanks for contributing. Did you enjoy reading our contributions?

FDEL, you left me a massive amount to respond to, and it may take some time. I have a shortened proposal.

Important to clarify that I don't believe logic leads to Absolute Truth, only that it can. Certain things can never be said to be Truly Absolute, but that does not mean that logic is incapable of reaching certain conclusions.

Then we must throw doubt on logics validity.

But it is folly, certainly logic does not always lead to truth, but only because the premises are flawed or induction was used.

Applied Logic:
Premises(true/false/incomplete) -->Removal of Induction-->Conclusion(true/false/incomplete)
Conceptual Logic:
Premises(Absolute Truth)-->Complete Removal of Induction-->Conclusion(Absolute Truth)

Logic only strives for Truth by completely removing fallacy and possibility of false premise.

Therein lies the strength of my binary proposal.

Just an afterthought--
Even before there was life in some form, logic existed (but I lost the hyperlink, take it with a grain of salt). Things still happened, and there was a logical reason why they happened. Before entities began to apply logic themselves, reckless as they were, the universe contained only absolute truth. Tragically, logic abuse is far more adaptive than True Logic, from a primal survival standpoint.

[BionicSeahorse]

By logic, we know that it is logically true that humans cannot know absolute truth. As in, by authority of logic, we assume it to be true that humans cannot know absolute truth.

I misunderstand, who said it is logical to say humans can not know absolute truth? Could you explain the procession? I don't see how it could be deduced that we are incapable of knowing absolute truth.

By logic, we do not know whether it is absolutely true that humans know absolute truth. As in, by authority of logic, although we assume it to be true that humans cannot know absolute truth, we do not know whether it is absolutely true.

. I would prefer "know" to be "have access to," is that acceptable? This still does not clear up the inconsistency.

Realize that by changing the implicit premise from "logic is absolutely true" to "logic is taken to be true," logic now no longer claims to know anything about absolute truth. Hence, what is logical doesn't necessarily have to be true, and because of this, logic can claim what it considers to be logically true, to not be absolutely true.

Both implicit premises you offer are unsatisfactory. Logic is not ever true or false, logic is a means to acquire conclusions.

The implicit premise is:
Provided the premises are absolutely true, and all uses of induction are removed, our conclusion is absolutely true.

What I disagree is if you claim that the tool itself (logic) is always absolutely perfectly right, valid, truth, etc... Because that causes my "argument for uncertainty" to contradict even though the premises and use of logic do not appear to be wrong.

Your use of logic does appear wrong, you use induction. Bad logic = bad conclusions. Changing it to "logic is taken to be true" does not make your conclusion less false.

Do you know why that happens? It's because the god-being is still explaining it to us in logical terms. If logic is invalidated at a higher level of consciousness, then I would imagine that level of consciousness would probably never cross paths with humans, because beings of such consciousness would not understand humans, and humans would not understand such consciousness. There's no common language or common experience.

It would not matter, because even things we can not understand or perceive (quality O) are STILL premises even before we find out about them. These non-apparent premises can actively be causing a perfectly logical procession to be illogical. Note that it is illogical, not that the logic is invalid. Logic itself is different than the logic used to reach the conclusion.

I didn't change the concept of logic. I changed the implicit premise. I changed logic's judgment of itself. I changed the way we perceive logic's absolute validity. None of these has anything to do with the core concepts of logic - processing input and generating output that is just as logically valid as the inputs. However, I changed the connection between what is logical and what is absolute truth, and I don't think this is "just a symbol."

Then my confusion must have come from the post you claim to have changed the concept of logic.
Also, I never claimed that logic produces only truth, but that it can be used to do so.
There is no inherent connection between logic and absolute truth, though it can be made.

Which is why I only quoted the "quote2 of last bit" above. Certainly, quote2 certainly conflicts with quote1, but quote 1 follows from logic (as I've shown), while quote 2 is arbitrary, which is why I've bolded the quote2 part and asked you to support it.

I am not seeing the contradiction, could you clarify?
It is arbitrary, meaningless sidenote.

But the important thing to realize here is that although human knowledge isn't constant over time, it remains to be finite.

So far, we have not talked at all about the limit of what humans can know, except for the premise that human knowledge (what humans know) at any point in time is finite, and thus a possible corollary is that what humans can know is finite.

I concede that anything at anytime is finite.
It is inductive to claim that because at any time there is finite knowledge that the capability of knowledge is also finite. It goes without saying that I will debate that until the end of time, or the end of the human race. Neither of us could even know who won.

"Knowing" and "Capable of knowing" are the same thing, since "capable of knowing" is basically "knowing" that happens at some point in a potential future.

