No processing, thus no logical processing — ucarr

Let me begin by saying I am not sure of my arguement but like you, I am trying to figure this out.

You may be on to something. Let us test it. When I was a child I wanted to fly and I had no idea why that was not possible so I kept jumping off high things hoping to fly. Is that logical thinking? Or how about if we are dying of a terrible plague? We know God is punishing us, so we appease this god by 1. sacrificing a human being. 2. Appease the god by going from town to town whipping ourselves. 3. Appease the god by killing the Jews who are an offense to Him or attack the Muslims and take back Rome, or Isreal. Is that logical thinking? Is believing in angels and demons logical thinking? Where do we draw the line between logical thinking and illogical thinking? Now if an animal runs from a fire is that logical thinking because it hopefully gets a good result? Where would be if we had always run from fire?

All logic is action/reaction; in parallel, all cognitive processing is, likewise, action/reaction. — ucarr

:chin: What is the action and reaction to a mathematical possibility that reality is multidimensional? We work with numbers and grasp quantum physics why? We understand photons and the center of the universe because we are reacting to our experiences? Right now we have a mass of people who believe the Bible is God's truth and science is not about truth so we can ignore it even when a virus is killing people. That is logical thinking? Covid and Trump has made the argument about logic a very serious one and I am so glad you are continuing this debate about logic.

Our reflexes aren't always correct? Are they ever irrational? — ucarr

:chin: What did you think when I offered ways of appeasing a god? Are those ideas rational or irrational? The video explains why they are irrational. How about Trump and how we handled a virus? Do you think everyone is behaving rationally? Or do you think the government is trying to control us and God sent Trump and is now giving us angels of death who are killing the evil politicians? Is it logical to jump off high things with the hope of flying? I think giving up on flying might be a logical choice, but those did not give up the idea, figued how to fly.

I, RusselA, Janus, Alkis Piskas and others don't disagree with you. We never have. None of us claims animal reasoning is equal to human reasoning. We're just saying the divide between animal/human isn't no-reason versus reason. Instead, we're saying the divide is between low-res reason versus high- res reason. — ucarr

I wish all those folks were still here arguing. How about, reasoning and logic are two different things? Of course the Bible is God's truth and God gave us Trump as he promises in the Bible to send us kings. And does that reasoning support democracy and rule by reason, instead of rule by authority above us? You started with learning grammar is learning logic. Is studying the Bible learning logic?

I disagree that "formal logic" and "Fortran" are similarly related to language in that both represent specific uses of the language.

I see formal logic as the semantical component of language, which does not represent a structure , but a meaning, whereas Fortran is a specific syntactical language form used to convey a semantical meaning. Under any language (Fortran, French, English), you will need to adhere to a logical based semantics for coherence, but the form can vary among types of languages. That is, logic is not a language, but a component of language, whereas Fortran is a type of language.

Language is a human extension of perceptual interaction with the world, and is continuous with perception , which is already conceptual and cognitive prior to the learning of a language. Our embodied perceptual-motor interaction with the world plays a large role in the origin of the structure of linguistic grammar. Animal cognition already implies a spatial-temporal ‘grammar’.
— Joshs

This references a specific type of non-linguistic thought, specifically "how to" thought. That is, a chicken knows how to jump on the perch and likely engages in some form of non-linguistic reasoning when plotting her course from the ground, into the coop, up the ramp, and onto the perch. That is akin to much higher human non-linguistic "how to" knowledge, as when we can disassemble, repair, and reassemble an automobile transmission without putting a single action into language before acting.

Living my life with dogs, cats, goats, and chickens, I am very sympathetic to the view that animals have much higher levels of thought than people wish to give them credit for, but I don't think your reference to "perceptual-motor interaction" touches on those higher levels of animal intelligence. That is to say, I agree with you to the extent you suggest that there are all types of thought without language, but I believe your example of "how to" language points to the least controversial one that is generally conceded by the staunchest of deniers of meaningful thought without language. — Hanover

This thread needs more arguments about what language has to do with logic. What is beautiful about math is it crosses all language barriers. 2+2=4 is a universal truth, regardless of what language is spoken. Science is also about universal truths and this path of thinking appears to have begone with some Greeks and leads to the notion that humans can know truth and live by reason, instead of being ignorant and living by authority over the people.

