Within my studies I have been led to a place where one may not use logic to discover truth. So, does anyone know of any way I may learn truth, without using logic, or should we consider that to study 'the reverse' of logic is to presume a logical content of that study? Put simply; by searching for the opposite of logic are we using logical study here to find truth?

Any ideas anyone?

Where is this place?

Are you talking about the absence of logic, or the opposite of logic. They are not the same, yet you appear to equate them. Is this because you are now in a place where logic does not exist?

Hi Spectrum, what you might like to do---i am. issss, see how limited is the accepted NOTION of logic. for example i have just begun reading a book--a beautiful looking book, and its aim is also beautiful. wanna know what it is?
it/s titled Critique of Patriarchal Reason, by Artur Evans, with artwork by Frank Pietronigro
her's abit from back of book----'A philosopher and an artist join hands in tis book to reclaim philosphy as an art...Their book shows how patriarchal biases haveinfected formal logic, higher mathematics, and the scientific method. It demonstrates the harmful impact of tese biases on women, gay people, artists, indigenos societies, and the natural environment. In place of these biases, the book offers a new, liberating view of the role of reason in human life...." dont know where you are. i'm in UK, and had wanted this book for ages. theonly source in UK--rare books quoted me £40 for a copy. sos i got a friend to order it from here www.alibris.com and i got this lovely book for just over £11......!!
btw its ISBN is 0964538415

now somepersonal thoughts about what yous askin

i see logic as NOT opposite but like all seeming oppo-sites is kind of intermigled throughut the complimentary preocess. so for example, as Chos Theory has shown, what MAY seem like chaos--defined as meaningless mess by limited logic--is in fact a very complex...? what efer you wanna call it, which can bifurcate into nocel new ways of forms and experiences etc

psychedelic experience is a great example of this. have you had psychedelic experience?

from my experiences, the opposite of logic, is instinct, natural flow, logic requires calculation/free thought. premeditation,

you could say instinct is a type of logic, a subconscious instinctive logic for survival,
but i assume the logic you speak of is in the terms of human logic, and what seems logical to us,

i believe non thought, going with the natural flow of a situation is the opposite to deciding a choice due to logic,

natural built in reaction,


peace.

Posted by Ophiolite
Where is this place?
To be honest Ophiolite I am trying to define emotion, but quantifying the reverse does not help. For example we may say that love is the opposite of hate, and that hate may be defined as the destruction of life, but then here love must be defined as the creation of death. These are not opposites, they are the same, wouldn't you agree? So then, we must either study the creation of life, or the destruction of death (immortality). Whatever the case, the logic is flawed and I am looking for a method of study when dealing with non-logical entities.
Are you talking about the absence of logic, or the opposite of logic. They are not the same, yet you appear to equate them. Either is fine.
Is this because you are now in a place where logic does not exist? I think so.

Duendy and EmptyforceofChi: thanks for your posts, I liked what you put but I haven't got time to reply right now, but I will try in the future.

Within my studies I have been led to a place where one may not use logic to discover truth. So, does anyone know of any way I may learn truth, without using logic, or should we consider that to study 'the reverse' of logic is to presume a logical content of that study?

Yes, take a calculator punch in the sequence "2 + 2" and you will gain truth without using your logic. But is that so? You went to this calculator in search of its truth, because logically you know this device will spit back out the correct answer to the numerical equation you put in. Ultimately you used logic in search of this answer.

Now someone tries to find the capital of New York and goes to the same calculator in search of the truth. He then punches in numbers trying to find the answer. Did he do this because he's absent of logic? No, he did this because he doesn't know better, its called ignorance and even in one's ignorance logic still exists.

So no, under no circumstance is there an absence of logic, only in the artificial world can truth be reached without it. But then again, technology is just a by product of our own logic and imprinted with it too, so is it not still using logic? I think to some degree it is

Within my studies I have been led to a place where one may not use logic to discover truth. So, does anyone know of any way I may learn truth, without using logic, or should we consider that to study 'the reverse' of logic is to presume a logical content of that study? Put simply; by searching for the opposite of logic are we using logical study here to find truth?

Any ideas anyone?

Truth and logic are interdependent. They can't be seperated.

To be honest... I am trying to define emotion...
Emotion has been beautifully defined and discussed in the movie, "What the Bleep Do We Know".
Paraphrased (and poorly);
the hypothalamus in the brain pumps out short chain proteins called peptides. There are different peptides corresponding to each and all emotional feelings. These peptides are pumped throughout the body and are absorbed into the cells by certain receptor sites, the same receptors as those that receive opiates and such. Certain receptor sites can only receive certain molecules; like opiates and peptides, lock and key. People become addicted to these certain peptides and their concurrent feelings. We constantly find ourselves in situations that cause the hypothalamus to start producing the needed shots of those particular peptides. What a rush! Riteous indignation! Anger! Pity! Love... If we cannot stop finding ourselves in these situations, if we cannot stop, we are addicted.

Logic can not lead you to Truth. Logic is strictly a tool limited in function and range. Logic can build a better car. It can 'win' a logical debate. Logic (and lots of bullets) can win a war. Logic can initiate all sorts of technological advances. But its effective field of operation is limited to linear-spacio-temporal parameters. Please see my "What is Genius" (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50769&page=2&pp=20) thread for my definition of Genius. Below the last 'LIAR"! Hahahaha....

Genius is access to 'truth/answers/knowledge' without the use of logic.

Logic is not the access code for genius. That key don't fit this lock!
Genius is 'access' to the entire database of existence forever.

We never 'find' Truth; we become Truth.
*__-

The union of opposites? To go beyond logic?

Can logic be the flimsy gate keeping the roiling blind wholistic demons of Madness at bay? How tiny and fragile that artificial space, that logical 'sanity', that small cone of shadow in which one hides (Psychosis is a fearsome demon!) on one side of that 'gate/wall'... but.. oh how 'limited'!
Eventually, fearfully, one believes it to be the sum total of existence, under the table...

logic is left brained... art is right brained... so why not get a pen and paper and do some doodling?

-MT

But even common art uses logic, such as depth perception etc. There are exceptions however, such as optical illusions:

http://wisebytes.net/illusions/curvedoval.gif

Perhaps the reverse of logic may be studied as follows: we say that something falls to the floor because of gravity, but anti-logic would dictate that it is because something falls to the floor that gravity exists. Oddly this may not be far from truth: it is because of movement from the Earth that we have gravity.

I think without logic, things is random. random is not logic I think.

I believe that the concept of 'opposites' is no more real than Eddie the Flourescant Elk from the world of galloping bugbears. I explain the concept of opposites as a dualistic necessity to relativistic human thought patterns. We concieve of things as either "1" or "0", they either exist, or they do not.

So you will have to be more explicit in what you mean when you say "the opposite of logic". Do you mean the opposite of a logical sequence, as in the reversal of a truth statement?
eg. statement = P therefore Q
opposite = Q therefore P

Do you mean to imply that an 'opposite to logic' exists as a total absence of rational or deductive thought? And if so, do you believe it possible to experience this? Or do you believe that logic is a sort of 'chaos', and if this is so, doesn't chaos follow a pattern of its own?

I subscribe to the idea of a 'cosmic logos' or universal logic. This idea doesn't really allow an 'opposite of logic' for me because I concieve of every thing as part of a deterministic and logical chain.

logic is left brained... art is right brained... so why not get a pen and paper and do some doodling?
Crude, but possibly workable.
Perhaps 'access' is through right brain 'gate'. Doodling can certainly be a form of meditation/thoughtlessness. Perhaps one can 'doodle' the access code while the mind is out of the way and the appropriate 'query' has been 'launched'?
Doodling your way to Genius!!
Ingenius!
*__-

logic is left brained... art is right brained... so why not get a pen and paper and do some doodling?

-MT

Actually, this is incorrect. While this localization of 'skill sets' can be generally found to be true, it has been conclusively shown that sectioning of the corpus collosum can 'force' the hemispheres into sharing skill sets.

Not that any of this has anything to do with the original thread beginning....

Logic is a human creation, not something immanent or idealistic. It cannot therefore, 'have' an opposite.

Logic is a human creation, not something immanent or idealistic. It cannot therefore, 'have' an opposite.Isn't that illogical? If it is a human creation, as you suggest, then surely humans can create its opposite.

Within my studies I have been led to a place where one may not use logic to discover truth. So, does anyone know of any way I may learn truth, without using logic, or should we consider that to study 'the reverse' of logic is to presume a logical content of that study? Put simply; by searching for the opposite of logic are we using logical study here to find truth?

Any ideas anyone?

Logic misapplied can never equal truth. Logic is a tool. It is in application. Its not that logic cannot be used to discover all truth, it is just that our logic is limited. Can anyone logically deduce the emotion of love? Emotional intelligence can also be applied to discover other truths outside of a set path of logic but logic must give an explanation. But are we capable? Possibly only to a certain point. But knowing truth and being able to rationally or logically give an explanation is the challenge. It may be likened to deciphering a complex differential equation. The truth isn't logic, it just is. It may take a logical path to reach it or it could bump into you without any logic, thought or effort on your part. Then the logic would be to deduce this awareness. Simple awareness can mean sometimes truth could be staring you in the face. As an example, you can discover some truths just by the use of your five senses which requires no logic on anyone's part.

To be honest Ophiolite I am trying to define emotion, but quantifying the reverse does not help. For example we may say that love is the opposite of hate, and that hate may be defined as the destruction of life, but then here love must be defined as the creation of death. These are not opposites, they are the same, wouldn't you agree? So then, we must either study the creation of life, or the destruction of death (immortality). Whatever the case, the logic is flawed and I am looking for a method of study when dealing with non-logical entities.

What the hell?

Two negatives make a positive. So? That's logic allright.

NOT (p AND q) = NOT(p) OR NOT (q)

Logic isn't flawed. Your understanding of it is!

Within my studies I have been led to a place where one may not use logic to discover truth. So, does anyone know of any way I may learn truth, without using logic, or should we consider that to study 'the reverse' of logic is to presume a logical content of that study? Put simply; by searching for the opposite of logic are we using logical study here to find truth?

Uh. I don't think there's anything "beyond" logic. It couldn't be proven to be beyond logic anyway, as it would take logic to do so.


Logic is nothing without the premises it processes. The thing is that there are many many many premises, some of them proverbially seem "illogical". But a premise cannot be illogical; a premise is only in known contradiction or in known non-contradiction with some other premise.

Isn't that illogical? If it is a human creation, as you suggest, then surely humans can create its opposite.

No it's not illogical. The thought that the term "opposite" can somehow obtain to any system is.

And I didn't suggest that logic is a human creation; I said that it is, which is fact.

I like doodling...

Within my studies I have been led to a place where one may not use logic to discover truth. So, does anyone know of any way I may learn truth, without using logic, or should we consider that to study 'the reverse' of logic is to presume a logical content of that study? Put simply; by searching for the opposite of logic are we using logical study here to find truth?

Any ideas anyone?

You don't need logic to find truth, u need logic to problem solve.
Truth exists on its own, it either is or it isn't.



Logic is a transient thing it changes with the times, in the past it was logical to assume that a sudden illness was brought on by a local witch or demonic possession. Your logic can therefore NOT be trusted as it is a construct of the times we live in.

So you must not rely on logic to find truth, as the truth you find will be entirely as you expect it to be and not at all based in reality

Within my studies I have been led to a place where one may not use logic to discover truth. So, does anyone know of any way I may learn truth, without using logic, or should we consider that to study 'the reverse' of logic is to presume a logical content of that study? Put simply; by searching for the opposite of logic are we using logical study here to find truth?

