Elledan & Linuxboy
Ok, I'm willing to learn. I will admit that something this fundamental might have been completely missed in my 67 years on God's green Earth.
Well-come elder, teach us please what you have learned from you lifetime. Do not mistake my drivel for insight for I am young and foolish.
First, point me toward a source (internet preferably) where there is some info on logical thought without language.
I think that logic cannot exist without language. Logical thought is kinda interesting. I'm turning this around and I don't quite see what logical thought it. Can you please elaborate? I don't really know of anyone who thinks there is logic outside of language, at least not the logic you imply. There may be a sort of implicit logic that cannot be grasped with language and indeed is independent of language but expression of inferences in the physical world surely cannot be done with language. Logic is syntax and semantics, after all.
The article I pointed to (above) is discussing whether any thought at all is possible without language. This would mean that I am not alone in my misconception.
Second, explain to me how such thought can be logical, when logic is based on statements (arguments). Logic is impossible without language, at least as I understand it. I hold a Masters in Mathematics, with an emphasis on classic mathematical logic. My dissertation involved the application of classic mathematical logic to philosophy. (Details available to the curious).
I think I've read enough of those for the time being. I agree that logic, as defined here, is not present without language. I also happen to think that the logic usually meant is a bunch of nonsense since it really traps us within its own confines.
I've experienced countless times the boundaries language imposes on an individual. I've found myself to be unable to express certain thoughts using language, not because my grasp on language is so weak, but because thoughts go beyond language, they're far more complex than you can imagine.
Even if this is true (I will give you the benefit of the doubt), this would not be logic. You need to find another word. Logical processes involve deductive reasoning, taken systematically from premise to conclusion, thus forming another premise until the desired conclusion is achieved, or is dismissed.
Therein lies our dilemma I think. Note that I never actually agreed with Elledan and I don't know if you are aware of this or not but it's usually:
Elledan posts something.
I post refutation
Elledan usually responds and sometimes travels off with "you're not being very clear" at which point I explain further.
Then Moonbeam usually joins in, usually posting content and ideas very similar to my own.
Once in awhile we have a visit from Athanasius or Optimus or xirtam or skylark or many other fine people here.
Note, however, that the classic patterns has been a sort of continued oppostion between myself and Elledan. Thus, I laugh that you now place me alongside him and present an opposing viewpoint. My posts here thus far have argued against Elledan and against your statement. I think this is pretty funny.
Logic, in how it's usually understood is not really what Elledan means by using the word logic. You have to read his other posts (and also a very similar discussion involving logic called "are humans illogical by nature", search for it please if you like) to get a better idea. If you feel like spending the time, I urge you to do so as I think there were interesting ideas presented there.
What you are saying sounds like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo designed to make yourself feel superior. Understand, this is not an insult, but an observation from ignorance if you are correct.
Muwahahahaha. *wipes tear*. You, I think, are a very welcome addition to our usual group of people who argue about things such as this.
Humans don't really think in any sort of known language if its a language at all. I, for, example, don't really have thoughts in a language most of the time. I do have thoughts, I sense a movement in my mind, but they are not really language-like.
Certainly, and this is intuition (the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference). It is not logic, and we are discussing logical thought. I have these same moments when suddenly the puzzle falls into place. In addition, working from this supposed conclusion, I can work backward to a known premise and therefore justify my conclusion. Without this process of reverse-engineering the logical proof, what you have is a conclusion that makes sense to you, but cannot be demonstrated to another without bringing them to a point where they can make the same connections. While very interesting, it is not logic. While it may be correct, it is not logic.
Woah. I never used the word logic in my posts. My argument was first and foremost an attempt to demonstrate to Elledan that saying that thought is not a language is fairly well adressed by Fodor in Psychosemantics, and subsequent articles and also by other LOT theorists. My later objection was to you in saying that you think in a language. That is sufficient but not necessary. Such was my emphasis. Perhaps I should have been more clear and succinct. I still think that thought can exist outside of a language. In other words, I then posted my own small and unorganized objection to Fodor's idea of propositional attitudes. I don't think you caught that. And that is not intuition, it is still thought, but just not in any sort of language known or defined. The "puzzle falling into place" is intuition. I'm talking about functional relations in the mind that it thought and can be used to produce the same results as thought but not couched in a LOT. Big difference. The relation can be between images, or memory indexicals, and not be in a LOT at all. That was my point. I have no objection to anything in this thread since so far, I agree with your points.
As an example,
Goldbach's conjecture: Every even integer n greater than two is the sum of two primes.
This is obviously true. It has been tested for tons of numbers. It has not been proven. Someone without an understanding of logic might even say it is logical. However, there is no systematic cogent process whereas this can be derived.
It makes sense. It is almost certainly true. It can be demonstrated repeatedly. It is NOT logical.
That's it. Our confusion stems for the fact that we attach various associations to words and so have trouble communicating what is there. I also think this is not logical. I never made this claim.
To declare something as being logical, when it is not (even if it is True) seems to be an attempt to lend undeserved credence to the declaration.
There we are. What you are in fact saying is that once we have a system, anything ascribed as part of the system should meet the rules of the system otherwise we're talking about something else altogether, in which case it would behoove us indeed to explain what the crimey we mean.
John, the Logical Rebel
Edit: I did find the following which is interesting.
Hologemes
Abstract: The following theses about the relationship between language and thought can be found in both linguistical studies and analytical philosophy. The common view of modern philosophy tends to identify thinking and language. The structure of language is said to be the inherent structure of our mind, of the way we think. That these assumptions are not only logically mendacious and inconsistent is discussed in the following refutation. There are mental domains in our mind that transcend the limitation of language. Higher forms of thinking do not apply linguistic structures but holistic patterns of thought that I call 'Hologemes'.
This sounds a bit like what you guys are advocating. The author goes on to say:
Possibly... I have worked out the full implications yet.
Therefore, language can only be a limitation for our rational or discursive thinking, because rational thinking is nothing else than language in our mind. We think the same way as we would express the thoughts as words in our language.
No, I disagree with that if he makes a necessary-and-sufficient claim. If that is simply sufficient, I agree with it but then the question is, how is that helpful to understanding.
We know, however, that rational thinking is only one small part of human thinking as such. Reason uses a much wider scope of ideas and principles, which transcend the possibilities not only of language but of rational thinking.
And he defines rational thinking synonymously to logical thinking:
Generally, logical thinking is sound, rational thinking, according to valid logical rules, such as valid conclusions, deductions, etc. More specifically, it is thinking based on the rules and laws of thought posited by formal and philosophical logic. It is a very restricted form of thought, since it cannot handle paradoxes or alogical entities. It is basically thinking without contradicitons and logical errors. Synonym for discursive thinking.
WHICH agrees with my earlier premise that it is wrong to depend entirely on logical thought.
Which I agree with
Me from page 2 of this discussion
Hey, I don't claim objectivity on anything, nor do I claim that logic is my sole basis for forming opinions. You have, so you need to be prepared to walk in those shoes.
That's it, I think. In claiming the use of a system, again one should be consistent and preferrably tautologous in the end assertions if it is to be taken as sound, else we are forced to divine what is meant and this leads us to all sorts of trouble.
I learned long ago the limitations of logic.
You and me both, mate.
You from earlier:
I trust my own logic. I use it to investigate, to explore this universe and everything in it. If my logic is flawed, then it would mean that the person I am, and everything I've done is a mere failure. I can not accept that.
If you walk away from this discussion with anything, it should to be an apreciation for the limitations of logic. If you only accept what can be logically demonstrated, then you will miss a great deal.[/i] >>
I think this representative of my understanding as well. If you do have the time John, please do search for some of our former discussions with Elledan (search by username for me, Moonbeam, Elledan, Athanasius, or other people I have mentioned, although we're the loquacious ones).
Oh is this post over already? But I can't object to anything here. Ah drats. Maybe if you started making some outrageous claims, I could respond with a deft and crushing argument? How about it, eh? *nudges with elbow*
Cheers !