This sounds like admittance that Absolute Truth is within our capabilities. With uncertainty about the future, we may discover the means to attain Absolute Truth. Even if time itself is finite, humanity may see the end, it could be a long time.
So either it is Absolutely True that humans can not attain Absolute Truth.
or
It is possible, but not necessary, for Absolute Truth to lie within human grasp.

Point 3 establishes that:
suppose absolute truth X
X can be in either set: the set of only all things known by humans, or the set of things humans do not know.
Point 4 establishes that:
If the former, then humans know absolute truth X
If the latter, then humans do not know absolute truth X
This point basically says that:
Since X can be in either set, then we don't know which is the case in point 4, hence we don't know if we know absolute truth X. (Position of uncertainty)

Point3 assumes there is something outside our cognition, for sake of argument I think my revision works better.

The problem comes from you using the word "know" with two definitions. This could be solved by saying "capable of knowing." We do not know if we are capable of knowing Absolute Truth, which is only true for those who do not know Absolute Truth.
Properly: Those who do not know Absolute Truth do not know whether they are capable of knowing it.
This sounds perfectly reasonable (deduction often does), but does not really mean much.


So I have a couple Absolute Truth propositions now, one will look familiar.

Something Exists:

Something exists
OR
Nothing exists

I would say it is obvious that only one of these things can be true, however some may argue. In a situation where both are true, my claim is still accurate. In a situation where neither are true? That is simply not the situation at hand:

P1 -- My perceptions may be right.
P2 -- My perceptions may be wrong.
P3 -- My perceptions may be implanted, or otherwise not truly perception.
C --- I perceive things (correctly/incorrectly), or something makes me belive so.
AT - Something exists.

I offer you another musing, whose beauty I almost missed:

Humans can not conclude that anything exists outside of human understanding.

No procession here, just hilarity.

[FDEL]

Important to clarify that I don't believe logic leads to Absolute Truth, only that it can. Certain things can never be said to be Truly Absolute, but that does not mean that logic is incapable of reaching certain conclusions.

Then we must throw doubt on logics validity.

But it is folly, certainly logic does not always lead to truth, but only because the premises are flawed or induction was used.

Applied Logic:
Premises(true/false/incomplete) -->Removal of Induction-->Conclusion(true/false/incomplete)
Conceptual Logic:
Premises(Absolute Truth)-->Complete Removal of Induction-->Conclusion(Absolute Truth)

Logic only strives for Truth by completely removing fallacy and possibility of false premise.

Therein lies the strength of my binary proposal.

See, I think one of the big inefficiencies in our conversations is the usage of the word "truth" without modifiers. If we replace the word "truth" in this above quote with "conclusions" (or even "conclusions consistent with our experiences) that we "reach," then I would perfectly agree with you. But since you used the word "truth," then I'm not so sure if I would, because to me, just "conclusions consistent with our experiences" does not equate to absolute truth.

Even before there was life in some form, logic existed (but I lost the hyperlink, take it with a grain of salt). Things still happened, and there was a logical reason why they happened. Before entities began to apply logic themselves, reckless as they were, the universe contained only absolute truth. Tragically, logic abuse is far more adaptive than True Logic, from a primal survival standpoint.

I would say logic is a human concept. "Reason why something happened" is a human concept. Why? Because such concepts only exist in our thoughts.

Actually, all concepts exist in our thoughts and are created by man. That isn't to say that the phenomenon that the concepts represent is created by man. The physical object of a rock might exist if humans never existed, but without humans, the concept of a rock (what you experience when you think about the idea of rocks) would not exist.

I think the same can be said of logic. Logic is the result of the first humans (or even the ancestors of humans)'s interpretation (whether conscious or unconscious, cognized or naturally conditioned) of natural, causal laws that govern how things behave. Human beings cannot take real phenomenon and put them into their heads. They can only create representations, models, concepts, that approximate the phenomenon based on their experiences, and manipulate/play around with these in their heads. Even if logic is a real phenomenon (and I'm using the word "even" because I'd rather call such a thing something else aside from "logic"), the concept of logic that you and I work with are only models. I wouldn't say that logic existed before humans, I would say humans created logic in order to make sense of the workings of the world. Logic is, at most, an extremely accurate problem-solving tool. This is why I distrust a claim that says logic is the ultimate truth.

And you're right, logic brings about results, and it can be screwed up by fallacious reasoning. However, this is a problem not because this is inconsistent with any golden, absolute standard, but because in the process of screwing up logic, we are much more prone to mistakes and bad consequences. I don't disagree that logic brings conclusions from premises, it's just that we know far too less to be equating logic to absolute truth, or God, or whatever.

