I can tell people what they're going to say before they say it, and then tell them that I can read minds. It really mind fucks them. — Wosret
I think you're being purposely obtuse, but I'll ask it a different way.I don't understand the question, Harry. Could you explain it to me? — Mongrel
I think you're being purposely obtuse, but I'll ask it a different way. — Harry Hindu
What form does your logic take in order for you to know that you are being logical - for you to be able to observe your own mental processes as being logical? — Harry Hindu
A "logical principle" is an idea. There are no logical principles outside of our heads. There are processes that are lawful in that they are consistent and causal and it is our minds that categorize these processes under "logical principles". I find that humans are often not logical. They have trouble integrating their beliefs from different domains of knowledge into a consistent whole. Remember what I said about our brains being modular?You asked me what form "logic takes." Earnestly, that question was meaningless to me. Weren't you really asking what form my experience takes when I note that I'm being logical?
Surely you aren't proposing that a logical principle is identical to any one experience of its application. One can only accept that at the cost of defying logic. — Mongrel
Notice how you described a logical process visually. Thanks.What form does your logic take in order for you to know that you are being logical - for you to be able to observe your own mental processes as being logical? — Harry Hindu
I would describe it as processional like a parade or constructive like a building project. Being logical has the character of walking one step after another. Or it's like mortaring bricks where each one is sturdily stacked on the last (which is why I would describe a really solid logical argument as a brick house.) — Mongrel
Thanks. — Harry Hindu
What is it that thinks along certain lines? Which comes first, the mind/brain, or the ability to think along certain lines? — Harry Hindu
Jim refers to his experiences of the sun rising hundreds of times as the justification of his belief. Sue cannot refer to any experience, but simply "knows" that the sun will rise without knowing where the knowledge comes from - similar to "knowing" how to breath.Jim has a tabula rasa and Sue has innate ideas. They both believe the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. As we all know, Jim has a philosophical problem justifying his belief. Sue, equipped with innateness, doesn't suffer from this. Is this a bonus for nativism? I say no. All we've done is move the problem of justification upstream. — Mongrel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.