Any ideas anyone?

Oh by the way the opposite of logic is:

series of non rational thought processes...

so I guess to attain that level we need to 'turn off' our rational mind - this happens during extremes of emotion, when (as another poster stated) our instincts take control and there is little rational thought involved, hence people lose their temper inappropriately etc

You don't need logic to find truth, u need logic to problem solve.
Truth exists on its own, it either is or it isn't.

Logic is a transient thing it changes with the times, in the past it was logical to assume that a sudden illness was brought on by a local witch or demonic possession. Your logic can therefore NOT be trusted as it is a construct of the times we live in.

So you must not rely on logic to find truth, as the truth you find will be entirely as you expect it to be and not at all based in reality
Truly and elegantly spoken. Huzzah!
(Now I'll duck back out before the fireworks from the anal retentive authoritarian folks begin.)
Again, well said!

Truly and elegantly spoken. Huzzah!
(Now I'll duck back out before the fireworks from the anal retentive authoritarian folks begin.)
Again, well said!

Thank you nameless,

Please note that by thanking you for your comments, my logic is eluding me, as to show gratitude for praise reveals me as someone seeking acceptance and recognition , not flatterring traits on an intelligent board such as this, but none the less, it is the TRUTH I speak.

So there we have it, to avoid logic, simply speak from the heart.

xxx

Thank you nameless,

Please note that by thanking you for your comments, my logic is eluding me, as to show gratitude for praise reveals me as someone seeking acceptance and recognition.
Not the way I see it. It merely reveals you as someone with a smattering of social grace and manners. Placing all this mental ratchetta.. ratchetta... on the subject distorts it. Where did all that 'logical thought' get you? Saying thanx and simply moving on closes the circuit; not being attached to 'external' (as if there really were such a thing) acknowledgement one way or the other. No karma. Just self acknowledging self.

So there we have it, to avoid logic, simply speak from the heart.
ahh, the Madness of Love!
the Chaos of Truth!

Not the way I see it. It merely reveals you as someone with a smattering of social grace and manners. Placing all this mental ratchetta.. ratchetta... on the subject distorts it. Where did all that 'logical thought' get you? Saying thanx and simply moving on closes the circuit; not being attached to 'external' (as if there really were such a thing) acknowledgement one way or the other. No karma. Just self acknowledging self.

ahh, the Madness of Love!
the Chaos of Truth!


Trust me
somewhere in this thread, if I merely said thanks, someone would have jumped on it and there is still time!

You don't need logic to find truth, u need logic to problem solve.
Truth exists on its own, it either is or it isn't.



Logic is a transient thing it changes with the times, in the past it was logical to assume that a sudden illness was brought on by a local witch or demonic possession. Your logic can therefore NOT be trusted as it is a construct of the times we live in.

So you must not rely on logic to find truth, as the truth you find will be entirely as you expect it to be and not at all based in reality

I don't agree with this at all. Obviously you equate logic with a chain of apparent rational thought, but the 'laws of logic' as I see them are eternal, and necessarily equate with the parameters we set for truth.

It's not the logic (deduction) which is faulted, so much as the induction. What you feed into a logical system will be flawed, but if you are capable of performing the calculative aspect correctly, you will always arrive at 'truth' relative to the axioms you are using.

All good points.
Posted by Theoryofrelativity
Truth exists on its own, it either is or it isn't. Which used to be my thinking but I have discovered problems.
Posted by Rosnet
NOT (p AND q) = NOT(p) OR NOT (q) Actually not (p and q)=not(p) AND not (q) (not or :p ), but you've made a good point.

There is this question i still can't find the answear.
do we think with reason or with our senses?
cause if we use logic we still can't find the truth cause we use to our senses to understand things and to look at the problem which we will use reason to understand..
comments:)

There is this question i still can't find the answear.
do we think with reason or with our senses?
cause if we use logic we still can't find the truth cause we use to our senses to understand things and to look at the problem which we will use reason to understand..
comments:)

Its a process, the senses receive the information which goes to the brain then we use reason to dicipher the messages our senses have received.

You know what happens in sensory deprivation experiments right?

meanwhile we can only be sure of one thing in this world and that is mathematics. Everything else is purely a biological assimilation of the information provided by our senses, the world may not feel, look, etc anything remotely like how we experience it.

Example: In the world of a frog, eveything is moving, the frog has no perception of anything stationary, staitionary is not in its vocabulary.

I think that the term 'opposite' might be a problem. (Root = oppose)

Yin is not the 'opposite' of yang, it is the 'compliment', as in complementary colors, such as red and green. They do not work in 'opposition' but actually are required in 'defining' of each other. You can't be a 'good guy' if there are no 'bad guys'! The concept of 'good' has no meaning without the complement of 'bad'. 'Logic' can have no meaning without the 'complement' of 'illogic'.
This is more fodder for (the illusion of) existence. For something to 'exist', (the concept of) 'duality' must exist. Contrast is necessary. It is all mental construct with no inherrent existence; logic, mathematics, cheese burgers, me, you, identity, material things, etc.. All that is in existence must have compliments (you look lovely dear! *__- ) to exist.

Hence, I think that that the term 'opposite' has been a sticking point here regarding the meaning of the initial question.
Ya think?


In the world of a frog, eveything is moving, the frog has no perception of anything stationary, staitionary is not in its vocabulary.
If you are saying that A. Einstein was a frog (or enjoyed frog perceptions), that would explain much!
*__-

So a frog has no sense of 'self existence' while it waits, motionless, to snag dinner?

