LOGIC: Current alternative views on our ordinary logical sense

[Speakpigeon]

SpeakPigeon wrote:

I expect this system to reflect our intuitions, or our sense of logic, or at least most people's sense of logic if we can agree on what that is

Every thing in your post is subject to challenge from the perspective that each human, although human, is unique, therefore one needs a filter or many filters to arrive at a 'logic of consensus' which is not at all an individual human logic.

Your plate if full sir and you've about admitted it is impossible.

I fail to see how the problem of logic would be significantly more intractable than say, any scientific question, and in particular the scientific investigation of the human mind.

Syllogistic logic does seem like proper logic to me and I believe most people who understand it feel it's alright. So, while I'm not sure it's too useful, I take it to show that we have at least that much logic in common (save possibly for a small minority of "illogical" people). The question I'm interested in is whether it's possible to extend this core logic into something operational and more obviously useful. That might be something impossible to get but I wouldn't bet on that.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't even know what "logic" is.

Are you saying you don't understand or don't accept as evidently true the following syllogism: All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; Therefore Socrates is mortal?

But the best ideas in individual logic should come in the field of cognitive psychology, or in some relation.

If by "individual logic" you mean that we all have a different sense of logic, I would observe that we seem to agree at least on syllogistic logic as common logic. There's also this relatively recent discovery that different people apparently would have broadly the same conceptual map in their brains, which suggests to me that they are also likely to have the same logic.

But I agree that the scientific investigation of the human mind should help.
EB

 

[Beer With Straw]

Does syllogism logic fail when two things from a different set multiplied together become part of a set they were disqualified from?

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=i*i

 

[Speakpigeon]

b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.

Make a proposition and my mind will examine it and make something of it. If it is "illogical" my mind will possibly see it. At least according to the logic of my mind. Which may be a weak blunt instrument but it is really all anybody uses and some people in human history have had great instruments. And we all get to stand on their shoulders and feel very intelligent.
It is without effort.
It does not fit into any category.

It seems to me you're talking of logic as "mode of reasoning" (definition 2.b. above). Can you agree with that?

I have taken classes in formal logic and when P leads to Q all anybody uses is their internal logic to say if it is the case anyway. They use their internal logic to make sense of it before reducing it to a model. Nothing is gained.

That's basically what the whole of mathematics seems to amount to and mathematics seems to me to be rather very useful.

A simple reasoning may not require formal logic but reasoning can get so complicated we no longer feel sure we can get the result right and then formal logic becomes the most effective way to get it right.

Can you agree with that?

_________________________________

It means you miss nuance all the time and have little nuance. In English all is very black and white to you. You confuse possibly useful but arbitrary rules placed upon the language with a natural creative use of it. A use where meaning is more important than rule following. When arbitrary rules are not followed you get a bit confused even if to a real English speaker the meaning is clear.

You would really need to provide evidence for this claim if you want to be taken seriously.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Does syllogism logic fail when two things from a different set multiplied together become part of a set they were disqualified from?

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=i*i

Write down the syllogism of that and we can talk.
EB

 

[Beer With Straw]

I don't know what you really want me to do.

The Real Number set is different from the Imaginary set. The square root of -1 (a real number) is i (an imaginary number).

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't know what you really want me to do.

Then there's nothing to talk about.

The Real Number set is different from the Imaginary set. The square root of -1 (a real number) is i (an imaginary number).

I don't know where syllogistic logic would fail but I certainly fail to see any problem between syllogistic logic and the square root of -1 being taken as i.
EB

 

[Beer With Straw]

I don't know what you really want me to do.

Then there's nothing to talk about.

The Real Number set is different from the Imaginary set. The square root of -1 (a real number) is i (an imaginary number).

I don't know where syllogistic logic would fail but I certainly fail to see any problem between syllogistic logic and the square root of -1 being taken as i.
EB

Well, anyway it could be a special case of failure.

