Originally posted by Wesker
What the hell? You're asking me to prove an axiom? I said an axiom is a logical idea. A is A is a logical form. Axioms are the foundation for logic. You cannot use empiricism to define an axiom. I hate to break it to you. Empricism is projecting rational thought on external data and evidence to achieve truths about the real world. Axioms are a priori constructs. And me saying A is A derives from logic means it's a rational product. To KNOW A is A I had to first know A. This does not mean A was external; I can hear my own thoughts and realize my own desires... Therefore, I can conclude that I am unique and I have identity. A is A.
So you can hear your own thoughts and realize your own desires, and thats how you conclude that A = A ? By your internal wonderings ?
If A is internal then you reach the conclusion that A = A by pure reflection, and you just said reflection is bullshit. To judge the world by your internal wonderings is to use intuition. Not using intuition is to have external basis, or empirical evidence.
Seriously. You have not proven that intuition exists as what it supposively is. You cannot prove to me that there IS an instance where one acquires knowledge that is apparently "without using reason", that does NOT come under fire from being subconsciously suggested by prior experiences, emotions, and knowledge. After all, how could you have intuition as to what was the right card to get grandma without having previous knowledge of what a card is and who grandma is. So please, before you try and assert that intuition exists independant of and precedes reason, prove that it can be used after the "discovery and acceptance" of reason, or you're essentially singing in a windstorm.
I´m not trying to show that intuition is a by-product of logic, so it would be completely senseless for me to prove it logically. I´m saying that intuition does not uses logic, and that means intuition cannot be justified through logic. Is it too hard to understand !?
How can I prove that something precedes logic, using logic ? Intuition must be understood by itself, not infered from logic.
My premise is Intuition does not depend on logic. Why should I contradict myself by proving it logically ?
I think you're again failing to see the point. You can't even show me when and where a human being is "reasonless" and suddenly uses intuition to use reason. You claim there is a first step, but you cannot place it on the time line, nor can you bring me anything to prove to me that I should consider it as true and evident.
I gave you examples, a priori knowledge, axioms, self evident truths, the concept of indentity, the concept of proof, reality, justice, knowledge, logic, etc.... there are many things which are justified through intuition. I´m not saying that they are necessarily true, you could discard all of them sayin that they all are lies if you want, but if you want to make them valid, it is totally by intuition that you do that. You don´t prove them. Proof is a concept grasped by intuition. I hope that you just don´t try to prove proof to me !?
Now, attention to this you just said :
From where I'm standing, logic does not need to be accepted or justified any more than air needs to justify why it's occupying space.
Doesn´t need to be justified... and you accepting it without a justification !? From where comes your knowledge of logic them ?
Thats the point of view used in religion, they don´t have to justify God to believe in it.
That's ONE definition from an online dictionary. The same source's encyclopedia says intuition is founded in emotions, experiences, and knowledge. Am I to just believe your definition over the encyclopedia's further look? Really, you, who argues semantics all the time?
I never said I believe intuition needs empirical knowledge. Instead of trying to change my definition of the word intuition, please argue taking into consideration the definition I am using, its you who are arguing semantics. I will resume for you what I understand as intuition :
Intuition = Immediate apprehension or understanding of an idea without use of rational thought or inference.
How I understand intuition(see above), it does not need empirical knowledge, just rational thought need it.
So logic and reason MUST be justified by this mystical intuition concept, but axioms don't have to be? Reason can't be self evident either?
You said that logic don´t need to be justified, it makes logic even more mystical. God is not justified, faith is not justified...
Reason, and axioms cannot be self evident truths if you eliminate intuition. I am saying that nothing can be justified by itself if you do not use intuition. Intuition can be justified by itself because it is not logic, it is independent of rational thought. In logic everything must have justification, that why science needs to prove things first, in order to accept them.
You cannot discredit reason unless you use reason, so why would reason need be justified if it's the only tool of thought we possess?
Logic axioms are premises created to wield further results, but they don´t need to be necessarily self-evident truths, they can be just tools. If you are considering they just tools they don´t need justification, but then you can´t say the results they bring are true since you have not assumed them as truths. They only way that you can make these axioms truths, is to use intuition to "think" that they are true. Remember that you agreed that axioms cannot be proven, so you must be considering them as tools.