I'll get to your last reply next time.

[BionicSeahorse]

See, I think one of the big inefficiencies in our conversations is the usage of the word "truth" without modifiers. If we replace the word "truth" in this above quote with "conclusions" (or even "conclusions consistent with our experiences) that we "reach," then I would perfectly agree with you. But since you used the word "truth," then I'm not so sure if I would, because to me, just "conclusions consistent with our experiences" does not equate to absolute truth.

I am certain there is no communication problem with Absolute Truth, as for little-t-truth, "conclusions" does not suffice as a replacement. The only occurrence of "truth" reads "logic does not always lead to conclusions," with your suggestion.

I would say logic is a human concept. "Reason why something happened" is a human concept. Why? Because such concepts only exist in our thoughts.

Many animals can use logic to figure our world out, they just are not as refined in their premises and removal of induction.

Just for example:
Dog has a feeling (hunger).
Dog eats something.
That feeling is subsides.
Next time the feeling occurs, eating something is a logical choice.
If you do some research you will find different mammals who will eat specific herbs in response to illness, and the herbs happen to be medically beneficial for their symptoms. Logical adaptation.

Alternatively: without humans, things would happen for inconsistently and for no reason?

I think the same can be said of logic. Logic is the result of the first humans (or even the ancestors of humans)'s interpretation (whether conscious or unconscious, cognized or naturally conditioned) of natural, causal laws that govern how things behave. Human beings cannot take real phenomenon and put them into their heads. They can only create representations, models, concepts, that approximate the phenomenon based on their experiences, and manipulate/play around with these in their heads. Even if logic is a real phenomenon (and I'm using the word "even" because I'd rather call such a thing something else aside from "logic"), the concept of logic that you and I work with are only models. I wouldn't say that logic existed before humans, I would say humans created logic in order to make sense of the workings of the world. Logic is, at most, an extremely accurate problem-solving tool. This is why I distrust a claim that says logic is the ultimate truth.

I think we need to make an important distinction now, which I have attempted to do before.

Lil-l-logic: A tool used in reaching conclusions (possibly with induction or false/incomplete premises).


Big-L-Logic: The reason things are True (no possibility of induction or false/incomplete premise).

Long before humans, Logic existed: things happened, and they happened for a reason.

The less productive form of logic was a human adaptation, much as you have described.

Basically, if we go back and look at the logical processions used by man since the dawn of time, I am sure we find some fairly inane conclusions. But
I would bet that many conclusions are inane because of a flawed premise, or the use of induction.

I don't disagree that logic brings conclusions from premises

Could you offer me some reason a conclusion is not Absolutely True when the premises are Absolutely True and there is no induction?

[FDEL]

I misunderstand, who said it is logical to say humans can not know absolute truth? Could you explain the procession? I don't see how it could be deduced that we are incapable of knowing absolute truth.

This is supposed to be brought about with my proof for uncertainty which you've debunked earlier because I've represented it poorly. You can get a better version of it by considering the proposed clarifications you've made and my responses to those clarifications (posts #39 and #40).

Point1:

Message: Human knowledge can not be infinite, by definition.
Meaning: Human perception is limited.
Revision: Direct human cognition of perception is limited.

I said that this sounds fair.

From this, we come to Point2. Your proposed clarification in post #39 for this one wasn't very accurate of my original intent, so I tried to respond to the clarification:

Point2:

I disagree with your interpretation here. What I originally meant is that humans can only know things within human knowledge.

This is by definition, and I then gave a quick explanation of what this point meant:

Suppose you have just learned a new thing that nobody else knows. The moment you learned that new thing, human knowledge also increases by the same amount as you have learned. If X is something you know, and you are a human, then by definition X is also something inside the set of all things humans know. Changes in X over time translates to changes in human knowledge over time.

But the important thing to realize here is that although human knowledge isn't constant over time, it remains to be finite.

So far, we have not talked at all about the limit of what humans can know, except for the premise that human knowledge (what humans know) at any point in time is finite, and thus a possible corollary is that what humans can know is finite.

We now move onto point 3. Here, you expressed that there's vagueness in the potential idea of "knowing" and "capable of knowing. I responded to this with:

"Knowing" and "Capable of knowing" are the same thing, since "capable of knowing" is basically "knowing" that happens at some point in a potential future.

In the last point, we've shown that as long as point 1 (that human knowledge cannot be infinite by definition, that human perception is limited) is true, then both "what humans know at any point in time" and "what humans can know" is finite. Hence, what humans currently know (the idea expressed by "knowing") and what humans can ever know (the ideas expressed by "capable of knowing") are limited.

