Notices

View Poll Results: Can the complete construction of our minds really be this simple?

Voters
1. You may not vote on this poll
  • No! What we do besides ARU is---

    1 100.00%
  • Yes. Life is very complex but still based entirely on single cells.

    0 0%
  • This theory has already been described by----

    0 0%
  • If this is true, why has no one else thought of it?

    0 0%
Results 1 to 99 of 99
Like Tree32Likes
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Daniel Patrick Fisher
  • 2 Post By scoobydoo1
  • 1 Post By Trivium
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Daniel Patrick Fisher
  • 2 Post By shlunka
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 2 Post By John Galt
  • 3 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Robittybob1
  • 2 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By scoobydoo1
  • 1 Post By TridentBlue
  • 1 Post By scoobydoo1
  • 1 Post By dan hunter
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By scoobydoo1
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 4 Post By icewendigo
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr

Thread: The Origin of Logic

  1. #1 The Origin of Logic 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    I have shared this theory off and on over the years and have noticed that almost every one has a curious aversion toward even contemplating it. I think it is because it reveals the core of our identity, which is constructed using the means the theory describes. Our identity is a very sacred and private place where intrusion is not welcome. I would love to see if some one here is brave enough to respond.

    Briefly, the theory sees the origin of our logic system as similar to the origin of life, where all of the complexities of life/logic are made of a single act repeated over and over. In both cases that act is simple, yet far more complex than anything that precedes it. In the case of logic," it is the ability to recognize uniqueness (ARU)". As with the creation of a single cell, several important things must occur simultaneously. An object cannot be unique without a whole from which it is separate. The object is unique, the whole is unique and the separation is unique. The separation gives birth to measurement, direction and difference. The object/whole gives birth to existence since it cannot exist without the potential for it to not exist. Recognizing the uniqueness of events creates time. Probably by the time we are adults we have layered up hundreds of thousands or even millions of repetitions of the act of recognizing uniqueness.

    I believe ARU is also what separates us from the apes or other animals. One could make a credible case for early humans standing upright in order to better see/understand the whole. This would account for the evolutionary suddenness of this event since, clearly, no single part can be created without all of the other parts. Other distinctly human characteristics such as social structure, language (unique sounds must be assigned to unique objects), tool making and belief in the afterlife, would soon follow. It might also be reasonable to assume that ARU was a genetic mutation giving the primates who possessed it an immediate and distinct advantage over those that did not. If this were true, then the gene responsible would still be present today and could be isolated

    Support:

    With ARU, we are able to take our temporal experience of reality and construct a conceptual version of reality. The primary tool used for this is measurement, which occurs when the object is separated from the whole, producing a difference. No measurement in physical reality has any meaning without the conceptualizing produced by ARU. The first measurements were probably simple comparisons that were visual in nature. Erg: a stone is more effective than a fist, a sharp stone is more effective still, a long stick augments the power of a blow, etc. More complex measurements in the form of logic came later. With simple logic, two propositions are analyzed, evaluated, compared, (all forms of measurement) to infer (sum up) a conclusion which creates a third, previously unknown proposition. A proposition is a fact or collection of facts. A fact consists of observed objects or events (objects in motion), defined the only way they can be which is; by their relationship to (separation from) the whole. This again is a product of ARU. “Whole” itself, must be defined as a concept since it cannot be physically observed either in stasis or in motion. No matter how complex the logic gets, the tool that drives it is still one form or another of measurement made possible by the “action” of ARU. It also follows that the concept of uniqueness applies to all of reality. Even objects or events that are by the best observation identical. nonetheless remain unique, since each is itself and not the other. Even the concept itself, as a noun, is a unique “object” of thought


    Daniel Patrick Fisher


    Last edited by Daniel Patrick Fisher; February 7th, 2014 at 09:49 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true.
    Niels Bohr


    Anyway, it is better to think of logic as a tool built out of language.




    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    almost every one has a curious aversion toward even contemplating it.
    In other words, other people don't agree with you. <shrug>
    dan hunter likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    Once we have the ability to recognize uniqueness, the object is created, which because it is unique, it must have an identifying sound. Language follows.

    A shrug is simply an inability to respond.
    Stargate likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Once we have the ability to recognize uniqueness, the object is created, which because it is unique, it must have an identifying sound. Language follows.
    Unsupported assertion

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    A shrug is simply an inability to respond.
    Or a response to an assertion that is made without evidence and can so be ignored (or shrugged at).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Our identity is a very sacred and private place where intrusion is not welcome.
    Please define the words identity, sacred, private, and intrusion in the context which you have used it, and elaborate your sentence further. Did you perhaps meant it in the context of secrecy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    ... origin of our logic system as similar to the origin of life, where all of the complexities of life/logic are made of a single act repeated over and over.
    By logic system, were you perhaps referring to the decision making process based on different sets of (both numerical and analog-type) values that are subjected to our biochemistry?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    In both cases that act is simple, yet far more complex than anything that precedes it.
    Which act are you referring to, and can you give an example of such an act.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    In the case of logic, it is the ability to recognize uniqueness, or ARU.
    It would appear that you aren't using the word logic in the usual sense. If that were true, art forgers would not have been a feasible profession till this day and age. Our pattern recognition abilities that is dependent on our biology requires us to devise systems of methods and mechanical equipment to overcome our sensory shortcomings by removing us from the equation.

    I recall my mentor once asking me how confident I was (or any one of us are) if we were tasked to to pick out a specific green bean from a two ounce cup of other green beans; even after being allowed to commit that one particular green bean to memory for the span of twenty four hours?


    Strange and MrMojo1 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    The poll is hilarious. This idea appears to be little more than nonsense, quite literally no sense.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    The poll is hilarious. This idea appears to be little more than nonsense, quite literally no sense.
    You are obviously "scared of the truth".

    The poll must be valid because every option expresses agreement with the OP.
    Stargate and dan hunter like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    We identify very strongly with our ability to think and reason. We see ourselves as unique, much like a point on the number line is unique. So unique in fact, that it has no surface area and in a sense is both existent and invisible. As an identity this is very psychologically seductive. It makes us feel invulnerable and privileged. To reveal how we got there tends to pop the bubble. I also think the aversion to this theory might be a simple case of not seeing the forest for the trees. It's difficult to use the system to see the system. But if pointed out, some one should be able to give me a sensible rebuttal, if indeed one is there.

    I am using the word logic in the broadest sense: Our ability to make abstract sense of the world.
    Stargate likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Once we have the ability to recognize uniqueness, the object is created, which because it is unique, it must have an identifying sound. Language follows.

    A shrug is simply an inability to respond.
    Why do you think this is unique to humans? My cat Isaac can easily distinguish between objects such as my wife who'll give him a quick pat than return to what ever she was doing and I who'll lay on the rug let him curl under my arm for a long belly rub. He can not only distinguish between us visually but associate our voices and patterns of the day--as I brush my teeth in the morning he'll purr and sit on the toilet and sometimes unroll the paper (something I laugh about)....he'd never do that with my wife because she'll not respond the same.

    --
    And not to quibble, but our upright stance was not sudden.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    ability to recognize uniqueness, or ARU.
    Nope.
    It's the ability to recognise differences.

    I.e. that "tiger" is different from the background vegetation.

    Further support:
    Even objects or events that are by the best observation identical. nonetheless remain unique, since each is itself and not the other.
    Show one, take it away and show the other: can we "recognise" that we're looking at the second "unique" object and not the first? Hardly... (especially since you yourself stated "by the best observation identical").

    As for the rest...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Hello Daniel, and welcome to the forum. I was unable to participate in your poll since you had missed out a key option: No, the idea is bollocks.

    Scoobydoo has pinpointed some of the weaknesses in it through his questions. Lynx has nailed two points that came immediately to my mind - plenty of animals can recognise uniqueness and a handfull, at least, have theory of mind.

    If you are using other words in the vague, colloquial sense you use logic, then your thesis reduces to little more than handwaving and word salad.

    You also say, It might also be reasonable to assume that ARU was a genetic mutation giving the primates who possessed it an immediate and distinct advantage over those that did not. If this were true, then the gene responsible would still be present today and could be isolated.
    You appear unaware that few traits are the product of a single gene. This leads me to question if you have sufficient background in the diverse subjects necessary to attempt a meaningful speculation on the "construction of our minds".

    (And, if you do wish to be taken seriously by scientists, or those with scientific training, please learn what a theory is and do not abuse the term by applying it to a speculation.)

    I look forward to your response to these points and those raised by other members.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Moonlight Sonata added a certain hopeless atmosphere while I was reading this thread.
    KALSTER and dan hunter like this.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    We see ourselves as unique, much like a point on the number line is unique. So unique in fact, that it has no surface area and in a sense is both existent and invisible. As an identity this is very psychologically seductive. It makes us feel invulnerable and privileged.
    This sounds very much like the views of a class of year 9 adolescents. 10 foot tall and bulletproof.

    And like most of their personal and conversational insights, it's rubbish.
    wegs likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Daniel, your idea is taking quite a bashing here. (Even adelady has extended her claws.) I do hope you will return to dicuss the objections. I mention this because all too often posts such as yours, which are subjected to highly critical observations, sit there undefended by their originator. If you have belief in the notion then please attempt to defend it, but please also be prepared to recognise that it likely is not a valid idea.

    adelady, Daniel said that "I have shared this theory off and on over the years." so unless he started talking about this at a very young age he is not an adolescent. Certainly I find no recognition in what Daniel has said, no sense of identification with the ideas. For example, he thinks existing, but being invisible is "psychologically seductive". Being invisible is life threatening! I define myself by my impact - hopefully favourable - upon others. Invisible people don't make an impact.
    MrMojo1 and wegs like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    There is a theory concerning the "ability to discriminate" which we indeed share with other species. It's how a bird knows what to use to build a nest. The bird has no abstract concept however, to tell him what the relationship of his material is to the whole.

    Long shot about the gene is better that no shot.

    I am not suggesting that keeping our IDENTITY (not physical body) in a place of invisibility is a good thing, indeed I would suggest exactly the opposite.

    I do appreciate the comments, not necessarily the name calling, and look forward to responding in more detail. I do have a full time job and generally only check this site once a day. So please bear with me. I will write more about how I use the words "unique" and "logic" later. In the meantime, perhaps someone could describe what specific cognitive action we do besides ARU?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    In the meantime, perhaps someone could describe what specific cognitive action we do besides ARU?
    In addition to those mentioned above, I would add that what we seem to be spectacularly good at is recognising similarities or patterns. See for example apophenia and pareidolia. There are many good reasons for such an ability to evolve. This may be behind our love of rhythm, music, art and language. The reason we can detect "uniqueness" is because we see things that deviate from known patterns; in other words, it would appear to be a side-effect rather than fundamental.
    John Galt, adelady and Stargate like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    perhaps someone could describe what specific cognitive action we do besides ARU?
    Perhaps it would help advance the topic if you could show that the "ARU" does, in fact, exist.

    I will write more about how I use the words "unique" and "logic" later
    And it would also behove you to define terms from the beginning.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    I do appreciate the comments, not necessarily the name calling, and look forward to responding in more detail.
    I am delighted that you are 'returning to the fray'. Although there have been many comments and questions from several members I hope you will be able to address most of them.

    Moderator Comment: On the subject of name calling, and wearing my moderator hat, I have two points:
    1. I re-read the entire thread and I did not find anywhere that you were directly attacked. The negative comments have been about your idea, not about you.
    2. I request all members to refrain from any ad hominems in the continuing discussion of Daniel's idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    What does ARU stand for?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Read the OP.

    it is the ability to recognize uniqueness, or ARU.
    I'm much keener on Strange's idea that this is a consequence of our amazing ability to recognise patterns. Maybe more our seeking patterns - you recognise something as unusual, maybe unique, when it won't fit any pattern that satisfies you as a pattern.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Read the OP.

    it is the ability to recognize uniqueness, or ARU.
    I'm much keener on Strange's idea that this is a consequence of our amazing ability to recognise patterns. Maybe more our seeking patterns - you recognise something as unusual, maybe unique, when it won't fit any pattern that satisfies you as a pattern.
    What I look for would be this "it is the ability to recognize uniqueness (ARU)". That is how I've been taught to assign an acronym.

    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    John, Thank you for your patience. If I overlook any of your concerns please let me know. And I will try to grow a thicker skin. I am truly flattered that any one is responding.

    I like dan hunter's quote that "logic is a tool built out of language". As we are using if here, it definitely is. My theory concerns a singularly fundamental building block necessary for the distinctly human ability to construct a conceptual picture of the world and ourselves in it. The word logic comes from the Greek word "logos" meaning "word" or "talk". I would imagine that the very first words referred to objects. But what makes an object? I am of course, arguing that ARU does this. The definition of unique is "unlike any other" meaning we now need an "any other". In my theory this is "the whole". And I will restate my point that one has no meaning without the other. In addition, neither can exist unless there is a "separation" or "relationship" or as duck likes to put it, "difference". I do not feel that ARU is a contradiction to "commonality". I view any argument around wether a "thing" or "object" is unique or similar as akin to a dog a chasing it's tail. There can be no 100 percent pure "unique" or 100 percent pure "identical". We are doomed to measure in degrees. And yes, you can choose your viewpoint from either angle. Re: Strahge's and adelady's preference for similarity and pattern- it's probably not that different. Still, I was attempting to get as fundamental as possible by focusing on what it takes to make one object. You need two to get similarity.

    Re: Phdemon's (great handle) concern for lack of support. Is there NOTHING in the support section of my argument worth addressing?

    For Scoobydoo: Unless otherwise noted, it is my intent to use all words in a manner that refers to their primary definition. And your intuition about secrecy is probably accurate, although I would add that in the case of the particular profile I described, it would be a secret kept from others as well as one's self.

    My analogy with the origin of life was not intended to imply a biological connection, although there may be one. More later. I was trying to point out that the result of even something as simple as a single cell multiplying over and over again, can be life in all it's remarkable complexities. I view ARU this way as well.

    In the case of life the "act" is a single cell performing synthesis and self replication. In the origin of logic, it is ARU. I do realize that a thought or concept is not generally considered to be an "act" or "action". I am definitely asking you to think outside the box on this one.

    For Trivium: I did not take the poll seriously because I don't generally take any poll seriously. However, out of respect for those who do, I should have elected to omit it. Apologies.

    For Lynx-Fox: I did say "evolutionary suddenness". As far as I know, there is still very little evidence of an in-between stance. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    John, As I stated previously, I don't believe animals have the ability to recognize uniqueness. They can easily make distinctions without any need to attach the abstract concept. Also I am unaware of any animals possessing TOM. Such an animal would have to have a mind, be aware of it and understand that others have minds as well. To prove it the animal would have to communicate this to us in a coherent language form. Still, if there is even a shred of evidence to this effect, I would be fascinated to hear about it,

    I think your impression that if I am using the word "logic" in a broad sense, then it is therefore colloquial, is unfair. It should be clear by now that my subject of interest is also broad.

    With regard to my sense that ARU might be genetic: Whatever it is that allows us to think and reason,whether it is ARU or something else, it could hardly be defined as a simple "trait" or characteristic. It seems too immense to be described in that way. My feeling is that there must be something physical in our brain (where else would it be?) that allows us to do this.

    Re: My education or lack thereof, if it turns out that every one on this site has more knowledge than I do, then I can think of no better reason for being here. If someone feels I am wasting their time, then I would remind them of an ancient riddle: "In a conversation between a fool and a wise man, who learns more?"

    Re: My theory as speculation: I still believe that the support section of my theory is strong. I will definitely address ANY of your concerns and if I come up short in your estimation, please say so and why.

    For Dywyddyr: I think my theory, like most theories (some believe all), can be neither proven nor disproven. It would have to be accepted as the best possible explanation for what it is addressing. Everyone has a vote.

    For Robbittybob1: Duly noted. My bad.

    For me: this is a little lengthy for my literary talents. I hope i've proofed it adequately.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    IOW: waffle waffle waffle and no actual support (or rationale).
    Yet another example of MUUS 1.
    I'm out.

    1 Made Up Unsupported Sh*t.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Our identity is a very sacred and private place where intrusion is not welcome.
    Please define the words identity, sacred, private, and intrusion in the context which you have used it, and elaborate your sentence further. Did you perhaps meant it in the context of secrecy?

    Unless otherwise noted, it is my intent to use all words in a manner that refers to their primary definition. And your intuition about secrecy is probably accurate, although I would add that in the case of the particular profile I described, it would be a secret kept from others as well as one's self.
    Please state the reasons, motivations, and purpose of keeping your identity "a secret *kept from others as well as one's self". Also, are you able and willing to share with the rest of how you are able to keep your identity a secret from yourself?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    ... origin of our logic system as similar to the origin of life, where all of the complexities of life/logic are made of a single act repeated over and over.
    By logic system, were you perhaps referring to the decision making process based on different sets of (both numerical and analog-type) values that are subjected to our biochemistry?
    My analogy with the origin of life was not intended to imply a biological connection, although there may be one. More later. I was trying to point out that the result of even something as simple as a single cell multiplying over and over again, can be life in all it's remarkable complexities. I view ARU this way as well.
    Noted. By logic system, you weren't referring to our decision making process.

    Please briefly describe what logic system means, how logic plays a part in this system you have mentioned, and if you aren't using the word logic as defined in the following links; I ask that you explain why the word logic is used.

    http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionar...ctionary/logic
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    In both cases that act is simple, yet far more complex than anything that precedes it.
    Which act are you referring to, and can you give an example of such an act.

    In the case of life the "act" is a single cell performing synthesis and self replication. In the origin of logic, it is ARU. I do realize that a thought or concept is not generally considered to be an "act" or "action". I am definitely asking you to think outside the box on this one.
    May I ask how you have managed to distinguish between action and reaction in a biochemical process?
    Last edited by scoobydoo1; February 7th, 2014 at 10:44 AM. Reason: *Minor corrections
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Please state the reasons, motivations, and purpose of keeping your identity "a secret *kept from others as well as one's self". Also, are you able and willing to share with the rest of how you are able to keep your identity a secret from yourself?
    At the risk of going of topic this is not, I would have thought, a controversial idea. For example, I ran across JOHARI windows four decades ago in management studies. Consider a matrix, one axis of which has two elements: known to other, not known to others. The second axis has two elements also: known to self and not known to self. The maintenance of self-secrecy is not a conscious choice as you imply and I do not think Daniel suggested it was.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    At the risk of going of topic this is not, I would have thought, a controversial idea. For example, I ran across JOHARI windows four decades ago in management studies. Consider a matrix, one axis of which has two elements: known to other, not known to others. The second axis has two elements also: known to self and not known to self. The maintenance of self-secrecy is not a conscious choice as you imply and I do not think Daniel suggested it was.
    The awareness of secrecy of that nature although not being aware of the contents of said secret negates the possibility that a secret exists. It would be akin to saying I have a secret of which the content is unknown to me, which does not follow Daniel's "Our identity is a very sacred and private place where intrusion is not welcome". Or am I mistaken?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    As far as I know, logic, if it does exist, is totally dependent on language.
    It was invented by the Greeks in their attempts to form convincing arguments. They used math and geometry to teach logic.
    Logic was supposed to be an antidote to the emotionally persuasive style the Sophists used to argue in court.
    That is why you find such a low opinion, among all those argumentative ancient Greeks, of geometry actually being used for practical problem solving.
    Last edited by dan hunter; February 7th, 2014 at 12:03 PM. Reason: grammar
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    As far as I know, logic, if it does exist, is totally dependent on language.
    It was invented by the Greeks in their attempts to form convincing arguments. They used math and geometry to teach logic.
    Logic was supposed to be an antidote to the emotionally persuasive style the Sophists used to argue in court.
    That is why you find such a low opinion, among all those argumentative ancient Greeks, of geometry actually being used for practical problem solving.
    I found your first sentence totally illogical.
    As far as I know, logic, if it does exist, is totally dependent on language.
    If you can't be sure it exists you can't say what it is "totally dependent on".
    Language is an extension of thought and animals can think so I propose they are also capable of logic. They don't always appear to make the right decision, but they apply logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    .....
    May I ask how you have managed to distinguish between action and reaction in a biochemical process?
    The biochemical process could be exemplified by the firing of the neurons (action), and the reaction is the sense of logical decision. It could be like me now, deciding what to say based on my perception of how the moderators might react. I pass all the previous examples through the logic gateways in my head, consciously or subconsciously, an outcome results, you then decide to accept or reject.
    The body seems to be able to to do this in a pure biological reaction too. In the process of recognising what is self or foreign, before initiating an immune response. It doesn't always get it right, but it is weird how it is able to "decide", and there is definitely memory involved with immunity. Is there some linkage between these two systems, between logic and immunity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    In both cases that act is simple, yet far more complex than anything that precedes it.
    Which act are you referring to, and can you give an example of such an act.
    In the case of life the "act" is a single cell performing synthesis and self replication. In the origin of logic, it is ARU. I do realize that a thought or concept is not generally considered to be an "act" or "action". I am definitely asking you to think outside the box on this one.
    May I ask how you have managed to distinguish between action and reaction in a biochemical process?
    The biochemical process could be exemplified by the firing of the neurons (action), and the reaction is the sense of logical decision. It could be like me now, deciding what to say based on my perception of how the moderators might react. I pass all the previous examples through the logic gateways in my head, consciously or subconsciously, an outcome results, you then decide to accept or reject.
    The body seems to be able to to do this in a pure biological reaction too. In the process of recognising what is self or foreign, before initiating an immune response. It doesn't always get it right, but it is weird how it is able to "decide", and there is definitely memory involved with immunity. Is there some linkage between these two systems, between logic and immunity?
    If I'm not mistaken, logic as I understand it is a cognitive process, otherwise we may have to consider electricity utilizes logic too; in that it takes that path of least resistance. Is it not illogical to consider cellular processes and behaviour as logical or perhaps an expression of logic?

    Is there anything within Daniel's scope of organic matter that can't be considered as having utilized logic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    The awareness of secrecy of that nature although not being aware of the contents of said secret negates the possibility that a secret exists. It would be akin to saying I have a secret of which the content is unknown to me, which does not follow Daniel's "Our identity is a very sacred and private place where intrusion is not welcome". Or am I mistaken?
    When teaching, or delivering sales presentations, and often in regular conversation, I used to say OK a great deal. I was unaware of that. Almost every else was aware. Something about me was secret from me. It's a simple, and I found, a useful concept.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    The awareness of secrecy of that nature although not being aware of the contents of said secret negates the possibility that a secret exists. It would be akin to saying I have a secret of which the content is unknown to me, which does not follow Daniel's "Our identity is a very sacred and private place where intrusion is not welcome". Or am I mistaken?
    When teaching, or delivering sales presentations, and often in regular conversation, I used to say OK a great deal. I was unaware of that. Almost every else was aware. Something about me was secret from me. It's a simple, and I found, a useful concept.
    I see now that you have used the word "secret" as in unknown, not known, unaware, not aware; but is Daniel using it in the same fashion? He said "And your intuition about secrecy is probably accurate, although I would add that in the case of the particular profile I described, it would be a secret kept from others as well as one's self.", which I understood to be in the form of a guarded secret; one that the possessor is aware of, but at the same time unaware of. In the context of an identity (in which was used in his initial sentence), if a secret is to be kept, there is no escaping being aware of the secret, otherwise one wouldn't know what to keep secret.


    Edits: I do hope I do not come across as attacking Daniel's proposal with malice. My intention is to flush out the weak points to see if there is any merit/substance in the proposal itself. The way he has used certain words is rather unconventional and his message ambiguous, due to the nature of his draft being unusually short, unclear, and imprecise. While I am unfamiliar with how works are published in the academia, he was confident enough to host his on Academia.edu; which I assume it meant it was ready to withstand a little scrutiny - in depth.
    Last edited by scoobydoo1; February 7th, 2014 at 03:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    In both cases that act is simple, yet far more complex than anything that precedes it.
    Which act are you referring to, and can you give an example of such an act.
    In the case of life the "act" is a single cell performing synthesis and self replication. In the origin of logic, it is ARU. I do realize that a thought or concept is not generally considered to be an "act" or "action". I am definitely asking you to think outside the box on this one.
    May I ask how you have managed to distinguish between action and reaction in a biochemical process?
    The biochemical process could be exemplified by the firing of the neurons (action), and the reaction is the sense of logical decision. It could be like me now, deciding what to say based on my perception of how the moderators might react. I pass all the previous examples through the logic gateways in my head, consciously or subconsciously, an outcome results, you then decide to accept or reject.
    The body seems to be able to to do this in a pure biological reaction too. In the process of recognising what is self or foreign, before initiating an immune response. It doesn't always get it right, but it is weird how it is able to "decide", and there is definitely memory involved with immunity. Is there some linkage between these two systems, between logic and immunity?
    If I'm not mistaken, logic as I understand it is a cognitive process, otherwise we may have to consider electricity utilizes logic too; in that it takes that path of least resistance. Is it not illogical to consider cellular processes and behaviour as logical or perhaps an expression of logic?

