• Enrique
    How accurate is this as a partial account of reasoning's origin?

    The thinking of organisms evolved towards greater apprehension of order in many commonly perceived patterns, eventually reaching protological awareness, an intuitive knack for grasping the most prevalent kinds of cause and effect, effortlessly fitting phenomenal interactivity into a kind of conceptualizing chassis, its most simple features being those enumerated as basics of formal logic: negation (not p), conjunction (both p and q), disjunction (either p or q), conditional (if p then q), and similar such notions. This association-making aptitude as logic's precursor assisted in capacitating creative problem-solving characteristic of species with the most elite technical thinking, a trait profile we conventionally identify as elementary intelligence.

    Is fundamental logic instinctual to organic cognition as a function for processing certain types of spontaneous causality? To what extent is logical structure infused into the domain of phenomenal perception?
  • Echarmion
    To what extent is logical structure infused into the domain of phenomenal perception?Enrique

    This may have to be addressed before talking about the evolution of logic, since it may be that logic is not actually a capability that evolved separately, but rather part of the structure of thinking and perception.
  • Enrique
    This seems like a topic the phenomenologists might have addressed. Anyone got any insights from perhaps Husserl or Merleau-Ponty to humor my lazybones?
  • Banno
    There's an inference error here. Organisms are ordered. Order is described in logical terms. Logic is part of language. Bacteria do not make use of logic.
  • Enrique

    That's a big challenge, specifying which organisms we're talking about exactly. I agree that human logic is extremely linguistic, also substantially acquired by experience, and formal logic is of course a meticulously learned technical language, but my inclination is to think that protological intuition can be found in all kinds of much less sophisticatedly linguistic birds and mammals at the very least. I'm surmising it depends on which parts of a relatively cognitive species' brain are wired to core logic centers more than radical differences between these logic centers in different species. How much does human protologic resemble that of nonhuman animals, and can an analysis of human language reveal much about transspecies structures and functions?
  • Fluke
    This hurts, this does not hurt. This action seems to make my point, this does not. This tastes good, this does not. Something basic but still very subjective that to me can result in various forms that could be considered a logical form in one way or another. But socialisation varies. Perceptual type and degree vary due sometimes to physical format as well as socialisation, to use an extreme example take synesthesia, however studies have been done regarding the degree to which an individual is capable of recognising the facial features of another. By my perspective of the human body it is probable that were we to research in the correct form we would find that there are probably degrees to every known aspect of our physical existence. I consider individuality to exist in probability of this, normative socialisation or not. I have seen, heard or been a part of conversations where both parties could have been seen to have been using a form of logical process however the thought processes between both parties were so inately different that the conversation was mythological, ultimately completely non-communicative. Sometimes this seems to result in deep frustration however sometimes people seem to part ways without ever realising this.
Add a Comment