How a wrong logic could affect mathematics?

[fromderinside]

Intuition
1. The faculty of knowing or understanding something without reasoning or proof.

People demonstrate the reality of intuition by their objective performance in everyday activities. Having a conversation is a complex activity. You can't think about what you want to say and how to say it at the same time that you would think about the grammar of what you say and whether the sense n which you use 99% of the words you use is appropriate. Ergo, intuition: The faculty of knowing or understanding something without reasoning or proof.

We understand each other, and to achieve this, we have somehow to infer the meaning of what people say as well as of what they don't say. You don't perform this very complex activity through any conscious reasoning. Ergo, you use your intuition. Intuition is a fact of our mental life.

Most of the intuitions we have relate to what we have trained ourselves to understand. Intuition in this case is only possible if we have trained our brain into the domain concerned. However, the case of logic is different. You don't have to train yourself. Logic is entirely intuitive.
EB

Bolded is unsupported and a step too far. All the rest is barely within bounds. Actually most of it is just about as unsupportable as is the bolded bit.

For instance demonstrating intuition by objective performance ... kind of a yada hada there. What objective performance which daily activities. Always just a bit too rational without actually being justified with data and empirically validated.

Your stuff goes on and on. I won't bore with repeating since I know by you performance in this post you know what is missing for your argument to empirically sound.

Really. All you have to do is use properties of neural tissue to communicate, filter, adjust and integrate, et cetera all of which have been empirically validated in neuroscience journals over the past approximately two hundred beginning with Weber. From the current results of those investigations it becomes abundantly clear that intuition is a product of cognitive reflexive conditioning.

Never mind invoking something called a mind. It's as shopworn and useless as is intuition.

You have no point. All the anchor terms you use so cleverly are invalidated by those two hundred years of neuroscientic study and progress.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You have no point. All the anchor terms you use so cleverly are invalidated by those two hundred years of neuroscientic study and progress.

Invalidated?! Invalidated like logically invalidated?! You're kidding, right? No, you're just unable to express yourself properly. Replying to you is like going down the rabbit hole. Alice's wonderland of unending absurdities.

Oh, you meant "falsified"?! Why didn't you say so? Yeah, you don't know where your arse is, so, words!

So, falsified? Falsified by "two hundred years" of neuroscience? LOL. Ain't impressed, me. Einstein wasn't impressed by two hundred years of Newtonian dogma either. Copernicus wasn't impressed by thousands of years of Catholic dogma (easy, he wasn't a Catholic himself, I think). Why should I be impressed by your vacuous claims. I'm not because I have much better evidence than a scientist claim about something they don't understand.

Yeah, they don't understand. Just for a laugh, can you spell out what those bright scientists would say the difference is between thinking, reflecting, and reasoning?

No, they can't. Those bright scientists haven't a clue. So, intuition...

Hey man, your idiotic claims make my blood pressure go up, you know?

Ignoring you is crucial for my safety. You're a health hazard.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

You have no point. All the anchor terms you use so cleverly are invalidated by those two hundred years of neuroscientic study and progress.

Oh, you meant "falsified"?! Why didn't you say so? Yeah, you don't know where your arse is, so, words!

So, falsified? Falsified by "two hundred years" of neuroscience? LOL. Ain't impressed, me. Einstein wasn't impressed by two hundred years of Newtonian dogma either. Copernicus wasn't impressed by thousands of years of Catholic dogma (easy, he wasn't a Catholic himself, I think). Why should I be impressed by your vacuous claims. I'm not because I have much better evidence than a scientist claim about something they don't understand.

Yeah, they don't understand. Just for a laugh, can you spell out what those bright scientists would say the difference is between thinking, reflecting, and reasoning?

No, they can't. Those bright scientists haven't a clue. So, intuition...

.
EB

in my experience science advances by accumulation of data supporting a particular theoretical statement rather than defeating previous statements (falsifying). Although I haven't read much  Paul Feyerabend my views come closest to matching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend#Nature_of_scientific_method where

Feyerabend became famous for his purportedly anarchistic view of science and his rejection of the existence of universal methodological rules

The two hundred years refers to advances in science that destroy the very basis of your philosophical, not scientific, theory.
When you treat apples and oranges you should be specific. A philosophical orange (theory) has little to do with a scientific apple (theory). So your appeals to what scientists think " .... wasn't impressed by ...." which is neither what Einstein thought or did. Nor is Newtonian physics dogma since for most normal situations derivations based on his theories work very well for most every physics and engineering calculation and prediction.

So don't even try to wrap your unsupported terms in what underlies scientific theory.

