Logic, reality

[Lalande]

Why does logic exists (or mathematics). What is it? Is it possible to exist universe with other mathematics? Why logic is the basement of every discussion? Is it true that logic may be incomplete? Is there higher logic, not visible to our minds? Is it necessary that objective reality exists? Why there are laws in universe? what guards them? If idealism is true why do we need brains, why we are not something simpler, like dots of consciousness...

Nobody could answer this questions. Have you any questions on these subjects? Thanks

"What is it?"

Our best approximation to the Way.

-Who

[Lalande]

What is this way, the way to truth? I don't know why logic have to be the best aproximation to truth. Depends on what truth are you looking for. Maybe there will always be some higher truth and the way will never stop. Maybe there is point where logic is not enough.

[justsaygnosis]

Because it begins within the known and proceeds to the next discernible alternative.
It doesn't require sacrifices or worship, just study and application.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lalande
If idealism is true why do we need brains, why we are not something simpler, like dots of consciousness...

[/B]

Here is what I said before regarding this question.

Many of you will know that I do not favour the hypothesis that the brain generates the mind or consciousness. This of course is not to deny that brain states may not in an appropriate sense "cause" particular mind states, it's just that mind states do not originate from brain states. As I have put it before:

The fact that states of "A" may be correlated with "particular states of "B", means neither that "A" and "B" are one and the same thing, nor does it entail that "B" originates from "A", or indeed "A" from "B". It could be that both "A" and "B" both independently are generated by "C". Or it could be the case that although states of "B" are modified by states of "A", "B" ultimately originates from "C".

However, if the brain only modifies consciousness or minds, rather than being the progenitor of the mind, the question then arises as to why we need brains at all.

The first thing to recognise here is that processes within the brain are akin to any information processing system. As with any such information processing system there are architectural constraints and these serve to limit the mind so we only have access to those perceptions that follow the familiar and regular patterns that we associate with the physical world. This then allows us to function proficiently whilst we subsist in this empirical reality.

Now when the mind operates in detachment from the brain, when it is temporarily or permanently disembodied, then its processing is released from the constraining influence of the arrays of primitive processing units (essentially the brain). It will then have access to all other perceptions apart from our everyday perceptions. Those other perceptions will be driven by some other "engine", and the person may seem to be passing through other worlds. This would be broadly consistent with the anecdotal experiences of some out-of-body experiences, especially near-death experiences - and indeed with reportedly channelled descriptions from the dead, as well as with traditional accounts such as those found in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead.

Anyone have any other plausible hypothesis of why we need brains?

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian








Anyone have any other plausible hypothesis of why we need brains?

For the same reason we need any other organ, functions are best performed by apparatus specifically suited for that need.
If consciousness ISN'T a manifestation of brain activity how would it interface with the material world?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by justsaygnosis


For the same reason we need any other organ, functions are best performed by apparatus specifically suited for that need.
If consciousness ISN'T a manifestation of brain activity how would it interface with the material world?

Mental causality is the fundamental attribute of conscious beings. We are immediately acquainted with its existence (I can will my body to make certain movements).

[Gideon S]

Originally posted by Lalande
Why does logic exists (or mathematics). What is it? Is it possible to exist universe with other mathematics? Why logic is the basement of every discussion? Is it true that logic may be incomplete? Is there higher logic, not visible to our minds? Is it necessary that objective reality exists? Why there are laws in universe? what guards them? If idealism is true why do we need brains, why we are not something simpler, like dots of consciousness...

Nobody could answer this questions. Have you any questions on these subjects? Thanks

Well, we evolved brains and higher thought s a survival mechanism.

As far as why we need mathematics, well, mostly we use math as a meta-language to describe how things operate within our consensual perceptive universe. And the laws of the universe are most certainly not complete, science is the quest for the ultimate truth and the ultimate understanding of the natural world.

Of course, your question is actually two questions, and as a singular thing its hard to answer, kind of like "how are hamburgers and music equally important to human survival."

I've always percieved philosophy to be a sort of mathematics of thought and behavior, helping us to determine the best course of action in this weird calculus equation we function in from birth to death.

[Lalande]

If consciousness ISN'T a manifestation of brain activity how would it interface with the material world?
You presume that consciousness is not material and brain is.
Maybe brain is some sort of radiostation... But why do we (our bodies, live organisms) need consciousness? I think that consciousness is able to operate in non algorythmic way. It can face all problems that organism may meet. If we were like machines it would be hard to live/evolve (maybe impossible).

[hammegk]

Originally posted by justsaygnosis


If consciousness ISN'T a manifestation of brain activity how would it interface with the material world?

Follow that train of thought to the only logical conclusions, and a) dualism/materialism is impossible, and b) idealism remains as the most likely "reality". :)

Alternatively, and leading to the same answer, does mathematics depend on any objective, physical, existant? Or, is the converse at least equally likely?

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Lalande

You presume that consciousness is not material and brain is.


I was answering Ian. He presumes such. If there is residual energy from thought then this thing we refer to as consciousness may 'survive' death and exist prior to human existence much the same as the physical mass of the body still exists in a decomposing state after death.
I'll acknowledge the extremely remote possibility of such a state but I don't invest in it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by justsaygnosis


Originally posted by Lalande

You presume that consciousness is not material and brain is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I was answering Ian. He presumes such.

I don't presume brain is material. Indeed I explicitly deny it. Im an immaterialist.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't presume brain is material. Indeed I explicitly deny it. Im an immaterialist.
I know that.
Re-read the posts, Lalande attributed that premise to me.
BTW what do you consider the brain to be if not material?

[Lalande]

When I see the stone, is there any stone? There is seeing of the stone. But does it require the material object that is perceived? I am sure that mental reality exists. I do not know if physical reality exists. Why materialists state something contrary: there is physical reality (some add: and only physical).

[thaiboxerken]

I guess Lalande is another one of those people that levitates when alone.

This subjective reality bit is rather boring. Are you so arrogant that you think you are ingenious enough to imagined the universe, Lalande? Do you think you've created all the wonders and inventions that you discover in this "mental" reality dream of yours? Who's mentality takes precedence, Lalande, yours?

[Lalande]

I'd love to talk about your nickname and avatar. Psychology is so funny. But this forum has its own rights...
Maybe I am ingenious enough. Maybe your understanding of word I is limited by your belive system (I suppose science). Maybe my I is not different of yours. Maybe there is only my I. We've got not enough info. Sometimes I wonder if all philosophy isn't pointless.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Lalande

Maybe I am ingenious enough. If I only knew who I am...

When you figure out who you are take some time to figure out what you are.
If you come to believe the rest of the universe would cease to exist without you as a perceiver don't wait for anyone to petition for you to have immortality to preserve their existence.

[Lalande]

If there is any rest of the Universe. And what if even I do not exist. If all that is is perceiving. Infinite patterns of experience.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Lalande
If there is any rest of the Universe. And what if even I do not exist. If all that is is perceiving. Infinite patterns of experience.

Then I wouldn't have to worry about being charged by a Kodiak while salmon fishing in Alaska.
It would only be one illusion cancelling out another illusion.
Pass the 12 guage slug rifle please, this illusion wishes to remain another day.

[Lalande]

But there are some other illusions - like fear of death, instinct - which cancel very seducing idea of putting rifle into mouth.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Lalande
But there are some other illusions - like fear of death, instinct - which cancel very seducing idea of putting rifle into mouth.

I prefer the joy of living and the sense of adventure.
Fear is just not enough to sustain me.

[LW]

Originally posted by Lalande
Why does logic exists (or mathematics).

Because we (as humans) created it as a convenient tool.

What is it?

It is a study of valid methods of reasoning.

Is it possible to exist universe with other mathematics?

Mu.

Why logic is the basement of every discussion?

Because it is a tool that helps us to weed out incorrect arguments.

Is it true that logic may be incomplete?