You called this induction in the following quote:

Regardless, this is obviously induction. Without knowing all we are capable of knowing we can not assume limits on human knowledge (other than it certainly is not infinite). Alternatively, the induction lies in assuming there is something outside our perception to participate in [AT].

My response to this is that all that I have ever assumed is that "it certainly is not infinite." I haven't assume anything else. By definition, something finite is something limited.

Now, you called induction again on the fact that I'm assuming that there is something outside our perception to participate in. Yes, that's what I have done for the sake of the argument, but you realize that since my ultimate argument results in a "don't know" conclusion, I can easily change this assumption from:

-there is something outside our perception to participate in

to:

-we don't know if there is something outside our perception to participate in

I don't think you would refute the latter, since doing so will mean you are making the assumption that:

-there is nothing outside our perception to participate in

which is just as fallacious as the former (that there is something outside our perception to participate in.)

Now let me number these for easy reference:

1) there is something outside our perception to participate in
2) there is nothing outside our perception to participate in
3) we don't know if there is something outside our perception to participate in

To recap, we've established 1 and 2 to be fallacious. I've used 1 which you called induction on, and you must accept 3 because if you don't, you'll have to accept 2 which is also fallacious. I am changing the point you've previously called induction on (1) to 3, and I think you will agree with me on this. So now let's take a look at what exactly does 3 mean.

3 states that either 1 or 2 is possible, but we don't know which.

If it is the case that 1 is true, then my point follows that absolute truth is not limited to human knowledge, and that logically leads to my conclusion that we can't know absolute truth. Of course, the points after Point 3 of my original argument may still be faulty, but right now we're assuming they are true, as we will examine them after we have examined Point 3.

If it is the case that 2 is true, then my original argument doesn't follow, and we end up with a different conclusion. It doesn't matter what the conclusion is, so let's assume that the conclusion is that we indeed know absolute truth.

However, we're choosing neither 1 nor 2. We're choosing 3, which says that 1 or 2 might be the case, but we don't know which one. So:

We don't know whether it is the case that:

-we don't know absolute truth

or whether it is the case that:

-we know absolute truth.

The fact that we don't know which of these is true brings us to a problem. If we take logic's implicit premise to be absolute truth, then what does this mean? If we don't know whether or not we know, does that mean we know? or we don't know? For surely if we choose either one then that refutes the fact that we don't know whether or not we know, so then "do we know?" becomes an unanswerable question. Solve this dilemma if you can, but if you can't, then doesn't this tell you something about the model of logic you're using? If given sufficient information, logic should always be doable provided that we don't make a mistake. However, this is certainly not the case.

So, back to our possibilities 1, 2, and 3:

1) there is something outside our perception to participate in
2) there is nothing outside our perception to participate in
3) we don't know if there is something outside our perception to participate in

1 and 2 are both fallacious, yet 3 leads to this problem. However, 1, 2, and 3 makes up all possible conclusions to the question "is there something outside our perception to participate in?" So then, is such a question unanswerable?

Let's remember that all this still rests on that all points after point 3 in my original argument are valid. Let's leave point 3 as it is and examine those points. We'll come back to point 3 later.

Point 4:

For point 4, you made a minor clarification while agreeing with it. I also agreed with your clarification, so we're good here:

Point4: If absolute truth is within human knowledge, then humans can know it. If absolute truth is outside human knowledge, then humans cannot know it.
This seems agreeable, though the second clause would be more accurate if written "know all of it."

So now we move onto point 5, and here is your clarification:

Point 5:

Point5: By Point3, we do not know which possibility is the case in Point4, therefore we do not know whether humans can know absolute truth.
More induction. Though I agree with your conclusion (we do not know whether humans can know absolute truth), you did not arrive at it logically.
Message: When facing uncertainty, a definite answer is usually a good idea.
Revised: Removed, 3&4 are fallacious and thus, not useful premises to draw valid conclusions.

Point 5 is directly derived from point 3 and point 4, so I don't know where you're calling the induction on (yet you still agree with my conclusion). I think what you meant is that point 3 and 4 are fallacious, thus making point 5 fallacious, so the induction did not come from point 5, but is carried over from point 3. This means that given that point 3 and 4 are the premises of the argument that is composed of point 5 alone, the conclusions do follow from the premises, the argument itself (point 5) is valid. It's just that the premises are not good ones.

So then, point 5 by itself is fine. Now let us return to point 3.

