Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Gertie]

I'm answering PC's question at a more fundamental level than our everyday one.

You can build up a set of assumptions which humans with our particular knowing/experiential toolkit share, which we can usefully agree on in everyday life and will work for us. But these are necessarily assumptions about the underlying ontological reality imo (including what reason and logic is), for the reasons I outlined.

I think that's what PC is asking us to get down into.

I appreciate what you are saying, but the question of underlying ontological reality and the nature of reason and logic have been debated by scholars throughout history, with different philosophical schools of thought propose various perspectives on these matters.

Yes, and I gave my perspective on the relationship between ontology and the inherent flaws and limitations of human epistemology as experiential model makers, and what this means to the notion of 'the fundamental axioms of reason and thought'.

So, we are in a difficult position when we want to find fundamental axioms of reason and thought, and those I quoted seem to be efficient if we take the complications mentioned above into consideration. Of course, nothing is fixed, and we may expand on these axioms, but that will be the task of wiser people than me.

Right, I explained my view on the underlying reasons for us being in a difficult position, including the underlying reason for the traditional 'rules of thought' you quoted, such as the three fundamental laws of logic, being ultimately ontologically unreliable. Or to put it another way, why the way we think and reason is based in utility rather than perfect and complete accuracy, and based on a heirarchy of assumptions. Or at least that's what I tried to do. From Hoffman's notion of 'Darwinian fictions', all the way down to solipsism being the only reliable 'axiomatic' epistemological certainty. But in terms of utility, such rules work well in helping us create a coherent and predictive model (until they don't - see QM) which enables us to successfully navigate the world, just like experiencing a table as a solid, brown physical thing with definable edges works well so we don't bump into things and hurt ourselves. (Physicalists might argue the utility is grounded in ultimately knowable accuracy, others offer different ontological explanations, but my view is the human-subject based epistemological caveats remain).

[Pattern-chaser]

This does explain why, as a problem solver, I wasn’t able to explain what basic thoughts I was assuming when I was solving problems...

I suppose that's why I'm now seeking out the foundations of serious and considered thought. I was a problem-solver too, but not in your field. I was a software designer, employed to solve problems that had never been solved before (otherwise we would use the existing solution). It is a serious discipline, that embraces and requires serious and considered thought, and also creative imagination, to solve these problems.

Surely there are foundations to such thinking? They didn't just emerge spontaneously from the quantum foam ... or did they?

My son is a software designer, and he has said that the one thing that spurred him on to learning all the languages he now uses or knows was the fact that many of his problems could be reduced to a mathematical equation. He said that once he’d found that mathematical solution, building the software became a relatively simple task. But that is him speaking, not me, so I’m not sure how that applies to the principles of sound thought.

Languages are just a designer's tool, we pick the most appropriate one for the job in hand. They're like cocaine to a marketing executive — just an accoutrement of the job, but not actually part of the job. And yes, some of our problems turn out to have a mathematical solution, but the illuminating part of that is that the realisation/conclusion that the solution can be mapped mathematically is not a mathematical process. It's an imaginative and creative process, 'ruggedised' with some rather-careful, down-to-earth, engineering and testing.

Axiom — a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference; an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth; a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit.

I think "axiom" is a euphemism we use to disguise our guesses as something more formal and authoritative. In that, it is nothing more or less than misleading. But, having expressed my disgust at such immature thinking, I think we can agree that an axiom is another name for an assumption, or guess. IMO, there are no such things as "self-evident" truths. This is another euphemism, employed for the same immature reasons.

The honest truth seems to be that we have no basis for our serious and considered thought, so we make assumptions, and we deduce all else from them.

I believe that this is definitely the way we start off, building through experience on a trial-and-error basis, but I think we begin to realise that there are patterns that repeat themselves and, even if we don’t give them names or think out how they work, we employ them to find a sound solution. The patterns may also become methods that we are taught in, say, management schooling and over time appear self-evident.

You would compare axiomatic reasoning with pattern-recognition? To me, the former is formal, intellectual and conscious, while the latter is instinctive, intuitive, and unconscious.