Yeah, I'm sure mathematicians love this concept, but they're naturally full of themselves. However, for someone who doesn't take semantics as givens, I'm showing you that Gödel is off his rocker. He attempts to say that reason NEEDS justification, and then goes on to shoe in some answer that is not even identifiable, let alone provable, while USING reason. He's in self contradiction. Case closed.
If he is in self contradiction you should warn mathematicians, I am sure you will win a nobel if you prove his theorem to be wrong.
He can't. That was my point. And he is trying to invalidate reason as the first step in knowledge and knowing, and in doing so, he must apply reason and this bullshit intuition term which holds no weight.
By the way, I took physics classes in college, not philosophy. And I know what I am talking about when I am using Gödel imcompleteness theorem here. There is no contradiction in his theorem, I am not sure of how much do you know of mathematics, but I will give you an idea "informally", of how it is not contradictory :
Actually Gödel´s imconpleteness means that when you use logic you can always reach contradictions. Using all logic formalities you can construct a sentence that contradicts logic axioms themselves. For example, the sentence "This sentence is false" cannot be true or false. If it is true, you can infer it is false, if it is false then you can infer it is true. The Law of the excluded middle states that no proposition can be both true and false simultaneously, they must be either true, or false.
The only way to keep logic consistent is to say that logic is incomplete, in the sense some things(like the sentence above) cannot be answered by it. The sentence above is not the only thing for which this theorem is used. For example you cannot answer the question "Is logic valid?" by logic. You must assume that logic does not prove its own consistency to make logic not ambiguous.
Logic does not say it is consistent, actually it says that it cannot prove its own consistency. Therefore its just your opinion when you say that logic is valid.
You couldn´t have concluded that logic is valid using rational thought, after all logic cannot prove its own consistency. So what other basis than logic do you use to say that logic is valid ?
Your initial point was saying that reason was preceded by intuition. I've pointed out that intuition as a term isn't concrete enough to shoe in there.
Although you didn´t prove it.
Also, I've pointed out that in order to use intuition, you must already possess rational tools. So the idea of needing intuition to use reason in the first place is assinine. And there's nothing to suggest that extra step. Humans who think rationally use reason. Those who don't, we can't understand. Period.
I think my point that intuition doesn´t need empirical knowledge already answers that.
The question "Is logic valid" is in itself a ridiculous question. How do you validate the very form of validation you use? You can't. Does this neccessitate something else to come into the picture and validate logic? Nope. Knowledge outside of reason can't be examined. Therefore, you cannot pin down any pre-logic source. Most certainly not the concept of intuition, as demonstrated here. Again, the assumption here is that logic NEEDS validation.
Thats what I´m telling you. If logic cannot be validated as you are saying and that I agree, it cannot be true. Unless you concluded that without using reason in someway. Is it that you did to validade logic ?
Let me ask you this: If knowledge is needed to validate logic, and all knowledge most be processed via reason, how can you have the knowledge to validate logic without it? Point is, you can't. Knowledge and reason are linked together in human understanding. Without reason, there is no knowledge. Intuition is a fairy tale. It does not exist before knowledge. So you're probably wondering... what's my answer then?
I never said that all knowledge is processed via reason.
You say that knowledge, and reason are linked up togheter in human understanding. What is human understanding ?
Obviously, it's hardwired to realize certain concepts: identity, existance, etc. Using these innate concepts, it then uses reason to sort the data. This is how the human mind operates.
Such concepts are grasped by intuition. How do you prove that identity exists ? You can´t. It must be perceived by intuition.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
I love how I was ignored.
I explained your point in my post to Wesker, let me repost it for you :
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
By the way, I took physics classes in college, not philosophy. And I know what I am talking about when I am using Gödel imcompleteness theorem here. There is no contradiction in his theorem, I am not sure of how much do you know of mathematics, but I will give you an idea "informally", of how it is not contradictory :Actually Gödel´s imconpleteness means that when you use logic you can always reach contradictions. Using all logic formalities you can construct a sentence that contradicts logic axioms themselves. For example, the sentence "This sentence is false" cannot be true or false. If it is true, you can infer it is false, if it is false then you can infer it is true. The Law of the excluded middle states that no proposition can be both true and false simultaneously, they must be either true, or false.
The only way to keep logic consistent is to say that logic is incomplete, in the sense some things(like the sentence above) cannot be answered by it. The sentence above is not the only thing for which this theorem is used. For example you cannot answer the question "Is logic valid?" by logic. You must assume that logic does not prove its own consistency to make logic not ambiguous.