It’s impossible to have an opposite of logic because that opposing idea will have to be logical, in other words you will be searching for an opposite idea that makes sense. There are no opposites of logic, just complementaries

Within my studies I have been led to a place where one may not use logic to discover truth. So, does anyone know of any way I may learn truth, without using logic, or should we consider that to study 'the reverse' of logic is to presume a logical content of that study? Put simply; by searching for the opposite of logic are we using logical study here to find truth?

Any ideas anyone?The truth often (or maybe allways) have most meaning, so if you find something with the most meaning then it is more truthful to you than things with less meaning (I guess...).

However, truthful and Truth with the big 'T' isn't necessarily the same thing, truth seems to me to be somehow awaringly randomized, but in a way that is more meaningful than anything else (which meaning we probably won't see or aren't capable to understand) which in turn may be why it seems random...

Truth we can understand to a certain limit, but I can't see how we could understand the limitless Truth which affect all things.

Seeing Truth in meaning and seeing meaning in Truth is a wonderful way of discovering. It is the joy of discovery itself.

I think that the term 'opposite' might be a problem. (Root = oppose)

Yin is not the 'opposite' of yang, it is the 'compliment', as in complementary colors, such as red and green. They do not work in 'opposition' but actually are required in 'defining' of each other. You can't be a 'good guy' if there are no 'bad guys'! The concept of 'good' has no meaning without the complement of 'bad'. 'Logic' can have no meaning without the 'complement' of 'illogic'.
This is more fodder for (the illusion of) existence. For something to 'exist', (the concept of) 'duality' must exist. Contrast is necessary. It is all mental construct with no inherrent existence; logic, mathematics, cheese burgers, me, you, identity, material things, etc.. All that is in existence must have compliments (you look lovely dear! *__- ) to exist.

Hence, I think that that the term 'opposite' has been a sticking point here regarding the meaning of the initial question.
Ya think?


If you are saying that A. Einstein was a frog (or enjoyed frog perceptions), that would explain much!
*__-

So a frog has no sense of 'self existence' while it waits, motionless, to snag dinner?

Nothing living is ever stationary, it may look that way to us as our senses are not that developed, but a frog can detect even the smallest movement.

Posted by Devils_Reject
It’s impossible to have an opposite of logic because that opposing idea will have to be logical, in other words you will be searching for an opposite idea that makes sense. Precisely what I'm pondering over. But by reversing ideas we may find something illogical. An example I have used is one of gravity: we may say that something 'dropped' falls because of gravity, but the opposite of this is to say that gravity is caused by something dropping. However we find that this is basically the concept of gravity: in the absence of an up, down, left and right, in space, we may say that the Earth is in fact falling, and then falling again, as it orbits (some may see the Earth's orbit as on a horizontal plain, but as I have written without such dimensions as left and right in space for all we know the Earth could be orbiting from 'up to down', and so on). So, it is a 'falling object' that causes gravity, which is our basic understanding of it.

My argument in simplicity: by reversing logic we should be able to find something illogical, but in practive this does not seem to be the case.

Precisely what I'm pondering over. But by reversing ideas we may find something illogical. An example I have used is one of gravity: we may say that something 'dropped' falls because of gravity, but the opposite of this is to say that gravity is caused by something dropping. However we find that this is basically the concept of gravity: in the absence of an up, down, left and right, in space, we may say that the Earth is in fact falling, and then falling again, as it orbits (some may see the Earth's orbit as on a horizontal plain, but as I have written without such dimensions as left and right in space for all we know the Earth could be orbiting from 'up to down', and so on). So, it is a 'falling object' that causes gravity, which is our basic understanding of it.

My argument in simplicity: by reversing logic we should be able to find something illogical, but in practive this does not seem to be the case.


here is an example of illogic : as quoted from my 3.5yr old daughter Sophie (her attempt at joke telling)

"What do you call a frog with two legs, answer: frog bum, what do you call a horse with no head, horse bum, what do you call a cow with 3 ears, cow bum"

If you can find logic in there, you deserve a medal! lol

I claim my medal.
Humour involves at least two key elements:
1) Recognisable structure.
2) Surprise, or even shock.

At three and a half your daughter has recognised, thought not mastered, these elements. Thus she uses the well known riddle structure - what do you call a such and such - to set up the joke. Then the slightly (very?) improper word 'bum' to deliver the shock. She just hasn't learnt to connect the two elements by something more than proximity.

I hope that doesn't ruin your story, but I was really keen to win the medal!

I claim my medal.
Humour is involves at least two key elements:
1) Recognisable structure.
2) Surprise, or even shock.

At three and a half your daughter has recognised, thought not mastered, these elements. Thus she uses the well known riddle structure - what do you call a such and such - to set up the joke. Then the slightly (very?) improper word 'bum' to deliver the shock. She just hasn't learnt to connect the two elements by something more than proximity.

I hope that doesn't ruin your story, but I was really keen to win the medal!

As always I appreciate your reply! I'm glad my little 'un has contributed to the thread! lol

As always I appreciate your reply! I'm glad my little 'un has contributed to the thread! lol

Oh and of course 'congratulations' please accept this 'smiley' by way of medal :) my 3.5yr old is cleverer than I thought! or is this subconscious logic? Does logic exist on a sunconscious level???

I find that humour often involves a relation to the past, or memory. For example something that has been said perhaps five or ten minutes ago will be referred to again, and for some reason it is funny.

Subjective ideas are misleadingly asummed as opposites of logic but even all subjective notions follow some sort of rule of law of nature. Consider newtons first law of motion.

Within my studies I have been led to a place where one may not use logic to discover truth. So, does anyone know of any way I may learn truth, without using logic, or should we consider that to study 'the reverse' of logic is to presume a logical content of that study? Put simply; by searching for the opposite of logic are we using logical study here to find truth?
Yes.


Any ideas anyone?
Give up. :p

Or... start studying as many paradoxes as you can possibly find. ;)

Any ideas anyone?
Religion usually happens to be the polar opposite of logic, reason, and intelligence.

