[Guille]

Let's get the things to move here.

What is the relationshiop between thought and logic?

Obviouslly, I can think and say (to say something we must think it before, although it may feel often when politicians talk that they don't think) things which are not logical, for example 2+2=5, this sentence is false, I think that I don't think, if god exists then god doesn't exist and vice versa, etz...

But again, what is logical? Who or what states that 2+2=5 is not logical? I already stated in my thread "logic and Mathematics" that the mathematical logic is not usefull to describe all logics, like, for example, the logic of the mind. Also, who says that it's not logical to think that ne doesn't think? It depends in what he means by think.... So, basically, I'm proving here that we cannot escape--as wittgenstein said--from the dimension of logic. We can have ilogicla thought, but it is still in the dimension of logic, in the negative part. So, thought can be studied by logic, the question is finding the point in which the thought is in the dimension of logic.

[dleviwing]

Thought is simply the process of using what we learn and observe throughout our lives. Logic is the process of thought that allows us to use what we believe we know to evaluate events and observations we are not familiar with. In all this process, there is nothing that qualifies knowledge or thought as TRUTH; this is done through sociological philosophy.

For logic to function properly, all languages must have common words with identical interpretive meaning. This is difficult even when people of the same language communicate, it becomes even more difficult when we need to translate ideas from one language to another. This also is true when translating mathematical language to the spoken language.

[Guille]

Logic is the disposition for a kind of thought (logical), not a process itself. It is rationalising which is the logical process. Now, logic is not reduced to language, language is reduced to logic-as wittgenstein clearly proved. The problem of communication of ideas, true, is the different conceptions of concepts.

For something to be valid, logic/mathematics is used. For something to be true, science is used. For something to be good, philosophy is used.

[mkirkpatrick]

When I was thinking about this topic,a thought occured to me that went likethis
the word logic,reminded me of what the ancient wisdom call spirit that is Logi or
logus,and that is sometimes expressed as logi within a circle,and a circle is much like the c that ends with logic,there is magic in words and in tracing them back
to there root.thinking can lead to logic and logic can lead to de-duction which
leads on to understanding,and thats reveals that inner light which leads to the
discovery ofthe LOGI within the C.

kind regards michael.

[Guille]

Logic, for me, is the disposition of thought. I mean, by this, that it is one of the kinds of ways by which we can base our thinking processes. But it is not thought itself: I mean, it is not deduction itself. Ratinalizing is deduction by logic. But logic itself is a tool by which to rationalise, nto rationalisation itself.

[michellemfry]

Logic is the means by which we achieve thought. In this way, the two are related to one another directly.

[baudrunner]

You're all wrong. Logic is the cerebral process of mensuration. A logical derivation is not necessarily true. The thoughts that we have about the things that interest us are based on empirical input. The logical result is sometimes true, sometimes not true, it depends on the information which the process of mensuration concludes. It works like this: we have a limited amount of information about a topic and we are required to deduce an unknown variable or more in order to make a statement about that topic. If the empirical data are true then there is a high probability that the logical conclusion is also true and we wil have deduced the unkowns from our data. If the data are tainted with one or more untruths, then we are more likely to draw an erroneous logical conclusion. Either way, we will still have derived a logical statement from the given set of data. Our thoughts are not always conscious. In fact, a very complex idea about which a book could be written can be encapsulated into a single engram which is stored into our memory. By way of example, a poster we shall call Mike5 often provides us with a good example of a condensed stream of communication which in his mind is encapsulated by a single engram, and virtually impossible to communicate in a single paragraph. That's why he writes books.



[reference to any person living or dead is purely conicidental]

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Allow me... In order to get to the basic root of the problem, try to eliminate memory completely from your investigation. This is possible by direct perceptive cognition of the "self" constitution of mind. When memory is eliminated we view pure thought, logic, and all our other vacated essence agents. Now, while using pure cognition to look behind the curtain, what can we see? Thought is an unending stream of consciousness, but when memory is eliminated, where is its origin? Even if we further eliminate the direct perception of the objective world, thought persists. So, what is left is the essence producing thought, whence it comes no one knows, and the mind's own constitution of "self-being", as Kant mentioned.

Now, if we were to read Heraclitus properly, we would realize he was talking about a different kind of natural logic, "logos", than most have interpreted. This natural logic can be isomorphic, i.e., elastic in nature, as we have all experienced - it need not be first order three value logic. The mind's natural logic is an innate, equilibriating, mathematical agent of essence. This natural logic is the only referee over our anarchic thoughts to create natural principles to live, an anywheres near sensible, life. Though as has been mentioned, logic can also produce true and false statements, as well as good and bad almost by itself alone. This is why all the other essence agents, such as emotions of compassion, empathy, etc., and judgment are also required to work in conjunction with thought and logic to semi-civilize thought and logic. The mind, to me, is a sharing quantum self-computer of many choices. Now, add the memory back in and whatch the choices multiply. When you add all the volitions, will, intent, etc., on and on in, you get quite a complex machine, since it can usually only operate the physical body linearly, one choice at a time, from trillions of possible choices.

Just my simple view,
Lloyd