Logic does not say it is consistent, actually it says that it cannot prove its own consistency. Therefore its just your opinion when you say that logic is valid.
You couldn´t have concluded that logic is valid using rational thought, after all logic cannot prove its own consistency. So what other basis than logic do you use to say that logic is valid ?
It is not just me who are saying that logic contradicts itself, it is proven.
This is worst than trying to discredit evolution. Evolution is not proved although it is highy probable. Gödel´s incompleteness theorem is proved. You are trying to tell mathematicians what mathematics is.
Like I said to Wesker, if you can prove it is a contradiction, then you should warn mathematicans, you will sure win a nobel for that.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I explained your point in my post to Wesker, let me repost it for you :It is not just me who are saying that logic contradicts itself, it is proven.
This is worst than trying to discredit evolution. Evolution is not proved although it is highy probable. Gödel´s incompleteness theorem is proved. You are trying to tell mathematicians what mathematics is.
Like I said to Wesker, if you can prove it is a contradiction, then you should warn mathematicans, you will sure win a nobel for that.
Good job on putting my name on something you said. Watch out for that next time, don't misquote me.
And you didn't explain my point, you proved it completely.
By saying that all logic becomes contradictory, YOUR LOGIC BECOMES CONTRADICTORY and you are therefore invalidating your own argument!
Using a theorem in mathematics where it's been proven is one thing, and trying to use it elsewhere is stupid.
I think I'll go try out the Pathagorean theorem where A = apple B = banana and C = carrot.
Wait, an apple squared plus a banana squared doesn't equal a carrot squared? OMG! The Pathagorean Theorem is totally invalid!
Stupid, isn't it?
Maybe if we were arguing logic inside of mathematical proofs where one triangle has to equal another, you might have something.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Good job on putting my name on something you said. Watch out for that next time, don't misquote me.And you didn't explain my point, you proved it completely.
By saying that all logic becomes contradictory, YOUR LOGIC BECOMES CONTRADICTORY and you are therefore invalidating your own argument!
Using a theorem in mathematics where it's been proven is one thing, and trying to use it elsewhere is stupid.
I think I'll go try out the Pathagorean theorem where A = apple B = banana and C = carrot.
Wait, an apple squared plus a banana squared doesn't equal a carrot squared? OMG! The Pathagorean Theorem is totally invalid!
Stupid, isn't it?
Maybe if we were arguing logic inside of mathematical proofs where one triangle has to equal another, you might have something.
You really think you can resume to 5 sentences everything I was talking about. Its difficult to believe that you even read my posts. Do Wesker need to argue with me for you because you are not capable of doing it for yourself ?
If you continue with these simplistic argumentation without doing any reasoning on what I say just to offend me, there is no option for me left but to ignore you.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
You really think you can resume to 5 sentences everything I was talking about. Its difficult to believe that you even read my posts. Do Wesker need to argue with me for you because you are not capable of doing it for yourself ?If you continue with these simplistic argumentation without doing any reasoning on what I say just to offend me, there is no option for me left but to ignore you.
Its not to offend you, it's to make you see exactly what it is you are saying. You don't realize what it is you're actually saying and I'm making it simple for you.
"without any reasoning' isn't that EXACTLY what you're saying? That reasoning and logic is flawed? what the hell are you telling me to use reasoning for if it's going to be flawed and incorrect?
I think you're the one not using any reasoning.
Want to know another aspect of philosphy? Occam's Razor, Don't make things more complicated than they actually need to be.
If you find that offensive then you need to relax a little. Have some tea and a nap.
So you can hear your own thoughts and realize your own desires, and thats how you conclude that A = A ? By your internal wonderings ?If A is internal then you reach the conclusion that A = A by pure reflection, and you just said reflection is bullshit. To judge the world by your internal wonderings is to use intuition. Not using intuition is to have external basis, or empirical evidence.
Erm, no. Way to confuse my point. I stated later on in my argument that sensory data is neccessary to define the human mind into a working organism. This is already established fact, btw. Take psychology and study some material. Now, the human mind must sort this sensory data. This is as close as we can get to a "pre-logic" stage. However, a newborn comes to realize its self amidst all this sensory data. Hence, it is realizing identity, and that A is A. A baby could NOT identify itself if it were somehow damaged and incapable of rational thought and/or could not differentiate its own self from the rest of creation. And btw, your definition of pure reflection is wrong. Let me repeat that: wrong. I provided the damn definition for you, but I'm sure you'll track down an obscure version that closer supports your claims, and then have your semantic way with it. I find it amusing that you are not a philosophy major but studying physics and you argue semantically with.... a history/philosophy major. Bravo.
