Working Through The Logic

Does logic make assumptions? If so, what are they and are they justifiable? Let the investigation begin.

Okay Capable, add your best definition of logic so I have something to work with that we can both agree on.

Logic is simply the conceptual recognition of necessity as such. Logical systems and languages (formal logic, math, linguistic grammar) unfold from this.

I would add that logic requires an artificial discontinuity; the idea that there is an existential interval between observed situations.
This discontinuity is directly related to the law of identity, which posits an artificial homogeneity between observed situations.

These two somewhat opposite 'symptoms' arises from not knowing what we mean with 'is' or '=' or 'being'.

CP,

Sorry, but the animosity I feel towards that definition you keep reiterating (ILP all over again) makes me combustible.  There she blows!

I'll retrieve a few online definitions to get me going.

FC,

How can "not knowing what we mean with 'is' or '=' or 'being'" but cause tremendous issues/miscalculations?  



So logic accounts for the positives(perceptions), but what about the negatives?  How are "unknowns" regimented into logic's framework?  To me, that is a big question.  If identifiable in the definitions, then that is the first assumption I'll be checking in to. If logic leaves no room for possibilities, they do not exist, which leads to not knowing a plethora on down the line.  Hopefully this does not involve maths.  Did I mention that I hated school after the 4th grade?  Oh, and this place  feels like a tomb.  Just saying.

Need those definitions first to get the proverbial ball rolling.

Definitions of LOGIC:


Google Definition

log·ic
ˈläjik/Submit
noun
noun: logic
1.
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
"experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic"
synonyms: reasoning, line of reasoning, rationale, argument, argumentation
"the logic of their argument"
a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference.
"Aristotelian logic"
the systematic use of symbolic and mathematical techniques to determine the forms of valid deductive argument.
plural noun: logics
the quality of being justifiable by reason.
"there's no logic in telling her not to hit people when that's what you're doing"
synonyms: reason, judgment, logical thought, rationality, wisdom, sense, good sense, common sense, sanity; informalhorse sense
"this case appears to defy all logic"
the course of action or line of reasoning suggested or made necessary by.
"if the logic of capital is allowed to determine events"
2.
a system or set of principles underlying the arrangements of elements in a computer or electronic device so as to perform a specified task.
logical operations collectively.

Mirriam-Webster Definition
Full Definition of logic
1
a (1) :  a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration :  the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) :  a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) :  a branch of semiotics; especially :  syntactics (4) :  the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
b (1) :  a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) :  relevance, propriety
c :  interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable
d :  the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also :  the circuits themselves
2
:  something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>

Wiki

Rival conceptions of logic[edit]
In the periodic of scholastic philosophy, logic was predominantly Aristotelian. Following the decline of scholasticism, logic was thought of as an affair of ideas by early modern philosophers such as Locke and Hume . Immanuel Kant took this one step further. He begins with the assumption of the empiricist philosophers, that all knowledge whatsoever is internal to the mind, and that we have no genuine knowledge of 'things in themselves'. Furthermore, (an idea he seemed to have got from Hume) the material of knowledge is a succession of separate ideas which have no intrinsic connection and thus no real unity. In order that these disparate sensations be brought into some sort of order and coherence, there must be an internal mechanism in the mind which provides the forms by which we think, perceive and reason.
Kant calls these forms Categories (in a somewhat different sense than employed by the Aristotelian logicians), of which he claims there are twelve:
Quantity (Singular, Particular, Universal)
Quality (Affirmative, Negative, Infinite)
Relation (Categorical, Hypothetical, Disjunctive)
Modality (Problematic, Assertoric, Apodictic)
However, this seems to be an arbitrary arrangement, driven by the desire to present a harmonious appearance than from any underlying method or system. For example, the triple nature of each division forced him to add artificial categories such as the infinite judgment.
This conception of logic eventually developed into an extreme form of psychologism espoused in the nineteenth by Benno Erdmann and others. The view of historians of logic is that Kant's influence was negative.
Another view of logic espoused by Hegel and others of his school (such as Lotze, Bradley, Bosanquet and others), was the 'Logic of the Pure Idea'. The central feature of this view is the identification of Logic and Metaphysics. The Universe has its origin in the categories of thought. Thought in its fullest development becomes the Absolute Idea, a divine mind evolving itself in the development of the Universe.
In the modern period, W. V. Quine (1940, pp. 2–3) defined logic in terms of a logical vocabulary, which in turn is identified by an argument that the many particular vocabularies —Quine mentions geological vocabulary— are used in their particular discourses together with a common, topic-independent kernel of terms.[1] These terms, then, constitute the logical vocabulary, and the logical truths are those truths common to all particular topics.
Hofweber (2004) lists several definitions of logic, and goes on to claim that all definitions of logic are of one of four sorts. These are that logic is the study of: (i) artificial formal structures, (ii) sound inference (e.g., Poinsot), (iii) tautologies (e.g., Watts), or (iv) general features of thought (e.g., Frege). He argues then that these definitions are related to each other, but do not exhaust each other, and that an examination of formal ontology shows that these mismatches between rival definitions are due to tricky issues in ontology.
Informal and colloquial definitions[edit]
Arranged in approximate chronological order.
The tool for distinguishing between the true and the false (Averroes).[2]
The science of reasoning, teaching the way of investigating unknown truth in connection with a thesis (Robert Kilwardby).
The art whose function is to direct the reason lest it err in the manner of inferring or knowing (John Poinsot).
The art of conducting reason well in knowing things (Antoine Arnauld).
The right use of reason in the inquiry after truth (Isaac Watts).
The Science, as well as the Art, of reasoning (Richard Whately).
The science of the operations of the understanding which are subservient to the estimation of evidence (John Stuart Mill).
The science of the laws of discursive thought (James McCosh).
The science of the most general laws of truth (Gottlob Frege).

