I've read several arguments here on the forum where people come to logical conclusion like: "Therefore, there must exist an entity, the so-called mind, that can freely decide." or "This proves that god exists" or ”Logical proof that the hard problem of consciousness is impossible to solve"

Is it possible that with solid premises and correct logical steps, we cannot always accept the conclusion? — Carlo Roosen

Conclusions like "this proves that god exists" is not a conclusion out of a chain of logic, but a chain of logical fallacies.

What about all these discussions in metaphysics & epistemology? Could it be that these topics cannot be addressed logically? Somebody must have said a few words about this already, I guess? — Carlo Roosen

The reason why such discussions never ends in an objective and final conclusion is because they either consist of paradoxical conclusions, or we do not have enough understanding of physics or how our mind works to be able to conclude anything final, thus it becomes more a discussion around the premises and which argument has the most valid premises as they might sometime hint at the most likely probable conclusion.

And to counter-question; is there anything better than using logical reasoning for arriving at conclusions? In order to avoid biases and fallacies? If not using that, then what could possibly get closer to anything objective, classified as truth, or most probable? I tend to see these types of questioning of logical reasoning, using the fact that not everything can be summed up in a logical chain of reasoning down to a solid conclusion; to be some kind of evidence for logical reasoning not to be trusted.

In the end, it mostly looks like attempts by those who feel their opinions trumped by logic to try and dispel logic as a tool of thought and reasoning, and thereby give more validation to their illogical and just random opinions by somehow bringing down the logical arguments to some kind of pseudo-equality with the illogical ones.

Is it possible that with solid premises and correct logical steps, we cannot always accept the conclusion? — Carlo Roosen

All non-trivial logical premises ultimately involve empirical inferences made from observations of the real world. Given the obvious uncertainty associated with those observations, there are no “solid premises” in any kind of unconditional sense.

All non-trivial logical premises ultimately involve empirical inferences made from observations of the real world — T Clark

There are things you can know independent of the 'real' world.

"I am conscious" is one. Note that this is not an emperical inference. The knowing of "I am conscious" comes before the words "I am conscious". The difficulty lies in conveying this knowledge to somebody else.

In Math, you can state things as a premise and derive conclusions. "These are the numbers ... This is how we define addition ... therefore 1 + 1 = 2". We can be pretty sure about this conclusion. But even there, to convey this to somebody else seems to be non-trivial. As "I love sushi" told me recently: if you don't understand, you don't understand.

If we say "if 1) reality is determistic and 2) we have a free will, it follows 3) we exist outside reality". Where does this go wrong?

There are things you can know independent of the 'real' world.

"I am conscious" is one. — Carlo Roosen

Of course my consciousness is an aspect of the real world that I know by observation.

therefore 1 + 1 = 2 — Carlo Roosen

I see two ways of looking at this. First, arithmetic is directly related to counting, a human activity involving observation and requiring learning. Second, looking deeper, there is scientific evidence that humans have an innate numerical ability. Very young babies seem to have an ability to understand quantity. I have been touting a book by Konrad Lorenz, "Behind the Mirror." In it, Lorenz claims that this kind of innate ability is a direct result of evolution. He even makes the point explicitly that, even though the ability is built in, ultimately it results from our and our ancestor's interactions with the world.

If we say "if 1) reality is determistic and 2) we have a free will, it follows 3) we exist outside reality". Where does this go wrong? — Carlo Roosen

This seems like a gigantic non-sequitur. What does this have to do with the discussion we are having? Besides that, your understanding of the determinism vs. free will issue is very different from mine. This is not the place to take that up.

All non-trivial logical premises ultimately involve empirical inferences made from observations of the real world. — T Clark

This is presumably non-trivial. What empirical inference made from observation of the real world is involved?

This is presumably non-trivial. What empirical inference made from observation of the real world is involved? — Banno

Good question Mr. Hume. I'm not sure where it comes from. I'm not sure if it's something we figure out from seeing that certain things seem to recur in certain situations or if it's something more built in. But it certainly is justifiable based on observation and by the fact that our species continues... for now.

Hmm. Pragmatism over all.

Pragmatism over all. — Banno

Guilty as charged.

I should have put this here:


If God does not exist, then it is false that if I pray, then my prayers will be answered. So I do not pray. Therefore God exists.

This seems like a gigantic non-sequitur. What does this have to do with the discussion we are having? Besides that, your understanding of the determinism vs. free will issue is very different from mine. This is not the place to take that up. — T Clark

I am sorry, I was not clear why I brought that in. I wasn't trying to dive into this argument, I used it as an example, an often-seen logical argumentation (although I made it a bit cartoonesc). I was wondering, even while I do agree with the premises to some extend and it seems logically correct, I do not agree with the answer.

my consciousness is an aspect of the real world — T Clark

I don't agree. There is a conceptual understanding of "me" operating in the world. But the direct, first person realisation of being conscious precedes any other knowing, and is "absolute" in the sense that I don't need anything else for that.

When I wake up in the morning, I might not know where I am, but even searching my memory for that piece of information, I am conscious.

Also, if somebody was shouting at me: "you are not conscious, it is an illusion", what would that say? I would stil be conscious.

I was wondering, even while I do agree with the premises to some extend and it seems logically correct, I do not agree with the answer. — Carlo Roosen

Here's my take. Neither of the premises is true. Neither is false. Whether reality is deterministic or we have free will can not be verified or falsified empirically.

There is a conceptual understanding of "me" operating in the world. But the direct, first person realisation of being conscious precedes any other knowing, and is "absolute" in the sense that I don't need anything else for that. — Carlo Roosen

This is an argument we have here all the time - the hard problem of consciousness. As I see it, there is no hard problem of consciousness.

O but the hard problem is the "how can consciousness arise in dead matter" question. I am not even touching that here. I am trying to keep that discussion out of the topics I am interested in, as long as possible. My point is that there are things you can know for sure, "I am conscious" being one of them. Try the opposite "I am not conscious but .. I am a dream of the universe? And then ? That dream is still conscious." This is absolute truth, where "absolute" means, standing on its own, not dependent on other things.

Can you try to give your own example of a logical deduction that has true premises and yet ends with a false conclusion? I believe it is possible because using natural language our perspective is not clearly defined. Between premise 1 and premise 2 and the conclusion one can have 3 viewpoints.

enough understanding of physics Carlo Roosen In Quantum mechanics, while the equations match the experimental evidence to very high degree, no one can can agree on what the equations are telling us. As we lack both the vocabulary and the concepts to describe things that function in ways that are impossible in our reality. Is this the same problem when discussing the elements of consciousness?

The best logic can do for us is to keep our talking and thinking in order. To imagine that this talking and thinking can thereby oblige or constrain the world in any way is to indulge in magic spells.

Sometimes folk can get confused between real and imaginary; an architect imagines a house, and draws plans and images of it. If he has followed the logic of his trade, then a builder can build according to his plans and the real building will not fall down. This is the only way the magic can work - when people think straight and do what they say.

If we say "if 1) reality is determistic and 2) we have a free will, it follows 3) we exist outside reality". Where does this go wrong? — Carlo Roosen

I was wondering, even while I do agree with the premises to some extend and it seems logically correct, I do not agree with the answer. — Carlo Roosen

The implicit premise is incompatibilism, which seems right to me even though it is not uncontroversial.

If there is an argument that we disagree with, and yet we cannot say why, should we throw out logic? No, probably not. Logic is just the study of what follows from something else. If (3) follows from (1) and (2) then the argument is logically valid. If a logical system says that a conclusion follows when that conclusion does not in fact follow, then the logical system is faulty, but nevertheless, its specific fault ultimately needs to be pointed out.

Note that even to reject a logical school requires logic. "If this logical school is correct then I must accept the conclusion; I cannot accept the conclusion; therefore this logical school is incorrect" (modus tollens).

In Quantum physics a proposed idea as to why definitions of mathematical proofs cannot be agreed upon could be applicable to this discussion.. A purely intellectual idea, which has no connection to our perceptual reality, can only be defined from an individuals view. When there is no common connection outside of our reality., how many ways can one idea be divided.

Our language does not have a mechanism to provide a valid proof for a question outside our perceptual reality because language is inherently based on our reality.