My premise is Intuition does not depend on logic. Why should I contradict myself by proving it logically ?
Your premise is ridiculous. The very definition of intuition begs for previous experience, knowledge, and emotions. Stop glossing that over and adjusting the definition to suit your argument. Even the definition you cited had the phrase "seemingly" in there. QED. Intuition is "seemingly" knowledge without reason. Your argument falls apart. The term does not apply, it is not concrete, and anyone who studies psychology will note that the subconscious acts on the conscious brain; the idea of random bursts of knowledge could only come from the subconscious sorting and using previous data from before. How does it sort that? REASON.
Doesn´t need to be justified... and you accepting it without a justification !? From where comes your knowledge of logic them ?Thats the point of view used in religion, they don´t have to justify God to believe in it.
Apparently the analogy was lost on you; air occupying space is air acting within its natural principles. Air MUST occupy space to exist. That's part of its nature. Same with logic; logic is justified because that is part of its nature. Logic and reason are tools developed by the human mind to understand the world around them, it's own rules, happenings, etc. We can see that those operating outside of logic cannot understand the world around them. They cannot achieve knowledge. Interesting that you try and slip intuition into the human process, but you don't question the end-result, and that IS knowledge. Knowledge is what a human being knows via reason. That is all it can ever be. There cannot be knowledge via insanity, or knowledge via nonthinking. Such concepts are absurd. Likewise, there cannot be knowledge via intuition. Even if we accept your "changed every minute" definition of the concept, it cannot be substantiated to exist. Show me pre-logic intuition. How do we possess it? Why? Tell me why I should believe in it. For one, the concept is WRONG. The definition does not support you, the encyclopedia does not support you, and appeal to mathematics does not support you either, unless you can explain to me mathematically why I choose to argue this topic. Then I'll listen.
Anyways, back to the point, the justification of logic is in its use: we use it to know. If you assume that knowledge can exist pre-logic about logic, you have a LOT of explaining to do.
Logic axioms are premises created to wield further results, but they don´t need to be necessarily self-evident truths, they can be just tools. If you are considering they just tools they don´t need justification, but then you can´t say the results they bring are true since you have not assumed them as truths. They only way that you can make these axioms truths, is to use intuition to "think" that they are true. Remember that you agreed that axioms cannot be proven, so you must be considering them as tools.
Actually, I pointed out that just by thinking of axioms you are thinking rationally. You cannot realize that A is A without possessing a shred of rational thought. Unless, of course, you have a good argument to say otherwise. One that doesn't involve the world "intuition" being raped and abused by your twisted definition. You need a serious lesson on Ockham's Razor.
I fail to see the point of trying to divine whatever it is that makes us accept reason above all other beliefs (Since reason IS the foundation for any other type of belief. You must first possess knowledge to possess a belief about knowledge). It's self evident that the human mind thinks this way naturally. You trying to shoe-in intuition is ridiculous. Let me rephrase the process for you:
Sensory data >> Rational thought >> Knowledge.
You couldn´t have concluded that logic is valid using rational thought, after all logic cannot prove its own consistency. So what other basis than logic do you use to say that logic is valid ?
Why do we use reason, pray tell? To gain knowledge. Of what? Well, ourselves, and the world we're in. The idea of "This sentence is false" is not a useable logical argument unless you can provide a premise for it. Likewise, when would logic contradict itself in practical use? Have you ever thought "I am honestly lying?" and suddenly suffered a serious mental breakdown? Probably not. I don't see how improperly plugged values invalidate the entire tool as being complete and consistant. "The pig is the air" uses logical form, but it's ridiculous. How do we know it's ridiculous? We have knowledge of the pig and its nature, and we have knowledge of the air and its nature. How do we get this knowledge? Not from intuition. Sensory data. You do not suddenly have a spark and "realize" what a pig is, or "realize" what air is; you must perceive it first. Saying intuition births reason is like saying hallucinations birth knowledge. The idea of intuition demands prior rational experience. Anyways, back to the point, you cannot lose your head over "This sentence is false" before having knowledge of it. If you do not possess knowledge of it (If you do not know the nature of the sentence prior to judging the conclusion) the logical statement means nothing. The pig is the air. If you didn't know what air was, you could not label that as correct or incorrect. zOMG... is logic incomplete? No. Knowledge is incomplete.
I never said that all knowledge is processed via reason.You say that knowledge, and reason are linked up togheter in human understanding. What is human understanding ?
But knowledge IS processed via reason. Even on the most basic levels. This is pretty evident in everything I've been arguing. I know you like to ignore points and your own faults, but hey... it's there. Reread if you have to.
And human understanding is based in knowledge. Knowledge is rooted in reason. Reason is interpretation of sensory data by the human mind. Let me restate my stance here: You claimed "intuition" was the selection method of accepting and using reason. I think the term doesn't fit. And furthermore, I feel that reason is simply in the hardwire. You do not need to divine elusive terms and theories to explain why we think rationally; we do. And again, back to the aspect of religion, even false religious beliefs masquerade as reason. Reason is the base for knowledge, and even false knowledge claims to be rational. So why would reason and religious faith be comparable? Explain that to me?
Such concepts are grasped by intuition. How do you prove that identity exists ? You can´t. It must be perceived by intuition.
A is A. Logical concept. Just by thinking about it you are thinking rationally. Where does this idea pop into your head? You say intuition. The definition does not support you, nor does your proof, which is severely lacking. Even your argument stance is weak: "Certain logical statements do not follow. Therefore, logic cannot validate itself and intuition must exist." That's like the philosophic version of Creationism. The form itself is logic. If you misuse the form, that's a fallacy, that's not logic.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon
click here
That guy is rude and condescending, almost funny if you like that kind of thing (not a fan myself).
PS He is wrong at almost every turn. Those literalists actually say something more like 6000 years. Where'd he get 12000 from? Oh and trivia for y'all. some people think that job 40 describes a dinosaur.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon
you gotta be ****ing kidding me 😆
Who wrote this? What was he smoking?
so, here's where I stand:
evolution - real
creationism - might be real also, but no empirical evidence
By creationism I mean the God creating the world thing, not the 6000 year thing.
Originally posted by Wesker
Yeah, but certain people aren't convinced by small posts. And even more are never convinced they're in error.
I cannot be convienced if people don´t don´t argue and explain their point. The guy just repeat the same statement everytime, he don´t justify his view.
I will soon get back to your post Wesker. In a few hours.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I cannot be convienced if people don´t don´t argue and explain their point. The guy just repeat the same statement everytime, he don´t justify his view.I will soon get back to your post Wesker. In a few hours.
Fair enough. I'll be gone most of the day. Take your time.
Originally posted by Wesker
Erm, no. Way to confuse my point. I stated later on in my argument that sensory data is neccessary to define the human mind into a working organism. This is already established fact, btw. Take psychology and study some material. Now, the human mind must sort this sensory data. This is as close as we can get to a "pre-logic" stage. However, a newborn comes to realize its self amidst all this sensory data. Hence, it is realizing identity, and that A is A. A baby could NOT identify itself if it were somehow damaged and incapable of rational thought and/or could not differentiate its own self from the rest of creation. And btw, your definition of pure reflection is wrong. Let me repeat that: wrong. I provided the damn definition for you, but I'm sure you'll track down an obscure version that closer supports your claims, and then have your semantic way with it. I find it amusing that you are not a philosophy major but studying physics and you argue semantically with.... a history/philosophy major. Bravo.Your premise is ridiculous. The very definition of intuition begs for previous experience, knowledge, and emotions. Stop glossing that over and adjusting the definition to suit your argument. Even the definition you cited had the phrase "seemingly" in there. QED. Intuition is "seemingly" knowledge without reason. Your argument falls apart. The term does not apply, it is not concrete, and anyone who studies psychology will note that the subconscious acts on the conscious brain; the idea of random bursts of knowledge could only come from the subconscious sorting and using previous data from before. How does it sort that? REASON.
Apparently the analogy was lost on you; air occupying space is air acting within its natural principles. Air MUST occupy space to exist. That's part of its nature. Same with logic; logic is justified because that is part of its nature. Logic and reason are tools developed by the human mind to understand the world around them, it's own rules, happenings, etc. We can see that those operating outside of logic cannot understand the world around them. They cannot achieve knowledge. Interesting that you try and slip intuition into the human process, but you don't question the end-result, and that IS knowledge. Knowledge is what a human being knows via reason. That is all it can ever be. There cannot be knowledge via insanity, or knowledge via nonthinking. Such concepts are absurd. Likewise, there cannot be knowledge via intuition. Even if we accept your "changed every minute" definition of the concept, it cannot be substantiated to exist. Show me pre-logic intuition. How do we possess it? Why? Tell me why I should believe in it. For one, the concept is WRONG. The definition does not support you, the encyclopedia does not support you, and appeal to mathematics does not support you either, unless you can explain to me mathematically why I choose to argue this topic. Then I'll listen.
Anyways, back to the point, the justification of logic is in its use: we use it to know. If you assume that knowledge can exist pre-logic about logic, you have a LOT of explaining to do.Actually, I pointed out that just by thinking of axioms you are thinking rationally. You cannot realize that A is A without possessing a shred of rational thought. Unless, of course, you have a good argument to say otherwise. One that doesn't involve the world "intuition" being raped and abused by your twisted definition. You need a serious lesson on Ockham's Razor.
I fail to see the point of trying to divine whatever it is that makes us accept reason above all other beliefs (Since reason IS the foundation for any other type of belief. You must first possess knowledge to possess a belief about knowledge). It's self evident that the human mind thinks this way naturally. You trying to shoe-in intuition is ridiculous. Let me rephrase the process for you:Sensory data >> Rational thought >> Knowledge.
Why do we use reason, pray tell? To gain knowledge. Of what? Well, ourselves, and the world we're in. The idea of "This sentence is false" is not a useable logical argument unless you can provide a premise for it. Likewise, when would logic contradict itself in practical use? Have you ever thought "I am honestly lying?" and suddenly suffered a serious mental breakdown? Probably not. I don't see how improperly plugged values invalidate the entire tool as being complete and consistant. "The pig is the air" uses logical form, but it's ridiculous. How do we know it's ridiculous? We have knowledge of the pig and its nature, and we have knowledge of the air and its nature. How do we get this knowledge? Not from intuition. Sensory data. You do not suddenly have a spark and "realize" what a pig is, or "realize" what air is; you must perceive it first. Saying intuition births reason is like saying hallucinations birth knowledge. The idea of intuition demands prior rational experience. Anyways, back to the point, you cannot lose your head over "This sentence is false" before having knowledge of it. If you do not possess knowledge of it (If you do not know the nature of the sentence prior to judging the conclusion) the logical statement means nothing. The pig is the air. If you didn't know what air was, you could not label that as correct or incorrect. zOMG... is logic incomplete? No. Knowledge is incomplete.
But knowledge IS processed via reason. Even on the most basic levels. This is pretty evident in everything I've been arguing. I know you like to ignore points and your own faults, but hey... it's there. Reread if you have to.
And human understanding is based in knowledge. Knowledge is rooted in reason. Reason is interpretation of sensory data by the human mind. Let me restate my stance here: You claimed "intuition" was the selection method of accepting and using reason. I think the term doesn't fit. And furthermore, I feel that reason is simply in the hardwire. You do not need to divine elusive terms and theories to explain why we think rationally; we do. And again, back to the aspect of religion, even false religious beliefs masquerade as reason. Reason is the base for knowledge, and even false knowledge claims to be rational. So why would reason and religious faith be comparable? Explain that to me?
A is A. Logical concept. Just by thinking about it you are thinking rationally. Where does this idea pop into your head? You say intuition. The definition does not support you, nor does your proof, which is severely lacking. Even your argument stance is weak: "Certain logical statements do not follow. Therefore, logic cannot validate itself and intuition must exist." That's like the philosophic version of Creationism. The form itself is logic. If you misuse the form, that's a fallacy, that's not logic.
I will simplify things since many points we are arguing is basically the same thing. And I want to be more objective as possible to avoid any more complications.
Firstly, what we are trying to decide is who brings knowledge and understanting. Logic or Intuition ?
Now, answer me these questions:
Do you think that "A = A" can only be know through logic reasoning ? In other words, deduced by logic ?
Do you think that only by logic reasoning, that is deduction, we can obtain knowledge ?
.........................................................................................................
About Gödel´s theorem that you are trying to prove false, analyzing that the sentence "This sentence is false" is not a contradiction in someway. It is a REAL paradox, logic does not answer it, it violates one of the basic axioms of logic the Law of the excluded middle. It is not a logic fallacy, or a illusion, it is really a problem without answer. That is a fact. Do a research if you do not believe what I say. That problem even lead people to change logic to create paraconsistent logic, and one of them is intuitionistic logic. These type of logic have many apllications today.
Lastly, the "seemingly" thing that btw I already explained in my last post, I just quoted it in the way it was writen in the encyclopedia. I hoped that you will understand my point since I already explained it a lot before, and not keep avoiding the subject.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I will simplify things since many points we are arguing is basically the same thing. And I want to be more objective as possible to avoid any more complications.Firstly, what we are trying to decide is who brings knowledge and understanting. Logic or Intuition ?
Now, answer me these questions:
Do you think that "A = A" can only be know through logic reasoning ? In other words, deduced by logic ?
Do you think that only by logic reasoning, that is deduction, we can obtain knowledge ?
.........................................................................................................
About Gödel´s theorem that you are trying to prove false, analyzing that the sentence "This sentence is false" is not a contradiction in someway. It is a REAL paradox, logic does not answer it, it violates one of the basic axioms of logic the Law of the excluded middle. It is not a logic fallacy, or a illusion, it is really a problem without answer. That is a fact. Do a research if you do not believe what I say. That problem even lead people to change logic to create paraconsistent logic, and one of them is intuitionistic logic. These type of logic have many apllications today.
Lastly, the "seemingly" thing that btw I already explained in my last post, I just quoted it in the way it was writen in the encyclopedia. I hoped that you will understand my point since I already explained it a lot before, and not keep avoiding the subject.
In my opinion, new information always comes from Intuition. Edison would nap to come up with ideas, how is that logic? To me he was tapping into intuition. But I think this whole discussion is in the wrong thread.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In my opinion, new information always comes from Intuition. Edison would nap to come up with ideas, how is that logic? To me he was tapping into intuition. But I think this whole discussion is in the wrong thread.
Firstly to address your post, Atlantis was comparing belief or "acceptance via intuition" of reason to belief in religion. So it initially WAS on topic. Now, intuition by definition is based on subconscious past experiences and such. That's pretty evident. Using intuition as he is doing isn't correct; he's using the term as a shoe-in for something else, probably like the concept of "innate understanding".
Secondly, Atlantis- the problem with what you are presenting on Gödel's behalf is that it is a purely rational argument trying to explain something that is not purely rational. You are trying to single out the "pre-logic" spark or tool that allows us or forces us to accept and use reason. However, the problem with this is that logic being seemingly incomplete does not invalidate its use, nor does it demand that there be something as vague as "intuition" to fill in the gap. As I've pointed out several times before, there is nothing to apply reason to without sensory data. So that comes first. The brain processes that, and through processing data it comes to know the self, and it comes to know the basic forms of reason: by contrasting this sensory data, it comes to know identity and causal relationships. What I'm getting from you in a nutshell is that "Logic is incomplete (That it cannot validate itself, which is pretty obvious in its very nature- the sole tool of validation cannot in turn validate itself outside of itself) therefore intuition must be the tool that bridges the gap from non-knowing to using reason and achieving knowledge."
Maybe if I spent the time pouring over Gödel's work I'd be more convinced, but he's not here right now; you are. And you aren't even wavering me with what you've presented. You've argued semantics. You've failed to properly illustrate your point, and what I have grasped has been destroyed several times now by yours truly. Knowledge and reason are intertwined. You cannot have knowledge outside of reason, before it, after it, etc. without USING reason. Even when you say "Well, intuition works because we intuit that it's acceptible and thus use it", you're trying to apply a rational answer for using reason, instead of confessing that you really don't know what intuition is in this case. You can not substantiate it for me. You cannot explain it using any sources. The only thing you have for me to examine is your belief that intuition exists, pre-reason. That's it. And some pseudo-half-assed explanation involving Gödel which, even for someone as awake and alert as I am, wasn't even close to getting a point across. You are not coming across "objectively". You have not provided a logical argument for me to examine that was worth examining. There is no case here, and appealing to Gödel's authority hasn't helped you because you can't even apply and show me how his theories work in this case.
Now, if you want to argue this any more (Assuming you plan to do some arguing; I'm just seeing regurgitation of the same view over and over again with nothing to work with.), make a thread in the philosophy thread.
And one last thing for you to think about: What validates intuition? And that? And the thing before that?