How many grains make a heap?

It’s just like dealing with people—we’ve got four guys here, but anyone from five onwards? They aren't even human... maybe that's a question for an English lit professor.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:If the mind is constructing something based on external phenomena, then those phenomena aren't just white noise; they carry information. That implies the external world possesses some level of organization. I agree that our perception is qualitatively different and much more complex than what we actually see—we simply recognize certain patterns and conceptualize them. For instance, if there is a chair, you could argue it is nothing more than a collection of atoms, but that isn't the full picture because I am here, and it isn't just a chair. I can sit on those atoms, so I am not wrong to call it a chair. Furthermore, Sigmund could use those atoms as a weapon, or he could use them for heat, or even to dry laundry. You cannot claim it is merely a mental construct when a planned action can be performed with those "mere atoms" to produce an expected result. It may be a mental construct, but it remains consistent with reality.

I'm not drifting into solipsism here. Obviously, there is "something" out there that our perception interacts with in a consistent manner.

Amanda Jackson5 said:I’m lost here. Are you asking for their GPS coordinates? It’s more like what we call reality is just the sum total of those logical categories.

😕
So, according to this, true reality—whatever that implies—isn't just a pile of atoms or even individual neurons, but these collections of neurons? If that's the case, why wouldn't the entire brain, being the ultimate massive collection of neurons, be considered "true reality"?

Not really. Logic applies to rocks too; it's just that a rock isn't aware enough to realize it.

I’d love to see someone attempt the act of abstraction without relying on logical categories. 😁The logical categories themselves are the abstractions.

Yeah, I mean spatial coordinates. If the brain actually has something to do with logical categories, does that mean there's some sort of "logical categorizer" sitting inside the skull? It seems unlikely to me—logic and biology aren't usually on speaking terms. That’s why the whole theory feels off.

😕
So, true reality (whatever that implies) isn't just a pile of atoms or individual neurons anymore, but collections of neurons? By that logic, why wouldn't the entire brain—as the ultimate cluster of neurons—be considered "true reality"?

Subjective experiences—the stuff people report while their neural activity is being recorded—correlate with groups of neurons firing, rather than just single units.

It doesn't. It applies to rocks too, even if a rock isn't aware of it.

Physical laws govern rocks. Logic is just an unnecessary extra.

I'd love to see someone attempt abstraction without relying on logical categories. 😁 Logical categories themselves are abstractions.

One way to abstract is by looking for invariants. For instance, a series of equilateral triangles of varying sizes remains invariant regarding scale.

placidranger said:Yeah, I mean spatial coordinates. If the brain actually has something to do with logical categories, does that mean there's some sort of "logical categorizer" sitting inside the skull? It seems unlikely to me—logic and biology aren't usually on speaking terms. That’s why the whole theory feels off.

😕
So, true reality (whatever that implies) isn't just a pile of atoms or individual neurons anymore, but collections of neurons? By that logic, why wouldn't the entire brain—as the ultimate cluster of neurons—be considered "true reality"?

Subjective experiences—the stuff people report while their neural activity is being recorded—correlate with groups of neurons firing, rather than just single units.

It doesn't. It applies to rocks too, even if a rock isn't aware of it.

Physical laws govern rocks. Logic is just an unnecessary extra.

I'd love to see someone attempt abstraction without relying on logical categories. 😁 Logical categories themselves are abstractions.

One way to abstract is by looking for invariants. For instance, a series of equilateral triangles of varying sizes remains invariant regarding scale.

If the brain is linked to reality, is there a "reality generator" sitting in there? Or if it’s tied to our perception of time, do we have a built-in "temporalizer"? 😁
The brain relates to logical categories in the same way everything else relates to logic—it's just part of the framework.

placidranger said:Yeah, I mean spatial coordinates. If the brain actually has something to do with logical categories, does that mean there's some sort of "logical categorizer" sitting inside the skull? It seems unlikely to me—logic and biology aren't usually on speaking terms. That’s why the whole theory feels off.

😕
So, true reality (whatever that implies) isn't just a pile of atoms or individual neurons anymore, but collections of neurons? By that logic, why wouldn't the entire brain—as the ultimate cluster of neurons—be considered "true reality"?

Subjective experiences—the stuff people report while their neural activity is being recorded—correlate with groups of neurons firing, rather than just single units.

It doesn't. It applies to rocks too, even if a rock isn't aware of it.

Physical laws govern rocks. Logic is just an unnecessary extra.

I'd love to see someone attempt abstraction without relying on logical categories. 😁 Logical categories themselves are abstractions.

One way to abstract is by looking for invariants. For instance, a series of equilateral triangles of varying sizes remains invariant regarding scale.

But there isn't a direct link, is there? The brain isn't inherent to the concept; it’s not essential for logical categories to exist, much like it isn't essential for existence itself—since "existence" is just another logical category.

placidranger said:Yeah, I mean spatial coordinates. If the brain actually has something to do with logical categories, does that mean there's some sort of "logical categorizer" sitting inside the skull? It seems unlikely to me—logic and biology aren't usually on speaking terms. That’s why the whole theory feels off.

😕
So, true reality (whatever that implies) isn't just a pile of atoms or individual neurons anymore, but collections of neurons? By that logic, why wouldn't the entire brain—as the ultimate cluster of neurons—be considered "true reality"?

Subjective experiences—the stuff people report while their neural activity is being recorded—correlate with groups of neurons firing, rather than just single units.

It doesn't. It applies to rocks too, even if a rock isn't aware of it.

Physical laws govern rocks. Logic is just an unnecessary extra.

I'd love to see someone attempt abstraction without relying on logical categories. 😁 Logical categories themselves are abstractions.

One way to abstract is by looking for invariants. For instance, a series of equilateral triangles of varying sizes remains invariant regarding scale.

Okay, and? What’s the point? What defines "true" reality then? I’m looking for the actual logical criterion used to distinguish "real" from "fake" reality.

placidranger said:Yeah, I mean spatial coordinates. If the brain actually has something to do with logical categories, does that mean there's some sort of "logical categorizer" sitting inside the skull? It seems unlikely to me—logic and biology aren't usually on speaking terms. That’s why the whole theory feels off.

😕
So, true reality (whatever that implies) isn't just a pile of atoms or individual neurons anymore, but collections of neurons? By that logic, why wouldn't the entire brain—as the ultimate cluster of neurons—be considered "true reality"?

Subjective experiences—the stuff people report while their neural activity is being recorded—correlate with groups of neurons firing, rather than just single units.

It doesn't. It applies to rocks too, even if a rock isn't aware of it.

Physical laws govern rocks. Logic is just an unnecessary extra.

I'd love to see someone attempt abstraction without relying on logical categories. 😁 Logical categories themselves are abstractions.

One way to abstract is by looking for invariants. For instance, a series of equilateral triangles of varying sizes remains invariant regarding scale.

Are you suggesting physical laws are illogical? Physical laws are essentially the result of abstraction. Like I said before, a physical law is the very essence of a natural phenomenon. Logic isn't some redundant add-on; it's the main ingredient.

placidranger said:Yeah, I mean spatial coordinates. If the brain actually has something to do with logical categories, does that mean there's some sort of "logical categorizer" sitting inside the skull? It seems unlikely to me—logic and biology aren't usually on speaking terms. That’s why the whole theory feels off.

😕
So, true reality (whatever that implies) isn't just a pile of atoms or individual neurons anymore, but collections of neurons? By that logic, why wouldn't the entire brain—as the ultimate cluster of neurons—be considered "true reality"?

Subjective experiences—the stuff people report while their neural activity is being recorded—correlate with groups of neurons firing, rather than just single units.

It doesn't. It applies to rocks too, even if a rock isn't aware of it.

Physical laws govern rocks. Logic is just an unnecessary extra.

I'd love to see someone attempt abstraction without relying on logical categories. 😁 Logical categories themselves are abstractions.

One way to abstract is by looking for invariants. For instance, a series of equilateral triangles of varying sizes remains invariant regarding scale.

At its heart, invariance is a purely logical concept that doesn't really make sense unless you're already comfortable with the logical categories of identity and essence. You could say essence stays invariant while appearance shifts. Honestly, there isn't any way to pull off true abstraction without leaning heavily on logic.

placidranger said:I'm not drifting into solipsism here. Obviously, there is "something" out there that our perception interacts with in a consistent manner.

Or rather, it works in a logical way. 😁 Because, heavens forbid, "consistency" is actually a logical concept.

Amanda Jackson5 said:If the brain is linked to reality, is there a "reality generator" sitting in there? Or if it’s tied to our perception of time, do we have a built-in "temporalizer"? 😁
The brain relates to logical categories in the same way everything else relates to logic—it's just part of the framework.

But there isn't a direct link, is there? The brain isn't inherent to the concept; it’s not essential for logical categories to exist, much like it isn't essential for existence itself—since "existence" is just another logical category.

Okay, and? What’s the point? What defines "true" reality then? I’m looking for the actual logical criterion used to distinguish "real" from "fake" reality.

Are you suggesting physical laws are illogical? Physical laws are essentially the result of abstraction. Like I said before, a physical law is the very essence of a natural phenomenon. Logic isn't some redundant add-on; it's the main ingredient.

At its heart, invariance is a purely logical concept that doesn't really make sense unless you're already comfortable with the logical categories of identity and essence. You could say essence stays invariant while appearance shifts. Honestly, there isn't any way to pull off true abstraction without leaning heavily on logic.

Not necessarily. Just because someone displays "intelligence" doesn't mean there’s some localized "intelligence generator" sitting inside their brain—much like how being aggressive doesn't imply there's a specific "aggression module" tucked away in the gray matter. Intelligence is simply a description of behavior—an observation of how one acts—not an internal physical structure that dictates those actions.

The brain is essentially just a generator for subjective reality—nothing more. There isn't some external force crafting this experience for us; it’s all just the brain running its own internal programming.

There also needs to be a physical component within the brain dedicated to perceiving logical relationships—though it likely spans multiple regions given that logic operates on various levels of abstraction. The bottom line is this: there are organisms out there that simply don't perceive or generate logical relationships at all.

The brain is fundamentally tied to logical categories—mostly because everything else is. Logic is the baseline.

Our reasoning is rooted in logic—which means any reasoning regarding the brain has to be logical by extension. But here’s the catch: logic doesn't just float around the entire brain indiscriminately; it happens within specific, localized regions. How exactly that process unfolds is the real question—and honestly, we'll likely have to wait for breakthroughs in neuroscience and AI before we get a straight answer.

There isn't even a direct link to the brain here. It’s not inherent—in fact, it isn't essential at all for logical categories. It's much like how the brain isn't essential for existence itself—since "existence" is also just a logical category.

... or so my brain tells me. 🤷

So what? What does that actually change? I’m looking for a logical benchmark here—how do we even distinguish between "true" reality and a "false" one? Give me some actual criteria.

I’m not sure if I was actually referring to "true" reality—that was your phrasing, not mine. There are only subjective realities and then there is whatever exists outside of them. Concepts like truth or falsehood simply don't apply to that realm. You might be able to apply those criteria to hallucinations or something similar, but that’s about it.

Are physical laws illogical? Not even close. They’re just the result of abstraction. Like I've mentioned before—laws of physics represent the very essence of a natural phenomenon. Logic isn't some redundant extra tacked on at the end—it's the primary ingredient.

Physical laws are just mathematical models—human constructs, really—that happen to be quite good at predicting and explaining certain phenomena. I don't see any practical value in treating these laws as some kind of fundamental essence.

Invariance is a purely logical term—it’s essentially incomprehensible unless you grasp the logical categories of identity and essence. Essence remains invariant relative to appearance. There is simply no way to achieve any level of abstraction without relying on logic.

It’s also a mathematical term. Now, if you want to lump mathematics under the umbrella of logic—fine—we use logic to build better models of how things actually manifest in the world.

placidranger said:Not necessarily. Just because someone displays "intelligence" doesn't mean there’s some localized "intelligence generator" sitting inside their brain—much like how being aggressive doesn't imply there's a specific "aggression module" tucked away in the gray matter. Intelligence is simply a description of behavior—an observation of how one acts—not an internal physical structure that dictates those actions.

The brain is essentially just a generator for subjective reality—nothing more. There isn't some external force crafting this experience for us; it’s all just the brain running its own internal programming.

There also needs to be a physical component within the brain dedicated to perceiving logical relationships—though it likely spans multiple regions given that logic operates on various levels of abstraction. The bottom line is this: there are organisms out there that simply don't perceive or generate logical relationships at all.

The brain is fundamentally tied to logical categories—mostly because everything else is. Logic is the baseline.

Our reasoning is rooted in logic—which means any reasoning regarding the brain has to be logical by extension. But here’s the catch: logic doesn't just float around the entire brain indiscriminately; it happens within specific, localized regions. How exactly that process unfolds is the real question—and honestly, we'll likely have to wait for breakthroughs in neuroscience and AI before we get a straight answer.

There isn't even a direct link to the brain here. It’s not inherent—in fact, it isn't essential at all for logical categories. It's much like how the brain isn't essential for existence itself—since "existence" is also just a logical category.

... or so my brain tells me. 🤷

So what? What does that actually change? I’m looking for a logical benchmark here—how do we even distinguish between "true" reality and a "false" one? Give me some actual criteria.

I’m not sure if I was actually referring to "true" reality—that was your phrasing, not mine. There are only subjective realities and then there is whatever exists outside of them. Concepts like truth or falsehood simply don't apply to that realm. You might be able to apply those criteria to hallucinations or something similar, but that’s about it.

Are physical laws illogical? Not even close. They’re just the result of abstraction. Like I've mentioned before—laws of physics represent the very essence of a natural phenomenon. Logic isn't some redundant extra tacked on at the end—it's the primary ingredient.

Physical laws are just mathematical models—human constructs, really—that happen to be quite good at predicting and explaining certain phenomena. I don't see any practical value in treating these laws as some kind of fundamental essence.

Invariance is a purely logical term—it’s essentially incomprehensible unless you grasp the logical categories of identity and essence. Essence remains invariant relative to appearance. There is simply no way to achieve any level of abstraction without relying on logic.

It’s also a mathematical term. Now, if you want to lump mathematics under the umbrella of logic—fine—we use logic to build better models of how things actually manifest in the world.

Fair enough, I see your point. It's the same deal with logic—it serves as a description for any possible reality. So why did you claim earlier that the brain houses a "logical categorizer" that cranks out logical categories?

placidranger said:Not necessarily. Just because someone displays "intelligence" doesn't mean there’s some localized "intelligence generator" sitting inside their brain—much like how being aggressive doesn't imply there's a specific "aggression module" tucked away in the gray matter. Intelligence is simply a description of behavior—an observation of how one acts—not an internal physical structure that dictates those actions.

The brain is essentially just a generator for subjective reality—nothing more. There isn't some external force crafting this experience for us; it’s all just the brain running its own internal programming.

There also needs to be a physical component within the brain dedicated to perceiving logical relationships—though it likely spans multiple regions given that logic operates on various levels of abstraction. The bottom line is this: there are organisms out there that simply don't perceive or generate logical relationships at all.

The brain is fundamentally tied to logical categories—mostly because everything else is. Logic is the baseline.

Our reasoning is rooted in logic—which means any reasoning regarding the brain has to be logical by extension. But here’s the catch: logic doesn't just float around the entire brain indiscriminately; it happens within specific, localized regions. How exactly that process unfolds is the real question—and honestly, we'll likely have to wait for breakthroughs in neuroscience and AI before we get a straight answer.

There isn't even a direct link to the brain here. It’s not inherent—in fact, it isn't essential at all for logical categories. It's much like how the brain isn't essential for existence itself—since "existence" is also just a logical category.

... or so my brain tells me. 🤷

So what? What does that actually change? I’m looking for a logical benchmark here—how do we even distinguish between "true" reality and a "false" one? Give me some actual criteria.

I’m not sure if I was actually referring to "true" reality—that was your phrasing, not mine. There are only subjective realities and then there is whatever exists outside of them. Concepts like truth or falsehood simply don't apply to that realm. You might be able to apply those criteria to hallucinations or something similar, but that’s about it.

Are physical laws illogical? Not even close. They’re just the result of abstraction. Like I've mentioned before—laws of physics represent the very essence of a natural phenomenon. Logic isn't some redundant extra tacked on at the end—it's the primary ingredient.

Physical laws are just mathematical models—human constructs, really—that happen to be quite good at predicting and explaining certain phenomena. I don't see any practical value in treating these laws as some kind of fundamental essence.

Invariance is a purely logical term—it’s essentially incomprehensible unless you grasp the logical categories of identity and essence. Essence remains invariant relative to appearance. There is simply no way to achieve any level of abstraction without relying on logic.

It’s also a mathematical term. Now, if you want to lump mathematics under the umbrella of logic—fine—we use logic to build better models of how things actually manifest in the world.

Okay, sure. But when we talk about subjective reality, we're usually implying that it isn't the whole picture—that there's this supposed objective reality standing on the other side. My point, however, is about total reality, which encompasses both the subjective and the objective. What bridges the gap between those two realms is logic, which remains consistent across both. It’s precisely because of that logic, because the actual state of things is rational, that these two realities can actually interact with one another.

placidranger said:Not necessarily. Just because someone displays "intelligence" doesn't mean there’s some localized "intelligence generator" sitting inside their brain—much like how being aggressive doesn't imply there's a specific "aggression module" tucked away in the gray matter. Intelligence is simply a description of behavior—an observation of how one acts—not an internal physical structure that dictates those actions.

The brain is essentially just a generator for subjective reality—nothing more. There isn't some external force crafting this experience for us; it’s all just the brain running its own internal programming.

There also needs to be a physical component within the brain dedicated to perceiving logical relationships—though it likely spans multiple regions given that logic operates on various levels of abstraction. The bottom line is this: there are organisms out there that simply don't perceive or generate logical relationships at all.

The brain is fundamentally tied to logical categories—mostly because everything else is. Logic is the baseline.

Our reasoning is rooted in logic—which means any reasoning regarding the brain has to be logical by extension. But here’s the catch: logic doesn't just float around the entire brain indiscriminately; it happens within specific, localized regions. How exactly that process unfolds is the real question—and honestly, we'll likely have to wait for breakthroughs in neuroscience and AI before we get a straight answer.

There isn't even a direct link to the brain here. It’s not inherent—in fact, it isn't essential at all for logical categories. It's much like how the brain isn't essential for existence itself—since "existence" is also just a logical category.

... or so my brain tells me. 🤷

So what? What does that actually change? I’m looking for a logical benchmark here—how do we even distinguish between "true" reality and a "false" one? Give me some actual criteria.

I’m not sure if I was actually referring to "true" reality—that was your phrasing, not mine. There are only subjective realities and then there is whatever exists outside of them. Concepts like truth or falsehood simply don't apply to that realm. You might be able to apply those criteria to hallucinations or something similar, but that’s about it.

Are physical laws illogical? Not even close. They’re just the result of abstraction. Like I've mentioned before—laws of physics represent the very essence of a natural phenomenon. Logic isn't some redundant extra tacked on at the end—it's the primary ingredient.

Physical laws are just mathematical models—human constructs, really—that happen to be quite good at predicting and explaining certain phenomena. I don't see any practical value in treating these laws as some kind of fundamental essence.

Invariance is a purely logical term—it’s essentially incomprehensible unless you grasp the logical categories of identity and essence. Essence remains invariant relative to appearance. There is simply no way to achieve any level of abstraction without relying on logic.

It’s also a mathematical term. Now, if you want to lump mathematics under the umbrella of logic—fine—we use logic to build better models of how things actually manifest in the world.

I'm not seeing how that matters?

placidranger said:Not necessarily. Just because someone displays "intelligence" doesn't mean there’s some localized "intelligence generator" sitting inside their brain—much like how being aggressive doesn't imply there's a specific "aggression module" tucked away in the gray matter. Intelligence is simply a description of behavior—an observation of how one acts—not an internal physical structure that dictates those actions.

The brain is essentially just a generator for subjective reality—nothing more. There isn't some external force crafting this experience for us; it’s all just the brain running its own internal programming.

There also needs to be a physical component within the brain dedicated to perceiving logical relationships—though it likely spans multiple regions given that logic operates on various levels of abstraction. The bottom line is this: there are organisms out there that simply don't perceive or generate logical relationships at all.

The brain is fundamentally tied to logical categories—mostly because everything else is. Logic is the baseline.

Our reasoning is rooted in logic—which means any reasoning regarding the brain has to be logical by extension. But here’s the catch: logic doesn't just float around the entire brain indiscriminately; it happens within specific, localized regions. How exactly that process unfolds is the real question—and honestly, we'll likely have to wait for breakthroughs in neuroscience and AI before we get a straight answer.

There isn't even a direct link to the brain here. It’s not inherent—in fact, it isn't essential at all for logical categories. It's much like how the brain isn't essential for existence itself—since "existence" is also just a logical category.

... or so my brain tells me. 🤷

So what? What does that actually change? I’m looking for a logical benchmark here—how do we even distinguish between "true" reality and a "false" one? Give me some actual criteria.

I’m not sure if I was actually referring to "true" reality—that was your phrasing, not mine. There are only subjective realities and then there is whatever exists outside of them. Concepts like truth or falsehood simply don't apply to that realm. You might be able to apply those criteria to hallucinations or something similar, but that’s about it.

Are physical laws illogical? Not even close. They’re just the result of abstraction. Like I've mentioned before—laws of physics represent the very essence of a natural phenomenon. Logic isn't some redundant extra tacked on at the end—it's the primary ingredient.

Physical laws are just mathematical models—human constructs, really—that happen to be quite good at predicting and explaining certain phenomena. I don't see any practical value in treating these laws as some kind of fundamental essence.

Invariance is a purely logical term—it’s essentially incomprehensible unless you grasp the logical categories of identity and essence. Essence remains invariant relative to appearance. There is simply no way to achieve any level of abstraction without relying on logic.

It’s also a mathematical term. Now, if you want to lump mathematics under the umbrella of logic—fine—we use logic to build better models of how things actually manifest in the world.

Logic doesn't "happen" in the brain. Logic is the very structure of reality. It’s the abstract description of the necessary relationships inherent in anything that exists.

placidranger said:Not necessarily. Just because someone displays "intelligence" doesn't mean there’s some localized "intelligence generator" sitting inside their brain—much like how being aggressive doesn't imply there's a specific "aggression module" tucked away in the gray matter. Intelligence is simply a description of behavior—an observation of how one acts—not an internal physical structure that dictates those actions.

The brain is essentially just a generator for subjective reality—nothing more. There isn't some external force crafting this experience for us; it’s all just the brain running its own internal programming.

There also needs to be a physical component within the brain dedicated to perceiving logical relationships—though it likely spans multiple regions given that logic operates on various levels of abstraction. The bottom line is this: there are organisms out there that simply don't perceive or generate logical relationships at all.

The brain is fundamentally tied to logical categories—mostly because everything else is. Logic is the baseline.

Our reasoning is rooted in logic—which means any reasoning regarding the brain has to be logical by extension. But here’s the catch: logic doesn't just float around the entire brain indiscriminately; it happens within specific, localized regions. How exactly that process unfolds is the real question—and honestly, we'll likely have to wait for breakthroughs in neuroscience and AI before we get a straight answer.

There isn't even a direct link to the brain here. It’s not inherent—in fact, it isn't essential at all for logical categories. It's much like how the brain isn't essential for existence itself—since "existence" is also just a logical category.

... or so my brain tells me. 🤷

So what? What does that actually change? I’m looking for a logical benchmark here—how do we even distinguish between "true" reality and a "false" one? Give me some actual criteria.

I’m not sure if I was actually referring to "true" reality—that was your phrasing, not mine. There are only subjective realities and then there is whatever exists outside of them. Concepts like truth or falsehood simply don't apply to that realm. You might be able to apply those criteria to hallucinations or something similar, but that’s about it.

Are physical laws illogical? Not even close. They’re just the result of abstraction. Like I've mentioned before—laws of physics represent the very essence of a natural phenomenon. Logic isn't some redundant extra tacked on at the end—it's the primary ingredient.

Physical laws are just mathematical models—human constructs, really—that happen to be quite good at predicting and explaining certain phenomena. I don't see any practical value in treating these laws as some kind of fundamental essence.

Invariance is a purely logical term—it’s essentially incomprehensible unless you grasp the logical categories of identity and essence. Essence remains invariant relative to appearance. There is simply no way to achieve any level of abstraction without relying on logic.

It’s also a mathematical term. Now, if you want to lump mathematics under the umbrella of logic—fine—we use logic to build better models of how things actually manifest in the world.

...therefore, says matter, therefore, says objective reality.

placidranger said:Not necessarily. Just because someone displays "intelligence" doesn't mean there’s some localized "intelligence generator" sitting inside their brain—much like how being aggressive doesn't imply there's a specific "aggression module" tucked away in the gray matter. Intelligence is simply a description of behavior—an observation of how one acts—not an internal physical structure that dictates those actions.

The brain is essentially just a generator for subjective reality—nothing more. There isn't some external force crafting this experience for us; it’s all just the brain running its own internal programming.

There also needs to be a physical component within the brain dedicated to perceiving logical relationships—though it likely spans multiple regions given that logic operates on various levels of abstraction. The bottom line is this: there are organisms out there that simply don't perceive or generate logical relationships at all.

The brain is fundamentally tied to logical categories—mostly because everything else is. Logic is the baseline.

Our reasoning is rooted in logic—which means any reasoning regarding the brain has to be logical by extension. But here’s the catch: logic doesn't just float around the entire brain indiscriminately; it happens within specific, localized regions. How exactly that process unfolds is the real question—and honestly, we'll likely have to wait for breakthroughs in neuroscience and AI before we get a straight answer.

There isn't even a direct link to the brain here. It’s not inherent—in fact, it isn't essential at all for logical categories. It's much like how the brain isn't essential for existence itself—since "existence" is also just a logical category.

... or so my brain tells me. 🤷

So what? What does that actually change? I’m looking for a logical benchmark here—how do we even distinguish between "true" reality and a "false" one? Give me some actual criteria.

I’m not sure if I was actually referring to "true" reality—that was your phrasing, not mine. There are only subjective realities and then there is whatever exists outside of them. Concepts like truth or falsehood simply don't apply to that realm. You might be able to apply those criteria to hallucinations or something similar, but that’s about it.

Are physical laws illogical? Not even close. They’re just the result of abstraction. Like I've mentioned before—laws of physics represent the very essence of a natural phenomenon. Logic isn't some redundant extra tacked on at the end—it's the primary ingredient.

Physical laws are just mathematical models—human constructs, really—that happen to be quite good at predicting and explaining certain phenomena. I don't see any practical value in treating these laws as some kind of fundamental essence.

Invariance is a purely logical term—it’s essentially incomprehensible unless you grasp the logical categories of identity and essence. Essence remains invariant relative to appearance. There is simply no way to achieve any level of abstraction without relying on logic.

It’s also a mathematical term. Now, if you want to lump mathematics under the umbrella of logic—fine—we use logic to build better models of how things actually manifest in the world.

You mentioned that "neural phenomena are reality," and you backed that up by saying:
The whole reason we chose the neuron level is pretty straightforward: those neural currents actually line up with what’s happening in the outside world.
So, you’re suggesting that if we consider "neural phenomena" to be an objective reality, but then I turn around and claim there are only subjective realities and then the thing itself, we’ve somehow stumbled into a two-tiered universe. You're asking me to explain this supposed dualism, or perhaps you're wondering if you've just misread my entire point. It's a fair question, really—whether truth criteria even apply to the realm of the subjective, and whether we shouldn't define "truth" simply as the moment where our internal perception finally lines up with the external world.

placidranger said:Not necessarily. Just because someone displays "intelligence" doesn't mean there’s some localized "intelligence generator" sitting inside their brain—much like how being aggressive doesn't imply there's a specific "aggression module" tucked away in the gray matter. Intelligence is simply a description of behavior—an observation of how one acts—not an internal physical structure that dictates those actions.

The brain is essentially just a generator for subjective reality—nothing more. There isn't some external force crafting this experience for us; it’s all just the brain running its own internal programming.

There also needs to be a physical component within the brain dedicated to perceiving logical relationships—though it likely spans multiple regions given that logic operates on various levels of abstraction. The bottom line is this: there are organisms out there that simply don't perceive or generate logical relationships at all.

The brain is fundamentally tied to logical categories—mostly because everything else is. Logic is the baseline.

Our reasoning is rooted in logic—which means any reasoning regarding the brain has to be logical by extension. But here’s the catch: logic doesn't just float around the entire brain indiscriminately; it happens within specific, localized regions. How exactly that process unfolds is the real question—and honestly, we'll likely have to wait for breakthroughs in neuroscience and AI before we get a straight answer.

There isn't even a direct link to the brain here. It’s not inherent—in fact, it isn't essential at all for logical categories. It's much like how the brain isn't essential for existence itself—since "existence" is also just a logical category.

... or so my brain tells me. 🤷

So what? What does that actually change? I’m looking for a logical benchmark here—how do we even distinguish between "true" reality and a "false" one? Give me some actual criteria.

I’m not sure if I was actually referring to "true" reality—that was your phrasing, not mine. There are only subjective realities and then there is whatever exists outside of them. Concepts like truth or falsehood simply don't apply to that realm. You might be able to apply those criteria to hallucinations or something similar, but that’s about it.

Are physical laws illogical? Not even close. They’re just the result of abstraction. Like I've mentioned before—laws of physics represent the very essence of a natural phenomenon. Logic isn't some redundant extra tacked on at the end—it's the primary ingredient.

Physical laws are just mathematical models—human constructs, really—that happen to be quite good at predicting and explaining certain phenomena. I don't see any practical value in treating these laws as some kind of fundamental essence.

Invariance is a purely logical term—it’s essentially incomprehensible unless you grasp the logical categories of identity and essence. Essence remains invariant relative to appearance. There is simply no way to achieve any level of abstraction without relying on logic.

It’s also a mathematical term. Now, if you want to lump mathematics under the umbrella of logic—fine—we use logic to build better models of how things actually manifest in the world.

Look, by their very definition and the way they’re built, these things are essentially the embodiment of natural phenomena, whether anyone actually likes that description or not. I get that some people might take issue with calling them an "essence"—probably because they don't quite grasp what that word actually implies—but I honestly don't see how that disagreement changes the underlying reality of the situation.

placidranger said:Not necessarily. Just because someone displays "intelligence" doesn't mean there’s some localized "intelligence generator" sitting inside their brain—much like how being aggressive doesn't imply there's a specific "aggression module" tucked away in the gray matter. Intelligence is simply a description of behavior—an observation of how one acts—not an internal physical structure that dictates those actions.

The brain is essentially just a generator for subjective reality—nothing more. There isn't some external force crafting this experience for us; it’s all just the brain running its own internal programming.

There also needs to be a physical component within the brain dedicated to perceiving logical relationships—though it likely spans multiple regions given that logic operates on various levels of abstraction. The bottom line is this: there are organisms out there that simply don't perceive or generate logical relationships at all.

The brain is fundamentally tied to logical categories—mostly because everything else is. Logic is the baseline.

Our reasoning is rooted in logic—which means any reasoning regarding the brain has to be logical by extension. But here’s the catch: logic doesn't just float around the entire brain indiscriminately; it happens within specific, localized regions. How exactly that process unfolds is the real question—and honestly, we'll likely have to wait for breakthroughs in neuroscience and AI before we get a straight answer.

There isn't even a direct link to the brain here. It’s not inherent—in fact, it isn't essential at all for logical categories. It's much like how the brain isn't essential for existence itself—since "existence" is also just a logical category.

... or so my brain tells me. 🤷

So what? What does that actually change? I’m looking for a logical benchmark here—how do we even distinguish between "true" reality and a "false" one? Give me some actual criteria.

I’m not sure if I was actually referring to "true" reality—that was your phrasing, not mine. There are only subjective realities and then there is whatever exists outside of them. Concepts like truth or falsehood simply don't apply to that realm. You might be able to apply those criteria to hallucinations or something similar, but that’s about it.

Are physical laws illogical? Not even close. They’re just the result of abstraction. Like I've mentioned before—laws of physics represent the very essence of a natural phenomenon. Logic isn't some redundant extra tacked on at the end—it's the primary ingredient.

Physical laws are just mathematical models—human constructs, really—that happen to be quite good at predicting and explaining certain phenomena. I don't see any practical value in treating these laws as some kind of fundamental essence.

Invariance is a purely logical term—it’s essentially incomprehensible unless you grasp the logical categories of identity and essence. Essence remains invariant relative to appearance. There is simply no way to achieve any level of abstraction without relying on logic.

It’s also a mathematical term. Now, if you want to lump mathematics under the umbrella of logic—fine—we use logic to build better models of how things actually manifest in the world.

I wouldn't go so far as to say math is subordinate to logic, but rather that logic serves as the essential foundation for mathematics. If we’re using logic to build models that attempt to map out how things actually happen in the world, then we’re essentially making the assumption that the universe itself operates on a logical basis.

I truly enjoy this line of questioning. In my view, the core issue stems from the fact that we tend to reduce truth down to just two states—either it is or it isn't (1/0). However, reality is far more nuanced than that simple binary. If we allow ourselves to be constrained by those two options, we run into trouble because we end up seeing only two possible scenarios...
It is quite a significant pile...
That isn't exactly a mountain of anything...
And so we find ourselves once again pondering the fundamental question of which single grain was responsible for turning a scattered pile into a mountain...

Suppose I am seasoning a soup, and I decide to add one fewer grain of salt every single time I prepare it. Would my guests perceive the soup as being strictly binary—either salty or not salty? Or is it possible that the perception of saltiness can exist anywhere along a continuous spectrum from 0 to 1, representing 0% to 100%...

What truly fascinates me is that truth is rarely ever a simple matter of one or zero. We tend to view it through that binary lens because it makes the world much easier to interpret and understand... yet, if we attempt to normalize truth by forcing it into a rigid "yes" or "no" framework based on where it happens to land, we lose its ability to react to unpredictable circumstances...

I have a question...
Is a cow considered a bird?...
Is a penguin considered a bird?...
Is the bird alright...?
Is a chicken considered a bird?...
Is a bat considered a bird?...
Is a mouse actually a bat?...
I have often found myself pondering such fundamental questions regarding the classifications of the animal kingdom... Whether a mouse could ever be considered a bird is a curiosity that invites much contemplation...
Is a bison considered a cow...

I am of the opinion that a bison isn't entirely a cow, though it certainly isn't zero percent cow either. By that same logic, a cow isn't zero percent bird, even if it might only be about 0.00001 percent bird. However, a cow is definitely more bird than it is a rock...

If we consider truth through the lens of magnitude... it becomes quite intuitive to see that a pile of three grains is inherently greater than a pile of two.
It is even more apparent that ten grains constitute a much larger collection than three.
However, let us examine the distinction between a pile of 500,100 grains and one of 500,000 grains. You may notice that the proportional difference between the smaller sets of 10 and 3 is actually more pronounced than the gap between these massive amounts... despite the latter having a numerical difference of 100 grains...

Larry Walker24 said:If one grain doesn't make a pile, then two grains don't either. Honestly, three isn't doing much for us either.

So, how many grains does it actually take to make a pile?

It's actually a technicality... specifically regarding positioning

A collection of things only starts being called a "heap" once the individual elements are physically stacked on top of one another.....

Amanda Jackson5 said:Fair enough, I see your point. It's the same deal with logic—it serves as a description for any possible reality. So why did you claim earlier that the brain houses a "logical categorizer" that cranks out logical categories?

Okay, sure. But when we talk about subjective reality, we're usually implying that it isn't the whole picture—that there's this supposed objective reality standing on the other side. My point, however, is about total reality, which encompasses both the subjective and the objective. What bridges the gap between those two realms is logic, which remains consistent across both. It’s precisely because of that logic, because the actual state of things is rational, that these two realities can actually interact with one another.

I'm not seeing how that matters?

Logic doesn't "happen" in the brain. Logic is the very structure of reality. It’s the abstract description of the necessary relationships inherent in anything that exists.

...therefore, says matter, therefore, says objective reality.

You mentioned that "neural phenomena are reality," and you backed that up by saying:
The whole reason we chose the neuron level is pretty straightforward: those neural currents actually line up with what’s happening in the outside world.
So, you’re suggesting that if we consider "neural phenomena" to be an objective reality, but then I turn around and claim there are only subjective realities and then the thing itself, we’ve somehow stumbled into a two-tiered universe. You're asking me to explain this supposed dualism, or perhaps you're wondering if you've just misread my entire point. It's a fair question, really—whether truth criteria even apply to the realm of the subjective, and whether we shouldn't define "truth" simply as the moment where our internal perception finally lines up with the external world.

Look, by their very definition and the way they’re built, these things are essentially the embodiment of natural phenomena, whether anyone actually likes that description or not. I get that some people might take issue with calling them an "essence"—probably because they don't quite grasp what that word actually implies—but I honestly don't see how that disagreement changes the underlying reality of the situation.

I wouldn't go so far as to say math is subordinate to logic, but rather that logic serves as the essential foundation for mathematics. If we’re using logic to build models that attempt to map out how things actually happen in the world, then we’re essentially making the assumption that the universe itself operates on a logical basis.

So, logic is the description of any possible reality? Does that mean every description of reality *has* to be "logical"? I’m not sure—it depends on how you're framing it.

Since logical relationships are part of perception, and perception is a product of neural circuits, there has to be some section of the brain tasked with perceiving those logical relations. Whether you call it a "categorizer," a "filter," or some other function—that’s for computational neuroscience to figure out and build a model for.

Quincy:

Fine. But when we talk about subjective reality, we’re implying it isn’t the whole picture—that there’s an assumed objective reality standing against it. I’m talking about the total reality, which encompasses both the subjective and the objective. What binds them together is logic; it remains constant in both. It’s because of this logic—because actuality is rational—that these two realities can, let's say, interact.

Saying logic unites two realities doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it doesn't even make sense to treat them as two separate realities.

There are countless subjective realities—everyone has their own. And then there is whatever exists outside of us. We can construct models of this "objective reality," but since we are always speaking from a subjective standpoint, we are really only ever discussing our *models* of it. Take forces and atoms, for instance—nobody has actually seen them. They are just abstract models used to explain our experiences.

Quincy:

I don't see why that matters.

Those beings don't experience the world as something logical—unlike humans. Well, certain humans. This implies that the human perception of logic is necessarily a biological byproduct. Naturally, there might be an analogy between what the brain constructs and the external reality it relies upon, but it’s entirely possible that logic is merely emergent—much like other natural laws (per Laughlin). Essentially, it's just a product of the human mind. There could be something more fundamental than logic—say, pure mechanics—from which logic emerges.

Quincy:

Logic doesn't happen in the brain. Logic is the structure of reality itself. It is the abstract description of the necessary relationships of anything that exists.

Maybe logic is the structure of reality if you're looking at it through a human lens. If there are perspectives that don't involve logic because they are primitive, then perhaps there are also perspectives that exist "above" logic.

Quincy said "neural phenomena are reality," justifying it by claiming: "The neuronal level was selected because neural currents correlate with external phenomena" So, if "neural phenomena" constitute objective reality, yet you maintain there are only subjective realities and the "outside"—aren't we looking at two different realities? Explain this dualism—unless I'm misinterpreting it. If truth criteria don't apply to subjective reality, isn't our standard for truth simply the alignment between the subjective and the objective?

Every subjective reality exists independently of any other subjective reality; in that sense, every subjective reality exists objectively. Brain signals exist objectively and give rise to subjective reality.
Objective reality isn't "reality" in the way people usually mean it. Our choice of words is sloppy—it's an old leftover from dualistic thinking.

But those things are, by definition and inherent nature, the essences of natural phenomena—regardless of whether anyone likes the terminology. It's clear this claim bothers someone who doesn't grasp what an essence actually is, but I fail to see how that's relevant here.

In science, all that matters is using specific terms and models to understand nature. "Essences" contribute nothing—their definitions are vague and useless.

I'm not subordinating mathematics to logic, but rather logic to mathematics—using math as the foundation. And if we use logic to build models of worldly phenomena, it implies that the phenomena themselves are logical.

I suspect we’re just projecting logic onto the world we observe.

placidranger said:So, logic is the description of any possible reality? Does that mean every description of reality *has* to be "logical"? I’m not sure—it depends on how you're framing it.

Since logical relationships are part of perception, and perception is a product of neural circuits, there has to be some section of the brain tasked with perceiving those logical relations. Whether you call it a "categorizer," a "filter," or some other function—that’s for computational neuroscience to figure out and build a model for.

Quincy:

Fine. But when we talk about subjective reality, we’re implying it isn’t the whole picture—that there’s an assumed objective reality standing against it. I’m talking about the total reality, which encompasses both the subjective and the objective. What binds them together is logic; it remains constant in both. It’s because of this logic—because actuality is rational—that these two realities can, let's say, interact.

Saying logic unites two realities doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it doesn't even make sense to treat them as two separate realities.

There are countless subjective realities—everyone has their own. And then there is whatever exists outside of us. We can construct models of this "objective reality," but since we are always speaking from a subjective standpoint, we are really only ever discussing our *models* of it. Take forces and atoms, for instance—nobody has actually seen them. They are just abstract models used to explain our experiences.

Quincy:

I don't see why that matters.

Those beings don't experience the world as something logical—unlike humans. Well, certain humans. This implies that the human perception of logic is necessarily a biological byproduct. Naturally, there might be an analogy between what the brain constructs and the external reality it relies upon, but it’s entirely possible that logic is merely emergent—much like other natural laws (per Laughlin). Essentially, it's just a product of the human mind. There could be something more fundamental than logic—say, pure mechanics—from which logic emerges.

Quincy:

Logic doesn't happen in the brain. Logic is the structure of reality itself. It is the abstract description of the necessary relationships of anything that exists.

Maybe logic is the structure of reality if you're looking at it through a human lens. If there are perspectives that don't involve logic because they are primitive, then perhaps there are also perspectives that exist "above" logic.

Quincy said "neural phenomena are reality," justifying it by claiming: "The neuronal level was selected because neural currents correlate with external phenomena" So, if "neural phenomena" constitute objective reality, yet you maintain there are only subjective realities and the "outside"—aren't we looking at two different realities? Explain this dualism—unless I'm misinterpreting it. If truth criteria don't apply to subjective reality, isn't our standard for truth simply the alignment between the subjective and the objective?

Every subjective reality exists independently of any other subjective reality; in that sense, every subjective reality exists objectively. Brain signals exist objectively and give rise to subjective reality.
Objective reality isn't "reality" in the way people usually mean it. Our choice of words is sloppy—it's an old leftover from dualistic thinking.

But those things are, by definition and inherent nature, the essences of natural phenomena—regardless of whether anyone likes the terminology. It's clear this claim bothers someone who doesn't grasp what an essence actually is, but I fail to see how that's relevant here.

In science, all that matters is using specific terms and models to understand nature. "Essences" contribute nothing—their definitions are vague and useless.

I'm not subordinating mathematics to logic, but rather logic to mathematics—using math as the foundation. And if we use logic to build models of worldly phenomena, it implies that the phenomena themselves are logical.

I suspect we’re just projecting logic onto the world we observe.

I’m not entirely sure how you managed to stumble onto that particular conclusion, but I suppose it doesn't really matter. What exactly is so confusing about the idea that logic serves as the underlying blueprint for any conceivable reality? If you strip away all the unnecessary noise and isolate the essential core of any possible scenario, you're always going to find logic sitting right there at the bottom of it all. That isn't to say that every single description of reality actually has to be logical, though. You can certainly have descriptions of reality that are completely nonsensical—think of the chaotic internal monologue of someone experiencing a psychotic break, the surrealist landscapes in a modern art gallery, or even certain fringe theories in science. Honestly, those illogical depictions are usually much more entertaining than the strictly logical ones. After all, humor pretty much thrives on that exact moment when a person catches onto something being fundamentally illogical.

placidranger said:So, logic is the description of any possible reality? Does that mean every description of reality *has* to be "logical"? I’m not sure—it depends on how you're framing it.

Since logical relationships are part of perception, and perception is a product of neural circuits, there has to be some section of the brain tasked with perceiving those logical relations. Whether you call it a "categorizer," a "filter," or some other function—that’s for computational neuroscience to figure out and build a model for.

Quincy:

Fine. But when we talk about subjective reality, we’re implying it isn’t the whole picture—that there’s an assumed objective reality standing against it. I’m talking about the total reality, which encompasses both the subjective and the objective. What binds them together is logic; it remains constant in both. It’s because of this logic—because actuality is rational—that these two realities can, let's say, interact.

Saying logic unites two realities doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it doesn't even make sense to treat them as two separate realities.

There are countless subjective realities—everyone has their own. And then there is whatever exists outside of us. We can construct models of this "objective reality," but since we are always speaking from a subjective standpoint, we are really only ever discussing our *models* of it. Take forces and atoms, for instance—nobody has actually seen them. They are just abstract models used to explain our experiences.

Quincy:

I don't see why that matters.

Those beings don't experience the world as something logical—unlike humans. Well, certain humans. This implies that the human perception of logic is necessarily a biological byproduct. Naturally, there might be an analogy between what the brain constructs and the external reality it relies upon, but it’s entirely possible that logic is merely emergent—much like other natural laws (per Laughlin). Essentially, it's just a product of the human mind. There could be something more fundamental than logic—say, pure mechanics—from which logic emerges.

Quincy:

Logic doesn't happen in the brain. Logic is the structure of reality itself. It is the abstract description of the necessary relationships of anything that exists.

Maybe logic is the structure of reality if you're looking at it through a human lens. If there are perspectives that don't involve logic because they are primitive, then perhaps there are also perspectives that exist "above" logic.

Quincy said "neural phenomena are reality," justifying it by claiming: "The neuronal level was selected because neural currents correlate with external phenomena" So, if "neural phenomena" constitute objective reality, yet you maintain there are only subjective realities and the "outside"—aren't we looking at two different realities? Explain this dualism—unless I'm misinterpreting it. If truth criteria don't apply to subjective reality, isn't our standard for truth simply the alignment between the subjective and the objective?

Every subjective reality exists independently of any other subjective reality; in that sense, every subjective reality exists objectively. Brain signals exist objectively and give rise to subjective reality.
Objective reality isn't "reality" in the way people usually mean it. Our choice of words is sloppy—it's an old leftover from dualistic thinking.

But those things are, by definition and inherent nature, the essences of natural phenomena—regardless of whether anyone likes the terminology. It's clear this claim bothers someone who doesn't grasp what an essence actually is, but I fail to see how that's relevant here.

In science, all that matters is using specific terms and models to understand nature. "Essences" contribute nothing—their definitions are vague and useless.

I'm not subordinating mathematics to logic, but rather logic to mathematics—using math as the foundation. And if we use logic to build models of worldly phenomena, it implies that the phenomena themselves are logical.

I suspect we’re just projecting logic onto the world we observe.

Look, which part are we even talking about here? Logical relations aren't just matters of perception; they are necessary relations. You perceive sensory stimuli, sure, but what you’re arguing sounds like pure psychologism to me. There was once a psychological interpretation of mathematics floating around, but that got ground into dust long ago, and no serious thinker touches it anymore. You might perceive five apples or ten pebbles, but the numbers five or ten are universal—they don't care what kind of stuff you're counting. Even if you fail to perceive those five apples, they’re still sitting there. We could go down the rabbit hole and claim "five" is just some byproduct of our brains that doesn't exist "out there," but honestly, that just doesn't hold water for me. Everyone counts exactly five of something. It’s not like one person counts five, another counts six, and a third person counts nothing at all. If that were the case, reality would be a total mess. The relationships between these basic universals remain identical whether you're looking at nature or the mind or consciousness—call it whatever you want. That’s because we’re dealing with form, while the apples and stones are just content. You can't have content without form. Logic is simply the most fundamental, universal form there is. This is exactly what Aristotle was getting at when he suggested that the rules of thought are the same as the rules of being. Or take Hegel, who argued that whatever is actual is rational, and the rational is actual. Neural pathways are completely irrelevant to this; they can be abstracted away because these same necessary relations show up everywhere, including well outside of brain matter. Brain activity is just content.

placidranger said:So, logic is the description of any possible reality? Does that mean every description of reality *has* to be "logical"? I’m not sure—it depends on how you're framing it.

Since logical relationships are part of perception, and perception is a product of neural circuits, there has to be some section of the brain tasked with perceiving those logical relations. Whether you call it a "categorizer," a "filter," or some other function—that’s for computational neuroscience to figure out and build a model for.

Quincy:

Fine. But when we talk about subjective reality, we’re implying it isn’t the whole picture—that there’s an assumed objective reality standing against it. I’m talking about the total reality, which encompasses both the subjective and the objective. What binds them together is logic; it remains constant in both. It’s because of this logic—because actuality is rational—that these two realities can, let's say, interact.

Saying logic unites two realities doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it doesn't even make sense to treat them as two separate realities.

There are countless subjective realities—everyone has their own. And then there is whatever exists outside of us. We can construct models of this "objective reality," but since we are always speaking from a subjective standpoint, we are really only ever discussing our *models* of it. Take forces and atoms, for instance—nobody has actually seen them. They are just abstract models used to explain our experiences.

Quincy:

I don't see why that matters.

Those beings don't experience the world as something logical—unlike humans. Well, certain humans. This implies that the human perception of logic is necessarily a biological byproduct. Naturally, there might be an analogy between what the brain constructs and the external reality it relies upon, but it’s entirely possible that logic is merely emergent—much like other natural laws (per Laughlin). Essentially, it's just a product of the human mind. There could be something more fundamental than logic—say, pure mechanics—from which logic emerges.

Quincy:

Logic doesn't happen in the brain. Logic is the structure of reality itself. It is the abstract description of the necessary relationships of anything that exists.

Maybe logic is the structure of reality if you're looking at it through a human lens. If there are perspectives that don't involve logic because they are primitive, then perhaps there are also perspectives that exist "above" logic.

Quincy said "neural phenomena are reality," justifying it by claiming: "The neuronal level was selected because neural currents correlate with external phenomena" So, if "neural phenomena" constitute objective reality, yet you maintain there are only subjective realities and the "outside"—aren't we looking at two different realities? Explain this dualism—unless I'm misinterpreting it. If truth criteria don't apply to subjective reality, isn't our standard for truth simply the alignment between the subjective and the objective?

Every subjective reality exists independently of any other subjective reality; in that sense, every subjective reality exists objectively. Brain signals exist objectively and give rise to subjective reality.
Objective reality isn't "reality" in the way people usually mean it. Our choice of words is sloppy—it's an old leftover from dualistic thinking.

But those things are, by definition and inherent nature, the essences of natural phenomena—regardless of whether anyone likes the terminology. It's clear this claim bothers someone who doesn't grasp what an essence actually is, but I fail to see how that's relevant here.

In science, all that matters is using specific terms and models to understand nature. "Essences" contribute nothing—their definitions are vague and useless.

I'm not subordinating mathematics to logic, but rather logic to mathematics—using math as the foundation. And if we use logic to build models of worldly phenomena, it implies that the phenomena themselves are logical.

I suspect we’re just projecting logic onto the world we observe.

Alright. Look, I hear you, and I truly respect your commitment to having absolutely no sense at all.

placidranger said:So, logic is the description of any possible reality? Does that mean every description of reality *has* to be "logical"? I’m not sure—it depends on how you're framing it.

Since logical relationships are part of perception, and perception is a product of neural circuits, there has to be some section of the brain tasked with perceiving those logical relations. Whether you call it a "categorizer," a "filter," or some other function—that’s for computational neuroscience to figure out and build a model for.

Quincy:

Fine. But when we talk about subjective reality, we’re implying it isn’t the whole picture—that there’s an assumed objective reality standing against it. I’m talking about the total reality, which encompasses both the subjective and the objective. What binds them together is logic; it remains constant in both. It’s because of this logic—because actuality is rational—that these two realities can, let's say, interact.

Saying logic unites two realities doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it doesn't even make sense to treat them as two separate realities.

There are countless subjective realities—everyone has their own. And then there is whatever exists outside of us. We can construct models of this "objective reality," but since we are always speaking from a subjective standpoint, we are really only ever discussing our *models* of it. Take forces and atoms, for instance—nobody has actually seen them. They are just abstract models used to explain our experiences.

Quincy:

I don't see why that matters.

Those beings don't experience the world as something logical—unlike humans. Well, certain humans. This implies that the human perception of logic is necessarily a biological byproduct. Naturally, there might be an analogy between what the brain constructs and the external reality it relies upon, but it’s entirely possible that logic is merely emergent—much like other natural laws (per Laughlin). Essentially, it's just a product of the human mind. There could be something more fundamental than logic—say, pure mechanics—from which logic emerges.

