A_Seagull wrote:
I contend that within the logical structure of the thinking brain/mind that the sensation of happiness must precede the perception of the phenomenon of causality.
And where does "he sensation of happiness " come from?
It follows closely from "I am": I exist, I think, I experience pain, I experience happiness.
It can also be viewed as an essential ingredient for the logical structure of an autonomous thinking animal. There needs to be some criteria by which the success or failure of the decisions of the animal can be assessed; and those are pleasure and pain.
Yes, a chain of causality.
Thanks for agreeing with determinism.
And where does "he sensation of happiness " come from?
It follows closely from "I am": I exist, I think, I experience pain, I experience happiness.
It can also be viewed as an essential ingredient for the logical structure of an autonomous thinking animal. There needs to be some criteria by which the success or failure of the decisions of the animal can be assessed; and those are pleasure and pain.
Yes, a chain of causality.
Thanks for agreeing with determinism.
np Though I prefer to view it as a chain of logic rather than of causality. (Logic can go both ways. Nor does logic make any assumption about the pre-existence of time.)
Though I prefer to view it as a chain of logic rather than of causality. (Logic can go both ways. Nor does logic make any assumption about the pre-existence of time.)
But causality doesn't apply to logic. Logic, like mathematics, is deductive not inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is about upon exact correspondences and disjunctions; inductive reasoning is about synthesising causes and effects after the styles of common sense and scientific experiment.
Belinda wrote:A_Seagull wrote in reply to Hobbes choice:
Though I prefer to view it as a chain of logic rather than of causality. (Logic can go both ways. Nor does logic make any assumption about the pre-existence of time.)
But causality doesn't apply to logic. Logic, like mathematics, is deductive not inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is about upon exact correspondences and disjunctions; inductive reasoning is about synthesising causes and effects after the styles of common sense and scientific experiment.
Belinda wrote:A_Seagull wrote in reply to Hobbes choice:
Though I prefer to view it as a chain of logic rather than of causality. (Logic can go both ways. Nor does logic make any assumption about the pre-existence of time.)
But causality doesn't apply to logic. Logic, like mathematics, is deductive not inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is about upon exact correspondences and disjunctions; inductive reasoning is about synthesising causes and effects after the styles of common sense and scientific experiment.
But causality doesn't apply to logic. Logic, like mathematics, is deductive not inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is about upon exact correspondences and disjunctions; inductive reasoning is about synthesising causes and effects after the styles of common sense and scientific experiment.
Exactly my point!!
But the case in point was happiness. Happiness is not a matter for deductive logic which deals, as does mathematics,with abstract relations not experiences.
If you want to deal in inductive logic you have to make do with causality.
Belinda wrote:A_Seagull wrote in reply to Hobbes choice:
But causality doesn't apply to logic. Logic, like mathematics, is deductive not inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is about upon exact correspondences and disjunctions; inductive reasoning is about synthesising causes and effects after the styles of common sense and scientific experiment.
But causality doesn't apply to logic. Logic, like mathematics, is deductive not inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is about upon exact correspondences and disjunctions; inductive reasoning is about synthesising causes and effects after the styles of common sense and scientific experiment.
Exactly my point!!
But the case in point was happiness. Happiness is not a matter for deductive logic which deals, as does mathematics,with abstract relations not experiences.
If you want to deal in inductive logic you have to make do with causality.
So far as I am concerned in this debate, we have not yet reached the stage at which deductive logic begins.*
Yes you are quite right that 'happiness is not a matter for deductive logic'. What I was doing, (and I should have been more explicit) is taking an abstract deductive logical system and formulating a mapping between the logical goals of the system and correlating it with what can be called 'happiness'.
* This should have read : "So far as I am concerned in this debate, we have not yet reached the stage at which inductive logic begins."
Last edited by A_Seagull on Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Yes you are quite right that 'happiness is not a matter for deductive logic'. What I was doing, (and I should have been more explicit) is taking an abstract deductive logical system and formulating a mapping between the logical goals of the system and correlating it with what can be called 'happiness'.
That would be a great thing if you can do it. I suspect that you would have to begin with faith in certain initial axioms.
Please can you try to say again what your theory is, so that I can understand it as deductive logic. In view of what you have written I think that this theory of yours is one of rationalism not empiricism.
Yes you are quite right that 'happiness is not a matter for deductive logic'. What I was doing, (and I should have been more explicit) is taking an abstract deductive logical system and formulating a mapping between the logical goals of the system and correlating it with what can be called 'happiness'.
That would be a great thing if you can do it. I suspect that you would have to begin with faith in certain initial axioms.
Please can you try to say again what your theory is, so that I can understand it as deductive logic. In view of what you have written I think that this theory of yours is one of rationalism not empiricism.
What I am interested in are the logical processes by which sense-data can be processed into images of the outside world. The only possible logical process is one of pattern identification. And while this can be considered deductive logical system, the conclusions it reaches (which are effectively patterns) are inductive as there is no one way that any particular pattern can be extracted from a set of data and so it cannot be considered to be deductive).
And yes, you could consider that it requires a certain degree of faith in the axioms, for it is a synthesis rather than an analysis; but it is justified by merit of the considerable explanative qualities of the synthesis.
Can I suggest you peruse my book "The Pattern Paradigm"?
Not if you write words like 'peruse' when you mean 'read'
but it is justified by merit of the considerable explanative qualities of the synthesis.
That is in its favour
Surely the processes by which we make images out of sense data can be explained only by reference to the brain-mind? It's inconsistent to presume that deductive logic, like mathematics, is man-made and also to claim that deductive logic is a biological product of natural selection.
Belinda wrote: It's inconsistent to presume that deductive logic, like mathematics, is man-made and also to claim that deductive logic is a biological product of natural selection.
Evolution makes man. Man makes maths. Therefore evolution makes maths. In a sense everything that humans do is a product (even if a secondary product) of evolution.
It's secondary to natural selection, Hobbes. Maths and formal logic are artificial symbolic systems which have been abstracted from real life so that they can be used as tools for quantification and the simplifying of arguments. Maths and formal logic are therefore cultural artefacts and are the products of increasingly complex civilisation.
Seagull possesses faith in formal logic as a source of synthetic truth. Seagull claims that the synthetic truth which he bases upon formal logic is fertile with possibility. So that is good. After all, our trust in empirical evidence is also based upon faith in it.
Belinda wrote:It's secondary to natural selection, Hobbes. Maths and formal logic are artificial symbolic systems which have been abstracted from real life so that they can be used as tools for quantification and the simplifying of arguments. Maths and formal logic are therefore cultural artefacts and are the products of increasingly complex civilisation.
Seagull possesses faith in formal logic as a source of synthetic truth. Seagull claims that the synthetic truth which he bases upon formal logic is fertile with possibility. So that is good. After all, our trust in empirical evidence is also based upon faith in it.
Of course maths and logic are artefacts. There is no doubt about that. But they are the consequence of the evolution of the human brain. And the cultural elements by which they have arisen have also suffered the vicissitudes of selection and fitness of the cultures that have benefited from them; socio-cultural evolution.
When we embrace the fact that evolution is not a force for change; it is an effect not a cause, then we can observe the use by which our understanding of selection can help us make such statements, even it they are tongue in cheek. Maths itself has and continues to evolve and with each generation has to pass the test of fitness.
Though I prefer to view it as a chain of logic rather than of causality. (Logic can go both ways. Nor does logic make any assumption about the pre-existence of time.)