Back to point 3:

Recap:

So, back to our possibilities 1, 2, and 3:

1) there is something outside our perception to participate in
2) there is nothing outside our perception to participate in
3) we don't know if there is something outside our perception to participate in

1 is responsible for the induction. 2 is also fallacious. We are left with 3 which leads to a logical problem given that point 4 and point 5 of the original argument are logically valid (which we've just shown). So then, am I doing something wrong here? Or is this an inherent problem? The way I see it, precisely one of the above three answers to the question "is there something outside our perception to participate in?" must be logically valid, and the other two invalid. So, which is it?

At this point, I would like you to help me make sense of this, if you would care.

Now I'll respond to the other things you've said:

Both implicit premises you offer are unsatisfactory. Logic is not ever true or false, logic is a means to acquire conclusions.

The implicit premise is:
Provided the premises are absolutely true, and all uses of induction are removed, our conclusion is absolutely true.

I disagree. Logic works with truth values that are assigned to all claims, and logic is a method that takes in the given truth values of the premise (which is a claim) and you can use it to either generate conclusions (which are also claims) with "true" as its truth value, or use it to test pre-assumed conclusions (which are also claims) to figure out their truth values.

"Logic is true" is a claim.

If it is a claim, it must have a truth value. What is that value? What does logic say?

Your use of logic does appear wrong, you use induction. Bad logic = bad conclusions. Changing it to "logic is taken to be true" does not make your conclusion less false.

When I wrote the quote you were replying to in this quote, I was under the impression that we've agreed that my "induction" version is to be disregarded, yet that's a poor representation of my original argument. We've both made clarifications to try to resolve the induction issue. Hence, I didn't expect you to still assault with induction callings. But whatever, you're right if you're talking about the original argument.

It would not matter, because even things we can not understand or perceive (quality O) are STILL premises even before we find out about them. These non-apparent premises can actively be causing a perfectly logical procession to be illogical. Note that it is illogical, not that the logic is invalid. Logic itself is different than the logic used to reach the conclusion.

I don't quite understand this. What exactly is different between "logic itself" and "the logic used to reach the conclusion" provided that the person who did the latter did not make a mistake?

And if the person who did the latter is the god being we were talking about - a god being whom, by definition, is absolutely flawless, then would you say logic is responsible for the illogical conclusion? or would you say the god is flawed?

Then my confusion must have come from the post you claim to have changed the concept of logic.
Also, I never claimed that logic produces only truth, but that it can be used to do so.
There is no inherent connection between logic and absolute truth, though it can be made.

My bad if I've chosen my words inconsistently.

So then, under what circumstances does logic produce truth and what circumstances does it not? Provided that the person who uses logic never makes a mistake or fallacy (which wouldn't matter anyway, since just because people can misuse logic doesn't mean logic itself doesn't sometimes produce truth.

I am not seeing the contradiction, could you clarify?
It is arbitrary, meaningless sidenote.

Actually, now that I read it again, I no longer see it. Must be my brain not functioning very well that day at midnight.

I concede that anything at anytime is finite.
It is inductive to claim that because at any time there is finite knowledge that the capability of knowledge is also finite. It goes without saying that I will debate that until the end of time, or the end of the human race. Neither of us could even know who won.

Certainly, if the end point is the end of the human race, then capability of human knowledge is finite. Looking at the entire dimension of time, in this case human beings has a definite starting point and a definite ending point. Suppose that the function of knowledge over time for human beings is an ever-increasing function but bounded by endpoints [beginning of humans, end of humans], the highest knowledge ever reached would be at the very end, and that's finite.

If the end point is the end of time, well... that's rather confusing and I don't think either of us would get something decent out of it, but let's see... We're supposing that human beings continue to live and increase its knowledge forever. The point of infinity is hard to define. It's not a single point, instead, it's a sense of on-going-ness, so technically you can say that human knowledge would also be on-going and approach infinity.

But the idea of a function "approaching infinity" still means that if you take any point in time (not including infinity itself since infinity is not a definite point), human knowledge is finite at that instant, and hence no matter which point you take on the time scale, it is still true of that instant that human knowledge is finite, that we don't know if there's something beyond the limits of human knowledge, and if there is, that we don't know if absolute truth lies within or outside of it, etc...

This sounds like admittance that Absolute Truth is within our capabilities. With uncertainty about the future, we may discover the means to attain Absolute Truth. Even if time itself is finite, humanity may see the end, it could be a long time.
So either it is Absolutely True that humans can not attain Absolute Truth.
or
It is possible, but not necessary, for Absolute Truth to lie within human grasp.

How does that sound like an admittance of absolute truth within human capabilities?

"We may discover the means to attain absolute truth." Can you imagine what this would be like? I know I can't, because every time I try to imagine it, I fall into the trap that this "means" that we have discovered might be a huge mistake.

