Logic, the prerequisite of all truth

[oak]

So she goes and kisses a frog, and sees that it's still a frog, despite her father calling her princess. She found a lie.

 

The only way I would say that truth is beyond logic, is because Logic always gives us a description or analysis of reality - "the map is not the place". Aside from that, Logic is the prerequisite of all truth.

 

 

Don't think she found a lie. She's in the process of understanding truth expressed in a non linear form.

 

If logic was the perequisite of all truth there wouldn't be the necessity of symbols and there is such a necessity as we all dreamers know and it's natural. How about paradoxe? Paradoxe is another natural expression of deeper truths (again can be found in dreams), right daoist bro?

[Aetherous]

Don't think she found a lie. She's in the process of understanding truth expressed in a non linear form.

 

If logic was the perequisite of all truth there wouldn't be the necessity of symbols and there is such a necessity as we all dreamers know and it's natural. How about paradoxe? Paradoxe is another natural expression of deeper truths (again can be found in dreams), right daoist bro?

 

If there is actually a truth hidden beneath symbols, dreams, nonlinear expression, paradoxes, etc...then it falls under Logic. It might not be expressed or thought about in a way using Logic, but it can be...and what makes it true is that it passes Logic's requirements, even if no one knows how it does so.

[Taomeow]

If there is actually a truth hidden beneath symbols, dreams, nonlinear expression, paradoxes, etc...then it falls under Logic. It might not be expressed or thought about in a way using Logic, but it can be...and what makes it true is that it passes Logic's requirements, even if no one knows how it does so.

 

What about poetry?

 

I'd like to see logic applied to...  let's say, William Blake's Jerusalem to prove it true or false.  Think you can show me how? 

 

And did those feet in ancient time

Walk upon Englands mountains green:

And was the holy Lamb of God,

On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

 

And did the Countenance Divine,

Shine forth upon our clouded hills?

And was Jerusalem builded here,

Among these dark Satanic Mills?

 

Bring me my Bow of burning gold;

Bring me my Arrows of desire:

Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!

Bring me my Chariot of fire!

 

I will not cease from Mental Fight,

Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:

Till we have built Jerusalem,

In Englands green and pleasant Land 

[Aetherous]

What about poetry?

 

I'd like to see logic applied to...  let's say, William Blake's Jerusalem to prove it true or false.  Think you can show me how? 

 

If there is a truth expressed in poetic language, then it can absolutely be done. I think there's no such thing as proving an entire poem true or false...a poem is just a poem (just like an ocean is just an ocean), unless it tells a truth in some way. In that case, it'd help to plainly state what's true in it.

 

We should go back to the definition of truth: the state of being the case. What's true would be an idea which is the case...which accords with reality. It's possible for any truth which is expressed poetically to be spoken of plainly, if someone could just think of how to do it.

 

I'm not personally the one to say what's true in Blake's poem...I only understand half of it. I'm also not the one to ask serious questions about Logic...I only took a class in undergrad, and am relearning beginning with this video course in this thread. However, I know enough to be confident in saying that any truth is defined as true by certain rules, which also define what's false...those rules are the subject of Logic.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Aetherous

[Taomeow]

What I'm driving at is, truth can be accessed by other means than logic.  And some truths can only be accessed by other means than logic.  

 

Behind Blake's poem there's a cloud of meanings which can't be arrived at any other way but by immersion.  Nonlinear.  There's no consecutive steps to take.  A cloud of meaning, of power, of beauty, of mystery, of danger, of defiance, all at once.  A cloud of strong qi unique to this particular poem, not to be found anywhere else.  One has to get it all or one can't get it at all.  And the outcome of such immersion might be a truth.  Or even a great truth.

 

“There are trivial truths and there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true.” -- Niels Bohr

Edited December 4, 2016 by Taomeow

[Bodhicitta]

Logic is helpful only when dealing with concepts, that is, bringing order to the content of the mind.  A  logically arranged set of concepts is truth, as far as it goes.

 

However there is, admittedly rare, a non-conceptual, non-sensory awareness or knowing.  This conveys truth experientially, whereas logic is just suggestive.

[Taomeow]

Also, logic is useful in online debates.  I used to have a complete list of classical logical fallacies which I meant to ask the mods to pin at TDB and ask the bums to study in order to avoid when arguing with each other.  I misplaced the list, unfortunately -- if someone can fish it out of the web, I would be grateful.

