What I would really like to do is explore the possibility space on the matter of thought connections. Is it that only logical connections between ideas reveal truth/sense/reality? — Agent Smith

It depends on the ideas and logic used. Ideas and logic seem to couple themselves naturally, like Earth has coupled naturally with Sun. Ideas are not randomly appearing. They arise in the context of familiar ideas or locations, and I think any attempt to project the straight jacket of logic conformally to ideas and their connections is a constraining Bonzai excercise, probably ending in a last desparate Kamikaze effort to escape the bondage.

Ideas are not randomly appearing. — AgentTangarine

And...

This is, I'm certain, too obvious to state but for the sake of clarity, thoughts have, for good reasons no doubt, been 99% of the time, viewed with a rational/logical lens; humanity has, for most of its history, been (pre)occupied with the logical link between thoughts (ideas/concepts/theories). — Agent Smith

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, but I am sure enough to be able to say you're wrong.

Here are two thoughts:

The NE Patriots will win the Superbowl this season.
The Earth revolves around the sun.

What logical connection do these thoughts have? What kind of connection of any kind do they have other than the fact that I have thought both of them? They are both expressed in English.

It's hard to tell the difference between there's nothing and there's something but I can't see it.

Anyway, as I said in my OP, it's an uphill task to think in ways different from the ones we're habituated to. Logical connections between ideas have been the norm for thousands of years. We need to think outside the box as it were, not a walk in the park for sure.

Incoherent writing/speech (violations of the law of noncontradiction for example or no logical continuity between something said/written and what precedes it) may possess a nonlogical pattern. What say you?

Logical connections between ideas have been the norm for thousands of years. We need to think outside the box as it were, not a walk in the park for sure. — Agent Smith

I don't think our thoughts are connected logically. I'm not sure they are necessarily connected at all. Certainly some are not.

I don't think our thoughts are connected logically. I'm not sure they are necessarily connected at all. Certainly some are not. — T Clark

We're on the same wavelength.

What I would really like to do is explore the possibility space on the matter of thought connections. Is it that only logical connections between ideas reveal truth/sense/reality? — Agent Smith

Literature? Poetry? Music? Religion? These also have their own logics, realities and truths though, no?

What logical connection do these thoughts have? What kind of connection of any kind do they have other than the fact that I have thought both of them? — T Clark

The Super Bowl season might depend on whether the Earth is still revolving around the Sun. Though we could conceive of a Super Bowl season in which the Sun is revolving around the Earth from our frame of reference.

It'd be weird to say facts in and of themselves have no "logical" connections to any other facts. That they are facts at must entail a vast array of logical connections, right?

If we didn't understand many of the logical consequences/implications from the statement of a fact, would we understand the fact?

It'd be weird to say facts in and of themselves have no "logical" connections to any other facts. That they are facts at must entail a vast array of logical connections, right? — Nils Loc

Thoughts are not facts. And, no. Although it is not the subject of this thread, facts are not connected logically either.

Literature? Poetry? Music? Religion? These also have their own logics, realities and truths though, no? — Janus

Empty/nonsense books/poetry/music? Can you cite some examples?

Yes, own logic: It appears that we can't break our habit of thinking in terms of logic (that's how deeply embedded it is in our psyche) and that's why we have paraconsistent "logic", dialetheistic "logic", and so on. Are these really logic or is "logic" an empty word in these cases? It's kinda like saying atheism is just another kind of theism.

Yes, own logic: It appears that we can't break our habit of thinking in terms of logic (that's how deeply embedded it is in our psyche) and that's why we have paraconsistent "logic", dialetheistic "logic", and so on. Are these really logic or is "logic" an empty word in these cases? It's kinda like saying atheism is just another kind of theism. — Agent Smith

Yes, there are different kinds of logic. I see the idea of logic as being the idea of the connectivity and coherence of thought. If thoughts were disconnected (if there was no underlying logic of their associations and relations) we would have nothing. So there is formal, rule-based logic, but I would say there are also logics of metaphor, of painting, of poetry, of music, of athletics, of dance, of metaphysics, phenomenology and so on.

