Originally posted by serigado
Maths never changed.
What happened was people have changed the way they saw maths.
Logic is a branch of mathematics.

There's the concept of logic, but logic isn't conceptual. Try to see it as mathematics. That's what it is.

There's the concept of logic, but logic isn't conceptual---serigado---

Everyone keeps saying that logic isn't conceptual but they won't say what logic actually is. If it's not a concept then what else can it possibly be - a "force" for example , a "dimension" , some new kind of matter???

No-one as yet has addressed the issue that if logic is more than just a concept then it must fit into another catagory of reality. So WHAT is that catagory?

catagory a) things that exist in the real world

catagory b) concepts that men have about things that exist

If you say logic is not in b) then it leads one to ask---- what is logic made of?

However , no-one tells me what logic is made of or even has the slightest clue as to what it might be made of. So if it isn't physical by default it must be conceptual. Unless you have a new catagory for us?

Originally posted by knightmeister
catagory a) things that exist in the real world

catagory b) concepts that men have about things that exist

Where would you put: Relationships between things that exist in the real world. (I call it information).
For example: Atom A exists. Atom B exists. Atom A is moving towards atom B. Is that movement, ie the relative position and motion of the atoms, a concept that men have about things that exist or is that movement something that exists in the real world? Note that:
1. That movement is dependent on both the 3 space dimensions and the time dimension which you claim is a figment of mans imagination.
2. The relative positions and movement of matter is a fundamental part of the way the universe works and a fundamental part of existence. ie something does not just exist, it exists in a particular location in space and time.

Originally posted by knightmeister
There's the concept of logic, but logic isn't conceptual---serigado---

Everyone keeps saying that logic isn't conceptual but they won't say what logic actually is. If it's not a concept then what else can it possibly be - a "force" for example , a "dimension" , some new kind of matter???

No-one as yet has addressed the issue that if logic is mo ...[text shortened]... sn't physical by default it must be conceptual. Unless you have a new catagory for us?

That's YOUR categorization.
Logic is not a physical entity. It only manifests when we conceptualize it, but it doesn't mean it's a concept.
Logic is there whether we think of it or not, I guess you can define a new category kind of linguistics, where the relationship between things "exist".

I guess your problem resides with the concept of "exist". For a thing to exist, it hasn't to be there.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Facts are independent of perception or observation.
Observation which can yield interpretation of facts can only be accomplished by the mind.
Logic is dependent upon interpretation of facts.
Therefore, only the mind is capable of logic.

Logic is not dependent upon the interpretation of facts. This asse ...[text shortened]... o the human ear may be clearly different using the correct sound analyzing equipment.

Nemesio[/b]

The simplest logical assertion A=A and A ~= ~A requires no interpretation, no mind.
"I really think you've lost your mind."
"You've lost your mind."
The first statement is my logical conclusion based upon my assessment of the (facts) particulars involving your historical behavior (or, in absence of that knowledge, normal behavior) as compared to (the facts of) your current behavior--- with a negative outcome.

The second statement is fact-only, regardless of whether anyone sees it, including yourself.

To be certain, however, you have clearly lost it if you think that logic is not a function of the mind's interpretation of facts in comparison to a given standard. For you to assert that A=A does not require interpretation is beyond absurdity: you are either losing your mind or are attempting to be silly. Either way, I can't see the possible motivation to keep on posting such embarassing nonsense.

Logic is not about interpretation; logic is about relationships. Those relationships exist without minds.
I get what you're driving at here, but all your argument does is reinforce what I've been saying, i.e., facts are independent of the mind and logic is the mind's method for interpretation of those facts.

In fact, two similar sounds which are indistinguishable to the human ear may be clearly different using the correct sound analyzing equipment.
The key concept here being the distinction the equipment could show in relation to what is registered. As stated, only the mind is able to conceptualize an imaginary door slamming when the ears hear two pieces of wood being hit together from a radio broadcast.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As stated, only the mind is able to conceptualize an imaginary door slamming when the ears hear two pieces of wood being hit together from a radio broadcast.

Surely a computer could too? Or is a computer a mind as well?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Surely a computer could too? Or is a computer a mind as well?

It's almost painful to consider that you are actually serious. This makes about as much sense as your earlier assertion that your camera observes like a mind. That a camera observes isn't ridiculous; that you would confer upon a camera the reasoning ability of the mind, however, is.

A computer can be programmed to differentiate between two registered sounds, but I've yet to see one imagine a sound based upon its similarity to the one detected. For such a programmed computer, all possibilities except for the targeted one are eliminated as failures. While the target can be widened to allow for other possibilities, there is no value to the memory, nor is the computer seeing the same in its mind.

Further, in the case of the slamming door, the computer would not be able to conclude that the sound came from a slamming door if its memory also contained the targeted sound for two pieces of wood being hit together. Neither would the sound's context have any impact on the computer's final determination of the sound's origins, whereas the mind's conclusions are typically subjective to such influences.

Originally posted by serigado
That's YOUR categorization.
Logic is not a physical entity. It only manifests when we conceptualize it, but it doesn't mean it's a concept.
Logic is there whether we think of it or not, I guess you can define a new category kind of linguistics, where the relationship between things "exist".

I guess your problem resides with the concept of "exist". For a thing to exist, it hasn't to be there.

For a thing to exist, it hasn't to be there.-serigado------

LOL So I can say God exists and even if he doesn't he does anyway?

I'm sure you would buy that LOL!!!!

Originally posted by serigado
That's YOUR categorization.
Logic is not a physical entity. It only manifests when we conceptualize it, but it doesn't mean it's a concept.
Logic is there whether we think of it or not, I guess you can define a new category kind of linguistics, where the relationship between things "exist".

I guess your problem resides with the concept of "exist". For a thing to exist, it hasn't to be there.

You miss the point completely. The onus is on YOU to create the new catagory to fit logic into , NOT me. You keep saying what logic ISN'T but fall back from saying what it is. It's too nebulus and ,dare I say it , illogical.

If something doesn't exist physically then (apart from existing spiritually) it must be a concept of physical reality.

The problem is you are creating some funny hybrid catagory (although you are not specific) in order to fit your logic into . Logic kinda exists but it doesn't really but when you think about it it might do.

How about getting rigorous with yourself for a change.

NB- I don't dispute that the universe behaves logically according to a set of rules. But one could also say that the universe is beautiful and that beauty "exists". The reality is that beauty is a subjective concept.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You miss the point completely. The onus is on YOU to create the new catagory to fit logic into , NOT me. You keep saying what logic ISN'T but fall back from saying what it is. It's too nebulus and ,dare I say it , illogical.

If something doesn't exist physically then (apart from existing spiritually) it must be a concept of physical reality.

Th ...[text shortened]... s beautiful and that beauty "exists". The reality is that beauty is a subjective concept.

This is philosophical more then anything else. It won't get us to nowhere. I can't categorize, and there's no onus on me. I don't believe we have to categorize everything. Not everything is categorizable . Where do you categorize "vacuum"?
What matters is: logic is independent of the mind who uses it. If there were no minds and only a computer, the computer could still apply logic. Where do you fit mathematics? In the world of concepts, too?

Originally posted by serigado
This is philosophical more then anything else. It won't get us to nowhere. I can't categorize, and there's no onus on me. I don't believe we have to categorize everything. Not everything is categorizable . Where do you categorize "vacuum"?
What matters is: logic is independent of the mind who uses it. If there were no minds and only a computer, the computer could still apply logic. Where do you fit mathematics? In the world of concepts, too?

The problem you have that you say logic "exists" not just as a concept but you are completely unable to catagorise any section of existence in which to place it . You cannot place it in the physical , but I can firmly place it in the conceptual. Therefore , what does this tell you? Maybe it can't be placed in a thrid catagory because no such catagory exists?

