How can one account for the laws of logic?
Forums › General Discussion › How can one account for the laws of logic?-
If all there is in the universe is material, then how can one account for the laws of logic which are only conceptual by nature?
-
😵 UGH NEED TO REBOOT BRAIN you made it crash
😜
-
Lol.
-
Mental masterbation is stupid.
-
agustine wrote:
If all there is in the universe is material, then how can one account for the laws of logic which are only conceptual by nature?
Nice question but you won't get a real answer it's like asking if gods real it's too deep
-
Sorry you're arguing from a fixed premise. Yours. Who said all there was was material
-
certusd wrote:
......what else could there be?Sorry you're arguing from a fixed premise. Yours. Who said all there was was material
Unless gases aren't included in the "material" -
It's simple LAW has no logic.
-
Normally would be classed as matter. And anti-matter.
-
Leprechaun wrote:
lol knew someone was gonna say thatIt's simple LAW has no logic.
-
Primo Loco wrote:
Maybe there is, yet as humans we can't understand it. Like ants not having a concept of a human, but rather a foot. So matter is the 'foot' but there is a greater 'human'.certusd wrote:
......what else could there be?Sorry you're arguing from a fixed premise. Yours. Who said all there was was material
Unless gases aren't included in the "material"That analogy kinda went too far, but hey.
-
The so called laws of logic are just us humans trying to put things in perspective and understand them. They are a construct of humanity. And as brown said mental masturbation is stupid.
-
agustine wrote:
If all there is in the universe is material, then how can one account for the laws of logic which are only conceptual by nature?
Logic comes from the human brain. The human brain is made of material and thus everything it creates is ultimately traced directly to material mass. Ergo, logic is traced to material.
See Also: Rules of Inference
-
agustine wrote:
Love is conceptual in nature. Time is conceptual in nature.. All thought is conceptual in nature... This is a question with little thought put into it's conception.If all there is in the universe is material, then how can one account for the laws of logic which are only conceptual by nature?
-
So I've had some good points however, I've got to ask those who seem to believe that the laws of logic are the product of minds (conventions of man) if these laws are product of human minds the laws are now subject to change since human minds are subject to change and therefore could not be consistant as a absolute truth. Without a mind there could be no truth statements thus no existance of truth at all. I'd like for some explain their position first then address the question again. Thanx!
-
agustine wrote:
I say again: Derp.So I've had some good points however, I've got to ask those who seem to believe that the laws of logic are the product of minds (conventions of man) if these laws are product of human minds the laws are now subject to change since human minds are subject to change and therefore could not be consistant as a absolute truth. Without a mind there could be no truth statements thus no existance of truth at all. I'd like for some explain their position first then address the question again. Thanx!
-
💼ΘzдякЂэ฿дикэя🍹 wrote:
The Frenchman Pascal stated it well, "The heart has reasons that reason cannot know."
💼🍹🔨Pfft...French.
-
agustine wrote:
So I've had some good points however,...blah blah blah blah
You ask another question on false premises and fallacies. Not as entertaining the second time around.
Allow me to change the subject and prove false the statement "Two wrongs do not make a right."
Say you have to solve a simple problem, for example, 1 + 5 = 6 (though the answer not given).
You err in transcribing the first number as 11 and accidentally transpose - for plus. You have two errors, yet have come up with 11 - 5 = 6 -- the right answer.
Proof by counter example.
-
💼ΘzдякЂэ฿дикэя🍹 wrote:
itchy area wrote:
I also believe it was a Frenchman who said, "If you occasionally wash that thang, it won't itch so much."💼ΘzдякЂэ฿дикэя🍹 wrote:
The Frenchman Pascal stated it well, "The heart has reasons that reason cannot know."
💼🍹🔨Pfft...French.
💼🍹🔨Right after pleasuring a German overlord, no doubt.
-
You ask another question on false premises and fallacies. Not as entertaining the second time around.
Allow me to change the subject and prove false the statement "Two wrongs do not make a right."
Say you have to solve a simple problem, for example, 1 + 5 = 6 (though the answer not given).
You err in transcribing the first number as 11 and accidentally transpose - for plus. You have two errors, yet have come up with 11 - 5 = 6 -- the right answer.
Proof by counter example.
I don't think you understand the question at all. You say false premise but all you've done was address a logical issue outside the question being asked. Let's get back to the basics. Would you agree that you would need a mind to make an absolute statement like a rock is a rock and is not a apple? How does it attain it's universal nature if it's only a product of your subjective mind? If that's your first statement you are clear to correct me.
-
That's not my statement.
-
You told me that logic came from the human mind did you not?
-
What is the essence of a=a?
-
Brown needs to be more active in this discussion...
-
Johnny Cage wrote:
Oh, sorry. OK.Brown needs to be more active in this discussion...
There is in fact only one thing in the universe, and it's not "material". It is energy. Energy can form matter. Matter and energy make your brain. The rest, you only imagine to be significant.
Now quit pretending that your "truth" hallucinations matter.
-
I think some scientist would disagree about kinetic energy not being material. Made up in matter that is. This goes along with my response to itchy area, if "truth" statements are in essense a product of human minds (which are not consistent) would make "truth" statements not absolute thus invalidating the laws of logic which are absolute. Make sense?
-
In other words canceling the laws of logic as being absolute if we were to take it to it's logical conclusion.
-
agustine wrote:
Reality exists without logic, and it exists without people, who have to invent science and logic to cope with their own ignorance of reality.I think some scientist would disagree about kinetic energy not being material. Made up in matter that is. This goes along with my response to itchy area, if "truth" statements are in essense a product of human minds (which are not consistent) would make "truth" statements not absolute thus invalidating the laws of logic which are absolute. Make sense?
-
I'm sorry but to be clear about the laws of logic they must exist outside of our minds or else your logically saying that when our minds die out so do the laws of logic- is what your saying brown?
-
Shit happens....
-
agustine wrote:
Absosmurfinglutely.I'm sorry but to be clear about the laws of logic they must exist outside of our minds or else your logically saying that when our minds die out so do the laws of logic- is what your saying brown?
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC