I see things as systems. Paradoxes are signs that the system
containing them is limited. To resolve the paradoxes you need to
use a different system. This doesn't invalidate the system with
the paradoxes, just that all systems have their limitations
where they break and something else needs to be used instead.
"You are referring to things that seem paradoxical. Something
that is truly paradoxical cannot be logically resolved."
*Exactly. That means the system of logic is no longer
functioning properly and you need to utilize a different system
to answer the paradox.
==
*We could have reached the limits of our capacities. There may
be some paradoxes that can never be resolved by humans or by ANY
of our systems as we have limitations both within ourselves and
within the systems and the technologies we create.
==
* My point is, we can use the BEST of reasoning: it doesn't have
to be poor reasoning at all and yet we can reach our cognitive
limits, never to be surpassed. At that point, reasoning has
reached its functional limits. We can go no further. The paradox
will remain for *us* and it would be up to a species with
greater capabilities to resolve it. If no greater species exists
or comes forth or can explain it to us, then the paradox will
just have to stand.
==
*That's a human assumption. An axiom. Perhaps it does or perhaps
it's beyond our capabilities to resolve. When it reaches that
level, it's a matter of axiom to decide, "Paradox cannot exist,
we just can't solve it" or "The paradox exists because we cannot
solve it".
==
*Nothing magical about definitions. If all things are natural,
including our thought processes and reasonings as they take
place within our brains or the things we make like computers or
the systems we devise like logic, then by your definition,
there's really not much need for the word paradox to exist at
all.
==
*Oh you can have truth without definitions. What is defining
something? It's putting bounds.
[1]
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=defineFinish.
Conclude. Bring to an end.But if truth is an active system
rather than a concluded 'define', then knowledge is not limited
to that which can be defined.
==
* You're saying definitions are required by using definitions to
support the requirement of definitions. Oh, nvm, you're
operating in a closed loop. Carry on.
==
*You can't see it. You're requiring me to use the very system
I'm criticizing to dismantle it when within the system you're
using there's already no _room_ for what I'm going to say, as it
will be tossed out.It's a self-contained system you're within.
There's no room for anything else to fit. So, carry on.
==
* It's not. I'm describing your behavior of returning to
definitions to support the need for definitions to to define
truth, and without definitions to define truth, there can be no
truth without definitions.
==
Something of prime importance in the system you are using, is
"winning an argument". It holds value to you. It does not to me.
So here. You win. This supports your system and works within the
framework you wish to operate within. Smile and enjoy the closed
loop.
==
*Yes, and logic requires axioms and proofs. Axioms and proofs
are definitions. It makes a full circle. It's a very USEFUL
circle but still a circle.
==
*Well yes, in that system it is. And I'm not knocking it: It is
an excellent, practical system for MANY many things indeed.But
it is a "world unto its own" and no, I'm not confusing it with
begging the question.
==
*I'm not criticizing your reasoning. I'm saying the system
you're utilizing itself is fundamentally limited BECAUSE it
requires logical consistency.This does not mean it is broken but
it does have breaking points.
==
Every system has fracture points. Weak spots. Logic as with any
system. It's important to identify and be aware of the weak
spots of any system so that you know when it breaks so that you
are prepared for when it does.Look at encryption for an analogy.
The best encryption protocol is broken simply by social
engineering, or hiding a camera in a room that records someone
typing in a password. Or numerous other ways.The encryption
systems may work against attacks from WITHIN - just as logic is
a fantastic determiner of truth value when working from WITHIN
its systems, but the moment you step OUTSIDE of these systems,
they are defeated.What's the weak spot? Think like an engineer.
Where does logic break? If you know those points and are aware
of them, you can bolster them up from outside of the system,
utilizing non-logic methodologies.
==
*But that is my point. True means "without logical
contradiction" within that system. Logic is a system upon which
other systems are built.
==
* But... logic is not a system upon which ALL other systems are
built. Rather logic is a system upon which MANY systems are
built.
==
Yes, historically we can thank Scottish philosopher James
Frederick Ferrie for that* It is a useful distinction and has
been very fruitful since its inception.
==
* I always try to look at the history of things. Learning about
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Frederick_Ferrier and
what was prior to his coining of Epistemology and why can help
you understand the nature of truth from this perspective. This
distinction did not exist before him.
==
Then logic fell from the sky into your lap, Peter, like the
Hebrew letters fell down to form the Talmud.
==
Logic is a system used by human beings. It has a history. The
history can be traced backwards in time. There were times where
concepts existed suddenly and before which time, these concepts
did not.It is a useful system. I believe its *pragmatic* value
has become confused with its truth value.
==
*WITHIN its system, it defines truth itself. It is a closed
system, "Closed World". By defining truth itself, all arrows
will eventually point to truth when utilizing its system.
==
*
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9051832&fileId=S1079898600005357The
Abstract is enough. There is a history of formalized logic.
Before such time as formalized logic arose as a system, there
was no formalized system of logic used in the way that
formalized logic is used today.It is a system. It is an invented
system which defines a process. Other logics are other invented
systems which also define processes, each with their own merits
and drawbacks, strong points and failure points.
==
*Formal logic is an elegant system for working within a Western
dualistic framework, yes. It is very pragmatic.
==
*My issue, is not the pragmatic-ness of Logic and the way we use
it. It is extremely useful.Some people even base the nature of
the Universe on it in their way of thinking. That's great! But,
to me that's when it falls into the realm of religious
thought.It's not the worst belief system I've seen, but it's
still within the framework of a religious belief system, imo.I
prefer to see it as a tool, a system, a descriptive and useful
process. Good for what it's good for and like all systems, also
has breaking points.I have yet to find a system that is
infallible. Those who find a system they feel is infallible -
whatever becomes their religion-of-choice, guidelines and rules
they can lead their lives and thought processes by and be
enthusiastic about - I think that's marvelous.
==
*But logic has limitations in rhetoric. I mentioned religion.
What is the first thing one often hears upon mention of religion
in these forums?"That does not fit the definition of
religion".So, right there, logic is broken for rhetoric. It
cannot incorporate words with multiple meanings. They must first
be fixed into unchangable axioms of their own in order to build
further upon the argumentations.Yet language itself does not
work that way.
==
*Yes, etymologically, 'concept' is from 17th century science.
Idea is via Plato as is his realm which we utilize heavily in
Western civilization.Many things are supposed to take place in
that platonic realm, including post-Platonic religions of which
there are indeed many and when you consider that world cultures
are generally not isolated from each other (China's silk road,
Roman roads, ships, trade routes, etc), belief systems such as
Platonism enjoyed far and wide travel.. and it's difficult to
really trace its influence entirely.A mistake of modern
teachings of history is to see the cultures as separate: here's
East, there's West, there's the other culture over there... but
there was far more mixing than that, but as the separations of
cultures had been rather fixed in our cultural narratives for
some time now, it's hard to extract our way of thinking from
it.Anyway, a lot happens in the playing field of the platonic
realm.All depends who you ask.
==
*My main point is: logic is a very useful fiction. I wouldn't
dare get rid of it by any means: It's far too critical for the
operations of the modern world and is embedded in many of our
ways of "getting things accomplished".Again, very pragmatic.But
it operates within the platonic realm, which is ultimately a
useful fiction. It is far better than, say, the way that many
religions have used the platonic realm. But still a useful
fiction.A pencil is useful to write a map with. It's the old
map/territory distinction.
==
*Consider our conversation. I see logic as a useful human
system. That should be a good example of what I consider logical
that may or may not conform to what you wish to see.I could give
a thought experiment but that would be even further abstracted
from reality and into the platonic realm, which I'm trying to
avoid stepping into excessively. if I can.
==
*Then again, for me to even say "abstracted" is acknowledging a
platonic realm. Can you see how deeply this stuff is embedded in
our very language and how we describe things?It's very hard to
remove one's self from it tongue emoticon
==
*Ok. Consider embodied cognition. This is a concept that fits a
little better my way of thinking. I'll assume you are aware of
it.
