How do you prove Logic without using Logic itself... to prove Logic...

How do you prove Logic without using Logic itself... to prove Logic? Isn't this a never ending process of trying to use a tool you have no clue of it's truthness, because you have to use the tool itself to find an answer with? This has always troubled me with Philosophy, and the most common response I get is people telling me I can't refute that I am experiencing something at that very moment. However, aren't they using Logic in that instance to try and explain to me their response?

look up godel's incompleteness theorem, everything you said is accepted already.

We communicate using logic. Our brain signals are logical. Our cells are logically structured. Those cells are made up of logical, planned, enzymes and proteins to make humans the most complex machines within billions of miles. Humans are logic. You can't separate humanity from logic, and humanity needs logic to respond to any stimuli. Your question is a non-sequitur, since you used logic to both conceive and ask the question itself.

Accepted? Accepted as what? That you never can prove it?

yeah

>Using logic to prove my argument is invalid


hmm...

Because logic is binary. It is either true or false. So, it is very basic stuff and is a set of true/false statements, so it has to be either correct in X instance or false. There is no middle ground. Either the logic is true objectively, or it fails by using one of many logical fallacies.

But logic is what it is. If it is wrong, then show how it is wrong. So far nobody has been able to. Yeah you can say you have to use logic to prove or disprove logic, but when something is as objective as you can get, it's hard to find a better option. One may exist, but if it does nobody has found it yet.

This is what I am saying. The response to proving Logic has to be true, because Logic says it's true, is using Logic itself. It doesn't have an outer layer to prove it. That layer itself would need it as well, etc, etc.

>using logic to determine whether my answer is correct

That's my point. Logic and truth that humanity can understand cannot be seperated.

Which is my point exactly. I can't escape using it, but that doesn't mean it has any truth value to it. Which is what I am trying to find.

Why does logic need an outer layer to prove it? It works. It shows the truth or lack thereof of a claim within itself. Logic isn't a "thing" itself, but a method of reasoning.

Because logic proves itself, and not in the way you mean either. It proves itself by being undoubtedly true. A claim must be true or false. Logic is an objective method of showing this.

Because in theory logic could be wrong but another user already brought up Godel. The point is still that logic is the best we have. And so far it works and nobody has put forth a better method. About the only way you could even say logic is false is if you are solipsist or something along those lines and doubt reality itself. But even for you, logic would be true as Descartes shows with his cogito ergo sum.

But the objectivity of logic and science is why they work. Because they cut out all the other stuff and focus on what is objective.

One day they may not apply or there may be a universe beyond our comprehension where A is A and not A, but so far it hasn't happened. So, at least in this universe such objectivity works and trying to go against it is to basically deny reality.

Consider the statement "There is no truth."

Is the statement true?

Because you are using Logic to prove Logic. It's circular with no endpoint

Reasoning conforms to the rest of our perceptions and not to anything independent of our perceptions. You can't prove an apple is red independent of our senses. You can only prove we perceive it as red. The same applies to logic. You can't prove that logic is true independent of our senses. It can only be proved that we perceive it as logical.

And you ignored the rest of my post where I explained why. Logic has shown itself to be objective. The issue you brought up has been considered and it is a thought experiment because so far everything adheres to logic. In theory you may be right, but we haven't seen that yet so it is impossible to factor in. How can we? We can't really imagine a thing that both is and isn't.

It is circular, but it can lead to truth. And it can be applied to find the objective truth of a matter in a way that cannot be disputed without just disregarding reality. We can only really come up with thought experiments to show it may not always be true. But so far it does prove itself on its own merits. It does not rely on feelings or matter of perspective or opinion. It either is or it is not. If it is? Why? If it is not? Why? Because of the binary nature of it it does not really have to be proven. It is either true or false. And we will worry about other factors when we encounter them, because I don't think we'll be facing eldritch Lovecraftian horrors any time soon that defy all reason.

But if logic is flawed, let's see the argument. And not "its circular!". In a series of binary true/false statements it speaks for itself and doesn't have to not be circular. It is as basic and simple as it gets.

Your missing the point. It's not circular in the way your thinking "logic proves logic via logic". Logic is real because it deals with necessarily true statements. It's like maths my dude. A2=b2+c2, therefore b2=a2-c2. I know that is true because it's necessarily has to be, it can not not be true. Logic works as a method that uses these types of statements and proving that statements have to be true.

If a then b, a, therefore b. 2+2=4. Not a then not b, not a, therefore not b. All these statements are true regardless of my perception of them. Logic, like maths, is created exactly to not be swayed my preception.

If a then b, a, therefore b. 2+2=4. Not a then not b, not a, therefore not b. All these statements are true regardless of my perception of them. Logic, like maths, is created exactly to not be swayed my perception

You used your innate reasoning to prove that you perceive those statements as logical, not that they are logical independent of your innate reasoning. You can't prove anything without resorting to your own perceptual framework.

