Logic is the automatic byproduct of existence itself. — tom111

The Law of Identity is one of the three traditional laws of thought. By the Law of Identity, a being is identical to itself.

I tend to agree that our thoughts can never be independent of the world, as we are an intrinsic part of the world.

However, the issue of time may complicate matters.

The Law of Identity states that Being A is Being A, where Being A is identical to Being A.

But the Law of Identity is always about one moment in time, and at this moment in time, Being A does not change from being Being A.

But what is "one moment in time"? "One moment in time" is defined as a moment in time when there is no change.

Note: a Being may or may not change with time, but the Law of Identity is not referring to identity through time but rather is referring to identity at one particular moment in time.

Therefore, the Law of Identity is a tautology that is dependent upon a definition. IE, the Law of Identity states that at one moment in time Being A does not change into Being B, where a moment in time is defined as a moment where a Being does not change. As a tautology dependent upon a definition, it cannot tell us about the reality or the logic of the world.

In fact, there could be a Law of Identity that at one moment in time being A is not being A, where one moment in time is defined as a moment in time when there is change.

In practice, we don't define "one moment of time" as a moment in time when there is change, but there is no logical reason why we couldn't. The Law of Identity is about logic, not about the choices we make.

The Law of Identity, that at one moment in time a being is identical to itself is dependent upon the definition of "one moment in time". It is therefore a tautology dependent upon a definition and therefore cannot tell us about the reality or the logic of the world.

Eriugena has the distinction of nothing through privation and nothing on account of excellence. But then latter would in some sense be the fullness or all possibility, total actuality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Just so.

Going back to the quote from James, humans are just as instinctual as other animals and sentient animals learn from experience just as much as humans. Animals also adapt their behavior in real-time in dynamic environments. That is the whole point of the quote. — T Clark

All you need to do is make some basic observations of animal behavior to realize that this is not true. To say that other animals are "just as" humans simply does not fit our observations. Humans are obviously capable of much more complex behaviors than other animals.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that humans are the only logical organisms. A brain is a logical organ. It receives inputs and processes them to produce meaningful behaviors. Instincts are logical processes. Natural selection is a logical process. By "logical", I mean that it is causal and deterministic - similar causes lead to similar effects. Similar inputs can lead to similar behaviors. The issue is that any logical process is limited by the type of input it receives and the type of process that handles the input. There are different logical process meant to handle specific input. If you try to enter the wrong input into a logical system that was not designed to handle that input, you will get logical errors. Junk goes in, junk comes out.

A moth that flies around your porch light is mistaking the porch light for the Moon. It is only behaving illogically from our perspective because we can distinguish the difference between a porch light and the Moon. The moth, however, is doing what it was designed to with the information it was designed to perceive. It does not adapt it's behavior in real-time. It flies around the porch light until it dies of exhaustion.

Animals; and plants, fungi, bacteria and all other living organisms for that matter; shape the landscape. Beavers build dams that create lakes that provide habitat for fish that provide food for eagles. Grasses prevent erosion and create prairies. They are are also explorers of nature and have migrated to every continent. — T Clark

Has any of these organism made it into space using their own (brain) power? If what you say is true, we wouldn't be able to distinguish between humans and other species. There is an obvious exponential difference in scope.

It is therefore a tautology dependent upon a definition and therefore cannot tell us about the reality or the logic of the world. — RussellA

I think the Law of Identity, which is a tautology, is useful in analyses: "The person the photo refers to is identical to the person who wrote that letter." This example discusses two reference arrows; the one is a photo and the other is a letter. Both arrows point at the same object, in this case a certain person. This is good to know. I.e. a tautology is not neccessarily useless. It's an operational tool for analyses.

This also speaks to our curiosity. We always want to know what is over the horizon. We are natural explorers. It is in our nature to see the world more openly - to seek out new worlds and new civilizations - to boldly go where no man has gone before, because you never know what part of reality might be useful for something

Or simply because "men by nature desire to know," or because they desire the glory of achieving the difficult. — Count Timothy von Icarus

"By nature" meaning that they were naturally selected to be curious because being curious allows one to be open to new solutions to existing problems.

Sure, but the fact that some particular process led to man's desire for truth as such doesn't preclude the fact that man can now desire truth for its own sake. That is, man can seek truth for the sake of truth and not for the sake of evolutionary advantage.

