GENIUS FORUMS

I'm noticing that rationality and logic are two different things. One is based on a social group or community, and one is based on perception.

Rationality, or reason, seems to require language. When you reason something out, you're using language either in a mental monologue or a dialogue. You're sort of weighing things to see what fits, what's acceptable or makes sense, in that social framework. It's not so much thoughts you're working with, but ideas.

Logic, or at least a certain sort of logic, is much more personal. It translates the perceived reality through whatever symbols are available, language or no. I can assume language would greatly expand the number of symbols available for the "digestion" of experience, but logic may form new symbols that have no word equivalent at all.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying one is better than the other. They're not at war. I'm just making a distinction.

A person who is rational is always logical, but a person who is logical is not necessarily rational.

Rationality is simply the full application of logic to all matters. In the case that a person only applies logic in part measure, they are irrational.

Rationality, or reason, seems to require language.

Logic requires language. For example, A=A, the simplest and essential case of logic. This requires a thing "A" and also that which is "not-A", because without the thing "not-A" thing "A" could not exist. In this case we have the two concepts we call "A" and "not-A", and so we have a language.

All our thoughts are personal, since we don't really know for sure whether there are other people. What we think of as "other people" is really just an appearance in our mind.

Kevin wrote:

All our thoughts are personal, since we don't really know for sure whether there are other people. What we think of as "other people" is really just an appearance in our mind.

Isn't this statement a stretch Kevin? For example - through repeated empirical confirmation on a daily basis, it seems I can be certain that there are other people with different thought patterns than myself, who I’m in relationship to. I know this, and I’m certain of this because their bizarre thought patterns attempt to influence me again and again.

It seems to me that repeated empirical observation counts for something when considering what we can be certain of.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Kevin wrote:

All our thoughts are personal, since we don't really know for sure whether there are other people. What we think of as "other people" is really just an appearance in our mind.

Isn't this statement a stretch Kevin? For example - through repeated empirical confirmation on a daily basis, it seems I can be certain that there are other people with different thought patterns than myself, who I’m in relationship to. I know this, and I’m certain of this because their bizarre thought patterns attempt to influence me again and again.

It seems to me that repeated empirical observation counts for something when considering what we can be certain of.

Kevin is correct here.


Tomas

.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:It seems to me that repeated empirical observation counts for something when considering what we can be certain of.

Empirical observation doesn't count for anything at all when it comes to being 100% certain. Only pure logic can provide true certainty.

We can be absolutely sure that we have a relationship with what appears to us to be "others". But we can't know for sure that we haven't created all those others in our imagination.

Kevin wrote:

We can be absolutely sure that we have a relationship with what appears to us to be "others". But we can't know for sure that we haven't created all those others in our imagination.

Okay I can agree with that Kevin. Actually, I believe you and I have gotten into this type of certainty debate once before, and I’m almost absolutely certain that I just didn’t imagine we did…

Kevin Solway wrote:Logic requires language. For example, A=A, the simplest and essential case of logic. This requires a thing "A" and also that which is "not-A", because without the thing "not-A" thing "A" could not exist. In this case we have the two concepts we call "A" and "not-A", and so we have a language.

The logic I'm talking about is not wholly sequential. It's not "philosophical," academic logic. It's not abstract at all. The logic you're describing falls under "rationality" in the distinction I'm trying to make.

They both operate simultaneously and are pretty seamless in their coordination, so it can be hard to see the difference. But you might notice how something may make sense to you, even though you can't explain it in language. That would make it irrational in a certain social context, though the logic may be undeniable. The opposite may occur as well. You may be able to appreciate what someone is saying even though the logic escapes you personally. You don't hold the same view or outlook as that person, but you can relate.

We can be absolutely sure that we have a relationship with what appears to us to be "others". But we can't know for sure that we haven't created all those others in our imagination.

Right. We can be sure rationally even if we're not sure logically. The logic may become evident, though, as we notice the effects of people's actual presence on our experience. Then it doesn't matter if it's imagination or not; it's real.