    Is there anything within Daniel's scope of organic matter that can't be considered as having utilized logic?
    From just purely physical point of order; electricity does not only take the path of least resistance. Electricity will take current paths in direct physical relationships depending on voltage and resistance.
    But then you mention both "cognitive process" and that you would appear to rather ignore the "cellular processes". So are you saying cognition is not a cellular process? I keep on getting told it is the size of our brains that allow sufficient interconnections and that memory and hence logic is dependent on the passing of pulses around these circuits.

    OK personally I don't like that idea, for that would mean memory is an ongoing energy consuming process, but if memory was more like an antibody molecule, how is it saved and then read as a memory to be used in the logical process?

    I don't have the ability to answer your question "Is there anything within Daniel's scope of organic matter that can't be considered as having utilized logic?" Did you have the answer and why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    From just purely physical point of order; electricity does not only take the path of least resistance. Electricity will take current paths in direct physical relationships depending on voltage and resistance.
    I will admit physics isn't my strong suit, so I will defer to members with better knowledge to confirm this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    But then you say both "cognitive process" and yet you would appear to rather ignore the "cellular processes". So are you saying cognition is not a cellular process?
    Logic as I understand it relies on cognitive process since it is a mental endeavor; to be logical opposed to being illogical. Cognitive processes do arise from cellular processes as provided by our biology with the appropriate anatomy (such as a brain). The question I have is - do cellular processes signify the presence of logic or its utilization, or does it require the appropriate anatomy (such as a brain and/or nervous system) plus the application of logical form in order to identify and justify the presence of logic?

    The reason for this question is due to what was said in the OP; "the origin of our logic system as similar to the origin of life, where all of the complexities of life/logic are made of a single act repeated over and over. In both cases that act is simple, yet far more complex than anything that precedes it.", followed by his reply of "In the case of life the "act" is a single cell performing synthesis and self replication. In the origin of logic, it is ARU. I do realize that a thought or concept is not generally considered to be an "act" or "action". I am definitely asking you to think outside the box on this one."

    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I don't have the ability to answer your question "Is there anything within Daniel's scope of organic matter that can't be considered as having utilized logic?" Did you have the answer and why?
    No, I do not have an answer, and it was meant as a honest inquiry. The reason I asked it is because should he not be able to limit the scope of "things" that he considers to possess logic, logic system(s), and such, it would appear that he may be using the word either too loosely that it deviates too far from how I/we understand of the word that it hampers efficient communication of his idea, or he has chosen the wrong word to describe his idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    From just purely physical point of order; electricity does not only take the path of least resistance. Electricity will take current paths in direct physical relationships depending on voltage and resistance.
    I will admit physics isn't my strong suit, so I will defer to members with better knowledge to confirm this.
    If there are multiple parallel paths, some current will flow in all of them, in proportion to their conductance, with the path of least resistance having the highest current. But that doesn't really affect the point you were trying to make.
    scoobydoo1 and Robittybob1 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    From just purely physical point of order; electricity does not only take the path of least resistance. Electricity will take current paths in direct physical relationships depending on voltage and resistance.
    I will admit physics isn't my strong suit, so I will defer to members with better knowledge to confirm this.
    If there are multiple parallel paths, some current will flow in all of them, in proportion to their conductance, with the path of least resistance having the highest current. But that doesn't really affect the point you were trying to make.
    If I'm not mistaken, logic as I understand it is a cognitive process, otherwise we may have to consider electricity utilizes logic too; in that it takes that path of least resistance. Is it not illogical to consider cellular processes and behaviour as logical or perhaps an expression of logic?
    The point being?
    logic as I understand it is a cognitive process
    Cognitive as opposed to what?

    A master of complex questions!
    Is it not illogical to consider cellular processes and behaviour as logical or perhaps an expression of logic?
    Does the word "not" in the question change the question?
    I imagine with experience you can set up loops in your brain that has correct expressions of logic.
    People can learn how to set up logical processes. (I'm just watching a lecture or two of how the brain works.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    The point being? Cognitive as opposed to what?

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Is it not illogical to consider cellular processes and behaviour as logical or perhaps an expression of logic?
    Does the word "not" in the question change the question?
    Point being that the application and presence of logic requires cognitive processes, which in turn requires an appropriate organ such a brain and/or a nervous system for this process to take place. My kidney does not exhibit cognitive processes because it isn't a platform that supports it, follow on by the absence/lack of cognitive processes removes the application of logic and its form.

    • "Is it not illogical to consider cellular processes and behaviour as logical or perhaps an expression of logic?" - posed as a question asking whether you would agree while stating that it is my position.
    • "Is it not illogical to consider cellular processes and behaviour as logical or perhaps an expression of logic?" - posed as a geninue question.
    Robittybob1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    The point being? Cognitive as opposed to what?

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Is it not illogical to consider cellular processes and behaviour as logical or perhaps an expression of logic?
    Does the word "not" in the question change the question?
    Point being that the application and presence of logic requires cognitive processes, which in turn requires an appropriate organ such a brain and/or a nervous system for this process to take place. My kidney does not exhibit cognitive processes because it isn't a platform that supports it, follow on by the absence/lack of cognitive processes removes the application of logic and its form.
    • "Is it not illogical to consider cellular processes and behaviour as logical or perhaps an expression of logic?" - posed as a question asking whether you would agree while stating that it is my position.
    • "Is it not illogical to consider cellular processes and behaviour as logical or perhaps an expression of logic?" - posed as a genuine question.
    Something that is "not illogical" is "logical", so you're basically asking "Is it logical to consider cellular processes as logical." I have a feeling within their tissue specifications (differentiation) they would need to be logical. Genetic evolution would have seen to that. At times when they were malfunctioning, as they will from time to time, we would call that a disease.
    But the conscious feeling of logic is a cognitive function, but even when one feels he has made a logical argument someone wiser that he can instruct and say "that was not logical".
    From these times we learn the art of applying logic.

    I didn't understand the OP so I started asking questions (what is ARU? etc) but it might be time to tackle it again.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; February 7th, 2014 at 09:32 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Something that is "not illogical" is "logical", so you're basically asking "Is it logical to consider cellular processes as logical."
    2/10 for English comprehension.
    Try reading it as "Isn't it illogical to...?"
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Daniel keeps on using the word "unique" but from my school days we would not have been allowed to use the word unique like that
    If our body has 50 trillion (whatever) cells in it, not every cell is unique.
    I could be wrong for it could be argued that each cell is the one and only one at that particular position at the one time.
    Google defines Unique as:
    noun archaic

    • 1.
      a unique person or thing.
      [/QUOTE]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    I see now that you have used the word "secret" as in unknown, not known, unaware, not aware; but is Daniel using it in the same fashion?
    Good point. I may have selected a meaning because that meaning corresponded with concepts I was familiar with and that make sense to me. His ill-defined terminology is complicating the picture.

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    I do hope I do not come across as attacking Daniel's proposal with malice. My intention is to flush out the weak points to see if there is any merit/substance in the proposal itself. The way he has used certain words is rather unconventional and his message ambiguous, due to the nature of his draft being unusually short, unclear, and imprecise.
    Not at all. I thought your post #6 struck exactly the right note to objectively explore the idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    I believe ARU is also what separates us from the apes or other animals.
    Our profound ability to perceive, process and remember abstractions separates humans from the apes and other animals.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    I believe ARU is also what separates us from the apes or other animals.
    Our profound ability to perceive, process and remember abstractions separates humans from the apes and other animals.
    Just think for a moment what life would be like if lots of other animals had good memories and had similar ability of perception and abstraction?
    I have a little farm and now and then I have to slaughter some of the animals otherwise I'd run out of food for the others, but they are the offspring of the cows, I just hope the cows have forgotten some of their relationships. Could I do this if I saw them grieving for their lost love ones? Could they stand it?
    Is it the preserve of the species near the top of the food chain? Any animal that takes the life of a human is hunted down and killed. Could this be the one thing that might have identified hominids from other species, the retribution?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    I see no problem with the most basic definition of the word logic: our ability to think and reason. jrmonroe's quote, "Our profound ability to perceive, process and remember abstractions separates humans from the apes and other animals." sounds pretty close to this. "Ability to think and reason" sounds pretty broad to me, so I don't get the criticism that broad is bad. And, as my title states; The ORIGIN of Logic, my focus is on the most basic mental activity required to begin building this system of logic. Most believe that the very first distinctly human characteristic was tool making. So what does it take to make a tool? I would say one needs an abstract sense of the uniqueness of it. Apes in the wild have been observed using a crudely sharpened (by mouth) stick to poke at a tree cavity in order to retrieve a favorite tasty prey, or parts of it anyway. This seems like tool making, but I think it is important to note that the tool is never reused. A new one is fashioned every time. This indicates no abstract awareness of the uniqueness of what is being fashioned and it's relationship to the desired result. There is the ability to discriminate that this learned behavior can be successful, but there is no potential for conscious improvement.