As for your ad hominems: Whoopie, aren't ewe having fun. or - nm

As for understanding I Just presented my argument with which I leave any understanding judgement to others than yourself. Scientific method sir.

Oh yes. as for  Thought,  Self-reflection,  reason I leave you with the pleasure of looking through the bioscientific portions of these wiki articles.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oh yes. as for  Thought,  Self-reflection,  reason I leave you with the pleasure of looking through the bioscientific portions of these wiki articles.

Yeah, simple, no answer...

Thought
Thought encompasses an "aim-oriented flow of ideas and associations that can lead to a reality-oriented conclusion".[1] Although thinking is an activity of an existential value for humans, there is still no consensus as to how it is adequately defined or understood.

So, perhaps, a little bit of humility on the part of scientists generally on this subject would be in order.

And reason?

Reason
Reason is the capacity of consciously making sense of things, establishing and verifying facts, applying logic, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.[1] It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics and art, and is normally considered to be a distinguishing ability possessed by humans.[2] Reason, or an aspect of it, is sometimes referred to as rationality.

They say "making sense of things". Yeah, they haven't clue. Reason is not what primarily helps you "make sense of things". Ask Einstein how he did it.

They say "applying logic". No. It's the other way around. It is your logic that allows you to reason to begin with, including when you try formal logic..

And self-reflection is a derail. Self-reflection is introspection. I said reflection. So, you don't even know what the term means?

Anyway, you can't even put three sentences together to explain the difference between these terms. And you think you can tell intuition doesn't exist?! Whoa.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Is reading a problem for you? I asked you to read the bioscientific parts of these articles. But did you even give the courtesy of doing that? Nope.

So I take your intellectual hand and guide you.

neuroscience bit

Thought
biology and psychology bits

Neurons respond to stimuli, and communicate the presence of stimuli to the central nervous system, which processes that information and sends responses to other parts of the body for action. Neurons do not go through mitosis and usually cannot be replaced after being destroyed,

and

Cognitive psychologists use psychophysical and experimental approaches to understand, diagnose, and solve problems, concerning themselves with the mental processes which mediate between stimulus and response. They study various aspects of thinking, including the psychology of reasoning, and how people make decisions and choices, solve problems, as well as engage in creative discovery and imaginative thought.

Reflection

Modern era

Comparison to other species[edit]

Various attempts have been made to identify a single behavioural characteristic that distinguishes humans from all other animals.
Many anthropologists think that readily observable characteristics (tool-making and language) are based on less easily observable mental processes that might be unique among humans: the ability to think symbolically, in the abstract or logically, although several species have demonstrated some abilities in these areas. Nor is it clear at what point exactly in human evolution these traits became prevalent. They may not be restricted to the species Homo sapiens, as the extinct species of the genus Homo (e.g. Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus) are believed to also have been adept tool makers and may also have had linguistic skills.^{[citation needed]}
In learning environments, reflection is an important part of the loop to go through in order to maximize the utility of having experiences. Rather than moving on to the next 'task' we can review the process and outcome of the task and – with the benefit of a little distance (lapsed time) we can reconsider what the value of experience might be for us and for the context of which it was a part.^{[citation needed]}

Reason neuroscience bit:

Neuroscience of reasoning[edit]

The biological functioning of the brain is studied by neurophysiologists and neuropsychologists. Research in this area includes research into the structure and function of normally functioning brains, and of damaged or otherwise unusual brains. In addition to carrying out research into reasoning, some psychologists, for example, clinical psychologists and psychotherapists work to alter people's reasoning habits when they are unhelpful.

Unless I hadn't read those articles first I would have been shocked that I'd guide you to reaffirm your you pontifications. But, true to form no effort at all to get at science of in any of those areas.

Congratulations.

BTW: personal report - Your Einstein bit - is probably the worst way, unless one takes in to account line up identifications, of getting reliable and repeatable, otherwise known as reliable, information.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not thought.

Not reason.

Not reflection.

Just correlates.

You haven't a clue.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Not informative.

Not argument,

Not meaningful.

Just derivative

You are a bot.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I asked you a very clear and very simple question:

can you spell out what those bright scientists would say the difference is between thinking, reflecting, and reasoning?

All you did, like always, is link to websites.

You know, there are two big libraries in Paris and I spent time working in both. Why not just refer me to those. Oh, wait, no, just refer me to science. Why even bother with Internet "encyclopedias"? Science is good enough and already contains all the information I asked for.

But that's not at all what I asked. I asked you to "spell out".

Nah. You couldn't do it because first you don't even understand my request.

Second, scientists really don't know the answer.

Asked to explain what is a human being, you will refer me to the Library of Congress.

Yeah. Why should anyone pay attention to your idiotic posts?

Nobody does.
EB

 

[fast]

I could probably give it a go and analyze the overlap between thinking, reflecting, and reasoning such that the distinctions are more apt at some times rather than others, but the caveat of what scientists might say substantively complicates matters, and since we’re speaking only of those that are bright, that especially confounds what they might say given the propensity for bright people that are particularly knowledgeable in certain areas who tend to poorly maintain a good vocabularic sense about themselves—counterintuitive as that might be.

That may or may not be the best reasoning as I reflect back on how I envision what the bright thinkers may say.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I could probably give it a go and analyze the overlap between thinking, reflecting, and reasoning such that the distinctions are more apt at some times rather than others, but the caveat of what scientists might say substantively complicates matters, and since we’re speaking only of those that are bright, that especially confounds what they might say given the propensity for bright people that are particularly knowledgeable in certain areas who tend to poorly maintain a good vocabularic sense about themselves—counterintuitive as that might be.

That may or may not be the best reasoning as I reflect back on how I envision what the bright thinkers may say.

I'm not asking what are the definitions of the words "thinking", "reflecting" and "reasoning", nor what people or scientists think the usual meanings of these words are. I'm asking about the difference between those actual things themselves, i.e. thinking, reflecting and reasoning.

Scientists don't see thinking, reflecting and reasoning as objects of empirical investigation and are therefore not interested at all in investigating them. Instead, they are investigating the brain, or the behaviour, etc., which is fine and perfectly legitimate. However, the idiotic part is that although they are not investigating thinking, reflecting or reasoning, they nonetheless often speak as if they had something scientific to say about it on the basis of their investigation of something very different, i.e. the brain or human behaviour. Thus, scientists are broadly in the same spot concerning thinking, reflecting and reasoning as mathematicians are respectively to logic when they pretend to have something to say about logic even though they never investigated it.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

My starting point is after these common language terms are used to signpost wayward philosophers to what is actually going on. But because you are a bit slow on the uptake I'm going to refer you to stuff you might actually understand.

You should try using the internet. Some surprising results might confront you. To wit: Go though about six of these slide shows https://www.slideshare.net/poojithchowdhary/the-science-of-thought then come back and realistically defend your blurt that scientists are not "investigating thinking, reflecting or reasoning."

Armed with your 'new' knowledge come back and explain to me why thought, reflection or reasoning should be considered fundamental categories of human information processing. They are just grab points, utterances, reflecting common agreed to utterances of understanding between like speaking humans. They are neither singular nor actual explanatory terms of what humans do. What is going on is simply physical processing within a life form equipped to communicate with other similar life forms. Nothing astounding there. You might just as well have insisted on witches, warlocks, and devils be explained.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You must be kidding.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I asked you a very clear and very simple question:

can you spell out what those bright scientists would say the difference is between thinking, reflecting, and reasoning?

All you do, like always, is link to dreadful websites.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Bright scientist retired self reporting for answer sirrah. There is no difference between them. They are all made up constructs represented by some wonderful rational people to reflect some basic functions of another made up construct, mind. That is exactly the justification I used to point you toward the equivalent constructs witches, warlocks, and devils.

so

- nm

Actually what is important is what Crick and Koch published in Royal Society Philosophical Transactions B in 2005.

What is the function of the claustrum? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569501/

After arguing for the need for certain capacities of nervous system they find the Claustrum properly situated and communicating with structures shown probably responsible for those capacities

They conclude:

The neuroanatomy of the claustrum is compatible with a global role in integrating information at the fast time-scale. This should be further experimentally investigated, in particular if this structure plays a key role in consciousness. What could be more important? So why wait?

There is no reason center in the brain, no thinking center, no reflecting center. So why not use findings that actually describe processes engaged in directing what humans do for setting the language of what humans do. The only ones of which I'm aware the we know about are processes for associating, sensing, engaging, directing, responding. Others may exist like memory processes, tuning processes, and the like but we haven't arrived at definitive answers for such yet.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There is no reason center in the brain, no thinking center, no reflecting center. So why not use findings that actually describe processes engaged in directing what humans do for setting the language of what humans do.

There is a centre. It's the brain.

Seems obvious to all except apparently scientists?

Beside, that is entirely irrelevant. I asked you a very simple question. You don't know the answer and yet, you will go on and on and on as if you had something meaningful and relevant to say.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Interesting. Fast processing.

Back when I stared riding a motorcycle as I increased speed the lines in the center of the road began to blur. At some point it was like the mental time base changed, the lines seemd to slow down and I could watch them go by. I could not react faster but given stimulus the perception changed.

Fast action appears in slow motion like in a movie.