Your precis on causality is well taken, but I don't think it is very relevant to the present discussion. Causation was not thought to be a law of logic, even in Hume's time. Aristotle, whose doctrines on both these subjects were predominant in Western philosophy, certainly didn't present it in that way. While Hume's analysis sharpened and clarified the distinction, he wasn't breaking any new ground with this observation. It was rather his austere empiricist take on causality that distinguished his view, but that is about more than simply noting that there is no logical contradiction in denying any particular instance of causation.

Sure, but the fact that some particular process led to man's desire for truth as such doesn't preclude the fact that man can now desire truth for its own sake. That is, man can seek truth for the sake of truth and not for the sake of evolutionary advantage. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I doubt we seek truth for the sake of seeking truth. We seek truth to acquire some kind of advantage (knowledge) about how to improve our lives to some degree. But that doesn't mean we don't acquire knowledge that does not have a direct effect on our survival. We do.

Like I said, survival is the best incentive to get your perceptions about the world right, and that may require that we pick up things that don't have a direct impact on our survival. Understanding that there are other planets that we can colonize to improve the chances of humanity avoiding extinction is one thing, but understanding how to do it another thing. You'll need to know about all the physics that goes into designing a rocket ship to accomplish it, which is in itself not knowledge that has a direct impact on our survival.

Causation was not thought to be a law of logic, even in Hume's time. Aristotle, whose doctrines on both these subjects were predominant in Western philosophy, certainly didn't present it in that way. While Hume's analysis sharpened and clarified the distinction, he wasn't breaking any new ground with this observation. It was rather his austere empiricist take on causality that distinguished his view, but that is about more than simply noting that there is no logical contradiction in denying any particular instance of causation. — SophistiCat

Can you perform logic without causation or without determinism being the case? What is logic? What does it mean for a conclusion to "logically follow" from the premises? Is reasoning a causal process?

I think the Law of Identity, which is a tautology, is useful in analyses: "The person the photo refers to is identical to the person who wrote that letter." — Quk

Suppose Dimitri was photographed in May and wrote the letter in June. In what way is Dimitri in May identical to Dimitri in June? There are many ways in which Dimitri could have changed. He could have learnt how to cook moussaka, been on a diet and lost weight or lost a parent and emotionally suffered.

Is anyone the identical person that they used to be?

Absolutely. Every brain owner is curious. Humans are not the only brain owners. Curiosity is the motor of brain development. No curiosity, no brain. — Quk

Yes.

Intellect in the older faculty psychology refers specifically to the understanding of universals, of form. It's not the same thing as memory or what gets called the estimate/cogitative power that allows for problem solving and inductive pattern recognition. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You're right. I used the wrong word. I should have said "intelligence" instead of "intellect," although you might not like that any better. In a book I like very much, "Feeling & Knowing," Antonio Damasio discusses how intelligence and knowledge manifest in organisms up and down the phyletic scale. He uses language that is different from what we are using here and I can't think of an easy way to make his points simply and briefly, so I'm going to leave it at that for now.

All you need to do is make some basic observations of animal behavior to realize that this is not true. To say that other animals are "just as" humans simply does not fit our observations. Humans are obviously capable of much more complex behaviors than other animals. — Harry Hindu

I guess I confused things when I wrote "just as much." I didn't mean sentient animal's minds and behaviors are as complex as human's. I meant their minds, their intelligence, are just as big a part of their nature. Animals are capable of using their minds to make images, remember, communicate, create abstractions, and solve problems, obviously, some more than others.

Has any of these organism made it into space using their own (brain) power? — Harry Hindu

You, or rather Jacob Brownoski, wrote "he is not a figure in the landscape—he is a shaper of the landscape." I responded that animals shape the landscape too, some with their brains some not. What does that have to do with going to the moon?

Suppose Dimitri was photographed in May and wrote the letter in June. In what way is Dimitri in May identical to Dimitri in June? There are many ways in which Dimitri could have changed. He could have learnt how to cook moussaka, been on a diet and lost weight or lost a parent and emotionally suffered.

Is anyone the identical person that they used to be? — RussellA

It depends on the definition of that identified object.