 

[Kharakov]

No luck today.

Okay, so logic is not the forte of people like Juma, James Brown, cpollett, Tharmas, fromderinside, fast, Learner, untermensche, and Beer With Straw, apparently.
EB

Wait EB, what about easily manipulable beings like me!! You left me out!!!

 

[fast]

No luck today.

Okay, so logic is not the forte of people like Juma, James Brown, cpollett, Tharmas, fromderinside, fast, Learner, untermensche, and Beer With Straw, apparently.
EB

Wait EB, what about easily manipulable beings like me!! You left me out!!!

You have to be a people to qualify. You're merely a person.

Notice that I am being logical.

Sensible, no, but logical (even reasonable), yes.

 

[untermensche]

It seems to me you're talking of logic as "mode of reasoning" (definition 2.b. above). Can you agree with that?

I am saying it is a sense that develops with experience. And the "reasoning" is instantaneous. Does some idea clash with this acquired "rational sense" or not?

I am saying humans acquire a rational sense. Just by chance.

And some have a good rational sense and some a not so good one.

The believer in Jesus thinks they are being very rational.

That's basically what the whole of mathematics seems to amount to and mathematics seems to me to be rather very useful.

Mathematics may have flowed out of the rational sense that is acquired.

But it is a closed rational system that only makes sense within that system.

I am not talking about a closed devised rational system.

I am talking about a general rational sense. A radar of the mind.

A simple reasoning may not require formal logic but reasoning can get so complicated we no longer feel sure we can get the result right and then formal logic becomes the most effective way to get it right.

There it has a use. I don't think it is a real world use. More an academic use.

You would really need to provide evidence for this claim if you want to be taken seriously.
EB

I assure you I take the claim very seriously already.

You misinterpret what I am saying constantly.

It is too tedious to try to educate you every time.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No luck today.

Okay, so logic is not the forte of people like Juma, James Brown, cpollett, Tharmas, fromderinside, fast, Learner, untermensche, and Beer With Straw, apparently.
EB

Wait EB, what about easily manipulable beings like me!! You left me out!!!

I think you're trying to manipulate me.

My post here is stamped 02-17-2018, 11:51 PM, Paris time. In don't know about your status as a 'people' or 'person', but at that time, you were not even listed as a "member" down below ("Members who have read this thread in the last 3 days"). Okay, so you do now, but as far as I can tell, your first visit to this thread is stamped "02-18-2018, 11:52 PM" (Paris time), one full day after my post, and more than a full 48 hours period after I had started this thread, which is clear shocking evidence you couldn't care less about what I do here, which is seriously painful to even to realise for me. Does my life even mean anything to you? If even you don't care, who ever will? Mind you, I might decide to start a new thread on that very subject. And then, what will you do?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You misinterpret what I am saying constantly.

Then there's really no use to me replying to your posts.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You misinterpret what I am saying constantly.

Then there's really no use to me replying to your posts.
EB

There is a purpose in you trying to understand them.

 

[fromderinside]

SpeakPigeon wrote:

I expect this system to reflect our intuitions, or our sense of logic, or at least most people's sense of logic if we can agree on what that is

Every thing in your post is subject to challenge from the perspective that each human, although human, is unique, therefore one needs a filter or many filters to arrive at a 'logic of consensus' which is not at all an individual human logic.

Your plate if full sir and you've about admitted it is impossible.

I fail to see how the problem of logic would be significantly more intractable than say, any scientific question, and in particular the scientific investigation of the human mind.

Syllogistic logic does seem like proper logic to me and I believe most people who understand it feel it's alright. So, while I'm not sure it's too useful, I take it to show that we have at least that much logic in common (save possibly for a small minority of "illogical" people). The question I'm interested in is whether it's possible to extend this core logic into something operational and more obviously useful. That might be something impossible to get but I wouldn't bet on that.
EB

Indeed. Just as I did in post 16.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The question I'm interested in is whether it's possible to extend this core logic into something operational and more obviously useful. That might be something impossible to get but I wouldn't bet on that.
EB

Indeed. Just as I did in post 16.