Quote :

1.
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
"experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic"

This is already perfectly sufficient to point to value ontology.

1) Its validity is derived directly from the very root of the concept valid. (From value -  from Latin valere, 'to be worth', 'to be well', 'to be strong')

2) It pertains only to experience and never deduces away from it. A value can not be interpreted in other terms than experience. This is to say: "value" is the one term of language by which man is not able to escape consciousness of himself. All other terms provide means for delusion, value does not. Why it's so god damned scary to the superficial, and repulsive to the repulsive.

If I've helped your VO cause before I've even begun my investigation of logic, then I work miracles.  Happy that you're happy.  

Made some revisions to my ontology over at SickSadWorld forum, wherein VO may find a perspective foundation.  It's imperative to conquer "What is consciousness?"  Processes are what's occurring, but in what order?  Consisting of what?  JSS didn't like my explanation of motion/movement being "it."  While I wouldn't say process is synonymous with motion/movement or change even, they are similar enough for general relations.

" MM's Ontology

To me, reality simplified is made entirely of varying types of energy at varying speeds producing all objects.

What is the essence of existence? Movement

What is the essence of sentience? Emotional Energy (or GLUE...I'll add clever later)

Emotional Energy= Intentional Movement towards Experience

Intentional Movement is creative force.

Experience is intersection or interaction.

Creative Force consists of patterned synergies of will and coherency.

The infinitely active impetus for creative force is the patterned synergies of will and coherency towards infinite intersections/interactions which is what all reality shares.

Actually, will and expansion were the terms I had chosen; I dropped the expansion albeit it makes sense in terms of pure object oriented reality, but I can do better to define creative force. I'm trying to define sentience, not physical reality as an observable.

I can't stay stuck on the physical aspects of reality. To stay there, is to stay there. Possibilities are needed, not probability based scientific theories.

I've already scrapped expansion. Anentropy? Stability? I don't buy it. Let's say for arguments sake we're "in" infinity; we're an eternal part of it's system. What is it that keeps us going (concepts that keep us going, not physical necessities)? We are entities of process, of processing who need data input (thoughts in an emotional context). When we literally shed our skin, what is left?

Type 1: Physical "static" reality (rock, dirt, water, planet)--->Type 2: Physical "non-static" reality (life-forms)--->Type 3: non-physical "static" reality (transcendental "forms"?)---> Type 4: Non-physical "non-static" reality(energy of pure consciousness?)--->Physical "static" reality--->yada, yada, yada, loop indefinitely in any direction.

Static is patterned motion type 1.<---Needs modifications/defining

Everything consists of energy. It's all in motion. Forget particles.  There is no thingness; that's illusion.

Being is redundant. Everything is in that state already whether we can "see/identify" it or not. Perhaps my terms sound traditional in terms of physical associations you are already familiar with, but I've defined them differently in the MM ontology.

Motion is "it". "


http://sicksadworld.forumotion.com/t133-hi-d-mm-s-ontology



My gut reaction is positive.

My question is "what moves?" but this is not to mean "you are wrong", at all.The strongest part of your formulation of your ontology so far is, to my mind, the part about emotional energy.
I would like to see this expanded. You are good at this. It is a value-paradigm where you are powerful.

By advising you this I mean to say: I concur that this is useful to me, too - especially in that particular sense.
We need to get to a new way of navigating reality.

When I say value you might as well say emote - and when I say self-value you might say emote creatively and intelligently.

"Creative Force consists of patterned synergies of will and coherency."

Edit above:curiosity rather than coherency.

Without an emotional baseline such as 'curiosity' covering raw thinking processes which can develop into the values of other emotions, there is no change occurring. It's like will without reasoning; emotions form the basis of our reasoning.  How to prove that emotions form the basis of our reasoning?  The seed emotion would have to be curiosity.

Correct.
Curiosity is an openness to valuing -
the outside world might - is expected to - contain values.

Curiosity is necessary for organic self-valuing.

Hi-D wrote:

"Creative Force consists of patterned synergies of will and coherency."

Edit above:curiosity rather than coherency.

Without an emotional baseline such as 'curiosity' covering raw thinking processes which can develop into the values of other emotions, there is no change occurring. It's like will without reasoning; emotions form the basis of our reasoning.  How to prove that emotions form the basis of our reasoning?  The seed emotion would have to be curiosity.

It helps to understand what emotions are: pure value. I mean value itself, not the object of value. This is very hard to put into words.

Technically we have no words to describe what value is itself. We can only speak in approximations. Our languages are superfluities to value itself. But this is not God; these "before-words" commune with each other, there is an entire world inside this: emotions are the entry-gates into that world, a world without speech. This is why emotions are pure qualities and belie description.

If you want to talk of "an emotion" you can use many words and concepts, but those are not the emotion itself. A pure value defies all gods and all wills, because gods and wills are made of values; and the most pure wills and gods are made of ONLY values, and absolutely nothing besides.

Funny thing about a pure emotion (For example: Peace) from my experience is that primary emotions are combinations of lesser value emotions (Joy and Love). The feel of a primary emotion such as Peace, feels pure in its simplicity (like an a-ha moment) but extraordinary in power, in it's presence as an energy in it's own right. There is a hierarchy of emotions, many of which I have not experienced yet.

I cannot wrap my head around an emotion being pure value, but give me time. While I marinade, why don't you guys wrap your head around the idea of movement manifesting reality. If Will is a type of moving energy and the hierarchy of emotions are other forms of energy which coalesce into different patterns that then interact/intersect to form form.

I'm rambling.

Philosophy needs to break down the emotions by phenomenological-existential method to really get in them and understand what they are, but this isn't easy because of how emotions aren't made of words (the reason that emotions are not made of words is because words are made of emotions); it's something I've been trying for a while now, this detailed psycho-ontological-existential-phenomenological analysis and breakdown of emotions on their own terms (not any kind of materialistic reductive positivistic analysis, of course), but with only limited success so far.

I agree there are hierarchies of emotions but I also think that emotions are pure qualities in their own right, and therefore belie hierarchy because each emotion had something of its own true essence and inexpressible self-quality. So the hierarchy of emotions is actually two hierarchies, or one hierarchy operating on two principles or standards: 1) that some emotions are built from other emotions or that some emotions are more pure or intense expressions of other emotions (such as maybe anger --> rage), and 2) that non-emotional standards and consequences can act as the means by which emotions are organized and arranged into hierarchy (for example using will, or power, or creative achievement, or existential authenticity, or courage... These things can act as separate non-emotional grounds on the basis of which emotions are organized into hierarchies and relations based on the degree to which an emotion achieves and assists that other standard).

This also changes from situation to situation, for example in some instances certain emotions might be most effective at achieving a given goal, while in other situations different emotions may be called for to achieve that same goal; or, in the same situation, different goals will require different emotions.

In terms of expeiencing different and new emotions, this is something Parodites has written about and something that his own philosophy can explain and account for, and predict. I'm not an expert on this aspect of his thought though, although I know it is connected to the psychic-ontological structure of the Self as "real and ideal ego" and how the line dividing real from ideal (unconscious from conscious, as I understand it) can move and change, forcing different patterns and organizations of the excess behind all consciousness which, in turn, leads to the production of different and new emotions. But again, you would have to ask him about it to get a clearer answer.

Parodites,

Capable has referred me to you and your work regarding emotions.  May I study your work?  If so, where?