Principle of Sufficient Reason: This principle asserts that everything must have a reason or cause. It suggests that nothing happens without a cause or explanation. It forms the basis for understanding and explaining events in terms of causes and effects.

I think it offers that, and more too. I suspect that this might be a (or "the") most basic rule of serious and considered thought? Don't do anything without a good and sufficient reason for doing so.

I would say so in a professional environment, but there are experiences and phenomenon for which we have no explanation, and we do some things without reason other than to enjoy them.

Yes, we think for all kinds of reasons and purposes. And thinking for enjoyment or entertainment has its own value, as do other styles of thought. But, as I said in my OP, this topic concerns itself solely with serious and considered thought.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think the notion of axioms is dodgy, or at least needs caveating - which kinda undermines the point of them. My view of epistemology is that scepticism is justifiable and inevitably leads to solipsism, in the sense that all anyone can be certain of is the existence of their own conscious experience. That's the only sound axiom if you like, that my conscious experience exists.

Once you assume your own experience represents you interacting with a real world, then it seems safe to say the content of your experience is how you experientially model interacting with that world.

Although axioms are valuable tools for reasoning and thought, I too think it is important to recognize their contextuality, potential revisability, underlying assumptions, and epistemological implications. On the other hand, critical examination and scrutiny are essential in order to refine and improve our understanding of the world altogether, which is a part of what I think I am doing by following the principles I quoted.

Thanks to both of you, and to the others who have responded here, I am starting to wonder about my basic assumption — is reason/reasoning really based on axioms, or does it employ a different means of foundation? Not all such systems are based on axioms, after all. Perhaps reasoning is one of them?

But, even if that is true, surely there are founding, underlying, notions upon which the superstructure of reasoning is based? What are they? Where are they? Do they even exist, or am I searching for a sort of formality that never was?

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm answering PC's question at a more fundamental level than our everyday one.

You can build up a set of assumptions which humans with our particular knowing/experiential toolkit share, which we can usefully agree on in everyday life and will work for us. But these are necessarily assumptions about the underlying ontological reality imo (including what reason and logic is), for the reasons I outlined.

I think that's what PC is asking us to get down into.

I appreciate what you are saying ... realism ... Idealism ... pragmatism ...

Yes, but isn't it the case that these schools of philosophy, and the others too, are all based on or around reason and reasoning? And if so, must'n't there be some common and underlying 'rules' (laws, guidelines, proverbs, etc) that we use to guide all the stuff we develop and lay on top?

All the time here, I'm seeking to drill down until I can't go any farther, to see what is there at that bottom-most level. Down below schools of philosophy. Down to the foundations of reason, if there are any...?

[The Beast]

Instead of a functionalist AI life episode, a QM emergent consciousness is considered. However, differences exist in the TOM construction. I do agree that there is paramount skepticism within the language philosophers at the theories foundation level… and so: “The physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas (or forms)” The emergence of consciousness in the local reality does not mean a new fundamental force if we are to consider the latter axiom as a universal principal.

[Gertie]

I'm answering PC's question at a more fundamental level than our everyday one.

You can build up a set of assumptions which humans with our particular knowing/experiential toolkit share, which we can usefully agree on in everyday life and will work for us. But these are necessarily assumptions about the underlying ontological reality imo (including what reason and logic is), for the reasons I outlined.

I think that's what PC is asking us to get down into.

I appreciate what you are saying ... realism ... Idealism ... pragmatism ...

Yes, but isn't it the case that these schools of philosophy, and the others too, are all based on or around reason and reasoning? And if so, must'n't there be some common and underlying 'rules' (laws, guidelines, proverbs, etc) that we use to guide all the stuff we develop and lay on top?

All the time here, I'm seeking to drill down until I can't go any farther, to see what is there at that bottom-most level. Down below schools of philosophy. Down to the foundations of reason, if there are any...?

I'm saying that our human notions of reason, logic and causality are ultimately rooted in the way we humans consciously experience being in the world and interacting with it.

We open our eyes to observe a world of stuff and change - matter in motion. We check with each other that we observe the world similarly, and we broadly do, each from our own embodied specific perspective located in space and time.

