The Limits of Logical Intelligence

L

lixluke

Refined Reinvention
Valued Senior Member
I proposed this in one of my philosophy classes, and won favor with my instructor. I was wondering if any actual philosophers have ever discussed this.

Metaphysical: Beyond physical.
Metalogical: Beyond logic.

Human understanding is limited by logic. There are various attributes within the nature of the universe that seem to defy human logical understanding.

One of such examples is the concept of infinity, and any concept related to infinity. We know what infinity means, and we can grasp the idea. But when the human mind attempts to truly conceive infinity, it is incapable of fathoming it. Such concepts cannot be explained by simple logic alone. Much of the time, we call that which is logically unexplainable a paradox.

Paradox:
1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true.
2. One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects.
3. An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.


Is it possible that there could be intelligence beyond logic? Not illogical, but metalogical in a sense. Concepts that defy logic, and therefore human comprehension. Is it possible that humanity is limited to logical intelligence? Is it possible that intelligence exists that can readily comprehend the logical paradoxes that abound our physical and logical reality? Is it possible that there is reality beyond our limited logical comprehension?
Can anybody recommend any philosopher with similar concepts?
 
Last edited:
I made the word metalogical up to be the term for something that is beyond logic like metaphysical means beyond physical.
There happens to be a science that is also called metalogics which has nothing to do with this.
 
Yes I agree human logic defies a lot of things. But can't one overcome thinking by what is logical. I beleive that it is possible to become metalogical. Such as the definition to paradox, in a dictionary they go for what is the most logical thing. Somebody should write the metalogical dictionary and encyclopedia. I think that in the end it all comes down to what you truly believe is logical.
 
cool,

Interesting idea. Why not allow for intelligences that come to conclusions and knowledge about the universe in a way that is completely alien to us? They may intuitively understand things that we haven't even conceived of yet.

But we have this to some degree already. There are savants that calculate, compose, etc. in an apparently intuitive way (they say they are not thinking through what they do - it just sort of happens) that completely defy our current understanding of brain function.

In fact, what is the functional difference between intuition and logic? These are two recognized ways of knowing. Is intuition simply "logic" working in the brain on a subconscious, automatic level?
 
Just FYI, the term "metaphysics" comes from Aristotle, who had to come up with a name for the book that came after the one called Physics. So since this was the next book in the series, it was called MetaPhysics. But I get your drift.
 
There are savants that calculate, compose, etc. in an apparently intuitive way
********************
Exactly. Savants. It's not just that. They more readily comprehend mathematical concepts that seem to defy normal human logic, but remain correct.
 
logically,cause preceeds effect,atleast this is what we would logically think or assume.
but there are situations in which effect preceeds cause.
im not well versed in quantum mehcanics..but i have just read a little bit here n there..
and in quantum teleportation,information of object A is transferred to B through C by entanglement..as in C is in contact with B first and then interacts with A so then the information from A gets transferred to B...which seems against logic(atleast for me:s)
but it is observed all the same.Im sure that there are explanations for this phenomenon and that many of you here know it.Im just saying this is one of those phenomenon that maybe you could classify as metalogical :)
 
cool skill said:
Human understanding is limited by logic. There are various attributes within the nature of the universe that seem to defy human logical understanding.

One of such examples is the concept of infinity, and any concept related to infinity. We know what infinity means, and we can grasp the idea. But when the human mind attempts to truly conceive infinity, it is incapable of fathoming it. Such concepts cannot be explained by simple logic alone. Much of the time, we call that which is logically unexplainable a paradox.
Click to expand...
I don’t see where you’re getting this from. Infinity is a purely logical concept. There’s pretty much no other way to arrive at the idea than through mathematical logic, since it’s not really something that you can stumble upon in your every-day life. It might be impossible to achieve an “intuitive” understanding of infinity, but that doesn’t mean that the concept can’t be deduced and then manipulated using logic. Indeed, I imagine that the Greek mathematicians who first invented the concept of infinity would be pretty offended if you told them that they weren’t using logic.
 
That's nice, if I did tell them that along with any of the words you seem to be putting in my mouth. And no it wasn't invented by white greeks.
 
There were Greeks who wrote about the idea as early as 500 B.C. Are there records of some other culture coming up with the idea (in a mathematical sense) earlier than that? I imagine many cultures had an idea of "endlessness" before that, but as far as I know the Greeks were the first ones to actually use it in mathematics. But I certainly might be wrong.
 
I found some cool books today at the store about philosophical problems regarding logical paradoxes. I didn't get a chance to read into it because I was only there for a minute. I'll probably head back there tomorrow to read more.
 
