Logic and Reason

Are logic and reason laws? Or are they a consensus among humans based on repeated observations? Are the laws/consensuses of logic and reason material or immaterial in nature? If logic and reason are laws that are universally true then how can they be evolved by evolution? If evolution is material in nature, it then needs to work with a material brain and body, and it cannot evolve anything outside of material things. Therefore things like logic and reason need to have been created or evolved by something that is not material in nature. And if logic and reason are a consensus of our minds based on repeated observations then it could be said that some people have a different consensus of what is logical than you or me... which means that there would be no absolutes, which is illogical based on our consensus of what is logical. I think I just proved the existence of God.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
Are logic and reason laws? Or are they a consensus among humans based on repeated observations? Are the laws/consensuses of logic and reason material or immaterial in nature? If logic and reason are laws that are universally true then how can they be evolved by evolution? If evolution is material in nature, it then needs to work with a material brain an ...[text shortened]... illogical based on our consensus of what is logical. I think I just proved the existence of God.

Please read what you posted. You're not making a lot of sense. Think it thru and repost when you can write one sentence without contradicting it in the next. (Perhaps lay off the psychedelics for the next few days?)

The things you do think are in contradiction (like mind and body) are really not - consciousness is consciousness of.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
Are logic and reason laws? Or are they a consensus among humans based on repeated observations? Are the laws/consensuses of logic and reason material or immaterial in nature? If logic and reason are laws that are universally true then how can they be evolved by evolution? If evolution is material in nature, it then needs to work with a material brain an ...[text shortened]... illogical based on our consensus of what is logical. I think I just proved the existence of God.

Any chance you can define your terms and lay you thoughts out in a logical and orderly fashion?

Even if you do, I have to believe that the last sentence will still end up being a huge non sequitur.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
Are logic and reason laws? Or are they a consensus among humans based on repeated observations? Are the laws/consensuses of logic and reason material or immaterial in nature? If logic and reason are laws that are universally true then how can they be evolved by evolution? If evolution is material in nature, it then needs to work with a material brain an ...[text shortened]... illogical based on our consensus of what is logical. I think I just proved the existence of God.

Logic and reason are socially constructed. Scientific observation is the base for much, but not all of logic. Reason is presumed in the process of observation, and seems to have evolved in the human brain, although clearly not equally in all brains.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
Are logic and reason laws? Or are they a consensus among humans based on repeated observations? Are the laws/consensuses of logic and reason material or immaterial in nature? If logic and reason are laws that are universally true then how can they be evolved by evolution? If evolution is material in nature, it then needs to work with a material brain an ...[text shortened]... illogical based on our consensus of what is logical. I think I just proved the existence of God.

This is the classic transcendental argument for the existence of God.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Please read what you posted. You're not making a lot of sense. Think it thru and repost when you can write one sentence without contradicting it in the next. (Perhaps lay off the psychedelics for the next few days?)

The things you do think are in contradiction (like mind and body) are really not - consciousness is consciousness of.

Other than the insults, I didn't quite understand what you just said... I didn't say that the body and mind are a condradiction. The BRAIN and the BODY are both material, correct? But logic and reason are not material, would you agree?

What is your question? You don't understand my post? Please read it again:

Are logic and reason laws? Or are they a consensus among humans based on repeated observations? (Do you understand this question? Any answers?)

Are the laws/consensuses of logic and reason material or immaterial in nature? (Still understand what I'm asking?)

If logic and reason are laws that are universally true (and if they are immaterial in nature) then how can they be evolved by evolution?

If evolution is material in nature, it then needs to work with a material brain and body, and it cannot evolve anything outside of material things. Therefore things like logic and reason need to have been created or evolved by something that is not material in nature. (Do you compute? lol)

And if logic and reason are a consensus of our minds based on repeated observations then it could be said that some people have a different consensus of what is logical than you or me (because it is just a consensus, not a law, get that?)... which means that there would be no absolutes (Do you see the line of logic here?), which is illogical based on our consensus of what is logical.

Still confused? 😛 😉

Originally posted by epiphinehas
This is the classic transcendental argument for the existence of God.

Yup, I know. 😀

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Logic and reason are socially constructed. Scientific observation is the base for much, but not all of logic. Reason is presumed in the process of observation, and seems to have evolved in the human brain, although clearly not equally in all brains.

If logic and reason are socially constructed, then it might be true that there are no logical absolutes. If there are no logical absolutes, then it might be true that, e.g., something can contradict itself. If something can contradict itself, then truth would be unknowable and rational discourse impossible.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
Yup, I know. 😀

I look forward to seeing you defend it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Any chance you can define your terms and lay you thoughts out in a logical and orderly fashion?

Even if you do, I have to believe that the last sentence will still end up being a huge non sequitur.

Are logic and reason laws?

Or are they a consensus among humans based on repeated observations?

Are the laws/consensuses of logic and reason material or immaterial in nature?

How does evolution account for logic and reason if they are not material? Like, how does something immaterial evolve?

And if logic and reason are a consensus then that means that there are no absolutes, because not everyone will join in that consensus, right?

And if there are no absolutes then... what?... what would that mean if there are no absolutes?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I look forward to seeing you defend it.

I would like to see you disprove it.

I would like to revisit this for a minute... what did you mean when you said that you look forward to seeing me defend it? I think I took that wrong. Sorry if I did!

Originally posted by epiphinehas
If logic and reason are socially constructed, then it might be true that there are no logical absolutes. If there are no logical absolutes, then it might be true that, e.g., something can contradict itself. If something can contradict itself, then truth would be unknowable and rational discourse impossible.

Exactly.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
I would like to see you disprove it.

If I were Immanuel Kant, maybe.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
Are logic and reason laws?

Or are they a consensus among humans based on repeated observations?

Are the laws/consensuses of logic and reason material or immaterial in nature?

How does evolution account for logic and reason if they are not material? Like, how does something immaterial evolve?

And if logic and reason are a consensus then t ...[text shortened]...
And if there are no absolutes then... what?... what would that mean if there are no absolutes?

Sorry, but if what you write is unclear, you really should rephrase your sentences rather than just repeat them. I suspect that you are using several words in unconventional ways, so it might help if you define your terms. It might also help if you plainly state what you mean instead of asking questions.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Sorry, but if what you write is unclear, you really should rephrase your sentences rather than just repeat them. I suspect that you are using several words in unconventional ways, so it might help if you define your terms. It might also help if you plainly state what you mean instead of asking questions.

What is it that you don't understand? How hard is it to understand "Are logic and reason laws?"..? How can I make it any clearer so that you can understand it?