Our understanding of logic includes our understanding of morality and the human potential. Arguing animals are logical degrades democracy and justifies autocracy. I really think equating human logic with animal logic is harmful to democracy as that throws us back to living like animals and power struggles instead of having education for the higher order thinking skills.

You may be on to something. Let us test it. When I was a child I wanted to fly and I had no idea why that was not possible so I kept jumping off high things hoping to fly. Is that logical thinking? — Athena

How high did you climb before jumping off?

My claim animal instincts are consistent with reason doesn't imply natural preclusion of irrational thinking and behavior.

Recognition of animal reasoning does not promote human devolution.

What did you think when I offered ways of appeasing a god? — Athena

Do you think desire to appease an all-powerful aggressor irrational?

Under any language (Fortran, French, English), you will need to adhere to a logical based semantics for coherence, but the form can vary among types of languages. That is, logic is not a language, but a component of language, whereas Fortran is a type of language. — Hanover

Do we read symbolic language as we read verbal language? Is a logical narrative, like a verbal narrative, a continuity of signs that must be decoded and understood?

Can one language be a component of another language?

:cool:

:up:

Recognition of animal reasoning does not promote human devolution. — ucarr

The issue for me is education. Reasoning and logical thinking are not the same. If it is not understood that learning math and grammar are important to learning how to think logically, the necessary lessons will not be taught and the student will not become a logical thinker. The student will remain like an animal basing decisions on feelings instead of on logic. Then we will have young males gunning down people and other social problems because the masses are not getting the disciplined thinking of education.

Let's see, what was the chemical Trump told people to use to avoid getting covid. You know, the chemical that killed a woman's husband. "Trump says he's taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID". "Arizona man dies after attempting to take Trump coronavirus cure". That is reasoning. The information science and doctors use is based on logic and we have a religious mass that rejects science.

You know all those people who refused to use masks and said the government is trying to control us and the attack on the Capitol Building and the man who bashed in Pelois's husband's head. That is all reasoning, not logic.

The US is in a crisis because of bad reasoning and I am arguing we can use math and grammar to improve the reasoning of the masses. And yes, thinking animals and humans reason and confusing that with learning and using logic, has brought us down to the level of animals with half the nation believing Trump, who demonstrates all the characteristics of a tyrant, is a good father to our nation, put in the position of president by the power of God so obviously the election that put Biden in power was corrupted! Great reasoning, huh?

@ucarr @Athena

Logic and grammar

There was no magical moment when non-human animals became human animals.
I cannot imagine a magical moment when one day animals communicated without language, had instinct without logic, were without conscious cognition of concepts, lacked any sense of morality and the next day were able to communicate with language, had reason with logic, had conscious cognition of concepts and thought about the moral implications of their actions. It seems more sensible to assume a gradual evolutionary change between animals with lower intellectual abilities to animals with a higher intellectual abilities, a process lasting millions of years.

Humans must have an innate ability to perceive what is logical
In order to perceive the colour red, I must have the a priori ability to perceive red. Humans cannot perceive the infra-red as they have no innate a priori ability to perceive infrared. Similarly, for a human to understand logic they must have a pre-existing innate ability, an ability already existing in non-human animals. It would be logically impossible for an animal to be able to perceive something of which they no innate a priori ability to perceive.

The definition of language
The Britannica defines language as "a system of conventional spoken, manual (signed), or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves" If language is defined as something used by humans, then I agree that animals don't have language. But as a cursory search on the internet brings up numerous example discussions of non-human animal language, then I cannot accept any definition of language that does not include both human and non-human animals. Of course, human language is far more complex than non-human language, but this is a difference in quantity not quality.

Grammar is logical
Traditional logic is based on grammar, such as all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore, Socrates is mortal. The validity of an argument depends on the relationship between subject and predicate, meaning that if you don't know what a subject and predicate are, then you cannot determine the validity of the argument. Traditional logic depends on knowing the parts of speech. Parts of speech such as categoramatic words, nouns such as men, mortal and Socrates and syncategorematic words, such as verbs, adjectives and adverbs. Parts of speech such as quantity, such as how much, how many and quality, such as intelligent, honest. Parts of speech such as prepositions such as against, on top of and conjunctions, such as and, but, although. To learn grammar requires one to learn logic, to have the logical skill of analysis and synthesis, how to make distinctions and how to see resemblances.