[Aetherous]

 

What I'm driving at is, truth can be accessed by other means than logic.  And some truths can only be accessed by other means than logic.  

 

Behind Blake's poem there's a cloud of meanings which can't be arrived at any other way but by immersion.  Nonlinear.  There's no consecutive steps to take.  A cloud of meaning, of power, of beauty, of mystery, of danger, of defiance, all at once.  A cloud of strong qi unique to this particular poem, not to be found anywhere else.  One has to get it all or one can't get it at all.  And the outcome of such immersion might be a truth.  Or even a great truth.

 

We're using the word truth in different ways. I'm only using it as meaning: "an accurate description of reality", or the dictionary defintion: "the state of being the case".

[Aetherous]

Also, logic is useful in online debates.  I used to have a complete list of classical logical fallacies which I meant to ask the mods to pin at TDB and ask the bums to study in order to avoid when arguing with each other.  I misplaced the list, unfortunately -- if someone can fish it out of the web, I would be grateful.

 

Here's one: http://thisisvideogames.com/gamergatewiki/images/f/f5/Rethorical_and_logical_fallacies_Infographic.png

Don't know if it's accurate or complete.

 

The online course in the original post also has a section on the fallacies. I'll get to it in this thread in probably 6 months.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Aetherous

[Taomeow]

Here's one: http://thisisvideogames.com/gamergatewiki/images/f/f5/Rethorical_and_logical_fallacies_Infographic.png

Don't know if it's accurate or complete.

 

The online course in the original post also has a section on the fallacies. I'll get to it in this thread in probably 6 months.

 

Thank you!  That's complete enough and accurate enough. 

 

I almost want to withdraw my objections and offer logic at least an honored-guest place in the overall quest for truth, since one quick look at this list is enough to realize that people in general, and politicians, preachers, educators, the media, etc.   especially, routinely strip us even of its limited power to establish even trivial truths.  Most arguments one hears today presented by anyone anywhere are just that -- logical fallacies.  Demagogic tool kits everybody has been trained in using, both consciously and (more often) unconsciously.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Taomeow

[Eques Peregrinus]

Logic is a very useful tool, but it has limitations. This is a problem relevant for mathematics, and just as much for theoretical computer science. For both, it has dire implications.

 

In fact, that limitation was more or less understood in the antiquity, with the liar paradox:

 

"That statement is a lie."

 

We notice that such statement can be neither true nor false, because being one or the other leads to its own contradiction.

 

This paradox was more or less forgotten as a philosophical curiosity when mathematics were formalised in the second half of the 19th century, and all mathematical problems were thought to be solvable. It reappeared in the 1930, this time well formalised by Gödel. That discovery put an end to the dogma that a formal system can be both consistent and complete.

 

This has dire consequences in theoretical computer science, as I mentioned, a day-to-day example would be the reason anti-virus are ineffective, and needs to rely on signatures: Because a program can not determine if a program behave in a certain manner. More formally:

 

Suppose there exists a function d(f, i), detecting if a certain behaviour infect() occurs in function f with input i.

 

We define a function g(i), such that:

g(i):

    if (d(g, i) == false)

        infect()

Then d(g, i) lead to a paradox, therefore d(f, i) does not exists.

 

Concerning fallacies, that paper [PDF] is great.

[Everything]

There are infinite things beyond your ability to comprehend.

[Taomeow]

There are infinite things beyond your ability to comprehend.

 

I don't think so.  I think my ability to comprehend is every bit as infinite, it's just that my information is incomplete. 

 

I've never come across a cognitive wall I couldn't penetrate because my cognitive machinery was too weak to penetrate it.  Only Insufficient information, or lack of interest and determination, or sheer boredom, or fear, or not enough time spent on the subject can stop my understanding anything in existence and beyond.  My mind is holographically equal to the universe it is part of.

 

So is yours -- if you trust it. 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Taomeow

[Everything]

I don't think so. I think my ability to comprehend is every bit as infinite, it's just that my information is incomplete.

 

I've never come across a cognitive wall I couldn't penetrate because my cognitive machinery was too weak to penetrate it. Only Insufficient information, or lack of interest and determination, or sheer boredom, or not enough time spent on the subject can stop my understanding anything in existence and beyond. My mind is equal to the universe it is part of.

 

So is yours -- if you trust it.

The truth is that all truths are true.

 

I believe in you, you can do it!

