The 10 Commandments of Logic

[leth]

Ehhhh...It kind of is the stolen concept fallacy.

 

The prove it.

 

The meta-logical theorems of Godel and Tarski do not say that logic is illogical or that rationality is irrational. They provide a glimpse at bounds that exist in formal systems. A general distillation of what they imply is that formal systems can generate terms that they don't know how to handle. That doesn't mean that logic is illogical as much as it means that individual systems are not comprehensive relative to all of reality. They have a starting place where they are valid and if some aspect of their application moves beyond a local range of values, they will generate paradoxes, contradictions, or undecidable statements.

 

Actually Tarskis undefinability theoreme states that any logical truth cannot be defined using the logic in question. Which indeed means that any logical system cannot prove itself logical. From this we can say that logical systems are in themselves can not be said to be logical under it's own logic, in fact they must be illogical because they can not consistently prove themselves. Which can be expressed as logic is illogical in natural language.

 

Logic and math are what they are; to use meta-logical theorems to say that logic and math are invalid is unfaithful to the content of the theorems as they relate only to specific qualities* of formal systems.

 

I didn't say they were invalid.

 

And yes formal systems of logic are only usable for truths within that system, and mostly we concern ourselves with truths of reality or our own mind neither of which is part of any known formal system of logic. But not all logic is formal, which sadly most people tend to forget these days.

[Marblehead]

"The Propaganda Game", you noobs can find out about what us Sixties math/science nerds have known for decades by going here:

In the 1960s I was too busy living and doing my duties in the Army to be playing games.

 

I think that was logical.

[Marblehead]

I’ve noticed you are much clearer and more comfortable with distinctions and definitions than me. For instance I tend to use words like 'logical' and 'rational' interchangeably. I’d say your reality is more clear-cut than mine.  For me, ‘reality’ is very much an ambiguous concept.

I take that as a compliment and therefore thank you for it.

 

I suspect we reside on different sides of the two fundamental views on the nature of ‘reality’; namely realism and constructivism. A simple realism argues that reality is as it is and it can be cognised and represented as such. This view underpins the scientific method and obviously has much validity - as, for instance, our technology testifies. 

Yes, I am a "realist".  Always have been but I still walked into telephone poles when watching a pretty lady walking down the sidewalk instead of watching where I was walking.

 

And this defines the difference between the two views above.

 

The telephone pole didn't have to wait for me to create it in my mind before it existed.  It was there and I unknowingly walked into it.

 

In hind-sight it would be logical to believe that the telephone pole existed before I walked into it.  Logic is based in the understanding of "cause and effect".  That is an opinion.  It may or may not be true.

[Karl]

Logic is another abstract concept as is reason.

 

I don't think this seems to be understood. It's as if people think it's reality in and of itself.

 

Humans are conceptual creatures, we are forced to use reason. Existence exists, reality is reality, our senses relay perceptual information to our minds where it becomes conceptual abstractions. We see what we see, but we must interpret accurately what we see in order that we correctly identify threats and opportunities. Our method of integrating and differentiating is the use of the abstract concept of reason and the most potent tool we have in accuracy is the abstract concept called logic.

 

Logic doesn't exist in the perceptual universe. It isn't an object. It is part and parcel of our consciousness. Our existence is identity and so our consciousness is identification. Reason is the abstract concept, it is the faculty of human survival and logic is the most refined abstract concept of a best method to avoid error. Just as language is our abstract conceptual way of communication and definition.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Karl

[Geof Nanto]

I take that as a compliment and therefore thank you for it.

 

It was meant as a compliment. I was not attacking you, rather I was making an observation of difference. I have gained much by engaging with other people's realities on this forum.  I often have such complex thoughts in response to even simple comments here that it is difficult for me a frame a brief coherent reply. (That's part of the reason I sometimes post long extracts from books.) You don't seem to have that difficulty, or at least not to the same degree as me.  

 

 

Yes, I am a "realist".  Always have been but I still walked into telephone poles when watching a pretty lady walking down the sidewalk instead of watching where I was walking.

