I took issue with intitial statement 'every idea is composed of some sensory impression'. I gave mathematics as an example but there are many others - see this.

Darwin says... — Harry Hindu

Right! 'Darwin says', so it must be true! Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer of the principle of natural selection, never accepted that h. sapiens intellectual abilities could be explained by Darwinian principles.

The special faculties [of h. sapiens] clearly point to the existence in man of something which he has not derived from his animal progenitors--something which we may best refer to as being of a spiritual essence or nature, capable of progressive development under favourable conditions. On the hypothesis of this spiritual nature, superadded to the animal nature of man, we are able to understand much that is otherwise mysterious or unintelligible in regard to him, especially the enormous influence of ideas, principles, and beliefs over his whole life and actions. Thus alone we can understand the constancy of the martyr, the unselfishness of the philanthropist, the devotion of the patriot, the enthusiasm of the artist, and the resolute and persevering search of the scientific worker after nature's secrets. Thus we may perceive that the love of truth, the delight in beauty, the passion for justice, and the thrill of exultation with which we hear of any act of courageous self-sacrifice, are the workings within us of a higher nature which has not been developed by means of the struggle for material existence. — Alfred Russel Wallace

Darwinism Applied to Man

It is simply a process that engineers organisms to master changing environments, like cockroaches and human beings. — Harry Hindu

Point is that you must have had confidence in basic principles of reasoning in order to accept evolution. Therefore it doesn't make sense to say that observation of the ways of evolution provides you with that confidence.

I took issue with intitial statement 'every idea is composed of some sensory impression'. I gave mathematics as an example but there are many others - see this. — Wayfarer

We've already been over this, Wayfarer. Several others mentioned mathematics also which I already showed that you need a visual experience of symbols, like numbers, to do math. Try doing math without having seen any numbers, or a number of things, to then add, subtract, multiply, and divide. How would you know to perform these operations without seeing symbols like +, -, *, and /?

If there are many more examples then why don' you provide them. People have already tried to use math as a means of debunking my explanation and they failed.

Right! 'Darwin says', so it must be true! Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer of the principle of natural selection, never accepted that h. sapiens intellectual abilities could be explained by Darwinian principles. — Wayfarer

I could say the same thing about what you said about Plato. - "Right, 'Plato says', so it must be true.

The difference between Darwin and Plato is that Darwin's theories are falsifiable (remember what I was talking about in regards to Occam's Razor?) and have been tested and still hold true. The field of genetics reinforces the theories of Darwin.

The difference between Darwin and Wallace is that Darwin put more work into his theories. We also have this modern field of science called evolutionary psychology which has provided more insight into how our minds evolved and why they are structured the way they are presently. It seems obvious to me that natural selection shapes my mind presently as I learn new things - adopting new ideas that seem to hold true and allows me to make accurate predictions, and those that I drop when I learn that they don't - kind of like how genetic information is either kept as part of the gene pool or dies out as a result of not being compatible with the environment.

Point is that you must have had confidence in basic principles of reasoning in order to accept evolution. Therefore it doesn't make sense to say that observation of the ways of evolution provides you with that confidence. — Mongrel

And my point is that you must have had some sensory experience in order to reason. If you didn't then what form does your reasoning take? What is it that you would reason about?

As I have said before (I find myself repeating myself here to both you and Wayfarer), both sensory symbols and the process that manipulates them are both inherent in the mind. You cannot have one without the other and still have a mind.

That one reasons about something is not in dispute. No instance of sensory experience can account for the expectation that logical principles are universal. This is Leibniz' argument.

Again, I ask: What form does your reasoning take? You simply can't omit the fact that symbols are required for logic. How would you even know that you are reasoning if you aren't processing sensory symbols?

It's like saying you can boil water without any water. It's like saying the process of boiling exists a priori to some thing with the capacity to be boiled. It makes no sense. One cannot exist without the other. To even say you are being rational or logical is to say that you are processing information in some way. To separate the process from what is being processed makes no sense.

It seems logical to conclude that natural selection would favor organisms that can change their behaviors on the fly because the environment is dynamic. Some aspects of the environment are stable, which natural selection would then favor instinctive behaviors for these situations. When most, if not all, the edible things in your environment are colored red, then it would become instinctive to eat red things. But in a more dynamic environment then it would be logical to be able to adapt to changing conditions.

One way of ensuring that instincts don't get you into trouble in a changing environment would be to learn what behaviors are better in certain situations. This is what experience is. It would be best to start of with a blank slate and then learn what the current conditions are in your environment, and what you learn about the environment becomes the norm for you.

We see how humans can be born into virtually any environment or culture and adopt that environment or culture as the norm. The norm for every human born is that every environment can be different for each one.

To be highly adaptable to any environment would provide a benefit to that organism, but to be highly adaptable means that you shouldn't have any, or have a very limited, number of assumptions, or built-in knowledge, in order for you to learn the conditions as they are now and as they change. Innate knowledge in these circumstances would include instinctive behaviors like how to breath, which works in a stable oxygen-rich environment that doesn't change. Human newborns don't even seem to know that they have limbs and how to use them but discover this knowledge through experience. So it would seem to me that acquiring knowledge through experience trumps innate knowledge because the environment is inherently dynamic.

No one has denied that reason proceeds from sights, sounds, etc which prompt thought. Thanks.

If you and others in this thread weren't denying this then what were we even at odds with as my point was that thoughts and reasoning take the form of sights, sounds, etc.?

Sorry, can't help you Harry. I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

So though some humans appear to lack the ability to follow a logical argument (children, for instance), Leibniz's view could be taken to be saying that if such an ability were to appear, it would conform to certain well-known rules.

Take away the divine truth-confirmation, and that amounts to saying that humans are prone to thinking a certain way, or there are basic similarities in the way people think. Perhaps the average deflationist would agree?

It's interesting to contrast all of this to Quine's take. He affirmed that that ability to apply logic to new situations has to be apriori. But wouldn't inscrutability of reference mean that it's impossible to say whether people generally think the same way? So statements of logical principles might mean different things to different people.

Another line of research that I think is suggested by this idea is Chomsky's 'Universal Grammar'.

As to whether 'statements of logical principles might mean different things to different people', it might be relevant to note that formal logic developed in both Western and Indian philosophy, and that many of the basic outlines were similar, even if the details were different. After all, it's hard to imagine how the Law of Identity or the Law of the Excluded Middle could could vary between cultures, isn't it?

As to whether 'statements of logical principles might mean different things to different people', it might be relevant to note that formal logic developed in both Western and Indian philosophy, and that many of the basic outlines were similar, even if the details were different. After all, it's hard to imagine how the Law of Identity or the Law of the Excluded Middle could could vary between cultures, isn't it? — Wayfarer

Principles are expressed by utterances of sentences. One is free to take it on faith that a particular expression is understood in the same way by two different people. Question is: can you prove it?

Well, asking for proof is an implicit acceptance that you and I can agree on what constitutes 'proof'.

Besides which, logical proofs, like if B>A and C>B then C>A don't require individual assent, i.e. it's not a matter of opinion whether the proposition is true.

Well, asking for proof is an implicit acceptance that you and I can agree on what constitutes 'proof'. — Wayfarer

What is agreement? We shake our heads up and down at one another?

Besides which, logical proofs, like if B>A and C>B then C>A don't require individual assent, i.e. it's not a matter of opinion whether the proposition is true. — Wayfarer

Inscrutability of reference addresses reference, not truth, so this is a different issue.

It's all art brah. I'm an illusionist of sorts. I'm just pointing at stuff in your own experiences, that depending on your self awareness you should already know and be nodding your heads to, whereas it will just be like any other statement to someone that doesn't know, but there are lots of ways to point, and lots of different things to point at. I'm not even talking to any of you. I'd worry if you start finding me more interesting than yourselves... or worry about anyone you find more interesting than yourselves.

The ridiculous thing about people that think that there is an internal is that they have zero deferences. They're entirely transparent as if they're the only ones in the world. I can tell people what they're going to say before they say it, and then tell them that I can read minds. It really mind fucks them.

Is it wheel-barrow or wheel-bearer?

I prefer the former.

The ridiculous thing about people that think that there is an internal is that they have zero deferences. They're entirely transparent as if they're the only one's in the world. I can tell people what they're going to say before they say it, and then tell them that I can read minds. It really mind fucks them. — Wosret

What's this supposed to mean Wosret?

I can't literally read minds, but if I get to know you I can guess at your reference material, influences, and dispositions and then contexts will arise where there are only so many things to say to that, or where a reference would be perfect as a reply, then I'll know what they're going to say.

The rest I'd prefer not to give away if you don't already know.

Our experiences do not defy knowledge. The supposed inaccessibility of the "first person" is a myth. I can know when someone is happy or sad, what they are thinking or feeling, in the sense knowing what they living. It's no more difficult than knowing about a rock in front of me.

In either case, I have an experiences which is a showing of something else-- a rock, a person's feeling, respectively. Knowledge wise, experiences aren't "private (i.e. outside what it is possible for someone to know)."

OK then, tell me what I'm thinking about now. If you can't I'll believe that all you are saying is bull shit.

You're thinking that all I'm saying is bull shit, and I'm sensing a lot of "pfffft"s too.

No, that wrong, that's what I said, but I wasn't thinking it. That's how deception works, saying something other than what your thinking, and deception is very really. And, its reality is proof of the secret inner world.

Such reasoning is based on a flawed premise. Just because someone doesn't know what you are thinking in a moment, doesn't mean that no-one can. There are other times, other people, who might know what you are thinking. And you have other thoughts which someone might know.

The illusion is the shallow notion that someone not knowing what you are immediately thinking amounts to no-one ever knowing what you are thinking. It's tricky illusion too. For anyone defending the idea experiences must be "private" in terms of knowledge, it especially mesmerising because there is an immediate reaction to think of anything at all, which an opponent usually doesn't know.

What you have is not proof of a secret inner world, but rather a description that you happened to think something and another person didn't know what it was. All it says is they didn't know that thought. It doesn't show no-one could ever know it.

Oh, well I'm glad that you were only pretending not to believe me then.

We shake our heads up and down at one another? — Mongrel

No, we speak

The fact is, that deception remains as a very real aspect of our existence. And, this fact supports, as evidence, the reality of the secret inner world. Until you demonstrate to me, the existence of a person who cannot be deceived, I see no evidence of your claim.

When you deny the reality of your own secret inner world, you have acted in self-deception, thus demonstrating to me, the reality of your own secret inner world. To reveal yourself to me is to release yourself from such deception.

Principles are expressed by utterances of sentences. One is free to take it on faith that a particular expression is understood in the same way by two different people. Question is: can you prove it? — Mongrel

Well, I guess you disproved it here, when you didn't understand what I was talking about:

Sorry, can't help you Harry. I don't know what the hell you're talking about. — Mongrel

What form does logic take?

What form does logic take? — Harry Hindu

I don't understand the question, Harry. Could you explain it to me?