View Poll Results: Do humans have an inherent capacity to decide that a conclusion follows necessarily from premises?

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 77.78%
  • No

    1 11.11%
  • I don't know

    1 11.11%
  • The question doesn't make sense

    0 0%
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 60 of 60

Thread: Do humans have an inherent capacity to decide that a conclusion follows necessarily from premises?

  1. Top | #51
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,010
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,672
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post

    So a child that doesn't develop a language because he has nobody to talk to him has no inherent linguistic capacity? Then nobody has any linguistic capacity and then how come we all speak some language? You think you don't have an inherent linguistic capacity?
    EB
    You said earlier:
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon

    We can be incapacitated. It's actually not true that humans have two legs and one nose because some people miss those. Do the British people speak English? Well, no, because not when they're in deep sleep or in drunken stupor. We cannot vote in elections since many people literally can't decide who to vote for.

    Please understand "inherent" to signify that it is in our nature. We have two legs because of our nature but some will be missing one or two because of the imponderables of life.

    I guess whatever capacity we have as individual human beings is best explained by the fact that human beings have inherent capacities due to their nature. I wouldn't want to have to explain the fact that we can communicate with each other using sophisticated languages by leaving our DNA out of the picture.
    Indeed. But on the other hand, say, a capacity to swim is not part of our nature by that standard. Indeed, if a human lives in a mostly deserted area and never finds a body of water where she could swim, she will not learn how to swim, but very much unlike the human who lacks one or two legs, there is no malfunctioning in the person that does not know how to swim.
    In fact, historically one can find entire communities of humans who cannot swim, with no malfunctioning at all. Of course, the same cannot be said about legs.
    I disagree. Like language and logic, and whatever else people do without even thinking about it, we know humans have an inherent capability from the fact that any human put in a situation where he is motivated to develop the relevant skill will develop this skill. Swimming is one such capability. Of course there's no one gene that controls that capability and maybe all these capabilities issue from a unique, more general one or from a small set of more general ones. But we still have these capabilities and they are entirely natural. The fact that we can teach people how to do it is irrelevant. People will develop the relevant skill whenever properly motivated, be it through teaching or through interaction with their environment. A guy in love will learn to swim on the spot (the idiot). It's not logically coherent to claim what we can do we can do it because we are taught. Who taught the teacher? Turtles all the way down? You think there has been a Prime Teacher, perhaps? And again, even for language, without interaction with an environment of other human beings, people don't speak. However, deaf and mute kids will develop on their own a language to communicate with each other (at least some have been observed doing it).
    EB

  2. Top | #52
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,010
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,672
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Still, that is a side issue. Even if it's not an inherent capacity, it may well be (and it's quite probable, I'd say) that there is only one human logic in colloquial languages - at least, for humans who happen to have that capacity, even if not inherently. This is why I think the question about an inherent capacity is not the right one for the intended task.
    Of course, it's the right question. The idea that logic is an inherent capacity explains very economically why we all seem to accept the validity of Aristotle's syllogisms or of the Modus Ponens. Well, tell me if you disagree with the validity of the Modus Ponens. And remember that whatever idea is proposed, you will usually find more than plenty of people to vehemently disagree with it. I found examples of thinkers, e.g. Descartes, criticising deductive logic on the ground that it would be useless. But I haven't found any disagreement with Aristotle's syllogistic (outside the remarkably myopic critique that it can't prove some inferences mathematical logic can prove).

    The point is in fact rather crucial. If logic is a capability of neuronal systems generally, as I think it is, then, as I often say, it's been made adequate to its object by 525 million years of natural selection. That's an enormously lot more than what mathematical logic could boast: a paltry 170 years of existence, virtually no selective pressure, as evidenced by the fact that there is a motley collection of purported logical methods without any criterion to tell which is correct. Also, it's been thought up by a small bunch of mathematicians, some of them brilliant, no doubt, but without them using the adequate scientific method to investigate. Tell Steve mathematical logic is pure metaphysics, he'll bite. So, the point is crucial. It's also crucial in that it implies that logic predates any formal language by millions of years. It also means that we can trust our logical intuitions (I do and it works) more than any formal method, as the case of mathematical logic abundantly demonstrates. The only limit to our logic seems to be complexity. Logic would work in principle even for very, very complex problems but it seems clear our brain is limited in the degree of complexity it can deal with, or at least this is what suggests the rather short list of logical laws people have been able to discover beginning with Aristotle. Which should motivate scientifically-minded people to search for a proper formal method, although I'm not sure our current computers would do much better in terms of the degree of complexity they would be able resolve in the event. It may well be the case that logic is really much, much more complex than mathematicians currently believe. But at least we should try and I believe it's a more urgent and useful quest than a lot of what science does at the moment. This is a disgrace that so many intellectuals spend their working hours buggering flies, as we colourfully say in French.
    EB