I think I see what you're getting at.

Though I see logic as happening at a fundamental level in the brain - a bit like how your computer does logic on 1's and 0's at a fundamental level. So even though you may be using software that is full of bugs, the computer is still being logical.

But you might notice how something may make sense to you, even though you can't explain it in language.

I would call this intuitive understanding. It might not be consciously processed, but it would still be perfectly logical, and I'm sure I could explain it in language if I put my mind to it.

I think the more conscious a person is, the more aware they are of where their intuitions come from. The more they know themselves.

I find that when I have intuitive understandings I am normally able to trace how I came to have that understanding. For example, I am able to recall having had similar experiences or reasonings in the past, and see the pattern that all these have in common.

Most people have "henids", which pop-into the mind and the person doesn't know where they come from. Nor can the person place them in any context, and make any real sense of them. They are like dreams (nightmares?).

Kevin said:

Empirical observation doesn't count for anything at all when it comes to being 100% certain. Only pure logic can provide true certainty.

lol. A typically delusional statement from one of the QRS.

Certainty is an emotional judgement based on past empirical observation. "True certainty" only occurs in relation to such observation, when such observation has always been observed to be true, and as a result it becomes capable of being generalised into generic symbols.

The certainty that 1+1 = 2, is a result of us having empirically observed this set of appearances in things many times as infants, so the brain categories this, as "100% certain".

As all logic is formed in this way, the comment "doesn''t count for anything at all" is blatantly untrue.

Jamesh wrote:The certainty that 1+1 = 2, is a result of us having empirically observed this set of appearances in things many times as infants, so the brain categories this, as "100% certain".

Only an irrational person would categorize empirical things as 100% certain.

Let's say you have one apple in a bucket, and you add another apple to the bucket. You look in the bucket and there are two apples. Let's say you do this experiment a billion times, always with the same result.

This doesn't mean that adding another apple to the bucket will certainly result in there being two apples in the bucket!

And it is 100% irrational to think that it would.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Jamesh wrote:The certainty that 1+1 = 2, is a result of us having empirically observed this set of appearances in things many times as infants, so the brain categories this, as "100% certain".

Only an irrational person would categorize empirical things as 100% certain.

Let's say you have one apple in a bucket, and you add another apple to the bucket. You look in the bucket and there are two apples. Let's say you do this experiment a billion times, always with the same result.

This doesn't mean that adding another apple to the bucket will certainly result in there being two apples in the bucket!

And it is 100% irrational to think that it would.

We construct highly rigid models to better survive and conquer the world. This is evolutionarily favored.

From the apple:
1) We designate some sound, action, or symbol to the "apple".
2) We designate some sounds, actions, or symbols to describe whether there is "one" apple, a "bunch" of apples, or a "tree" of apples.
3) We create a system of sounds, etc, for "numbers" to precisely describe how many apples there all.
4) We create basic mathematics -- addition, subtraction, multiplication, division.
--- At this stage we can do basic mathematics on the apples, trade them, whatever.

Later on in our evolutionary development we create this whole abstract world of "mathematics". Is it necessarily true that 1+1=2? Yes and no. The principle came from the empirical world, obviously. Now in our abstract model we have defined the concepts in a way that it is assumed necessarily true. This model is highly rigid -- we have never seen it contradicted. However, it is possible that in the real world adding one apple to another could produce 3 apples. If this started to happen our models would have to change to better describe the empirical world. In abstract land it is currently true, tautologically, that 1+1=2.

Is this an absolute truth? Not really. My mind is not absolute and this model exists only in my mind. It is less absolute than reality. It is a model of life, contingent upon the empirical world (using life, reality, and empirical world as the same).

Neil Melnyk wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Only an irrational person would categorize empirical things as 100% certain.

We construct highly rigid models to better survive and conquer the world. This is evolutionarily favored.

Rationality is also favoured. Ultimately, rationality may win out over rigid irrationality.

Is it necessarily true that 1+1=2?