Blah blah blah

Actually not (p and q)=not(p) AND not (q) (not or :p ), but you've made a good point.

No, it is NOT(p) OR NOT(q). Try a truth table.

I don't know how to create a truth table, so if you could show me one... :)

(Not (p AND q)) should equal (not (p) AND not (q)) (in my opinion).

If what you write is true then the following should also be true:

(not (p and q))=x and y (because 'x' and 'y' are not p and q), but

(not p) OR (not q)=x (not p) OR y (not q), so then we have either p and y, or x and q.

Obviuosly, you haven't been doing your homework. Before waging war on logic, you should at least have bothered to learn the basics. Look up 'Mathematical Logic' in google or wikipedia.

Before waging war on logic, you should at least have bothered to learn the basics. I'm not waging war on logic, I'm just interested in what else is out there. As I have stated in previous posts, logic does not seem to be the ultimate guide to life: there may be problems inherent in it. Paradoxes exist that may disprove logic as the be all and end all to the universe (despite my previous belief system).

There are no paradoxes in logic. Show me one. What may appear as a pardox in <I>logic</I> is a really a paradox in definition. For example the sentence:

"This sentence is false."

Well said.

See my post way back when...lol


Some people just dont understand logic....

I'm not waging war on logic, I'm just interested in what else is out there. As I have stated in previous posts, logic does not seem to be the ultimate guide to life: there may be problems inherent in it. Paradoxes exist that may disprove logic as the be all and end all to the universe (despite my previous belief system).
Spectrum, I just Googled "Limits of Logic". One of the first of many hits was this, The Limits of Logic (http://realityshifters.com/pages/articles/limitsoflogic.html), simple, short and elegant.

But THIS one is very good, Principal Problems with Principles:
Limits of Logic in the
Growth of Knowledge (http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/limits-of-logic.htm)

Enjoy!

Blah blah blah
No, not "blah blah blah". Hah hah hah. Religion is moronic, and most of them piss right in logic's eye. This is the 21st century, an age of cell phones, the internet, and sattelite-targeted weapon systems and yet some dumbfucks still bow down to the sky. Pitiful. :rolleyes:

Well, but it is not exactly the opposite. There is some logic in it.

There are no paradoxes in logic. Show me one. What may appear as a pardox in logic is a really a paradox in definition. For example the sentence:

"This sentence is false." Why do I have to show you a pardox when you have quoted a perfectly good one? If "this sentence is false" then what is written must be true. So then, it is true that the sentence is false? We have a paradox, so there must be a problem with logic.

Posted by Glaucon
Some people just dont understand logic.... Oh, I apologize Glaucon! Could you explain to me what I'm missing?

Thank you for the links nameless.

"All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -Robert Anton Wilson

You're welcome, Spectrum.

So, does anyone know of any way I may learn truth, without using logic, or should we consider that to study 'the reverse' of logic is to presume a logical content of that study?

The purpose of logic is to make an evaluation of true or false. You can zoom in right away on the true, or you could eliminate all the clutter of false to where only true remains. The existence of other methodologies outside of logic is sheer fantasy, with such methodologies ultimately resulting in personal preference evaluations.

Using logic to evaluate truth = True

All other methodologies = False

You're welcome, Spectrum.

Wilson's quote itself evaluates to false.

Objectively, all of these conditions cannot be true at once, so False.

Subjectively, only one condition can be true for a given evaluator's conclusion, so again, False.

Wilson's quote leaves your constipated thought process in the dust. Everyone seems to have an opinion. Something magical must make your's 'right' so that (ego demands) every other perspective must be 'wrong'. Uh huh... Logic (as the artificial construct that it is) is in itself insufficient to encompass all Truth. It has limited use. But your opinion is certainly true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.

Logic does not rely on opinion, rather on the elimination of perceptions that are not true. My argument stands that back in the real world outside of everyone's little private fantasy, all of Wilson's conditions do not apply at once in regards to the actual function or structure of reality. If we are not discussing such function or structure, perhaps we are discussing human constructs which fall prey to illogical preference evaluations.

Furthermore it seems that false perception marches on, proud in all its glory. Let me explain. Humans did not invent fire. Fires existed even before there were people. Humans learned to use fire. Logic is like this in that it existed, like reality, before there were people, in a manner where logical processes were at work. A tiny minority have taken some time to get a handle on this tool, the rest consider it too much to bother with because its just another "human invention" like favorite flavor of ice cream, rather than a basic essential like ability to create fire.

I'm surprised by how many people hold logic to be the ultimate truth, but deny my 'the opening...' thread as 'piffle'.

My argument stands that back in the real world outside of everyone's little private fantasy, all of Wilson's conditions do not apply at once in regards to the actual function or structure of reality. If we are not discussing such function or structure, perhaps we are discussing human constructs which fall prey to illogical preference evaluations.
Then your arguement falls on it's face.
No one has ever, ever!, experienced the 'real world' that you imply. Some one-size-fits-all 'world' beyond human concept. It is impossible to know. For anything to exist for you, it MUST exist in your mind as concepts, percepts. Everything. If it has no existence in your mind, for you, in your 'world concept' it does not exist. Period. Nor can you ever know whether there exists any kind of 'world' actually 'in front of your nose' beyond your mind. It is merely a meme, an arrogant 'ass-umption' with no evidence. Of course, a serious consideration of the implications can certainly do violence to the delicate ego!

Logic, least of all, as it is merely a construct of the intellect; a sort of 'grid' we place over the tapestry of existence to salve our thoughts, our minds, to be able to live comfortably in our lineo-temporal construct (logic only can have value in a linear temporal construct of 'existance'). Logic is certainly useful, in it's place, in THAT construct.

