Logic is perfect

[Wyman]

consciousness derives logics existance from the event

Give one example of an event that causes consciousness to derive the existence of logic.

[Arising_uk]

Why or how does logic arise from the existence of things or states of affairs?

Because without such things there is no Logic.

I have often pondered Wittgenstein's first proposition in the Tractatus, 'the world is everything that is the case' and thought that it, like any axiom, presupposes an awful lot. In fact, it presupposes everything he later sets forth. Such as, that the world consists of facts or states of affair, we create pictures of those facts, etc. You seem to be claiming something similar.

Guilty as charged.

The problem with this is, it is the world view of a logician (trained in the symbolic logic language game, as the later Wittgenstein would say). Do you have this world view because of your language training, or do you have your logic because it is determined by 'the world,' as you claim?

I have this view because of my study of logic and reading the early Wittgenstein about the grounds of symbolism. I also think that all reason lies upon the axioms of Logic and these axioms arise exactly because there are things and states of affairs, i.e. no states of affairs or things, no Logic.

Not to get ad hominem , but I think the claim you make, that the world is somehow logical or creates necessary conditions for our thoughts and language, makes you essentially a Platonist (gasp!).

Not quite, as I have no 'ideal logical form' behind the scenes. I also, I think, do not claim that 'it' creates the necessary conditions for language as I think that lies with the kind of body with senses, in an external world, one has. It may well be a necessary condition for thought tho' as I'm hard pushed to think of a situation where thought could exist without states of affairs or things?

It is an age old argument, but isn't that what philosophy is all about? So again, why do you think that logic 'arises' from the existence of things?

It arises because if there are things or states of affairs then it cannot be the case that there aren't.

[Arising_uk]

Give one example of an event that causes consciousness to derive the existence of logic.

Hmm... I might have to take back my agreement.

How about the event when considering what 'existing' entails?

[Wyman]

Here is a thought experiment. Imagine prehistoric men who had no language. They hunted game together and lived together, using perhaps hand gestures, grunts and glances (facial expressions). Much like chimps and lions.

One such man is spear hunting and sees a boar running by. He knows that he must lead the boar - if he throws the spear towards where the boar is now, it will fall behind. But, 'If I throw it ahead of the boar, the spear will hit the boar.'

Certainly, 'leading' a target in this way is within the capability of such an ancient human (or even Neanderthal). But he cannot say, 'If p (I throw it there), then q (I can hit it).'

Similarly, he can see dark clouds approaching and expect rain (If dark clouds approach, it will rain). Do these correlations upon which he bases his behavior mean that he has derived logic from his experience? Is logic based on experiences of causation (or correlation) and appropriate reactions to them?

I can see where we may say that such a human is 'acting logically.' But that is only our description of a learned activity, not a necessary result derived from the world. We could easily imagine a 'dumb' human who kept throwing at the wrong spot continuously. We would describe him as illogical or dense, but we wouldn't therefore maintain that the 'world' is illogical.

As for concepts such as the law of non-contradiction, I don't see any way in which the pre-linguistic human could be said to exhibit it. It is purely based on linguistic concepts - 'x cannot be both big and small.' This depends entirely on linguistics.

So, if a human, in every way like you and me physiologically, but without language, cannot be said to derive logic from the world, then wouldn't it seem that logic somehow derives from language itself?

[Arising_uk]

Here is a thought experiment. Imagine prehistoric men who had no language. They hunted game together and lived together, using perhaps hand gestures, grunts and glances (facial expressions). Much like chimps and lions.

Okay.

One such man is spear hunting and sees a boar running by. He knows that he must lead the boar - if he throws the spear towards where the boar is now, it will fall behind. But, 'If I throw it ahead of the boar, the spear will hit the boar.'

Certainly, 'leading' a target in this way is within the capability of such an ancient human (or even Neanderthal). But he cannot say, 'If p (I throw it there), then q (I can hit it).'

I presume this was learnt empirically rather than logically.

Similarly, he can see dark clouds approaching and expect rain (If dark clouds approach, it will rain). Do these correlations upon which he bases his behavior mean that he has derived logic from his experience? Is logic based on experiences of causation (or correlation) and appropriate reactions to them?

Sure but without such events there'd be no logic to experience.

I can see where we may say that such a human is 'acting logically.' But that is only our description of a learned activity, not a necessary result derived from the world. We could easily imagine a 'dumb' human who kept throwing at the wrong spot continuously. We would describe him as illogical or dense, but we wouldn't therefore maintain that the 'world' is illogical.

I'm not saying that the world is logical, although I think it is as if not then the world can exist and not exist at the same time(?), I'm saying that logic arises exactly because there is a world of things and states of affairs.

As for concepts such as the law of non-contradiction, I don't see any way in which the pre-linguistic human could be said to exhibit it. It is purely based on linguistic concepts - 'x cannot be both big and small.' This depends entirely on linguistics.

So you think a pre-linguistic human would pick up a small object to complete a task where a large one is needed? But I accept this is probably ignoring your point. So yes, I agree that Logic is concerned with propositions but think that the fact that we can have propositions depends upon there being things and states of affairs and as such those things exhibit the laws of Logic, i.e. a thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Your example is about relations and as such a thing can be both big and small at the same time as it depends upon the relative context.

