Welcome to my intelligence

[Jamesh]

Now that is what I think about “logic”, be it a conceptualized one, but that seems to underpin all conceptualized systems.

But the thing is, even logic has to first have value and reference tables, obtained by past experience. A True or a False is a feeling that something is accurate (right) or it is not (wrong). A starter Value table may even already exist at birth. Genetically, similar value systems will be soon caused to anyway, due to commonality of emotional responses, when young.

Often feelings exist that something is not quite accurate or not compeltely wrong. Logic comes into play to enforce absoluteness of True or False. Logic is always fundamentally binary assessed, firstly piece by piece, then set by set, until a final True or False is determined. It is a kind of decision/category making tool for the brain.

[Simon]

Sapius,

Simon: Let's go into the origin of logic. Where does logic begin?

Sapius: In my opinion, it all depends on how one defines ‘logic’

Yes, but I want my definition to be based on a discovery that is absolutely true. And that implies that I want to examine the point in brain development where logic begins. The most recent reply that Solway made to me I think is a good example of the sort of foundation I am looking to build. In this thread, I am beginging at the most basic point, the most basic conclusions are what I am interested it. I want to build the ultimate foundation for philosophical thinking.

From the point of view of causality, there is nothing that would be illogical in a sense, for every effect necessarily has a cause

How can causality have a point of view? Look, I don’t want to jump ahead to quickly. I should have phrased my question as: “When does a life form become logical?” “What is the very essence of a life form’s logical behavior?”

The answer it would seem, is that if there is a nervous response to distinctions, then logic has taken root to some degree.

If I was to deny the sensation of there being distinctions, then I would be denying the ability to interact with the world and survive. This would be true nihilism, or the essence of true nihilism as I would be denying the very essence of existence and logic. It would be insane.

causality is necessarily “logical” or one could say that the principle is necessarily imbedded in the process. There is a sense of logic in what the causes create, including ‘delusions’ so to speak. That is the reason, that with all the limitations of our non-conceptualized sense perceptions, I mean the direct raw sense perceptions, we can, to a certain extant predict through conceptualization. We may not know how certain effects came to be, but we can be sure that that necessarily has causes. Causality is necessary for eventual conceptualization to occur; hence causality cannot depend on conceptualization alone. It cannot be the other way around. Yes, causality may be just a sense, but the question is, how does it make any logical sense?

Yes, I see what you mean, causality doesn’t come after we make concepts, causality is the reason that distinctions are perceived to begin with and thus concepts are made based on the raw perception of distinction.

How about this:

“causality is the foundation of all consciousness, of all sense perception, of existing”

the above statement, I would say, is an absolute truth. It is a truth that is logically deduced by reflecting on the implications of there being the perception of distinction to begin with.

Simon: It is, perhaps, strictly the conceptualizations, and non-conceptualized appearances that one has inherited via sense perception.

Sapius: Without sense perception, which does not necessarily depend on our conceptualization, conceptualization cannot occur. Otherwise, all of existence would necessarily be illogical

Yes, without sense perception, conceptualization (being the effect of sense perception) would be without a cause (an essence) Sense perception is the essence. So yes, I would agree with you, but I would say having conceptualization without sense perception would be an impossiblity more than it would be illogical. For a person to believe that there can be conceptualization without sense perception, yes that would be an illogical belief, and that is most likely what you meant.

And what is it that does not operate through causality created “sense perception”? Even an atom has to “sense” something to react, but it need not “perceive” in the sense that we do.

Hmmm……that is an interesting thought. When you say that even an atom has to sense something to react, I question whether the word sense is being used in anyway similar to the way we are using sense to describe perception. For instance, I sense a cold gust of air, but does the air, as it blows on my face, sense my face? The winds trajectory does seem to be effected by my face, it deftly makes its way by with a minor adjustment, but I can hardly imagine that it senses me, as I sense it. Well, of course it doesn’t. But what exactly is happening? It's an empirical question.