Also, we have deductive, inductive and abductive logic. Logic, logic everywhere...when you stop to think...: :wink:

3. Emotional connections (Off the top of my head). — Agent Smith

Yes. We like to think that our thought processes are rigidly rational, but as Hume noted, more often than not, our reasoning is in service of our "passions". Typically, the link between a fact and its meaning is it's emotional significance. That's because memories are more likely to be stored in the brain when synapses are "influenced" by emotions. Events that arouse no emotions are quickly forgotten. Apparently, the neurotransmitters and hormones react to potential positive or negative effects on Me. Opportunities for sex or harm, are more likely to make an impression on memory, and subsequent thoughts, than irrelevant abstractions. So, my answer is no --- it is not only logical connections between ideas that reveal truth/sense/reality. Any more questions? :smile:

This review describes the evidence of modulation of memory and synaptic plasticity produced by emotional arousal, stress hormones, and . . .
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5652299/

Events that arouse no emotions are quickly forgotten — Gnomon

Interesting but what about memory impairment associated with depression and trauma. These have been documented or so I'm told. Funnily, this doesn't seem to happen with emotions at the other extreme (euphoria, ecstacy) or does it?

It gets a little confusing though. Psychoanalysts like Freud were known to have studied so-called repressed memories of childhood trauma.

However, it makes more sense to remember bad experiences if only so that we can learn valuable life-lessons from them.

There's a paradox in there somewhere.

The issue seems more complex than it seems at first glance.

So, my answer is no --- it is not only logical connections between ideas that reveal truth/sense/reality. Any more questions? :smile: — Gnomon

So, we've arrived at an apophatic understanding - thoughts are not necessarily about logical connections! Now what?

stop to think — Janus

Recommended activity for eudaimonia! :up:

Thoughts are not facts. And, no. Although it is not the subject of this thread, facts are not connected logically either. — T Clark

If I may ask, how are thoughts connected to each other? Same question for ideas as expressed in propositions, theories, beliefs, and so on.

If I may ask, how are thoughts connected to each other? Same question for ideas as expressed in propositions, theories, beliefs, and so on. — Agent Smith

I'll speak, tentatively, for knowledge, thoughts, feelings, memories, fantasies, imagery, and other mental ... what's the right word? Experiences? Phenomena? I won't speak for facts, propositions, theories, etc. My way of seeing these things is based on introspection and it is idiosyncratic. I've laid it out on the forum before. I don't propose it as the truth. It's just a way of thinking that I find helpful and that fits my own experience of those phenomena and how they relate.

When I think about this, I can see an image in my mind. It's a cloud lit from within. Like a cloud, it is amorphous and it's elements are not well defined. I can think of this several ways. Sometimes, as someone with an interest in eastern philosophies, I think of this as the Tao as discussed in the "Tao Te Ching." Sometimes I think of it as a model of the world I carry around with me that allows me to see, feel, how new knowledge fits in with my current understanding. It includes things I learned in school, sure, but also many more things I never learned explicitly. Things I just accumulated based on experience from the time I was born. Nobody ever taught me that if I let something go it will fall to the ground. I knew it before I had words and long before I'd ever heard of gravity.

Sometimes my inner engineer pops out and I think of the cloud as a truss, a structure made up of connected elements. Any change in one element telegraphs through the whole structure resisting the change. Unless the new element is consistent with what I have experienced, it will have a hard time fitting in. Here's an example of a truss:



So, back to the question of what connects the different elements. First - I'm sure there's probably more than one cognitive science way of seeing this such as, speculatively, the location where the element is stored in the brain or when the memory was created. Maybe there is some sort of tag that allows connection of thoughts, memories, etc. with similarities. Someone help me out here.

Personally, when I create a new thought, idea, memory, I experience it as tagged with a mental image. Letters I sometimes experience as colored. I usually see "L" as white or beige. "D" as a light yellow. Since those colors are similar, when I can't think of someone's name, I may come up with Dan when his name is Larry. Other tags might be a feeling, mood, tone. Of course, there are billions, trillions, quadrillions of connections between neurons in the nervous system, so things are immensely more complicated than this.

Without going any further, I don't experience ideas as connected logically. Maybe someone with more of a cognitive science or cognitive philosophy background can help here.

I'll speak, tentatively, for knowledge, thoughts, feelings, memories, fantasies, imagery, and other mental ... what's the right word? Experiences? Phenomena? I won't speak for facts, propositions, theories, etc. My way of seeing these things is based on introspection and it is idiosyncratic. I've laid it out on the forum before. I don't propose it as the truth. It's just a way of thinking that I find helpful and that fits my own experience of those phenomena and how they relate. — T Clark

Wow! You have your very own personal system! Go T Clark, go!