    Is there really that much difference between a sharpened stone tied to a stick and a proton accelerator?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    I see no problem with the most basic definition of the word logic: our ability to think and reason. jrmonroe's quote, "Our profound ability to perceive, process and remember abstractions separates humans from the apes and other animals." sounds pretty close to this. "Ability to think and reason" sounds pretty broad to me, so I don't get the criticism that broad is bad. And, as my title states; The ORIGIN of Logic, my focus is on the most basic mental activity required to begin building this system of logic. Most believe that the very first distinctly human characteristic was tool making. So what does it take to make a tool? I would say one needs an abstract sense of the uniqueness of it. Apes in the wild have been observed using a crudely sharpened (by mouth) stick to poke at a tree cavity in order to retrieve a favorite tasty prey, or parts of it anyway. This seems like tool making, but I think it is important to note that the tool is never reused. A new one is fashioned every time. This indicates no abstract awareness of the uniqueness of what is being fashioned and it's relationship to the desired result. There is the ability to discriminate that this learned behavior can be successful, but there is no potential for conscious improvement.

    Is there really that much difference between a sharpened stone tied to a stick and a proton accelerator?
    Look you seem to have jumped into logic at the point of man using stone tools. One minute to seem to suggest how logic begins from cells. Tell me how logic begins.
    Before Europeans came to New Zealand the Maori were still using stone tools but they were able to reuse them for they had discovered the art of grinding the edge of the adzes and axes, so your statement "but there is no potential for conscious improvement", is completely wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Junior TridentBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    207
    Math, math, math, math math. That's all I have to say to it. Are you on to something? Maybe. But on reading it, the definitions strike me as too vague. Recognition of uniqueness needs to be defined formally, so that non-recognition of uniqueness can be defined. You need to define the latter, so you can say "this is what it looks like if I'm wrong", which is to say the theory needs falsifiability in order to be right. So you can say "If I'm right, then this, if I'm wrong, then this." Then you've got yourself an experiment, and some science. Locking things down in a formal language like math or computer programming makes this come easy.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    I see no problem with the most basic definition of the word logic: our ability to think and reason. jrmonroe's quote, "Our profound ability to perceive, process and remember abstractions separates humans from the apes and other animals." sounds pretty close to this. "Ability to think and reason" sounds pretty broad to me, so I don't get the criticism that broad is bad.
    A case can be made that what you see as logic can in fact be more accurately summed up as Problem Solving; while the application of logic may be present, it isn't always there since there are instances where the "ability to think and reason" in both our species and others do not yield a logical form, hence the distinction between that which is logical and illogical regardless of the result while attempting to solve problems and rationalise reasons.




    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    And, as my title states; The ORIGIN of Logic, my focus is on the most basic mental activity required to begin building this system of logic.
    On a conscious processing level, the few most basic (related) mental activities are pattern recognition, association, problem solving, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Most believe that the very first distinctly human characteristic was tool making. So what does it take to make a tool?

    I would say one needs an abstract sense of the uniqueness of it. Apes in the wild have been observed using a crudely sharpened (by mouth) stick to poke at a tree cavity in order to retrieve a favorite tasty prey, or parts of it anyway. This seems like tool making, but I think it is important to note that the tool is never reused. A new one is fashioned every time.

    This indicates no abstract awareness of the uniqueness of what is being fashioned and it's relationship to the desired result. There is the ability to discriminate that this learned behavior can be successful, but there is no potential for conscious improvement.
    Not quite true.

    Sea otters as a marine animal do use tools such as a rock to open shellfish and clams while foraging. Interestingly, it is reported that they keep this preferred rock within the folds of their pouch like skin that runs across their chest for reuse. While I personally attribute that to species capable of forming attachments and preferences to objects, this does not support the notion that "uniqueness" and its identification as a wholly human phenomenon.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Before Europeans came to New Zealand the Maori were still using stone tools but they were able to reuse them for they had discovered the art of grinding the edge of the adzes and axes, so your statement "but there is no potential for conscious improvement", is completely wrong.
    Please read what is written. Daniel is very clearly referring to the tools made by chimpanzees, which are - apparently - not re-used. (Jumping to a concussion again.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Before Europeans came to New Zealand the Maori were still using stone tools but they were able to reuse them for they had discovered the art of grinding the edge of the adzes and axes, so your statement "but there is no potential for conscious improvement", is completely wrong.
    Please read what is written. Daniel is very clearly referring to the tools made by chimpanzees, which are - apparently - not re-used. (Jumping to a concussion again.)
    Well whether he is talking about chimps or early hominids matters not, I just noted he had said "there was no potential for conscious improvement". I had not thought he had just limited himself to that one example when he had started talking about tools long before he brought up the example with the question "So what does it take to make a tool?"
    "So what does it take to make a tool?"
    He should make it a bit more clear what he is talking about. It may have lost the paragraph layout with the repeated copy and pasting. Yes, you were right I did misread it, thanks and I see it now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    I do hope I do not come across as attacking Daniel's proposal with malice. My intention is to flush out the weak points to see if there is any merit/substance in the proposal itself. The way he has used certain words is rather unconventional and his message ambiguous, due to the nature of his draft being unusually short, unclear, and imprecise.
    Not at all. I thought your post #6 struck exactly the right note to objectively explore the idea.
    I'm glad that my post was on the right track. What are your impression of Daniel's proposal so far? He has a total six posts; one OP and five subsequent post after that, with slightly over two thousand one hundred words invested.

    Personally, I'd like to see that he a) defines the terms in his concept, b) justify the unconventional use of certain words and phrases, c) expound on the meat in his OP, d) provide citations where available, e) address queries and replies that he has received but not attended to.

    Any additional thoughts?
    Robittybob1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    I do hope no one has gotten the impression that I am a scientist or pretending to be one. If you search my full name on Facebook you would realize I am by profession an artist. Compared to the intellectual buzz saws on this site, I'm a wind-up toy. I came to this site because this is a subject for thinkers. I know the art world well and no one has done any thinking there for years. The contemporary art world lives and dies with the obtuse and vague. Heaven forbid you should define something. I first made a note of this concept 40 years ago my senior year at Pratt Institute, rediscovered it five years later while searching for something else, and was struck by the simplicity. I realize there is a fine line between "simple", which can be profound, and "simplistic", which is more often a waste of time. Nevertheless, awareness of this concept has led me to many other insights about myself and life in general. In fact, I've spent the last 39 1/2 years assuming it was common knowledge. I just thought I was clever enough to figure it out without taking Logic 101. If I lose any of you by revealing this, then I will assume credentials are more important than content.

    All that aside, I will continue (within my abilities) to defend this thesis as best I can. I appreciate the interest and hope no one feels duped. Maybe you could just say: "He makes some pretty good points, for an artist."

    I think TridentBlue is making a good and probably essential point about falsifyability. The best I can do is say that if there is an additional cognitive ability other than ARU needed to create logic, then some one can describe it and I will have no case. And if there is no truth to the genetic connection, then we would have managed to teach chimps, dolphins, elephants and probably sea otters how to write bestsellers years ago.

    Was this Maori tribe in New Zealand the same one where the natives examined the underside of the plane to see if it was male or female?

    Re: Scoobydoo's suggestion that skilled tool making is problem solving. I find this a little hard to believe. But you may be right that it doesn't qualify fully as logic. Intuitive logic perhaps. Early Renaissance artists practiced what was latter called intuitive perspective. The lines were more or less converging in the right direction, but the precision of linear perspective was not present.

