Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
The Use of Logic
    #5737631 -

Quote:
Logic
a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference* and demonstration* : the science of the formal principles of reasoning.

*Infer
to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises.

*Demonstrate
1 : to show clearly
2 a : to prove or make clear by reasoning or evidence
b : to illustrate and explain especially with many examples.


There seems to be some confusion about the method of using logic. Logic is not a way of perceiving and gathering information, but rather an applied science of analyzing one's perceptions, evaluating the validity of information, and presenting one's premises in a clear and reasonable manner.

For example, a logical statement:

"A = B
If not B, then not A"

Could be used to analyze a premise such as "if God did not exist, then there would be no meaning to life."

For this premise to prove logical:

"If not God, then not meaning"

Then this statment must be factual:

"God = meaning." (As this is a subjective statement, the premise is illogical.)

When evaluating the available facts of a matter, logic is the most efficient and effective tool at our disposal. When discussing subjective experience, logic has no application.

All that can be said about subjective experience is that it has been experienced. One could certainly state "if God did not exist, life would have no meaning for me," clearly moving the statement into the subjective realm.

It seems to me that there truly is no clash between subjective/intuitive perception and logic/reasoning, as the two are mutually exclusive. The friction occurs when subjective perceptions are asserted as global facts, and questioned on a logical basis, or when those who use logical evaluation are characterized as lacking passion, curiosity and spirituality.

Edited by Veritas (06/11/06 02:31 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: Veritas]
    #5737900 -

Quote:
It seems to me that there truly is no clash between subjective/intuitive perception and logic/reasoning, as the two are mutually exclusive


How about the subjective statement of how belief is formed, How is belief formed? Through reason or/and faith. Isn't that using logic on more global and subjective level. Isn't philosphy a subjective subject that derives alot of conclusions on logic. Isn't math and science a logical subject that derives alot of its answers on intuition. Their not mutally exclusive and there are definitly clashes between the two.

I also question some of the so called logic in this forum. The higher levels of math are more abstract, different subspaces and planes are equated, something can be totally logical on one plane of existance but totally illogical on another.

Edited by capliberty (06/11/06 12:49 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: Veritas]
    #5737915 -

Nice post. I often wonder why the subjective experience gets so brushed aside when its all any of us have, including, the act of gathering and using facts in personal applications to suit ourselves.

We all have our own way of using and experiencing the fact of gravitational pulls to suit goals and objectives.

In every moment, though occupying the same space with others, each is seeing what is happening from their own view, and in their own feeling state about it, making up their subjective experience.

One is restless, one is bored, one is calm, one is enjoying them self, all in the same space engaging in the same activity. One is engrossed within the group activity at hand, another is getting inspiration to add new ideas to it, another is going through the motions thinking about how they feel hungry and what they would like for lunch. Another want the one adding new ideas to what they can do to shut up because they are just complicating something otherwise simple to them and they prefer simplicity.

Each could use logic (valid reasoning) to support why they feel the way they do and they all feel differently.

Thank you for the reminder that applying logic to something, reasoning with validation, is a carving tool we use while shaping and supporting our subjective realities.

Like with all tools, the better we are at knowing how to use them the better we are at getting them to make what we want to come of their use.

Thats key to understand. Someone better at crafting (valid reasoning) with it, is more likely to have a greater influence over someone who isn't. Their way will get utilized more until another comes along with even more impressive valid reasoning (logic) that can accomplish more or better serve the aquisition of a desired goal. 

The first cave men thought it logical to throw rocks at the heads of others competing for food sources.

The next evolution of men thought it more logical to combine hunting efforts for food with others.

The evolution of men after that thought it most logical for the group to share the excess with others who live in areas with no food sources.

Logic, as a tool for validating reasoning itself can expand and grow and change the shape of reality. It's a carving tool for what the subject can create out of an object. It has no direct bearing on what the limitations for its use, or life itself, actually are, or can be, as was demonstrated.

Logic really comes down to the ability to demonstrate sequential steps that take one from point A to point B, again and again if followed correctly.