It is necessarily true if we have defined the number two to be one more than one.

The principle came from the empirical world, obviously.

Like all the thoughts in our mind, we don't know for sure where they come from.

it is possible that in the real world adding one apple to another could produce 3 apples.

In the empirical world, yes. That is the point I was making in my last post. Certainty is not possible in the empirical world.

If this started to happen our models would have to change to better describe the empirical world.

Some models would change, yes. Someone selling apples would work into their calculations that if a customer wants to buy three apples he only has to give them two. He will be able to figure this because pure mathematics won't change, and 1 + 1 will still be 2.

In abstract land it is currently true, tautologically, that 1+1=2.

Is this an absolute truth? Not really.

It depends on your definition of "absolute".

I define a truth be "absolute" if it is always true in all possible worlds.

My mind is not absolute and this model exists only in my mind.

It's not a "model". Logical truths are reality itself and have no necessary connection with any "empirical world".

Kevin,
Way to chop my post up.

Rationality is also favoured. Ultimately, rationality may win out over rigid irrationality.

I doubt unconditional rationality would be favored. Only to the extent that it promotes survival, not truth, would it be favored.

NM:The principle came from the empirical world, obviously.

KS: Like all the thoughts in our mind, we don't know for sure where they come from.

I agree that we can't know for certain. But I can't agree with how you proceed from this -- you say that on one hand we can't know where these things come from but on the other we should not question them, we should just assume they are valid and truthful.

NM: it is possible that in the real world adding one apple to another could produce 3 apples.

KS: In the empirical world, yes. That is the point I was making in my last post. Certainty is not possible in the empirical world.

Do you not think the empirical world is the real world? This would be why I say you "deny life" -- creating some "other world" that is more important, truthful, or whatever than the world we live in.

NM: If this started to happen our models would have to change to better describe the empirical world.

KS: Some models would change, yes. Someone selling apples would work into their calculations that if a customer wants to buy three apples he only has to give them two. He will be able to figure this because pure mathematics won't change, and 1 + 1 will still be 2.

Pure mathematics might change depending on the scope of the change. It is not absolute. It changes every once in awhile and is added to constantly.

NM: My mind is not absolute and this model exists only in my mind.

KS: It's not a "model". Logical truths are reality itself and have no necessary connection with any "empirical world".

Rofl. Logical truths are reality itself as opposed to that icky, suffering, meaningless empirical world? You really need to start arguing with Jehu that you are God and the whole world is your dream.

Neil Melnyk wrote:

Rationality is also favoured.

Only to the extent that it promotes survival, not truth, would it be favored.

Yes, but my bet is that consciousness of truth will promote our survival.

you say that on one hand we can't know where these things come from but on the other we should not question them, we should just assume they are valid and truthful.

Logic isn't something that can be questioned. Once it exists, it's just there.

Even if we could question logic, we could only do so by using logic, which defeats the purpose.

Do you not think the empirical world is the real world?

It's part of the real world.

This would be why I say you "deny life" -- creating some "other world" that is more important, truthful, or whatever than the world we live in.

To me it's the other way around. Those who are strangers to the abstract world of thought are denying life, and have set up a fantasy world for themselves.

Some models would change, yes. Someone selling apples would work into their calculations that if a customer wants to buy three apples he only has to give them two. He will be able to figure this because pure mathematics won't change, and 1 + 1 will still be 2.

Pure mathematics might change depending on the scope of the change. It is not absolute. It changes every once in awhile and is added to constantly.

Purely logical truths cannot change. If they do, it means they were illogical to begin with.

Rofl. Logical truths are reality itself as opposed to that icky, suffering, meaningless empirical world?

That's not the way I view the empirical world. As I say, the empirical world, and everything in it, are just appearances to me. There is no emotional value attached to anything. Ickyness, suffering, and meaninglessness, etc, are all illusions or fantasies that deluded people are infected with. They don't play a role in my thinking.

However, it is possible that in the real world adding one apple to another could produce 3 apples.

...someone explain this to me. Do you mean adding an apple without looking to a basket you just saw had one, then coming back later and there's three?

divine focus wrote:

Neil: However, it is possible that in the real world adding one apple to another could produce 3 apples. If this started to happen our models would have to change to better describe the empirical world. In abstract land it is currently true, tautologically, that 1+1=2.

...someone explain this to me. Do you mean adding an apple without looking to a basket you just saw had one, then coming back later and there's three?

Perhaps a subconscious desire to believe in supernatural magic on Neil's part has slipped through .....

If, for the sake of argument, we began discovering three apples being produced whenever two apples were brought together, we would automatically investigate the empirical causes of such an occurrence. It wouldn't occur to us to question the truth of 1+1=2 itself since, despite appearances, that actually hasn't been challenged. Indeed, it is our very acceptance of 1+1=2 which would prompt us to investigate the sudden mystery before us.

Logic has primacy in this instance because the the numbers 1, 2 and 3 are themselves logical entities. They cannot be challenged outside of the logical realm.

Thus, to use empirical mysteries of this kind to arrive at the conclusion that, mathematically, 1+1 should equal 3, would be irrational.

But hey, Nietzsche counsels against being rational, so let's all pack it in and go party. Stuff thought. Anything goes.

Neil: Is this an absolute truth? Not really. My mind is not absolute and this model exists only in my mind. It is less absolute than reality.

It doesn't matter if an absolute truth is expressed within a model in the mind or not. It still remains absolutely true, nonetheless.

The concept of 1+1=2, for example, is a creation of the mind. Yet, at the same time, the truth it expresses is absolute. The underlying logic which makes it truthful can never change in any place or time. It is universal. It is timeless.

-

There's a hole in the bucket, dear Divine, dear Divine

..and it is tipped on its side, with another bucket full of apples next to the hole, and 1 apple just happened to fall into the bucket, so now there are three.

Still all 100% empirical though.

By a hole, do you mean the big hole at the top or another hole???? So confusing...lol

divine focus wrote:By a hole, do you mean the big hole at the top or another hole???? So confusing...lol

In Neil's example, as I understand it, adding a second apple to a bucket causes a third apple to be added to the bucket by some, as yet, unknown causal process.

Neil thinks that if this happened enough it might cause us to abandon the idea that 1 + 1 = 2. At least think that's what he was arguing.

Neurologist Ramachandran would say that there are algorithms in the brain that we call 'logic', that we are born with. No language is necessary; the deaf have them even before they learn sign language.

http://www.prehistory.it/fase2/sitovo.htm is kinda spooky, from a 7000 year old cave wall. We are born recognizing up to 5 objects, and here we see four vertical lines with a diagonal crossed thru them. Ramachandran could explain some of the other figures which are also patterns imprinted in the brains we are born with. the letter "S" seems to go back 7000 years. I dunno if it reads from left to right, or right to left, but there's an obvious *logical sequence* in it. And we all know you start by reading the top line.

I dunno if this is rationality or logic, but I do know that it represents software in the brains we were born with. As to whether that software is buggy....

daybrown wrote:Neurologist Ramachandran would say that there are algorithms in the brain that we call 'logic', that we are born with. No language is necessary; the deaf have them even before they learn sign language.

We have conversations with ourselves, inside our own mind, using our own language.

I'm thinking now that what we call our "thought process" is actually our rational process. The sequential logic we use when we're actually counting is different from the thoughts we use when working with more advanced math. Our thoughts are more like rules about the way things work, about mechanics, and we use that knowledge for specific monentary goals. When you add 4 and 4, your thoughts automatically come up with 8; it's a rule. You don't have to sequentially add 4 to 4.

Any kind of sequential, step-by-step thinking is actually a rational process, and thought and the rational seem to inform each other. In this sense, what I mean by "freethought" is freedom of rational process. In which case, objectivity provides freedom of thought.

Chikoka may have been on to something with the x on y dimensional interlock hypothesis.