The natural world is logical
Life has evolved in synergy with the natural world over 750 million years, not independently, but as a single unity. Life has been dependent on its survival because of its intimate relationship with the world in which it lives. Logic is intrinsic in the world and logic begins in the space-time of the world. For example, an object A is object A, object A is not object B, if object A is to the left of object B then object B is to the right of object A, if object B is added to object A then there are two objects, if there are three objects and one is removed then two objects remain. The logic humans use is founded on the logic they discover in the world. Onto this fundamental logic discovered in the natural world that is known instinctively, innately and a priori, a more complex logic may be developed within language, such as the study of arguments, inductive and deductive logic, syllogisms, propositional logic, first order logic etc.

How to discover the nature of reality using a semantically closed language
The question is how can language serve as a basis of a metaphysical philosophy that enquires about the nature of reality, of what is universal and necessary. As Tarski observed, language is semantically closed, yet the nature of reality is external to the language that is attempting to discover it. As Wittgenstein said in the Tractatus, "what can be shown, cannot be said". As David Hume showed our knowledge is not absolute but based on inference, where all we can say is that after observing the constant conjunction between two events A and B for a duration of time, we become convinced that A causes B.

Understanding using language can only be metaphorical
It seems that the best we can achieve in our understanding of the nature of reality is our use of language as metaphorical, in that all we can really say, as it were, is that There Are More Stars In The Universe Than There Are Grains Of Sand On Earth.

And if such words were the Bible, I would read it. I can not praise the people in this enough. I find the posts superior to what can be found in other forums that arouse emotions but do not stimulate the mind.

I am rushing and want to drop another way of looking at language and communication.

Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, provided by the words of the speech itself.
https://www.wix.com/wordsmatter/blog/2020/12/ethos-pathos-logos/ — Wix

The US is in a crisis because of bad reasoning and I am arguing we can use math and grammar to improve the reasoning of the masses. — Athena

If only you were a teacher.

Logic is intrinsic in the world and logic begins in the space-time of the world. — RussellA

This is what a good teacher makes her students experience and feel directly and naturally. No facts and figures hammered into memory, just a direct experience of life as something dynamic revealing itself moment to moment to those paying attention. Life long learners emerge from such classroom experiences because authentic education is half a step from entertainment.

A successful life is one that maintains child's play from cradle to grave.

If only you were a teacher. — ucarr

I won't become a classroom teacher, but from time to time I think about doing programs for schools that might encourage children to embrace their curiosity and learning. I sure wish I could find someone to do this with me.

This is what a good teacher makes her students experience and feel directly and naturally. No facts and figures hammered into memory, just a direct experience of life as something dynamic revealing itself moment to moment to those paying attention. Life long learners emerge from such classroom experiences because authentic education is half a step from entertainment. — ucarr

Yes, yes, yes! Teachers are forced to teach for the test and are too controlled by the government!

What I want to do is exactly what you said should be done. Yes, entertaining and engaging.

@ucarr @Athena

The battle between facts and feelings.

The relationship between facts and feelings
There are various combinations:
1) I feel something but have no facts to support it. I feel that the other political party is a threat to democracy but have no facts to back up my feelings.
2) I have the facts but have no feelings about them one way or another. I know that the elephant can eat as much as 200kg of plants in a single day, but such factual knowledge is of no importance to me.
3) I feel something and have the facts to back them up. I feel that Modernist art is more artistically important than Postmodernist art, and can present facts that justify my belief.
4) Sometimes facts and feelings are coexistent. My feeling of a pain is a fact, my emotion about an aesthetic is a fact and my conscious awareness of the colour red is a fact.

A logical language may express the illogical ideas.
Language is founded on grammar and grammar is intrinsically logical. A language that was not logical would be incomprehensible. However, language using a grammar that is intrinsically logical may be used to express ideas that are intrinsically illogical: "When the day becomes the night and the sky becomes the sea, When the clock strikes heavy and there's no time for tea. And in our darkest hour, before my final rhyme, she will come back home to Wonderland and turn back the hands of time." A word such as "Wonderland" may have a logical sense even though it may not refer to any logical fact in the world.

