The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Speakpigeon » Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:28 pm

commonsense wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:29 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:11 pm
Intuition = logic.
Intuition is the opposite of logic. See M&W.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:11 pm
What's incompatible between a "swift" process and a logical conclusion?
Intuition is swift. Intuition is the opposite of logic.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:11 pm
How could you possibly know that logic is not involved in all our intuitive decisions?
Logic is the opposite of intuition. See M&W.
You haven't falsified my points.
1. An enthymeme is a cryptic syllogism that is nonetheless easily understood by nearly all of us without even that we need to think to understand the meaning. This shows even uneducated people understand syllogisms intuitively. Intuition = logic.
2. What's incompatible between a "swift" process and a logical conclusion?
3. How could you possibly know that logic is not involved in all our intuitive decisions?
Please do as you please.
EB

commonsense
Posts: 1138
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by commonsense » Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:16 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:41 pm
commonsense wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:29 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:11 pm
Intuition = logic.
Intuition is the opposite of logic. See M&W.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:11 pm
What's incompatible between a "swift" process and a logical conclusion?
Intuition is swift. Intuition is the opposite of logic.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:11 pm
How could you possibly know that logic is not involved in all our intuitive decisions?
Logic is the opposite of intuition. See M&W.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_proof
Speakpigeon,
I want to take back everything I said in my previous post.

Logik,
Thanks for the informative references. It was unfortunate that I interpreted intuition in layman’s terms (hence MW; & mea culpa for “M&W”), rather than to mean Intuitionistic logic. I am chagrined, as this is a philosophy forum. Duh.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Logik » Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:29 pm

commonsense wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:16 pm
Speakpigeon,
I want to take back everything I said in my previous post.

Logik,
Thanks for the informative references. It was unfortunate that I interpreted intuition in layman’s terms (hence MW; & mea culpa for “M&W”), rather than to mean Intuitionistic logic. I am chagrined, as this is a philosophy forum. Duh.
None the less, it is still worth arguing the distinction that not all intuition is logical.

If you use Kahneman's model of System I and System II, and you could take the 4-stage learning process:

Stage 1: Unconscious Incompetence.
Stage 2: Conscious Incompetence.
Stage 3: Conscious Competence.
Stage 4: Unconscious Competence.

It's all intuition. Like any skill - it requires practice.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4480
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:10 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:29 pm
commonsense wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:16 pm
Speakpigeon,
I want to take back everything I said in my previous post.

Logik,
Thanks for the informative references. It was unfortunate that I interpreted intuition in layman’s terms (hence MW; & mea culpa for “M&W”), rather than to mean Intuitionistic logic. I am chagrined, as this is a philosophy forum. Duh.
None the less, it is still worth arguing the distinction that not all intuition is logical.

If you use Kahneman's model of System I and System II, and you could take the 4-stage learning process:

Stage 1: Unconscious Incompetence.
Stage 2: Conscious Incompetence.
Stage 3: Conscious Competence.
Stage 4: Unconscious Competence.

It's all intuition. Like any skill - it requires practice.
Intuition is grounded in the symmetry between "emotions" and abstract/empirical realities and as such it is logical in the respect it is "order". Intuition is deemed correct if it is symmetrical to the phenomena it points towards (such as leading to an idea or empirical phenomena) a phenomena in a manner where a connection is observed. This connection is grounded in symmetry.

This symmetry is grounded in a basic being/non-being/nothing trichotomy. For example if my "intuition" gives a "bad feeling" about an event and the event turns out to be "disordered" a symmetry is observed considering "disorder" and "bad", while variations of the same concept due to language ambiguity problems which ironically cycle to this example itself, observe the same state.

The nature of "intuition", due to its implication to an absence of form (considering all intellect is generally observed as a defining process of connecting and seperating variables), is fundamentally one of "origin" so to speak. Intuition effectively, because of these previously mentioned absence of form, is an origin of consciousness synonymous to field of awareness where a circumstance is summated in general terms (ie "this situation is bad" example above observes the nature of intuition paradoxically being rooted in platonic generalities which cycle back to certain platonic foundations of knowledge as strictly "justified belief" or in even simpler more objective terms: "assumption").

This generality, as in all generalities, observes a state of unity where various multiple phenomena have a "state of being", if such wording is accurate, under a form that represents a summation of parts; hence is subject to and conducive to "order" considering order itself is always grounded both logically and intuitively in a "whole" as "relation of parts" where this "relation" effectively observes all generalities and forms as generalities as boundaries of movement where one part effectively exists through another part by its relative direction to and from that part.

Movement is particulation, in these respects, as movement is grounded in the particularization that sends the fundamental grounds for "change". Generalities, as boundaries of change, are boundaries of movement as a summation of parts of unifying of multiplicity.

In these respects "intuition" and its inherent connection to generalities has a logical nature to it in the respect it acts as a point of origin in the nature of observation with this "origin" not only being the foundation of structure but interwoven within the structure itself. This "interwoven" nature of intuition in all phenomena can be observed in the nature of "esthetics", to some degree, where a grouping of forms through a painting, set of words, equations, or empirical sensory phenomena itself (such as a view of river, a beautiful woman, or an act of courage for a friend) observes that all "relations" as "localizations" of "one reality" effectively always have some "point of origin" in themselves or sense of "emotional" connection whereby the observer has a formless sense that summates the percieved experience.

This formless sense effectively is directed to another formless sense thereby observing an inherent connective/seperative capacity, founded in the intellectual state, such as observing the beauty of tree under a grouping of one set of emotions while inherently directing to a changed intuitive/emotive capacity under the observation of a dead rotting squirrel beside it. In this sense the projection of one intuition, in this respect emotion as a generalization of a specific context of existence, to another has the same characteristic defining attributes of "logic" and as such is dualistic in nature of the intellectual state (or empirical/physical sensory state depending on the starting point of ones observations in this subject).

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:52 pm

commonsense wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:16 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:41 pm
commonsense wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:29 pm
Intuition is the opposite of logic. See M&W.
Intuition is swift. Intuition is the opposite of logic.
Logic is the opposite of intuition. See M&W.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_proof
Speakpigeon,
I want to take back everything I said in my previous post.
Logik,
Thanks for the informative references. It was unfortunate that I interpreted intuition in layman’s terms (hence MW; & mea culpa for “M&W”), rather than to mean Intuitionistic logic. I am chagrined, as this is a philosophy forum. Duh.
???
If you're "taking back everything you said" on the basic of Logik's linked Wiki pages, then you need to understand that so-called Intuitionistic logic has nothing much to do with intuition. The word "intuition" doesn't even appear in any of these pages!
The little we know about logic comes from our logical intuitions and historically from the empirical evidence that people use arguments and that these arguments have a definite formal structure. And then, if not for Aristotle, we may have missed it entirely. Humans have a logical capacity but we have no formal calculus that does the same thing. We don't even know what it does exactly. The whole of mathematical logic itself is wrong and not based on an understanding of logic. It's a cheap approximation of Aristotelian syllogistic, and Aristotelian syllogistic is not even a formalisation of logic. So, you would do well to pay attention to your own logical intuition, if you know what intuition is.
EB

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:54 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:52 pm
The word "intuition" doesn't even appear in any of these pages!
Perhaps French works different to English but...

The root of the word "intuitionism" is "intuition".
The root of the word "intuition" is intuit.

intuit verb. understand or work out by instinct.

Both "intuit" and "intuition" occur 79 times on the two wiki pages I provided.

And finally from the page on intuitionism
In Brouwer's original intuitionism, the truth of a mathematical statement is a subjective claim: a mathematical statement corresponds to a mental construction, and a mathematician can assert the truth of a statement only by verifying the validity of that construction by intuition.
You are as pedantic as you are stupid.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Speakpigeon » Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:40 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:54 am
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:52 pm
The word "intuition" doesn't even appear in any of these pages!
Both "intuit" and "intuition" occur 79 times on the two wiki pages I provided.
Not quite. It's 73 times "intuitionistic", which is just a vacuous label.
The word "intuition" itself appears only 2 times, here:
Several systems of semantics for intuitionistic logic have been studied. One of these semantics mirrors classical Boolean-valued semantics but uses Heyting algebras in place of Boolean algebras. Another semantics uses Kripke models. These, however, are technical means for studying Heyting’s deductive system rather than formalizations of Brouwer’s original informal semantic intuitions. Semantical systems claiming to capture such intuitions, due to offering meaningful concepts of “constructive truth” (rather than merely validity or provability), are Gödel’s dialectica interpretation, Kleene’s realizability, Medvedev’s logic of finite problems,[1] or Japaridze’s computability logic.
As you can see, there's no substance. It's just a label.
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:54 am
And finally from the page on intuitionism
In Brouwer's original intuitionism, the truth of a mathematical statement is a subjective claim: a mathematical statement corresponds to a mental construction, and a mathematician can assert the truth of a statement only by verifying the validity of that construction by intuition.
You are as pedantic as you are stupid.
But that link wasn't in your original post.
More importantly, you've been very selective in your quote here! Let me quote what comes immediately after it:
The vagueness of the intuitionistic notion of truth often leads to misinterpretations about its meaning. Kleene formally defined intuitionistic truth from a realist position, yet Brouwer would likely reject this formalization as meaningless, given his rejection of the realist/Platonist position. Intuitionistic truth therefore remains somewhat ill-defined.
So please give us a clear explanation of what notion of intuition is really used in intuitionistic logic.
Further, the whole of mathematics is based on ideas. Which ones are intuitions, which ones are not?
Can you even articulate the fundamental methodological principle of intuitionistic logic? Wait, I know, you don't do "explain".
EB

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:43 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:40 pm
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:54 am
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:52 pm
The word "intuition" doesn't even appear in any of these pages!
Both "intuit" and "intuition" occur 79 times on the two wiki pages I provided.
Not quite. It's 73 times "intuitionistic", which is just a vacuous label.
The word "intuition" itself appears only 2 times, here:
Several systems of semantics for intuitionistic logic have been studied. One of these semantics mirrors classical Boolean-valued semantics but uses Heyting algebras in place of Boolean algebras. Another semantics uses Kripke models. These, however, are technical means for studying Heyting’s deductive system rather than formalizations of Brouwer’s original informal semantic intuitions. Semantical systems claiming to capture such intuitions, due to offering meaningful concepts of “constructive truth” (rather than merely validity or provability), are Gödel’s dialectica interpretation, Kleene’s realizability, Medvedev’s logic of finite problems,[1] or Japaridze’s computability logic.
As you can see, there's no substance. It's just a label.
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:54 am
And finally from the page on intuitionism
In Brouwer's original intuitionism, the truth of a mathematical statement is a subjective claim: a mathematical statement corresponds to a mental construction, and a mathematician can assert the truth of a statement only by verifying the validity of that construction by intuition.
You are as pedantic as you are stupid.
But that link wasn't in your original post.
More importantly, you've been very selective in your quote here! Let me quote what comes immediately after it:
The vagueness of the intuitionistic notion of truth often leads to misinterpretations about its meaning. Kleene formally defined intuitionistic truth from a realist position, yet Brouwer would likely reject this formalization as meaningless, given his rejection of the realist/Platonist position. Intuitionistic truth therefore remains somewhat ill-defined.
So please give us a clear explanation of what notion of intuition is really used in intuitionistic logic.
Further, the whole of mathematics is based on ideas. Which ones are intuitions, which ones are not?
Can you even articulate the fundamental methodological principle of intuitionistic logic? Wait, I know, you don't do "explain".
EB
The three pages combined have +-20 references, and go onto linking numerous other wikipedia pages.

Why do you keep insisting on me articulating things that you can just read for yourself?

Are you that fucking lazy to learn on your own?
Last edited by Logik on Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Speakpigeon » Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:46 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:43 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:40 pm
So please give us a clear explanation of what notion of intuition is really used in intuitionistic logic.
Further, the whole of mathematics is based on ideas. Which ones are intuitions, which ones are not?
Can you even articulate the fundamental methodological principle of intuitionistic logic? Wait, I know, you don't do "explain".
The three pages combined reference over 30 different papers, and go onto linking another 20-30 wikipedia pages.
Did you read through all of it? Which part requires articulation?
I knew it, you don't do "explain", ever. Claims. No justification.
Case closed.
EB

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:47 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:46 pm
I knew it, you don't do "explain", ever. Claims. No justification.
Case closed.
EB
Well, I keep asking you to define what you mean by "justification" and you keep refusing to define it!

30+ pages of references are CLEARLY not enough for you.

When you state your objective criteria for justification THEN I will justify. Till then you can va te faire enculer ;)

Case closed indeed.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Speakpigeon » Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:41 am

Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:47 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:46 pm
I knew it, you don't do "explain", ever. Claims. No justification.
Case closed.
EB
Well, I keep asking you to define what you mean by "justification" and you keep refusing to define it!

30+ pages of references are CLEARLY not enough for you.

When you state your objective criteria for justification THEN I will justify. Till then you can va te faire enculer ;)

Case closed indeed.
Define "criteria".
Define "objective".
Define "clearly".
Define "define".
I can see where you get stuck.
Define "stuck"?
EB

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Logik » Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:50 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:41 am
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:47 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:46 pm
I knew it, you don't do "explain", ever. Claims. No justification.
Case closed.
EB
Well, I keep asking you to define what you mean by "justification" and you keep refusing to define it!

30+ pages of references are CLEARLY not enough for you.

When you state your objective criteria for justification THEN I will justify. Till then you can va te faire enculer ;)

Case closed indeed.
Define "criteria".
Define "objective".
Define "clearly".
Define "define".
I can see where you get stuck.
Define "stuck"?
EB
https://www.iep.utm.edu/criterio/

The Problem of the Criterion is considered by many to be a fundamental problem of epistemology.

But what would a dumb Frenchie know about epistemology.

Could a dumb Frenchie even connect the dots between the problem of criterion and Socrates' dialogue with the Oracle of Delphi?
Could a dumb Frenchie connect the dots between the problem of criterion and Protagoras?

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Speakpigeon » Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:43 pm

Define "dot".
Well, wait, once you're at it, define "reality" and we're done.
I... sort of... guess...
EB

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Logik » Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:00 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:43 pm
Define "dot".
Well, wait, once you're at it, define "reality" and we're done.
I... sort of... guess...
EB
Frenchie still hasn't figured out that it's all in the interpretation, not in the definition...

I will enter into ANY contract; and agree to any law as long as I am the one who gets to interpret its meaning.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Post by Speakpigeon » Wed May 01, 2019 12:28 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:00 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:43 pm
Define "dot".
Well, wait, once you're at it, define "reality" and we're done.
I... sort of... guess...
EB
Frenchie still hasn't figured out that it's all in the interpretation, not in the definition...

I will enter into ANY contract; and agree to any law as long as I am the one who gets to interpret its meaning.
Sure, we all do that.
Indeed, any cognitive system would do the same because it's all it could possibly do.
So... what's the problem already? :roll:
EB

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests