What is logic?

[untermensche]

I can't find my keys.

Maybe they are in my pants.

Maybe they vanished into thin air.

How do we defend the latter?

I don't actually know that keys cannot vanished into thin air therefore, for all I know, I may not be able to find my keys just because they have vanished into thin air.
EB

That is a defense fit for what?

You don't "know" anything if you don't know keys can't just vanish.

If you know nothing you can make no valid points.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Any set of premises that lead to a conclusion that makes me happy.

Good.

You are alive.

Therefore you can hope to live a long life.

Also therefore, you'll die eventually.

Something like that. (sorry if I'm breaking the news to you)
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't actually know that keys cannot vanished into thin air therefore, for all I know, I may not be able to find my keys just because they have vanished into thin air.
EB

That is a defense fit for what?

You don't "know" anything if you don't know keys can't just vanish.

If you know nothing you can make no valid points.

It's fit for "Maybe they vanished into thin air".

And I do know something, i.e. that I don't know that keys cannot vanish into thin air.
EB

 

[untermensche]

That is a defense fit for what?

You don't "know" anything if you don't know keys can't just vanish.

If you know nothing you can make no valid points.

It's fit for "Maybe they vanished into thin air".

And I do know something, i.e. that I don't know that keys cannot vanish into thin air.
EB

You're not following the rules.

You have to defend the idea that keys can just vanish.

How would that happen?

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's fit for "Maybe they vanished into thin air".

And I do know something, i.e. that I don't know that keys cannot vanish into thin air.
EB

You're not following the rules.

You have to defend the idea that keys can just vanish.

How would that happen?

I'm not sure what you are talking about but I thought the rules of logic went like this:

All normal keys can vanished into thin air
My keys are normal keys
Therefore my keys can vanished into thin air.

Sounds like a valid syllogism to me. Why wouldn't it be?
EB

 

[untermensche]

You're not following the rules.

You have to defend the idea that keys can just vanish.

How would that happen?

I'm not sure what you are talking about but I thought the rules of logic went like this:

All normal keys can vanished into thin air
My keys are normal keys
Therefore my keys can vanished into thin air.

Sounds like a valid syllogism to me. Why wouldn't it be?
EB

Where did the first premise come from?

How do you defend it?

The rules of logic are you have to defend your thoughts in some way.

Not just pull things from your butt and say they are true. That's religion. And "cognitive science".

 

[Juma]

I'm not sure what you are talking about but I thought the rules of logic went like this:

All normal keys can vanished into thin air
My keys are normal keys
Therefore my keys can vanished into thin air.

Sounds like a valid syllogism to me. Why wouldn't it be?
EB

Where did the first premise come from?

How do you defend it?

The rules of logic are you have to defend your thoughts in some way.

Not just pull things from your butt and say they are true. That's religion. And "cognitive science".

You must learn to distinguish between "empirical fact" and logic deduction.

 

[untermensche]

I'm not sure what you are talking about but I thought the rules of logic went like this:

All normal keys can vanished into thin air
My keys are normal keys
Therefore my keys can vanished into thin air.

Sounds like a valid syllogism to me. Why wouldn't it be?
EB

Where did the first premise come from?

How do you defend it?

The rules of logic are you have to defend your thoughts in some way.

Not just pull things from your butt and say they are true. That's religion. And "cognitive science".

You must learn to distinguish between "empirical fact" and logic deduction.

You can't logically deduce anything from pure nonsense.

If you are doing more than masturbation.

I do not claim logic is masturbation. I claim the opposite.

 

[Juma]

I'm not sure what you are talking about but I thought the rules of logic went like this:

All normal keys can vanished into thin air
My keys are normal keys
Therefore my keys can vanished into thin air.

Sounds like a valid syllogism to me. Why wouldn't it be?
EB

Where did the first premise come from?

How do you defend it?

The rules of logic are you have to defend your thoughts in some way.

Not just pull things from your butt and say they are true. That's religion. And "cognitive science".

You must learn to distinguish between "empirical fact" and logic deduction.

You can't logically deduce anything from pure nonsense.

If you are doing more than masturbation.

I do not claim logic is masturbation. I claim the opposite.

So you dont know what a syllogism is. Then google it.

 

[untermensche]

So you dont know what a syllogism is. Then google it.

The rules arose from real world situations.

That they can be applied to meaningless situations is a side consequence, not the method of genesis.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So you dont know what a syllogism is. Then google it.

The rules arose from real world situations.

That they can be applied to meaningless situations is a side consequence, not the method of genesis.

That they can be applied to imaginary things is the essence of logic since... Aristotle.
EB

 

[untermensche]

The rules arose from real world situations.

That they can be applied to meaningless situations is a side consequence, not the method of genesis.

That they can be applied to imaginary things is the essence of logic since... Aristotle.
EB

Because it was discovered to be useful for practical things before that.

 

[ryan]

Please give a short description of whatever it is that you think deserves to be called logic.
EB

A set, V, of values and a set, O, of operators that each defines a rule to map a collection of operands from V to a single valued result in V

That might be what logic is mentally, but isn't it really just biological goo in the brain?

 

[bilby]

A set, V, of values and a set, O, of operators that each defines a rule to map a collection of operands from V to a single valued result in V

That might be what logic is mentally, but isn't it really just biological goo in the brain?

Sure, in the same way that the a space shuttle launch is just a pile of metal and plastic in Florida.

 

[ryan]

That might be what logic is mentally, but isn't it really just biological goo in the brain?

Sure, in the same way that the a space shuttle launch is just a pile of metal and plastic in Florida.

Okay, just as long as physicalists aren't using dualism.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Please give a short description of whatever it is that you think deserves to be called logic.
EB

The force that chooses a drunk person's footsteps.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That they can be applied to imaginary things is the essence of logic since... Aristotle.
EB

Because it was discovered to be useful for practical things before that.

I can't see how we could settle this.

You seem to believe that there are some sort of rules and that they have been defined by or before Aristotle. Personally, I've never heard of such rules and you seem to be the only one here in the know. So please, give us the reference to the scholarly work with a quote showing you are correct. If you can do that, you'll then have to explain why anybody should care about those rules.

I know, you won't do it, but, hey, I had to try.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Okay, just as long as physicalists aren't using dualism.

I'd expect even physicalists to have subjective experience so they have to use dualism if they really believe in some kind of physical world.

Ok, maybe not if they are some sort of zombies.
EB

 

[Random Person]

Any set of premises that lead to a conclusion that makes me happy.

Good.

You are alive.

Therefore you can hope to live a long life.

Also therefore, you'll die eventually.

Something like that. (sorry if I'm breaking the news to you)
EB

We are all going to die eventually.

 

[untermensche]

Because it was discovered to be useful for practical things before that.

I can't see how we could settle this.

You seem to believe that there are some sort of rules and that they have been defined by or before Aristotle. Personally, I've never heard of such rules and you seem to be the only one here in the know. So please, give us the reference to the scholarly work with a quote showing you are correct. If you can do that, you'll then have to explain why anybody should care about those rules.

I know, you won't do it, but, hey, I had to try.
EB

If you had engaged you might have seen.

If you tried to defend you might have seen.

But since you did neither I can only say logic arrived via human interaction as a means to deal with real world questions.

It's origins are practical.