Likewise, we might say that when I throw a rock up against a brick wall, the rock and the brick wall are sensing each other in some sense? It’s weird to think about.

(your last comment below was to clyde, but it relates to something I said)

In my opinion, a sense of self and other has to necessarily arise before one goes about conceptualizing about it. If other things did not have a sense of “self”, nothing would operate or react logically, in other words, causally.

Here, Sapius, you seem to be implying that, even in the absence of consciousness, there are separate, individually enclosed things, like atoms, that are sensing. Keep in mind, scientists have never actually observed atoms, and that many feel that atoms are actually energy packets [edit] * however, energy packets or balls, either/or, the fact is, if it's manifest, then its subject to causality.

I guess what I am confused about, is the unmanifest, and how causality relates to the unmanifest.

[Sapius]

Clyde,

What do you mean by “a sense of self”? Can you give me an example?

I think I already mentioned it here…

If other things did not have a sense of “self”, nothing would operate or react logically, in other words, causally.

This includes any-thing that you can sense reacts.

And forgive my ignorance, but why is causation logical? I understand causation as the principle that effects have a cause, but how is that logical?

It is “logical” in the sense that effects are not random or uncaused, although due to certain of our limitations it may seem to be so, or, imagined to be so, or, imagined that nothing is happening at all.

I understand logic as a system of reasoning. For example, A = A. But there is no cause and effect in operation.

According to me, it is impossible for causality not be happening. As for logic, as I mentioned earlier, it depends on how one defines ‘logic’. Lets say A=A, law of identity, which is fine, but what are we pointing to? And how does it happen if not through recognition and differentiation? And that has to necessarily be a logically causal process rather than a random one. Otherwise our reasonig wouldn't work, becasue our definitions might suddenly not conform to what we point to, making sensable communications impossible.

According to me, A=A is recognition -> defferentiation -> reaction = consciousness. Where recogntion takes place before defferentiation.

It is a different story that we do not detect that incredible speed at which this raw recognition and differentiation takes place. Many a places we use the term ‘they arise together’, but what does that actually mean? In my opinion, the calculation happens at such high speeds that we assume that they arise together, or that we simply mean that one cannot be without the other.

We can deduce A=A because A=A is happening. In fact, consciousness is dependant on A=A happening, without which, there would be no consciousness at all. Hence, the reasoned concept of “A=A” is simply acknowledging how consciousness operates.

I will readily concede that causation often seems “logical” (e.g. - We press a button and the bell rings.), but I believe that this is due to familiarity and habit, not logic.

No. What if the bell doesn’t ring? There has to necessarily be other causes to that; isn’t that logical enough? That is why causality operates in a logical manner at its core, in other words, not random, not illogical.

It’s like gravity, it describes how the universe functions, we accept it, but it is not logical or illogical. It just is.

Yes, I too will readily concede that ALL just is, in the sense that there is no inherent reason or purpose in the grand scheme of or to totality. On the other hand, each and every thing has relative connections, and therein lays meaning, hence things, including gravity, is not "just is". Do I need to show you a reasonas to how gavity relates to life?

Having said that, how illogically do you think gravity works? I don’t mean that gravity is a sentient thing, but what does our reasoning say? It does have certain predictability; hence it must work under certain logical rules and conditions. In other words, god really does not play dice.

Reasoning itself requires causality, but causality creates a thing that is complex enough to reason; causality by itself does not and cannot “reason”, hence in that light, again ALL just is. But the conclusions of any particular thing, which is capable of reasoning to whatever degree, can be said to necessarily be responsible for it’s conclusions, irrelevant of the fact that causality underpins ALL – things.

For example, how one interprets ‘do no harm’ depends on an individual’s reasoning; otherwise there would be no argument over such a true and simple statement.

[Sapius]

Simon, I will respond to your post tomorrow; some interesting thoughts there. I'm dead tired today.

