View Poll Results: What role does DEDUCTIVE LOGIC play in the way you reason in your everyday life?

Voters
6. You may not vote on this poll
  • P - Now that you mention it I don't actually remember using it, ever.

    0 0%
  • Q - You need to have a reality check here! It's been proven wrong time and time again so I wouldn't advise anyone to use it if they can help it.

    0 0%
  • R - I'm working very hard to make money and I don't have any time to spend on wasteful moronic games! Get a life!

    0 0%
  • T - Hey! I'm not a logician, Ok?

    0 0%
  • H - It doesn't even exist at all. As a matter of that, human beings can't actually 'reason'. Only my brain does anything at all and brains don't do 'reasoning'.

    0 0%
  • S - Actually, I would use it if I knew what it's for.

    0 0%
  • G - I only use it when it becomes crucial somehow.

    1 16.67%
  • U - How would I know?

    0 0%
  • J - I'm the only one I know who happens to reason properly. Other people somehow always get their premises wrong. No logic at all! Pathetic!

    0 0%
  • V - I refuse to answer silly questions.

    0 0%
  • I - It's too many answers. I can't possibly read them all.

    0 0%
  • W - Same as Jesus.

    0 0%
  • D - I don't know what you're talking about.

    0 0%
  • B - It's very important. It's always there somehow. It has always a role, whatever my reasoning may be. I couldn't reason in any way without it.

    0 0%
  • Y - It's illogical to use logic.

    0 0%
  • K - Fortunately, I can choose when to use it and it's not very often because it's not very effective given that it's also too complicated.

    0 0%
  • A - None whatsoever.

    0 0%
  • F - A very minor role. Sure I could use it but I don't need it for most of my everyday activities.

    1 16.67%
  • N - It's a completely illogical answer.

    0 0%
  • E - Inductive logic is more important to the way human begins reason!

    3 50.00%
  • M - It's a completely illogical question.

    0 0%
  • O - It's a delusion people have. It's an imaginary construct that doesn't exist. It's a philosophical conceit. It's metaphysical goo spread all over the place.

    0 0%
  • C - It's fundamental. It's constitutive of the way humans happen to reason.

    1 16.67%
  • L - I haven't studied it so I wouldn't know how to use it properly. My judgement is good enough to think straight anyway.

    0 0%
  • X - All the answers above.

    0 0%
  • Z - Hey, my answer isn't in there! There's not enough letters!

    1 16.67%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 54 of 54

Thread: Role of Logic

  1. Top | #51
    New Member Copernicus1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    36
    Rep Power
    1
    From what I read, IIT did not reduce consciousness to a neuron or logic gate, so maybe I misunderstand what it is about. I don't think that it makes sense to engage in such radical reductionism, because consciousness strikes me more as an emergent property of much higher level interactions. Individual neurons have nothing more to do with consciousness than a single water molecule does with a wave in the ocean. It is the collective activity of those molecules at a much higher level that actually causes the wave.

  2. Top | #52
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    McDonalds
    Posts
    3,827
    Archived
    3,986
    Total Posts
    7,813
    Rep Power
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus1 View Post
    From what I read, IIT did not reduce consciousness to a neuron or logic gate, so maybe I misunderstand what it is about. I don't think that it makes sense to engage in such radical reductionism, because consciousness strikes me more as an emergent property of much higher level interactions. Individual neurons have nothing more to do with consciousness than a single water molecule does with a wave in the ocean. It is the collective activity of those molecules at a much higher level that actually causes the wave.
    The YouTube videos Giulio Tononi ( https://youtu.be/zAids7abnyw ) gives a simpler explanation that helps me understand it. But if you want to know much more, here is some really thorough information on IIT http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbio...003588-Ascoli1 .

    It's quite complicated but it does seem to imply that consciousness scales down, not quite to a single neuron but to a few neurons or 2 intetacting 3 gate mechanisms. From the link I provided, click on the "models" tab, and it is shown and explained in the illustration at Figure 13.

  3. Top | #53
    New Member Copernicus1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    36
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ryan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus1 View Post
    From what I read, IIT did not reduce consciousness to a neuron or logic gate, so maybe I misunderstand what it is about. I don't think that it makes sense to engage in such radical reductionism, because consciousness strikes me more as an emergent property of much higher level interactions. Individual neurons have nothing more to do with consciousness than a single water molecule does with a wave in the ocean. It is the collective activity of those molecules at a much higher level that actually causes the wave.
    The YouTube videos Giulio Tononi ( https://youtu.be/zAids7abnyw ) gives a simpler explanation that helps me understand it. But if you want to know much more, here is some really thorough information on IIT http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbio...003588-Ascoli1 .

    It's quite complicated but it does seem to imply that consciousness scales down, not quite to a single neuron but to a few neurons or 2 intetacting 3 gate mechanisms. From the link I provided, click on the "models" tab, and it is shown and explained in the illustration at Figure 13.
    Thanks, Ryan. I found those references helpful, but I obviously lack the background to evaluate its overall merits. I like some things about the content of the video and paper, but I was unhappy with the lack of a clear definition of what the proponents think "consciousness" is. That term can mean many different things. Their "axioms" do not really explain what they think it is. Rather they just describe properties that they think consciousness has. Their experiments seem to show some very significant patterns of brain activity associated with coming to a waking state or a state of full awareness. So it makes sense to talk about "integration" and "irreducibility" if that is the intent of what they are measuring. I'm not sure that that will really lead to a comprehensive understanding of what makes consciousness work. How does that lead to what I call a "train of thought" that can be conveyed to others via a linearly formatted linguistic signal? What is going on when the brain shifts perspectives to foreground and background different information? How does the brain arrive at a decision, given conflicting information? All of these activities and others go into what we tend to put under the umbrella of "consciousness" when we use that term.

    Anyway, these are just thoughts that come to mind, given a very superficial and preliminary look at IIT. I know enough about my ignorance to keep an open mind on the subject. It does look like very interesting work.

  4. Top | #54
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    McDonalds
    Posts
    3,827
    Archived
    3,986
    Total Posts
    7,813
    Rep Power
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ryan View Post

    The YouTube videos Giulio Tononi ( https://youtu.be/zAids7abnyw ) gives a simpler explanation that helps me understand it. But if you want to know much more, here is some really thorough information on IIT http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbio...003588-Ascoli1 .

    It's quite complicated but it does seem to imply that consciousness scales down, not quite to a single neuron but to a few neurons or 2 intetacting 3 gate mechanisms. From the link I provided, click on the "models" tab, and it is shown and explained in the illustration at Figure 13.
    Thanks, Ryan. I found those references helpful, but I obviously lack the background to evaluate its overall merits. I like some things about the content of the video and paper, but I was unhappy with the lack of a clear definition of what the proponents think "consciousness" is. That term can mean many different things. Their "axioms" do not really explain what they think it is. Rather they just describe properties that they think consciousness has. Their experiments seem to show some very significant patterns of brain activity associated with coming to a waking state or a state of full awareness. So it makes sense to talk about "integration" and "irreducibility" if that is the intent of what they are measuring. I'm not sure that that will really lead to a comprehensive understanding of what makes consciousness work. How does that lead to what I call a "train of thought" that can be conveyed to others via a linearly formatted linguistic signal? What is going on when the brain shifts perspectives to foreground and background different information? How does the brain arrive at a decision, given conflicting information? All of these activities and others go into what we tend to put under the umbrella of "consciousness" when we use that term.

    Anyway, these are just thoughts that come to mind, given a very superficial and preliminary look at IIT. I know enough about my ignorance to keep an open mind on the subject. It does look like very interesting work.
    You might want to go to the "conscious" thread in the metaphysics section. There are some good conversations to be had there about consciousness. Or just start your own thread. Test your ideas or theories.

    Your background in A.I. (even if it was just a few books you read) will be an interesting addition to the posters at TF regarding consciousness.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •