Basics of Logic - Discussions thread

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Folks,

Using the excellent idea of Shri. Raghy, I have started this thread. Dear members, kindly use this thread for you views and comments on the content in the "Basics of logic" thread.

 

[auh]

Ok, I missed this one... can you explain what is the difference in these two threads please? Do you mean to say that while the other thread will not have any discussions but only your postings, this thread would have discussions on the posts made in the other?

If yes, my personal opinion would be that it would become contrived over a period of time. Better to have one thread, but that's just my view.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Auh,

The idea is to not get distracted from the topic. I will address your comment on logical fallacies as the discussions proceed.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

I wanted to make minimum unnecessary assumptions and just try to state the facts. So even though what you say may be true, it is not agreed upon by all.

 

[sravna]

My view on why the deeper truths are not accessed in a step by step logical process is because, the deeper the truth, the more unified they exist and hence are accessed in that unified way and the access is not a step by step conscious process.

 

[tks]

My view on why the deeper truths are not accessed in a step by step logical process is because, the deeper the truth, the more unified they exist and hence are accessed in that unified way and the access is not a step by step conscious process.

There are logical issues with use of relative terms like "higher reality and lower reality', "deeper vs not so deeper truths" without clear statement of what the absolute measure of associated criteria is that is applicable to determine this hierarchy

 

[sravna]

There are logical issues with use of relative terms like "higher reality and lower reality', "deeper vs not so deeper truths" without clear statement of what the absolute measure of associated criteria is that is applicable to determine this hierarchy

It is like a scale from 0 to 1. Just as 0.5 is higher than 0.1 and 1 being the highest of all, also represents the absolute. So in this case the deepest truth would be the knowledge using which you can coherently explain everything.

 

[tks]

It is like a scale from 0 to 1. Just as 0.5 is higher than 0.1 and 1 being the highest of all, also represents the absolute. So in this case the deepest truth would be the knowledge using which you can coherently explain everything.

I honestly do not want to critique you.. - but the fact is what you have stated is vague, meaningless and not logical. Since you are sincere in my view I will not use the "fill in the blanks" phrase.

First of all 'explain everything' has to be objective and there has to be a criteria even to state that.

Citing a number order has nothing to do with ordering another entity. In the case of orders of numbers lower number can be subtracted from the higher number that will yield a positive number. Now that is the criteria for ordering of the number.

In case of an abstract statement like reality there is no criteria possible. There are subjective implication to words like higher and lower. Words like coherent in such case is not precise and subjective

I could come up with an entity called jhjh that is higher than oioio.. just like 0.5 is smaller than 1.0

I hope you see meaninglessness blabber of words in the above.

If you are student of logic you should be able to understand what I just stated. If you are unable to understand what I said you can ask questions. If neither is the case then I do not want to engage .. all the best with your thread

 

[sravna]

I honestly do not want to critique you.. - but the fact is what you have stated is vague, meaningless and not logical. Since you are sincere in my view I will not use the "fill in the blanks" phrase.

First of all 'explain everything' has to be objective and there has to be a criteria even to state that.

Citing a number order has nothing to do with ordering another entity. In the case of orders of numbers lower number can be subtracted from the higher number that will yield a positive number. Now that is the criteria for ordering of the number.

In case of an abstract statement like reality there is no criteria possible. There are subjective implication to words like higher and lower. Words like coherent in such case is not precise and subjective

I could come up with an entity called jhjh that is higher than oioio.. just like 0.5 is smaller than 1.0

I hope you see meaninglessness blabber of words in the above.

If you are student of logic you should be able to understand what I just stated. If you are unable to understand what I said you can ask questions. If neither is the case then I do not want to engage .. all the best with your thread

Dear Shri TKS,

You do not expect others to argue with you and you do all you can to cut short the argument.

When some one says that a body of knowledge say , such as a scientific knowledge is coherent, it means there are no contradictions within it. When I say some knowledge is deeper than another what I mean is that it can successfully resolve inconsistencies arising in the latter.

 

[tks]

Dear Shri TKS,

You do not expect others to argue with you and you do all you can to cut short the argument.

When some one says that a body of knowledge say , such as a scientific knowledge is coherent, it means there are no contradictions within it. When I say some knowledge is deeper than another what I mean is that it can successfully resolve inconsistencies arising in the latter.

For any arguement to go forward there has to be a common base of axiomatic understanding and it cannot be about subjective beliefs or opinions.

If someone says something is deep it is a subjective statement in your mind only and there is nothing to argue because for any discussion to proceed there has to be objective understanding based on agreements on basic axioms. Your statements are just your beliefs in your world view and you are entitled to your view without criticism.

Science and study of Vedanta (including B.Gita) require precision in description and is not tied to someone's belief.

Schools of thoughts in Sri Sankara's time are debated and validated using logic and axioms that they all subscribe to. Otherwise there is no possibility for argument.

All your statements are subjective only and hence outside of objective logic.

My respect for Upanishads is not because an acharya said it is inerrant but because the underlying truth is understandable by me and that I cannot find any contradictions with logic or what I observe in other walks of life. And I should be able to convey that knowledge to another (provided they have the right background, preparation and maturity developed to insist on finding the truth)

There are schools of thought that rely on faith as a starting point and that does not work for me.

To me a defintion of shraddha is total commitment to finding the truth and willing to examine our own assumptions that incorrectly lead us.

The discussion then has to involve not a subjective assertion but an objective analysis based on common axioms that are self evident.

 

[sravna]

For any arguement to go forward there has to be a common base of axiomatic understanding and it cannot be about subjective beliefs or opinions.

If someone says something is deep it is a subjective statement in your mind only and there is nothing to argue because for any discussion to proceed there has to be objective understanding based on agreements on basic axioms. Your statements are just your beliefs in your world view and you are entitled to your view without criticism.

Science and study of Vedanta (including B.Gita) require precision in description and is not tied to someone's belief.

Schools of thoughts in Sri Sankara's time are debated and validated using logic and axioms that they all subscribe to. Otherwise there is no possibility for argument.

All your statements are subjective only and hence outside of objective logic.

My respect for Upanishads is not because an acharya said it is inerrant but because the underlying truth is understandable by me and that I cannot find any contradictions with logic or what I observe in other walks of life. And I should be able to convey that knowledge to another (provided they have the right background, preparation and maturity developed to insist on finding the truth)

There are schools of thought that rely on faith as a starting point and that does not work for me.

To me a defintion of shraddha is total commitment to finding the truth and willing to examine our own assumptions that incorrectly lead us.

The discussion then has to involve not a subjective assertion but an objective analysis based on common axioms that are self evident.

I find this lecture is unnecessary. If you do not agree with what I say it is fine. But it does not mean it is not objective.

 

[tks]

I find this lecture is unnecessary. If you do not agree with what I say it is fine. But it does not mean it is not objective.

You start a topic about logic, then subjectively assert something is deeper without an objective criteria that everyone can relate to ...

Please define what is objective about what you have stated.. If you cannot tell the difference between what is objective and what is subjective then the whole thread is illogical..

Enjoy debating with others

 

[sravna]

You start a topic about logic, then subjectively assert something is deeper without an objective criteria that everyone can relate to ...

Please define what is objective about what you have stated.. If you cannot tell the difference between what is objective and what is subjective then the whole thread is illogical..

Enjoy debating with others

You have to tell me what is not objective about what I have stated in post #9

 

[sravna]

Shri TKS,

I agree that for an argument to proceed there has to be a common base of understanding. But how logical is it to say that the argument is illogical just because a common base has not been established. I started by saying that it was my view that I am giving and the logical thing for you is to have asked me to make clear what I mean by my views. The fact that you did not do that and immediately dismissed my views as illogical shows that you are not open to views other than yours.