 

And this defines the difference between the two views above.

 

The telephone pole didn't have to wait for me to create it in my mind before it existed.  It was there and I unknowingly walked into it.

 

In hind-sight it would be logical to believe that the telephone pole existed before I walked into it.  Logic is based in the understanding of "cause and effect".  That is an opinion.  It may or may not be true.

 

You have misrepresented the constructivist argument. This is the straw man fallacy of the ten commandments of the OP.  "Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person's argument in order to make them easier to attack." Perhaps you could read what I wrote again and if you still don't understand it I'll try to elaborate.  

[Marblehead]

You have misrepresented the constructivist argument. This is the straw man fallacy of the ten commandments of the OP.  "Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person's argument in order to make them easier to attack." Perhaps you could read what I wrote again and if you still don't understand it I'll try to elaborate.  

Yep.  You will please offer me a clear definition of what you view as a constructivist.  I won't be able to do any better with my response until that has been done.

[Geof Nanto]

Yep.  You will please offer me a clear definition of what you view as a constructivist.  I won't be able to do any better with my response until that has been done.

 

I don't like labels and don't consider myself a realist or constructivist, however of the two I favour the constructivist view as portraying a greater reality. (Perhaps in the same way Einsteinian physics presents a greater reality than Newtonian physics, but Newtonian physics is perfectly adequate for most all practical purposes.)

 

When people here present concepts I'm unfamiliar with in areas I'm interested in I do my own research so as to have an informed opinion. That's how I learn new things and expand my conceptual reality.

 

If I wanted to learn about constructivist epistemology I'd start with Wikipedia....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology

[Marblehead]

Thanks.

 

I stick with my realistic views.

 

My being able to define what a tree is will not change the essence of the tree in any manner.

 

The tree existed.  Science defined it.  Fine.

 

We pretty much define reality based on what our senses sent to our brain.  How efficient our senses and brain are will determine how well we have defined the tree.

 

Sure, maybe this is a bit of constructivism but then our definition doesn't really matter to the tree.

[Geof Nanto]

Sure, maybe this is a bit of constructivism but then our definition doesn't really matter to the tree.

 

Except perhaps if we define it as a resource for lumber or wood chips as opposed to worthy of conservation. But I accept we have a difference of perspective here and I have no problems with that. (Meaning I don't really want to take it any further.) 

[Karl]

Thanks.

 

I stick with my realistic views.

 

My being able to define what a tree is will not change the essence of the tree in any manner.

 

The tree existed.  Science defined it.  Fine.

 

We pretty much define reality based on what our senses sent to our brain.  How efficient our senses and brain are will determine how well we have defined the tree.

 

Sure, maybe this is a bit of constructivism but then our definition doesn't really matter to the tree.

 

Not quite.

An object existed with a seperate identity and certain qualities of which your senses and consciousness perceived..

Each quality of the tree existed as a seperate concept which were also a result of perceptual experience such as colour, height, smell, identity, emotional response, uses, and the word tree.

The tree then became another abstract quantity integrated with many other abstract qualities.

 

The tree as a perceptual object in consciousness you percieve directly as I do. This how an animal sees it, but an animal does not conceive a tree as we do. It's like a dog is in a 2D world. A dog cannot abstract. It cannot think the tree is beautiful, green, good to climb. It has no kind of language to begin to describe it. For the dog it just is and nothing more.

 

The constructivist thinks reality is subtlety different for everyone, the objectivist says reality is the same for everyone, but their abstract concepts vary to some extent. The constructivist is dabbling with the primacy of consciousness. The objectivist with the primacy of existence; existence exists A is A, a thing is a thing, something is something and not something else.

 

Logic for the constructivist becomes subjective. Objectivism would refute that completely as an attempt to use a stolen concept. Refuting this properly means a long inquiry into concept formation. A strong subjectivist is a very Wiley opponent, usually very bright and good at manipulation- unsurprising if your philosophy is based on subjectivism.