That doesn't mean that there are not others ways one can start at A and end up at B and have no idea how they got there.

It doesn't mean they got their illogically then either. It just means, they can not recall the sequence to be able to repeat it or demonstrate it.

It also doesn't mean that point B is the only place sequential steps can take you on the larger map of the fabric of reality as was demonstrated with the evolutionary growth of mans logical reasoning. to keep as many people possible, alive and feed.

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5738063 -

I'm am guilty of this myself, but even the methods that we use to base our logic on is flawed, its common practice to quote someone elses writing, then dissect it, comeup with a valid argument to refute it, but by actually excluding the part from the whole you are taking what this person says out of context and applying it to your own train of thinking, not applying it to theirs, its better to refute someones logic by tapping into their mindset. Sometimes I see a circle of rebutals and counter rebutals, but both are making arguments on ambigious planes, its pointless to knock heads about apples and oranges, neither are defining the parameters of the argument, in which the subjective and objective is constantly clashing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5738126 -

Quote:
Logic really comes down to the ability to demonstrate sequential steps that take one from point A to point B, again and again if followed correctly.

That doesn't mean that there are not others ways one can start at A and end up at B and have no idea how they got there.

It doesn't mean they got their illogically then either. It just means, they can not recall the sequence to be able to repeat it or demonstrate it.


An alternative term I have heard & like is "non-logical."  I think that this is a more accurate way to refer to intuitive (A to Q) jumps, zig-zags, loop-the-loops & cartwheels.  You may arrive at the same place as someone who travelled step-by-step, but you may not be able to reconstruct your journey.  (I got in trouble for this during math classes. :grin:)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: Veritas]
    #5738178 -

A=C

C=B

Therefore:

A=B

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: Gomp]
    #5738181 -

Yes, if the first two statements are factual, then the third is, too.

What is your point?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: Veritas]
    #5738217 -

if then else if then else if...
:heart:


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: Veritas]
    #5738324 -

:smile: Again, nice interpretation of your understanding of what was said.

So you are saying that, non logical, opposed to illogical which has no sequential steps, is just something that did have sequence to it, only it can not be recalled or reconstructed?

Or are you saying, there was no sequence to the noncollectable flurry of loops, jumps, cartwheels and spins?


If you were to put that persons mental movements on videotape and  in slow motion, you would have a means for recalling, retracing and reconstructing them, a sequential order of events that got one from point A to B. You would also then, have logical reasoning to validate how they got there.

Is the phrase non-logical therefor an accurate truth if seuqntial logic was there, even though it cannot be recalled or reconstructed?

I think I understand what you are saying. The "non" to you means, can not be recalled and therefor, can not be reconstructed.

I'm wondering if others may take it to mean that, because it can not be recalled, there is nothing to reconstructed and no logical sequencing was ever involved and the person claiming to be at point B is there all in there imagination.

Thats not always true to me, because I came across the same phenomenon when first learning Algebra. Following the logical steps I was taught just Hurt my mind, like it was being squished. Mental blocks galore. However, I could always get the answer via who knows what route I took. Didn't matter that I got to the correct answer. The teacher marked it wrong because I was not able to demonstrate my working through the steps taught proper formula, to get to it.

I did get to the correct answer though. I did take a valid route if I got to it. What you are calling non-logic, I have come to call abstract logic.

A few times, I called it a higher order of logic as well. By higher I don't mean better. By higher I just mean, (off the ground in a way) where as someone using predominantly the left hemisphere takes the straight side walk path, the other, predominantly using the right hemisphere is swinging through the tree vines, grabbing the tail of a plane to hitch a ride then dropping with parachutes, bouncing off trampolines, and taking the more scenic route winding up through the mountains to get there.

I think the right hemisphere has a way of rerouting what the left hemisphere has blocked. Where the left hemisphere takes a straight path, the right hemisphere does the loop de loops, leaps, spins and cartwheels making it hard to recall or reconstruct for teaching the sequence of how it got there to others in order to validate it.

The right hemisphere, never seems to take the same route twice to get to the same place either.

Your thoughts, comments on this?