Dear Folks,

I agree with the view that one person's views may not represent the truth. So it has to pass the test of objectivity. But think about it. What do these scientists among whom this need for objectivity exists consider something as objective. An hypothesis becomes objective if it passes the test of verifiable evidence in the physical world. This is because logic alone cannot be the base of scientific theories as there are a number of assumptions used which are necessarily subjective. But is this test infallible that once you establish something "objectively" it is never falsified. In fact all scientific theories have been proved to be inconsistent and so falsified at one point or the other.

So physical evidence as a criterion of objectivity has limitations. In my view intuitive knowledge can best access reality that are very deep and hence can better unearth truths than these scientific methods that establish the so-called truths, by physical evidence.

 

[sangom]

Shri TKS,

I agree that for an argument to proceed there has to be a common base of understanding. But how logical is it to say that the argument is illogical just because a common base has not been established. I started by saying that it was my view that I am giving and the logical thing for you is to have asked me to make clear what I mean by my views. The fact that you did not do that and immediately dismissed my views as illogical shows that you are not open to views other than yours.

Dear Folks,

I agree with the view that one person's views may not represent the truth. So it has to pass the test of objectivity. But think about it. What do these scientists among whom this need for objectivity exists consider something as objective. An hypothesis becomes objective if it passes the test of verifiable evidence in the physical world. This is because logic alone cannot be the base of scientific theories as there are a number of assumptions used which are necessarily subjective. But is this test infallible that once you establish something "objectively" it is never falsified. In fact all scientific theories have been proved to be inconsistent and so falsified at one point or the other.

So physical evidence as a criterion of objectivity has limitations. In my view intuitive knowledge can best access reality that are very deep and hence can better unearth truths than these scientific methods that establish the so-called truths, by physical evidence.

My dear Sravna,

Physical evidence, that is, objects and their interactions, processes, events, etc., which can be seen, heard, smelt etc., directly by using our sense-organs or jñānendriyas, are what the vast majority of human beings will understand and be convinced of. "Intuition" (Instinctive knowing without the use of rational processes, or, An impression that something might be the case) is not equally developed among human beings. For example, one person with intuition may 'sense' a ghost in a room but it is not at all necessary that all people will necessarily do so and so others who lack that intuition will refuse to accept the presence of that ghost in the room unless and until it is substantiated by some physical evidence to prove the presence of that (invisible) ghost.

In the same way, science and scientists do deal only with physically verifiable evidence; any hunch or intuition has to be proved, at least subsequently, by physically verifiable phenomena or experimental evidence. Before the time of modern science, humanity depended mostly on the intuitive knowledge of a few but mankind never witnessed such control over nature, widening frontier of knowledge, etc. during all those vast millennia. It is therefore a correct demand if the Brahma Sutra or Advaita is sought to be proved on scientific basis and not on the basis of the intuitive ability of any one person or group.

Now, I agree that much of brahma sutra, advaita or philosophy, etc., is incapable of standing any scientific scrutiny. Therefore, the second best course, will be to provide these in language which the average, ordinary, educated mind can understand.

To be continued please...

 

[sravna]

My dear Sravna,

Physical evidence, that is, objects and their interactions, processes, events, etc., which can be seen, heard, smelt etc., directly by using our sense-organs or jñānendriyas, are what the vast majority of human beings will understand and be convinced of. "Intuition" (Instinctive knowing without the use of rational processes, or, An impression that something might be the case) is not equally developed among human beings. For example, one person with intuition may 'sense' a ghost in a room but it is not at all necessary that all people will necessarily do so and so others who lack that intuition will refuse to accept the presence of that ghost in the room unless and until it is substantiated by some physical evidence to prove the presence of that (invisible) ghost.

In the same way, science and scientists do deal only with physically verifiable evidence; any hunch or intuition has to be proved, at least subsequently, by physically verifiable phenomena or experimental evidence. Before the time of modern science, humanity depended mostly on the intuitive knowledge of a few but mankind never witnessed such control over nature, widening frontier of knowledge, etc. during all those vast millennia. It is therefore a correct demand if the Brahma Sutra or Advaita is sought to be proved on scientific basis and not on the basis of the intuitive ability of any one person or group.

Now, I agree that much of brahma sutra, advaita or philosophy, etc., is incapable of standing any scientific scrutiny. Therefore, the second best course, will be to provide these in language which the average, ordinary, educated mind can understand.

To be continued please...

Dear Shri Sangom,

I agree with what you say.

 

[tks]

Shri TKS,

I agree that for an argument to proceed there has to be a common base of understanding. But how logical is it to say that the argument is illogical just because a common base has not been established. I started by saying that it was my view that I am giving and the logical thing for you is to have asked me to make clear what I mean by my views. The fact that you did not do that and immediately dismissed my views as illogical shows that you are not open to views other than yours.

Dear Folks,

I agree with the view that one person's views may not represent the truth. So it has to pass the test of objectivity. But think about it. What do these scientists among whom this need for objectivity exists consider something as objective. An hypothesis becomes objective if it passes the test of verifiable evidence in the physical world. This is because logic alone cannot be the base of scientific theories as there are a number of assumptions used which are necessarily subjective. But is this test infallible that once you establish something "objectively" it is never falsified. In fact all scientific theories have been proved to be inconsistent and so falsified at one point or the other.

So physical evidence as a criterion of objectivity has limitations. In my view intuitive knowledge can best access reality that are very deep and hence can better unearth truths than these scientific methods that establish the so-called truths, by physical evidence.

There are many that have critiqued your beliefs about deeper realities many times essentially asking you to explain and even in this thread my early post was opportunity for you to explain. Whether I am open or not about views is irrelevant to answering the questions.

Please examine your assumptions about science that you are making. Until then there is really nothing to debate with you

All

Concepts taught like imaginary numbers taught at middle and high school level are not physical. Basic quantum mechanics developed almost 100 years ago utilizes concepts entirely based on intuition (Schrodinger's equation is one of the biggest guess work in science in the last century ) supported by mathematical formalism of infinite dimensional space (Hilbert space) which cannot be physically proved.

Entire branch of pure mathematics are attempts at precise formulations that many times cannot even be easily imagined with no basis in physical reality.

Over the years many people in all walks of life have knowingly and unknowingly have cheated people in the name of intuition and that still continues to happen.


A scientific process has to be insisted for precise definitions even for just conceptual statements.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom and Shri TKS,

What I say is that it is not necessary to always insist for directly verifiable evidence. Even if some knowledge can be inferred or known indirectly from the available evidence it should be OK. For example let us take the example of spiritual energy by which I mean energy which does not need to travel in space and time but is everywhere and always present. If the existence of such an energy can be inferred or known indirectly from the existing evidence, that should be accepted if such an energy is postulated as necessary for explaining things.

 

[tks]

Dear Shri Sangom and Shri TKS,

What I say is that it is not necessary to always insist for directly verifiable evidence. Even if some knowledge can be inferred or known indirectly from the available evidence it should be OK. For example let us take the example of spiritual energy by which I mean energy which does not need to travel in space and time but is everywhere and always present. If the existence of such an energy can be inferred or known indirectly from the existing evidence, that should be accepted if such an energy is postulated as necessary for explaining things.

Dark energy is postulated in Science as an attempt to explain expanding universe.
Verifiable evidence do not always exist for such postulations.
What is key is in making intuitive attempts to explain is that rigor and precision is not lost in descriptions.

Spritual is a vague word meaning different things for different people. Energy in this context even more vague. Connecting the so called 'evidence' to such a vague postulate is a play of the mind.
All these ideas if you can even call that have neither support in Science nor in Vedanta (Advita) which focus on precision.

 

[sravna]

Dark energy is postulated in Science as an attempt to explain expanding universe.
Verifiable evidence do not always exist for such postulations.
What is key is in making intuitive attempts to explain rigor and precision is not lost.