 

I'm likely being pedantic MH, it's just trying to get the terminology correct with respect to your own argument, which pretty much is objectivist anyway.

 

 

[Karl]

Good summation. Very elequent.

 

I see it as a subjectivists view of logic. If I morph into a subjectivist I can see why it works. The issue becomes one of a sliding definition because for the subjectivist, logic is purely a projection of consciousness. As an objectivist it is clear to me what that definition is, but that isn't the definition a subjectivist would give it. For an objectivist the primacy of existence reins supreme, for a subjectivist it is the primacy of consciousness. Ultimately the resolution lies in the battle between objectivism and subjectivism ( there is a similar battle between intrincisism and objectivism as there is between intrincisism and subjectivism). This is a very ancient philosophical battle ground and I'm certainly no Kant nor Aristotle.

 

I like MHs workmanlike simplicity. He doesn't faff with reality and acts in the simple sense of an animal first then adds in the logic. That's a perfect fit for man as the rational animal. A subjectivist could not establish that definition with any certainty. Man, says the subjectivist, is a projection of consciousness and his rationality is predicated on that projection. Logic is just a part of a projection that makes sense of the projection. The world is only as real as the subjectivists consciousness makes it. Logic as a tool is useless in a subjective universe in which existence is predicated on consciousness. For the subjectivist an objectivist must appear like a flat earther that points to the ground and announces 'flat'. Logic looks like an attempt to underpin that flatness through consistent argument.

 

Thing is, I can do both, because I spent several years as a hardline subjectivist, so I can understand. What I am unable to do is to argue the point. I'm objectivist and I can't see how a subjectivist doesn't understand it, except that I didn't either and I see nothing in particular that persuaded me. It was more like a switch in my mind that I wasn't aware of until on the other side of it. It's very easy to be a subjectivist, it's simple to make the arguments, a whole science and politic has grown up hinged on the philosophy so it is entirely self reinforcing. To question it makes one appear some form of strange Luddite.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Well, considering I have had no teachings in such matters I have to rely on personal experience.  How I relate with (my) reality is always at the base of what I say.

 

The only reference I had for "constructivist" was one where it is suggested that nothing exists until it is recognized by a human.  That sucks! and I always argue against such statements/concepts.

 

But between objective and subjective, I have had numerous discussions an I absolutely am an objectivist.

[Karl]

Well, considering I have had no teachings in such matters I have to rely on personal experience.  How I relate with (my) reality is always at the base of what I say.

 

The only reference I had for "constructivist" was one where it is suggested that nothing exists until it is recognized by a human.  That sucks! and I always argue against such statements/concepts.

 

But between objective and subjective, I have had numerous discussions an I absolutely am an objectivist.

 

You are objective, not an objectivist, you don't have a fully integrated philosophy. You have a raw, direct practicality. A thing is a thing and to survive you know that you had better be sure that you know it from a logical point of view.

 

I was never like that MH, I was always a dreamer. To me, a thing was only a thing to me, but it was different for everyone. That was the viewpoint.

 

Thing is, being intrincisist, subjectivist or objectivist doesn't make a lot of difference to how we go about in the world. An intrincisist is never so intrincisist that he will await God putting food on his plate and neither will the subjectivist conjure food from his consciousness-but, both will rationalise their actions. One will say it was the will of God that produced the food, by Gods grace it came to him and for that he will say a prayer. The other will say that his consciousness demanded the food and that it's only the limitations of the illusion which prevent instantaneous gratification. Only the objectivist knows the truth. :-)

 

 

[Marblehead]

Okay, so I don't have a fully integrated philosophy.  Big deal.  Hehehe.

 

And true, I don't wait for some miracle to put food on my table.  I know how that works in reality.

 

And yes, I know that when I state something is my opinion I am stating that something subjectively.  But then, I have rarely claimed to possess a lot of objective truths.

 

Yeah, and I was never a dreamer.  Reality knocked me down quite a few times when I was very young.  Those experiences destroyed the dreams and most of the illusions and delusions.