You may find some relevant points in my post to Clyde though.

[Simon]

Simon;

It doesn’t matter to me whether my senses (including thought) are “inherently uncertain”. I am aware of arisings. The nature of the “I”, the nature of awareness, and the nature of the arisings are phenomena which have the characteristics of impermanence and dependence.

Empirically, they appear to have the characteristics of impermenance and dependence. Didn't Plato believe in a realm where all things, including the self, existed permenantly?

[clyde]

Sapius;

Previously you wrote,

In my opinion, a sense of self and other has to necessarily arise before one goes about conceptualizing about it.

When I asked you to explain “a sense of self”, you wrote,

If other things did not have a sense of “self”, nothing would operate or react logically, in other words, causally.

This includes any-thing that you can sense reacts.

That doesn’t define, describe, or explain “sense of ‘self””, nor is that an example.

You wrote,

It[causation] is “logical” in the sense that effects are not random or uncaused, although due to certain of our limitations it may seem to be so, or, imagined to be so, or, imagined that nothing is happening at all.

If something’s not random, it is predictable. Predictable is not a synonym for logical.

clyde

[clyde]

Simon;

Perhaps Plato did, but do you? And if so, on what basis do you hold such a belief?

clyde

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kevin Solway wrote:

In fact I think the idea of being "fairly certain" is unnecessary. For example, we can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow - with a high degree of probability based on past experience - without being fairly certain that it will.

What is the difference between saying I'm fairly certain that they sun will rise tomorrow or saying there is a high probability that the sun will rise tomorrow?

[Kevin Solway]

What is the difference between saying I'm fairly certain that they sun will rise tomorrow or saying there is a high probability that the sun will rise tomorrow?

To me, "certain" means "absolutely sure", so "fairly certain" means "fairly absolutely sure" . . . which doesn't sound quite right to me.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kevin Solway wrote:

To me, "certain" means "absolutely sure", so "fairly certain" means "fairly absolutely sure" . . . which doesn't sound quite right to me.

yes, it all depends on how much weight you assign the term certainty, suppose I decide not to give the term absolute value like you have decided.

Suppose I simply define certain as simply being sure, and not absolutely sure.

One definition of sure is confident about something, especially personal beliefs or abilities.

And one definition of fairly is considerably or to a considerable degree, so instead of one saying I’m fairly certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, I could also say:

I’m confident to a considerable degree that the sun will rise tomorrow.

You are assuming that the best way to define the word certainty is with absolute value, but you will need to actually provide a convincing argument as to why we should stop measuring with degrees of certainty, and switch to a purely absolute notion because many philosophers have used the former approach throughout the ages, and it seems to have functioned fine.

For many philosophers, their degree of certainty has been related to the degree of evidence or probability that they have acquired, which can only filter through the veil of sensory experience.

[Jamesh]

David wrote: If, however, you simply mean the observable universe that we currently reside in, the space-time bubble around us that scientists theorize might have come from a big bang event, then yes, there is no way to prove that it didn't arise five minutes ago.

Simon the egotist wrote: yes, this is what I mean.

Yeah, except for the fact it is total red-herring-like bullshit, as it is a total denial of reasoning. One could make the same statement about any event or any concept, and then where would you be?

In the end it comes down to trusting one's senses, for to not do so is to delusionarily not accept one's own mind and its past experiences.

[Sapius]

S: Now that is what I think about “logic”, be it a conceptualized one, but that seems to underpin all conceptualized systems.

J: But the thing is, even logic has to first have value and reference tables, obtained by past experience. A True or a False is a feeling that something is accurate (right) or it is not (wrong). A starter Value table may even already exist at birth. Genetically, similar value systems will be soon caused to anyway, due to commonality of emotional responses, when young.