It is true for two main reasons. The one that is usually mentioned is that every formal system that is powerful enough is either inconsistent (two contradictionary theorems can be proved using it) or incomplete (not every true statement in the system can be proven). More practical viewpoint is that almost all logical inferences are done starting from some set of initial assumptions and there is no systematic way to guarantee that they are correct. I

Is there higher logic, not visible to
our minds?

I'd say that not in the sense you seem to mean. Logic is completely a creation of human brains. That you can use it to describe quite a lot of what happens in the universe is what makes it and other mathematics useful. If it happens that we someday witness an event that can't be described using them, then it is the problem of the mathematics, not the universe.

However, it is possible that some other method of formalizing knowledge would be vastly superior to mathematical logic, but at least we haven't found it, yet.

Is it necessary that objective reality exists?

No.

Why there are laws in universe?

To be precise, we don't know if there are any real laws of the universe, but it certainly behaves as it had.

what guards them?

My take is nothing. The universe just happens to work the way it does.

If idealism is true why do we need brains, why we are not something simpler, like dots of consciousness...

Even though some posters on this forum will vehemently disagree with me regarding this, but I find the dependance on brains to be the single greatest weakness of the idealist position.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Gideon S


Well, we evolved brains and higher thought s a survival mechanism.


That seems like a pretty big assumption...

Have you seen this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=21541) thread?

People can be not conscious of sensory input and still perform relatively complicated actions. Therefore I'm not sure you can just make the assumption that consciousness is a survival mechanism.

Just a thought.

Adam

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by LW

Mu.



I thought most your answers were fine and dandy LW :)

But that one confused me, what does it mean? :)

Adam

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Mental causality is the fundamental attribute of conscious beings. We are immediately acquainted with its existence (I can will my body to make certain movements). That doesn't answer the question how it does so.

[LW]

Originally posted by slimshady2357




But that one confused me, what does it mean? :)

"A monk once asked Master Joshu: 'Does a dog have a Buddha nature or not?' Joshu said: 'Mu'. "

So, 'Mu' in the sense that I used it means that the question cannot really be answered because of the way it is stated.

But, maybe I hazard now a longer explanation on the subject.

Mathematics is an abstract human construction. It starts from few basic definitions (axioms) and it is then built on top of them. Given the same definitions, the construct will be the same no matter what the universe looks like. We can use mathematics to model how the universe works. In particular, we can use it to predict what will happen in the future (as in: if I throw rock A to direction B with force C, then it will end somewhere in the vicinity of spot D). If the universe followed some different rules, then our existing models obviously wouldn't work. However, it is possible that some other mathematical model would give the same predictive power. Or not. It might be that the universe was run by a number of supreme beings with really short attention spans so that nothing could be accurately predicted.

What really makes the question difficult to answer is the word "possibly" in it. Possibly in what sense? 'Possibly' as I can imagine something like that happening? Or 'possibly' as 'according to our current knowledge of physics'? Or something completely else?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by LW

Logic is completely a creation of human brains.

Mathematics is an abstract human construction.
I think that the fact that we can use our system of mathematics to solve so many different types of problems is a result of its not being a human construction.

Elements in the world have properties which humans have discovered -- not invented. The specific ways we choose to represent these properties are abstract constructions, but the essential properties they represent are not. The choices of available alternative systems are limited to those which are consistent with these properties, just as the range of alternative answers to questions such as, "What is two plus two?" are limited to those that are consistent with elements in the world being modelled.

I think the same can be said of logic -- the whole idea is that once you point it in a certain direction, the answers are pretty much forced.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nucular
Mental causality is the fundamental attribute of conscious beings. We are immediately acquainted with its existence (I can will my body to make certain movements).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That doesn't answer the question how it does so.



The question is meaningless since I am supposing that mental causality is a fundemental attribute of conscious beings.

Let's turn the question on its head. Materialists reject mental causality and believe in physical causality. So how does physical causality work?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Logic is completely a creation of human brains.

Mathematics is an abstract human construction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think that the fact that we can use our system of mathematics to solve so many different types of problems is a result of its not being a human construction.



Absolutely

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

As with any such information processing system there are architectural constraints and these serve to limit the mind so we only have access to those perceptions that follow the familiar and regular patterns that we associate with the physical world. The primary architectural constraint of the human brain is that it is basically a monkey brain, and since it sits on top of a monkey body, it is mostly concerned with monkey business, like trying to find the shortest path to something warm and fuzzy, or sweet and juicy.

When a boy-monkey finds something interesting, his agenda is: "It it something good to eat?"; "Can I use it to impress a girl-monkey?"; "Can I use it to intimidate another boy-monkey?". Toward the latter two ends, it is not necessary that the thing have value, just that the other monkeys think it does. The idea is to get attention; an empty gun can serve as well as one that actually has bullets in it -- especially if you believe in it yourself. Remember 'cold fusion'? For a while there, all the monkeys were impressed...but the mathematics wasn't.

Logic and mathematics then, are places where we can check our brains; it works because they are not human constructs; they are outside of human thought, and are therefore something we can count on not to be impressed by monkey-business.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Absolutely
I think that there are elements of the Anthropic Principle at work here. That the reason there is such reliability and beauty in mathmatics is because the same universe that gave birth to the principles of mathmatics, gave rise to humans who use math as a tool to define the cosmos.

[Dancing David]

I pfetn feel that mathematics and logic are a closed self referencing system. they are a useful tool but they are not the only tool. I think math is like a language it is a tool for referencing things and not a thing in and of itself.

Until we meet space aliens I don't think that we can conclude that there mathematics will be same as ours. very likely though.

[Fun2BFree]

“What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet.”
--Woody Allen

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
“What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet.”
--Woody Allen

Is a free carpet a more valuable illusion than one paid for?

[Bentspoon]

It seems to me that everyone is putting a lot of complexity in this. Does reality exist or is it simply in your mind?

I don't get it? What does it matter if you can concieve of a multidimensional world where time stands still and unicorns exist and you can float from one cloud to another or whatever.

If you stand in the highway in front of a speeding truck you will get squished. You might think that it was just a dream. Maybe I think I am in astral travel and therefore what I saw wasn't real. Or if I percieve myself as not physical and I step in front of the truck. I get squished. Others could then contemplate whether there is another universe and multidimensions connected by wormholes with a stargate. It doesn't matter. The other guy and I are still squished and so will you if you don't pay attention to reality.

I would dare say that any proponent of non-reality that stepped in front of the truck will be squished regardless of their beliefs

Whatever happened to "we live in reality and we percieve it and can compare our perceptions of that reality, though they may be imperfect. We can even perfect our perceptions of reality. It is called the pursuit of Science."

But it is my perception of my reality that people just can't be satisfied with this simple mundane concept. We must have metaphysical principles - we must have our magic. Therefore the boring is unacceptible.

Remember the Comet People. Do you think that they had an altered view of this concept. Maybe they achieved nirvana, maybe they astral projected to the comet.

My humble perception of reality is that they just got "squished". That is real and you can learn from and use that information. All this other metaphysical brouhaha teaches nothing useful which is a clue to it's non-reality.


God knows we need to have our magic!!

Bentspoon

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Bentspoon
My humble perception of reality is that just got "squished". That is real and you can learn form and use that information. All this other metaphysical brouhaha teaches nothing useful which is a clue to it's non-reality.


God know we need to have our magic!!

Bentspoon

Stick around. You're not in the minority with that opinion.

[Bentspoon]

From my post"

It seems to me that everyone is putting a lot of complexity in this

I should not have said everyone but most

Thanks for your reply justsaygnosis

Bentspoon

[thaiboxerken]

Bentspoon, I like your post. It's blunt and to the point.

Those that don't agree probably levitate when they are all alone and unobserved.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by justsaygnosis


Stick around. You're not in the minority with that opinion.
++

[hammegk]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Bentspoon, I like your post. It's blunt and to the point.

Those that don't agree probably levitate when they are all alone and unobserved.

You really should give some consideration to an Idealist worldview before you babble about it. Or maybe you've received a few headkicks too many?

Found your chi yet?

Originally posted by bentspoon

It seems to me that everyone is putting a lot of complexity in this. Does reality exist or is it simply in your mind?

Nice strawman. Now please explain the not-at-all-complex materialist worldview (or go play in your sandbox).

[Dancing David]

Sorry hamme , I have yet to see a good explanation for the idelist viewpoint. Reality exists , some feel mind is a subset of reality. Others feel that reality is a subet of mind.

If you don't need your brain, there are plenty of stupid people who could use a transplant.

It ain't reality that is the illusion, it is self. there is no self, only atoms and energy.

Peace

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Sorry hamme , I have yet to see a good explanation for the idelist viewpoint. Reality exists , some feel mind is a subset of reality. Others feel that reality is a subet of mind.

If you don't need your brain, there are plenty of stupid people who could use a transplant.

It ain't reality that is the illusion, it is self. there is no self, only atoms and energy.

Peace

Why do the atoms and energy exist?

Why does the self exist as an illusion? How can an illusion exist without an observer?

Who is observing the illusion of the self?

Just some questions I wonder about.

Adam

[Bentspoon]

Quoting Hammegk

Now please explain the not-at-all-complex materialist worldview (or go play in your sandbox).

Complexity is a relative thing. In general reference, the material world is exceedingly complex, full of wonderful things and complex interactions. There are many things to know and learn and many of those concepts and relationships are complex in themselves. If one studies a specific relationship in the material world, one is likely to come up with an overwhelming number of definable relationships.

A non-materialist will look at this same complex material world and will invent another layer of complexity of unobserved and unmeasured relationships to explain the materially explainable.
Therefore, by default, the nonmaterialistic view is more complex because it has been layered on top of these releatively simple relationships.

The proof is in the pudding - Physicists have general agreement on the vast majority of known physical relationships. Of course we don't know eveything but you can rely on the physical laws and they are not disputed unless it is in the context of correcting the defined relationship to better represent the reality that we all can observe.

On the other hand, the non-materialist world is full of all kinds of gods that people cannot agree on, nebulous observations that cannot be repeated. Single theorizers that no one supports operating in vacuums. Where does one find consistency in this complex world of layers of non-reality upon reality.

In the materialist view, theories are derived from observation and repeated experiment. In the non-materialist view, theories come from thoughtful imagination.

I will bet with the former!


Bentspoon

[Dancing David]

Hey Slim:

Uh, I don't worry about why thinks exist I am glad that they do, some questions have no obtainable answers. Why ask why?

The self is an illusion we impose upon the transitory nature of reality( I can tell you more about buddhism if you want)


edited to add
(Omigawd, thats :I don't worry about why things exist, I'm glad they do...
What a major and funny flub!)

[Fade]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Sorry hamme , I have yet to see a good explanation for the idelist viewpoint. Reality exists , some feel mind is a subset of reality. Others feel that reality is a subet of mind.

If you don't need your brain, there are plenty of stupid people who could use a transplant.

It ain't reality that is the illusion, it is self. there is no self, only atoms and energy.

Peace

I think the Buddhists call it the Disease of the Self. That is, the idea that the self is important. The self is all that one should care about.

Anyway, consciousness is too often thought of as a 'thing' when in fact it's just a process. Remove the ability to continue the process, and you remove consciousness.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Hey Slim:

Uh, I don't worry about why thinks exist I am glad that they do, some questions have no obtainable answers. Why ask why?

Why ask why? Why not? :D

Seriously though, you believe it does not have an obtainable answer I am inclined to agree with you. That doesn't make the search meaningless, in my opinion.

Why ask why can be asked of any question, because the asker feels the answer needs to be known of course ;)

The self is an illusion we impose upon the transitory nature of reality( I can tell you more about buddhism if you want)

That's alright, I've read lots about Buddhism, I actually thought you meant the self is an illusion in the same manner that Yahzi talks about, not in reference to Buddhism. My mistake. :)

Thanks for the response though.

Adam

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Bentspoon

Complexity is a relative thing. In general reference, the material world is exceedingly complex, full of wonderful things and complex interactions. There are many things to know and learn and many of those concepts and relationships are complex in themselves. If one studies a specific relationship in the material world, one is likely to come up with an overwhelming number of definable relationships.
Idealists have one definable relationship: "*I* think". Why would *I* quibble with TLOP, since the world of perception follows those Laws, and many of them have been mapped to math/physics equations.


A non-materialist will look at this same complex material world and will invent another layer of complexity of unobserved and unmeasured relationships to explain the materially explainable.
Therefore, by default, the nonmaterialistic view is more complex because it has been layered on top of these releatively simple relationships.
Simple? Define "energy". Come to grips with wave-particle duallity. Does "Higgs field" exist?

Scientists are blind men defining elephants so far as I can see.


The proof is in the pudding - Physicists have general agreement on the vast majority of known physical relationships. Of course we don't know eveything but you can rely on the physical laws and they are not disputed unless it is in the context of correcting the defined relationship to better represent the reality that we all can observe.
Why do you think this proves materialism? As an Idealist, I have no trouble accepting TLOP & "our" perceived world. I say "our" although proof that our perceptions (qualia) are the "same" is impossible.


On the other hand, the non-materialist world is full of all kinds of gods that people cannot agree on, nebulous observations that cannot be repeated.
You are wrong, at least about Idealism as I see it.


In the materialist view, theories are derived from observation and repeated experiment. In the non-materialist view, theories come from thoughtful imagination.
Yup; unfortunately for you everything beyond *I* think is imagination.

Originally posted by Dancing David

The self is an illusion we impose upon the transitory nature of reality...
Is that supposed to prove something about materialism? To me it has no bearing on this discussion, in that *me* -- a meat-machine -- is "self" as *I* perceive it.

And what is "transitory materialism"? Sounds like Idealism to me.

;)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

Simple? Define "energy". Come to grips with wave-particle duallity. Does "Higgs field" exist?

Is that supposed to prove something about materialism? To me it has no bearing on this discussion, in that *me* -- a meat-machine -- is "self" as *I* perceive it.

And what is "transitory materialism"? Sounds like Idealism to me.

;)

Uh, energy is everything! I have no problem with the wave/particle thing, for me it is a macrocosm/microcosm thing. At one scale the energy appears to behave at partices, at another scale it behaves like waves.
The interaction of energy causes most of the effects percieved 'particle'. I think the electron slit experiments are just a non existant god's way of yanking our chain.
The Higgs field may or may not exist, I can't remember if it is testable or like quarks and not verifyable.

No the comment about the self is just a shamelss plug for buddhism. I get tired of epople saying 'reality is an illusion' , my personal belief is that any and all human concepts are useful but illusiory.

A materialist should recognise the inante and transitory nature of reality.

[sorgoth]

Elements in the world have properties which humans have discovered -- not invented. The specific ways we choose to represent these properties are abstract constructions, but the essential properties they represent are not.

The elements (this is all in my opinion, by the way), simply exist. We needed a different language to describe them, so we invented mathematics.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by sorgoth

The elements (this is all in my opinion, by the way), simply exist. We needed a different language to describe them, so we invented mathematics.
The term 'invented' implies a creative process -- one of thoughtful choice; of carefully selecting from a boundless field of possibilities only those few which are harmonious with the structure one is building (defining 'harmonious' any way one likes).

We invented the system of notation, but the underlying principles are too inflexible to permit creativity. The choices are forced. One cannot wander where he will, driving the mathematics before him the way a painter can force his materials to serve his will. Rather, one can only choose to follow the mathematics wherever they lead -- or not.

As every good accountant knows, it is in mapping the mathematics to elements in the world that the creativity lives.


Originally posted by Dancing David

I think the electron slit experiments are just a non existant god's way of yanking our chain.
That's beautiful, man. Is that your own original, or did you read it somewhere? I love how the logic of that seems to fall into a hard loop.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David


A materialist should recognise the innate and transitory nature of reality.

One who did would be an Idealist..... ;)