There isn't any problem with logic if used correctly... Infinity is not a problem, the subconsious definition of infinity is probably just "allways counting" anotherwords thats how we formed the idea to begin with and thats all the meaning it has. There isn't even any reason to believe that there is anything of infinite nature in reality anyways.

Most so called paradoxes are just about poorly understanding the nature of human logic... "This statement is not true" When we read a statement we assume that the statement is true and then consider its implications. We cannot evaluate a statement without first assuming it is correct. Thats just the way our mind works. This statement tells us not to do so. Its just a nonsense statement like "A is not A".

Its our minds, not logic that is the problem. Now if we had minds capable of relating a very large number of things at once, (Huge parallel processing) we probably wouldn't need logic for the majority of things we use it for now. For instance we would see a pile of 400 coins, and then add a pile of 164 coins, and immediately reconize the result as a pile of 564 coins the way we do when we add 1 and 1. So in this case we wouldn't even NEED logic because our subconsious is using it for us the way a computer does. However logic when used correctly is never going to give us an erroneous result.

As for alien intelligences one can never be sure of such things, but there is something inherent to our thinking that if a foreign intelligence shared would not be very foreign after all: Inductive reasoning

Any intelligence that uses the concept that the frequency with which something has happened in the past is an indicator of the frequency it will happen in the future is not beyond our comprehension. And IMO its such a simple and universal concept that I don't see how any intelligence could not be based on it.
 
Last edited:
According to kriminal, there is nothing beyond logic. Something cannot be on and off at the same time. There is nothing beyond logical understanding. Logic is the limit of the human mind no matter an intelligent a human can be, there will never be comprehension of something being on and off at the same time because there will never be something being on and off at the same time. Logic is a limit that cannot be defied. Therefore, all that can be explained can be explained under logic.

Right?
 
I think I would concur with Kriminal99.
Logic, as a tool, is not the problem.

The underlying assumptive knowledge might well be, however.

If we are trying to work out how argument X leads to Y leads to Z and can not logically see the progression despite knowing that it exists, then assuming that the logic is sound, it is most likely in the assumptions that we have assigned to the arguments that are causing the problem.

In fact one could say that it is logical to assume this. :D

Thus it is either the material, or the application of the tool, that is the problem rather than the tool itself.
 
People thought earth was flat, people thought etc, etc. This shows that logic is a result of collective builtup of knowledge.

PS> why is there no LQ like IQ.
 
Hey cool skill this is a fav topic of mine... I absolutely agree that rationalism, the cornerstone of Western thinking, is very limiting. Your new term metalogical seems completely appropriate.

The other topic that goes hand in hand with this one is perception. This/that, here/there, big/small, dualism is based on perception which by definition is a relativistic phenomena. Without contrast, perception could not occur (no ability to resolve) and logic would never have developed.

Aldous Huxley and the whole doors of perception thing. You know.
 
cool skill said:
According to kriminal, there is nothing beyond logic. Something cannot be on and off at the same time. There is nothing beyond logical understanding. Logic is the limit of the human mind no matter an intelligent a human can be, there will never be comprehension of something being on and off at the same time because there will never be something being on and off at the same time. Logic is a limit that cannot be defied. Therefore, all that can be explained can be explained under logic.

Right?
Click to expand...

Yeah once I understood what you are saying that seems like a good way of putting it. However, there are similar things that can happen like if you believe swans are all white and therefor define a swan as being white and then you see a black swan you might be confused. But then you can just say some swans are black and some are white. But its not going to happen that we see a swan is both black and white simultaneously.

If we had some sense that saw the bird as black and another that saw the bird as white because they picked up different frequencies of electro magnetic waves, we might see a particular swan as say "(microwave) black, (visible spectrum) white". However still in this case it could not be that the swan was (microwave) black and (microwave) white at the same time. Or at least if it was there would be some other explanation for why analagous to the different frequency waves. (This example assumes that the raw feel of white and black are facets of consiousness and not properties of waves themselves)

Or heres a more clear example of what I am trying to say... Suppose you had a tv and you turned it on and inside the box was actually something totally different then every other tv. The tv started talking to you personally and you didn't think that was possible. Well inside the tv box is some reason for what is going on, you just don't know what it is. Therefore you wouldn't say this is a tv because it looks exactly like a tv, but its not acting like a tv so therefore A is not A. Instead you would say, this is a new category B and B is not A.

So anotherwords, its really physically impossible for A is not A to ever be true... Because if it was we would just seperate the A and the not A. In the first example we thought it was impossible for a swan to be black and white at the same time, but once we saw one we just came up with a reason why and seperated the two colors to different categories. Same with the tv.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top