Often feelings exist that something is not quite accurate or not compeltely wrong. Logic comes into play to enforce absoluteness of True or False. Logic is always fundamentally binary assessed, firstly piece by piece, then set by set, until a final True or False is determined. It is a kind of decision/category making tool for the brain.

Yes, I agree it is a tool in that sense, but, the same system of say logical sense, tells me that all that ‘happens’ happens causally, even if it is a dream or sense, and if the potential does not already exist, then this logical sense cannot happen, because coherency is a necessary prerequisite, which causality seems to operate by, without that there can be no such thing as logic to begin with. Other than a system or tool so to speak, what is logic/reasoning other than coherency verified?

So in its entirety, all things have to necessarily be based in and of a logical system, for a coherent outcome. The fact that all effects necessarily follow from causes is itself “logic” happening, and we can detect that because the same causality has created a thinking thing, which can reason its own basic causal nature, eventually grasping the fact that it is essentially no different than any thing else.

[Sapius]

Simon,

Yes, but I want my definition to be based on a discovery that is absolutely true.

But don’t we need proper definitions in the first place to discover that? Do you mean that our definitions should be absolutely true? Wouldn’t that which would be absolutely true depend on our definitions?

And that implies that I want to examine the point in brain development where logic begins. The most recent reply that Solway made to me I think is a good example of the sort of foundation I am looking to build.

At which point in brain development does logic begin is beyond me, because I don’t think of ‘logic’ in the way you do. And do you mean what Kevin says here…

Kevin: Logic begins with a person identifying something. (eg, "self" and "other").

(Person? The way I look at it, logic is not confined to a person)

Firstly, if all things have neither a beginning nor an end, then this could only be a relative beginning. And if identifying the “self” and “other” is the beginning of Logic, then I could say that it begins with an amoeba, because the identifying happens instantly, otherwise, it cannot operate coherently with its environment. It has to necessarily be aware of its “self” and “other”, but not necessarily “self-aware” through reasoning as we are.

However, if you define Logic keeping a PERSON in mind, (as the quote says) say as the process of reasoning that requires linguistic capabilities to define something including HIS self, then it would be appropriate to say that Logic begins with human consciousness, and according to the afore mentioned as in person, human consciousness would begin at around the age of ‘dada’ ‘mama’. No No, I think it should be ‘my mama’ ‘my dada’ ‘I hungry’. I think until one doesn’t think the concept “I”, Logic does not begin.

On the other hand, I am told only Buddhas use perfect logic, but I would call that perfect reasoning based on perfectly conforming definitions, not “logic” per say. Let me put it this way, Logic is, ‘causes leading to effects, coherently’ In which what we think as incoherent, is in a relative sense only, not in the absolute sense. Incoherency is a coherent result of a causal condition.

In this thread, I am beginging at the most basic point, the most basic conclusions are what I am interested it. I want to build the ultimate foundation for philosophical thinking.

Well, if you say ‘ultimate’ then that would be causality, since all that ends with an –ing-, as in something happening, its foundation is necessarily causality, be it philosophy or anything else.

Kevin also says: If distinctions are happening then logical operations are taking place.

Well, that does depend on our definition of distinctions, as in what is capable of distinctions?

How could a positive or a negative charge operate in any coherent manner if it could not distinguish its surroundings? So can we consider that a logical operation? I do not mean that it does that through thinking, but on its own level, the sense of distinguishing is imbedded, and it does seem to react accordingly.

S: From the point of view of causality, there is nothing that would be illogical in a sense, for every effect necessarily has a cause


How can causality have a point of view? Look, I don’t want to jump ahead to quickly.

Sorry, may be I did. You can add “Seeing - from the point of view of ….”

I should have phrased my question as: “When does a life form become logical?”

I think you should be aware that even science is having trouble now with the definition of ‘life, however, my question is, when is a life form not logical at its core? In fact, "logic" seems to operate more consistently outside of our reasoning; human consciousness seems to muck it up somehow. May be there really is free will.

“What is the very essence of a life form’s logical behavior?”

Each and every behavior conforms to a logical one if we see it through the eyes of causality. In that light, at its core, is it illogical for one to believe what he believes? I am not talking about WHAT he believes, but how did it actually come about. WHAT one believes is a matter of his reasoning.

The answer it would seem, is that if there is a nervous response to distinctions, then logic has taken root to some degree.

I would say life has taken root if you limit it to nervous response, but as I mentioned earlier, even the definition of life is under scrutiny now. How about responses to distinctions on a cellular or molecular level, or even atomic?

If I was to deny the sensation of there being distinctions, then I would be denying the ability to interact with the world and survive. This would be true nihilism, or the essence of true nihilism as I would be denying the very essence of existence and logic. It would be insane.

Absolutely.

“causality is the foundation of all consciousness, of all sense perception, of existing”

the above statement, I would say, is an absolute truth. It is a truth that is logically deduced by reflecting on the implications of there being the perception of distinction to begin with.

Sure, causality is undeniably the foundation of any and all-things, where consciousness is also a thing happening.

Sap: Without sense perception, which does not necessarily depend on our conceptualization, conceptualization cannot occur. Otherwise, all of existence would necessarily be illogical

Smn: Yes, without sense perception, conceptualization (being the effect of sense perception) would be without a cause (an essence) Sense perception is the essence. So yes, I would agree with you, but I would say having conceptualization without sense perception would be an impossiblity more than it would be illogical. For a person to believe that there can be conceptualization without sense perception, yes that would be an illogical belief, and that is most likely what you meant.

Yes, quite right. In fact ‘illogical’ can be replaced by ‘incoherent’ too. Sorry, I need to keep brushing up on my English.

Likewise, we might say that when I throw a rock up against a brick wall, the rock and the brick wall are sensing each other in some sense? It’s weird to think about.

Hahaha… :D Yes it is weird, however, I don’t mean in the sense that we sense perceptually. Let me put it this way; there has to be a sense of barrier, just as we have to introduce a “sense” of barrier if that same event were in a Matrix. Only that we would have to write it in as a command, but that sense seem to be imbedded in what we consider “solid” inanimate objects, but essentially, it seems solid because of the limitations of the dimension we are confined to. Yes, it is weird; what can I say. :D

Another thing just popped up… When we sleep, say in a totally dark environment, and dream. What makes us see objects even in the absence of light? It is not as if there is a bulb inside our skulls. So, is just the memory of light enough to light up images that we have never seen or experienced otherwise?

[Sapius]

Clyde,

That doesn’t define, describe, or explain “sense of ‘self””, nor is that an example.

Ok, no need to get upset. For example a "sense of 'self'" in an amoeba.

If something’s not random, it is predictable. Predictable is not a synonym for logical.

If something would not logically follow in the first place, could anything be predictable? Or are you saying there is something that happens randomly, uncaused.

[Matt Gregory]

David wrote: If, however, you simply mean the observable universe that we currently reside in, the space-time bubble around us that scientists theorize might have come from a big bang event, then yes, there is no way to prove that it didn't arise five minutes ago.

Simon the egotist wrote: yes, this is what I mean.

Yeah, except for the fact it is total red-herring-like bullshit, as it is a total denial of reasoning. One could make the same statement about any event or any concept, and then where would you be?

One truth ahead.

In the end it comes down to trusting one's senses, for to not do so is to delusionarily not accept one's own mind and its past experiences.

If it can't be proven that the universe didn't arise five minutes ago, then what philosophical advantage is there in pretending that it can be proven?

This is a perfect demonstration of the type of situation where trust in reason becomes vital because this is a fork in the road where on one hand you can forge into new philosophical territory, or on the other you can remain in the safe, but dark world that we all grew up in. (I feel like I'm imitating Quinn writing that, but I'm just trying to stress the importance of reason, which I think you are rejecting in this situation)

[Simon]

Jamesh,

I may be egotistical, but not smugly. My 'de complexio' name was just something I found funny. I find deliberate and light hearted arrogance funny, at least last week anyway. I quickly realized it to be a paltry gimmick that I had succombed to. I do regret the 'de complexio'. It was a pleasure that I have thouroughly grown tired of, and i'm wondering how easy it is to get Kevin to modify my user name to just plain 'Simon K'.

And picking on Kevin at the start of this thread was just me having fun - - - I know Kevin is a moderator of the forum, and extremely wise in his ways, so I found it funny to pretend to be the big boss man and stir things up.

Oh yeah, and the whole "welcome to my intelligence" thing. Just another stunt that I found amusing.

Yes, there are more enobling forms of humor, and I'm going to work on that. I've matured since last week you see.

This thread isn't over yet.

Clyde, Sapius, I would like to continue our explorations. And I have more thoughts to bounce off Kevin if he's in the mood.


- Simon

[Jamesh]

Simon

Don't bother too much with my digs, I get stuck into everybody.

Your nick, and your initial style, is giving me some sort of deja vu feeling. I get the feeling it is similar to someone else's that I had a blue about ego with once in the old forum.

The fact is my ego was getting a little annoyed my posts were ignored, or at least the second post I made on page 1. I was feeling you were beating all around the bush, whereas to my mind, that post got to the point realtive to what was being discussed at the time.

I often feel that my mind operates a bit too much like Nietzsche's (but with only half his IQ, and a tenth of his knowledge) and that that is a more significant reason as to why I get ignored, rather than the content actually being of low quality - though just like him, sometimes it is poor. I feel wise enough about reality, but not enlightenment. Reality is rational, enlightenment is not.

[Simon]

Jamesh,

If you would like to get more replies, my only suggestion is that you put a limit on the ammount of words you write in a post.

I personally like to move the dialogue very, very slowly. I don't like to run past things to quickly or get too caried away in my thinking.

When I read your posts on the first page, it seemed to be bit like you were having a dialogue with yourself as you wrote. It kind of all just pours out of you in the moment doesnt it? Well good, you have a lot of creative energy. I do as well, but these days I tend to restrain myself, and I try to get the person I'm speaking with to agree with me on some very simple things.

I'm always amused at how hard that can be. And I truly appreciate how hard that can be.

And so, for me to see posts as lenghtly as yours, Jamesh..... replying to them just seemed out of the question!

How can I hope to be at one with a man who writes over 800 words of very complex ideas in a single post, when in the meantime it's very difficult to agree with the man who is keeping it simple while staying under 30 words?

[Jamesh]

When I read your posts on the first page, it seemed to be bit like you were having a dialogue with yourself as you wrote.

Yes that is what I do. And I don't really want responses that contain questions - responding takes too much time.

I want people to either say, "You are wrong for X, Y or Z reasons" [providing of course they are correct], or, for my ego, for them to give some indication that I have provided a new way of looking at the connections between things, that appears to be rational overall, even if there is little published empirical proof for what I say. I am kind of appealing to the herd to verify my logic - lol, I'm not enlightened so I can't absolutely trust my own.

Other than that, the fewer the responses the better.

[Sapius]

Simon: I may be egotistical, but not smugly.

Personally, I did not even consider any egotistical-ness on your part from almost the very beginning, reason being that it seemed that you are open to a fair discussion, not out to really attack/insult Kevin or anybody. So I interpreted your initial handle name as resulting from self-confidence of a youngster. Which means confidence in ones reasoning. I may be wrong though, about the youngster part, because those that think on deeper issues do not really have any “age” as such, just personality.

James: I want people to either say, "You are wrong for X, Y or Z reasons" [providing of course they are correct], or, for my ego, for them to give some indication that I have provided a new way of looking at the connections between things, that appears to be rational overall, even if there is little published empirical proof for what I say. I am kind of appealing to the herd to verify my logic - lol, I'm not enlightened so I can't absolutely trust my own.