Spritual is a vague word meaning different things for different people. Energy in this context even more vague. Connecting the so called 'evidence' to such a vague postulate is a play of the mind.
All these ideas if you can even call that have neither support in Science nor in Vedanta (Advita) which focus on precision.

Shri TKS,

I was just trying to illustrate. If only rigor and precision are the issues I do not have a disagreement with you. But I wonder how necessary or feasible it is to give your ideas rigor and precision when you are only trying to communicate informally and expect people to get the gist of what you say. Nobody here is publishing scholarly papers.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom and Shri TKS,

What I say is that it is not necessary to always insist for directly verifiable evidence. Even if some knowledge can be inferred or known indirectly from the available evidence it should be OK. For example let us take the example of spiritual energy by which I mean energy which does not need to travel in space and time but is everywhere and always present. If the existence of such an energy can be inferred or known indirectly from the existing evidence, that should be accepted if such an energy is postulated as necessary for explaining things.

If there is any physically verifiable evidence for this "spiritual energy" - which does not need to travel (?) in space but is present everywhere and always, then such verifiable evidence may be provided here. I am unable to understand the "logic" of 'energy which does not need to "travel in time"; does this mean that this 'energy' is a one-time phenomenon? Kindly explain.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

You will understand it better if you consider that when physical energy travels through space it travels in time also because it does not travel instantaneously from one point in space to another.

Something which travels instantaneously in space and unchanging in time is not actually traveling.

 

[sangom]

Continued from post # 15

If, however, it is the intention to start (in this thread) a course on the rules of logic as applicable to philosophy, then it should start in the proper way with the basics, and not with some sudden announcement about some "spiritual energy by which I mean energy which does not need to travel in space and time but is everywhere and always present." and things like that.

You will notice that by the use of the words by which I mean, this so-called spiritual energy idea is a concoction of your own brain/mind. Hence, it becomes necessary, first of all, to either cite references to such an idea (of spiritual energy) from existing scriptures and what those scriptures say about that. If this is a brand new idea of yours, then it is necessary to start from basic ideas which are universally accepted and then explain this spiritual energy in those existing terms, but in a convincing and logically sound manner.

For example, it will be no use saying that this spiritual energy is the usual halo depicted in the images of gods, divinities, angels, etc., and that anyone can accumulate this spiritual energy like a potential energy by means of his/her spirituality and when this accumulated potential spiritual energy reaches a certain critical level with reference to one's body weight & mass, it will be seen as a halo by all others who have already got such halo!

So, let us avoid all such subjective ideas and get to work with logic proper.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

By being unchanging and not traveling in time it would mean it is timeless and not a one time phenomenon. Consider this way. If something is unchanging with respect to space the energy has to be the same everywhere. It can't at just a single point because that would mean it is not the same at every where. Similarly it is not a one time phenomenon but is timeless .

 

[sravna]

Continued from post # 15

If, however, it is the intention to start (in this thread) a course on the rules of logic as applicable to philosophy, then it should start in the proper way with the basics, and not with some sudden announcement about some "spiritual energy by which I mean energy which does not need to travel in space and time but is everywhere and always present." and things like that.

You will notice that by the use of the words by which I mean, this so-called spiritual energy idea is a concoction of your own brain/mind. Hence, it becomes necessary, first of all, to either cite references to such an idea (of spiritual energy) from existing scriptures and what those scriptures say about that. If this is a brand new idea of yours, then it is necessary to start from basic ideas which are universally accepted and then explain this spiritual energy in those existing terms, but in a convincing and logically sound manner.

For example, it will be no use saying that this spiritual energy is the usual halo depicted in the images of gods, divinities, angels, etc., and that anyone can accumulate this spiritual energy like a potential energy by means of his/her spirituality and when this accumulated potential spiritual energy reaches a certain critical level with reference to one's body weight & mass, it will be seen as a halo by all others who have already got such halo!

So, let us avoid all such subjective ideas and get to work with logic proper.

Dear Shri Sangom,

It is definitely not my intention to talk about spiritual energy in the Logic thread. I was only giving an example to support a point. May be in a different thread.