 

Dis gonna be gud

Edited December 6, 2016 by Everything

[Everything]

This is internet logic:

 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Everything

[Astral Monk]

Is logic true or not-true?

 

Logic is not and never has been the basis of truth. Truth is assumed in logic and defined outside it.

 

Logic, as a reflection of an idealized cognitive proces, acts as divider and synthesizer. The state of judgment is a moment of holding two categories juxtaposed--either they will separate or coalesce.

 

Truth is a value. Specifically a value related to language. Only language can be true or false, not the world language represents. Being 'true' means in part being non self-contradictory. But that only applies to the idea; when we seek further we want to know the fact of the matter, not a trick about its formal structure when represented linguistically.

 

The search for 'fact' is NOT an enquiry of logic.

 

8)

[Everything]

Is logic true or not-true?

 

Logic is not and never has been the basis of truth. Truth is assumed in logic and defined outside it.

 

Logic, as a reflection of an idealized cognitive proces, acts as divider and synthesizer. The state of judgment is a moment of holding two categories juxtaposed--either they will separate or coalesce.

 

Truth is a value. Specifically a value related to language. Only language can be true or false, not the world language represents. Being 'true' means in part being non self-contradictory. But that only applies to the idea; when we seek further we want to know the fact of the matter, not a trick about its formal structure when represented linguistically.

 

The search for 'fact' is NOT an enquiry of logic.

 

8)

The rose is red, but if I keep looking at it, it becomes brown. What is truth?

Edited December 6, 2016 by Everything

[Astral Monk]

The rose is red, but if I keep looking at it, it becomes brown. What is truth?

 

The rose is. But if I keep looking at it, it ceases to be a rose. In fact, there is nothing there whatsoever that is 'rose'. It is everything BUT rose. The rose isnt.

 

8)

[Astral Monk]

What is truth?

 

Truth is a value that judges the fitness of a concept within the structure of the language and domain of discourse in exists in.

 

For a concept to be 'true' is must at least be wholly consistent with that structure and coherent within that domain.

 

Further, its contradiction cannot be simultaneously accepted in the domain.

 

The function of cognition is to divide the world into units for linear processing (in time). When we encounter a situation where a concept (or statement or whatever) and its contradiction (opposite) are both accepted in the domain, it means cognition hasnt finished; that is, there is no judgment being made, but merely a holding of opposites in juxtaposition, a suspension of valuation. Hence, it reveals a state of uncertainty which directly reflects on the process (or lack thereof) of cognition. It doesnt mean that reality is weird and contains contradictions.

 

If you want 'truth', a feature of language, to somehow take you to reality, the suchness of being, well, good luck. It wont.

 

Moreover, such a connection is not found through logic whatsoever. Logic only operates on content, on a specific domain of discourse and a specific language. Because cognition is necessarily the imposition of a dualism (of awareness), logic, as the formalization of that process, reflects duality. But reality in itself is non-dual, and hence to 'see' such reality one must abandon logic entirely, just as one abandons cognition.

 

Its a post-truth world out there.

 

8)

[Aetherous]

I can't agree...but am really not interested personally in further discussions about truth (although, have at it). I probably should have started the topic in a less opinionated way.

I'll get on with having weekly notes on here soon, so we can get to some actual discussion of Logic.

[MooNiNite]

"The truth is that all truths are true."

nice.

 

we make our reality. 

[Astral Monk]

I can't agree...but am really not interested personally in further discussions about truth (although, have at it).

What do u disagree with, the post truth world? I thin they said it on Fox news so u know that right.

 

Meanwhile...yeah I dont see how you can not be interested in discussing truth when your thread suggest logic is the prerequisite of it. We need to know what truth is if we have any hope of discoving whether that claim is valid.

 

Unfortunately, again, logic doesnt investigate truth nor define it. At best it preserves it, where possible. And if logic is looking to preserve truth then obviously truth is not determined by logic because logic merely plays with it.

 

Hence logic cannot be a prerequisite of truth--this implies a necessary connection. Partner in truth maybe, a contingent corollary.

 

8)

Edited December 7, 2016 by Astral Monk

[Brian]

i think this thread would have taken a completely different path if the title had been something like "Free Online Logic Course from Kahn Academy"

[gatito]

And that really is one of the main problem here (i.e. "disciples" reinterpreting what they believe that Masters - and "Masters" - are teaching).

[Aetherous]

i think this thread would have taken a completely different path if the title had been something like "Free Online Logic Course from Kahn Academy"

 

I was really going for that.