David,

Perhaps a subconscious desire to believe in supernatural magic on Neil's part has slipped through .....

If, for the sake of argument, we began discovering three apples being produced whenever two apples were brought together, we would automatically investigate the empirical causes of such an occurrence. It wouldn't occur to us to question the truth of 1+1=2 itself since, despite appearances, that actually hasn't been challenged. Indeed, it is our very acceptance of 1+1=2 which would prompt us to investigate the sudden mystery before us.

We would not question 1+1=2 simply because it is still the rule for everything except apples and it has been the rule for so long that it has become thoroughly ingrained in us. However where do you think we derived this rule from? It isn't in the nature of existence or consciousness. Mathematics has in the works for thousands of years as a series of abstract models that apply well to the our world. It is still in the works and likely will be for a long time yet as we dig deeper into our empirical world.

Logic has primacy in this instance because the the numbers 1, 2 and 3 are themselves logical entities. They cannot be challenged outside of the logical realm.

Sure. But what is their use? We only have 1+1=2 because it models the empirical world. If 1+1=3 was the rule that would be our "logic". You can't challenge definitions but they are useful to a certain extent and would be forgotten if they ever became unuseful.

Thus, to use empirical mysteries of this kind to arrive at the conclusion that, mathematically, 1+1 should equal 3, would be irrational.

Not if it was suddenly the truth that 1+1=3. This is highly unlikely though.

But hey, Nietzsche counsels against being rational, so let's all pack it in and go party. Stuff thought. Anything goes.

Life is a party.

Neil: Is this an absolute truth? Not really. My mind is not absolute and this model exists only in my mind. It is less absolute than reality.

DQ: It doesn't matter if an absolute truth is expressed within a model in the mind or not. It still remains absolutely true, nonetheless.

Absolute: 1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
My mind is unlikely "free from imperfecting, complete, perfect" so I wouldn't call some chemical reactions in my mind to be.

Logic is a method or process: moving from premises to conclusions in such a way that truth will be preserved. Rationality is broader, the ability to apply logic consistently plus an ability to assess how well your premises connect with reality.

Neil,

DQ: If, for the sake of argument, we began discovering three apples being produced whenever two apples were brought together, we would automatically investigate the empirical causes of such an occurrence. It wouldn't occur to us to question the truth of 1+1=2 itself since, despite appearances, that actually hasn't been challenged. Indeed, it is our very acceptance of 1+1=2 which would prompt us to investigate the sudden mystery before us.

Neil: We would not question 1+1=2 simply because it is still the rule for everything except apples and it has been the rule for so long that it has become thoroughly ingrained in us. However where do you think we derived this rule from?

It originally would have been derived from empirical experience, from the need to formulate a counting system that can be applied to practical life. But once it was formulated, it suddenly became a different ball game. From that point on, the truth of 1+1=2 was generated exclusively from the logic emerging out of the definitions involved. It became a purely logical truth.

From that point on, empirical experience became irrelevant. The only reason why 1+1=2 cannot be questioned nowadays is because the logic involved cannot be questioned. No other factors are involved.

However where do you think we derived this rule from? It isn't in the nature of existence or consciousness.

It's in the definitions, which are creations of consciousness.

Mathematics has in the works for thousands of years as a series of abstract models that apply well to the our world. It is still in the works and likely will be for a long time yet as we dig deeper into our empirical world.

They will continue to apply as long we maintain the definitions. What we observe in the empirical world makes no difference.

We only have 1+1=2 because it models the empirical world. If 1+1=3 was the rule that would be our "logic".

Only if the definitions were different. If 3 stays defined as 1+1+1, then no empirical experience of any kind can ever change that.

DQ: Thus, to use empirical mysteries of this kind to arrive at the conclusion that, mathematically, 1+1 should equal 3, would be irrational.

NM: Not if it was suddenly the truth that 1+1=3. This is highly unlikely though.

It will only change if we decide it will change. And even then, the meaning of it won't change, only the symbols will change.

-