Education requires both facts and feelings
Education without both facts and feelings is doomed to failure. We may admire Monet's The Magpie 1868 for its aesthetic and representational brilliance, but the painting becomes more memorable when we know that in the same year he wrote “I must have undoubtedly been born under an unlucky star. I’ve just been turned out without even a shirt on my back from the inn in which I was staying. My family refused to help me any more. I don’t know where I’ll sleep. I was so upset yesterday that I was stupid enough to hurl myself into the water. Fortunately no harm was done.” Effective communication rests on an appropriate mix of facts and feelings. Ineffective communication happens when one or the other is ignored.

Deconstruction of text
It is unfortunately common today for mainstream media to put their audience into a certain emotional frame of mind using only those facts that support their point of view. Taking a specific example, if at a particular moment in time five facts supporting Brexit have been discovered and five against, it would not be unexpected for the BBC to publish one for and four against, and protest that they only publish the facts, which is true. Such is an example of Derrida's concept of presence and absence, where a text must be deconstructed in order to arrive at a correct interpretation.

Deconstruction of metaphysics
Similarly in the philosophical aspect of metaphysical dualistic oppositions, where an hierarchy is established that privileges one thing over another. Certain logic is built on the metaphysical claim that internal/external, absence/presence, is sharply and clearly defined, such as the Law of Non-Contradiction. Here, both A and not A cannot be true. But this assumes A and not A are external to each other. But in reality, this is never possible. If A is a proposition, can A ever be free of the proposition not A. "I am in Paris" means that "I am not in Marseilles", "I am not dead", "Me not someone else", etc, but it must be the case that the meaning of "I am in Paris" includes the meanings "I am not in Marseilles",etc. The truth and meaning of of proposition A "I am in Paris" must include all those propositions not A.

Summary
Effective communication requires both feeling and facts and using a language that is fundamentally logical yet can express ideas that are far from logical.

What I want to do is exactly what you said should be done. Yes, entertaining and engaging. — Athena

One big step towards good teaching is to perform instruction rather than to talk instruction.

The way to perform instruction is to become an actor in the classroom. This is a way of saying the teacher must personalize the lessons she intends to share with students. More often than not, the life of the person teaching, in the here and now, is more interesting than the subject matter to be conveyed. A teacher teaching physics is more interesting with more impact if she's living as a physicist than if she's just reciting details of the laws of physics.

All public speaking is theater and the living person before us speaking is more intrinsically interesting if she be vivid with life and dynamical with grace in action. This compared to stark information leaves no contest. Let me add that vivacity and charm are blanched by ignorance and illogic and thus the actor-as-teacher spews no bogus content.

It is unfortunately common today for mainstream media to put their audience into a certain emotional frame of mind using only those facts that support their point of view. — RussellA

Partisan punditry boils down to money. Spinning narratives that glorify consumers is the stock in trade of the snake oil salesperson. If you plausibly cast buyers in heroic mode, they'll throw their money at you.

Similarly in the philosophical aspect of metaphysical dualistic oppositions, where an hierarchy is established that privileges one thing over another. — RussellA

this assumes A and not A are external to each other. But in reality, this is never possible. — RussellA

Yeah. Dualism overflows with forking oppositions: on/off; yes/no; open/closed etc. The seminal genius of George Boole is indisputable. His Boolean algebra supports the entire IT industry, BUT the Einstein_Bohr debate, in my understanding, has been won by Bohr.

If A is a proposition, can A ever be free of the proposition not A...The truth and meaning of of proposition A "I am in Paris" must include all those propositions not A. — RussellA

This is important.

Quantum mechanics is reality. My guess is that the strangeness of it is due in part to the contortion of its dimensions when it's viewed through the lens of Boolean Logic, which is intrinsically three-dimensional.

Perhaps Quantum mechanics is not strange when viewed through Bohrian Logic.

Speculation - Bohrian Logic inserts into the on/off switch the undecidable, or superposition as follows:

[on]/\[on=off]/\[off].

Bohrian Logic, I'm guessing, is intrinsically four-dimensional. That kicks non-contradiction to the curb.

Quantum computing is here; with this one quantum-leap insertion (superposition) into Bohrian Logic, it's not enough to say quantum computing renders Boolean encryption obsolete.