And, me, I can't make sense of what you're trying to say in post 16.

I can't even make sense of your remark here in relation to post 16!

And just about everything you seem to say in post 16 seems a derail.

I wouldn't know what to say at this stage. Try to try again.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

The question I'm interested in is whether it's possible to extend this core logic into something operational and more obviously useful. That might be something impossible to get but I wouldn't bet on that.
EB

Indeed. Just as I did in post 16.

And, me, I can't make sense of what you're trying to say in post 16.

I can't even make sense of your remark here in relation to post 16!

And just about everything you seem to say in post 16 seems a derail.

I wouldn't know what to say at this stage. Try to try again.
EB

Oh dear me, that you should not see beyond the end of your rationalized thinking attempting to understand.

I made things pretty clear. First I provide a summary of philosophers state of the art of the science of logic.

Let's start With philosophers base their 'science of logic' reasoning upon Hegel's construction in the 19th century. I synopsized the crux of his view just to get it crystallized in your mind. Then I suggested hegel jumped a bit when he presumed that logic coming from the minds of humans logic must mimic or approximate reality. That is that line's critical mistake. Something coming from the mind of the most notable articulating species is no more relevant than is saying song coming from birds is nature of music itself. There's that. I called it a hand wave.



Here is a summary:   Science of logic

As I see it thought comes down to information when we get down to the science of it. So  Information theory summarizes that. (I think replaces classical logic as a basis for treating with human thought.)

As for extending I took two routes. First I listed whats information has become other logics that are also scientifically manipulatable. Second I find that one's mind is a rather narrow stage upon which to place rational logic. Humans are social beings. their very existence depends on having a sense of their place in their tribe or group so not including group reasoning or factors driving group reasoning is a slap in the face to the very notion of human logic.

With this background and the points i list below shoald make your trek a bit easier.

the stuff below:
..... A comparison between them reveals the real difference between the two is the basis for assuming. I'm pretty well documented on what I believe to be the basic flaw of philosophy when it claims to wrap itself in relating to reality which is what Hegel does with a wave of hand about human thought.

Thought conceived by the thinker is rational given to what she has access, her thoughts. Clearly such observation connects thought to the real world (hand wave).

Information, on the other hand is related to physical nature of the world as observed and manipulated by man using a particular set of operations and operational references that can be replicated by anyone caring to do so. The simplest binary operation is the choice or binary switch. Clearly one can build from that opint to any complexity of choice or decision contemplated.

I leave it to the rational philosopher to propose an alternative that is as clear as robust as a basis for philosophical logic.

I also plan to argue that 'ordinary sense of logic' extends beyond what thinks individually since we've derived alternative means for finding facts. For instance it is obvious, even to the philosopher, that thought is community thought as well as individual thought and that it is clear that few ordinary humans think of the ordinary logic as philosophers prescribe.

After they/he does I'll move on to systems of logic such as   Decision theory,  Communication theory,  Game theory,  Systems theory,  Chaos theory etc.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sorry Love, I can't see what I could possibly do with your post here. It looks definitely like a derail to me.

I'm not asking about the philosophy of logic. As I see it logic should be a bit like addition and multiplication, just a formal system expanding on our intuitive sense of logic.

You're trying to give this problem a philosophical turn and that's just so ironical coming from the chief self-obsessed critic of philosophy on this forum! Just let it go for one moment, please.


I'll repeat the OP here just so you can check there's no handle for a philosophical turn in there...
EB

I'm going to have a bit more time to invest on fundamental research on logic. I think some of you here have real expertise on the subject to share.

I'm only really interested in the kind of logic that normally intelligent human beings seem to be able to apply, or use, intuitively, what I would call our "logical sense", or "sense of logic", something I believe we have without having first to think about it in any formal way. If you disagree with that, please explain.