 

But yes, trying to be logical is good.  Rationalizing is good too.  But living spontaneously is great too because you never know what you might be doing next.  Life is then full of surprises.  (More positive than negative hopefully.)

[Karl]

Okay, so I don't have a fully integrated philosophy.  Big deal.  Hehehe.

 

And true, I don't wait for some miracle to put food on my table.  I know how that works in reality.

 

And yes, I know that when I state something is my opinion I am stating that something subjectively.  But then, I have rarely claimed to possess a lot of objective truths.

 

Yeah, and I was never a dreamer.  Reality knocked me down quite a few times when I was very young.  Those experiences destroyed the dreams and most of the illusions and delusions.

 

But yes, trying to be logical is good.  Rationalizing is good too.  But living spontaneously is great too because you never know what you might be doing next.  Life is then full of surprises.  (More positive than negative hopefully.)

 

I would say you were stating things objectively because to say you did so subjectively would be to trample into subjectivist territory. That does not mean your statement is free of error, but it's an objective statement of truth as far as you can know it. That's why, when people say 'in my opinion' or 'that's my view on it' this is a redundancy and is for politeness only. It is of course your opinion because why would you offer someone's else's without explicitly stating it ? .

 

Being rational is good, rationalising is bad. The reason is that is the start of an error, it is a deliberate evasion of reality. Like the butterfly effect it creates new and more numerous irrationalities. These can be horrendously destructive like the two world wars and the atrocities carried out within them. You can rationalise a drink problem only so far as your liver gives out. You can rationalise drinking and driving as a necessity until you crash the car. Best to be as logical as possible and not go evading or rationalising error. A tree is a tree. ;-)

 

You would make an excellent objectivist if you studied the philosophy. You could be the next Howard Roark :-)

 

 

[Marblehead]

I would say you were stating things objectively because to say you did so subjectively would be to trample into subjectivist territory. That does not mean your statement is free of error, but it's an objective statement of truth as far as you can know it. That's why, when people say 'in my opinion' or 'that's my view on it' this is a redundancy and is for politeness only. It is of course your opinion because why would you offer someone's else's without explicitly stating it ? .

Yeah, I think you pinned the tail on the donkey.  I was trying to be modest.

 

Being rational is good, rationalising is bad. The reason is that is the start of an error, it is a deliberate evasion of reality. Like the butterfly effect it creates new and more numerous irrationalities. These can be horrendously destructive like the two world wars and the atrocities carried out within them. You can rationalise a drink problem only so far as your liver gives out. You can rationalise drinking and driving as a necessity until you crash the car. Best to be as logical as possible and not go evading or rationalising error. A tree is a tree. ;-)

Excellent point; one that I didn't even consider in my above post.

 

You would make an excellent objectivist if you studied the philosophy. You could be the next Howard Roark :-)

I'll likely wait and do it during my next life.

[Karl]

'In my next life'

 

I presume you meant it the way I'm reading it. In which case it was very funny.

[Marblehead]

'In my next life' I presume you meant it the way I'm reading it. In which case it was very funny.

You did good.

[Karl]

You did good.

 

For some reason I'm now trying to visualise where you live. I have in mind a Clint Eastwood character in his older years, with a fairly remote, but well kept homestead. Dirt driveway. Picket fence with a nice garden and a long porch. Utility vehicle pickup parked next to the house. Garage full of carefully arranged tools with everything in its place. Ride on lawn mowe maybe. Old trail bike and some weights that don't see much use.

[Marblehead]

For some reason I'm now trying to visualise where you live. I have in mind a Clint Eastwood character in his older years, with a fairly remote, but well kept homestead. Dirt driveway. Picket fence with a nice garden and a long porch. Utility vehicle pickup parked next to the house. Garage full of carefully arranged tools with everything in its place. Ride on lawn mowe maybe. Old trail bike and some weights that don't see much use.

Actually, you did pretty damn good.

 

My place is in a developed area so the drive is concrete.  I do have to get Clinty now and again but not too often.

 

Galvanized hurricane fence, property totally fenced in but I almost never close my gates.