  3. Top | #53
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    1,994
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,582
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    I disagree. Like language and logic, and whatever else people do without even thinking about it, we know humans have an inherent capability from the fact that any human put in a situation where he is motivated to develop the relevant skill will develop this skill. Swimming is one such capability.
    Remember, you said earlier:

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    (Inherent capacity: not dependent on formal or informa learning)
    Certainly, swimming is not an inherent capacity, because it does depend on formal or informal language. Is the capacity to ascertain whether a conclusion follows necessarily from premises one of those inherent capacities?
    I do not know, and I do not believe anyone does. Certainly, language is required. But if it is possible for a human community to exist without language (of the sort that is relevant here, with premises etc., not just basic communication calls) and without any malfunctioning, then it is not an inherent capacity, either. Yet, it is unknown whether that is possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    Of course there's no one gene that controls that capability and maybe all these capabilities issue from a unique, more general one or from a small set of more general ones. But we still have these capabilities and they are entirely natural. The fact that we can teach people how to do it is irrelevant. People will develop the relevant skill whenever properly motivated, be it through teaching or through interaction with their environment.
    Sure, but that is not independent on formal or informal learning.

    Of course, here's a problem for your definition of "inherent", because you say that

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    Please understand "inherent" to signify that it is in our nature
    That conflicts with the other part.


    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    A guy in love will learn to swim on the spot (the idiot). It's not logically coherent to claim what we can do we can do it because we are taught. Who taught the teacher? Turtles all the way down? You think there has been a Prime Teacher, perhaps?
    Of course, people do not learn (for example) grammar because they're taught. But that does not mean making grammatically correct statements does not depend on formal or informal learning. It does not depend on formal or informal teaching. But surely, that is something that people learn. And it's not part of human nature if there can be humans without it and with no malfunctioning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    And again, even for language, without interaction with an environment of other human beings, people don't speak. However, deaf and mute kids will develop on their own a language to communicate with each other (at least some have been observed doing it).
    The question of whether humans can live with no (relevantly complex) language is still open, as far as I know. But if you think that there is conclusive evidence to the contrary, please present your evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    Of course, it's the right question. The idea that logic is an inherent capacity explains very economically why we all seem to accept the validity of Aristotle's syllogisms or of the Modus Ponens.
    No, that's not true. It might be (for instance) that it's part of human nature that if humans have a language, they also develop this capacity, whereas it's not part of human nature that they develop it (because they might not develop language).

  4. Top | #54
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,010
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,672
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Remember, you said earlier:

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    (Inherent capacity: not dependent on formal or informa learning)
    Certainly, swimming is not an inherent capacity, because it does depend on formal or informal language. Is the capacity to ascertain whether a conclusion follows necessarily from premises one of those inherent capacities?
    I do not know, and I do not believe anyone does. Certainly, language is required. But if it is possible for a human community to exist without language (of the sort that is relevant here, with premises etc., not just basic communication calls) and without any malfunctioning, then it is not an inherent capacity, either. Yet, it is unknown whether that is possible.
    You misunderstood my definition. It is not the inherent capacity but the performance of a language, indeed of a particular language defined by some standard, which obviously requires a process of training or learning, with or without a teacher.

    The fact that human beings 400,000 years ago presumably didn't benefit from a Prime Teacher teaching them how to speak a human language and that all peoples around the Earth speak some language shows conclusively that humans have a natural capacity to develop and speak a language.
    EB

  5. Top | #55
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    1,994
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,582
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    You misunderstood my definition. It is not the inherent capacity but the performance of a language, indeed of a particular language defined by some standard, which obviously requires a process of training or learning, with or without a teacher.

    The fact that human beings 400,000 years ago presumably didn't benefit from a Prime Teacher teaching them how to speak a human language and that all peoples around the Earth speak some language shows conclusively that humans have a natural capacity to develop and speak a language.
    But that's not in line with some of your other claims.

