Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 127

Thread: Why no science of logic?

  1. Top | #101
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,242
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,904
    Rep Power
    0
    Logic is fundamental. It is fundamental to all reasoning and indeed to all the propositional beliefs we may come to have, be they scientific or not, such as when we may come to believe that Obama is a liar on the ground that all politicians are liars (I would say myself all humans are liars, but I derail).

    I asked why no science of logic, suggesting it would be good to have one. However, I am not therefore asking science to justify the logicality of logic because that would be hopelessly circular. Instead, I'm asking for logic to be properly considered an empirical fact.

    Deductive logic is a capability of our brain and an objective performance of all human beings. Indeed, I would add cows and midgets and everything in between to that. Essentially, all species with at least one neuron. Moreover, I m pretty certain that the logical capability of a cow is essentially the same as our. We only have a bigger brain and probably a few extra functionalities to it, such as an articulated language. I would even say that any alien species would have essentially the same logic, although possibly a bigger brain. Logic, in other words, is a natural phenomenon, and thus, something science could investigate, and it is clear that understanding human logic would very likely have tremendous benefits for mankind. It may well be the only way to save us from self-destruction.

    If science investigated deductive logic, like it already does human reasoning, something nobody seems to be objecting to, it might be able to produce a formal model that would be correct of human logic (unlike the toy-like ones mathematicians are playing with).

    Such a model, implemented on a computer, could be used to replicate human intelligence. Except, computers don't have the same physical limitation as our brain. We can't grow a bigger brain but we are constantly designing and producing bigger and faster computers. We don't know when they will beat the human brain in terms of computational power, but that should not be necessary. Most of what our brain does is tied down to the necessary task of keeping us alive. Computers don't have to spend their time keeping themselves alive and can concentrate instead on the question submitted to them (which explains why a computer can beat our best chess champions to begin with).

    We now only need a formal model. What is science waiting for? Why is it not investigating logic? Surely, it's more important that Black Holes or the Big Bang!
    EB

  2. Top | #102
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    23,626
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,099
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    We now only need a formal model. What is science waiting for?
    What are you waiting for?

  3. Top | #103
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,921
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,897
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    ... snip ...

    We now only need a formal model. What is science waiting for? Why is it not investigating logic? Surely, it's more important that Black Holes or the Big Bang!
    EB
    We seem tho have gone full circle. You have some idealized concept that you really, really believe is meaningful and Earth shattering and yet can't really put it into a description with specifics that anyone else can take seriously. You may not consider trying to understand the workings of black holes and cosmology important and meaningful but those doing such studies do so that is what they do. If you expect someone to abandon what they find important to address what you think is important then you have to get off your ass and convince them with some details... either that or do the work yourself, offer the results of your "scientific investigation" into logic, and collect your Nobel Prize ... that is if your hunch really does have merit.

  4. Top | #104
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,857
    Rep Power
    12
    EB Your last post looks like a collection of net references. Mostly opinions divorced from current cybernetics and artificial intelligence. The newer term is Artificial Consciousness for an analog to the human mind. The competition between China, Russia, and the USA on cybernetics is considered an important national defense issue. You are way behind the times. Autonomous thinking machines applied to weapons is the future of combat. Old news. Scifi is here.

    Logic is under math. One of the systems, model is the wrong word, is Boolean Algebra.

    There is nothing for science to model. See the Fuzzy Logic thread on math. Fuzzy logic began around the 1920s trying to emulate human reasoning, multivalued logic is a term.

    From neural science came artificial neural nets mimicking the structure of the brain. That is a scientific model of reasoning and logic based on a physical reality.

    Aristotelian logic is a metaphysical abstraction. Whether or not it is directly traced back to logic in the brain is yet to be determined.

  5. Top | #105
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    10,952
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,165
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post

    Aristotelian logic is a metaphysical abstraction. Whether or not it is directly traced back to logic in the brain is yet to be determined.
    No way Jose. Logic is derivative of language which leverages off human capacity to produce varied sounds. That it has some structure, also a human capability, in no way means it is fundamental to that capacity no more than that one to produce varied sounds. It is an invention in the same way a language by a tribe is an invention with little other meaning about human capacities than to demonstrate their variety and breadth.

  6. Top | #106
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,242
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,904
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    We now only need a formal model. What is science waiting for?
    What are you waiting for?
    LOL.

    So, you don't know why. You haven't a clue.

    Quite a bunch you make around here.
    EB

  7. Top | #107
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,242
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,904
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    ... snip ...

    We now only need a formal model. What is science waiting for? Why is it not investigating logic? Surely, it's more important that Black Holes or the Big Bang!
    EB
    We seem tho have gone full circle. You have some idealized concept that you really, really believe is meaningful and Earth shattering and yet can't really put it into a description with specifics that anyone else can take seriously. You may not consider trying to understand the workings of black holes and cosmology important and meaningful but those doing such studies do so that is what they do. If you expect someone to abandon what they find important to address what you think is important then you have to get off your ass and convince them with some details... either that or do the work yourself, offer the results of your "scientific investigation" into logic, and collect your Nobel Prize ... that is if your hunch really does have merit.
    I don't have to provide any details. I asked a simple question and everything you need to know is in the question.

    So, either you know the answer or you don't.

    Well, obviously, you don't.

    Further, I did provide a lot of details, actually. But you can't even admit to that.

    The situation is that science should investigate logic and doesn't do it because scientists defer to mathematicians for the theory of logic even though mathematicians are inept at it.

    The only reason they defer to mathematicians is that mathematicians make it look as if they understood what logic is and how it works. They don't. Meanwhile, nobody does the job.

    How stupid is that? Well, it is very, very, very stupid.

    So, clearly, that's one very stupid thing scientists are doing.
    EB

  8. Top | #108
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,242
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,904
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Logic is derivative of language which leverages off human capacity to produce varied sounds. That it has some structure, also a human capability, in no way means it is fundamental to that capacity no more than that one to produce varied sounds. It is an invention in the same way a language by a tribe is an invention with little other meaning about human capacities than to demonstrate their variety and breadth.
    And how do you think you immediately infer, without even thinking about it, that any one particular cat you see for the first time will have all the characteristic behaviours of cats: mewing, purring, etc. You don't know this cat. Yet, you will immediately believe it has a number of characteristic behaviours.

    That's true of cats and it's true of just about everything you will look at. You will infer properties you don't actually know that the thing has on the basis of your experience of similar but actually distinct things. One particular cat isn't the other cats. Yet, you immediately infer it has all the properties you believe cats have.

    For a scientist, you really understand next to nothing about human beings and reality generally. You're obviously a specialist of some sort, but you are an utterly incompetent thinker. You're not the only one, far from it, but you beat the competition hands down. You are dogmatic. You compensate for your inability to think by being dogmatic. That's a way of life for you. You breathe dogma in and out. You can't express yourself outside dogma. You are a very sad example of the stupidity of mankind.
    EB

  9. Top | #109
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,242
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,904
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    EB Your last post looks like a collection of net references. Mostly opinions divorced from current cybernetics and artificial intelligence. The newer term is Artificial Consciousness for an analog to the human mind. The competition between China, Russia, and the USA on cybernetics is considered an important national defense issue. You are way behind the times. Autonomous thinking machines applied to weapons is the future of combat. Old news. Scifi is here.

    Logic is under math. One of the systems, model is the wrong word, is Boolean Algebra.

    There is nothing for science to model. See the Fuzzy Logic thread on math. Fuzzy logic began around the 1920s trying to emulate human reasoning, multivalued logic is a term.

    From neural science came artificial neural nets mimicking the structure of the brain. That is a scientific model of reasoning and logic based on a physical reality.

    Aristotelian logic is a metaphysical abstraction. Whether or not it is directly traced back to logic in the brain is yet to be determined.
    Why do you insist talking about that which you do not understand?

    All computer scientists defer to mathematicians for the theory of logic. Mathematicians haven't a clue what logic is or how it works. Civilisation progressed well before we had any science and any mathematics. It will keep progressing despite the ineptitude of mathematical logic and current AI. But, clearly, as I explained in the post you are mindlessly commenting on, it would be a massive improvement if science could sort out the mess formal logic is in.

    You haven't a clue.
    EB

  10. Top | #110
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,921
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,897
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    ... snip ...

    We now only need a formal model. What is science waiting for? Why is it not investigating logic? Surely, it's more important that Black Holes or the Big Bang!
    EB
    We seem tho have gone full circle. You have some idealized concept that you really, really believe is meaningful and Earth shattering and yet can't really put it into a description with specifics that anyone else can take seriously. You may not consider trying to understand the workings of black holes and cosmology important and meaningful but those doing such studies do so that is what they do. If you expect someone to abandon what they find important to address what you think is important then you have to get off your ass and convince them with some details... either that or do the work yourself, offer the results of your "scientific investigation" into logic, and collect your Nobel Prize ... that is if your hunch really does have merit.
    I don't have to provide any details. I asked a simple question and everything you need to know is in the question.

    So, either you know the answer or you don't.

    Well, obviously, you don't.
    As I said, it seems that we have gone full circle. You are back to where you started.

    I did answer your qestion.

    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post

    I would think that the answer would be as simple as if no one is studying it then no one thinks the particular aspect Speakpigeon wants studied is important enough. Anyone with the credentials could easily find other subjects more interesting.

    I tend to like Occam's Razor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post

    Further, I did provide a lot of details, actually. But you can't even admit to that.

    The situation is that science should investigate logic and doesn't do it because scientists defer to mathematicians for the theory of logic even though mathematicians are inept at it.

    The only reason they defer to mathematicians is that mathematicians make it look as if they understood what logic is and how it works. They don't. Meanwhile, nobody does the job.

    How stupid is that? Well, it is very, very, very stupid.

    So, clearly, that's one very stupid thing scientists are doing.
    EB
    This gets back to my suggestion. You obviously believe that scientists are too fucking stupid to understand the importance of your wishes. While I agree that I know of no scientist who checks with Speakpigeon to see if their research is warranted, I don't think they don't ask because they are stupid for not recognizing your brilliance. Since you have indicated that you consider scientists to be stupid, too stupid to realize the importance you see so clearly, then you need to go to my other suggestion above ".... do the work yourself, offer the results of your "scientific investigation" into logic, and collect your Nobel Prize ... that is if your hunch really does have merit" Simply write and send a proposal to the French Academy of Sciences (Académie des Sciences) and surely they will award you with a grant to do your study. Your Nobel Prize is waiting.
    Last edited by skepticalbip; 07-11-2019 at 10:52 PM.

Posting Permissions

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