When I think about this, I can see an image in my mind. It's a cloud lit from within. Like a cloud, it is amorphous and it's elements are not well defined. I can think of this several ways. Sometimes, as someone with an interest in eastern philosophies, I think of this as the Tao as discussed in the "Tao Te Ching." Sometimes I think of it as a model of the world I carry around with me that allows me to see, feel, how new knowledge fits in with my current understanding. It includes things I learned in school, sure, but also many more things I never learned explicitly. Things I just accumulated based on experience from the time I was born. Nobody ever taught me that if I let something go it will fall to the ground. I knew it before I had words and long before I'd ever heard of gravity. — T Clark

You seem to be on top of things. :up:

Since you mentioned Taoism & gravity, I read a book The Tao of Physics. There was something in it about how a teacher shouldn't teach about gravity unless the student asks the question "why do things fall?"

Taoism, if I'm correct, is paradox-oriented; Not at all sure if they're true paradoxes but the general idea seems to be nonsense makes sense or there's no such thing as irrationality, every fool or looney needs the right context to be seen as wise or sane respectively.

Letters I sometimes experience as colored. — T Clark

Synesthete, lucky you. My only claim to uniqueness is I'm unlucky, bad luck follows me everywhere.

I don't experience ideas as connected logically. — T Clark

That must be the Taoist in you. How does that fit into your professsion as an engineer where you'd be constrained by logic. Should I walk on a bridge you built?

I don't experience ideas as connected logically.
— T Clark

That must be the Taoist in you. — Agent Smith

Everything I wrote is based on my personal experience of thinking from the inside. That's what it feels like to me. I'd like to hear what a cognitive scientist has to say. I'm skeptical that the incredibly complex process of thinking is mediated by logical connections between thoughts.

Everything I wrote is based on my personal experience of thinking from the inside. That's what it feels like to me. I'd like to hear what a cognitive scientist has to say. I'm skeptical that the incredibly complex process of thinking is mediated by logical connections between thoughts. — T Clark

As @Janus said, it's all logic which I interpret to mean that just like chaos is order undeciphered, illogic is logic undeciphered. How does that make you feel?

Logic, it seems, has morphed. meaning-wise: It was once a specific way of thinking (contradiction intolerant systems like categorical, sentential, predicate logics) but now it's just a specific way thinking (contradiction tolerant systems; vide paraconsistent logic, dialetheism, logical nihilism). Illogical is now meaningless.

Taoism, if I'm correct, is paradox-oriented; Not at all sure if they're true paradoxes but the general idea seems to be nonsense makes sense or there's no such thing as irrationality, every fool or looney needs the right context to be seen as wise or sane respectively. — Agent Smith

It's a long story, but no.

That must be the Taoist in you. How does that fit into your professsion as an engineer where you'd be constrained by logic. Should I walk on a bridge you built? — Agent Smith

What makes you think that engineers are "constrained" by logic? I've always thought that Taoism is the philosophical system most consistent with science. Anyway, I never designed bridges, so you're safe.

As Janus said, it's all logic which I interpret to mean that just like chaos is order undeciphered, illogic is logic undeciphered. — Agent Smith

I don't know what that means. @Janus wrote

If thoughts were disconnected (if there was no underlying logic of their associations and relations) we would have nothing. So there is formal, rule-based logic, — Janus

I don't think that is true. Again, I'd like t hear from someone who knows more than I do.

Logic, it seems, has morphed. meaning-wise: It was once a specific way of thinking (contradiction intolerant systems like categorical, sentential, predicate logics) but now it's just a specific way thinking (contradiction tolerant systems; vide paraconsistent logic, dialetheism, logical nihilism). — Agent Smith

I not sure what you mean here either. Seems like you're saying that there is something that connects thoughts, we'll just call it "logic" even though it isn't what we normally think of as logic. Kind of a circular argument.

Headed for bed.

Headed for bed. — T Clark

Good night. I'll reply to your earlier post (if I feel up to it).

It's a long story, but no. — T Clark

I don't want to know what it is not, I want to know what it is. — From Jurassic Park

What makes you think that engineers are "constrained" by logic? — T Clark

It's a mathematical science, isn't it? I wonder, seeing that math seems limited (no contradictions allowed) and not limited (quantum weirdness) by classical logic, if there's something paradoxical about the math-logic relationship.

Seems like you're saying that there is something that connects thoughts, we'll just call it "logic" even though it isn't what we normally think of as logic. Kind of a circular argument. — T Clark

Not circular argument, ad hoc hypothesis is more apposite. Any way of thinking is given the name logic.

I don't know what that means. Janus wrote

"

If thoughts were disconnected (if there was no underlying logic of their associations and relations) we would have nothing. So there is formal, rule-based logic, — Janus — T Clark

I meant that ideas find their meaning in contexts, in their relations and associations with other ideas. It's not all formal, rule based logic, but poetry. for example has its own logic; if it didn't it would be unintelligible, a string of disconnected random ideas. with no overall context or associative "glue" to bind them together.

if it didn't it would be unintelligible — Janus

:up: Could it be that it's intelligible, yes, but not in a logical way?

How about keeping logical connections intact as you seem to prefer but consider it foundational, the ultimate/final/true link between thoughts and overlay on that other kinds of connections, one being emotional. I simply rearranged the system so as to give some semblance of independence or distinctness to nonlogical supralogical relations. Successful? I dunno!

disconnected random ideas — Janus

Interesting! Random thoughts for the conscious mind but may not be so for the subconscious. What does our subconscious/unconscious have to say about logic?

The underlying assumption: The universe (is supposed to) make(s) sense, logically. Is there a deductive argument to support this?

How many ways can you slice a pizza?

1. With 1 cut, you get 2 slices

2. With 2 cuts, you get 4 slices

3. With 3 cuts, you get 7 slices

4. With 4 cuts, you get 11 slices

5. With 5 cuts, you get 16 slices
.
.
.

Series: 2, 4, 7, 11,16,... [no pattern detectable] Emotions, others

First difference: 2, 3, 4, 5 [half a pattern!] Inbetween stuff (fuzzy: logic? illogic? Dunno!)

Second difference: 1, 1, 1, 1 [Full pattern!] Logic as fundamental

Thoughts are our threads and logic is the technique with which we tie them together, fabricating the cloth that is our mental makeup.

Our biological body, especially our brain, is ambitious in offering us a seamless experience. Just like our thoughts, the brain weaves our senses together, giving one coherent moving picture. Logic is the same. It's a function of association, chaining thoughts together to give one coherent stream of thinking.

In this sense, I disagree with the notion that "thoughts could be connected in many different ways other than logic". Logic is an automation. You can not stop it.

In order to think, we must perceive and experience different phenomena. The first time you encounter a unique phenomena, you learn about it. This is your reference. From this moment onward you compare any similar or same phenomena with this original phenomena. You examine if your impression of it is consistent. These references make up our toolkit for logic - and logic itself is the act of comparing these references to the thing itself, checking both for integrity and consistency in our stream of world perception.

In the same vein, I then disagree with the idea that

logical connections between ideas reveal truth/sense/reality? — Agent Smith

There is no truth or reality in logic. If anything, through logic, as it is based on our experience, we may reveal something about ourselves. But just because our logic allows us to have a seamless mind experience, it doesn't mean that it necessarily reflects reality in any way.

One practical example to demonstrate all that I mean:

1. You learn of "apple" as you eat a green sour fruit. This is now your reference.
2. You see another green fruit. It's form is very similar. You logically believe it is an apple.
3. You try the fruit but the taste does not match your reference. Your logic tells you that this is not apple.
4. You learn that this is "pear" not "apple". You now have two different references.
5. You get a third fruit. The form is the same as apple but the colour is red.
6. Based on your previous experience, this might be "apple" or "pear". Either way you know it to be "fruit"
7. You try the fruit. It tastes similar to apple but is less sour and more sweet.
8. Through the form, flesh consistency and similar taste, you learn that red fruit is also "apple"
9. Your reference is updated once again.
Apple is now: The shape of an apple. Red or green. Sweet or sour. NOT a pear.
Pear is now: Not the shape of an apple. Green. Sweet. NOT an apple.

This is how we learn our entire life, making unbelievable amounts of associations that in turn build our internal function for chaining thoughts - logic.

Logic is an automation. You can not stop it. — Hermeticus

Why not? Is illogic always involuntary? :chin:

Logic is the same. It's a function of association, chaining thoughts together to give one coherent stream of thinking. — Hermeticus

That's a tautology (I think).

I disagree with the notion that "thoughts could be connected in many different ways other than logic" — Hermeticus

Why?

Why not? Is illogic always involuntary? — Agent Smith

I don't think we ever act illogically on our account. Every decision we make is made through logic. It's always other people that tell us "you're acting illogical" because their logic does not pertain to our logic. That, or we learn that our action was illogical afterwards - that is the natural process I have described.

Why? — Agent Smith

Thoughts and logic go hand in hand. If I want to think of a particular thing, I first have to know the thing. I've showcased how we learn of new things through association and comparison. Comparison in itself is an act of applying logic. Logic is the principles we appy to check for consistency. It makes sure that our comparisons are valid.

When you perceive something that looks like an apple, you immediately recall your "apple reference" and logically determine whether you're looking at an apple - only then do you proceed to active thought where you might think "Oh, how nice would it be to eat this apple."

Sure. You could compare the colour of an apple to the length of the sides of a triangle. But that's an illogical comparison and in an actual situation aside from philosophical talk, you would not do this. It's not valid. Rather, you would compare colour with colour and length with length because that's the logical thing to do.

I don't think we ever act illogically on our account — Hermeticus

I dunno! You mean to say "everyone has their own logic" and that there's no such thing as universal logic. Are you conflating agenda with logic? Possible but not necessarily.

You could compare the colour of an apple to the length of the sides of a triangle — Hermeticus

I shouldn't do this but I could do this. Why should I bother about what I should/shouldn't do? Yes, yes, to be illogical has, I believe, fatal consequences but then argumentum ad consequentiam (fallacy).

Rather, you would compare colour with colour and length with length because that's the logical thing to do. — Hermeticus

If I don't do this, does it lead to a contradiction? A category error? Yet, if the point is to explore the mind world, why get bogged down by (silly) rules? The man who refused to compare the sky to a dog is better than a man who does?

That said, it does look like, for the present, (the assumption seems to be) logic is foundational (you talked about consistency, perhaps there's more) but only to the extent that we, ourselves, are concerned (anything illogical elicits THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE!). Maybe we're AI with thinking restrictions; deliberate/accidental, I have no idea.

If not, we need proof that the universe is logical. Do you have one? Your post in the other thread of mine was interesting to say the least.

You mean to say "everyone has their own logic" and that there's no such thing as universal logic. — Agent Smith

Yes. Logic is subjective, I have no doubt about this - otherwise we wouldn't be flinging hundred of thousands of words back and forth in this forum.

I shouldn't do this but I could do this. — Agent Smith

Would you compare the colour of an apple with the sides of an triangle for me? I'm curious how it would go :P

Have you ever gone against your own logic in any given situation? I don't think I have. I don't think I could. Imagine being a perfectly joyful person attempting to kill yourself. You could try. Would you be capable? Probably not. Likewise, people that do commit suicide go against an instinct that is supposedly hardwired into us. They do so because to them, it is the logical thing to cease their suffering rather than continuing it.

Logic is a monumental force. We see it today in the divide of our society regarding Covid and all that. Both parties are reasoning perfectly logical in their own frame of mind - yet the other, to them, appears completely delusional. If you take it as the principle that guarantees us a persistent worldview, as I suggest, then we might even consider it as an anchor for our identity. Logic ties our impressions of the world together and identity is rooted in our world- and self-view.

If I don't do this, does it lead to a contradiction? A category error? Yet, if the point is to explore the mind world, why get bogged down by (silly) rules? The man who refused to compare the sky to a dog is better than a man who does? — Agent Smith

When I do something like this in programming I get:
Error CS0019 Operator '==' cannot be applied to operands of type 'int' and 'string'
and my program stops and cancels.

How would we go about comparing sky and dog?
1. We list all characteristics that is sky.
2. We list all characteristics that is dog.

We look at our list, see that they aren't comparable by any of their characteristics and throw that error code "Can not compare type 'animal' with type 'location'. My program (comparison) stops and cancels.

"AI with thinking restrictions" is not too far off. We can view anything in the frame of programming - as a language it's reflective of human experience afterall.
I wouldn't call it restrictions though. Just like a computer program, we have certain functionalities and certain procedures on how we process anything.

Machine learning is only as good as the data/training you provide your algorithm. It's the same with thinking and logic. I make more experiences (data) and train my algorithm (logic) - in turn, my ability to assess (thinking) and handle future experiences grows (learning).

If not, we need proof that the universe is logical. Do you have one? Your post in the other thread of mine was interesting to say the least. — Agent Smith

Well, I'm not a defender of the idea that the universe is logical. As stated, logic to me is clearly subjective. I suggest that providing a seamless experience may be foremost. Meaning that if the world appears to be logical, it is because I've constructed my world view to be logical.

Quantum superposition as I've mentioned in the other thread supposedly breaks the law of non-contradiction. I don't really want to talk about quantum theory too much. I hardly have a clue about the math you asked about in the other thread and in the end they mostly remain theories - with many open questions and things we do not know yet.

However, I would like to point out one more quantum aspect that may be supporting my ideas. The Observer effect. It strikes me as fascinating that these quantum particles would remain in undetermined, paradoxical states until they are measured.
The question I ask myself is: What happened?

The obvious option is that it's the quantum particles own behaviour. It changed when measured, simple as that.

Another option is that the quantum particle does not change at all. It actually is undeterminable and paradoxical and chaotic. However, as we are "made" with a seamless experience as primary feature, we can not perceive impossible things - hence the experience we can not understand is translated to something we can understand - one determined logical value at a time.