Point3 assumes there is something outside our cognition, for sake of argument I think my revision works better.

The problem comes from you using the word "know" with two definitions. This could be solved by saying "capable of knowing." We do not know if we are capable of knowing Absolute Truth, which is only true for those who do not know Absolute Truth.
Properly: Those who do not know Absolute Truth do not know whether they are capable of knowing it.
This sounds perfectly reasonable (deduction often does), but does not really mean much.

I realize that in the last last post, I failed to address to this induction problem of "are there things outside our cognition." Previously in this post, I've tried to address it and came up with a problem that I'd like you to take a look at.

Humans can not conclude that anything exists outside of human understanding.

Right.

Humans also cannot conclude that nothing exists outside of human understanding.

Humans cannot conclude that they hold knowledge of the amount of things that exist outside of human understanding.

Humans don't know whether anything exists outside of human understanding.

Right?

Many animals can use logic to figure our world out, they just are not as refined in their premises and removal of induction.

Just for example:
Dog has a feeling (hunger).
Dog eats something.
That feeling is subsides.
Next time the feeling occurs, eating something is a logical choice.
If you do some research you will find different mammals who will eat specific herbs in response to illness, and the herbs happen to be medically beneficial for their symptoms. Logical adaptation.

Alternatively: without humans, things would happen for inconsistently and for no reason?

I don't think I can claim that I know what goes on in a dog's mind just by observing its behavior. However, I do think animals have a similar way of interpreting the causal laws of this world. They just don't interpret it in the same way we do (they might be largely similar, but definitely not the fine details.)

I think we need to make an important distinction now, which I have attempted to do before.

Lil-l-logic: A tool used in reaching conclusions (possibly with induction or false/incomplete premises).


Big-L-Logic: The reason things are True (no possibility of induction or false/incomplete premise).

Long before humans, Logic existed: things happened, and they happened for a reason.

The less productive form of logic was a human adaptation, much as you have described.

Basically, if we go back and look at the logical processions used by man since the dawn of time, I am sure we find some fairly inane conclusions. But
I would bet that many conclusions are inane because of a flawed premise, or the use of induction.

I would make some revisions to this:

Humans believe that long before humans, logic existed: things happened, and they happened for a reason.

Why do they believe so? Because they've arrived at such conclusions through a combination of their application of little-l-logic and their biological intuitions.

Though, I agree that little-l-logic has been refined throughout history. How can I ever have access to, or justification for, big-L-Logic, when all I have on hand is little-l-logic - as in - the tool I apply on my experiences to make sense of the happenings of the world?

Could you offer me some reason a conclusion is not Absolutely True when the premises are Absolutely True and there is no induction?

I feel like I'm repeating myself, and I feel that if I continue, you would probably experience a hint of annoyance at the idea being brought up yet again. But again, logic is a system that takes in inputs (premises) and spew out outputs (conclusions) that are just as logically valid as the inputs.

And this is perfectly fine and good, as long as all mentions of "valid" "true" etc... follows the modifier "logically."

In other words, when we use logic, we're working with logical validity, logical truth - validity and truth as told by logic. There's no reason to think otherwise, because logic is consistent and it is useful - it hasn't failed us yet, and probably never will.

But if you're asking the question of absolute validity, absolute truth - validity and truth according to some absolute standard that is not necessarily the logical one, then what happens?

Well, you probably know what I am going to say...

[BionicSeahorse]

Excellent post, Fdel. Sorry I have been gone so long, but I thought I already won with this little gem:

"So either it is Absolutely True that humans can not attain Absolute Truth.
or
It is possible, but not necessary, for Absolute Truth to lie within human grasp."

You also missed the fun part of "Humans can not conclude that anything exists outside of human understanding."

I think it is obvious that we either have attained Absolute Truth, or can... right?

Read it again.


I don't think anyone is paying attention to us anymore anyways, if you want a full response, I may have the time soon.

[FDEL]

"So either it is Absolutely True that humans can not attain Absolute Truth.
or
It is possible, but not necessary, for Absolute Truth to lie within human grasp."

You also missed the fun part of "Humans can not conclude that anything exists outside of human understanding."

Hey,

Welcome back!

Anyway, it's been so long and I kinda forgot the details of what happened here now... I recall that my original argument committed the induction fallacy, and we were trying to fix it... something like that.

Anyway, replying to your post now. A logical claim has a logical value that can either be logical true or logical false. I don't think you will disagree with this thus far, because everything I've said is by definition. The modifier "logical" is obviously okay because we're working within the logical system of reasoning.

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

It is Absolutely True that humans can not attain Absolute Truth.

This is a logical claim. It has a logical value that can either be logical true or logical false. Let's call this P.

