Is logic truly something more than the feeling of something making sense?

Hey!

I had a discussion with a friend who studies to become some kind of engineer. To be honest, I don't really know what he studies but I know that it includes a whole lot of math (and he's very good at it). I like to think that I have a logical mind when it comes to philosophical discussions, but I've never been particularly fond of numbers and I don't see any point in understanding the world with them (on a personal plane).

Anyways, we were just having a random philosophical discussion and we started to talk about the nature of logic. At that time I thought of something that I have thought of before, but not really expressed in words. I realized that logic cannot be said to be more than a sensation. Really, is there truly another reason for 1 + 1 = 2 being correct than that it feels correct? Of course, 1 might as well be called 7 and 2 might as well be called 3: numbers are basically nothing but symbols which we have assigned to a certain quantity that is the result of the addition/subtraction/etc of singularities.

Is it possible at all to distinguish logic from our emotions? Emotions are intrinsic to the human body/mind, but is there a definite line to draw between what is referred to as "rational" (logic) and what is known as "irrational" (for example love)?

:*

Is logic truly something more than the feeling of something making sense?

Yes! It is!

P

I would say logic arises from the structures our archetypes form, The only way to know something is by comparing it so something else, and archetypes themselves are essentially nothing more than clusters of associations. Logic is just overlaying the shapes of these varied structures onto any given situation, it changes depending on which archetypes you use.

If you want something to be precise and well done, you need logic. Examples, an Idea, building Machines, Structures, etc

However, when a human life is involved a little bit of "sense" is needed but 95% should still be logic.


If its 100% logic, we should replace all judges and police with robots, that will not turn out okay.

reply to post by pheonix358


So is logic something that transcends our emotions? Maybe logic is not an emotion per se, but only through emotions can we to tune into the "code of the universe" (logic)?

reply to post by luciddream


Yes, and there will always be a chain of actions "that makes sense" before the final outcome. For example, a car is put together piece by piece on an assembly-line. It is all very precise, and only by feeling that it makes sense to put this piece there, that piece here and so on, will the product be complete.

Originally posted by Funafutissigned to a certain quantity that is the result of the addition/subtraction/etc of singularities.

Is it possible at all to distinguish logic from our emotions? Emotions are intrinsic to the human body/mind, but is there a definite line to draw between what is referred to as "rational" (logic) and what is known as "irrational" (for example love)?

:*

The blind followers of;

Mao Zedong
Hitler
Pol Pot
Mobutu Sese Seko

And many more were all able to detach their emotions from logic to fulfill these peoples ideologies.

reply to post by Funafuti


Logic and math are almost identical. The difference is that math uses a "fixed" set of terms and logic uses dynamic set of terms. They are both used to solve for true statements, and they both are reliant on emotions.

There is no true thing that exists as math - it is just in our heads - thus, truth is reliant on what we think is the best answer; which is to say, best is just a perspective that only exists as an emotional response.

We all seek to become best. Its evolution.

Originally posted by Funafuti
reply to post by pheonix358

 

So is logic something that transcends our emotions? Maybe logic is not an emotion per se, but only through emotions can we to tune into the "code of the universe" (logic)?

edit on 27-8-2013 by Funafuti because: (no reason given)

Logic is precise when used correctly and can be reproduces by other just by following the thought pattern/instructions.

The normal thing in logic is to start with a few assumptions that are reported as true.
Asume that A is 1
Asume that B is 2
If C is A+B then
C is 3

You use you intuition to see if you can figure out the code of the universe and then use logic to quantify what you have found. When both the logic side and creative side are activated then new ideas can be created and proven with a preset of assumptions/prequirements.

In science this would be. If we presume that the physics that we believe in at this moment is true and then you use logic to quantify the theory you have that expands the current scientific ideas.

Math is the symbolic language of quantification. You can change the symbols to any symbols but still the way the language work will be the same. In math you can deal with absolutes since in math you can logically build the new math on old math that is already working.

If the bible was written in math then there would not be any discussion of what the words meant since it would be absolute and could only be interpreted in one way correctly.

To me logic has no link to emotions at all. If emotions are brought into the equation, then the likely outcome will not be logical, but emotional.