So, if you know of any theory of that kind of logic, beyond the one proposed initially by Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, that you happen to like and value, I'd like to hear any reasons you may have for that.

And, additionally, I'm just curious to see how many people around here will be interested!
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Sorry Love, I can't see what I could possibly do with your post here. It looks definitely like a derail to me.

I'm not asking about the philosophy of logic. As I see it logic should be a bit like addition and multiplication, just a formal system expanding on our intuitive sense of logic.

You're trying to give this problem a philosophical turn and that's just so ironical coming from the chief self-obsessed critic of philosophy on this forum! Just let it go for one moment, please.


I'll repeat the OP here just so you can check there's no handle for a philosophical turn in there...
EB

I'm going to have a bit more time to invest on fundamental research on logic. I think some of you here have real expertise on the subject to share.

I'm only really interested in the kind of logic that normally intelligent human beings seem to be able to apply, or use, intuitively, what I would call our "logical sense", or "sense of logic", something I believe we have without having first to think about it in any formal way. If you disagree with that, please explain.

So, if you know of any theory of that kind of logic, beyond the one proposed initially by Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, that you happen to like and value, I'd like to hear any reasons you may have for that.

And, additionally, I'm just curious to see how many people around here will be interested!
EB

Oh I dunno. You say you want just a formal system expanding on our intuitive senses of logic. What the crap are intuitive senses of logic if not some resort to rationalism, the avoidance of inductive observation, the invention of the empirical method rather than just expending yada yada yada. The methodology used to build a system for treating information formalization. You are spouting the very rationalism Information theory rejects. It is a a formal system of the very rationalism I suggest Hegel used to hand wave his logic toward reality. There is no intuitive sense being explainded here. Formal logic, the science of logic, is a science.

The way you'd see this too if you weren't in such a damn hurry to force some false interpretation on my discussion.You don't want to discus the science of logic here you want to scientize wishes and feelings as operators useful in every sense for dealing with the real world.

 

[Juma]

Sorry Love, I can't see what I could possibly do with your post here. It looks definitely like a derail to me.

I'm not asking about the philosophy of logic. As I see it logic should be a bit like addition and multiplication, just a formal system expanding on our intuitive sense of logic.

You're trying to give this problem a philosophical turn and that's just so ironical coming from the chief self-obsessed critic of philosophy on this forum! Just let it go for one moment, please.


I'll repeat the OP here just so you can check there's no handle for a philosophical turn in there...
EB

I'm going to have a bit more time to invest on fundamental research on logic. I think some of you here have real expertise on the subject to share.

I'm only really interested in the kind of logic that normally intelligent human beings seem to be able to apply, or use, intuitively, what I would call our "logical sense", or "sense of logic", something I believe we have without having first to think about it in any formal way. If you disagree with that, please explain.

So, if you know of any theory of that kind of logic, beyond the one proposed initially by Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, that you happen to like and value, I'd like to hear any reasons you may have for that.

And, additionally, I'm just curious to see how many people around here will be interested!
EB

Oh I dunno. You say you want just a formal system expanding on our intuitive senses of logic. What the crap are intuitive senses of logic if not some resort to rationalism, the avoidance of inductive observation, the invention of the empirical method rather than just expending yada yada yada. The methodology used to build a system for treating information formalization. You are spouting the very rationalism Information theory rejects. It is a a formal system of the very rationalism I suggest Hegel used to hand wave his logic toward reality. There is no intuitive sense being explainded here. Formal logic, the science of logic, is a science.

The way you'd see this too if you weren't in such a damn hurry to force some false interpretation on my discussion.You don't want to discus the science of logic here you want to scientize wishes and feelings as operators useful in every sense for dealing with the real world.

What the? If there were no intuitive feel of logic then we wouldnt have the formal version of logic at all.
We do have a very intuitive ground for making deductions.