 

The front is gardens (work in progress).  The only lawn is the public access between the sidewalk and the road.

 

Yep, pickup parked on one side of the house.  The electric Honda sits in front of the house.

 

Carport converted into a workshop.  Tool collection includes everything I suspect I will ever need plus a few tools I wish I had when I was younger but couldn't afford to buy back then.  Good possibility I will never use some of them.  Only last week I gave one away as I knew I would never use it again and the person I gave it to could make good use of it.

 

Yeah, most of the time the workshop is well organized.

 

The mower is a lithium-ion battery powered mower.  I bought it when they were first being manufactured and it has served me very well for the little lawn I need to mow.

 

Two bikes in a storage shed.  Haven't ridden either in a while.

 

One of the bedroom converted to an exercise room with, for my needs, a complete set of dead weights.

 

So yes, your visualization was good.

[Karl]

No need for Astral flights for me.

[Geof Nanto]

I see logic as a very useful tool indeed and using it is an art that some people excel at and others lack. For those on a spiritual path logic and reason are essential, but in excess they are obstacles because they block entry into a greater reality that transcends any notion of what we humans can conceptualise.  Also, logic and reason are tools of the intellect and hence work best with cold detachment, whereas my greatest joy comes through feeling the embodied warmth of ineffable experience.

 

Here’s a small extract from Carl Jung’s Red Book where he engages in a long discussion about magic with a wise spirit guide of his, Philemon. He tries to understand what it involves to move beyond reason……

 

Jung: "Now, let us not stray from [the topic of] magic."

Philemon: "Why are you so determined about learning more about magic, if you claim that you have left your reason at home? Or would you not consider consistency part of reason?"

Jung: "I do—I see, or rather, it seems as if you are quite an adept sophist, who skillfully leads me around the house and back to the door."

P: "It seems that way to you because you judge everything from the standpoint of your intellect. If you forsake reason for a while, you will also give up consistency."

J: "That's a difficult test. But if I want to be adept at some point, I suppose I ought to submit to your request. All right, I'm listening."

P: "What do you want to hear?"

J: "You're not going to draw me out. I'm simply waiting for whatever you are going to say."

P: "And what if I say nothing?"

J: "Well, then I'll withdraw somewhat embarrassed and think that Philemon is at the very least a shrewd fox, who definitely would have something to teach me."

P: "With this, my boy, you have learned something about magic."

J: "I'll have to chew on this. I must admit that this is somewhat surprising. I had imagined magic as being somewhat different."

P: "Well, this shows you how little you understand about magic and how incorrect your notion of it is."

J: "If this should be the case, or that's how it is, then I must confess that I approached the problem completely incorrectly. I gather from what you are saying that these matters do not follow ordinary understanding."

P: "Nor does magic."

J: "But you have not deterred me at all; on the contrary, I'm burning to hear even more. What I know up to now is essentially negative."

J: "With this you have recognized a second main point. Above all, you must know that magic is the negative of what one can know."

J: "That, too, my dear Philemon, is a piece of knowledge that is hard to digest and causes me no small pain. The negative of what one can know? I suppose you mean that it cannot be known, don't you? This exhausts my understanding."

P: "That is the third point that you must note as essential: namely, that there is nothing for you to understand."

J: "Well, I must confess that that is new and strange. So nothing at all about magic can be understood?"

P: "Exactly. Magic happens to be precisely everything that eludes comprehension."

J: "But then how the devil is one to teach and learn magic?"

P: "Magic is neither to be taught nor learned. It's foolish that you want to learn magic."

J: "But then magic is nothing but deception."

P: "Watch out—you have started reasoning again."

J: "It's difficult to exist without reason."

P: "And that is exactly how difficult magic is."

J: "Well, in that case it's hard work. I conclude that it is an inescapable condition for the adept that he completely unlearns his reason."

P: "I'm afraid that is what it amounts to."

J: "Ye Gods, this is serious."

P: "Not as serious as you think. Reason declines with old age, since it is an essential counterpart of the drives, which are much more intense in youth than in old age. Have you ever seen young magicians?"