Logic isn't even the feeling that something makes sense, that's intuition.

It makes sense because it is.

It's like 1+1=2. I don't feel that it's 2, it is 2 because it's logical, it's the only outcome.

Logic is a branch of philosophy and mathematics and has nothing to do with emotion, intentionally. I think that you're confusing intuition with logic.

reply to post by Funafuti


Take a look into Chomsky's work on Universal Grammar and iLanguage (there's many lectures on youtube). He theorizes that language (which includes logic) has a bio-linguistic framework. He implies that grammar and syntax are universal, and in fact biological in origin. Bio-linguists stipulate that there is one fundamental property of language.

reply to post by LittleByLittle


Precisely. In the case of 1+1 = 2, it is logically correct not based on feeling but because it's repeatable. What the OP is suggesting is that 2 could be 7 and, if 2 was actually represented by 7 universally, then the statement would then become 1+1=7. Part of philosophy is about having a shared definition of what a word means between philosophers (hence all the arguing about what is "good" and what is "bad" because those are so intensely subjective). For something like numbers, on the other hand, the definition is precise. 1 is 1 and 2 is 2.

Here's a statement to consider that would seem logical on first glance based on feeling:

The sky is blue.

We'd take that at first glance to be logically true. It seems true. However, logically, it's not always true. In fact, there are two times every day where the sky appears to be red, pink or orange. So really, the logically true sentence would be this:

Most of the time, the sky is blue but it may sometimes be red, pink or orange.

In other words, logic requires contemplation and asking oneself, is the statement always true? Going based off of gut may sometimes get one to a logical conclusion but ultimately, it requires critical and deductive thought processes to be certain that the statement is logical.

Originally posted by WhiteAlice
reply to post by LittleByLittle

 

The sky is blue.

We'd take that at first glance to be logically true. It seems true. However, logically, it's not always true. In fact, there are two times every day where the sky appears to be red, pink or orange. So really, the logically true sentence would be this:

Most of the time, the sky is blue but it may sometimes be red, pink or orange.

In other words, logic requires contemplation and asking oneself, is the statement always true? Going based off of gut may sometimes get one to a logical conclusion but ultimately, it requires critical and deductive thought processes to be certain that the statement is logical.

I agree totally. But will even quantify a bit more because it is fun .

To say the sky is blue in a specific time (and maybe also the direction and point you are observing it) is really saying an assumption of a frequency of 606–668 THz and wavelength 450–495 nm (source wikipedia).

en.wikipedia.org...

We can even narrow it down further with the right measuring tool and not use a term that can be many frequencies to get as close to the truth as possible what the frequency of the light really is (depending on calibration ranges off the measuring tool you are using).

I used to love programming things since you had to use logic as a language to build up parts of code that had to fit perfectly to work. People who are creative in other fields who think programmers are not creative have probably never programmed a compiler or an othello ai who seek the best moves in advance with alpha beta search. I miss those days . But of course the memory leakage on one of my c++ programs was not well liked when it slowed down a server and the internet crawled for 20 people on terminals.

reply to post by LittleByLittle


lol, and don't forget that the ability to see color varies between species! To a bull, it would be grey. And then that leads into the whole subjective experience bit....

"Logic" can generally be considered as a comparison that makes internal sense based on the definitions agreed upon at the beginning of the comparison.

1 + 1 = 2

This only makes sense of we agree on what "one" means, as well as "plus" and "equals" and "two." It makes no sense at all unless we're willing to shift our perception from considering single items or objects to then considering groups consisting of one or more of those objects. One singular object placed near another singular object creates a single (one) group of two objects. However, if the objects are water drops, one water drop brought together with another water drop equals one water drop twice the size of the previous drops.

What does "one" mean, anyway? A singular object, but not unique, separated by an unspecified distance from any other objects? Such a thing doesn't even exist. Everything is close to something in this universe. And even if it's not, it's not so much a physical placement that creates a "plus," it's a mental consideration. One planet, considered with another planet multiple light years away, equals two planets. The mathematics of the proposed equivalence doesn't make any sense in the reality of the universe, but only in the minds of those doing the considering.