>Logic, like maths, is created exactly to not be swayed my perception
That is what was believed a hundred years ago. Godel proved that wrong Our own perceptions of logic limit us to incomplete axioms with which to base mathematics on. The foundations of mathematics have been swayed by our perceptions.

>those eyebrows

Don't you do it boner.. don't you...shit.

We know they are objective because they also work. For instance, math isn't some place you make shit up and its valid. We can make it work, and if we did not do it that way, it does not work. Same way to get to the moon you have to account for the moon moving X distance in X time, gravity, amount of fuel, etc. Logic works the same way. It deals with statements that are obviously true and cannot not be true. Because in theory it could not be true, but that is a thought experiment. We have yet to encounter something that broke them, and 100% of the time they have been right.

So, you can bitch about a thought experiment all you want, that doesn't change what things actually are as of right now. By saying it's innate you act like that refutes it. He can easily disregard his emotions or not be there at all and 2+2 will still equal 4. A will be A whether or not that user is there to identify what it is. His opinions and perceptions have nothing to do with it.

Are you confusing logic for something else?

Yes, but that is what I am trying to explain. We use Logic, even me when I am questioning Logic itself. I have to use Logic because my brain can't function any other way. My brain evolved to work this way and we have no clue if it is the absolute

you're assuming the law of identity is true independent of our own perceptions even though there's no proof of that

Whether it reflects objective truth is impossible to know, but logic creates its own truths for humans from observation that is the only way to understand things. So even if it isn't necessarily true, it is still the closest to truth we can reach through the human condition.

The brain is the most complex and important organ in the human body, according to the brain.

>Now that we know what kind of knowledge is necessary for us, we must indicate the way and the method whereby we may gain the said knowledge concerning the things needful to be known. In order to accomplish this, we must first take care not to commit ourselves to a search, going back to infinity — that is, in order to discover the best method of finding truth, there is no need of another method to discover such method; nor of a third method for discovering the second, and so on to infinity. By such proceedings, we should never arrive at the knowledge of the truth, or, indeed, at any knowledge at all. The matter stands on the same footing as the making of material tools, which might be argued about in a similar way. For, in order to work iron, a hammer is needed, and the hammer cannot be forthcoming unless it has been made; but, in order to make it, there was need of another hammer and other tools, and so on to infinity. We might thus vainly endeavor to prove that men have no power of working iron.
(Spinoza, On the improvement of the understanding)

Well, if we assume you have no basis of logic, then I guess we end up having a scenario similar to some obscure video game-

You start to first check what you can actually do, once you detect a pattern in what you do, you begin to use this pattern to navigate about and do further things...

Slowly, you learn what you need, how to obtain it, and how to understand your capabilities better.


Now, your logic of this evolves through the input you gain through the feedback and impact.

Like, if something hinders your mobility, you'll probably observe it has negative, since it prevents you from doing the only things you can do... Which you builded yourself upon, hence... You'll attempt to avoid those things.


So, given a situation where your current logic does not apply, and you have to create a new one... Which is completely based around a feedback loop of action and result.


A state where no logic is applied, is either when you have no autonomy of any kind, therefor, you have nothing to even begin to apply any logic to... Like, how random pieces of sand have no usage of logic-based thinking process.

Or, when there's absolutely nothing to form any interaction with... Which means that you probably have no limbs to form any interaction either.


And yes, when people use logic, they already have a set of ideas and concepts applied through what the world has given them, and they can't apply anything external to it, for it would not prove correct on surface...
Making it illogical.


In order to test this, you can always just enter a game, and reverse the up key with the down key... You'll notice it'll take a bit of a while for your brain to grasp the new interaction, and it'll catch up, and replace the logic of "up" to be "up" into "up" to be "down" and vise versa.


At least, that's how I view the whole thing.

There's not just one system of logic, technically there are infinitely many valid ones. So the modern approach is not to try to "prove" logic but just to choose the right kind of logic that you think you can use to describe a particular thing. And then the results will tell whether it really did a good job. Basically rationalism is dead.

You don't know what this means.

Hardly truth if it's only applicable to human experience

Read Heidegger

>A claim must be true or false. Logic is an objective method of showing this.

Is there truth in the works of James Joyce?

proof is necessarily related to logic. if it weren't, it would not be proof. logic also necessarily takes place in an argument.

if proof and logic are not already accepted as valid, you are not having an argument. if you are not having an argument, they are not necessary.

this is what the experience of trying to prove logic boils down to. it is talking to someone who is not committed to accepting anything you say, so you have no reason to expect them to accept anything you say, no matter what it is.