It was the most logical thing to do, at one time, to 'bleed' a medical patient to release the 'evil humours' from the blood. That was the height of logic (and science!!), considering the 'context'! Now, you have your little logic that you feel to be the be-all and end-all of intellectual investigation and description of Truth? Funny, that was what they thought also, leeches in hand! Perhaps the 'cutting edge' of logic in medieval Europe was the 'ultimate' descriptor and analogy of 'reality'. But THIS, NOW must be the 'bestest' form and useages of logic because... well.. it's US! And we must be the 'best'! Right? Demands of the ego and such...


Logic is like this in that it existed, like reality, before there were people, in a manner where logical processes were at work...
This is a most absurd statement that says much about you! First, how can you possibly show evidence for this absurd assertion? Do you 'believe' that mathematics pre-existed mathematicians also? Really? Quite a 'belief' system you have there, so much 'faith'...


Using logic to evaluate truth = True

All other methodologies = False
If you really believe this cement-headed constipated statement to be true, you show that you haven't the foggiest experience/concept of Truth or falseness. But, obfuscating that fact, your bold ass-ertions most ass-uredly resonate with many others who are either emotionally invested in their 'beliefs and faiths' also, or if not invested as such, are just simply ignorant.

Just a quick example of the absurdity of your ass-ertion;
You are a person who has never been burned with fire. You can use all the intellect and logic you like and you will never, NEVER! have an understanding of the Truth of being burned! Want a trans-logical methodology of 'understanding' the Truth of the matter? Hold out your finger and let me get my 'Zippo'! Nothing need be said beyond the act and the experience! Now you will 'know' (as oppposed to logical speculation)! That is one methodology of understanding, beyond the usefulness of logic. Intuition is also a direct access to 'Truth'.


...we are discussing human constructs which fall prey to illogical preference evaluations.
That is all we CAN discuss, Mr. Spock!

Unclench your mind!

Do you 'believe' that mathematics pre-existed mathematicians also?

Remove mathematical or logical processes from reality. Would this discussion be possible?

Remove mathematical or logical processes from reality. Would this discussion be possible?
I prefer to make distinction between 'Reality/Truth' and 'existence'.
I suspect that there have been and will continue to be many conversations between entities with absolutely no knowledge of mathematics. Some very deep and meaningful conversations, too, I'd think! Perhaps a quote from my old neighbor will help clarify;


"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once, in the whole tapestry... The four-dimentional space-time manifold displays all 'eternity' at once." - Genius: the Life and Science of Richard Feynman (Feynman Lives!!!)

Our conversation of words (one word then the next for the purpose of attempting to 'share' mental concepts, perspectives) has it's 'existence' within 'lineo-temporal space' and is certainly within the functional purview of logic thereby, actually the judicious application of logic will enhance the possibility of communicarion, especially here in cyber-land, where words are, for all intents and purposes, all we have with which to communicate (no body language, gesticulation, etc...).

I am not belittling the value of logic as a tool for use in its area of proper function; neither am I magnifying it beyond those limited boundaries. Like all 'tools' that are used in one's honest attempt to uncover Truth/Reality, it is often magnified in its importance by (familiarity?) the person using it (especially if is the principle or only tool being used/mastered). Like all tools, at one point or another, it must be discarded in order to 'proceed' in that 'uncovering/becoming' Truth. Logic, meditation, science, entheogens, mantra, fasting, faith and beliefs, Love, whatever the 'tool', it is one of many and must be, eventually, discarded.

If logic is to be held as truth by some posters, then the following must also be held as true. The opposite of private is public. Private is when a single person knows something, and public is when people know something. Now, 'a person' becomes 'people' when there are two enitities present, however I'm sure we can all agree that something is more public if there are more than two people present! So then it would seem that simply finding opposites is far from the discovery of truth.

Why do I have to show you a pardox when you have quoted a perfectly good one? If "this sentence is false" then what is written must be true. So then, it is true that the sentence is false? We have a paradox, so there must be a problem with logic.


You didn't pay attention to my post. As I said before, the problem isn't with logic itself, but with the definition. You should really learn some Mathematical Logic. All this is accounted for in logic. You'll understand it if you learn it.

Well said Rosnet.

Some people get confused when it comes to logic vs. semantics.

Thanks!

Hi all. I stumbled onto this site and thought it might inspire some though if anyone is interested enough to read it; Transcendence of Rationality (http://www.egodeath.com/TranscendenceofRationality.htm)

I found this:

"Is faith the opposite of logic?
A502: It depends what you mean by "faith." A distinction should be made between "belief based on evidence" versus "belief without evidence" or perhaps even "belief despite evidence to the contrary."
If faith is simply a feeling of reasonable certainty resulting from observable evidence (e.g., I "have faith" that I am typing these words into my computer), then we all have faith in many things, and faith is in fact a manifestation of logic.
However, a distinction can be made between this sort of faith and a more absolute version, which I'll refer to as "blind faith." Anything requiring blind faith for acceptance goes against reason itself. Why would you ever believe something without a logical reason?
There are beliefs where I could be accused of having blind faith, however. But I vindicate these beliefs by stating that to believe any other way would be suboptimal.
For example, I have faith in the logical process of induction. But induction is not foolproof. Why do we assume the future will resemble the past? Because it has worked for us so far—that is, it always has in the past. But that logic is clearly circular! So how can we justify induction?
Many believe we can't justify it, but we can vindicate it—we can easily see that to believe any other way would be useless. That is, if our assumption that the future will resemble the past is incorrect, then it becomes impossible to make predictions about the future at all, and logic will cease being of assistance. Thus, induction is the optimal strategy for predicting the future, even if it doesn't always (or ever) work. "

Here's something that might be relevent that I found in cyberland;

One kind of thinking is the rational empirical thinking, be it pretheoretical and practical or sophisticated and scientific, that is constrained by logic and observation, is a common human property, and enables us to solve the practical problems that must be solved for physical survival. The other, nonrational thinking, often referred to as symbolic thinking, is the kind that finds expression in art and affirmations of belief. This mode of thinking is also or even more a universal human characterisic, for it precedes rational empirical thinking. It is the resultant of the totality of our experiences, a resultant that we express in the dominant, beliefs that guide our purposive conduct, including our use of our capacity for rational empirical thinking to solve specific problems.

Expressions of nonrational thinking differ most obviously from rational empirical propositions in that symbols or words are not used unambiguously to denote the same entities or processes. As is evident in poetry, symbols are used polysemically and connected with each other without regard to logic in changing ways that evoke and associate wide ranges of disparate experience. Rather than dealing with specific phenomena or practical problems, nonrational thoughts express our sense of the global meaning and value of our diverse experiences. , if this kind of thinking is not logical, neither is it irrational, for it uses logic and observation in a subordinate role. Thinking only becomes irrational when the interplay between nonrational and rational empirical thinking is inhibited, when people repress their capacity for observation and reality-testing in an effort to protect cherished nonrational beliefs that are menaced by available rational empirical knowledge...

just to come from a different angle than before,

if "logic" is used in its full sense.

isnt everything logical? so there is no opposite to logic. except nothing. but thats anouther story, nothing VS something. abstracts again.


peace.

Thus, induction is the optimal strategy for predicting the future, even if it doesn't always (or ever) work. "
I, too, thought that was a strange assumption to suddenly just accept considering the overall context of the piece. On re-reading the article, I find that.. well... it kind of sucks. It was in my stuff for a long time. Perhaps this; Principal Problems with Principles: Limits of Logic in the Growth of Knowledge (http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/limits-of-logic.htm) would be a bit better.


Here's a beautiful piece on the subject. I think that Alan Watts wrote it;
"The only way we shall ever recapture the sort of knowledge Lao-Tsu referred to in his dictum, "Those who know do not speak," is by subbordinating the question, "how shall we know?" to the more existentially vital question. "how shall we live?"

To ask this question is to insist that the primary purpose of human existence is not to devise ways of piling up ever greater heaps of knowledge, but to discover ways to live from day to day that integrate the whole of our nature by way of yielding nobility of conduct, honest fellowship and joy. And to achieve those ends, a man need, perhaps, 'know' very little in the conventional, intellectual sense of the word. But, what he does not know and may only be able to express by elloquent silence, by the grace of his most commonplace daily gestures, will approach more closely to whatever reality is, than the more dogged and disciplined intellectual endeavor."

If logic exists, then it's compliment (opposite) must also exist. Things are defined by their 'compliments', their 'opposites', what they are not. A banana can only be a banana if it is 'not' an artichoke. Logic can only be logic by contrasting it with 'other'.

lao tsu/tzu a wise man indeed,


wise people speak, wise people also listen,


but speaking nor listning will let you see..

peace.

I see...
Huh?
*__-

Do you know why 'wise people listen'?
It lets someone else look the fool for awhile!
Hahahaha....

Another short but sweet article, The Limits of Logic; Everything looks like a nail (http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/123166.php).

Here's a short excerpt;
Here are some of my problems:

1. Logic and reason are inherently post-facto modes of thinking, they cannot encompass innovation (except, of course, by testing its truth value, post-facto).

2. We use the non-logical part of our mind to solve most real-world problems (e.g. speaking, walking, image recognition) with remarkable speed and accuracy.

3. Our ultimate goals are, by definition, non-logical. Everybody has non-logical goals which are very important to them. When people don't recognize their non-logical goals, they are left unexamined.

What these three points have in common is the observation that the human mind is not primarily logical: that logic is not the most powerful tool in the tool-chest of the human mind, and that the fundamental experience of being human has little to do with logic.

(There is a place one can leave comments on the site.)

nameless,

Surely you didn't need to read this article to know that we're not very logical creatures.????

I'm hoping not anyways.

In any case, all of what you say is indeed true. But it simply doesn't pertain to the point in question. There is no opposite of logic. End of story. The closest you might come to would be emotion, or passion. Nevertheless, I must point out that logic (or those who make use of it..) makes no claim to being an exhaustive method of explaining human behaviour. Logic is an artificial system created by humankind to serve as an analyticial tool, nothing more.
I don't seem to understand what it is you're trying to get at here...

Posted by Nameless
If logic exists, then it's compliment (opposite) must also exist. But isn't this assumption based upon logic?? This thinking assumes symmetry and balance within all things.
Things are defined by their 'compliments', their 'opposites', what they are not. A banana can only be a banana if it is 'not' an artichoke. Logic can only be logic by contrasting it with 'other'. Not neccessarily (in my opinion (I will state that this is my opinion rather than stating it to be fact, or truth, as Glaucon frequently does.)) For example a banana must be referenced as a yellow, curved fruit that can be peeled. Should this not be the case then a banana must be defined as that which is not an artichoke (making an orange also an banana!) But I agree with what you are implying: that there is an opposite to logic. However we cannot use 'illogical thinking to find truth', because then we may say that a banana is not an orange and is therefore blue. However the reverse of logic may reveal more, but then (as it has been noted), this is to use logical thinking again.

But isn't this assumption based upon logic?? This thinking assumes symmetry and balance within all things.


Well said Spectrum. This is the very nature of the difficulty nameless is facing here.



Not neccessarily (in my opinion (I will state that this is my opinion rather than stating it to be fact, or truth, as Glaucon frequently does.)) For example a banana must be referenced as a yellow, curved fruit that can be peeled. Should this not be the case then a banana must be defined as that which is not an artichoke (making an orange also an banana!) But I agree with what you are implying: that there is an opposite to logic. However we cannot use 'illogical thinking to find truth', because then we may say that a banana is not an orange and is therefore blue. However the reverse of logic may reveal more, but then (as it has been noted), this is to use logical thinking again.