So, if a human, in every way like you and me physiologically, but without language, cannot be said to derive logic from the world, then wouldn't it seem that logic somehow derives from language itself?

To be honest I don't think we can say we are alike if language is the absent thing and I accept that this may undercut my point But then I don't think we could derive language without there being a world and I think a world cannot exist if it did not demonstrate its Logic by its actual existence. Or some such.

[jackles]

logic is phyclogical relativity to the event.or brain relativity to the event.brain relativity is consciousness.local to nonlocal relativity = logic in the event.

[Arising_uk]

logic is phyclogical relativity to the event.or brain relativity to the event.brain relativity is consciousness.local to nonlocal relativity = logic in the event.

Pretty much meaningless gibberish.

Logic occurs when there are things or states of affairs. The symbolism of 'it' occurs when there are states of affairs or things that can think about it. If there are things and states of affairs and no things to think about it then there is still Logic but no Symbolism but if there are no things nor states of affairs then no Logic nor things thinking about it.

[jackles]

exactly so arising could not have put it better.there has to be relativity in logic or reason.relativity to an event that is.what is relating to the event is consciouse awareness.the event is local.the consciousness is nonlocal.logic is that relativity between local and nonlocal.it equals conscience in the event.

[Arising_uk]

exactly so arising could not have put it better.there has to be relativity in logic or reason.relativity to an event that is.what is relating to the event is consciouse awareness.the event is local.the consciousness is nonlocal.logic is that relativity between local and nonlocal.it equals conscience in the event.

Apart from the usual monomanical gibberish about 'non-local' and 'local' - No, Logic is not due to consciousness nor awareness, it is to do with there being objects(things) or states of affairs. It can deal with relations but that is due to there being two or more things or states of affairs. Symbolism is due to there being self-aware things or states of affairs with a Language.

[jackles]

logic needs relativity to exist.so consciousness is the cause of logic in the event.the event is local so for relativity to exist consciousness by logic has to be nonlocal..that is logic arising how come you cant see it.

[Wyman]

Arising:
Above, you distinguished between logical learning and empirical learning. I don't know what that means.

You say that without the world - with its objects and states of affairs - there would be no logic. You seem to imply that this means more than the banal tautology - if there were no world, then you and I wouldn't be here talking of logic. I took you as claiming something more than that the world is just a precondition of logic (it is a precondition of everything, by definition). Nevertheless, you seem to fall back on that tautology in some of your arguments.

I took you and (maybe) jackles to be making a stronger statement: given the world and an observer, logic comes from the world, not the observer. That is, it is not created by the observer, but noticed by the observer.

This stronger statement seems to be supported by your distinction between two types of learning and by your statement that God must be logical,etc.. Also, it seems to go along with the Tractatus, I think.

Since logic is just mathematics, I think you were right in that it is an age old question - did we discover mathematics or invent it?

[Arising_uk]

Arising:
Above, you distinguished between logical learning and empirical learning. I don't know what that means.

My apologies, I took your words to mean that there was a way to learn logically. If I was to think of such a thing, it'd be the bit between empirical failures.

You say that without the world - with its objects and states of affairs - there would be no logic. You seem to imply that this means more than the banal tautology - if there were no world, then you and I wouldn't be here talking of logic. I took you as claiming something more than that the world is just a precondition of logic (it is a precondition of everything, by definition). Nevertheless, you seem to fall back on that tautology in some of your arguments.

Well being necessarily always true is no bad thing.

I took you and (maybe) jackles to be making a stronger statement: given the world and an observer, logic comes from the world, not the observer. That is, it is not created by the observer, but noticed by the observer.

This stronger statement seems to be supported by your distinction between two types of learning and by your statement that God must be logical,etc.. Also, it seems to go along with the Tractatus, I think.

Not sure about jackles as his writing is pretty impenetrable and has a monomania about something he calls 'non-locality'(?) But for sure this is my current opinion about Logic. Although I think it may have taken a special kind of observer, say a lazy Greek but I think it an a priori understanding once shown to one.

Since logic is just mathematics, I think you were right in that it is an age old question - did we discover mathematics or invent it?

I'm not sure that Logic is just Maths nor Maths just Logic as apparently one can logicize Maths and then mathematize the Logic to produce unprovable but true propositions in the logic, now I think this means they were not equivalent in the first place but am definitely not smart enough to prove this. I do agree that at least in the case of Number we discovered it but accept I could be wrong as I'm no mathematician.

[Wyman]

Well, I enjoyed an interesting conversation with you. Now, I must go drink wine with a lovely lady. If I get very ambitious in the near future, I may reread the Tractatus and start a thread on the subject, hoping you would join in. Wittgenstein is one of my favorites, although he's never managed to 'shew the fly out of the bottle' in my case.

[jackles]

a thought experiment on eternal life.if there were to be eternal life would that eternal life be local or nonlocal.just do the experiment.

[Arising_uk]

Well, I enjoyed an interesting conversation with you. Now, I must go drink wine with a lovely lady. If I get very ambitious in the near future, I may reread the Tractatus and start a thread on the subject, hoping you would join in. Wittgenstein is one of my favorites, although he's never managed to 'shew the fly out of the bottle' in my case.

Following Hume's advice I see.

Sure, I'd be interested, as like you I'm still the fly but every now and then I think I might be at the lip.