We note the physical stuff of the world like trees, toasters and brains with certain characteristics like colour, weight, definable edges and size. Then science tells us this is an experiential model we create in our minds when we interact experientially with the world of fundamental wave-particles. They say at that more fundamental level of reality the basic rules of logic don't apply. Fundamental particles can simultaneously have the incompatible properties of both waves and particles. Even A = A doesn't hold, that's something we create in our minds, like colour and defined edges.

We note change often happens in patterned ways, which can be predicted. And explained by science with theories and forces acting on particles which are ultimately probabilistic and relationally inter-woven through everything. But the way we experience it is as causation, for us it seems This A causes That B (Iike snooker balls colliding), which reliably works for us.

Our observations are flawed and incomplete, part of the useful model of the world we create in our minds in order to successfully navigate the world, and the 'rules of thought' arise from this useful way of experientially modelling the actual world into something coherent and thus useful for us. (And our language, including the thinky voice in our heads we reason with, naturally reflects our observations of what the world is made of and how it works. Words label the stuff, and the syntax of grammar reflects how we experience that stuff interacts - Subject --> Verb --> Object.).

So human Logic, Reason and Causation which are rooted in making sense of our observations, seem to be part of our constructed human experiential representation of reality, which work well enough for us to successfully navigate the world. (Hoffman call this Darwinian Fictions, and Seth talks of conscious experience as being in the biz of making useful predictions. I think there's something to that, and Logic, Reason and Causation can be contextualised that way too, rather thanindependently existing outside of that for us to discover).

[Stoppelmann]

I'm saying that our human notions of reason, logic and causality are ultimately rooted in the way we humans consciously experience being in the world and interacting with it.

We open our eyes to observe a world of stuff and change - matter in motion. We check with each other that we observe the world similarly, and we broadly do, each from our own embodied specific perspective located in space and time.

We note the physical stuff of the world like trees, toasters and brains with certain characteristics like colour, weight, definable edges and size. Then science tells us this is an experiential model we create in our minds when we interact experientially with the world of fundamental wave-particles. They say at that more fundamental level of reality the basic rules of logic don't apply. Fundamental particles can simultaneously have the incompatible properties of both waves and particles. Even A = A doesn't hold, that's something we create in our minds, like colour and defined edges.

We note change often happens in patterned ways, which can be predicted. And explained by science with theories and forces acting on particles which are ultimately probabilistic and relationally inter-woven through everything. But the way we experience it is as causation, for us it seems This A causes That B (Iike snooker balls colliding), which reliably works for us.

I appreciate this and agree with what you are saying, the problem is how to get beyond a description of the world to a plan of how to integrate this knowledge into a way ahead. For all of our new awareness, we seem to neglect the fact that, in a simplified way, many of the paradoxical experiences we have in the world were identified long, long ago. The fact that we can now describe them in more detail doesn’t help us existentially, because we are not cooperatively looking for solutions to existential problems, instead more often than not, we are short-sightedly looking for new markets.

Our observations are flawed and incomplete, part of the useful model of the world we create in our minds in order to successfully navigate the world, and the 'rules of thought' arise from this useful way of experientially modelling the actual world into something coherent and thus useful for us. (And our language, including the thinky voice in our heads we reason with, naturally reflects our observations of what the world is made of and how it works. Words label the stuff, and the syntax of grammar reflects how we experience that stuff interacts - Subject --> Verb --> Object.).

So human Logic, Reason and Causation which are rooted in making sense of our observations, seem to be part of our constructed human experiential representation of reality, which work well enough for us to successfully navigate the world. (Hoffman call this Darwinian Fictions, and Seth talks of conscious experience as being in the biz of making useful predictions. I think there's something to that, and Logic, Reason and Causation can be contextualised that way too, rather thanindependently existing outside of that for us to discover).

I find it interesting that notable scientists have suggested the use of meditation and contemplation as a means to cope with the abundance of scientific knowledge:

Jon Kabat-Zinn a professor emeritus of medicine and a renowned mindfulness teacher, developed the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program, which integrates mindfulness meditation and contemplative practices to promote well-being and reduce stress.

Richard J. Davidson, a neuroscientist and researcher known for his work on the effects of meditation on the brain. He has conducted numerous studies exploring the impact of contemplative practices, such as mindfulness and compassion meditation, on emotional well-being and neural activity.

Herbert Benson a cardiologist and researcher, coined the term "relaxation response." He conducted pioneering studies on the physiological and psychological benefits of meditation, showing how it can induce a state of deep relaxation and counteract the effects of stress.

Matthieu Ricard, often referred to as the "happiest man in the world," is a molecular biologist turned Buddhist monk. He has collaborated with neuroscientists to investigate the effects of meditation on the brain and has written extensively on the intersection of science and contemplative practices.

Francisco Varela was a neuroscientist and philosopher who played a significant role in the field of neurophenomenology, which explores the relationship between subjective experience and brain activity. He advocated for integrating contemplative practices, such as meditation, into scientific research to gain deeper insights into consciousness.

Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, philosopher, and author, has written extensively on the topics of meditation and mindfulness. He advocates for secular forms of meditation and highlights the benefits of these practices in promoting well-being, emotional regulation, and self-awareness.

Maybe the secret to finding fundamental axioms of reason and thought lie in ancient methods of calming the mind, slowing down and raising our attentiveness, rather than becoming frustrated at the complexity that science has revealed.

[Pattern-chaser]

...

Our observations are flawed and incomplete, part of the useful model of the world we create in our minds in order to successfully navigate the world, and the 'rules of thought' arise from this useful way of experientially modelling the actual world into something coherent and thus useful for us.

...

So human Logic, Reason and Causation which are rooted in making sense of our observations, seem to be part of our constructed human experiential representation of reality, which work well enough for us to successfully navigate the world.

I agree that it seems reasonable () for our conception of reason to begin by osmosis, so to speak, 'derived' from the world in which we exist. But in many other areas of knowledge, we have begun this way, and subsequently 'firmed up' our ideas, formalising them. Is there such a formalisation for reason itself, or does it remain as it began, the vaguely-defined result of unconscious pattern-recognition?

[Pattern-chaser]

...

Maybe the secret to finding fundamental axioms of reason and thought lie in ancient methods of calming the mind, slowing down and raising our attentiveness...

If so, fair enough. I don't disagree. But if that's the secret, where does it prompt us to start looking for the fundamental 'standards' of reason?

[The Beast]

I'm saying that our human notions of reason, logic and causality are ultimately rooted in the way we humans consciously experience being in the world and interacting with it.

...

Our observations are flawed and incomplete, part of the useful model of the world we create in our minds in order to successfully navigate the world, and the 'rules of thought' arise from this useful way of experientially modelling the actual world into something coherent and thus useful for us. (And our language, including the thinky voice in our heads we reason with, naturally reflects our observations of what the world is made of and how it works. Words label the stuff, and the syntax of grammar reflects how we experience that stuff interacts - Subject --> Verb --> Object.).

So human Logic, Reason and Causation which are rooted in making sense of our observations, seem to be part of our constructed human experiential representation of reality, which work well enough for us to successfully navigate the world. (Hoffman call this Darwinian Fictions, and Seth talks of conscious experience as being in the biz of making useful predictions. I think there's something to that, and Logic, Reason and Causation can be contextualised that way too, rather thanindependently existing outside of that for us to discover).

The crisis of thought (or lack of it) presents itself as doctrines. The reason for this is a crisis of the understanding or worse. How do we relate “an effect without a cause” with the decision of conscious discrimination. As for the “principle” of enantiodromia we must have a positive POV when dealing with the inconsistencies of human nature and congruent with the apocatastasis. Logically, negative or positive transformations have different outcomes.

[Stoppelmann]

...

Maybe the secret to finding fundamental axioms of reason and thought lie in ancient methods of calming the mind, slowing down and raising our attentiveness...

If so, fair enough. I don't disagree. But if that's the secret, where does it prompt us to start looking for the fundamental 'standards' of reason?

If you look at the traditions of thought that employ meditation to heighten attentiveness, you will find that they are usually very methodical, and failing all else, these methods help build a discipline that we otherwise would not have.

[Pattern-chaser]

...

Maybe the secret to finding fundamental axioms of reason and thought lie in ancient methods of calming the mind, slowing down and raising our attentiveness...

If so, fair enough. I don't disagree. But if that's the secret, where does it prompt us to start looking for the fundamental 'standards' of reason?

If you look at the traditions of thought that employ meditation to heighten attentiveness, you will find that they are usually very methodical, and failing all else, these methods help build a discipline that we otherwise would not have.

Again, I don't dispute what you say. But where does it get us?

Are there 'standards' (laws, rules, guidelines, proverbs, old-wives-tales, etc) fundamental to reason?

Are there axioms underlying those standards, if the standards exist?

If any of these exist, where should we look for them? Where are they?

*What* are they???



[N.B. not responding only to Stoppelmann, but to all.]

[The Beast]

The opposite forces in the creation of matter reach an agreement at the radioactive substances. The agreement is of the fundamental strong force and the fundamental weak force to a boundary. In the fundamental force of consciousness, the properties/principles of order (logic, science) have entropy as the opposite force in making the decisive transformation. Is there a nuclear point? In my quaternion thinking and feeling together with sensing and intuition do the pushing of the boundary (freedom) from the local to the Universal schema in one of positive transformation. If entropy is logical then how its properties act on human nature is of paramount importance. If so, then the boundary will evolve positively.

[Stoppelmann]

Again, I don't dispute what you say. But where does it get us?

Are there 'standards' (laws, rules, guidelines, proverbs, old-wives-tales, etc) fundamental to reason?

Are there axioms underlying those standards, if the standards exist?

If any of these exist, where should we look for them? Where are they?

*What* are they???



[N.B. not responding only to Stoppelmann, but to all.]

Well, I have given you several, but there are of course various perspectives. Reasoning in Buddhism, for example, often involves an investigation of the nature of suffering, its causes, and the means to overcome it through understanding and practice. Different schools of Hindu philosophy, such as Advaita Vedanta, emphasize the identity of the individual self (Atman) with Brahman. This perspective also shapes the axioms and reasoning methods employed in their philosophical systems.

The varying schools of thought differ in their ontological, epistemological, and logical frameworks, resulting in variations in the axioms and reasoning methods they employ. The specific axioms and reasoning methods within each tradition can still differ based on their distinct philosophical orientations and emphases. Western axioms I have given you, I am curious whether other people have a different perspective.

[The Beast]

Again, I don't dispute what you say. But where does it get us?

Are there 'standards' (laws, rules, guidelines, proverbs, old-wives-tales, etc) fundamental to reason?

Are there axioms underlying those standards, if the standards exist?

If any of these exist, where should we look for them? Where are they?

*What* are they???



[N.B. not responding only to Stoppelmann, but to all.]

Well, I have given you several, but there are of course various perspectives. Reasoning in Buddhism, for example, often involves an investigation of the nature of suffering, its causes, and the means to overcome it through understanding and practice. Different schools of Hindu philosophy, such as Advaita Vedanta, emphasize the identity of the individual self (Atman) with Brahman. This perspective also shapes the axioms and reasoning methods employed in their philosophical systems.

The varying schools of thought differ in their ontological, epistemological, and logical frameworks, resulting in variations in the axioms and reasoning methods they employ. The specific axioms and reasoning methods within each tradition can still differ based on their distinct philosophical orientations and emphases. Western axioms I have given you, I am curious whether other people have a different perspective.

IMO. More than half of the posts are about principles of thought and logic. The now doctrinal methodology offers validity as it confronts subjectivity. Some doctrines are better than others depending on the educational curriculum. Subjectivity can be paraphrased as “It is not a lie if you believe it is true” There is a local reality in a random Universal QM. As with all principles or propositions there is a starting identity named the fundamental force. There are four well known fundamental Universal forces. There is evidence of thought as an emergent fifth known fundamental force. However, many skeptics denied this existence and offer functionalism instead. I suspect PC as being a skeptic searching for validation. The no local consciousness axiom is then under some form of functionalism. What can be worse to a functionalist than the words: “The force be with you” … in some tantric way.