It is possible, but not necessary, for Absolute Truth to lie within human grasp.

This is another logical claim. It has a logical value that can either be logical true or logical false. Let's call this Q.

P is logically true if and only if Q is logically false
Q is logically true if and only if P is logically false

P means we have absolute truth.
Q means it's possible for us to attain absolute truth.

So then it's either one or the other. This logic I understand, and I'm not contending against this logic.

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

What I am contending is that all these analysis (in-between the dividers) is a logical analysis. All that has been done here is done within the logical framework of reasoning. Hence, only the logical modifier in front of its concepts (e.g. logical truth, logical false) is appropriate. This is why I can say that I know it is logically true that we have either attained absolute truth or has the ability to attain absolute truth. However, I only know this to be logically true. This is a logical conclusion.

However, if I originally started out thinking about the question "can it be the case that logic is absolutely false?" then basically I'm doubting logic. And if I'm doubting logic to begin with, then how can a logical conclusion fix that doubt? If it can't fix the doubt and we aren't capable of going further than logic, then I think it's more fitting to say that this is our limit, rather than this is absolute truth.

I'm being a bit unreasonable here, since there's no debate ground if anyone starts doubting logic. However, I never wanted this to be a debate, it's more like a discussion, an exploration into the question. The reason why I argue for it so strongly sometimes is that I feel that if anyone wants to claim the authority of absolute truth, then they better fix this problem first.

[Charlatan]

Logic is the way we get to a conclusion, from an urge to the realisation of your urge. When you have an urge, as humans are reactive, you have gotten it from a stimulis. Then it goes to your mind, subconscious and conscious, and makes you want to satisfy that urge. What your mind goes through will be akin to first becoming stimulated, then looking for the source and identifying the source by use of memory objects it has. If it recognises the source it will alert your mind what the urge is, and then where the source is. You cannot be stimulated without a source, even thinking to yourself will about something will result in an urge of some sort. Let's say you are thinking about money, your mind will react with an urge to get more, as it reacts to the identified need for money from your memory. Then your mind will tell you that there is money here, or there isn't, and if there is you realise that you have money in your pocket, or in the case there is none, it will answer the urge by suppressing it. That is part of our nature, to supress urges. Take a child that poops all the time, every time it has an urge to poop it gets more resistant to the urge and gains self control. So urges are viewed by the body as a bad thing, as they become resistant to them. Think of a child that is hungry, it cries and cries until it gets food, or just keeps on crying. As children grow they will become resistant to the urge to eat, as urges are seen by the mind as things that are needed, and the mind desires to need less as it grows. WHen you are older you may decide to give into your urges, and then it is easier to control them anyway.

So thought comes from an urge for something, and the more you think about it, the more resistant you should become to it, unless you indulge in it. The mind will identify things that are in ready supply, as urges are not answered they become more disciplined, and as they are answered more quickly, you may lose discipline, so it could be like a rise and fall.

Thought is the beginning of logic, as all logic is thought based. After you recognise an urge you try with all the objects in your memory to work out how to satusfy that urge using instinct and logic. Insitinct is just reactive too, but logic is based in the subconscious. The subconscious tells our conscious what we know about the thing, and informs the conscious that it has reached a conclusion for our urges, and they are as follows. The conscious can then decide what it will do, but we are not in control of our logic, as it is based on subconscious answers to urges, stored as memory objects. Once all the answers to said urge are brought forward into the conscious, the person can choose what they want to do, and then that thought goes back to the subconscious in the form of an urge, and the process is repeated.

We can of course do things that we do not want to do, by choosing to do them regardless of urges. Our conscious controls the decision making part of our mind, and the subconscious controls the working things out part. Picture an abacus, then that one person works out the sums, and the other person gets their answers. The second person makes the decision on what to do next, and the first person works out the methods to do said thing in, like a navigator and a captain on a ship working together.

Since logic is based in the subconscious, it is not controlled by any of the means that are able to be controlled by the active mind of a person, so, logic is reactive. Ditch the philosophy terms and embrace my theory!

[BionicSeahorse]

I would say you are being little unreasonable as well. After a couple reads, I think that you have improved my case:

So either it is Absolutely True that humans can not attain Absolute Truth.
or
It is possible, but not necessary, for Absolute Truth to lie within human grasp.
or
It is Absolutely True that logic is insufficient to attain Absolute Truth (irony?).

I agree with your bit about logical true and logical false, but I am still in the AT camp.



Once more, no logical procession, simply a statement of Absolute Truth:

"Humans can not logically conclude that anything exists outside of what humans are capable of experiencing."

Is it groundbreaking or helpful? No.
Is it Absolutely True? Yes.

[FDEL]

I don't think your argument changed much. Logically speaking, your last argument was valid. This new argument is also valid. Though, since it's a logical argument, it still doesn't fix the problem of how to answer the doubt in logic.

The same problem exists in your quote that "humans can not logically conclude that anything exists outside of what humans are capable of experiencing." We accept this to be logically true because of our past discussion in this thread. But if you are calling it absolute truth, then the connection between logical truths and absolute truths still seems arbitrary. I don't think you have made this connection yet (if you have, please remind me).

Lastly, I don't devalue logical truths in any way. They are what we have access to, they are greatly useful, and they are what gets us through our lives. It's just that oftentimes when people think they have absolute truth, what they really have is a logical truth. Although logical truths have authority over human thought (because people give them authority), absolute truth is supposed to be much, much higher and has much, much greater authority, so tagging the modifier "absolute" to logical truths, I think, is not so appropriate.

[Gumbywrestler1]

The ability to make judgments based purely on factual evidence or common sense, not irrational emotions.

[FDEL]

Depends on what kind of judgment we're talking about.

If a factual judgment (e.g. The screen is red), then you are certainly correct.
If a value judgment (e.g. Rainbow is pretty), then I would say it's more based on irrational emotions.

[ILoveLucy]

Isnt logic a way to gain commonsense/

I don't think so. Common sense comes from the heart. Common sense is basically your concience. Most people get a "bad feeling" if they are about to do something wrong. Also, I don't think you can gain common sense. Some people live their entire lives doing stupid, mindless acts and logic will not help them. Also, logic is not the way to solve all problems. Maybe math problems, but life problems, I think emotions helo solve those. Don't live life as a robot. I make decisions based on the way I think and feel, not on what society or logic thinks and feels. As I said, certain things may require logical thinking, but it is not the basis of the universe.

[Charlatan]

Logic is the application of relevant knowledge to your situation or problem and the answers granted from the application of relevant knowledge.

[dbogjohnson]

Logic is the application of relevant knowledge to your situation or problem and the answers granted from the application of relevant knowledge.

FDEL JUST SAID THAT
Read whole thread before posting...[it took me an hour]
anyway Logic so far is:
=math
=assumption/common sense
=a long thought process that we do all the toime very easily and shortly, that requires the above
=and simple rules of philosophy applied to particular problems
and...
You don't ask either of the two brothers! you find an alternative:i.e a cell phone ,a map, a g.p.s, etc.
asking any of the two is pointless because two twins: one who always tells the truth, and one who never tells the truth,and they both choose inconveniently, to look completely alike , well they obviously have serious mental issues if that's so
plus you don't know for sure if he will tell the truth, but assuming a hypothetical position apok would be right, on the other hand in real life I would choose an alternative. At least ask a gas station cashier, they tend to know the roads prior to:I've asked them before, plus while you're there you can get gas for the car.
see? that's logic
here's another question: a piece of meat has been sitting out since you left work It has plastic wrap over it but you forget why its out in the counter, and no one else remembers why either
what do you do with the meat?

[curious boy]

Not so. And it isn't my problem. It was asked by another member, CC.

Note the key part of the problem here:

You also know that one of the brothers lies ALL the time. He NEVER tells the truth. Conversely, the other brother has never told a lie. Not EVER.

The words/phrases "all the time", "never", "not ever" tells us that this isn't just an issue of the past, but of also present and future.

I have met this kind of problem the other year in our elementary science magazine. The version used tribes instead of a twin.

But considering the key parts (given) in the problem, my question is:

you CANNOT tell them apart in any way

But you only know that one of them ALWAYS lie, then you may not know that it could be the liar who would say, "My liar brother would tell you to go this way (the right way)" since he always lie and could possibly lie with his identity.

What about that?

[dbogjohnson]

But you only know that one of them ALWAYS lie, then you may not know that it could be the liar who would say, "My liar brother would tell you to go this way (the right way)" since he always lie and could possibly lie with his identity.

What about that?

No, you don't know literally if this is a real life situation.
so if they said that I would consider it a 50/50 chance, so I would use an alternative choice.

[curious boy]

No, you don't know literally if this is a real life situation.
so if they said that I would consider it a 50/50 chance, so I would use an alternative choice.

My point is, it is a problem. And the "given" should be considered a law, along with logic (basic) to come up with the positive answer and again, according to the "given". So, the lying brother (who ALWAYS lie), could (more possibly "would"), lie with his own identity. And the thing is, your answer would only be one question which should positively lead you to the right way. So, what should it be, if not the spoiled answer earlier?