High level philosophy

[Cod]

Your argument fell at the bunny went into bushes part... It's a well known fact that bunnies hide underground.

[vulcanlogician]

Lol. I edited the post to put the bunny argument at the bottom. (It was out of place where it was.) So really you're saying the argument fell way earlier.

[Joods]

Dammit. I'm only a 15th level Tiefling with sorcery abilities. And I have red draconic bloodlines.

Guess I'm out.

[robvalue]

Okay. I don't know if I'm high level or not, but I'm a multiclass halfling fighter/philosopher. Hopefully you'll see both classes reflected in the arguments below.

I'm working on a new argument which concludes that logic is a subjective thing.

1. I don't know French. I speak common, thieves cant, halfling, and elvish.
2. Logic has evolved. It hasn't been intelligently designed.
3. Logic is a "value stream." (It values conclusions that follow over those that don't.)
4. There is no "out there" yard stick for measuring accurate logic (god or other).
5. There is no non-human representation of logical/illogical.
6. Logic requires a social context. For example, the Kalam argument represents perfect logic to some theists. Therefore we shouldn't call the Kalam argument out for faultiness because it depends on one's cultural/social context whether it works or not.
7. Logic is not a simplex system... it is duplex (and perhaps multiplex?) in that there are three pathways:
a) Sense data to premises.
b) Premises to conclusion.
c) And then reasoning is involved somewhere in there too. That's pretty complex. If it's complicated, it must be subjective. I don't think anyone disputes this.
8. People always call logical fallacies out merely to dismiss others' opinions when they disagree. Theists might not think their reasoning is fallacious because they are attached to the conclusion of their argument. We need to stop thinking that there is some "out there" agreed upon set of logical fallacies. If a post hoc argument works in your conception, that's your subjective opinion, and no one ought to be able to say "That reasoning doesn't follow." That's just their opinion.
9. I don't think there is any doubt that our capacity to use logic is the product of evolution. That (somehow) makes it subjective. It's pretty clear that our hominid ancestors lacked the capacity to use logic. And we evolved the capacity to employ it. Anything that is the product of evolution cannot be objective, of course.

I hope that atheists will take note of what I've said here, and stop calling theists out for "misuse of logic." You can't do that! That assumes some kind of objective component to logic. Logic is a cultural/subjective thing. Whether their logical arguments follow or not is a matter of opinion. Logical reasoning is merely an artifact of our evolutionary development. It helped communication in tribal social spheres and helped us figure out where food supplies were when we were hunter/gatherers. Cavemen used rudimentary logic. "I heard rustling in bushes. Therefore bunny that I'm hunting went into bushes."

There is no "out there" objective metric by which we can measure the accuracy of logical arguments. If humans disappeared from the face of the earth, so would logic.

---

                 

---

I agree. There are any number of potential logical systems that could be employed, so it’s a subjective choice as to which one a person decides to use in any given situation. Logic is just a tool we use to try and understand reality better.

Once the rules of logic that are being used are agreed upon in any given discussion, it is then valid to point out logical mistakes. The thing is, people tend to assume the kind of logic that is in place. So if I tell some guy that he made a logic boo-boo, he has several possible responses:

1) He agrees that he is using a logical system where the error does apply.

a) He ammends his argument accordingly.
b) He contests the fact that it is indeed an error in that system.
c) He doesn't care and proceeds regardless.

2) He says he’s actually using some other logical system, which he will hopefully describe.

Without some sort of response like this, no progress will be made I think. Examples are often given, to show that they probably wouldn’t use such logic in another situation, because of the poor results it would yield. But if people don’t care about results, there’s nothing to be done.

[DLJ]

Okay. I don't know if I'm high level or not, 
...

I suspect that you are.  

...
I'm working on a new argument which concludes that logic is a subjective thing.
...

Good choice for this thread.  

...
1. I don't know French. I speak common, thieves cant, halfling, and elvish.
...

I have a smattering of French.  After years of study I am fluent in the languages of the people of Gibber and Rubb.

...
2. Logic has evolved. It hasn't been intelligently designed.
...

I suspect that 'artificial selection' has been at play with numerous attempts at cross-pollination.

...
3. Logic is a "value stream." (It values conclusions that follow over those that don't.)
...

Nope.  Logic is a 'thinking tool' and would thus belong to the category of 'information / technology'.

A 'value stream' is a series of steps undertaken to create and deliver value to stakeholders and includes the activities, workflows, controls and procedures needed to achieve agreed goals.  It will utilise information / technology, e.g. logic, to get there.

...
4. There is no "out there" yard stick for measuring accurate logic (god or other).
...

Yes.  'Accuracy' is an intrinsic quality criteria so it only requires internal consistency.

...
5. There is no non-human representation of logical/illogical.
...

Correct... that we know of.

Vulcans notwithstanding.

...
6. Logic requires a social context.
...

It doesn't.

...
For example, the Kalam argument represents perfect logic to some theists.
...

I know, right?  

...
Therefore we shouldn't call the Kalam argument out for faultiness because it depends on one's cultural/social context whether it works or not.
...

It doesn't ... so, non sequitur.

...
7. Logic is not a simplex system... it is duplex (and perhaps multiplex?) in that there are three pathways:
a) Sense data to premises.
b) Premises to conclusion.
c) And then reasoning is involved somewhere in there too. That's pretty complex. If it's complicated, it must be subjective. I don't think anyone disputes this.
...

I dispute it.  You've described a simplex system... it's mono-directional.  You can't automatically get to the premises from the conclusion. It's much harder to get an 'if' from a 'then' than it is to get a 'then' from an 'if'.

Note to Rob:  Given the equivocation issues in other threads, I'll be interpreting 'objective' and 'subjective' as 'quantitative' and 'qualitative' respectively in this thread.  Let me know if you're OK with that.  

...
8. People always call logical fallacies out merely to dismiss others' opinions when they disagree.
...

I don't know about 'always' but yes, I have noticed that phenomenon.  I'll be doing that myself, later on.

...
Theists might not think their reasoning is fallacious because they are attached to the conclusion of their argument.
...

Excellent observation.

They are using WKID rather than DIKW

...
We need to stop thinking that there is some "out there" agreed upon set of logical fallacies. If a post hoc argument works in your conception, that's your subjective opinion, and no one ought to be able to say "That reasoning doesn't follow." That's just their opinion.
...

There's that 'ought from is' problem again.

...
9. I don't think there is any doubt that our capacity to use logic is the product of evolution.
...

Agreed.  

I prefer the word 'capability' to the word 'capacity' but no worries.

...
That (somehow) makes it subjective.
...

Non sequitur!

(told you so   )

...
It's pretty clear that our hominid ancestors lacked the capacity to use logic. And we evolved the capacity to employ it. Anything that is the product of evolution cannot be objective, of course.
...

Non sequitur, again.  Something like 'the number of extinct species' would be hard (if not impossible) to quantify but it would still be a quantitative metric.

It's a fair point though overall... what, indeed, were the earliest thinking-tools?  

I have a suspicion that both music and spear-throwing have the same root... the heartbeat as the basis for rhythm and counting.  Tribal music (particularly drums) and dance had the benefit of aiding group co-ordination.

...
I hope that atheists will take note of what I've said here, and stop calling theists out for "misuse of logic." You can't do that
...

I can and I will.  

Children who are not taught the correct way to use power tools could get themselves hurt.

...
That assumes some kind of objective component to logic.
...

That would be correct.  Boolean logic, for example, can contain both quantitative and qualitative elements.

...
Logic is a cultural/subjective thing.
...

Culture is 'aggregated behaviour'.  Logic (as information technology) acts as an enabler/constraint that influences behaviour.

...
Whether their logical arguments follow or not is a matter of opinion. 
...

Incorrect.

...
Logical reasoning is merely an artifact of our evolutionary development.
...

Artifact or artefact?  The latter appears more fashionable in governance circles.  But yes, it's a highly prized artefact due to its usefulness.

...
It helped communication in tribal social spheres and helped us figure out where food supplies were when we were hunter/gatherers. Cavemen used rudimentary logic. "I heard rustling in bushes. Therefore bunny that I'm hunting went into bushes."
...

I think you are referring to reasoning rather than formal logic but yes, as information-technology, it's a valuable survival tool.

...
There is no "out there" objective metric by which we can measure the accuracy of logical arguments.
...

Again, 'accuracy' is an intrinsic quality criteria, so no 'out there' is required.

...
If humans disappeared from the face of the earth, so would logic.
...

This, sadly, might be true unless a post-human species can decipher our artefacts stored in our information technology e.g. books.  

If we want to assist future species then we probably ought to consider using more resilient media such as stone tablets.

That would be the logicial, no, the reasonable thing to do.

[vulcanlogician]

Hey man! No calling non sequitur when I'm employing sarcasm. That's me saying YOUR argument is a non sequitur.

Tbh, I didn't really understand the simplex/duplex thing, so I was just spitballin' there.

Arguably, formal logic is dependant on some social context. But maybe you have a point there too. The rest, I'll get back to you on.

[DLJ]

...
Tbh, I didn't really understand the simplex/duplex thing, so I was just spitballin' there.
...

I guessed.



Fair warning: I intend to address all posts with the seriousness introduced in the OP.

[robvalue]

DLJ and I are nearing level 50 in philosophy, so we decided to grind out some discussion* so we can finally enter Plato's Cave. We heard there are some amazing axioms to be found in there.
...

Apologies for taking my time ... this week I are been mostly preaching governance/ethics to an oil company (they all passed the exam but they left me all kinda succubusted).

Perhaps a good place to start would be a brief deconstruction of the previous levels (1-49) and the various level-up red-pills we found there.

Here are some of mine:
1. "Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là" -- Laplace.  Gods and goddesses are not required in this or any hypothesis.

Agreed! I don’t even see how they would be relevant anyhow. They could be bastards.

2. Morality has evolved.  It has not been intelligently designed.

For sure.

3. Morality is a 'value stream'.

I’m not exactly sure what this means, but I agree it’s totally to do with an individual's values.

