Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Speakpigeon, May 31, 2018.
Which infers that the environment is what in the end controls gene expression
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I forgot the most basic and possibly most useful one: A ∧ A →B ⊢ B, i.e. the Modus Ponens, which is the workhorse of our rationality. Without it, you'd have to be lost in a world now too complicated for your brain to process.
And you also have basic syllogisms like the one about Socrates being mortal, which applies across the bord to the entirety of what we know about the world.
Still, I suspect that these are essentially used as logical intuitions, by all of us, including idiots, and probably not much when doing formal logic (formal proofs). So we actually don't need to learn them because each brain is able apparently to work out these basic logical truths by itself. That being said, it remains that understanding logic and knowing logical truths is probably broadly useful.
Reason needs both knowledge and logic. The most usual reasoning seems to be A ∧ A →B ⊢ B, so you need logic, even if i's usually intuitive, and you need the know both that A is true and that A →B is true, which both require knowledge of the world.
And without any logic at all, you'd be unable to infer and therefore to decide what your next move.
What you may not absolutely need is formal logic, though.
We don't need any knowledge to recognise logical truths.
As I see it, our intuitive sense of logic comes first, essentially because I think it's required for the brain to make sense of the perception of the world it starts to get after birth. So, while we can learn formal logic at school, it seems our brain does know at least some logic, and probably only logical truths, even before you could go to school. Clearly, the only source for the brain to have this capability would be Darwinian evolution, some logic being just a necessary capability of even individual neurons. If that's true then logic came before any knowledge you could get from your own life but after the "knowledge" of the world recorded in DNA since the beginning of genes.
Sorry, I don't understand your post. What's an objective mind?
Or are you saying that we know our own mind and we don't need an science to achieve this?
An objective mind , is a mind that sees things as they are , rather than just from a Humans perspective .
OK, but then I don't understand your point: "The logical objection to empiricism is not logic so much as it is , the objective mind of the interpreter of the empirical information ."
Why would the objective mind of this interpreter be an objection to empiricism?
Because empiricism only gets you so far in understanding this Universe . The Universe is made of more than matter .
The Universe also gives the existence of Life . And Life's ramifications because it exists
Sorry but I still don't understand your claim that "The logical objection to empiricism is not logic so much as it is , the objective mind of the interpreter of the empirical information". How is that a logical objection?! There's nothing logical about it. You have to assume a lot before it becomes an objection at all: that there are objective minds, that they really see things as they are, and that they indeed see things beyond mere matter. Further, anything these objective minds would see beyond matter would anyway also become an empirical object like matter itself. So, your assumption is no objection to empiricism.
Because empirical information , some people can see empirical information in a non-dogmatic way .
How would the mind become an empirical object ?
Empiricism has to do with what can be measured, not just matter.
What is measured that is not matter ?
Energy, health, diversity, fairness, happiness...
Energy is matter based
Other wise agreed
I'm sure that's true but you'd need to be a little bit more specific. As it is, I don't understand what you are trying to say.
The mind is an empirical object.
How minds happen, I don't know, though.
Anything you can observe, experience or experiment on is an empirical object.
Not more specific since this would distract this thread in that direction . Which I don't want to do .
But feel free to start a new thread as a derivative from this one , to address your thoughts and thinking .
My concern with that is how human beings can possibly know what is and isn't necessary or possible in reality. This isn't physical possibility that we're talking about either, it's... something stronger and more fundamental than that, something more metaphysical.
Do we really want to reduce what is and isn't possible in reality to conceivability by human beings? That introduces a whole lot of variables that probably shouldn't be there. Cognitive powers, historical situation and whatnot.
Cockroaches can't conceive of Einstein's relativity. Are we supposed to think that human beings are the apex of all possible cognition and that what we can and can't conceive define the boundaries of reality itself? What if we encounter a space alien out there that stands in the same relation to us that we stand to the cockroach?
That certainly seems to be true if we define 'empiricism' as the idea that all knowledge comes from sensory experience and try to include logic as knowledge.
I agree that logic and mathematics have always been the problem cases for a strict sort of empiricism.
Logic doesn't constrain reality. Logical truths are not statements about reality but about our representation of reality and a representation of reality may be somehow untrue of reality, in which case, things may well be possible in reality even though they look impossible within our representation of reality.
Logic works on what is conceivable and it seems a fact of life that we can conceive of non-physical things, like God, our own subjective experience, and abstract things, like "natural laws", nothingness and what not.
I don't think that we can choose the way we think. Conceivability is basic to the human perspective on life, even in everyday situations. Obviously, reality is not compelled by our conceptions. It only a limitation of our mind.
Is that conceivable?
At least, it shows our categories are usually bogus. What seemed a priori yesterday suddenly looks more empirical.
That's what measurement means.
a. To ascertain the dimensions, quantity, or capacity of: measured the height of the ceiling.
b. To mark, lay out, or establish dimensions for by measuring: measure off an area.
c. To mark off or apportion, usually with reference to a given unit of measurement: measure out a pint of milk.
d. To allot or distribute as if by measuring; mete: The revolutionary tribunal measured out harsh justice.[/QUOTE]
You measure something by comparison with something else taken as a unit.
Merely observing, experiencing or experimenting doesn't constitute a measure, certainly not in ordinary usage or in scientific usage.
Separate names with a comma.