==
There is a way. Incorporate the experience and the cognitive
processes as a system-of-itself.
==
* Well, I like to think of "concepts" as built upon analogies of
each other, to increasing complexities.The analogies do not have
to be words at all but rather embedded memories that are
recalled via a mismatching system upon which we construct our
experience of reality. The map and the territory build upon each
other simultaneously, each to different degrees, as it were.
==
So for me, Logic is built upon analogy.
==
*as someone who is likely on the autistic spectrum _somewhere_,
(nothing official, just observation and study) I've spent my
life attempting to discern field and subject. To use a computer
analogy, "overloaded inputs".I struggle with categorization as
my thinking does not always conform to standard definition of
object so it's like reinventing the wheel as it were by
constructing my own internal analogies. [but by internal, it's
not "separate from" the rest of the world - but rather it's
hidden from view]
---
a study of analogy separate from logic can be very useful. I
came at things from an opposite direction: analogy is my
strength, rules-of-logic my weakness. I understand enough for
computer programming but most of my logic builds upon whatever
systems got constructed in my head through the years - long
lists of rules for what is consistent, inconsistent, which is
pass/fail, go/no go... and unfortunately I haven't found an
existing system out there that fully complies with it yet. Still
working on it though. Analogy is a fun study.
==
*it likely does. I'm introspective to a fault - my systems are
always analyzing themselves consciously, but I've found
"resonance" within a number of external systems such as
biofeedback training as a kid, a little Zen stuff as a teenager
along with some new age things, vipiassana meditation stuff,
Eastern Orthodox noetic prayer stuff in my late 20s, and it all
has compatible equivalent points. ==
*In human communication, analogy / metaphor / etc is extremely
powerful. Look at the thought experiment. We use them all of the
time. That's in the realm of analogy/metaphor. Science uses it.
Logic uses it.Look at the nature of symbolism. This represents
that. What's connection? One is analogized to the other.There's
similar terms in formal logic of course, and within logic
there's a whole sophisticated language for this, but they are,
to me, analogies via symbols of analogies.
== That's a high compliment smile emoticon I have to live with
my logic every day. It instructs my decision making processes,
how to categorize and sort inputs, what's important, what can I
ignore, etc. Everything I read feeds into it somehow as does
experience. As much of the systems of logic I've learned that's
compatible, I incorporate into my thought processes. I'm using
them right now. What I learned about formal rhetoric (very
little officially), gets incorporated. A lot of stuff doesn't.
There's stuff that has nowhere to go, so I discard it. One rule
of thumb I have is flaws. I look for them in every system. I
don't care about "valid or invalid" - to me that's party games.
"Your logic is flawed" is a meaningless sentence to me. That's
part of a game to me. That means "My chess move is superior to
yours". But if a computer program I'm writing doesn't compile,
well THAT tells me my logic is flawed, and I HAVE to get my
logic perfect or it doesn't work at all. == Oh any programming I
do is recreational. It serves a purpose. I have a goal in mind.