Cap, sure ,when it comes to logical debate, all sorts of non sense ensues and I agree, it appears to be based on context and taking things out of context or over imposing another context upon another. I get caught up into forgetting that too sometimes.

Take my demonstration of the evolution of logical reasoning from the first selfish cave man to modern day altruistic man.

The man eliminating the competition can give valid logical reason for that action that makes sense within it's context.

Same with the one co-operating and same with the one, even sharing the excess of the co-operative efforts haul.

Each has its one valid logical reasoning and YET, they contradict each other.

So when contradictions come up in debate, people use them as a means to prove, one is right (logical) and one is wrong (il-logical). Both can be logically valid within their context. This understanding seems to be very difficult to elucidate to others.

However, I must say, it is fun to catch people who believe in the "their context is the only logical one", contradicting themselves.

It's fun because they have an opportunity to reflect on how, something seemed logical from the one stance and it also did from the one where they contradicted it. I truly think that bothers them to realize though, because it violates some other belief they must have about there being a sure method for arriving to the only logical conclusion there is to something.

Maybe they think it means, they can be proven wrong when they feel valid and that is just to unsettling to face. Really this is easy to overcome when you realize, you are valid if you can validate your reasoning and so can another be valid who contradicts yours. Both can be logical and contradict at the same time.

Maybe they just need to get more of the right hemisphere involved to make sense of how that can be.

Or, if they just reflect on the evolution of it I demonstrated, as it follows logical growth steps they can relate too. Time, growth, experience, expansion accounts for how it can be. This is difficult to see however, when one assumes, they have had the same amount of time, growth, experience as the other has with working through expanding upon an understanding of how something can work(How much they have used logical reasoning to evolve an idea into something more and even radically different)

Interesting to observe here. Interesting to discuss too. Thanks you two for discussing it.

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: Veritas]
    #5738465 -

I am dismayed by those who:
A.) Use deductions as proof
B.) Use inductions with certianty

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5738817 -

When I say "non-logical," I mean that which is not ruled by logic.  To say that something is "illogical" means that it has failed the test of logic.  Intuition is not illogical, it is non-logical.  Love is not illogical, it is non-logical.

I like this bit about non-logical methods in science:

Quote:
Non-logical Methods

While it may not be "scientific" to use non-logical methods, nevertheless, in actual practice, scientists and all problem solvers are always using them.

Time is often the main reason these are used. Some non-logical methods used result from habits, emotions, trial and error, arbitrariness, haste, frustration, closed mindedness, experimentation, unreasoned opinions, risk taking, intuitive pure guess, etc.

Be alert to whether they affect your results favorably or unfavorably. Chance, accidental discovery, fortunate occurrences, unanticipated novelty, effective surprise, and serendipity probably are non-logical methods or ways.


I don't usually think of mental processes as dichotomous, but rather layered and speaking different languages.  The triune brain theory, proposed by Paul MacLean, makes the most sense to me.  It seems to correlate with both psychological concepts (applied neuroscience :grin:), and my personal experiences and observations of human behavior.

http://www.psycheducation.org/emotion/triune%20brain.htm

The right-brain/left-brain theory has been under review, and may be revised or scrapped as a working model of mental functioning.

http://www.rense.com/general2/rb.htm (an interesting article which updates earlier findings about the right brain/left brain theory.)

I tend to see intuitive (non-logical) information as arising from our "older" brain, which speaks in gut feelings, hunches, sudden inspirations, foreboding, longing, dread, hope.  The new brain (neocortex) uses words to reason things out, sort the emotional impulse into a rational response, test and try our theories, analyze our interactions with others, plan and strategize.

The sequence of intuitive thought is irrelevant and possibly untraceable.  It could arise from a dozen seemingly unrelated emotional impressions, subtle pattern recognition, or other "old brain" communications which would not be accessible through "back-thinking" from the intuitive information. 