Spectrum, when I use the words "truth", or "fact", I do so only when applicable. The fact is, within the realm of logic, there are things that can be said to be true, or fact. Where truth and/or fact do not obtain, I do not use those terms.

In any case, again, you are correct here. Although one could argue that, at least with respect to terms of definition, you might be simply playing semantics here, things are more often than not, not defined by 'opposition'. The two most frequent modes of definition are those of composition ( a banana is an organic composed of fruit-based carbohydrates...etc.)and componention ( a banana is the fruit covering of the seeds of the banana type palm...etc.). Rarely can the 'oppositional' mode be effectively used. What is the opposite of light??

This whole subject is very 'foreign' to me and I am trying to find some data with which to work. That is where those sites came from. I was attempting to learn something about 'non-logic' (not illogic) as , perhaps, a starting place for thought on the matter. I don't like the 'opposition' terminology, as that is not really accurate. Complimentary might be a bit closer (for me anyway) but still doesn't feel right. Perhaps it is all the artificiality and fiction that we are trying to 'study' as if it were 'real' that is hanging me up here. I am trying to understand this from the level of 'existence' and am having dificulty. I also suspect it is a language/memetic problem along the order of "This sentence is a lie!"
One direction that I am going here is to suggest that this is one of the cases where 'logic' is of no use in determining if there is an 'opposite' to logic or not in 'existence'. 'Existence' is another problem for logic as the very act of conceiving of 'non-existence' (whatever and however you like) automatically gives it 'existence' (for you). As we are attempting to use logic to determine if there is such a thing as it's opposite, we seem (so far) to be either failing miserably, or stuck in the circular cul-de-sac in which logic leaves us. I guess that I really was 'thinking out loud', not really proposing anything; all the good it did me! Hahahahah.... I can't help with this one, though, and must duck out. I'll be peeking, though, just in case something interesting falls from the sky.
All apparent 'opposites' are merely various aspects and perspectives of One; to 'spend' much thought on forcing an artificial seperation and juxtaposition of that which is One so that we can validate our concepts of 'opposites' seems to me a fools errand. I can spot em! I've been on many! *__- It is thought alone that creates and maintains 'opposites'.
We are finding limits of logic, but not necessarily an 'opposite'.

What is the opposite of light??
Logically? Metaphorically? Religiously? Poetically? Philosophically? Scientifically? From what perspective, in what context? Etc...
Perhaps.. 'heavy'?
Etc..

Bye the bye, semantics is not a 'game', nor a dirty word wherewith we can dismiss something uncomfortable; it is semantics/language that literally define/create our 'reality', our selves and our universes... It should not be given short shrift, here, by feeding the meme. It seems grievous error, to me, to give semantics any less weight in 'describing reality' than, oh.. Physics. But, thats another thread.. sorry..
Peace...

Just for fun, here's an interesting bit showing how classical physics is illogical. (http://www.geocities.com/therapeuter/capra7777.html)
*__-

.....We are finding limits of logic, but not necessarily an 'opposite'.



Which is exactly my point. What you're seeking is 'outside' the scope of logic. That being the case then, when you say you're looking for the opposite ( or, complementary) of logic, you must mean this to be of some other ontological nature, perhaps a linguistic one, or a phenomenological one.




Bye the bye, semantics is not a 'game', nor a dirty word wherewith we can dismiss something uncomfortable; it is semantics/language that literally define/create our 'reality', our selves and our universes... It should not be given short shrift, here, by feeding the meme. It seems grievous error, to me, to give semantics any less weight in 'describing reality' than, oh.. Physics. But, thats another thread.. sorry..
Peace...

I wasn't being glib with respect to semantics, I was merely trying to grasp the context within which Spectrum was trying to work. I'm more than familiar with semantics and semiotics, and it is indeed a game, as any structural system of signification is. And I agree with you wholeheartedly with respect to the value of a semantic approach to the problem. Indeed, I would say it would prove to be more fruitful than a logical one.
:-)

Posted by Glaucon
What is the opposite of light?? Darkness? And it would seem that this is the default situation: a shadow is cast by the absence of light, but we cannot 'shine' darkness to an object to produce light where darkness does not exist.
Posted by Nameless
'Existence' is another problem for logic as the very act of conceiving of 'non-existence' (whatever and however you like) automatically gives it 'existence' (for you). Good point nameless! Phantasy (or fantasy) is the opposite of reality, for we all phantasize about things that don't exist, but that we would like to exist, however we have given such a thing a name, which makes it (a) real-ity (in our minds).

Darkness?


Incorrect. Darkness is the absence of light. Within a spectrum, there can be no opposites.


.....a shadow is cast by the absence of light,


Incorrect. A shadow can only be cast by available light.

Incorrect. Darkness is the absence of light. I believe I posted that:
...a shadow is cast by the absence of light...
Posted by Glaucon
Within a spectrum, there can be no opposites. If violet is plus three then red (rouge) must be minus three, with green as zero: http://www.kleocolor.com/imagesouvrage/image01.gif
Incorrect. A shadow can only be cast by available light. Isn't a shadow just the absence of light (darkness)? I can understand your argument, for without surrounding light how can we distinguish between the light and the darkness (the shadow), but still, to me, a shadow is the absence of light.

Regarding Spectrum's first question on page one of this thread.

Upon stumbling across a similar dilemma what I have deduced is that Imagination or the word imaginative although not without elements of logical calculation would be the opposite of logic/logical... this is my reasoning behind my conclusion:

Imagination meaning the ability to conceive the unknown by means of calculation of variables of abstract & therefor illogical information gathered by ones life experiences & observations of those around them & Rationalization meaning to order that information into logical productive concepts.

Rationalization obviously representing logic or logical thought, calculation & or conceptual deduction (conceptual deduction meaning deduction of previous concepts by means of logic or to put more simply the separation of irrelevant information from relevant information)...

VERITAS