On a side note; other than the reason Simon mentioned, there are other reasons. One may not respond because he understands your thoughts and agrees, because he might be also thinking along similar lines and sees your point of view, and doesn't see the need to pat your ego. Or that one thinks you are crazy, or that one doesn’t even understand anything and it seems boring, or, in the fear of being ridiculed one refrains from questioning.

I am sure there are others that read these forums and do not have the courage to question because of the fear of being ridiculed. I suggest that they get over it, and become “shameless” if that is what is required to gain knowledge. What else could be the reason for the emergence of intelligence?

[clyde]

Sapius;

I’m not upset, but I’m still not certain I understand you. When you wrote that an amoeba is an example of a “sense of self”, I understood you to mean that an amoeba reacts to its environment. Is this what you mean?

Now this issue of “sense of self” arose because you wrote,

In my opinion, a sense of self and other has to necessarily arise before one goes about conceptualizing about it. If other things did not have a sense of “self”, nothing would operate or react logically, in other words, causaly.

Here I understand you to argue that a “sense of self and other” must exist before we can conceptualize self and other. But isn’t the universe whole until our conceptualization divides the universe into this and that, self and other; or do you believe that self and other have some objective existence?

clyde

[clyde]

Sapius;

If something’s not random, it is predictable. Predictable is not a synonym for logical.

If something would not logically follow in the first place, could anything be predictable? Or are you saying there is something that happens randomly, uncaused.

I am saying the predictable and logical are not, as I understand common usage, synonymous. That an apple falls from a tree is predicted by gravity, not logic. That ‘A=A is true’ is logical, but not predictable. I hold a simple understanding of logic as statements of relationships and predictions as statements of future occurrences.

clyde

[Sapius]

Clyde,

Here I understand you to argue that a “sense of self and other” must exist before we can conceptualize self and other. But isn’t the universe whole until our conceptualization divides the universe into this and that, self and other; or do you believe that self and other have some objective existence?

In what way do you think the universe is a ‘whole’? Can there be an edge or boundary to infinity? Yes, you can conceptualize a sense of “oneness” lying at the core of all things, but that does not make all things a one whole big “thing”.

I don’t see how conceptualization, which is dependent on consciousness, which in turn is dependent on sensing dividedness, creates dividedness?

I am saying the predictable and logical are not, as I understand common usage, synonymous.

I can understand that. That may be genius of the English language, so no arguments there. What I am saying is that if something does not already happen in a logical manner, then any predictability would be impossible.

That an apple falls from a tree is predicted by gravity, not logic.

This I cannot understand. I mean the ‘predicted BY gravity’ part. Well, my reasoning says, that given all relative conditions, the falling should be a logical outcome, unless conditions change, in which case, whatever happens, will necessarily be a result of those causal conditions, hence existence at its core is not illogical.

That ‘A=A is true’ is logical, but not predictable.

I really don’t know what you exactly mean by ‘predictable” here. What is there to predict in this case? Could you please elaborate.

I hold a simple understanding of logic as statements of relationships

Ok... I simply go a bit further, and try to analyze if there are any logical relationships within relationships, or are relationships illogical.

…and predictions as statements of future occurrences.

Yes, but the question is how did we arrive at that? By analyzing what?

[Sapius]

Clyde,

Here I understand you to argue that a “sense of self and other” must exist before we can conceptualize self and other. But isn’t the universe whole until our conceptualization divides the universe into this and that, self and other; or do you believe that self and other have some objective existence?

In the flow of questioning your idea of ‘whole’, I missed something else that I wanted to question then.

…or do you believe that self and other have some objective existence?

Is that the only alternative? What do you mean by ‘objective existence’?

[clyde]

Sapius;

By whole I mean undivided.

By objective existence I mean exists independently.

clyde