The Limits of Logical Intelligence

cole grey said:
What you define as "logical" is a result of your perceptions.
Click to expand...
No it is not. Definitions and perceptions is a whole different story. I'm talking about logic which is independent of preception. The swan example is useless because it is based on more than one observer.

The logic I am refering may or may not have any observer or more observers.
When there is more than one observer, realities between observers form a paradox independent of perception.

The swan is white and painted black. Whether there is anybody to observe it is not a case of what is given.
When a change in the given occurs upon observation, we encounter paradox.

If the given does not change, but perceptions and definitions about the given differ, there is no issue.
 
Godless said:
I understand influence to a certain extent. However the issue I'm against is that genes control behavior.
Click to expand...
Yeah, sure. I never said it controls behavior, I said it influences behavior.
 
cool skill said:
The swan is white and painted black.
Click to expand...

Describing how the swan is both white and black doesn't change anything, you need to commit to one or the other.
It isn't about differing perceptions, it is about differing levels of thought, which is what your thread is about.
You are wrong in saying there is human logic not based on perceptions.
Perhaps you know of another kind of logic.
 
Cole Grey,


3) a swan can be black and white. I painted a white swan black just the other day, you tell me whether it is black or white. It just depends on your frame of reference.
Click to expand...

Please tell me it was a swan made of clay, paper or plastic.


* * *

Cool Skill is ramblinjg about objective reality.
 
I'm an alcholic- where's the fuckin' toilet
Pass the hot dog (Bizarre, aren't you Islamic?)
Bitch shut your fuckin' mouth
I'ma keep eating 'till Richard Simmonds comes to my house
with a chainsaw to cut me out (my house, my house)
Aww fuck your wife- I had sex since I met her
Too busy fuckin' your twelve year old baby sitter (ha ha ha)
And all women ain't SHIT
Only good for cooking cleaning and sucking dick- And that's it (I said it)
I'm responsible for killing John Candy
Got JonBennet Ramsey in my '98 Camry (she's lost)
I don't give a fuck who you are
I'll shit on anybody
Truly yours- The Idoitic Bizarre
 
Hm. Memememememememeeeeeeeeeemmmmmmmmme -- a reincarnation and upgrade of Philocrazy?
 
cole grey said:
Describing how the swan is both white and black doesn't change anything, you need to commit to one or the other.
It isn't about differing perceptions, it is about differing levels of thought, which is what your thread is about.
You are wrong in saying there is human logic not based on perceptions.
Perhaps you know of another kind of logic.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about physical preception.
I'm talking about logic period which is the limit of human understanding independent of relative perception.

In the case of the swans. It is given that it is a white swan painted black. There is no more or less to it than that. You can call it red. You can perceive and call it what you will. It is given that it is a whire swan painted black no independent of perception. Are you asserting that it is possible upon observing it that the swan changes color? What are you asserting?
 
water- it is a living swan.

I am saying that the swan is both white and black, and that there is no objective color of the swan.
I am saying that our perspective, which is at least a part of what determines our logic, is seldom capable of addressing more than one level at a time.
Any type of thinking that can address both levels of the swan's color without contradiction, could be logical, and also meta-logical.

EDIT - Actually, it is pretty basic two-dimensional logic.

If you are familiar with buddhism at all - "Mu" is not a negative answer to the question, "does this dog have buddha nature", it is saying no to questioning in that manner.

The question should not be, "is there some other area of logic we haven't tapped into", but perhaps this is the best we can do.
 
Ha.

A white horse is not a horse
A white hard horse has one element.
Why is this so?
Hardness and whiteness have nothing in common.
Surely a horse and hardness have nothing in common.
And surely, whiteness and a horse have nothing in common.
Whiteness and a horse have in common nothing;
a horse and hardness have in common nothing;
and hardness and whiteness have in common nothing.
Therefore, whiteness and a horse have something in common;
a horse and hardness have something in common;
and hardness and whiteness have in common something.
And therefore whiteness and a horse have something in common
with hardness and a horse; and hardness and a horse
have something in common with hardness and whiteness;
and hardness and whiteness have something in common
with whiteness and a horse.
And therefore a white hard horse has something in common.
And therefore a white hard horse has one element in common.
A white hard horse has no element in common.
Why is this so?
Whiteness has nothing in common with hardness.
Hardness has nothing in common with a horse.
A horse has nothing in common with whiteness.
And therefore there is no white hard horse.
And therefore a white hard horse has no element in common.
Therefore a white hard horse is not white or hard.
Therefore a white hard horse is not a horse or white.
Therefore a white hard horse is not a horse or hard.
Therefore a hard horse is not a horse.
Therefore a hard whiteness is not hard or white.
Therefore a white hardness is not white or hard.
Therefore a white horse is not a horse.

Perhaps a white hard horse has a name in common.
Perhaps a white hard horse remains unnamed.
Therefore the people are unnamed.
If the people are named, they have elements in common.
If they have elements in common, they are a people.
Why is this so?
People have nothing in common.
A name has nothing in common.
A name is never common.
---Kung-lung tsu​
<img src="http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3313&stc=1">​
It looks like the cat just swallowed the canary.
 
I bet that guy got himself into a lot of fights when he was a kid, talking like that.

Also, to coolskill

"Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme which we cannot escape." - Neitzsche (notes from 1877)
 
Your quoting Neitzsche? Neitzsche is a joke.

The point is, given a logical object say a swan. It has a single specific color that is independent of perception.

Instead of the swan as the object, and color as the characteristic, we can use something else.

A cube. With an LWH of exactly 1 inch. This cube cannot be 1 inch and not 1 inch at the same time. Logically. It is not logically possible for a cube to also be a sphere at the same time. It is impossible for the mind limited with logic to picture or produce an object that is a complete 1-inch cube and a complete 1-inch sphere at the same time.

In the case of the swans, we must get off of the whole perception situation, and think logically. Logically an object can be a certain color or not a certain color. A swan is no exception. It can either be black or not black. It can either be white or not white. It cannot logically be both black and white at the same time. Despite this, the point is, the color of the swan is completely independent of perception. Bringing up perception has no relevance to the case at hand.
 
coolskill says -"Neitzsche is a joke."

Your statement is the joke. Let me fill you in on something - if any information survives for a long period of time in the destructive morass of human thought, it may be wrong, or even fallacious, but the likelihood of the idea's originator being a "joke" is very small. You can't extract the gold from neitzche's river, that is nothing to brag about.

I have a one inch cube of vacuum. It also happens to not be a one-inch cube.
Welcome to the flexibility of mental constructs... like logic.
 
I think that you (cool skill ) are on the wrong path by dividing metaphysics into two branches.

Logic is not static. Today’s logic could become tomorrow’s MetaLogic, or the other way round.

Logic is not a human inbuilt construct but a cultural one. Thus one persons logic can be another’s Metalogic.

Many people mistake logic for knowing, that somehow logic is intertwined with the semantics of our inner workings. Just look at a computer, it has no understanding yet can perform astounding feats of logical deduction.

It is my belief that there is no natural phenomenon that can't have a logical explanation. Neither can I say that having a logical explanation gives me true meaning.

There is no absolute logic, it simply can’t exist. It would require a function greater then everything.

Metalogic is the logic that after appling "Absolute Logic" to a problem, a reliable conclusion can not be found. As it is impossible to have absolute logic, it is impossible to have MetaLogic.
 
cole grey said:
Let me fill you in on something - if any information survives for a long period of time in the destructive morass of human thought, it may be wrong, or even fallacious, but the likelihood of the idea's originator being a "joke" is very small.
Click to expand...
Let me fill you in on something. Wrong! You are asserting that the probability of the accuracy of information is correlated with the length of time the information has been around whether accepted or not. Therefore, we should take Neitzsche seriously. If so, do you know anything about logic?

Of course, to consider somebody a joke is a loaded statement, but it is definitely not based on the absurdity you propose.

It is irrelevant who you are or how long your ideas have been around. What is relevant are the ideas themselves. If your overall ideas are reasonable, I would probably take you seriously. If your overall ideas are nonsense, I would probably consider you a joke.

You could have all the supporters on the planet. It is absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is not the amount of people that support your ideas, but the logic of the ideas themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top