Reasoning in relation to Logic.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by deicider, May 3, 2013.

  1. deicider got omnicidead Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    443
    I keep hearing that logic is only one way to reason.

    But from what i can see, all reasoning uses logic.
    Am not just talking about formal logic.

    The reasoning brain seems to be working similarly to logic gates, NOT,AND etc.
    So how can reasoning exist/work if it doesn't use logic, can you give such example?

    At heart, to me it seems that logic is the essence of reasoning, and the "different" ways of reasoning is just logic in disguise.

    On a scale of 1 to 10, how many numbers are in this scale?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fednis48 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    725
    When you say "the reasoning brain seems to be working similarly to logic gates," there are two ways to take that. One would be that the causal connections between base-level processes, like neurons firing, are logical in nature. This is true, but it's kind of trivially so, because all processes in the universe obey the same set of physical laws which are logical in some sense. Saying that all reasoning is logical because the physical laws governing the brain are logical stretches the definition of "reasoning" beyond what most people think of when they see the word.

    On the other hand, your statement might mean that the higher-level thought processes produced by the basic brain processes are logical. I'm pretty sure this would be wrong. I wish I had some papers to cite, but the human brain is incredibly good at making decisions based on heuristics, gut-instinct inference from past experiences, and other forms of "do what feels right given my limited knowledge." This is why humans are so often bad with probabilities, for example. Aside from the logical physical processes underlying them, I don't think such decisions could be called "logical" in any meaningful sense of the word.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. deicider got omnicidead Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    443

    No need to cite, am familiar with the basic premise of heuristics, the function behind it is perfectly logical, the whole dopamine/reward/learning/gut-feeling jazz is the base of heuristics.
    The underlying system is logical in my understanding of logic so i guess this is a case of semantics, i misinterpreted logic into something wider like cause-effect-ish, physical laws, etc.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. deicider got omnicidead Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    443
    I must also add that there are computers designed to act heuristically, and they were successful.
     
  8. deicider got omnicidead Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    443
    Boolean logic
    Modern logic
    Quantifier logic
    Classical logic
    Multi-valued logic
    Quantum logic
    Formal logic
    Non-classical logic
    Sentential logic
    Fuzzy logic
    Predicate logic
    Syllogistic logic
    Informal logic
    Propositional logic
    Symbolic logic

    I stumbled upon this list.
    Can all those combined describe everything?
     
  9. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Logic is based on cause and effect. As such, logic can be understood as being drawn on a 2-D mental grid with X=cause and y=effect. This grid is connected to the left side of the brain. The right side of the brain is spatial or uses a 3-D form of logic.

    Picture a 3-D ball. We can approximate this ball with a large number of 2-D planes, all of which have a common center, but with each at different angles so the volume is filled in. If I was to hit the 3-D ball with a tennis racket, the ball would distort in 3-D. Relative to individual 2-D planes, the 3-D distortion will knock them out of their planes, into other planes and thereby appear to defy their original cause and effect. The 3-D logic is cause, effect, cause and effect, cause and effect; the extra cause or effect, is out of the original plane.

    Say we have a bunch of 3-D balls submerged within liquid. If I distort one, the volume change will be transmitted through the liquid medium and cause secondary expansions and compressions which will add up to the original volume displaced; 3-D logic. Relative to the large number of rational planes used to define each ball, apparently unrelated cause and effect will appear; random.

    Innovation often begins as a gut feeling in the right brain, or what might be. To make it work in left brain reality, you may need to invent or modify existing tools and rational planes. The extra dimension, beyond the 2-D cause and effect drives the process and amy appear like a random change in 2-D but be logical in 3-D.

    For example, say we had an entropy increase. This increase can show up as randomization. The entropy is a 3-D concept that describes a range of possible effects, with random a subset. But at the level of 2-D, this subset, due to the entropy increase will not fit on the logic plane, except as random; distorts.
     
  10. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    "Female logic" is famously impervious to other forms.
     
  11. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,877
    Logic is one thing that's lacking around here.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    With the exception of "female logic".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page