Quincy:

Logic doesn't happen in the brain. Logic is the structure of reality itself. It is the abstract description of the necessary relationships of anything that exists.

Maybe logic is the structure of reality if you're looking at it through a human lens. If there are perspectives that don't involve logic because they are primitive, then perhaps there are also perspectives that exist "above" logic.

Quincy said "neural phenomena are reality," justifying it by claiming: "The neuronal level was selected because neural currents correlate with external phenomena" So, if "neural phenomena" constitute objective reality, yet you maintain there are only subjective realities and the "outside"—aren't we looking at two different realities? Explain this dualism—unless I'm misinterpreting it. If truth criteria don't apply to subjective reality, isn't our standard for truth simply the alignment between the subjective and the objective?

Every subjective reality exists independently of any other subjective reality; in that sense, every subjective reality exists objectively. Brain signals exist objectively and give rise to subjective reality.
Objective reality isn't "reality" in the way people usually mean it. Our choice of words is sloppy—it's an old leftover from dualistic thinking.

But those things are, by definition and inherent nature, the essences of natural phenomena—regardless of whether anyone likes the terminology. It's clear this claim bothers someone who doesn't grasp what an essence actually is, but I fail to see how that's relevant here.

In science, all that matters is using specific terms and models to understand nature. "Essences" contribute nothing—their definitions are vague and useless.

I'm not subordinating mathematics to logic, but rather logic to mathematics—using math as the foundation. And if we use logic to build models of worldly phenomena, it implies that the phenomena themselves are logical.

I suspect we’re just projecting logic onto the world we observe.

But then what actually grants anything its claim to objectivity? What makes it objective—other than just being the opposite of subjective? If we follow that logic, then subjectivity becomes whatever isn't objective, which doesn't really get us anywhere. Objective reality has to be either inherently knowable through logic—since that’s the only conclusion we can reasonably draw—or it simply isn't. If it isn't, then we’re forced to look for something else to stitch everything together into a coherent whole, whether you want to call that metaphysics or religion. Even the mere appearance of an "objective reality" can't be purely subjective; if it were, we wouldn't even have a framework to discuss it in the first place. The very fact that objectivity manifests at all suggests it is something objective, universal, or at the very least, intersubjective.

placidranger said:So, logic is the description of any possible reality? Does that mean every description of reality *has* to be "logical"? I’m not sure—it depends on how you're framing it.

Since logical relationships are part of perception, and perception is a product of neural circuits, there has to be some section of the brain tasked with perceiving those logical relations. Whether you call it a "categorizer," a "filter," or some other function—that’s for computational neuroscience to figure out and build a model for.

Quincy:

Fine. But when we talk about subjective reality, we’re implying it isn’t the whole picture—that there’s an assumed objective reality standing against it. I’m talking about the total reality, which encompasses both the subjective and the objective. What binds them together is logic; it remains constant in both. It’s because of this logic—because actuality is rational—that these two realities can, let's say, interact.

Saying logic unites two realities doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it doesn't even make sense to treat them as two separate realities.

There are countless subjective realities—everyone has their own. And then there is whatever exists outside of us. We can construct models of this "objective reality," but since we are always speaking from a subjective standpoint, we are really only ever discussing our *models* of it. Take forces and atoms, for instance—nobody has actually seen them. They are just abstract models used to explain our experiences.

Quincy:

I don't see why that matters.

Those beings don't experience the world as something logical—unlike humans. Well, certain humans. This implies that the human perception of logic is necessarily a biological byproduct. Naturally, there might be an analogy between what the brain constructs and the external reality it relies upon, but it’s entirely possible that logic is merely emergent—much like other natural laws (per Laughlin). Essentially, it's just a product of the human mind. There could be something more fundamental than logic—say, pure mechanics—from which logic emerges.

Quincy:

Logic doesn't happen in the brain. Logic is the structure of reality itself. It is the abstract description of the necessary relationships of anything that exists.

Maybe logic is the structure of reality if you're looking at it through a human lens. If there are perspectives that don't involve logic because they are primitive, then perhaps there are also perspectives that exist "above" logic.

Quincy said "neural phenomena are reality," justifying it by claiming: "The neuronal level was selected because neural currents correlate with external phenomena" So, if "neural phenomena" constitute objective reality, yet you maintain there are only subjective realities and the "outside"—aren't we looking at two different realities? Explain this dualism—unless I'm misinterpreting it. If truth criteria don't apply to subjective reality, isn't our standard for truth simply the alignment between the subjective and the objective?

Every subjective reality exists independently of any other subjective reality; in that sense, every subjective reality exists objectively. Brain signals exist objectively and give rise to subjective reality.
Objective reality isn't "reality" in the way people usually mean it. Our choice of words is sloppy—it's an old leftover from dualistic thinking.

But those things are, by definition and inherent nature, the essences of natural phenomena—regardless of whether anyone likes the terminology. It's clear this claim bothers someone who doesn't grasp what an essence actually is, but I fail to see how that's relevant here.

In science, all that matters is using specific terms and models to understand nature. "Essences" contribute nothing—their definitions are vague and useless.

I'm not subordinating mathematics to logic, but rather logic to mathematics—using math as the foundation. And if we use logic to build models of worldly phenomena, it implies that the phenomena themselves are logical.

I suspect we’re just projecting logic onto the world we observe.

Mechanism is really just a logical category at its core. It’s essentially derived from cause and effect, which are themselves just more logical categories. If we accept that logic serves as the universal framework, then you can't exactly claim there's some higher "metalogic" or a kind of metaphysics of metaphysics sitting above it. You can't be more logical than logic itself. It’s a bit like trying to argue that something could be more actual than actuality—which is usually just a fancy way of circling around that unknowable, noumenal thing.
It’s basically just a slippery slope leading straight into an infinite regression—the kind of bottomless pit you really don't want to fall into.

placidranger said:So, logic is the description of any possible reality? Does that mean every description of reality *has* to be "logical"? I’m not sure—it depends on how you're framing it.

Since logical relationships are part of perception, and perception is a product of neural circuits, there has to be some section of the brain tasked with perceiving those logical relations. Whether you call it a "categorizer," a "filter," or some other function—that’s for computational neuroscience to figure out and build a model for.

Quincy:

Fine. But when we talk about subjective reality, we’re implying it isn’t the whole picture—that there’s an assumed objective reality standing against it. I’m talking about the total reality, which encompasses both the subjective and the objective. What binds them together is logic; it remains constant in both. It’s because of this logic—because actuality is rational—that these two realities can, let's say, interact.

Saying logic unites two realities doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it doesn't even make sense to treat them as two separate realities.

There are countless subjective realities—everyone has their own. And then there is whatever exists outside of us. We can construct models of this "objective reality," but since we are always speaking from a subjective standpoint, we are really only ever discussing our *models* of it. Take forces and atoms, for instance—nobody has actually seen them. They are just abstract models used to explain our experiences.

Quincy:

I don't see why that matters.

Those beings don't experience the world as something logical—unlike humans. Well, certain humans. This implies that the human perception of logic is necessarily a biological byproduct. Naturally, there might be an analogy between what the brain constructs and the external reality it relies upon, but it’s entirely possible that logic is merely emergent—much like other natural laws (per Laughlin). Essentially, it's just a product of the human mind. There could be something more fundamental than logic—say, pure mechanics—from which logic emerges.

Quincy:

Logic doesn't happen in the brain. Logic is the structure of reality itself. It is the abstract description of the necessary relationships of anything that exists.

Maybe logic is the structure of reality if you're looking at it through a human lens. If there are perspectives that don't involve logic because they are primitive, then perhaps there are also perspectives that exist "above" logic.

Quincy said "neural phenomena are reality," justifying it by claiming: "The neuronal level was selected because neural currents correlate with external phenomena" So, if "neural phenomena" constitute objective reality, yet you maintain there are only subjective realities and the "outside"—aren't we looking at two different realities? Explain this dualism—unless I'm misinterpreting it. If truth criteria don't apply to subjective reality, isn't our standard for truth simply the alignment between the subjective and the objective?

Every subjective reality exists independently of any other subjective reality; in that sense, every subjective reality exists objectively. Brain signals exist objectively and give rise to subjective reality.
Objective reality isn't "reality" in the way people usually mean it. Our choice of words is sloppy—it's an old leftover from dualistic thinking.

But those things are, by definition and inherent nature, the essences of natural phenomena—regardless of whether anyone likes the terminology. It's clear this claim bothers someone who doesn't grasp what an essence actually is, but I fail to see how that's relevant here.

In science, all that matters is using specific terms and models to understand nature. "Essences" contribute nothing—their definitions are vague and useless.

I'm not subordinating mathematics to logic, but rather logic to mathematics—using math as the foundation. And if we use logic to build models of worldly phenomena, it implies that the phenomena themselves are logical.

I suspect we’re just projecting logic onto the world we observe.

You could basically argue that their definition is just poorly constructed and blurry within the confines of your own mind, rather than being an objective failure. And if we assume that understanding nature is actually about grasping its essence—rather than just cataloging every single isolated event and phenomenon that happens to pop up—then you’re in for a pretty rough ride, considering you don't seem to have any clue what essence even is.

placidranger said:So, logic is the description of any possible reality? Does that mean every description of reality *has* to be "logical"? I’m not sure—it depends on how you're framing it.

Since logical relationships are part of perception, and perception is a product of neural circuits, there has to be some section of the brain tasked with perceiving those logical relations. Whether you call it a "categorizer," a "filter," or some other function—that’s for computational neuroscience to figure out and build a model for.

Quincy:

Fine. But when we talk about subjective reality, we’re implying it isn’t the whole picture—that there’s an assumed objective reality standing against it. I’m talking about the total reality, which encompasses both the subjective and the objective. What binds them together is logic; it remains constant in both. It’s because of this logic—because actuality is rational—that these two realities can, let's say, interact.

Saying logic unites two realities doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it doesn't even make sense to treat them as two separate realities.

There are countless subjective realities—everyone has their own. And then there is whatever exists outside of us. We can construct models of this "objective reality," but since we are always speaking from a subjective standpoint, we are really only ever discussing our *models* of it. Take forces and atoms, for instance—nobody has actually seen them. They are just abstract models used to explain our experiences.

Quincy:

I don't see why that matters.

Those beings don't experience the world as something logical—unlike humans. Well, certain humans. This implies that the human perception of logic is necessarily a biological byproduct. Naturally, there might be an analogy between what the brain constructs and the external reality it relies upon, but it’s entirely possible that logic is merely emergent—much like other natural laws (per Laughlin). Essentially, it's just a product of the human mind. There could be something more fundamental than logic—say, pure mechanics—from which logic emerges.

Quincy:

Logic doesn't happen in the brain. Logic is the structure of reality itself. It is the abstract description of the necessary relationships of anything that exists.

Maybe logic is the structure of reality if you're looking at it through a human lens. If there are perspectives that don't involve logic because they are primitive, then perhaps there are also perspectives that exist "above" logic.

Quincy said "neural phenomena are reality," justifying it by claiming: "The neuronal level was selected because neural currents correlate with external phenomena" So, if "neural phenomena" constitute objective reality, yet you maintain there are only subjective realities and the "outside"—aren't we looking at two different realities? Explain this dualism—unless I'm misinterpreting it. If truth criteria don't apply to subjective reality, isn't our standard for truth simply the alignment between the subjective and the objective?

Every subjective reality exists independently of any other subjective reality; in that sense, every subjective reality exists objectively. Brain signals exist objectively and give rise to subjective reality.
Objective reality isn't "reality" in the way people usually mean it. Our choice of words is sloppy—it's an old leftover from dualistic thinking.

But those things are, by definition and inherent nature, the essences of natural phenomena—regardless of whether anyone likes the terminology. It's clear this claim bothers someone who doesn't grasp what an essence actually is, but I fail to see how that's relevant here.

In science, all that matters is using specific terms and models to understand nature. "Essences" contribute nothing—their definitions are vague and useless.

I'm not subordinating mathematics to logic, but rather logic to mathematics—using math as the foundation. And if we use logic to build models of worldly phenomena, it implies that the phenomena themselves are logical.

I suspect we’re just projecting logic onto the world we observe.

Exactly. We're part of the system, after all. It's this constant loop where we project our ideas onto reality, and then reality hits us right back in the face.

People who can't count see one grain of sand and think they've got a mountain.

Amanda Jackson5 said:I’m not entirely sure how you managed to stumble onto that particular conclusion, but I suppose it doesn't really matter. What exactly is so confusing about the idea that logic serves as the underlying blueprint for any conceivable reality? If you strip away all the unnecessary noise and isolate the essential core of any possible scenario, you're always going to find logic sitting right there at the bottom of it all. That isn't to say that every single description of reality actually has to be logical, though. You can certainly have descriptions of reality that are completely nonsensical—think of the chaotic internal monologue of someone experiencing a psychotic break, the surrealist landscapes in a modern art gallery, or even certain fringe theories in science. Honestly, those illogical depictions are usually much more entertaining than the strictly logical ones. After all, humor pretty much thrives on that exact moment when a person catches onto something being fundamentally illogical.

Look, which part are we even talking about here? Logical relations aren't just matters of perception; they are necessary relations. You perceive sensory stimuli, sure, but what you’re arguing sounds like pure psychologism to me. There was once a psychological interpretation of mathematics floating around, but that got ground into dust long ago, and no serious thinker touches it anymore. You might perceive five apples or ten pebbles, but the numbers five or ten are universal—they don't care what kind of stuff you're counting. Even if you fail to perceive those five apples, they’re still sitting there. We could go down the rabbit hole and claim "five" is just some byproduct of our brains that doesn't exist "out there," but honestly, that just doesn't hold water for me. Everyone counts exactly five of something. It’s not like one person counts five, another counts six, and a third person counts nothing at all. If that were the case, reality would be a total mess. The relationships between these basic universals remain identical whether you're looking at nature or the mind or consciousness—call it whatever you want. That’s because we’re dealing with form, while the apples and stones are just content. You can't have content without form. Logic is simply the most fundamental, universal form there is. This is exactly what Aristotle was getting at when he suggested that the rules of thought are the same as the rules of being. Or take Hegel, who argued that whatever is actual is rational, and the rational is actual. Neural pathways are completely irrelevant to this; they can be abstracted away because these same necessary relations show up everywhere, including well outside of brain matter. Brain activity is just content.

Alright. Look, I hear you, and I truly respect your commitment to having absolutely no sense at all.

But then what actually grants anything its claim to objectivity? What makes it objective—other than just being the opposite of subjective? If we follow that logic, then subjectivity becomes whatever isn't objective, which doesn't really get us anywhere. Objective reality has to be either inherently knowable through logic—since that’s the only conclusion we can reasonably draw—or it simply isn't. If it isn't, then we’re forced to look for something else to stitch everything together into a coherent whole, whether you want to call that metaphysics or religion. Even the mere appearance of an "objective reality" can't be purely subjective; if it were, we wouldn't even have a framework to discuss it in the first place. The very fact that objectivity manifests at all suggests it is something objective, universal, or at the very least, intersubjective.

Mechanism is really just a logical category at its core. It’s essentially derived from cause and effect, which are themselves just more logical categories. If we accept that logic serves as the universal framework, then you can't exactly claim there's some higher "metalogic" or a kind of metaphysics of metaphysics sitting above it. You can't be more logical than logic itself. It’s a bit like trying to argue that something could be more actual than actuality—which is usually just a fancy way of circling around that unknowable, noumenal thing.
It’s basically just a slippery slope leading straight into an infinite regression—the kind of bottomless pit you really don't want to fall into.

You could basically argue that their definition is just poorly constructed and blurry within the confines of your own mind, rather than being an objective failure. And if we assume that understanding nature is actually about grasping its essence—rather than just cataloging every single isolated event and phenomenon that happens to pop up—then you’re in for a pretty rough ride, considering you don't seem to have any clue what essence even is.

Exactly. We're part of the system, after all. It's this constant loop where we project our ideas onto reality, and then reality hits us right back in the face.

Sure, you can use logic or math to describe any conceivable reality, but you're inherently doing it from your own perspective. Some realities don't even involve perceiving logical relationships.

Quincy:

Really? Which part? Logical relationships aren't perceptions; they are necessary relations. Perceptions are sensory stimuli. What you're describing is pure psychologism. There was once a psychologistic interpretation of mathematics, but it was ground into dust and ash long ago—no serious thinker touches it anymore. You might perceive five apples or ten stones, but "five" or "ten" are universal; they don't depend on what they're attached to. You might not perceive five apples, but they're still there. We could even argue that "five" itself is just a byproduct of our brains and isn't "out there," but honestly, that makes no sense to me. Everyone shows up and counts five of something. No one counts five, then someone else counts six, and a third person counts nothing. That would be an illogical reality. And the relationships between those basic universals remain the same whether we're talking about nature, the mind, or consciousness—whatever you want to call it. It's about form, whereas apples and stones are just content. You can't have content without form. Logic is simply the most basic, universal form. That’s what Aristotle meant when he suggested the rules of thought are the same as the rules of being. Or Hegel, when he argued that whatever is actual is rational, and whatever is rational is actual. Brain circuits are irrelevant here. They can be abstracted away, because those same necessary relations show up everywhere—including outside of brain matter. Brain circuits are just content.

Math and logic are definitely products of the brain. They aren't just products of the brain, though, because they are constructed specifically to explain other sensory experiences. For instance, if you remove an apple from a group, there will be one fewer, and those sensory experiences rely on external events.

Quincy:

But then what provides objectivity to anything? By what standard is something "objective"—that it is objective? Is it just because it isn't subjective? If so, the inverse must hold—subjective is whatever isn't objective. Objective reality is either fundamentally knowable—meaning it's logical, since that's the conclusion we are forced to draw—or it isn't. In that case, there must be something else that unifies everything into a whole, such as some transcendent realm—metaphysics or religion. Even the appearance of an "objective reality" cannot be purely subjective, otherwise, we wouldn't even be able to discuss it. The emergence of the objective is objective, or universal, or at the very least intersubjective.

There is no such thing as true objectivity. Everything is just a subjective model of "the thing out there," and most of them end up riddled with inconsistencies, failing to account for all observations, or clashing with other "objective" models and so on...

Quincy:

Mechanism is a logical category—period. It’s derived from cause and effect, which are themselves logical categories. If logic is the universal form, then there can't be some "super-logic" or a "metaphysics of metaphysics" sitting above it. You can't be more logical than logic itself. It’s like claiming something can be more actual than actuality (which, if you follow that rabbit hole, just ends up at some unknowable noumenal thing). That’s just sliding into an infinite regress—a bad kind of infinity, if you ask me.

Think about how a computer builds logical functions out of raw electrical signals. That’s the process I’m talking about, just happening inside the brain. There aren't any logical functions at the lower levels of the nervous system—not in simple neural circuits, nor in physiological computations. Logical functions are abstractions built upon "concepts." Those concepts are abstractions of multisensory experiences over time. And those experiences are just abstractions of single-sensory moments. It's all layers deep. Given the physical makeup of the nervous system, we know logic is a product of the brain. But we could argue—in a sort of direct realism sense—that logic exists "out there," simply because that’s how we perceive it.

placidranger said:Sure, you can use logic or math to describe any conceivable reality, but you're inherently doing it from your own perspective. Some realities don't even involve perceiving logical relationships.

Quincy:

Really? Which part? Logical relationships aren't perceptions; they are necessary relations. Perceptions are sensory stimuli. What you're describing is pure psychologism. There was once a psychologistic interpretation of mathematics, but it was ground into dust and ash long ago—no serious thinker touches it anymore. You might perceive five apples or ten stones, but "five" or "ten" are universal; they don't depend on what they're attached to. You might not perceive five apples, but they're still there. We could even argue that "five" itself is just a byproduct of our brains and isn't "out there," but honestly, that makes no sense to me. Everyone shows up and counts five of something. No one counts five, then someone else counts six, and a third person counts nothing. That would be an illogical reality. And the relationships between those basic universals remain the same whether we're talking about nature, the mind, or consciousness—whatever you want to call it. It's about form, whereas apples and stones are just content. You can't have content without form. Logic is simply the most basic, universal form. That’s what Aristotle meant when he suggested the rules of thought are the same as the rules of being. Or Hegel, when he argued that whatever is actual is rational, and whatever is rational is actual. Brain circuits are irrelevant here. They can be abstracted away, because those same necessary relations show up everywhere—including outside of brain matter. Brain circuits are just content.

Math and logic are definitely products of the brain. They aren't just products of the brain, though, because they are constructed specifically to explain other sensory experiences. For instance, if you remove an apple from a group, there will be one fewer, and those sensory experiences rely on external events.

Quincy:

But then what provides objectivity to anything? By what standard is something "objective"—that it is objective? Is it just because it isn't subjective? If so, the inverse must hold—subjective is whatever isn't objective. Objective reality is either fundamentally knowable—meaning it's logical, since that's the conclusion we are forced to draw—or it isn't. In that case, there must be something else that unifies everything into a whole, such as some transcendent realm—metaphysics or religion. Even the appearance of an "objective reality" cannot be purely subjective, otherwise, we wouldn't even be able to discuss it. The emergence of the objective is objective, or universal, or at the very least intersubjective.

There is no such thing as true objectivity. Everything is just a subjective model of "the thing out there," and most of them end up riddled with inconsistencies, failing to account for all observations, or clashing with other "objective" models and so on...

Quincy:

Mechanism is a logical category—period. It’s derived from cause and effect, which are themselves logical categories. If logic is the universal form, then there can't be some "super-logic" or a "metaphysics of metaphysics" sitting above it. You can't be more logical than logic itself. It’s like claiming something can be more actual than actuality (which, if you follow that rabbit hole, just ends up at some unknowable noumenal thing). That’s just sliding into an infinite regress—a bad kind of infinity, if you ask me.

Think about how a computer builds logical functions out of raw electrical signals. That’s the process I’m talking about, just happening inside the brain. There aren't any logical functions at the lower levels of the nervous system—not in simple neural circuits, nor in physiological computations. Logical functions are abstractions built upon "concepts." Those concepts are abstractions of multisensory experiences over time. And those experiences are just abstractions of single-sensory moments. It's all layers deep. Given the physical makeup of the nervous system, we know logic is a product of the brain. But we could argue—in a sort of direct realism sense—that logic exists "out there," simply because that’s how we perceive it.

The thing is, you're operating from your specific perspective while simultaneously tapping into a universal one. It’s all part of that single concept where the universal and the particular meet. They aren't separate; the essence of the individual is woven into the essence of the universal. It works both ways—objective meaning is contained within subjective meaning, and vice versa. When I argue that logic describes reality, I’m not suggesting that reality itself requires someone to perceive logical connections; rather, I mean that reality is fundamentally composed of those logical relations (which we then happen to perceive). A possible reality doesn't need to include the act of perceiving logic, but it absolutely must contain logical structures.

placidranger said:Sure, you can use logic or math to describe any conceivable reality, but you're inherently doing it from your own perspective. Some realities don't even involve perceiving logical relationships.

Quincy:

Really? Which part? Logical relationships aren't perceptions; they are necessary relations. Perceptions are sensory stimuli. What you're describing is pure psychologism. There was once a psychologistic interpretation of mathematics, but it was ground into dust and ash long ago—no serious thinker touches it anymore. You might perceive five apples or ten stones, but "five" or "ten" are universal; they don't depend on what they're attached to. You might not perceive five apples, but they're still there. We could even argue that "five" itself is just a byproduct of our brains and isn't "out there," but honestly, that makes no sense to me. Everyone shows up and counts five of something. No one counts five, then someone else counts six, and a third person counts nothing. That would be an illogical reality. And the relationships between those basic universals remain the same whether we're talking about nature, the mind, or consciousness—whatever you want to call it. It's about form, whereas apples and stones are just content. You can't have content without form. Logic is simply the most basic, universal form. That’s what Aristotle meant when he suggested the rules of thought are the same as the rules of being. Or Hegel, when he argued that whatever is actual is rational, and whatever is rational is actual. Brain circuits are irrelevant here. They can be abstracted away, because those same necessary relations show up everywhere—including outside of brain matter. Brain circuits are just content.

Math and logic are definitely products of the brain. They aren't just products of the brain, though, because they are constructed specifically to explain other sensory experiences. For instance, if you remove an apple from a group, there will be one fewer, and those sensory experiences rely on external events.

Quincy:

But then what provides objectivity to anything? By what standard is something "objective"—that it is objective? Is it just because it isn't subjective? If so, the inverse must hold—subjective is whatever isn't objective. Objective reality is either fundamentally knowable—meaning it's logical, since that's the conclusion we are forced to draw—or it isn't. In that case, there must be something else that unifies everything into a whole, such as some transcendent realm—metaphysics or religion. Even the appearance of an "objective reality" cannot be purely subjective, otherwise, we wouldn't even be able to discuss it. The emergence of the objective is objective, or universal, or at the very least intersubjective.

There is no such thing as true objectivity. Everything is just a subjective model of "the thing out there," and most of them end up riddled with inconsistencies, failing to account for all observations, or clashing with other "objective" models and so on...

Quincy:

Mechanism is a logical category—period. It’s derived from cause and effect, which are themselves logical categories. If logic is the universal form, then there can't be some "super-logic" or a "metaphysics of metaphysics" sitting above it. You can't be more logical than logic itself. It’s like claiming something can be more actual than actuality (which, if you follow that rabbit hole, just ends up at some unknowable noumenal thing). That’s just sliding into an infinite regress—a bad kind of infinity, if you ask me.

Think about how a computer builds logical functions out of raw electrical signals. That’s the process I’m talking about, just happening inside the brain. There aren't any logical functions at the lower levels of the nervous system—not in simple neural circuits, nor in physiological computations. Logical functions are abstractions built upon "concepts." Those concepts are abstractions of multisensory experiences over time. And those experiences are just abstractions of single-sensory moments. It's all layers deep. Given the physical makeup of the nervous system, we know logic is a product of the brain. But we could argue—in a sort of direct realism sense—that logic exists "out there," simply because that’s how we perceive it.

Actually, that's exactly my point. If sensory experiences weren't grounded in logic, math and logic wouldn't be nearly as successful at explaining them as they are.

placidranger said:Sure, you can use logic or math to describe any conceivable reality, but you're inherently doing it from your own perspective. Some realities don't even involve perceiving logical relationships.

Quincy:

Really? Which part? Logical relationships aren't perceptions; they are necessary relations. Perceptions are sensory stimuli. What you're describing is pure psychologism. There was once a psychologistic interpretation of mathematics, but it was ground into dust and ash long ago—no serious thinker touches it anymore. You might perceive five apples or ten stones, but "five" or "ten" are universal; they don't depend on what they're attached to. You might not perceive five apples, but they're still there. We could even argue that "five" itself is just a byproduct of our brains and isn't "out there," but honestly, that makes no sense to me. Everyone shows up and counts five of something. No one counts five, then someone else counts six, and a third person counts nothing. That would be an illogical reality. And the relationships between those basic universals remain the same whether we're talking about nature, the mind, or consciousness—whatever you want to call it. It's about form, whereas apples and stones are just content. You can't have content without form. Logic is simply the most basic, universal form. That’s what Aristotle meant when he suggested the rules of thought are the same as the rules of being. Or Hegel, when he argued that whatever is actual is rational, and whatever is rational is actual. Brain circuits are irrelevant here. They can be abstracted away, because those same necessary relations show up everywhere—including outside of brain matter. Brain circuits are just content.

Math and logic are definitely products of the brain. They aren't just products of the brain, though, because they are constructed specifically to explain other sensory experiences. For instance, if you remove an apple from a group, there will be one fewer, and those sensory experiences rely on external events.

Quincy:

But then what provides objectivity to anything? By what standard is something "objective"—that it is objective? Is it just because it isn't subjective? If so, the inverse must hold—subjective is whatever isn't objective. Objective reality is either fundamentally knowable—meaning it's logical, since that's the conclusion we are forced to draw—or it isn't. In that case, there must be something else that unifies everything into a whole, such as some transcendent realm—metaphysics or religion. Even the appearance of an "objective reality" cannot be purely subjective, otherwise, we wouldn't even be able to discuss it. The emergence of the objective is objective, or universal, or at the very least intersubjective.

There is no such thing as true objectivity. Everything is just a subjective model of "the thing out there," and most of them end up riddled with inconsistencies, failing to account for all observations, or clashing with other "objective" models and so on...

Quincy:

Mechanism is a logical category—period. It’s derived from cause and effect, which are themselves logical categories. If logic is the universal form, then there can't be some "super-logic" or a "metaphysics of metaphysics" sitting above it. You can't be more logical than logic itself. It’s like claiming something can be more actual than actuality (which, if you follow that rabbit hole, just ends up at some unknowable noumenal thing). That’s just sliding into an infinite regress—a bad kind of infinity, if you ask me.

Think about how a computer builds logical functions out of raw electrical signals. That’s the process I’m talking about, just happening inside the brain. There aren't any logical functions at the lower levels of the nervous system—not in simple neural circuits, nor in physiological computations. Logical functions are abstractions built upon "concepts." Those concepts are abstractions of multisensory experiences over time. And those experiences are just abstractions of single-sensory moments. It's all layers deep. Given the physical makeup of the nervous system, we know logic is a product of the brain. But we could argue—in a sort of direct realism sense—that logic exists "out there," simply because that’s how we perceive it.

In that case, we probably ought to ditch terms like 'subjective' and 'objective' altogether. They only exist in relation to one another; they define each other through their opposition. If I'm following your train of thought, you're suggesting that logic isn't about a priori truths—like math, moving from axioms to theorems to reach valid conclusions—but is instead an empirical study of what likely leads from premises to conclusions. I have to disagree there. That brand of logical psychologism you're leaning on treats logic as a theory of how the human mind functions, which is essentially just subjective relativism in disguise. Of course, no serious logician actually buys into that (and while I realize that's not a formal rebuttal, it's certainly telling). What you're describing is a 'model,' which aligns more with what > calls the "semantic conception of truth," or what we've called "possible worlds" since the 60s (a term borrowed from >). Logic, however, is a meta-theory—it's the underlying structure of any possible theory, and by extension, the structure of reality itself.

placidranger said:Sure, you can use logic or math to describe any conceivable reality, but you're inherently doing it from your own perspective. Some realities don't even involve perceiving logical relationships.

Quincy:

Really? Which part? Logical relationships aren't perceptions; they are necessary relations. Perceptions are sensory stimuli. What you're describing is pure psychologism. There was once a psychologistic interpretation of mathematics, but it was ground into dust and ash long ago—no serious thinker touches it anymore. You might perceive five apples or ten stones, but "five" or "ten" are universal; they don't depend on what they're attached to. You might not perceive five apples, but they're still there. We could even argue that "five" itself is just a byproduct of our brains and isn't "out there," but honestly, that makes no sense to me. Everyone shows up and counts five of something. No one counts five, then someone else counts six, and a third person counts nothing. That would be an illogical reality. And the relationships between those basic universals remain the same whether we're talking about nature, the mind, or consciousness—whatever you want to call it. It's about form, whereas apples and stones are just content. You can't have content without form. Logic is simply the most basic, universal form. That’s what Aristotle meant when he suggested the rules of thought are the same as the rules of being. Or Hegel, when he argued that whatever is actual is rational, and whatever is rational is actual. Brain circuits are irrelevant here. They can be abstracted away, because those same necessary relations show up everywhere—including outside of brain matter. Brain circuits are just content.

Math and logic are definitely products of the brain. They aren't just products of the brain, though, because they are constructed specifically to explain other sensory experiences. For instance, if you remove an apple from a group, there will be one fewer, and those sensory experiences rely on external events.

Quincy:

But then what provides objectivity to anything? By what standard is something "objective"—that it is objective? Is it just because it isn't subjective? If so, the inverse must hold—subjective is whatever isn't objective. Objective reality is either fundamentally knowable—meaning it's logical, since that's the conclusion we are forced to draw—or it isn't. In that case, there must be something else that unifies everything into a whole, such as some transcendent realm—metaphysics or religion. Even the appearance of an "objective reality" cannot be purely subjective, otherwise, we wouldn't even be able to discuss it. The emergence of the objective is objective, or universal, or at the very least intersubjective.

There is no such thing as true objectivity. Everything is just a subjective model of "the thing out there," and most of them end up riddled with inconsistencies, failing to account for all observations, or clashing with other "objective" models and so on...

Quincy:

Mechanism is a logical category—period. It’s derived from cause and effect, which are themselves logical categories. If logic is the universal form, then there can't be some "super-logic" or a "metaphysics of metaphysics" sitting above it. You can't be more logical than logic itself. It’s like claiming something can be more actual than actuality (which, if you follow that rabbit hole, just ends up at some unknowable noumenal thing). That’s just sliding into an infinite regress—a bad kind of infinity, if you ask me.

Think about how a computer builds logical functions out of raw electrical signals. That’s the process I’m talking about, just happening inside the brain. There aren't any logical functions at the lower levels of the nervous system—not in simple neural circuits, nor in physiological computations. Logical functions are abstractions built upon "concepts." Those concepts are abstractions of multisensory experiences over time. And those experiences are just abstractions of single-sensory moments. It's all layers deep. Given the physical makeup of the nervous system, we know logic is a product of the brain. But we could argue—in a sort of direct realism sense—that logic exists "out there," simply because that’s how we perceive it.

Not quite, though. That’s a pretty messy and naive way to look at it. For starters, I’m not even sure what you mean by "concept" here. Usually, a concept implies a "model," whereas I tend to use it to mean a "notion"—that intersection where the universal, the particular, and the individual meet. It maintains its identity through change—since you decided to bring time into the equation—it shifts, yet remains itself. But it seems you’re using it to describe the thing that organizes stimuli to make understanding possible, which is actually just logical categories—essentially a meta-theory describing potential (or necessary) relationships in the broadest sense. It’s what Husserl called the "field" or the "manifold," a term later adopted by logicians.

placidranger said:Sure, you can use logic or math to describe any conceivable reality, but you're inherently doing it from your own perspective. Some realities don't even involve perceiving logical relationships.

Quincy:

Really? Which part? Logical relationships aren't perceptions; they are necessary relations. Perceptions are sensory stimuli. What you're describing is pure psychologism. There was once a psychologistic interpretation of mathematics, but it was ground into dust and ash long ago—no serious thinker touches it anymore. You might perceive five apples or ten stones, but "five" or "ten" are universal; they don't depend on what they're attached to. You might not perceive five apples, but they're still there. We could even argue that "five" itself is just a byproduct of our brains and isn't "out there," but honestly, that makes no sense to me. Everyone shows up and counts five of something. No one counts five, then someone else counts six, and a third person counts nothing. That would be an illogical reality. And the relationships between those basic universals remain the same whether we're talking about nature, the mind, or consciousness—whatever you want to call it. It's about form, whereas apples and stones are just content. You can't have content without form. Logic is simply the most basic, universal form. That’s what Aristotle meant when he suggested the rules of thought are the same as the rules of being. Or Hegel, when he argued that whatever is actual is rational, and whatever is rational is actual. Brain circuits are irrelevant here. They can be abstracted away, because those same necessary relations show up everywhere—including outside of brain matter. Brain circuits are just content.

Math and logic are definitely products of the brain. They aren't just products of the brain, though, because they are constructed specifically to explain other sensory experiences. For instance, if you remove an apple from a group, there will be one fewer, and those sensory experiences rely on external events.

Quincy:

But then what provides objectivity to anything? By what standard is something "objective"—that it is objective? Is it just because it isn't subjective? If so, the inverse must hold—subjective is whatever isn't objective. Objective reality is either fundamentally knowable—meaning it's logical, since that's the conclusion we are forced to draw—or it isn't. In that case, there must be something else that unifies everything into a whole, such as some transcendent realm—metaphysics or religion. Even the appearance of an "objective reality" cannot be purely subjective, otherwise, we wouldn't even be able to discuss it. The emergence of the objective is objective, or universal, or at the very least intersubjective.

There is no such thing as true objectivity. Everything is just a subjective model of "the thing out there," and most of them end up riddled with inconsistencies, failing to account for all observations, or clashing with other "objective" models and so on...

Quincy:

Mechanism is a logical category—period. It’s derived from cause and effect, which are themselves logical categories. If logic is the universal form, then there can't be some "super-logic" or a "metaphysics of metaphysics" sitting above it. You can't be more logical than logic itself. It’s like claiming something can be more actual than actuality (which, if you follow that rabbit hole, just ends up at some unknowable noumenal thing). That’s just sliding into an infinite regress—a bad kind of infinity, if you ask me.

Think about how a computer builds logical functions out of raw electrical signals. That’s the process I’m talking about, just happening inside the brain. There aren't any logical functions at the lower levels of the nervous system—not in simple neural circuits, nor in physiological computations. Logical functions are abstractions built upon "concepts." Those concepts are abstractions of multisensory experiences over time. And those experiences are just abstractions of single-sensory moments. It's all layers deep. Given the physical makeup of the nervous system, we know logic is a product of the brain. But we could argue—in a sort of direct realism sense—that logic exists "out there," simply because that’s how we perceive it.

Well, at least you managed to squeeze that one out between your teeth, even if you were clearly reluctant to do so.😁

Amanda Jackson5 said:The thing is, you're operating from your specific perspective while simultaneously tapping into a universal one. It’s all part of that single concept where the universal and the particular meet. They aren't separate; the essence of the individual is woven into the essence of the universal. It works both ways—objective meaning is contained within subjective meaning, and vice versa. When I argue that logic describes reality, I’m not suggesting that reality itself requires someone to perceive logical connections; rather, I mean that reality is fundamentally composed of those logical relations (which we then happen to perceive). A possible reality doesn't need to include the act of perceiving logic, but it absolutely must contain logical structures.

Actually, that's exactly my point. If sensory experiences weren't grounded in logic, math and logic wouldn't be nearly as successful at explaining them as they are.

In that case, we probably ought to ditch terms like 'subjective' and 'objective' altogether. They only exist in relation to one another; they define each other through their opposition. If I'm following your train of thought, you're suggesting that logic isn't about a priori truths—like math, moving from axioms to theorems to reach valid conclusions—but is instead an empirical study of what likely leads from premises to conclusions. I have to disagree there. That brand of logical psychologism you're leaning on treats logic as a theory of how the human mind functions, which is essentially just subjective relativism in disguise. Of course, no serious logician actually buys into that (and while I realize that's not a formal rebuttal, it's certainly telling). What you're describing is a 'model,' which aligns more with what > calls the "semantic conception of truth," or what we've called "possible worlds" since the 60s (a term borrowed from >). Logic, however, is a meta-theory—it's the underlying structure of any possible theory, and by extension, the structure of reality itself.

Not quite, though. That’s a pretty messy and naive way to look at it. For starters, I’m not even sure what you mean by "concept" here. Usually, a concept implies a "model," whereas I tend to use it to mean a "notion"—that intersection where the universal, the particular, and the individual meet. It maintains its identity through change—since you decided to bring time into the equation—it shifts, yet remains itself. But it seems you’re using it to describe the thing that organizes stimuli to make understanding possible, which is actually just logical categories—essentially a meta-theory describing potential (or necessary) relationships in the broadest sense. It’s what Husserl called the "field" or the "manifold," a term later adopted by logicians.

Well, at least you managed to squeeze that one out between your teeth, even if you were clearly reluctant to do so.😁

Defining a concept as a mere union between the universal and the particular? That’s a lazy definition—nothing more. Concepts aren't some fixed, cosmic architecture. They are subjective constructs—fragile things stitched together from context through the messy process of communication.
Let’s not beat around the bush—perspectives aren't universal. They can't be. Unless we're talking about some hypothetical super-intelligence or a higher power, there is no such thing as a "universal" point of view. Everything is filtered through the individual.

Quincy:

That’s exactly my point. It follows logically—if we're being honest—that mathematics and logic would fall completely short if they tried to argue that sensory experiences lack a logical foundation.

Something like that.
Quincy:

Then we have to ditch terms like "subjective" and "objective." They’re useless here—they only exist in relation to one another, through opposition. In other words, they essentially define each other into existence. If I’m following your train of thought correctly—and I usually am—you’re suggesting that logic doesn't deal with a priori truths like mathematics does. You're arguing it isn't about moving from axioms to theorems to reach certain conclusions. Instead, you see it as an empirical study of what likely leads from premises to conclusions based on probability. A bit messy, really—but that seems to be where you're landing. I can't say I agree. The logical psychologism you’re leaning on suggests that logic is merely a theory regarding how the human mind functions—which, at its core, is just subjective relativism. Of course, no serious logician actually buys into that concept—I realize that isn't an argument per se, but it is symptomatic of the problem. The model is something else entirely. We’re talking about what Tarski zvati calls the "semantic conception of truth," or what has been referred to since the 1960s as "possible worlds"—a term borrowed from Leibniz. Logic is a meta-theory; it is the underlying structure of any possible theory, and by extension, reality itself.

I have no idea where you're getting that from.

Logic—much like mathematics—is built upon certain systematic observations, regularities, and patterns. It isn't even up for debate that these rules exist independently of our sensory perceptions—they exist "out there," regardless of whether we happen to be looking at them.
Quincy:

Fine, you finally spit it out—even if it felt like pulling teeth. 😁

If you buy into direct realism—the idea that everything we project onto the world actually exists out there in the wild—then you have to accept that logic exists there, too. But let’s be honest: it’s blindingly obvious that this entire sensory and conceptual landscape is just something we construct inside our own heads. That might be one of the primary functions of consciousness—manufacturing the illusion that there is an "I" occupying a "space," and subsequently convincing ourselves that there’s some inherent logic or mathematics waiting outside for us to find.

Or just a pile...

Depends... you want a bigger pile or a smaller one? :klap:

placidranger said:Defining a concept as a mere union between the universal and the particular? That’s a lazy definition—nothing more. Concepts aren't some fixed, cosmic architecture. They are subjective constructs—fragile things stitched together from context through the messy process of communication.
Let’s not beat around the bush—perspectives aren't universal. They can't be. Unless we're talking about some hypothetical super-intelligence or a higher power, there is no such thing as a "universal" point of view. Everything is filtered through the individual.

Quincy:

That’s exactly my point. It follows logically—if we're being honest—that mathematics and logic would fall completely short if they tried to argue that sensory experiences lack a logical foundation.

Something like that.
Quincy:

Then we have to ditch terms like "subjective" and "objective." They’re useless here—they only exist in relation to one another, through opposition. In other words, they essentially define each other into existence. If I’m following your train of thought correctly—and I usually am—you’re suggesting that logic doesn't deal with a priori truths like mathematics does. You're arguing it isn't about moving from axioms to theorems to reach certain conclusions. Instead, you see it as an empirical study of what likely leads from premises to conclusions based on probability. A bit messy, really—but that seems to be where you're landing. I can't say I agree. The logical psychologism you’re leaning on suggests that logic is merely a theory regarding how the human mind functions—which, at its core, is just subjective relativism. Of course, no serious logician actually buys into that concept—I realize that isn't an argument per se, but it is symptomatic of the problem. The model is something else entirely. We’re talking about what Tarski zvati calls the "semantic conception of truth," or what has been referred to since the 1960s as "possible worlds"—a term borrowed from Leibniz. Logic is a meta-theory; it is the underlying structure of any possible theory, and by extension, reality itself.

I have no idea where you're getting that from.

Logic—much like mathematics—is built upon certain systematic observations, regularities, and patterns. It isn't even up for debate that these rules exist independently of our sensory perceptions—they exist "out there," regardless of whether we happen to be looking at them.
Quincy:

Fine, you finally spit it out—even if it felt like pulling teeth. 😁

If you buy into direct realism—the idea that everything we project onto the world actually exists out there in the wild—then you have to accept that logic exists there, too. But let’s be honest: it’s blindingly obvious that this entire sensory and conceptual landscape is just something we construct inside our own heads. That might be one of the primary functions of consciousness—manufacturing the illusion that there is an "I" occupying a "space," and subsequently convincing ourselves that there’s some inherent logic or mathematics waiting outside for us to find.

Or just a pile...

Actually, I think the definition is spot on. A concept is precisely that intersection of the universal and the particular—a unity that maintains its core identity even as it shifts. It doesn't get much cleaner than that. You want to try for a better one? If you argue that things are just a collection of universal properties, then even the "thing" itself is something universal. It’s impossible for an object to possess a trait that belongs exclusively to that single instance and nothing else. We categorize everything into species, genera, and so on—all universals. Those are all concepts. And a concept isn't purely subjective, because it relies on real, concrete, objective, individual things. The universal exists only insofar as we find it within the particular. So, it’s fundamentally impossible for a concept not to be the union of the universal and the particular. Of course, concepts or essences don't exist in space-time as physical, tangible objects; if someone thinks they do, they're making a massive category error. An essence is really just the definition of something, a statement of what a thing or a fact actually is.

placidranger said:Defining a concept as a mere union between the universal and the particular? That’s a lazy definition—nothing more. Concepts aren't some fixed, cosmic architecture. They are subjective constructs—fragile things stitched together from context through the messy process of communication.
Let’s not beat around the bush—perspectives aren't universal. They can't be. Unless we're talking about some hypothetical super-intelligence or a higher power, there is no such thing as a "universal" point of view. Everything is filtered through the individual.

Quincy:

That’s exactly my point. It follows logically—if we're being honest—that mathematics and logic would fall completely short if they tried to argue that sensory experiences lack a logical foundation.

Something like that.
Quincy:

Then we have to ditch terms like "subjective" and "objective." They’re useless here—they only exist in relation to one another, through opposition. In other words, they essentially define each other into existence. If I’m following your train of thought correctly—and I usually am—you’re suggesting that logic doesn't deal with a priori truths like mathematics does. You're arguing it isn't about moving from axioms to theorems to reach certain conclusions. Instead, you see it as an empirical study of what likely leads from premises to conclusions based on probability. A bit messy, really—but that seems to be where you're landing. I can't say I agree. The logical psychologism you’re leaning on suggests that logic is merely a theory regarding how the human mind functions—which, at its core, is just subjective relativism. Of course, no serious logician actually buys into that concept—I realize that isn't an argument per se, but it is symptomatic of the problem. The model is something else entirely. We’re talking about what Tarski zvati calls the "semantic conception of truth," or what has been referred to since the 1960s as "possible worlds"—a term borrowed from Leibniz. Logic is a meta-theory; it is the underlying structure of any possible theory, and by extension, reality itself.

I have no idea where you're getting that from.

Logic—much like mathematics—is built upon certain systematic observations, regularities, and patterns. It isn't even up for debate that these rules exist independently of our sensory perceptions—they exist "out there," regardless of whether we happen to be looking at them.
Quincy:

Fine, you finally spit it out—even if it felt like pulling teeth. 😁

If you buy into direct realism—the idea that everything we project onto the world actually exists out there in the wild—then you have to accept that logic exists there, too. But let’s be honest: it’s blindingly obvious that this entire sensory and conceptual landscape is just something we construct inside our own heads. That might be one of the primary functions of consciousness—manufacturing the illusion that there is an "I" occupying a "space," and subsequently convincing ourselves that there’s some inherent logic or mathematics waiting outside for us to find.

Or just a pile...

Just because something is universal doesn't mean it's synonymous with being absolute.

placidranger said:Defining a concept as a mere union between the universal and the particular? That’s a lazy definition—nothing more. Concepts aren't some fixed, cosmic architecture. They are subjective constructs—fragile things stitched together from context through the messy process of communication.
Let’s not beat around the bush—perspectives aren't universal. They can't be. Unless we're talking about some hypothetical super-intelligence or a higher power, there is no such thing as a "universal" point of view. Everything is filtered through the individual.

Quincy:

That’s exactly my point. It follows logically—if we're being honest—that mathematics and logic would fall completely short if they tried to argue that sensory experiences lack a logical foundation.

Something like that.
Quincy:

Then we have to ditch terms like "subjective" and "objective." They’re useless here—they only exist in relation to one another, through opposition. In other words, they essentially define each other into existence. If I’m following your train of thought correctly—and I usually am—you’re suggesting that logic doesn't deal with a priori truths like mathematics does. You're arguing it isn't about moving from axioms to theorems to reach certain conclusions. Instead, you see it as an empirical study of what likely leads from premises to conclusions based on probability. A bit messy, really—but that seems to be where you're landing. I can't say I agree. The logical psychologism you’re leaning on suggests that logic is merely a theory regarding how the human mind functions—which, at its core, is just subjective relativism. Of course, no serious logician actually buys into that concept—I realize that isn't an argument per se, but it is symptomatic of the problem. The model is something else entirely. We’re talking about what Tarski zvati calls the "semantic conception of truth," or what has been referred to since the 1960s as "possible worlds"—a term borrowed from Leibniz. Logic is a meta-theory; it is the underlying structure of any possible theory, and by extension, reality itself.

I have no idea where you're getting that from.

Logic—much like mathematics—is built upon certain systematic observations, regularities, and patterns. It isn't even up for debate that these rules exist independently of our sensory perceptions—they exist "out there," regardless of whether we happen to be looking at them.
Quincy:

Fine, you finally spit it out—even if it felt like pulling teeth. 😁

If you buy into direct realism—the idea that everything we project onto the world actually exists out there in the wild—then you have to accept that logic exists there, too. But let’s be honest: it’s blindingly obvious that this entire sensory and conceptual landscape is just something we construct inside our own heads. That might be one of the primary functions of consciousness—manufacturing the illusion that there is an "I" occupying a "space," and subsequently convincing ourselves that there’s some inherent logic or mathematics waiting outside for us to find.

Or just a pile...

And those regularities are exactly what constitutes the universal. Pattern recognition, the laws of nature, species, genera—logically speaking, these are all essences. They are the "ideal objects" that dictate the specifics of concrete objects, like their qualities, quantities, and relations—everything that "inheres" in a physical thing. Without them, we wouldn't be able to say anything meaningful about concrete objects at all. Everything we observe about specific things is just a combination of various universals and their relationships.

placidranger said:Defining a concept as a mere union between the universal and the particular? That’s a lazy definition—nothing more. Concepts aren't some fixed, cosmic architecture. They are subjective constructs—fragile things stitched together from context through the messy process of communication.
Let’s not beat around the bush—perspectives aren't universal. They can't be. Unless we're talking about some hypothetical super-intelligence or a higher power, there is no such thing as a "universal" point of view. Everything is filtered through the individual.

Quincy:

That’s exactly my point. It follows logically—if we're being honest—that mathematics and logic would fall completely short if they tried to argue that sensory experiences lack a logical foundation.

Something like that.
Quincy:

Then we have to ditch terms like "subjective" and "objective." They’re useless here—they only exist in relation to one another, through opposition. In other words, they essentially define each other into existence. If I’m following your train of thought correctly—and I usually am—you’re suggesting that logic doesn't deal with a priori truths like mathematics does. You're arguing it isn't about moving from axioms to theorems to reach certain conclusions. Instead, you see it as an empirical study of what likely leads from premises to conclusions based on probability. A bit messy, really—but that seems to be where you're landing. I can't say I agree. The logical psychologism you’re leaning on suggests that logic is merely a theory regarding how the human mind functions—which, at its core, is just subjective relativism. Of course, no serious logician actually buys into that concept—I realize that isn't an argument per se, but it is symptomatic of the problem. The model is something else entirely. We’re talking about what Tarski zvati calls the "semantic conception of truth," or what has been referred to since the 1960s as "possible worlds"—a term borrowed from Leibniz. Logic is a meta-theory; it is the underlying structure of any possible theory, and by extension, reality itself.

I have no idea where you're getting that from.

Logic—much like mathematics—is built upon certain systematic observations, regularities, and patterns. It isn't even up for debate that these rules exist independently of our sensory perceptions—they exist "out there," regardless of whether we happen to be looking at them.
Quincy:

Fine, you finally spit it out—even if it felt like pulling teeth. 😁

If you buy into direct realism—the idea that everything we project onto the world actually exists out there in the wild—then you have to accept that logic exists there, too. But let’s be honest: it’s blindingly obvious that this entire sensory and conceptual landscape is just something we construct inside our own heads. That might be one of the primary functions of consciousness—manufacturing the illusion that there is an "I" occupying a "space," and subsequently convincing ourselves that there’s some inherent logic or mathematics waiting outside for us to find.

Or just a pile...

What do you mean by "pretty obvious"? Isn't that conclusion itself just something constructed in someone's mind? If so, it's just a subjective opinion rather than an objective fact. It sounds like a textbook case of positivism—basically radical subjective idealism—which is exactly why modern science moved away from it. You could even take that logic to its skeptical extreme and argue that nothing exists at all, though I'm not quite sure why we'd bother having perceptions if that were the case. 😁 Personally, it seems clear to me that there are concepts we use to build our reality, and those concepts are derived from concrete, individual experiences through abstraction. All of this lives within certain necessary logical relationships which, once we put them into words, we simply call "meaning" or "sense."