For example, the identified person is the one which is named Dimitri and which was born in Athens in 1855 and died in 1911, and whose parents were Athena and Ioannis Papadopoulos. Dimitri is unique. There has been no second person with these attributes.

Has any of these organism made it into space using their own (brain) power? — Harry Hindu

Has any of these humans made it into the sky using their own wings?

Your anthropocentrism is using the method of cherry picking. And your conclusions are naturalistic fallacies.

Thoughts? — tom111

Good post.

I would add that logic is ineluctable, to a certain extent. If someone tries to be altogether illogical they will fail. Their unconscious mind is logical, and often moreso than their conscious mind. This is part of why emotions and intuitions posses an intrinsic logic, and can be unraveled.

For this to work, things must exist as distinct entities. — tom111

Is this right? Or is it sufficient that we be able to treat things as distinct entities?

Couldn't this be mistaking method for ontology? Mistaking what we do for how things are?

So again, I'm far form convinced that you are not presuming your conclusion.

Can you perform logic without causation or without determinism being the case? — Harry Hindu

There are many things without which you cannot perform logic - breathable atmosphere, for example. What's the point of this and the rest of your questions?

Again, there doesn't seem to be a clear direction of inquiry here - just random things being thrown out.

I think the Law of Identity, which is a tautology, is useful in analyses: "The person the photo refers to is identical to the person who wrote that letter."...For example, the identified person is the one which is named Dimitri and which was born in Athens in 1855 and died in 1911, and whose parents were Athena and Ioannis Papadopoulos. Dimitri is unique. There has been no second person with these attributes. — Quk

The Law of Identity states that a thing is identical with itself.

Yes, the name Dimitri Papadopoulos, born in Athens in 1855, points to a particular unique person. Assume that Dimitri in 1855 had a height of 50cm and weight of 3.3kg and in 1911 had a height of 180cm and weight 70kg.

In what way is something having a height of 50cm and weight of 3.3kg identical to something having a height of 180cm and weight of 70kg?

Does the Law of Identity apply in this situation?

Does the Law of Identity apply in this situation? — RussellA

If you compare the magnitude of two weights, the reference will be just that magnitude and no other attributes.

Now it depends on whether or not you allow a magnitude to be a "thing". If you do, we can test this:

Compare the weight of this table with the weight of this Dimitri. If the scale is balanced, their magnitudes are identical. 99 is identical to 99.

If we define Dimitri solely by his weight during the years and nanoseconds, Dimitri is changing his identity from one Planck time to the next.

However, If we define him by constants, his identity will remain constant.

That's my view. What do you think?

However, If we define him by constants, his identity will remain constant. — Quk

The Law of Identity is about identity in logic and is not relevant to personal identity.

Dimitri's weight, which changes through his life, certainly doesn't define his identity. Even his personal identity may change throughout his life.

The only constant thing through his life, his identity, will probably be the label "Dimitri".

Logic isn't a set of rules we invented to think clearly. It's not even something minds discover about reality. Logic is the automatic byproduct of existence itself. — tom111

If the OP is correct, in that logic is the automatic by-product of existence itself, then Kant's project in his Critique of Pure Reason has failed.

The Law of Identity states that each thing is identical to itself.

Kant in the CPR argues that we can never know anything about the thing-in-itself.

But if we know that the thing-in-itself follows the Law of Identity, and that the thing-in-itself is identical to itself, then we do know something about the thing-in-itself. IE, it is identical to itself.

The question is, where do things such as chairs exist. Do they exist in the mind as a concept in thought and language, or do they exist in a world independent of any observer?

If things only exist in the mind as a concept in thought and language, then the Law of Identity also only exists in the mind as a concept in thought and language.

In this context I understand "personal identity" as the identity by the person's biography which consists of much more than just the label "Dimitri". His biography from birth to the present time will not change; it will just grow into the future. Dimitri's true history is unique; it refers to just this person. If you understand "identity" as the forename in the passport, then yes, the name can change. But then every Joe would be the same person; all Joes would be identical with each other. What is this reduction-to-name useful for? It can't be used for passport systems nor for philosophical explanations. I think it's more important to see that the history of Joe Miller is not identical to the history of Joe Smith. By the history you can see if it's that Joe which needs a new chair and not the other Joe which needs a new table. They are not identical. I think the reason for this lies in the difference between their histories. The names are just labels. "Joe," "chair", "table" are universal labels. A history is hardly universal.