There is no onus on you to catagorise it unless you say that it "exists" as an aspect of reality that is not a concept. Then you place the onus on yourself because you set up a proposition you cannot back up in any way.

Everything is a concept unless it can be substantially placed in 3d dimensions in physical reality (or spiritual but that's another debate).

A vaccuum exists and is physical , I know you will say that it's not made of anything but it is occupying physical space (logic does not). In any case it can be argued that an absolute vaccuum is impossible.

A vaccuum exists , mathematics is a human system that exists as a concept in human minds.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The problem you have that you say logic "exists" not just as a concept but you are completely unable to catagorise any section of existence in which to place it . You cannot place it in the physical , but I can firmly place it in the conceptual. Therefore , what does this tell you? Maybe it can't be placed in a thrid catagory because no such catagory e ...[text shortened]... A vaccuum exists , mathematics is a human system that exists as a concept in human minds.

Let's go this way.
Things that are conceptual are relative. Logic is not relative. Therefore it is not conceptual.
(Although you use it in your concept world)

Originally posted by serigado
Let's go this way.
Things that are conceptual are relative. Logic is not relative. Therefore it is not conceptual.
(Although you use it in your concept world)

Things that are conceptual are relative. -SERIGADO------


Sorry , I disagree. A concept may or may not be relative. There can be absolute 100 % agreement on the concept of logic but it's still a concept nonetheless. The concept may be correct , but it's still a concept. 1+1=2 is always true but it's still a concept. There are other concepts that are relative like issues of spirituality or aesthetics and they are concepts too.

What is it about a non-relative concept that makes you think it exists in some way?

Originally posted by knightmeister
If something doesn't exist physically then (apart from existing spiritually) it must be a concept of physical reality.

That is nonsense.
Why must it be a concept of a physical reality? Why are you so set on everything being dependent on reality?
Where do you categorize the rules by which reality works? Where do you categorize the patterns that reality forms? Are those just concepts to you?

There are only two categories, things that physically exist and those that don't. The onus is on you to prove that those that don't is equivalent to "concepts of physical reality" since that is your claim. Interestingly of course, the logical conclusion of your claim is that concepts of God cannot exist.

And where does existing spiritually fit in?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Things that are conceptual are relative. -SERIGADO------


Sorry , I disagree. A concept may or may not be relative. There can be absolute 100 % agreement on the concept of logic but it's still a concept nonetheless. The concept may be correct , but it's still a concept. 1+1=2 is always true but it's still a concept. There are other concepts that a ...[text shortened]... too.

What is it about a non-relative concept that makes you think it exists in some way?

Concepts always depend on who's making them. Aliens would get 1+1=2. If dinosaurs had evolved to intelligent beings, they would get 1+1=2. It's transcendental to conceptualization. It's inherent in reality, although it's not palpable. Dolphins can get 1+1=2, do you consider them to have a mind?
Concepts only exist in minds, right? But 1+1=2 is true independent of everything else.

Originally posted by serigado
Concepts always depend on who's making them. Aliens would get 1+1=2. If dinosaurs had evolved to intelligent beings, they would get 1+1=2. It's transcendental to conceptualization. It's inherent in reality, although it's not palpable. Dolphins can get 1+1=2, do you consider them to have a mind?
Concepts only exist in minds, right? But 1+1=2 is true independent of everything else.

You are saying that because logic is a concept that can be universally understood therefore it's not a concept but something else? Why?

The only thing we can ascertain about logic is that it is based on probability. Any concept is based on consistent observation of the universe. We say 1+1=2 or the sun will rise tomorrow , or apples fall to the ground etc because it's most likely that they will do and do do. But there is no actual reason that can be proven why the laws of the universe might not change in a split second. All science and concepts of logic are based on probability.

For example , apples falling upward would be a highly unlikely event but one can only really say that it is an event that is 10000000000000000-1 against . When we say something is behaving illogically what we mean is that it's very unusual.

We have no idea whether the physical laws that make our universe behave logically might just fade away overnight . We can only say that it is unbelievably unlikely.