And this is math, which is an admittedly artificial construct. In the "real" world, where we talk about the logic of justice or fairness or value, or "God," everything is even more indeterminate. Logic is like a mirage. The more you look at it, the more it tends to fade away.

Math is the purely intellectual exercise of Set Logic. In Set Logic, you set up the system to make that system produce the result that you want it to produce. This is not as obvious in Math, since Math inhabits an imaginary, error-free world that doesn't actually exist. Where you really see it is in experimental physics. Those people work hard to create artificial physical systems (sets) to then use for their experiments so that their experiments will work out (logic) properly.

In the wilds of physical reality, logic is the default ramification structure that has been established as a result of environmental-wide contextual precedence. It's the basis of "natural law" and everything that "just is what it is".

Originally posted by jamesthegreat
To me logic has no link to emotions at all. If emotions are brought into the equation, then the likely outcome will not be logical, but emotional.

Logic isn't even the feeling that something makes sense, that's intuition.

It makes sense because it is.

It's like 1+1=2. I don't feel that it's 2, it is 2 because it's logical, it's the only outcome.

edit on 27/8/13 by jamesthegreat because: (no reason given)

I'd totally agree.

Logic is not emotion. I can, and often do, have vastly different logical and emotional feelings about things.

Imagine walking across a 12 inch wide steel beam that's 1000 feet into the air. Just for the sake of this story, assume there is no wind blowing you around, or anything like that.

Emotionally, that would be terrifying for most people. Their emotions say "I can't do it, i'll fall"

But what happens if the logical mind takes over. It's 12 inches wide. On the ground, you can incredibly easily walk within a 12inch wide space without difficulty or falling. Why would it be any different a thousand feet in the air (we are ignoring wind again, remember)

Fear is illogical in my opinion, there is no need for it once you progress to the level humans are currently at. Fear keeps you safe, this is true, but logic can also keep you safe, and logic doesn't have the negative side effects of fear. You don't have to be scared of something in order to not do it. You just have to think logically that's it's an unsafe act and could result in your death. I don't fear walking a tightrope, I just choose not to do it. Fear doesn't need to come into the equation at all.

I'm not against emotion, but I think it's used far more than it should be. Choices that effect others should be made with logic and thought, not emotional bibble babble.

I used to have a fear of heights when I was younger, logical thinking totally got rid of this for me. The story earlier about walking across something high up is the defining moment where I realized logic was the way to improve myself. It wasn't a thousand feet in the air, it was more like 3 stories, but still high enough to evoke those useless emotions such as fear.

Now anger cannot replace with logic. Fear can be replaced since the advantage of fear (being able to avoid danger) can also be had by thinking logically. The advantage of anger is passion and strength. Sometimes you are in situations where neither fear or logic can stop you, when things aren't your choice. This is where rage comes in. If you are attacked, fear is useless, it will weaken you and won't do anything to help remove you from the situation. Logic is useless, because your logical mind is telling you that you're in grave danger, but you cannot escape. That's when rage comes in, and I know for a fact without rage I could potentially be dead right now, without the strength I got from that emotion.

Now, logic can very well defend you in these types of situation, if you have a dedicated life to learning various martial arts. They go the opposite direction and use logic to fight an opponent. This can be far more powerful than rage and anger, but it also takes far more effort and dedication to reach that level.

Logic and emotion can be used for similar purposes, and it depends on the situation whether logic or emotion is the proper course to take. Being without emotion is a weakness, and being without logic is a weakness. The trick is to know when to think logically and when to think emotionally. In my opinion a lot of today's problems result from people using emotion over logic in the wrong situation.

Logic, in the realm of discussions and arguments, relies on accurate comparisons between situations or ideas to convey an idea. The problem with this, the other person in the argument has to be able to think logically. You can't have a battle of logic with the unarmed. Emotional arguments and logical arguments are not compatible, which is why the arguments on ATS never get anywhere, one side uses logic and the other emotion, so no consensus or agreement is reached.

reply to post by James1982


Fear is logical. It is telling you something about your environment. The reason one feels fear while walking across a beam 1000 feet in the air as opposed to on the ground is that your body is letting you know you cannot fly, that you shouldn't be there, and it's reminding you of the consequences.