A history is hardly universal. — Quk

There is the concept of "chair" in the mind in thought and language and particular instantiations of it in the world, such as "this chair". Similarly, there is concept of "Dimitri" in the mind in thought and language and a particular instantiation of it in the world, having, as you say, a unique history.

You mean the etymology of the word "Dimitri"?

You mean the etymology of the word "Dimitri"? — Quk

No, more as you said "His biography from birth to the present time"

I guess I confused things when I wrote "just as much." I didn't mean sentient animal's minds and behaviors are as complex as human's. I meant their minds, their intelligence, are just as big a part of their nature. Animals are capable of using their minds to make images, remember, communicate, create abstractions, and solve problems, obviously, some more than others. — T Clark

Then we agree that animals think and behave logically given the way they are designed and the sensory information they receive as inputs, just as I explained with my example with the moth.

Has any of these organism made it into space using their own (brain) power?
— Harry Hindu

You, or rather Jacob Brownoski, wrote "he is not a figure in the landscape—he is a shaper of the landscape." I responded that animals shape the landscape too, some with their brains some not. What does that have to do with going to the moon? — T Clark

Again we are talking about degrees of complexity where humans are exponentially more complex in the way they perceive and behave in the world than the other animals. They all use their brains to shape the landscape. Name an animal that can shape the landscape without a brain, or that when shaping the landscape they are not using their senses and brain. For what reason are they shaping the landscape? How do they know when to stop shaping the landscape?

Has any of these organism made it into space using their own (brain) power?
— Harry Hindu

Has any of these humans made it into the sky using their own wings?

Your anthropocentrism is using the method of cherry picking. And your conclusions are naturalistic fallacies. — Quk

Your response does not address what I said. Read what I said and respond appropriately.

Humans have made their own wings. Has any other animals designed complex machinery that adds functionality to the human body? Have other organisms designed other body parts to replace failing ones using their brains? Sure lizards can regrow tails, but that is a biological function, not a logical one. I did say that the brain is the logical organ. Your legs, hands and mouth are not logical organs. They are driven by your logical organ.

I'm not saying that humans are special. I'm saying that they are different in respect to their brains and how they use them. This is not an anthropocentric stance. It is merely an observation.

Humans are the only ones at this moment that stand a chance of saving themselves from extinction from dangers that the other animals aren't even aware of - asteroid impacts, black holes, the sun expanding and consuming the Earth, human activity destroying the environment, etc.

Can you perform logic without causation or without determinism being the case?
— Harry Hindu

There are many things without which you cannot perform logic - breathable atmosphere, for example. What's the point of this and the rest of your questions?

Again, there doesn't seem to be a clear direction of inquiry here - just random things being thrown out. — SophistiCat

You're trying to finish the race before starting it. Most people on this forum, once they realize the direction of inquiry, start to dance around the issue. Does a newborn baby have a direction of inquiry when trying to understand and make sense of what its senses are telling it? Don't worry about the direction of inquiry right now and just answer the questions as posed. If there is a problem with the question or you need some definitions for the words in the question, just say so.

Your answer to my quoted question seems to imply that a breathable atmosphere is required to to perform logic. While that wasn't my question it does show that determinism and causation are required - that there are certain circumstances that have to exist prior to other circumstances existing.

My question was more about the logical process itself, not what preceded its existence.

Reasoning takes time. It is a process. As such it is causal.

You provide a reason for your conclusions. Your reasons determine your conclusion. Your premises determine the validity of the conclusion. As such it is deterministic.

Is this right? Or is it sufficient that we be able to treat things as distinct entities?

Couldn't this be mistaking method for ontology? Mistaking what we do for how things are?

So again, I'm far form convinced that you are not presuming your conclusion. — Banno

It depends on the goal. Sometimes it is useful to treat things as distinct entities. Sometimes it isn't.

If treating entities one way or the other produces useful results in that you are able to realize your goal, then there must be some semblance of truth to the way we are treating it. Can there be distinct entities that form relations between other distinct entities? Yes. You just have to ensure you're not conflating the relation with the distinct entity when you're trying to solve a problem or achieve some goal.

Having goals is the reason we categorize and organize reality into labeled boxes, and we can store boxes within larger boxes. Each box is a tool for solving a problem.