I want to achieve it. I want to see if I'm capable of surpassing
something I did before. So I take on overly complicated project
that is interesting to me - I create the project as I go along,
and then I work to achieve it. Logical integrity has to
encompass the whole system and the system includes myself. This
includes my moral values, my considerations for other people, my
desire to communicate and be understood, the "game of
argumentation" (the back and forth of it), the need to impress
certain ideas and make a connection of understanding between me
and another person. == Your explanation did not compute. If you
are saying the same thing 10 times and it's not being received,
then modify your message because it's not getting through. The
fault is in the sender not the receiver. The teacher has to
change how they teach if its ineffective. == Anytime you try to
convince somebody of something, you are in the role of their
teacher == Oh, that's not true at all, Peter. Sales people are
great at it. Politicians do it. Teachers do it. Parents do it to
their kids. Kids do it to their parents. What's that famous
definition of insanity? Repeating the same thing over and over
expecting a different result? I don't agree with that definition
by the way - I was just reminded of it. == Within the SYSTEM OF
LOGIC, logic represents correctness. That is the ONLY PLACE
where logic represents correctness. == That's my approach to my
every engagement online. In fact, I seek out people whose
personality types are just like* for this reason: They challenge
me in ways I wouldn't do myself because their thought processes
are very foreign to me. I always learn something, either about
them, about myself, or about some subject matter I was unclear
on and I always hope that I leave a little something useful
behind as well. == It depends on the constraints of the system,
the specifications laid out for the project, the reality of the
situation you find yourself working in, the acceptance of the
parties involved, the actualization of it in the real world, and
the post mortem afterwards. What I described there is a basic
overview of "correctness" as utilized in engineering from my
understanding of it. I'm not an engineer but their principles
are similar in many areas. They're very complicated and include
a lot of contradiction - much of which cannot be resolved using
simple rules of logic. Logic is involved, certainly throughout
the entire process, but the scope of the projects change as you
go, goalposts move, needs change, and even if you do EVERYTHING
correctly, you can STILL end up incorrect because we can't
foresee the future. == That was my answer. It just didn't fit
into your system. This is the problem I was trying to explain to
you from the start. You have a very small closed world you're
working within that cannot incorporate much more than a few
expectations. == Ok. Is correctness meeting initial
specification? Yes and no. Is correctness acceptance by
authority? Yes and no. Is correctness proper logic throughout
the process? Yes and no. Is correctness determined by those who
funded the project? Yes and no. Is correctness determined by the
community that lives with the project? Yes and no. Can logic
alone determine correctness of the project? I don't know. It may
be logically correct now. It might be logically incorrect in
five minutes. Change is constant. You want fixed universal. You
won't like the answer I gave. That much is logically assured
tongue emoticon == I consider it useful. I do not think the
systems of logic we use can be used as a basis for everything.
My own internal logic (my programming as it were) does not
conform to the system that Peter is using. Through analogy, like
you did a bridge can be made between the two different logic
systems. Are they both logic-as-a-process? Yes. But they are
different systems and their processes take different routes. ==
My issue is not with Logic as a way to describe systems and
processes. My issue is with "one way" logic. It looks and smells
like religion, and my holy book of logic is different from your
holy book of logic, which is also called Logic and is taught in
classrooms and campuses and is the basis for the foundations of
mathematics and numerous other systems. == Well I'm glad you
jumped in and I always walk away from an online conversation
knowing something more than I did before. That's why I'm here
instead of sleeping or doing something else. This fits into my
logic, purpose, meaning, etc, all that stuff. == That's the holy
book logic I'm talking about. Fallacies are sins and all of
that. My brain, my way of thinking, that is _also_ logic, but I
don't follow the same scriptures you do. == Give me something
logically impossible for you. I'll explain how it's possible. ==
That's the only way you can think of, not the only way there is.
== They're artificial constructs existing in a fictional
platonic realm, described via the axioms and proofs of geometry
and further descriptions and definitions provided as new systems
were developed throughout history. == squares and circles
themselves are fictional so it's logical that a square circle
would also be fictional. == Their very existence disappears the
moment you remove their definitions. *poof* They're gone. Story
over. == Not with everything else. Stuff can exist without
anything to describe them. === They can still exist whether or
not there is a way to discern a 'this' from a 'that'. == Reality
ceases to exist if it can't be defined? Wow. Ok. Well, anyway,
I'm off to dreamland - you helped encourage 3100+ words to come
out of my fingers tonight, assisted me in clarifying my thoughts
on a number of issues in a better way - ways that may or may not
convince you, but I now have these novel explanations (novel to
me) available to draw from to explain things to others. So,
thank you for that grin emoticon They're words I wouldn't have
written otherwise and now I have. Good night! like emoticon
References
Visible links
1.
http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.etymonline.com%2Findex.php%3Fterm%3Ddefine&h=mAQEI5JDS
2.
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FJames_Frederick_Ferrier&h=rAQH3tWHA