I, too, used to "get" the answers in algebra class, just from looking at the equations.  Of course, I still had to show my work, and it was tedious to work through it step-by-step to arrive at the answer I had already intuited.  The initial process was not something I could describe or rationally understand--it just happened.  This is what I call "non-logical."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: Veritas]
    #5739613 -

Arguments can be lumped into deductive arguments and a inductive arguments. A valid deductive argument cannot have true premises and a false conclusion by definition. An strong inductive argument is one where if the premises are true there is a high probability (although not 100%) that the conclusion is true. A cogent inductive argument is one in which the premises are all true and thus the conclusion is most probably true.

There is no such thing as a deductive argument that involves beliefs or non-factual inferences.

Most people in this forum are spilling out poorly constructed weak inductive arguments.
Some people in this forum are able to carefully construct strong inductive arguments.

An example of a strong cogent inductive argument:
The sun has risen from the east every morning of my life.
Tomorrow morning will begin roughly at 7:30AM in my time zone.
Therefore, the sun will probably rise in the east tommorrow at 7:30AM.

This argument is inductive because the word probably in the conclusion. It seems cogent to me: if the sun has risen every other morning from the east then it will probably rise again in the east tomorrow morning.

Had I left he word "probably" out of the conclusion this could be considered an invalid deductive argument. Why? Because it is possible that a meteor clouds the earth before tomorrow morning comes and then the sun will never "rise" altogether. An example of an instance where my premises were true yet my conclusion was false.

I don't remember why I even started this post but I hope someone enjoys and learns from this, lol.


--------------------
I do not grow anything illegal.
I do not sell anything.
I am, however, a very curious individual.
I also try to be helpful.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: FreedomFight]
    #5739620 -

Good post... should be moved to this thread, though.

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5737505/an/0/page/0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: Veritas]
    #5740250 -

Insightful post. It reminds me of a synchronicity that occurred some years ago with a childhood friend whom I was visiting in New Hampshire, on my birthday. He is a physicist who works as a geophysicist in his own company. We were having dinner at an Indian restaurant and we were discussing/arguing about the origin of the universe. He, the physicist was coming from the discipline of cosmology; I, the philosopher, was discussing the mythology of Genesis. When ww left the restaurant, there was a car parked outside facing the door to the restaurant. The license plate read COSMOS! Whoa! what a coincidence! And we marvelled as we walked to our car, when lo - there was yet another car maybe a half block down that read MYTHOS! Both vectors into Reality/Truth were now embraced by this synchronicity. We were mind-blown.

The Zennist knows the 'Isness' of what is. This Isness knows itself in reflective human awareness. We know by different avenues. The MBTI recognizes Sensing and Intuition as the two principles, and these seem to be what we are talking about here. Instict is yet another aspect of the Isness manifesting. I think of the spider weaving a web of symmetry (a web made more perfect if the spider is dosed with LSD, more erratic if given mescaline, btw). The web symmetry then reminds me of a Star Trek Voyager in which Seven-of-Nine has the opportunity to 'see God,' through a technological means. It appears to us as a kaleidoscope of mathematically perfect images, but obviously it was much more - it imparted a religious experience to the cyborgian human. Describing the visual display does not convey the subjective experience of meaning, perfection, harmony and other aspects that characterize religious experience. Some people have taken big doses of psychedelics, and all they get are visual fireworks and euphoria. Taken together, these qualities do not comprise a life-changing religious experience.


Whether we are Sensing or Intuitive type personalities, it behooves all of us to understand a model which takes both into consideration so that we can bring the "inferior function" up to balance its opposite. Someone like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a scientist and a mystic. There are others, including Einstein to some extent. It would seem like the Trekkian Vulcan Kolinahr ritual of attaining 'pure logic' would resemble a religious experience for those who worship logic as Truth. This would, IMO, not represent a high form of religion any more than nature mysticism does. One focuses on one isolated intellectual function, the other on the senses. Harmony must include all vectors into Truth.

Peace.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: Veritas]
    #5740530 -

Thanks for further explaining what non-logical means to you, related to the insight that comes from intuition. What about this-

One time, I was on my way to the dentist and was running a tad late. A strong intuitive feeling told me to take a different way, that was actually, a little longer. That made ZERO logical sense to do considering I was running late, but I did it (because I trust my intuition that much).