J: "No, the magician is proverbially old."

P: "You see, I'm right."

J: "But then the prospects of the adept are bad. He must wait until old age to experience the mysteries of magic."

P: "If he gives up his reason before then, he can already experience something useful sooner."

J: "That seems to me to be a dangerous experiment. One cannot give up reason without further ado."

P: "Nor can one simply become a magician."

J: "You lay damnable snares."

[Karl]

Jung wasn't very good at reason or logic. He wasn't very good at anything. He is like a Russel Brand character who dines out on notoriety. The more I know about Jung, the more I see he was just an early form of celebrity in an era which was already losing Science and reason.

 

P IS reasoning. He is using to stolen fallacy to attempt to discredit reason. I'm not sure why people struggle to see the basic fallacy.

We only have reason and logic to comprehend anything. Those who do not want to comprehend are essentially casting away their minds. They are throwing away their only means of survival-but of course they never really do that, they just convince themselves they do whilst standing on reason to do it.

 

There is no magic just clever illusions which have yet to be uncovered.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Karl

[dust]

Just a note (not getting directly involved in the Jung conversation, but..)

 

an early form of celebrity in an era which was already losing Science and reason.

 

1. One can be an exceptional talent in any area -- philosophy, literature, dance, painting, cinema, prostitution, etc -- and be a celebrity. I'm not arguing for or against Jung here, only pointing out that whether or not he was good at anything doesn't affect whether or not he was a 'celebrity'. (He obviously was a celebrity, but he might still be talented.)

 

2. Celebrity has existed for centuries. Talented and talentless celebrity alike. What were kings and queens? Frequently talentless! What was Mozart? Talented, for sure. Columbus? Jesus? You can read about all sorts of famous 'courtesans' and actors and faulty but famous academics, etc etc, from throughout human history, not to mention religious and political and military figures, aristocrats and talentless high society heirs and heiresses... People complain a lot about modern celeb culture, but it was just as bad 'back in the day'. Worse, really, because the majority of people wiped their arses with sticks.

 

And are you suggesting that the era "losing Science and reason" is still ongoing? Because I'd argue that we (humanity) are still near the beginning.....

[Karl]

Just a note (not getting directly involved in the Jung conversation, but..)

 

 

 

1. One can be an exceptional talent in any area -- philosophy, literature, dance, painting, cinema, prostitution, etc -- and be a celebrity. I'm not arguing for or against Jung here, only pointing out that whether or not he was good at anything doesn't affect whether or not he was a 'celebrity'. (He obviously was a celebrity, but he might still be talented.)

 

2. Celebrity has existed for centuries. Talented and talentless celebrity alike. What were kings and queens? Frequently talentless! What was Mozart? Talented, for sure. Columbus? Jesus? You can read about all sorts of famous 'courtesans' and actors and faulty but famous academics, etc etc, from throughout human history, not to mention religious and political and military figures, aristocrats and talentless high society heirs and heiresses... People complain a lot about modern celeb culture, but it was just as bad 'back in the day'. Worse, really, because the majority of people wiped their arses with sticks.

 

And are you suggesting that the era "losing Science and reason" is still ongoing? Because I'd argue that we (humanity) are still near the beginning.....

 

'still ongoing' is a big understatement, I think it's well and truly dead for the vast majority. The light of reason for humanity went out a long time ago.

 

As long as reason and logic persisted then celebrity was a mildly interesting topic for discussion. Over centuries, as the enlightenment' was replaced by the dark ages, reason was sacrificed to whim. Once whim is the guide, then people like Jung who were the leading proponents of scientism and quackery were insinuated into the culture without logical defence. Employers choose who they employ on the basis of Jungian pseudo science. It's no more valid than consulting a gypsy with a crystal ball.

 

So, whilst I agree we have always had celebrity, their effect has been largely ameliorated by reason. The times that it wasn't are the times of ignorance, mysticism, torture, slavery, fear and death. No good can come from ignorance.