Poll: Sense of logic

[Copernicus]

The posts have been moved here: https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?14233-Word-Order-and-Noam-Chomsky

 

[Speakpigeon]

Most living animal life has evolved means to determine value (food, sex, warmth, safety, etc.) from other or ignorable. That observation forms the basis for my conclusion that most animal life has inherent capacity for sorting and deciding, ie logic.

The intervening having been put to rest shall we return to whither logic is native which I kind of believe that it is since it comes with capacities evolved early on. As to whether it is intuitive depends on whether one believes classical logic is of the mind which it need not be just bvcause one has the equipment to perform logic.

I can't possibly let you just talk to yourself here!

So, intuition here just means that we can assess a logical question without going consciously through any logical analysis nor using any formal method to do it. I think this can be achieved by some part of our brain that we're not consciously aware of. Our consciousness just gets the result, the logical evaluation, without knowing how this evaluation has been carried out and where exactly.

Just like we take for example our colours for granted, without normally wondering where they come from or how they're made, I think we take our sense of logic for granted. It just works and that has to be good enough.

The question I'm interested in is how powerful our sense of logic is and how much logic do we need in any aspect of our activities, from ordinary life to science.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I used "native" here like this:

Children raised in the wild, by other animals, utilize the rudimentary type of logic specific to that species, such as that found with wolves or monkeys . . .. . . so do you not think that if human logic were inherent or innate that they would have human logic in use instead of that specific to monkeys or wolves when being raised by wolves or monkeys?

Please provide a sample of that apparently very different "monkey" logic.
EB

Logic in other species is distinct from that of humans in that it is rudimentary, lacks conceptual understanding thing s like asking questions of reality or themselves or each, lacks language expression in order to relay details in clearer, shorter sense of both time and in order to bridge gaps in other animal's understanding f an event they were not present for. Its not that other animals don't possess the ability, if learned, to understand their environment and use it to their benefit. Parrots, ants, monkeys, dolphins, orca (that are also dolphins), horses and even badgers have used something, either an object or made tool, in order to find their way out of holes, traps, or to use as rudimentary weapons.

Human logic uses symbols, allows for analogies and allusions, and is expressed and therefore learned differently than with other beings. If human logic is innate, no child raised by other species would know how to imitate, communicate with and learn fro those species how to express anger in their own specific way, how to hunt and climb in the way other species do unless taught to imitate an express and hunt that way by those animals they were around (unless they happen to grow up with human that also do this).

A monkey's logic when it comes to rainfall is to use a leaf as cover, maybe, or just sit and wait it out as they've learned, like us, that rainfall stops eventually. A human's logic is to learn to, an together materials fir a larger, more stable structure such as a lean to, or if given enough materials in their surroundings, a roof and timbers.

Jut because it's different does not make other animal logic somehow bad and ours good, but its not the same logic. Of all the research we've done n animal behavior, animal expressions, and in other species ability to learn complex tasks, so far it's only select individuals from certain species that can learn to use and combine or rip apart and reform symbols. This is because for those individuals, who run on a needs/rewards or model/reward basis (like with that parrot that became aware of the concept of zero, the benefit was that researcher left the parrot alone after that which is what the parrot wanted in the first place hence it repeating there were "none" as in "zero" orange keys when the question was actually "how many yellow", they need to see benefit for them to learn to use it.

Humans have moved beyond benefit that is immediate to understanding that benefit may be there, it may not, it may be eventual, and they may outlive that eventuality, and yet they could also never see it in generations so far, but still use it because it' the best tool we use to understand who we are, where we are, how many, how long do we have estimated time-wise here on earth, can we go elsewhere, how far, how many times, what's that animal over there and what's it doing, etc etc.

The original poll, however, is asking if logic is innate, intuitive, or native and I explained it is not. For something to be innate it is then something that is either present before birth, or else it is not necessary for any environmental pressures, information or additives to be there to learn from, even if not directly taught by a human animal or other species in such a way that everyone understand it as logic, because its not necessary to know the term in order to understand the concept. What is necessary is that some form of experience is present, some type of ingestion of information processed by the brain, which has to be working to at least a degree in terms of at least some of the senses, and in many ways it would need another human around at least in the first few years to grasp the elevated levels we can push logic to in order to continue to use it as the person grows and learns and grows and ages.

It's similar to when that pseudoscientist who works in neuroscience although he is not accredited for much at all if anything, Deepak Chopra, when he lays claim that language is an innate (native, intuitive) skill that humans do not need other humans and certain other environmental pressures in pace in order to learn it.

We've already shown that to be incorrect with the Case of Genie and every wolf-child, child raised by monkeys that grows past a point of time usually around the age of 8 or so, but on the outside about 12, without other humans around to teach them what sounds, syllables, symbols, pictures, and questions and response are, what they are sued for, maybe then where they are derived from, how it can help people to understand better what the child wants or needs versus just pointing or looking at what they want or need.

It's not this hard, really it's not. Other than the processes present before birth such as instincts and the running of digestive organs, and those coming in directly after it such as breathing, blinking et which are known as subconscious processes that, in the case o breathing, can have some conscious control factored in as time an development continue, nothing about human minds or the way the brain works is innate. Testing does not always have to be a conscious thing wither, like when a young child discovers for the first time that a glowing burner on an electric stove is glowing because it's hot, it burns, pulls their hand away and after that steers clear of the stove once they see it glowing. Not the best way, by far, to discover when something is potentially harmful, no, but it is rudimentary logic, a logic that can move past rudimentary, if taught at a young age to analyze, how to think, how to question, how to discover other things about reality. This cannot happen if it is innate because all innate things are simply an attribute, not a skill. Logic is a skill. Physical appearance, instinct, the way ears looks, the color of something or someone's eyes, are attributes.

Schacter's Two Factor theory, Lawrence Kohlberg's theory, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs an the theory of Consciousness (from I forget who), Pavlov, Skinner, Bronfrenbrenner, all point to the fact that without experience in the environment, which is how we learn anything at any point within any second of our lives, there isn't even probability as far as we know right now for logic, reason, empathy, and also moral code, or any codes we use in language just like language itself, to be innate or inherent or intuitive. Even when we intuit emotion from a person, we are still relying on our past experience, on expression and body language and behavior, all of which is learned through time and experience with nature (whether wild or man manipulated it doesn't matter).

Watch The Mocking Bird Sings (fictionalized docudrama on the Case of Genie) because even though the research was on psychological study of emotionality, brain development when not nurtured, an language you'd see she had no concept of using reason to form conclusions or decisions on pretty much anything, not because her brain was in any way warped or diminished but because without learning anything she knew almost nothing about the world or how to move in it, since without experience and skills (like logic) she'd no idea how fast cars move an how it might be dangerous, in seeing it run over an animal, to move out into the street when there are lots of cars etc etc.

It's a learned skill reinforced by benefit versus risk/failure. Similar as with other animals, just not the same since it has a lower stopping point for most considering they have fewer needs and lower (or perhaps almost no) self awareness.

goddammit, I need to go back to school (or want to anyway). Fuck, I hate being me.

Yeah, you definitely need to learn the art of the short and concise response.

Well, you keep using "innate" to mean "at birth" even though nobody has argued here that our sense of logic exists at birth fully formed and functional. "Innate" can also mean that the potential for a proper sense of logic (not just logic) is present at birth, in the genes and biology of the human brain, just as the potential is there for the newborn to develop a fully functional visual perception system. The skill itself, the sense of logic proper, will then develop over time, through sustained interactions with any environment which is rich enough and not just white noise and not pure chaos. "Innate" really means here we don't need human teachers teaching us formal logic in any way to have an effective and fully operation sense of logic.

So, no need to go on and on about this, your point is taken, we don't have any sense of logic at birth. We all agree on that. And I would say it's pretty obvious, too, just like indeed no newborn has ever been heard at birth making elaborate sentences in English or any comparable language and yet must have the potential to develop a human language provided there is a human environment to interact with.

Still, precisely, language here doesn't seem to work like logic. I don't believe we have any sense of language. We obviously have a capacity to develop a language but this seems to be best explained by the fact that we have a general capability that we can apply to learn and do all sorts of things, including language but also playing music instruments or playing football or whatever.

Logic seems different to me because it's a very basic capability and that it seems to me to be necessary for us to be able to use our perceptions to form an effective model of our environment, and this irrespective of whether we have human teachers available to help or not.

So, I'm afraid I don't take your analogy with how we learn a language to be relevant to logic.

Now, back to my initial request for you to provide evidence that animals would have a very different sense of logic.

The short answer is that you don't have any.