On the way back home, I took the normal shorter route and found, I would have hit a construction area that was backed up and detoured. Had I taken the regular shorter way I would've ended up getting there even later, then taking my alternate route under intuitions guidance.

I suppose that would fit your definition of non-logical reasoning.

Yet, a form of logic to me was involved and applied because, intuition was a trusted source of information to me as it always proves itself and so, I had valid reasoning for following it.

This is why I can't honestly say for myself that no form of logical reasoning was applied regarding my use of intuition, when I made the decision to take the longer route. 

Labels get tricky sometimes don't they? :lol:


The rest of your post was interesting as well. :sun:

I liked your comments added here Mushman and freedom fighter. :cool:

Markos, that was too much to believe that you saw plates that said Cosmos and Mythos after that discussion. Life is trip without drugs huh? :lol:

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #5741147 -

My scores on the MBTI are consistently even or one point off on each aspect.  :grin: 

I like the idea of becoming balanced along the lines of introversion/extroversion, intuition/sensing, feeling/thinking, judging/perceiving.  Rather than leaning on my strengths, I work to develop the "untapped" areas of my personality, just as I work to develop and stretch the weaker and more inflexible areas of my body.

Strength in one dimension is actually weakness, as it does not allow for flexibility and adaptation.  Polarities are not either/or, but AND.  :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: Veritas]
    #5741221 -

I know this sounds like a 1970s "Hey Babe, what's your sign?," but what is your MBTI type, if you don't mind my asking? My Lady and I are both INTPs.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #5741267 -

Well, if I accurately represent the even scores, my type is XXTJ. The thinking/feeling and judging/perceiving scores were off by one. This means that I would match the descriptions of four types, INTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ, ESTJ. Of these four, I think the INTJ description best fits me.

The book I read ("Understanding Your Type" or something like that) recommended reading the types you were nearly even on, as well, so that would mean I loosely match all the types.

Edited by Veritas (06/12/06 11:35 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5741562 -

Perhaps it is more descriptive/accurate to say that following your trustworthy intuition makes sense, though it is non-logical.
:shrug:

I often follow my intuitions about driving/walking routes, as well as seemingly minor decisions (buy this book, bring my cell phone, don't choose that sandwich from the deli case).  My intuition has never led me into danger, though I can rarely confirm whether it actually helped me avoid a dangerous situation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Use of Logic [Re: Veritas]
    #5741633 -

I'd say its logical to feel that intuition is a subconscious level of reasoning, When I play chess, I can kinda hone in on this subconscious level as a way to guide myself and my pieces, because I'm not genius enough to actually consciously know 10 moves ahead and anticipate if he moves here and their, then employ this strategy or that strategy, the if then loops of my mental programming, but subconsciously I can get a feel for anticipation. Thats how Kasparov beat a computer that could compute 3 million moves ahead, because a computer can't be programmed for anticipation, if careful logical planning is utilized to the end and no blunders in movement, then the computer is helpless in deciphering certain strategy employed upon it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* why are there so many loopholes, blanks, and contradictions in logic?
( 1 2 3 all )		 MrBuzin 5,438 40 02/20/07 01:49 PM
by shroomydan
* Logic
( 1 2 all )		 shroomydan 3,483 34 06/16/06 05:30 AM
by slaphappy
* epistemology and logic Axiom420 3,312 17 01/16/03 11:23 AM
by Axiom420
* Inductive / Deductive Phencyclidine 3,230 9 06/23/04 09:05 PM
by Phencyclidine
* Rationality, Objectivity and Logic
( 1 2 3 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 6,974 45 10/15/05 11:19 AM
by BlueCoyote
* Argument Against A Conscious/First Cause God.... Akira 1,476 17 01/05/06 07:04 AM
by psyka
* Traps and pitfalls of logic and science.
( 1 2 all )		 gribochek 4,553 28 04/23/02 10:06 PM
by infidelGOD
* Inference via experience or logic elbisivni 970 6 04/18/07 02:46 PM
by MushroomTrip

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,202 topic views. 0 members, 248 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.035 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.