    If animals can think and reason, it would be possible to put a mouse in a cage where some tasty treat could be seen and smelled, but not easily accessed. Then after a few failed attempts, insert a barrier allowing the mouse to continue to see and smell, but no possible access. After giving said mouse time to ponder the situation, remove the barrier and he gets the treat on the first try!

    It seems to me that pattern recognition would have to follow ARU for the simple reason I mentioned before: it takes two(or more). This is a point where ARU has been repeated many times to make the concept that there is a group of objects. It gets repeated again because the pattern, in order to be noticed, must be distinct (unique).

    Returning to TridentBlue. Thank you again for your post. I'm definitely open to suggestions.

    Also, as I told John, it I overlook any queries please remind me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    The point you made about chimps discarding their sticks seems a bit moot to me Daniel.

    We too make lots of disposable tools which we discard after use and just make a new one the next time we need one. It might just be easier, considering the chimps are in the forest surrounded by sticks to cut a new one for the task at hand than to carry sticks around just because they might need one someday. Conversely if the tool takes a bit more investment in time and energy it becomes worth saving instead of discarding.
    Proton accelerators take much more time and effort to make than a pointy stick does, and I am guessing a sharpened rock is somewhere in between.

    I also wonder how logical thoughts could be concieved without some form of language to think them. That is why I said earlier that logic is from language.
    Robittybob1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    If animals can think and reason, it would be possible to put a mouse in a cage where some tasty treat could be seen and smelled, but not easily accessed. Then after a few failed attempts, insert a barrier allowing the mouse to continue to see and smell, but no possible access. After giving said mouse time to ponder the situation, remove the barrier and he gets the treat on the first try!
    I'm not quite sure what sure what you are saying there. There doesn't seem scope for the mouse to do any problem solving in your description.

    But, anyway, lots of experiments have been done with the abilities of different animals to solves problems. Birds, corvids in particular, are very impressive. For example, one common task is a tall transparent container with a bucket of food at the bottom. Various raw materials are provided. Birds who have never seen the setup before will examine it for a while then pick up a piece of wire, form the end into a hook and lift the food out.

    I'm not sure what that says for or against your thesis. But this and other experiments suggest that there is nothing unique about humans; we are just somewhere on the continuum of abilities.
    Robittybob1 likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    dan, Being an artist, it is not hard at all for me to imagine logical thoughts and connections without language. I can't remember a time when I haven't done it. This is not to say that I don't have plenty of thoughts that involve language as well. The notion of visualizing all three of the of the component elements of ARU and getting the value of uniqueness seems totally natural to me. But thank you for pointing this out!! It would certainly explain some of the confusion, and give me a good place to start when I get back to the drawing board, as it were, with the MO.

    I love hearing about the incredibly intelligent (by appearance) things that animals are able to do. I have the sneaky feeling they know far more than we think and often in ways where we are clueless. While it is intriguing to imagine that chimps, otters and birds using thee tools would catch up to our level given another 5 million years, it would not explain why we can't seem to do better at helping them along. With this Maori tribe, at the stone age level, I am curious to know how long it took to bring them up to speed. Probably not that long which would seem to indicate considerably more facility than the talented animals demonstrate. I do agree that we cannot conclusively say that the chimps are unaware of any potential usefulness for keeping the sticks. As you point out, they just may be smarter than that.

    I agree wholeheartedly with Strange's statement that we as humans are not that unique among the animal species. That, in fact, would be the whole point of my theses. I am suggesting that one fairly simple ability is ALL that separates us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    It might also be reasonable to assume that ARU was a genetic mutation giving the primates who possessed it an immediate and distinct advantage over those that did not. If this were true, then the gene responsible would still be present today and could be isolated.
    I feel like you're asking if evolution is logical, or follows a logical path.

    Evolution in the broadest sense of course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    I am suggesting that one fairly simple ability is ALL that separates us.
    But you haven't provided any evidence that such an ability exists (how would you test for it?) or, if it does, that it is unique to humans.
    Robittybob1 likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    I know the art world well and no one has done any thinking there for years. The contemporary art world lives and dies with the obtuse and vague. Heaven forbid you should define something.
    This is largely due to how art is consumed in its appreciation by the audience, and how artists (in general) by profession hone their skill through offering different perspectives on selected subjects. There are many memoirs and collected notebooks of prominent artists that gives us glimpse into how they work and how they study the subject of their work, the materials involved, the technique utilized, how they deal with composition, the geometry of shapes and form, lines that runs parallel or intersect (or at least the perception of it), the juxtaposition of color, shade, shapes, and form, etc. These are the artists who contribute what little they can to the intellectual pursuit of perception of artistic works such as aesthetics with their pieces, and more importantly from their written journals.

    Some notable artists that I myself am rather fond of are Isamu Noguchi, Barbara Hepworth, and Egon Schiele; more so for Hepworth since I relate strongly with her works and had been heavily influenced by her style in my own. I consider her an elder aunt-like fellow sculptor whom I never met that advanced my own education and progress in my works through hers, particularly by her written journals and authored biographies.

    From an insider perspective, it isn't about being forbidden to define the subject matter for precision, but about how defining can at times hinder or ruin the visual appreciation by restricting the scope of how, and/or laying the boundaries of where and what the audience's imagination can fly off to. Back in the day, my works were focused mainly on "tactile consumption" because I was fascinated by that mode of sensory perception, and that had led me to pursue and study up on philosophy, cognitive psychology and selected fields within neurobiology in my off time. This pursuit helps to cement what I had once grasped and/or unconsciously aware of intuitively into something more formalized with a highly critical "trail by fire" methodology to ensure that the yielded knowledge are reliable, verifiable, and (within reason) tested to ensure their validity.




    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Re: Scoobydoo's suggestion that skilled tool making is problem solving. I find this a little hard to believe.
    If you read post #48 again, I did not actually say that. What I did actually say was what you consider to be logic; and I quote "the most basic definition of the word logic: our ability to think and reason" can be more accurately summed up as Problem Solving, and not Logic per se because the ability to think and reason doesn't necessarily follow a logical form, hence the distinction between that which is logical and illogical.

    To give an example of this; at times, our "ability to think and reason" can follow an associative but illogical train of thought and reason, and also at times it can follow an associative logical train of thought and reason. Do you see the difference, and if so, do you understand the distinction between the two?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    It seems to me that pattern recognition would have to follow ARU for the simple reason I mentioned before: it takes two(or more). This is a point where ARU has been repeated many times to make the concept that there is a group of objects. It gets repeated again because the pattern, in order to be noticed, must be distinct (unique).
    I have yet to see any mildly compelling evidence that the mechanism that you have described as "ability to recognise uniqueness" exists, particularly when you said the following.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    ... the origin of our logic system as similar to the origin of life, where all the complexities of life/logic are made of a single act repeated over and over. In both cases that act is simple, yet far mre complex than anything that precedes it. In the case of logic," it is the ability to recognize uniqueness (ARU)".
    And I have somewhat addressed this by the impromptu green bean example, in that what you have stated as our "ability to recognize uniqueness" can be falsified by our often inability to pick out varying degrees of (minute?) differences without additional aid from mechanical devices such as rulers for lengths, weighing scales for weight, protractors for angles, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    Wasn't going there, but it is a question worth thinking about. I am assuming that whatever it is we do that other species cannot, must have a physiological basis, and therefore genetically inherited.

    This is a response to Beer w/Straw: Our profound ability to perceive, process and remember abstractions separates humans from the apes and other animals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Your thesis still isn't clear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    scobydoo1: Noguchi and Hepworth are the real thing. So is Egon Schiele , who is one of my top favorites ever. I did say years, not decades. Those artists all lived in a time much more conducive to creative and insightful thought in the world of art. Difference was they asked questions because they were genuinely interested in finding answers. Even had some sense they might find some answers, and not surprisingly, they did! The tenor today is different. No one stops asking questions because it's easier than looking for answers, which is considered somewhat unseemly. Imagining you have found an answer is downright sacrilegious. There are exceptions of course, but few and far between. Great to have one of the few on this site!

    You said: To give an example of this; at times, our "ability to think and reason" can follow an associative but illogical train of thought and reason, and also at times it can follow an associative logical train of thought and reason. Do you see the difference, and if so, do you understand the distinction between the two?

    Tell me: If I have an associative train of thought that is 50% logical, is it logical or illogical?

    You also said: I have yet to see any mildly compelling evidence that the mechanism that you have described as "ability to recognise uniqueness" exists, particularly when you said the following.