4. There is no 'out there' yard-stick (god or other).

Agreed. It would be essentially arbitrary, or at best some sort of average.

5. There is no non-human representation of right/wrong.

I think some animals have the notion of what we call right/wrong, or at least "fairness"; but I doubt they have the kind of internal meta-analysis about it that humans have.

6. Morality/ethics requires a social context.  Therefore, it is a social construction.  
It is an 'idea construct' (in that different people have different ideas about it and these ideas affect how they behave in social situations) and a 'constitutive construct' (in that it cannot exist outside of social relations that validate it).

Agreed.

7. Morality is not a simplex system... it is duplex (and perhaps multiplex?) in that there are two pathways:
a) Sense data to decision(s)
b) decision(s) to action.

I’m not familiar with this so I’d have to do more reading, but from the sounds of it I agree.

8. In-game map, zoom-function:  It isn't just one click from values/ethics to neurons.  Therefore, there is one or more intermediate steps. Each step may have a different naming convention (terminology) but each view must be compatible with its next level (whether zooming in or out).

Sure yes, I think it’s some kind of very complex feedback system involving many steps. I don’t know enough scientifically to identify those steps.

9. Morality is:
An evolved, human governance / continuity management system.
This system is an evolved extension (in the cognitive domain) of the pre-human immune system, endocrine and limbic system architecture and requires an ethical baseline (requiring memory), emotion-based thresholds, event-detection (e.g. deception detectors; a conscience) and reasoning (hence consciousness). It is enabled / influenced by chemical inhibitors and inducers and social constraints and drivers.

This is again beyond my knowledge, so I’d need to read more to fully understand it. I expect I would agree, and I recognise the term "governance" from our earlier conversation.

If you’d like me to do some reading on any/all of the parts I’m not so familiar with, please let me know, and I’ll do so! When I’m more with it, I’ll try and add some more of my own philosophy here too.

[DLJ]

...
If you’d like me to do some reading on any/all of the parts I’m not so familiar with, please let me know, and I’ll do so!
...

I wouldn't wish that on you. International Best Practice manuals and ISO standards are only good for those with insomnia problems.

I'll pick out the bits you queried and expand on them (later today, it's gone 1am here).

...
When I’m more with it, I’ll try and add some more of my own philosophy here too.

Looking forward to it. But take your time. No rush, no worries.

[robvalue]

Before going into more general discussions, there’s something I’ve been meaning to discuss for a while and this seems like the right venue. The following is personal and very dark in nature, so I’m going to put it in spoilers and advise reader discretion.

---

I’ve been trying to analyse myself and my behaviour scientifically. The development of my own morality is very important to me, and on a surface level I’m trying to do "the right thing". It’s become quite a popular theme in these post-survivalist times. I try and expand this as far and wide as possible.

But how does my behaviour actually work? What is really stopping me from doing certain things that I consider "wrong"? One big factor is guilt. I know that if I do certain thing that I feel to be wrong, I will feel guilty. In this way I police myself, because I am my own harshest critic. I know that if I did certain things I consider to be extremely wrong, I’d feel so guilty that I wouldn’t be able to bear it. I hate feeling guilty, so this gives me a practical reason not to do these things.

There’s one particular scenario to which this doesn’t apply, and this is where it’s going to get dark. I want to first reassure everyone that this isn’t a cry for help. I’m no danger to myself. I have absolutely no plans to hurt myself. I have been the way I’m about to describe for over 10 years. I have promised to immediately tell my wife if I have the slightest inclination of making life-ending plans.

I hate being alive, and I want to die. Every day, I wish for death. I wish I could be allowed to die. If I was to act purely selfishly, I’d go and find the most painless way of killing myself today. The reason I don’t do this is because I know it would be devastating to various people (primarily my wife), as well as my dog who has a very close connection with me; and I would be abandoning our other pets too. I live on for them. Everyone is free not to believe me, that’s absolutely fine. I try my best every day to be as positive as I can, and to make the best of things. People therefor sometimes have a hard time believing what’s going on inside of me.

Here’s the interesting part, in this morbid scenario. If I killed myself, there would be no guilt. As well as ending all my problems, that final barrier doesn’t exist. Yet I don’t do it. So clearly it’s not such a simple setup as it may seem. My next idea is that my behaviour has been conditioned to avoid doing "wrong" things for fear of the guilt, to the point where the deterrent itself is no longer actually relevant. Yet I can sit here and analyse myself, to see how I have (so to speak) indoctrinated myself into a certain mode of behaviour, and I can clearly see how the reasoning behind it does not apply here.

So what is stopping me, scientifically speaking? I suppose the power of the emotions of me knowing how much suffering my actions would cause, even though I wouldn’t be there to experience them or feel guilty about them, is strong enough to counter my freely available escape from the misery of my life. I guess it makes some sort of sense from an evolutionary point of view, too. Those who value others to such a degree that they will endure misery themselves will survive and get the opportunity to reproduce, whereas those who "opt out" lose all such rights.

I apologise for the depressing subject matter, and I won’t be offended if no one (DLJ included) wants to discuss it further.

---