CP,

Just wish to be clear that emotions are forms of energy that are subtle/muted in the physical arena but pure/undiluted  elsewhere.

So much for slacking.  Logic is all that exists.  Nothing escapes a logic, just an understanding.  So logic is misconstrued, but how and where.  I know why, we're morons.

At ILP, jerkey introduced me to the Mobius Strip concept. With all the stupid deja vus and precog dreams, THE LOGIC at play is not our own and that alien logic has been throwing me into loops that I'm tired of frankly.

In the ILP thread http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190801, I have indirectly voiced my opinion on the hidden hardware, which is the soul (not to be confused with Spirit), that needs a reckoning into existence for if this "tidbit" is what is holding us back or looped, it's going to have to be dealt with by somebody who isn't bedazzled by scientific contraptions.

FC, awhile ago I asked you for information as to the nature of what was happening to which I named specific individuals at that hub which was also named. I never received a reply. Something one way or the other, any honest answer would have been adequate. You failed me and perhaps the next trip around you will face what my questions concern.

JSS may have to expand his horizons or play your game of ducking the issue at hand.

Just realize that with every loop, I'm less pleasant.

Hi-D wrote:

So much for slacking.  Logic is all that exists.  Nothing escapes a logic, just an understanding.  So logic is misconstrued, but how and where.  I know why, we're morons.

Well, not all of us are. Hehehe.

Hi-D wrote:

FC, awhile ago I asked you for information as to the nature of what was happening to which I named specific individuals at that hub which was also named.  I never received a reply.  Something one way or the other, any honest answer would have been adequate.  You failed me and perhaps the next trip around you will face what my questions concern.

I guess that just goes to show that we can't always get what we want.

Hi-D wrote:

At ILP, jerkey introduced me to the Mobius Strip concept.  With all the stupid deja vus and precog dreams, THE LOGIC at play is not our own and that alien logic has been throwing me into loops that I'm tired of frankly.

In the ILP thread http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190801, I have indirectly voiced my opinion on the hidden hardware, which is the soul (not to be confused with Spirit), that needs a reckoning into existence for if this "tidbit" is what is holding us back or looped, it's going to have to be dealt with by somebody who isn't bedazzled by scientific contraptions.

FC, awhile ago I asked you for information as to the nature of what was happening to which I named specific individuals at that hub which was also named.  I never received a reply.  Something one way or the other, any honest answer would have been adequate.  You failed me and perhaps the next trip around you will face what my questions concern.

JSS may have to expand his horizons or play your game of ducking the issue at hand.

Just realize that with every loop, I'm less pleasant.

Suck my dick a few times then we'll see.

I'll share whatever I know about logic.

We've got classical logic and intuitionistic logic, which varies in that in intuitionistic logic the law of excluded middle and the principle of double negation are not tautologies, and reductio ad absurdum fails to remain a valid approach to construct proofs as a consequence. All proofs are required to be constructive as in if one is arguing the existence of something, then an algorithm for it's construction should be implicit in the proof.

Logic unfortunately, like the rest of mathematics, is based on the same Hilbert like axiomatic system. We have to take certain propositions for granted, as an example, modus ponens ({Px →Qx, Px} ⊢ Qx). Or the formula

∀ x : (Px → Qx) → (∀ x : Px → ∀ x : Qx)

has to be treated as a logical axiom. One could argue about their validity in a metalanguage, but I have never attempted it.

The axiomatization of a logical system can be done in multiple ways (as in one could ad libitum choose different sets of axioms but end up with the same logic).

A good property which we desire of any logic to have is completeness and soundness, which establish that one can syntactically derive a proof of a proposition if and only if it's a semantically valid sentence.

After sufficient amount of bootstrapping, we get fancy meta theorems like the deduction theorem, reductio ad absurdum etc.

anirban.metal wrote:

A good property which we desire of any logic to have is completeness and soundness, which establish that one can syntactically derive a proof of a proposition if and only if it's a semantically valid sentence.

And we don't need to know much math for that.

Sisyphus wrote:

Well, not all of us are. Hehehe.

Well, that's it, the nature of consciousness found above in "Hehehe."

Sisyphus wrote:

I guess that just goes to show that we can't always get what we want.

Destiny is a want? Why not frame that in the brilliant logic of "Hehehe" hall of fame?

We are for all intents and purposes up against an alien logic that has locked us in its box and its time for a reckoning to break out of its box. This will be figured out with or without any of your contributions.