    I firmly believe you would not keep saying this unless there was something to it. But I may need a little help. First of all, can we eliminate the possibility we are heading down an existential road? Secondly, if we have no ability to recognize uniqueness or even the concept of it, how did we come up with the word?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    Beer w/Straw: Re. "Your thesis still isn't clear."

    Do you feel this way about every sentence of both thesis and support, first to last?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    An amoeba can recognize uniqueness: food.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher
    ....
    if we have no ability to recognize uniqueness or even the concept of it, how did we come up with the word?



    That is a very all encompassing argument for any word could be inserted into that sentence.

    If we have no ability to recognize <Insert any word> or even the concept of it, how did we come up with the word?"
    Is that logical?
    Consciousness allows us recognize things that don't seem, off hand, to be recognizable on the cellular level from our 5 senses.

    How does it work? Thinking it through for myself each word makes a sound in my inner mind's voice and that invokes the memory of the meaning. So in animals that have a less developed language they might still be able to think like this to some extent by having instinctive words (concepts) that they can think of but don't (can't) say (vocalize).
    At school they tried to teach me to read with my eyes, so it maybe that some people have bypassed the need to hear the sound of the word to invoke the memory and the meaning.
    People's brains won't be all the same.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    To give an example of this; at times, our "ability to think and reason" can follow an associative but illogical train of thought and reason, and also at times it can follow an associative logical train of thought and reason. Do you see the difference, and if so, do you understand the distinction between the two?
    Tell me: If I have an associative train of thought that is 50% logical, is it logical or illogical?
    Off hand, I would say that if a train of thought does not comply with a logical form and/or riddled with one too many logical fallacies in its reasoning; it is illogical. To be logical, is to conform with the principles of logic and yield a logical form. I hope this helps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    First of all, can we eliminate the possibility we are heading down an existential road?
    Please clarify and elaborate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    It seems to me that pattern recognition would have to follow ARU for the simple reason I mentioned before: it takes two(or more). This is a point where ARU has been repeated many times to make the concept that there is a group of objects. It gets repeated again because the pattern, in order to be noticed, must be distinct (unique).
    I have yet to see any mildly compelling evidence that the mechanism that you have described as "ability to recognise uniqueness" exists, particularly when you said the following.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    ... the origin of our logic system as similar to the origin of life, where all the complexities of life/logic are made of a single act repeated over and over. In both cases that act is simple, yet far more complex than anything that precedes it. In the case of logic," it is the ability to recognize uniqueness (ARU)".
    And I have somewhat addressed this by the impromptu green bean example, in that what you have stated as our "ability to recognize uniqueness" can be falsified by our often inability to pick out varying degrees of (minute?) differences without additional aid from mechanical devices such as rulers for lengths, weighing scales for weight, protractors for angles, etc.
    Secondly, if we have no ability to recognize uniqueness or even the concept of it, how did we come up with the word?
    That is the result of us noticing things that "stands out" amidst other similar things, which does not necessitate their uniqueness however. Place that one unique object amongst other similar objects, and we will have difficulties telling them apart. Such as the green bean example I've mentioned earlier.

    Now, depending on whether we have settled the misuse of the word logic to mean "our ability to think and reason" from your first sentence in post #45, because the ability to think and reason does not necessarily follow a logical form, hence rendering it illogical, we can move on to address the rest of what you have said. If you are still sticking with origins of logic being "the ability to recognise uniqueness", we will have to first deal with the earliest of definitions in your premise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    Beer w/Straw: "An amoeba can recognize uniqueness: food."

    Thats what
    you call it. Does the amoeba call it that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    Robbityboo1: "Consciousness allows us recognize things that don't seem, off hand, to be recognizable on the cellular level from our 5 senses".

    This is where I am suggesting the first humans were when they first learned how to make and improve tools. No sound/word was necessary. Just the visual logic of their actions,
    which required ARU.

    Ponder for a moment how often our logical observations about the physical world, as well as the conceptual world, refer, at the most basic level to one form or another of measurement. Even one clear example that doesn't would blow my theory out of the water.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    scoobydoo1: You referred to my "misuse of the word logic to mean "our ability to think and reason". The three primary definitions of logic in Webster refer to thinking and reasoning. You seem to on a more advanced interpretation, and I am not saying that interpretation is invalid. It's just that if we are discarding the three most primary definitions altogether, then I'm not sure how to proceed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Beer w/Straw: "An amoeba can recognize uniqueness: food."

    Thats what
    you call it. Does the amoeba call it that?

    What's your point?
    Last edited by Beer w/Straw; February 11th, 2014 at 09:04 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    The three primary definitions of logic in Webster refer to thinking and reasoning. You seem to on a more advanced interpretation, and I am not saying that interpretation is invalid. It's just that if we are discarding the three most primary definitions altogether, then I'm not sure how to proceed.
    Let's take a look at that shall we?

    Can Logic - thinking and reasoning; be illogical?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    dan hunter: You said, "Proton accelerators take much more time and effort to make than a pointy stick does, and I am guessing a sharpened rock is somewhere in between."

    I did have a good chuckle. I think I must have been channeling the opening scene in Stanley Kubrick's movie "2001". Maybe my theory is not that original after all. Does this quality as a citation? I do realize I am woefully lacking in this
    regard. Other than the theory concerning our "ability to discriminate"-I found the author and his book online several months ago, but then lost the bookmark. I have done a good deal of searching for precedents, but have not found any. I'm sure they are out there so I will keep looking. I know from my art studies that nothing significant pops out of nowhere.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    scoobydoo1: Re "Can Logic - thinking and reasoning; be illogical?"

    I would say it could, and probably is, the great majority of the time, giving us a very good justification for existentialism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    scoobydoo1: Re "Can Logic - thinking and reasoning; be illogical?"

    I would say it could, and probably is, the great majority of the time, giving us a very good justification for existentialism.
    And when Logic - thinking and reasoning becomes illogical, what do you call it; illogical logic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    Beer w/Straw: You asked: "What's you point?"

    I think the
    subject is best answered with the theory concerning the "ability to discriminate" and I apologize again for not being able to provide the source.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    scoobydoo1: Re "And when Logic - thinking and reasoning becomes illogical, what do you call it; illogical logic?"

    I love the idea of this as a subcategory, although we might be late to the party. I think Nietzsche spent his life on it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Anyway, the brain eating amoeba will feast on a hosts brain and when the immune system comes to defend, it will form a hard shell that the immune system is unable to penetrate...

    I don't know where this thread is going but I felt like posting that.

    Last edited by Beer w/Straw; February 11th, 2014 at 09:57 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    scoobydoo1: Re "And when Logic - thinking and reasoning becomes illogical, what do you call it; illogical logic?"

    I love the idea of this as a subcategory, although we might be late to the party. I think Nietzsche spent his life on it.
    The point I was trying to make is that the definitions of word Logic you are using is unconventional (not to mention informal). It would be akin to inefficient efficiency.

    This is where I shall take leave of this discussion. Should you think there is still substance that can be salvaged in your proposal, and I can only recommend that you take note of all the different points raised by members here, and redraft your premise with more precision should you choose to in the future.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    scoobydoo1 said: "The point I was trying to make is that the definitions of word Logic you are using is unconventional (not to mention informal). It would be akin to inefficient efficient"

    The point I was trying to make is the same one I made before, which you completely ignored. "Logical and illogical" as well as "similar and unique" are black and white only in the abstract sense. In terms of reality they can only be measured in degrees or nuance. Sorry if that's not convenient.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    Beer w/Straw said: "Anyway, the brain eating amoeba will feast on a hosts brain and when the immune system comes to defend, it will form a hard shell that the immune system is unable to penetrate."

    I don't have to worry about that. Even if I do have a brain I don't plan on using it. (Sorry John, just trying to lighten if up a bit.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Robbityboo1: "Consciousness allows us recognize things that don't seem, off hand, to be recognizable on the cellular level from our 5 senses".

    This is where I am suggesting the first humans were when they first learned how to make and improve tools. No sound/word was necessary. Just the visual logic of their actions,
    which required ARU.

    Ponder for a moment how often our logical observations about the physical world, as well as the conceptual world, refer, at the most basic level to one form or another of measurement. Even one clear example that doesn't would blow my theory out of the water.
    There would be no written word at least but without a doubt they would be saying the thought in their mind, the one their brains had instinctively assigned to the task.