A four-dimensional universe renders our three-dimensional universe liminal, which is fascinating!

Physicists Leonard Susskind & Gerardus t'Hooft have a notion of our three-dimensional universe as being intrinsically holographic with a real part (material) and a cognitive (imaginary?) part (information).

Well now, suppose our three-dimensional, holographic reality is a boundary to a higher four-dimensional
reality with an inherent logic that transcends spacetime! What does that do to Boolean Logic? Aha! The perplexing strangeness of quantum mechanics.

Well now, suppose our three-dimensional, holographic reality is a boundary to a higher four-dimensional reality with an inherent logic that transcends spacetime! What does that do to Boolean Logic? Aha! The perplexing strangeness of quantum mechanics. — ucarr

Similarly, if we lived in a spatially 2D universe, we would observe things appear and disappear for no logical reason. Yet, because we live in a spatially 3D universe, such appearances and disappearances are logically explainable.

Would it follow that, although we believe we live in a spatially 3D universe (ignoring the ten dimensions of Superstring Theory), the fact that some things appear illogical is evidence that in fact we are living in a spatially 4D universe.

The following example, attributed to the 14th C French philosopher Jean Buridan, illustrates the limits of logic. Consider the proposition "Someone at this moment is thinking about a proposition and is unsure whether it is true or false". Is it true or false?

You can’t be sure it’s false, because someone in Australia might be thinking, for example, about the Riemann Hypothesis, establishing the truth of which is an unsolved mathematical problem. But if you are unsure, then the proposition in that case is true, so you have established it and you aren’t unsure. Therefore, the proposition must be true: and yet as far as any of us know you might be the only person in the world who is thinking about a proposition at this moment, and you are not unsure of the truth of that proposition, because you have just established that it is true.

As Tarski showed, language is semantically closed, so even logic is limited by a self-referentiality.

Would it follow that, although we believe we live in a spatially 3D universe (ignoring the ten dimensions of Superstring Theory), the fact that some things appear illogical is evidence that in fact we are living in a spatially 4D universe. — RussellA

That's how I see it. I claim tentatively that when logical narrative runs aground in paradox, said paradox, being a higher-order dimension in collapsed state at a given matrix of expanded dimensions, acts as signpost to a higher order matrix of expanded dimensions.

As Tarski showed, language is semantically closed, so even logic is limited by a self-referentiality. — RussellA

Yes. Language tends to impart analytical truth to it declarations. Origin boundary-ontology, even in the case of God, depends upon analytical truth.

Consciousness eludes definition as it eludes reification.

Summary
Effective communication requires both feeling and facts and using a language that is fundamentally logical yet can express ideas that are far from logical. — RussellA

Reading your explanation while listening to classical music is an awesome mental and feeling experience. All the posts here have been extraordinary, one building on top of another bringing me to a thinking and emotional crescendo and this is something we should experience every day. It is what I seek when I turn on my computer. It is what gives me faith in human beings along with Elvis singing if we can think it we can make it so.

I gather we are from different countries and that certainly improves the discussion because it gives us different points of view. I suppose some of you may not be familiar with the past news reporter, Walter Cronkite. He seemed to take great care to report the news with the balance we need to understand the facts and think for ourselves. That fairness of reporting is something our young have not experienced and that distorts their understanding of democracy and our human potential. Our present amoral society being the result of education for technology with unknown values, and very bad for humanity.

I have a book on economics that explains how important trust is to doing business and having a good economy. We must return to education for good moral judgment. We must return to grammar and math as it was taught before our infatuation with technology. You all give me more hope than I have had in many years. :heart:

Elvis — Athena

I'm more Clanadonia.

Clanadonia Drummers on Buchanan St.

I love drumming! How about the Japanese drummers? Do you like them too?

The bagpipe is wonderful and my goodness the bagpipe player in the video had a lot of lung power. In general, the aggressive male behavior is sexually arousing and the female belly dancer was a great of expression of what is happening. The one known exception to the taboo of fathers having sex with their daughters is a tribe that hunts and kills hippos. That is a dangerous thing to do and upping the testosterone increases the chances of success.

Along this line, the Roman soldiers in their metal and leather suits are also hot. Hum, I wonder how much our sexuality plays into war?