    First, let us begin with the "nature" claims. Now, humans or pre-humans millions of years ago presumably didn't benefit from a Prime Teacher teaching them how to make fire, and yet all peoples around the world know how to make fire. Does that show that humans have an inherent capacity to make fire? But when you replied to rousseau here, you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    It's actually not true that humans have two legs and one nose because some people miss those. Do the British people speak English? Well, no, because not when they're in deep sleep or in drunken stupor. We cannot vote in elections since many people literally can't decide who to vote for.

    Please understand "inherent" to signify that it is in our nature. We have two legs because of our nature but some will be missing one or two because of the imponderables of life.
    But of course, nothing malfunctions in a human who does not know how to make fire. So, it seems humans do not have an inherent capacity to make fire, even though they presumably didn't benefit from a Prime Teacher teaching them how to make fire, and yet all peoples around the world know how to make fire.

    Second, you said earlier

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    (Inherent capacity: not dependent on formal or informa learning)
    Now you say:

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    You misunderstood my definition. It is not the inherent capacity but the performance of a language, indeed of a particular language defined by some standard, which obviously requires a process of training or learning, with or without a teacher.

    The fact that human beings 400,000 years ago presumably didn't benefit from a Prime Teacher teaching them how to speak a human language and that all peoples around the Earth speak some language shows conclusively that humans have a natural capacity to develop and speak a language.
    Well, then, assuming that humans have an inherent capacity to develop and speak a language, similarly you get at best (ignoring the previous part about human nature, that is) that humans have an inherent capacity to develop a system of logic, and learn whether a conclusion follows necessarily from premises according to that system. That, however, does not give you that all normally functioning humans will develop the same system of logic. Now, it is very plausible that they will in colloquial languages (not in formal languages), but still, that only gives you that humans have an inherent capacity to learn to ascertain whether a conclusion follows from premises (much like they have an inherent capacity to learn a language), rather than having an inherent capacity to ascertain whether a conclusion follows from premises (just as the inherent capacity to develop and/or learn a language is not the same as the inherent capacity to speak a particular language).

    In any event, this is not the right question, for the reasons I've explained.

  6. Top | #56
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,010
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,672
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    But that's not in line with some of your other claims.

    First, let us begin with the "nature" claims. Now, humans or pre-humans millions of years ago presumably didn't benefit from a Prime Teacher teaching them how to make fire, and yet all peoples around the world know how to make fire. Does that show that humans have an inherent capacity to make fire? But when you replied to rousseau here, you said:


    But of course, nothing malfunctions in a human who does not know how to make fire. So, it seems humans do not have an inherent capacity to make fire, even though they presumably didn't benefit from a Prime Teacher teaching them how to make fire, and yet all peoples around the world know how to make fire.
    That people have a natural capability doesn't mean that they will necessarily use it. Like for swimming, opportunity is crucial. People don't waste their time and energy doing everything they are naturally capable of doing. Humans all have the naturally capability of making a fire just as they have the capability of speaking a language. Yes, very few people could make a fire on the spot without the help of a match. However, many would be able to learn by themselves how to do it, given enough time to learn and assuming they are properly motivated since it is a hard job.
    EB

  7. Top | #57
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,010
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,672
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Second, you said earlier

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    (Inherent capacity: not dependent on formal or informa learning)
    Now you say:

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    You misunderstood my definition. It is not the inherent capacity but the performance of a language, indeed of a particular language defined by some standard, which obviously requires a process of training or learning, with or without a teacher.

    The fact that human beings 400,000 years ago presumably didn't benefit from a Prime Teacher teaching them how to speak a human language and that all peoples around the Earth speak some language shows conclusively that humans have a natural capacity to develop and speak a language.
    Well, then, assuming that humans have an inherent capacity to develop and speak a language, similarly you get at best (ignoring the previous part about human nature, that is) that humans have an inherent capacity to develop a system of logic, and learn whether a conclusion follows necessarily from premises according to that system. That, however, does not give you that all normally functioning humans will develop the same system of logic. Now, it is very plausible that they will in colloquial languages (not in formal languages), but still, that only gives you that humans have an inherent capacity to learn to ascertain whether a conclusion follows from premises (much like they have an inherent capacity to learn a language), rather than having an inherent capacity to ascertain whether a conclusion follows from premises (just as the inherent capacity to develop and/or learn a language is not the same as the inherent capacity to speak a particular language).

    In any event, this is not the right question, for the reasons I've explained.
    Sure, I guess this shows we need a proper scientific investigation of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings. For now, you can certainly deny the evidence.

    We're wasting our time here.
    EB

  8. Top | #58
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    1,994
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,582
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    That people have a natural capability doesn't mean that they will necessarily use it. Like for swimming, opportunity is crucial. People don't waste their time and energy doing everything they are naturally capable of doing. Humans all have the naturally capability of making a fire just as they have the capability of speaking a language. Yes, very few people could make a fire on the spot without the help of a match. However, many would be able to learn by themselves how to do it, given enough time to learn and assuming they are properly motivated since it is a hard job.
    People do not have a natural capacity for making a fire. A person who does not know how to make a fire is not for that reason ill, or in any way malfunctioning. At most, humans have a natural capacity for learning how to make a fire (not a specific capacity, though, but the result of more general capacities). And similarly, humans have a natural capacity for learning how to swim. The capacity to tell whether a statement follows necessarily from premises is not the same as the capacity for learning how to tell that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    Sure, I guess this shows we need a proper scientific investigation of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings. For now, you can certainly deny the evidence.
    I do not deny any evidence. I show that some of your claims are unwarranted. Then, as usual, you grossly misrepresent my words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    We're wasting our time here.
    Maybe you are. My goals are not the same as yours.

  9. Top | #59
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,010
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,672
    Rep Power
    45
    Thank you to people who cast a vote, either way. The result doesn't seem surprising to me but it goes apparently against the prevailing view among the people who work on this, although "prevailing" means just that and nothing more.

    Personally, I'm in no doubt we have a natural capability. It is apparent obviously in the fact that, starting with Aristotle, we have developed a formal logic, very limited and not very useful but it's there, it's an objective fact. The crucial aspect of Aristotle's logic is that it is universal. Very nearly all logicians during 2,500 years have agreed with Aristotle's formal logic. Compare with the polyphony of languages, the diversity of cooking throughout the world, to get an idea of the implication of that. Compare also with the fact that all humans know to eat with their first breath and indeed know to breathe to begin with.

    Understanding what people say requires understanding of what they don't say and therefore the ability to infer successfully what they mean, and this requires logic. Not formal logic. It requires logic, a capability to infer meaning from what is said and context. We do it, all the time, without even blinking an eye, without even being aware that we're doing it. It's not taught and yet we learn to do it because we have the capacity to begin with. Try to have a conversation with a computer to see the difference. Even kids do it and do it smartly. So while we don't have any innate formal logic, we have the capacity to develop one (and indeed several). But formal logic is the most conspicuous effect. Logic is a very discrete capacity, like indeed many capacities we have that we don't even realise that we have. It took Aristotle to notice and talk about it. But even without Aristotle, all humans have this capacity and they use it without even noticing that they are using it. This is apparent in the fact that all peoples around the world have a language and communicate using abstract ideas. You don't discuss abstract ideas without a logical capacity and we all do it, all humans do it, and we all understand what people say as well as do by inferring their motivation even though we can't read their mind (Trump comes to mind, here).

    Another way to notice your logical capacity is to pay attention to your logical intuitions, i.e. when your brain tells you what is the implication. You know it's an intuition because of the strength of the message and because you don't have to think to get the message. It comes unprompted, just like visual percepts, memory, pain, fear. It's your brain sending you messages. Pay attention or not, it's your life.
    EB

  10. Top | #60
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,010
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,672
    Rep Power
    45
    And I recently was able to show that the distinction between attributive and referential uses proved people have an inherent logical capability.

    This is especially conclusive since the distinction is barely understood as the disagreement between Russell, Strawson and Donnellan, not to mention Kripke, showed. Yet, people's brain can select the correct interpretation between the two uses, and since most people don't understand the distinction, in fact most people don't even know of it, the brain can select the proper interpretation without people having themselves (consciously) to think about it. And you still have ignoramuses who will insist there's no inherent logical capacity. Whoa. That which I ignore, I can deny confidently, especially if I am a guy who knows a lot.
    EB

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 589
    Last Post: 11-26-2018, 04:57 PM
  2. Fair and Balanced? I decide **NO**!!
    By Loren Pechtel in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-03-2018, 03:51 AM
  3. Kermit the Frogs New Girlfriend - has everyone come to the same conclusion?
    By Potoooooooo in forum Media & Culture Gallery
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-12-2015, 06:00 AM
  4. What doesn't necessarily cure poverty
    By ksen in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: 04-02-2015, 04:43 AM

Posting Permissions

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