First, you seem to confuse logic with what logic may help the organism achieve, which is to make an effective model of its environment. By logic we usually mean the most fundamental aspects of our ability to make sense of things, and I would rather say of our perceptions. I would use Aristotle's logic of syllogism as a broad brush of what probably is our sense of logic as opposed to formal logic as it's been developed in the 20th century in the footsteps of development of mathematics.

So, learning to make use of resources of one's environment certainly I would assume requires logic but also many other capabilities beyond just logic, like a visual perception, memory, motor control of our muscles etc.

So, in effect, you haven't shown at all that the other animal's sense of logic was any different from the human sense of logic.

What's is obviously different is only what humans can achieve in their environment, but as I just said, this may be entirely due not to our superior sense of logic but to our other capabilities, which are objectively very versatile even compared to apes, without that it should be taken as proof that our sense of logic is also superior.

Obviously, we have been able to develop systems of formal logic, allegedly "superior", although I doubt that myself, but something indeed no other animal probably could ever achieve. Still, that, too, can be entirely explained by our other capabilities together with using our sense of logic that very possibly is broadly on a par with that of other animals. So, I take it you don't have any clear evidence against that interpretation.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Most living animal life has evolved means to determine value (food, sex, warmth, safety, etc.) from other or ignorable. That observation forms the basis for my conclusion that most animal life has inherent capacity for sorting and deciding, ie logic.

The intervening having been put to rest shall we return to whither logic is native which I kind of believe that it is since it comes with capacities evolved early on. As to whether it is intuitive depends on whether one believes classical logic is of the mind which it need not be just bvcause one has the equipment to perform logic.

I can't possibly let you just talk to yourself here!

So, intuition here just means that we can assess a logical question without going consciously through any logical analysis nor using any formal method to do it. I think this can be achieved by some part of our brain that we're not consciously aware of. Our consciousness just gets the result, the logical evaluation, without knowing how this evaluation has been carried out and where exactly.

Just like we take for example our colours for granted, without normally wondering where they come from or how they're made, I think we take our sense of logic for granted. It just works and that has to be good enough.

The question I'm interested in is how powerful our sense of logic is and how much logic do we need in any aspect of our activities, from ordinary life to science.
EB

We may as well be talking to ourselves since I argue from of a genetic/physiological based approach and you aren't.

The systems to which you refer were covered by attempts by psychologists like Freud, Jung, and Adler in the late nineteenth early twentieth century to put an empirical face on classical subjective notions. The result was lipstick on a pig. As far as I can tell these models have fallen by the wayside in favor of those of a more reductionistic sort based on evolution and genetics.

As long as you insist on a conscious based model you are stuck on using shit pump hydraulic reasoning using controlled energy management which, as you must know, just doesn't work. Intuition is a presumed thing which flows from something else unknown leaving you with no basis for advancing your discussion.

That sort of thing left me cold so I went back to something that can be supported by scientific understanding, an environment where energy mechanics are universal.

Since I.m sure we won't resolve our differences here why not each of us just present what we understand and let the chips fall. If you see problems with my interpretations then do so within the context I've laid out and I'll attempt to do the same with what problems I see in your views.

If you need a starting point then defining intuition mechanics would be a good place for you to start.

Sorry I'm feeling so shitty today. Maybe I should just go back to bed.

 

[Speakpigeon]

We may as well be talking to ourselves since I argue from of a genetic/physiological based approach and you aren't.

The systems to which you refer were covered by attempts by psychologists like Freud, Jung, and Adler in the late nineteenth early twentieth century to put an empirical face on classical subjective notions. The result was lipstick on a pig. As far as I can tell these models have fallen by the wayside in favor of those of a more reductionistic sort based on evolution and genetics.

As long as you insist on a conscious based model you are stuck on using shit pump hydraulic reasoning using controlled energy management which, as you must know, just doesn't work. Intuition is a presumed thing which flows from something else unknown leaving you with no basis for advancing your discussion.

That sort of thing left me cold so I went back to something that can be supported by scientific understanding, an environment where energy mechanics are universal.

Since I.m sure we won't resolve our differences here why not each of us just present what we understand and let the chips fall. If you see problems with my interpretations then do so within the context I've laid out and I'll attempt to do the same with what problems I see in your views.

If you need a starting point then defining intuition mechanics would be a good place for you to start.

Sorry I'm feeling so shitty today. Maybe I should just go back to bed.

Good, we can do that and I'll try to keep you in a good mood if at all possible.

Well, bad start, I guess here. I think you may be missing something. We're being told that science today is all methodologically spank and shiny but it seems to me that couldn't possibly have been so at the birth of modern science with people like Galileo and Newton, if we can start with that. In my view, a realistic approach and methodology would be to take into account the fact that we have to do our job with whatever means and resources are available to us at the moment. Galileo and Newton did just that. They produced this model where gravitation was a force and then Einstein came along and threw this notion whole down the toilet drain. Yet, it should be obvious to all that Einstein was made possible by Galileo and Newton. So, me, I think you should take a leaf or two out of those Bright and Shining Angels and condescend to start at the low end of the nice construction just because, well, there's no construction yet. We know shit about the subjective side of consciousness outside, well, our own, personal, subjective experience. So, dismiss the only evidence you have? Is that your method?! Galileo and Newton would have laughed at your snotty upturned nose.

So I guess it's not really a question of method. Personally, I'm all for the scientific method. See? Cheer up! But as of today, there seems to me to be no basis for using the scientific method to investigate the subjective side of consciousness starting with the sundry collection of factoids relative to our objective brain. In fact, neuroscientists, as far as I can tell from the outside, just conveniently and entirely ignore the subjective side of consciousness, i.e. the so-called "hard problem". They all prefer, for some reason, to deal with the easy problem of what the brain does. Excellent! We'll just have to wait till by chance they stumble on some result significant to the hard problem, if ever they do.

As to our sense of logic, I'm not a scientist myself and I don't have anything like the resources routinely available to scientists. I do with what I have. That's what all reasonable people do and that has to be the basis for science as well. So, now, if you can direct me to any properly scientific study you know of our sense of logic, I would be eternally in love with you. I looked. Well, haven't found anything yet. Seems it's not even on the radar. Me, as I already said elsewhere, it's high time we looked into that. Me, I'm doing it with the means available to me. That's what all non-idiots do. You're free to have grand ideas on how to proceed if you were yourself to proceed, but it's clear you're not even trying.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

speaking of ... no I'm not taking the bait. I've already pointed to a path forged by 'scientists' of the 19th and early 20th century who tried to animate such as energy flow withing the self. In fact I dropped a big assed hint turd on your doorstep called intuitive force for you to start gnawing on. It has no substance if that helps.

You refused. That's a shame. But then better than either of us have tried to crack nuts along those lines with no success.

So we can both pat the other on the back and say "nice duck" or "dodge" if you want a more mechanistic avoider.

As for history it was Archimedes and his machines and orbits who pathed the way for Galileo not Plato. At least get away from obvious first missteps. You fell into that bias as did the Psychoanalysts so you're not in too bad company.

 

[Speakpigeon]

As for history it was Archimedes and his machines and orbits who pathed the way for Galileo not Plato. At least get away from obvious first missteps. You fell into that bias as did the Psychoanalysts so you're not in too bad company.

Hey man, you're the one and only one to have talked of Plato here. Me, I talked of Galileo and Newton paving the way for Einstein.

Me, I would say, first thing we need in science, is we need to have our facts right! You still have some way to go, here. Come on, hurry up! We can't wait for you!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Still only 8 who voted among 25 who visited:

Members who have read this thread in the last 3 days: 25
Iznomneak, gmbteach, jab, none, braces_for_impact, DBT, Old Woman in Purple, The AntiChris, Shake, Juma, Random Person, Jobar, Wiploc, loose cannon, Speakpigeon, untermensche, Copernicus, fromderinside, Angra Mainyu, Tharmas, skepticalbip, 4321lynx

Come on, you must have a view!
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Still only 8 who voted among 25 who visited:

Members who have read this thread in the last 3 days: 25
Iznomneak, gmbteach, jab, none, braces_for_impact, DBT, Old Woman in Purple, The AntiChris, Shake, Juma, Random Person, Jobar, Wiploc, loose cannon, Speakpigeon, untermensche, Copernicus, fromderinside, Angra Mainyu, Tharmas, skepticalbip, 4321lynx

Come on, you must have a view!
EB

But not time to debate, I'm afraid. I think there's an innate sense, but I don't know whether it's an innate sense of deduction (if that's what you mean) per se, or rather, it results from more general innate capacities.

 

[fromderinside]

Galileo and Newton were dominated by religion, both studied alchemy, Where did that come from. Those are the antecedents through which they managed to escape the collar of speculation and rationalism, Archimedes and empiricism you see. No you probably don't.

Sure ontology applies. But biological ontology as an aspect of physical ontology is much more fruitful for the inquisitive than about the nature of being probably mindful consciousness desire and motive rational speculation thing, game, idyl.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Galileo and Newton were dominated by religion, both studied alchemy, Where did that come from.

Sure, most people were at that time, even educated people. What's the problem with that? They did a very good job so what's your problem? You think you would have done a better job at the time?

Those are the antecedents through which they managed to escape the collar of speculation and rationalism, Archimedes and empiricism you see. No you probably don't.

I sort of can guess but I admit I'm not going to care that much. Newton himself is said to have uttered something rather magnificent about standing on the shoulders of Giants, though I don't remember if any of the Giants was supposed to be having a bath or something:

The metaphor of dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants (Latin: nanos gigantum humeris insidentes) expresses the meaning of "discovering truth by building on previous discoveries".[1] This concept has been traced to the 12th century, attributed to Bernard of Chartres. Its most familiar expression in English is by Isaac Newton in 1675: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

Sure ontology applies. But biological ontology as an aspect of physical ontology is much more fruitful for the inquisitive than about the nature of being probably mindful consciousness desire and motive rational speculation thing, game, idyl.

That's just too garbled for me there, sorry. I guess I got the general idea. You're pissed off.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

When visible dirt can't be seen when brushing your horse, your horse probably doesn't need any more brushing. That kind of pissed off. Indeed.

 

[Jobar]

I didn't see an option that covered my understanding. As I see it, humans have an innate ability for rational reasoning. Logic is only a formal system that models that ability. Humans don't have an intuitive sense of the formal system but do have the innate ability to do what that formal system describes.

As a comparison; humans instinctively understand that gathering more of some objects will increase the amount and using some will decrease the amount. Mathematics is a formal system that describes this but, without studying mathematics, someone would not be able to handle the symbols of mathematics.

Sounds right to me. And as with mathematics, some people can learn formal logic more easily than others, and are better at using it. Some seem to have no talent for logic at all.

I'm just not comfortable voting for any of the options here. There should be something like 'Facility with logic is a matter of individual ability, and can improve with instruction and practice.'

 

[fromderinside]

.... demonstrating our inative sense of quibble ....

 

[Speakpigeon]

I didn't see an option that covered my understanding. As I see it, humans have an innate ability for rational reasoning. Logic is only a formal system that models that ability. Humans don't have an intuitive sense of the formal system but do have the innate ability to do what that formal system describes.

As a comparison; humans instinctively understand that gathering more of some objects will increase the amount and using some will decrease the amount. Mathematics is a formal system that describes this but, without studying mathematics, someone would not be able to handle the symbols of mathematics.

Sounds right to me. And as with mathematics, some people can learn formal logic more easily than others, and are better at using it. Some seem to have no talent for logic at all.

I'm just not comfortable voting for any of the options here. There should be something like 'Facility with logic is a matter of individual ability, and can improve with instruction and practice.'

Given the three following premises that you've just endorsed here:

1. "humans have an innate ability for rational reasoning"
2. "logic is a formal system that models that ability"
3. "humans (...) do have the innate ability to do what that formal system describes"​

It follows that logic is the formal expression of what's called here "rational reasoning".


However, "rational" also seems to be a straightforward synonym of "logical":

Rational
1. Having or exercising the ability to reason. See Synonyms at logical.

Logical
Synonyms: logical, analytic, ratiocinative, rational
These adjectives mean capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning

So, I don't see any good reason for dismissing the idea that the human brain is effectively capable of doing actual logic.

Also, if logic was only formal logic, as you both suggested, there would be no reason for professionals to speak of "formal logic" rather than just "logic".

I guess, the only debate must be whether there a specific sense of logic, something somehow appart from our reasoning capability, or whether it's just the same thing with a different name.

So, why would we have two different names for the same thing?

Me, I see one very good reason to believe we have a sense of logic somehow appart from our reasoning capability.

I see reasoning as essentially a conscious process. However, while we can consciously consider and solve logical formulae, it seems we can also have intuitions giving us the solution to logical relations.

The intuitions here will have two parts. An unconscious part, which is the logical calculation proper, and the conscious part, which is just the reception of the result of this calculation into the conscious part of the mind. This suggests to me that logic has to be a separate capability from that of reasoning. And, crucially, it is clear we often disregard logic altogether when we think, take decisions, express our ideas, etc. This suggests, too, that logic is appart from the main process, which I therefore wouldn't call "rational", since it may well ignore logic, but "thinking", which is a conscious process but not necessarily logical, perhaps seldom essentially logical, and not even necessarily linguistic or symbolic in form. This thinking process may be affected by all sorts of things, all essentially coming from unconscious parts of ourselves, and therefore better called "senses", like emotions, impressions, perceptions, sensations, memories, etc, and, then, among them, our sense of logic.

Seems to be good sense, that.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Yet, as we wander the popular press pages we find uncountable instances of persons failures to execute logical reasoning. Just another case of press's 'man bites dog' perspective? - don't want you to drive on three wheels, logical, er, commercial, er, logical, er,.....!

 

[Phil Scott]

I reckon I have an aesthetic sense for logic, which mostly agrees with a lot of other folks, and which I can run with. But I'm kinda stupid at logic. I still find myself getting antecedents and consequents mixed up, and given that there is a fallacy based on that, and a famous experiment by Wason, I assume that I'm not alone in such stupidity. That sad thing is that logic strikes me as being entirely about making sure you don't mix up the left and right in your inferences, so if I screw up on that, I might as well declare this logic business to be beyond my capabilities.

 

[skepticalbip]

.... snip ....

Also, if logic was only formal logic, as you both suggested, there would be no reason for professionals to speak of "formal logic" rather than just "logic".

I guess, the only debate must be whether there a specific sense of logic, something somehow appart from our reasoning capability, or whether it's just the same thing with a different name.

..... snip ....

The reason I make a distinction between "formal logic" and "logic" is that people tend to be very sloppy in their use of English and call rational reasoning "logic".

Yet again: logic is a formal system, rational reasoning is an innate ability.

I have already tried to show the difference with a comparison between a formal system like mathematics and human's innate ability to understand more or less of some objects and how collecting more increases the amount and using some decreases the amount. This innate ability should not be confused with the formal system of mathematics.

Another comparison: Humans have an innate ability to "calculate" how hard to throw a ball and how high to arc it to reach another person. The formal system that describes this is called physics. To solve the same "problem" using physics would require an understanding of Newton's laws of motion, conservation of energy, the universal law of gravity, and likely a few other physical principles. The person "calculating" how to throw the ball is not using physics but their innate ability of reacting with reality to reach the same "conclusion" that physics would.

 

[Copernicus]

.... snip ....

Also, if logic was only formal logic, as you both suggested, there would be no reason for professionals to speak of "formal logic" rather than just "logic".

I guess, the only debate must be whether there a specific sense of logic, something somehow appart from our reasoning capability, or whether it's just the same thing with a different name.

..... snip ....

The reason I make a distinction between "formal logic" and "logic" is that people tend to be very sloppy in their English and call rational reasoning "logic".

Yet again: logic is a formal system, rational reasoning is an innate ability.

I have already tried to show the difference with a comparison between a formal system like mathematics and human's innate ability to understand more or less of some objects and how collecting more increases the amount and using some decreases the amount. This innate ability should not be confused with the formal system of mathematics.

Another comparison: Humans have an innate ability to "calculate" how hard to throw a ball and how high to arc it to reach another person. The formal system that describes this is called physics. To solve the same "problem" using physics would require an understanding of Newton's laws of motion, conservation of energy, the universal law of gravity, and likely a few other physical principles. The person "calculating" how to throw the ball is not using physics but their innate ability of reacting with reality to reach the same "conclusion" that physics would.

Ever play frisbee with a dog? I think you've got the right take on this. Logic is inherent in all embodied brains. What I wonder about is how you get from cognition grounded in a vast web associations to reasoning based on logical deduction. A brain needs to be able to resolve contradictions in order to survive, but how does it do it?

 

[skepticalbip]

Ever play frisbee with a dog? I think you've got the right take on this. Logic is inherent in all embodied brains. What I wonder about is how you get from cognition grounded in a vast web associations to reasoning based on logical deduction. A brain needs to be able to resolve contradictions in order to survive, but how does it do it?

That is a great question. There is likely a Nobel waiting for anyone who can answer it.