    Birds do it, mammals do it, so why not the early stone tool making humans. The last thing I suspect is that they were dumb (speechless).
    Language is far more primitive than stone tool making. Even chimpanzees have a language.
    Some people have learned how to speak Chimpanzee.
    An article by Carl Zimmer shows just the sort of aspects of chimp language that are being studied. "Can Chimps Talk?" Can Chimps Talk? - Forbes

    The harder bit is to say whether chimps too are evolving an improving speech or as time passes losing the ability.
    Fascinating studies done by Tetsuro Matsuzawa.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; February 11th, 2014 at 02:29 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    Robittybob1: "There would be no written word at least but without a doubt they would be saying the thought in their mind, the one their brains had instinctively assigned to the task.

    Birds do it, mammals do it, so why not the early stone tool making humans. The last thing I suspect is that they were dumb (speechless).
    Language is far more primitive than stone tool making. Even chimpanzees have a language.
    Some people have learned how to speak Chimpanzee."

    Very good point, and we should probably add whales and dolphins to the list, maybe crows and ravens. Come to think of it, I guess the list is pretty long. I went to the visual first because I'm an artist and it is easy for me to picture. We also have some pretty sophisticated images on cave walls that exhibit specific communication. But if there was already a rudimentary language present as with chimps and other animals, (which doesn't seem farfetched) then it figures that the addition of ARU would dramatically speed things along with speech-probably for social reasons. A more sophisticated language would undoubtably facilitate inventiveness with tool making.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Why is thread not yet in Trash?
    wegs likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    The Ability to Recognize Uniquness, is not the real true core of logical truthfulness, as it is well known to be preceded by the ARA and ARS, the Ability to Recognize Anything itself relying on the Ability to Recognize Something, which in turn makes it possible to Recognize that Something when it is the Uniqueness, but then, the deeper inner core is AAP, An Ability Period, because to have an ability to recognize means you have some ability, from which the ARBS emanates, the Ability to Recognize Bull Shite


    (Unproven assertions are one thing, its not that bad if the assertion it grounded and can be tested to see if theres something there we didnt know about, but the "theory" you are presenting is vague and not structured in a way that can be tested as being false or true, like saying "the deeper truth is the reality behind the truth" it makes the case sound like giberish and hard to treat seriously on a science forum)
    Last edited by icewendigo; February 11th, 2014 at 03:13 PM.
    John Galt, Dywyddyr, wegs and 1 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    Been wondering how I got in this mess so I went back to my original notes (written in cursive, imagine that!): "The first step in establishing the present logic system is to accept the notion of objects and events possessing uniqueness. Because of this uniqueness, objects and events may be compared to produce a difference, difference in turn enabling the existence of time and distance. Objects and events are separated from the whole of the universe and then defined by their relationship to that whole. Relationship then reveals itself as merely the process of separation."

    Perhaps my visual emphasis on the object as the be-all and end-all betrays too much subjectivity. How can I imagine anyone coming from a purely OBJECTive point of view to buy this?

    Chow
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    I think most people would agree that conciousness is ultimately a subjective experience. The problem is how to identify it objectively. If you can not identify it objectively then there is no way to claim anything else in the universe is concious besides yourself.
    It is also one reason why Descartes' "Je pense, donc je suis" (Cogito ergo sum) does not really get anyone very far studying conciousness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Been wondering how I got in this mess
    It's readily apparent:
    "The first step in establishing the present logic system is to accept the notion of objects and events possessing uniqueness.
    The ACTUAL "first step" is to establish that your ARU has any validity (and to drop it should it be prove to be unfounded).
    You're working from an a priori unsupported assumption.
    Another case, apparently, of "I thought of it, so it must be right".

    Chow
    The dog or the slang term for food?
    dan hunter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,074
    It seems that the terms "instinct" and "logic" are being (mis)construed as interchangeable. Instinct requires no logic. No reasoning. Logic requires reasoning, and there are categories of logic, to be technical about it. To confuse instinct with logic and believe you've developed a new "theory," is ...illogical. lol

    I don't see any answers for the title of the thread. What separates a human being's ability to employ logic over a drone who is incapable of it? That's the question. Or am I missing the point, completely?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    In the meantime, perhaps someone could describe what specific cognitive action we do besides ARU?
    In addition to those mentioned above, I would add that what we seem to be spectacularly good at is recognising similarities or patterns. See for example apophenia and pareidolia. There are many good reasons for such an ability to evolve. This may be behind our love of rhythm, music, art and language. The reason we can detect "uniqueness" is because we see things that deviate from known patterns; in other words, it would appear to be a side-effect rather than fundamental.
    What role does the identification uniqueness play? Are we not all unique in some way, why are we unique? I am suspecting there are different levels of ARU that may be in agreement with the OP suggestion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I am suspecting there are different levels of ARU that may be in agreement with the OP suggestion.
    Oh good.
    That's all that was needed.
    A personal suspicion that, er, something or other, MAY be "in agreement" with a, um, completely unsupported claim.
    How utterly valid...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    I keep checking to see if the support I thought I posted is actually there, since there are a number of unsupported claims that I have provided no support. None of these claims addresses my support in any way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    I think that Logic was discovered, not invented.

    Like any other Mathematical Law, even if we weren't aware of it, it would still exist as part of reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    I keep checking to see if the support I thought I posted is actually there, since there are a number of unsupported claims that I have provided no support. None of these claims addresses my support in any way.
    For a thread devoted to logic this post shows very little evidence of it. Was there meaning somewhere within?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    John Galt said: "For a thread devoted to logic this post shows very little evidence of it. Was there meaning somewhere within?"

    This does not address anything I have said
    specifically, so I have no idea how to respond to it. It may be a good time to agree to disagree. I am grateful to you and the site for presenting me with an opportunity to at least attempt a discussion on this subject. It is an ambitious theory to say the least, and I quite agree with Deacon: "I think that Logic was discovered, not invented.

    Like any other Mathematical Law, even if we weren't aware of it, it would still exist as part of reality". From my perspective, I certainly did not invent this theory, I just managed to "see" or "discover" it. You are welcome to do with the thread as you like with no complaints from me. If anything new appears I will certainly check it out, but the horizon does appear rather desolate. Many thanks to genus duck. "You win again."- Hank Williams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    John Galt said: "For a thread devoted to logic this post shows very little evidence of it. Was there meaning somewhere within?"

    This does not address anything I have said
    specifically, so I have no idea how to respond to it. It may be a good time to agree to disagree.
    You could start by explaining what your post actually means.

    "I keep checking to see if the support I thought I posted is actually there, since there are a number of unsupported claims that I have provided no support. None of these claims addresses my support in any way."

    . I earn my living, in part, through being able to efficiently interpret odd language. The current class I am teaching is unusual in that only seven nationalities are present in a group of eighteen students. I mention this to demonstrate I am not unfamiliar with interpreting odd phraseologies, grammar and ambiguities. However, that particular post is utterly unintelligible to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    Many thanks to genus duck.
    He'll have to change his name to Aix or perhaps Anas.

    One does have some humorous potential...
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    He'll have to change his name to Aix or perhaps Anas.
    One does have some humorous potential...
    Yep.
    If I change it to "Aix" people will will keep asking if I'm ready for a bath...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    We're pushing the boundary of what can reasonably be called a joke.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    25
    John Galt: you said: "You could start by explaining what your post actually means".

    What I am looking for is
    criticism that refers to specific parts of my support that don't make sense and why. True, I haven't proven that ARU exists or come up with a test for it. Has anyone proven that consciousness exists or come up with a test for it? Maybe we should stop talking about it until that little problem is solved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Patrick Fisher View Post
    What I am looking for is criticism that refers to specific parts of my support that don't make sense and why.

    Apparently you haven't actually read any of the replies.

    True, I haven't proven that ARU exists or come up with a test for it.
    You haven't even supported your claim, let alone "proved" it.

    Has anyone proven that consciousness exists or come up with a test for it?


    Maybe we should stop talking about it until that little problem is solved.
    Maybe you should go back to school.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Math logic and Computer logic gates
    By sciencestudy in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 17th, 2013, 05:05 AM
  2. Your logic is not my logic and my logic is not your logic!
    By theorist in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: March 8th, 2013, 12:26 PM
  3. Replies: 19
    Last Post: April 15th, 2012, 08:54 AM
  4. My Logic
    By verzen in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: April 6th, 2009, 08:32 AM
  5. Digital Logic Vs. Quantum logic
    By Truth_Table in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2007, 01:43 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •