1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Extrasensory perception?

 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
30 December 2018 09:46
 

Sense
Any of the faculties by which stimuli from outside or inside the body are received and felt, as the faculties of hearing, sight, smell, touch, taste, and equilibrium.

Sense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
Humans have a multitude of sensors. Sight (vision), hearing (audition), taste (gustation), smell (olfaction), and touch (somatosensation) are the five traditionally recognised senses. The ability to detect other stimuli beyond those governed by these most broadly recognised senses also exists, and these sensory modalities include temperature (thermoception), kinesthetic sense (proprioception), pain (nociception), balance (equilibrioception), vibration (mechanoreception), and various internal stimuli (e.g. the different chemoreceptors for detecting salt and carbon dioxide concentrations in the blood, or sense of hunger and sense of thirst). However, what constitutes a sense is a matter of some debate, leading to difficulties in defining what exactly a distinct sense is, and where the borders lie between responses to related stimuli.

And logic then?! I would submit that we obviously have to have a sense of logic. This allows us to feel intuitively certain that specific logical formula are logical truths and non-sequiturs.

Example: If I believe it’s true that when it rains the ground gets wet and if I can see it is now raining outside then I will believe that the ground outside will be wet. I will make this inference without even being aware I’m making an inference. It’s an intuition.

I couldn’t possibly verify that we all have broadly the same sense of logic but since we all have broadly the same visual sense, sense of hearing, etc., I see not good reason that we should differ much in respect of our logical sense.

So, this leads to the question of why science has not yet recognised, as far as I know, our sense of logic as a sense of perception. Don’t scientists also have logical intuitions? Or is it because they think they are good at logic because they are more intelligent, or perhaps because they have received a formal training?

We’re in 2018, for Christ’s sake. And for not very long. Time to wake up.

Or maybe they can’t be bothered?

Recognising our sense of logic as a sense of perception also avoid the embarrassment of having to rely on extrasensory perception to support our reasoning.
EB

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17539
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
30 December 2018 10:32
 

Is it logic or experience? I have an experience of rain and I have an experience of the ground being wet when it rains, these experiences are now linked as a set, where did logic come in? I can now predict that if it rains tomorrow the ground will be wet, but that is predicated on past experience, so again where did logic come in.

 
 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
30 December 2018 12:42
 

That’s a very good point. Experience is a broad term which can be analysed into more specific terms.
Logic is inherent in experience and the repetition of experience. Experience in the sense you are using here requires perception, memorisation, belief and logic. One experience that it rains is essentially the belief that it rains. Repeated experience of the ground being wet when it rains leads to the belief in the logical relation, “wet when rain” or “rain implies wet”. When you come to think that the ground will be wet on seeing that it is raining, even though you can’t see the ground being wet, your idea is really a logical intuition produced by the internalised inference “rain implies wet”.
Perception, memorisation and belief all require what are fundamentally logical processes, resulting in the integration of perception data over time into memorised and therefore intuitive logical relations you can believe are true like “rain implies wet”. This process is a physical process and therefore not in the least formal but potentially it could be modelled by formal logic expressions like natural phenomena can be modelled by formal mathematical theories. The crucial point is that perception and memorisation would be useless without the brain somehow integrating the data into relations that are essentially logical relations. I don’t think there is anything we can think which is not either perception data, integrated perception data or logical relations between these data. This capability has to be inherent in the way neurons and neuronal structures work.
I guess the crucial point is that all neuronal processes can be potentially modelled as logical processes.
This also makes the logical capability of the brain as coming before experience. Experience can only be memorised as such if the brain is capable of integrating the massive amount of perception data into more manageable data which represent logical relations between sets of perception data.
EB

 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
31 December 2018 08:44
 

Most of the logic there is in our brain is essentially a capacity which is inherent in the way neurons and neuron structures work. As such, anything that the brain does is essentially a logical process, including what the brain does with input data coming from other senses, such as our visual sense etc. As such, the logic involved in these basic processes remains unconscious and doesn’t therefore constitute a sense.
However, we all also have conscious logical “impressions”. One kind of logic which can be involved sometimes here is what I would qualify as “formal logic”. Formal logic here would be any explicit logical argument we sometimes produce in particular in debates and discussions. Formal logic in this sense is not a perception sense essentially because any thinking process involving formal logic is done consciously, at least as far as we know.
However, there is another kind of logic which is also involved in our conscious thinking. As I understand it, it’s not only involved but its contribution to what we come to think is paramount. Pretty much all our ideas require that sort of logic and it isn’t formal. I would qualify it as “intuitive logic”. Essentially, we are only minimally aware of it. We can sometimes choose to focus on it but usually we don’t. There’s no difference in this respect with what we do with other types of sensory data. For instance, we don’t pay much attention if at all to most of the data from our visual sense, even the bit our conscious mind is attending to. Our attention doesn’t usually linger on what we’re looking at. Same for our logical intuitions. However, we can choose to focus on it. Just consider the following: if it’s true that it rains and that I’m hungry, then it’s true that it rains. We know it’s true, and we know it’s true outside seeing that it is raining and that we are hungry. We actually know the logical implication as such. And we can consider it long enough to decide whether we feel it’s true or false. And we will certainly all have the impression, feeling, or as I would put it, the intuition, that it is true. There’s even nothing we can do about that, much like there isn’t anything we can do about believing that there is a tree whenever we have the impression that there is a tree we are looking at. And this is what I call our logical sense, because it essentially works like a sense. We can’t deny it, it comes all ready, it’s always available, and all the processing necessary to produce such logical intuitions is unconscious. We only get the end result, the intuition itself, as a conscious impression, which is exactly what happens with other senses.
So, basically, there’s no essential difference between our logical sense and our other senses. This also means that what we perceive in this case is logic itself, or logical relations, together with whether the relation concerned is true or false.
And I would in fact say exactly the same thing of our memory capability. These cognitive capabilities, logic, memory, visual sense etc. all provide fundamentally the same kind of functions, very different in their specifics, but useful and used in fundamentally the same way by the conscious mind.
We can understand our memory capability to provide a perception of our brain’s record of our own, personal, past experience. And our logical capability, we can understand it as providing a perception of our brain’s “DNA record” of the entire past experience of life itself, starting from the first species to be gifted with at least one neuron.
So, basically, it’s a kind of perception in a sense going back something like 525 million years.
That’s perception for you.
EB

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17539
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
31 December 2018 09:38
 

I get what you are saying but I’m not convinced logic is a sense. Take A/not-A e.g predator/not-predator, you can see in animals and humans that experience is what dictates predator/not-predator not logic.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
31 December 2018 09:57
 
GAD - 31 December 2018 09:38 AM

I get what you are saying but I’m not convinced logic is a sense. Take A/not-A e.g predator/not-predator, you can see in animals and humans that experience is what dictates predator/not-predator not logic.

Way too much emphasis on “logic” whatever that might be. If we’re referring to formal logic (from Aristotle) plus propositonal calculus then we do not have any sense for it, it’s something learned (and empirically, something that is difficult for most people to learn). For anybody interested in researching the background on this, googling the terms “decision heuristics” and “cognitive illusions” will give lots of references. Basic thumbnail sketch is that starting in the 60s research in “behavioral decision theory” indicated that the assumption of logical decision processes (as defined by logic and probability theory) was false. Under conditions of uncertainty people do not make decisions logically, rather they rely on a suite of “decision heuristics” with three in particular involved, called “representativeness,” “availability,” and “anchoring.” As you indicate, these are grounded in experience far more than logical thinking. There has been around 50 years of research on this now, the early research was related to the way that use of these heuristics led people into characteristic forms of error (as defined by logic and probability theory) called cognitive illusions. Confirmation bias is in there, but also lots of other forms of error. People do have a sense of “fit,” i.e., whether or not something fits with other conditions, but this depends on non-logical factors and often will go against any sort of logic (e.g., a white nationalist will feel that a black man doesn’t “fit” in the dinning room at a his country club unless he is acting as a waiter—an effect of the anchoring heuristic).

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17539
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
31 December 2018 20:18
 
burt - 31 December 2018 09:57 AM
GAD - 31 December 2018 09:38 AM

I get what you are saying but I’m not convinced logic is a sense. Take A/not-A e.g predator/not-predator, you can see in animals and humans that experience is what dictates predator/not-predator not logic.

Way too much emphasis on “logic” whatever that might be. If we’re referring to formal logic (from Aristotle) plus propositonal calculus then we do not have any sense for it, it’s something learned (and empirically, something that is difficult for most people to learn). For anybody interested in researching the background on this, googling the terms “decision heuristics” and “cognitive illusions” will give lots of references. Basic thumbnail sketch is that starting in the 60s research in “behavioral decision theory” indicated that the assumption of logical decision processes (as defined by logic and probability theory) was false. Under conditions of uncertainty people do not make decisions logically, rather they rely on a suite of “decision heuristics” with three in particular involved, called “representativeness,” “availability,” and “anchoring.” As you indicate, these are grounded in experience far more than logical thinking. There has been around 50 years of research on this now, the early research was related to the way that use of these heuristics led people into characteristic forms of error (as defined by logic and probability theory) called cognitive illusions. Confirmation bias is in there, but also lots of other forms of error. People do have a sense of “fit,” i.e., whether or not something fits with other conditions, but this depends on non-logical factors and often will go against any sort of logic (e.g., a white nationalist will feel that a black man doesn’t “fit” in the dinning room at a his country club unless he is acting as a waiter—an effect of the anchoring heuristic).

Very interesting and inline with how I was thinking about thinking. It made me think that logic doesn’t exist in the real world only in a virtual one we create in our mind. And that converting experiences into logic is to energy and time consuming to be really useful in the real world vs a virtual where you could spend years of energy and time on an answer that still might not keep you from getting eaten.

 
 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
01 January 2019 10:18
 
GAD - 31 December 2018 09:38 AM

I get what you are saying but I’m not convinced logic is a sense. Take A/not-A e.g predator/not-predator, you can see in animals and humans that experience is what dictates predator/not-predator not logic.

Two points. First, it seems to me experience is necessarily a logical process. Any experience is a conjunction of perceptions from different senses. For example, a visual input will be associated with smell and a sharp pain, resulting in the memorisation of the implication Visual Input and Smell implies Pain. So, experience is essentially implications.
However, this is not what I would call our sense of logic. It’s just the logical capabilities of the brain deciding what constitutes an experience.
So, second, our behaviour is obviously dependent on our past experience, which is to say, on whatever has been previously memorised as implication. Our behaviour also depends on our perceptions on the moment. So, experiencing again a similar conjunction of a visual input and smell will lead to inferring an expectation of pain and a behaviour of avoidance.
However, most of that is processed unconsciously. What interests me here are proper logical intuitions, that is, conscious impressions that some relation is true (or false). As I understand it, logical intuitions are essentially produced in the same way as any logical inference produced in the brain, except that logical intuitions are conscious, again just in the same way as any perception data comes to be conscious.
So, logical intuitions may be just the part of the logical processing done by the brain that happens to be conscious. Our logical intuitions are our conscious perception of the logical relations already present in our unconscious brain. In this respect, it works somewhat like nociception or memory in that our logical sense is the conscious perception of an internal and unconscious state of our nervous system.
Experience is just the broad term. All experience can be analysed into a conjunction of perceptions, logical processing, memorisation, actualisation etc.
And if there is a fundamental logical capability of neurons and systems of neurons, it seems clear this capability would be put to use to help us reason logically.
And it is certainly a fact that we are able to have logical intuitions even outside formal training, including about relations which are new to the subject.
Again, nearly all humans agree with Aristotle’s syllogisms because we nearly all have the same sense of logic.
The experience of the subject will affect his behaviour. But it’s not the experience of a few human beings like Aristotle that could explain we all agree with his logic. That we all agree that there is for example a tree here requires experience but this also requires that we should all have the same visual sense, and our visual sense, although it also requires interaction with environment to develop in the individual, also requires that our body and brain has the capability to develop it in the first place.
Or maybe you could suggest a mechanism by which humans could have invented formal logic without having a sense of logic to begin with.
EB
 

[ Edited: 01 January 2019 10:26 by Speakpigeon]
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6726
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
02 January 2019 09:55
 

“Logic” is probably like “reason” in that it happens post-hoc. Intuition tells me the ground is wet when it rains because of past experience. I then use “logic” to justify or explain my intuition.

 
 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
02 January 2019 11:53
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 02 January 2019 09:55 AM

“Logic” is probably like “reason” in that it happens post-hoc. Intuition tells me the ground is wet when it rains because of past experience. I then use “logic” to justify or explain my intuition.

It seems to me the “logic” you are talking about here would be formal logic. If so, sure, I agree. But we have logical intuitions and these are not formal. They are what you call here just “intuition”, because an intuition that tells you the ground will be wet when you see that it is raining seems definitely logical to me. I certainly seem to believe in the logical implication that if it rains, then the ground will be wet. That’s both repeated experience and logical implication. There’s no way to have the one without the other. And then whenever I see that it is raining, I will make the inference that the ground will be wet. This is nothing but a Modus Ponens: A and A implies B; therefore B.
EB

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6726
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
02 January 2019 12:32
 
Speakpigeon - 02 January 2019 11:53 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 02 January 2019 09:55 AM

“Logic” is probably like “reason” in that it happens post-hoc. Intuition tells me the ground is wet when it rains because of past experience. I then use “logic” to justify or explain my intuition.

It seems to me the “logic” you are talking about here would be formal logic. If so, sure, I agree. But we have logical intuitions and these are not formal. They are what you call here just “intuition”, because an intuition that tells you the ground will be wet when you see that it is raining seems definitely logical to me. I certainly seem to believe in the logical implication that if it rains, then the ground will be wet. That’s both repeated experience and logical implication. There’s no way to have the one without the other. And then whenever I see that it is raining, I will make the inference that the ground will be wet. This is nothing but a Modus Ponens: A and A implies B; therefore B.
EB

Fair enough.

That said, I’m not sure I agree that logical intuition counts as extrasensory perception, at least not in the sense that “extrasensory perception” is usually taken to mean. Doesn’t “extrasensory perception” imply perceiving something about reality that we would normally rely on our five senses to perceive? “Pick a card, any card…” If I have ESP, I can perceive what card it is without seeing it. If you tell me all the cards that it isn’t, and from that information I use logic to deduce which card it is, would you consider that ESP?

If I could tell it was raining without going outside to feel the rain on my skin, without looking outside to see the rain, without hearing the rain, without smelling it or tasting it—that would be ESP. But in your example, in order to intuit that the ground is wet, I first have to perceive that it is raining through one or more of my senses.

I agree that “perception” is often used in the sense you’re using it—somewhat synonymous to “understanding”—but I don’t think that’s the sense implied by “extrasensory perception.”

 
 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
02 January 2019 12:56
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 02 January 2019 12:32 PM
Speakpigeon - 02 January 2019 11:53 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 02 January 2019 09:55 AM

“Logic” is probably like “reason” in that it happens post-hoc. Intuition tells me the ground is wet when it rains because of past experience. I then use “logic” to justify or explain my intuition.

It seems to me the “logic” you are talking about here would be formal logic. If so, sure, I agree. But we have logical intuitions and these are not formal. They are what you call here just “intuition”, because an intuition that tells you the ground will be wet when you see that it is raining seems definitely logical to me. I certainly seem to believe in the logical implication that if it rains, then the ground will be wet. That’s both repeated experience and logical implication. There’s no way to have the one without the other. And then whenever I see that it is raining, I will make the inference that the ground will be wet. This is nothing but a Modus Ponens: A and A implies B; therefore B.
EB

Fair enough.

That said, I’m not sure I agree that logical intuition counts as extrasensory perception, at least not in the sense that “extrasensory perception” is usually taken to mean. Doesn’t “extrasensory perception” imply perceiving something about reality that we would normally rely on our five senses to perceive? “Pick a card, any card…” If I have ESP, I can perceive what card it is without seeing it. If you tell me all the cards that it isn’t, and from that information I use logic to deduce which card it is, would you consider that ESP?

If I could tell it was raining without going outside to feel the rain on my skin, without looking outside to see the rain, without hearing the rain, without smelling it or tasting it—that would be ESP. But in your example, in order to intuit that the ground is wet, I first have to perceive that it is raining through one or more of my senses.

I agree that “perception” is often used in the sense you’re using it—somewhat synonymous to “understanding”—but I don’t think that’s the sense implied by “extrasensory perception.”

???
Where is it that I argue that our logical intuitions should be understood as extrasensory perception, do you think?
Just to save time, here is the relevant quote of my post:

Speakpigeon - 30 December 2018 09:46 AM

Recognising our sense of logic as a sense of perception also avoid the embarrassment of having to rely on extrasensory perception to support our reasoning.
EB

Is my English skills so poor I couldn’t articulate the simple idea that recognising our sense of logic as a sense of perception also avoid the embarrassment of having to rely on extrasensory perception to support our reasoning?
Beats me.
EB

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
02 January 2019 13:41
 
Speakpigeon - 02 January 2019 12:56 PM

Is my English skills so poor I couldn’t articulate the simple idea that recognising our sense of logic as a sense of perception also avoid the embarrassment of having to rely on extrasensory perception to support our reasoning?
Beats me.
EB

 

Is they so poor? You tell me. And please see the title of this thread.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6726
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
02 January 2019 15:45
 
nonverbal - 02 January 2019 01:41 PM
Speakpigeon - 02 January 2019 12:56 PM

Is my English skills so poor I couldn’t articulate the simple idea that recognising our sense of logic as a sense of perception also avoid the embarrassment of having to rely on extrasensory perception to support our reasoning?
Beats me.
EB

 

Is they so poor? You tell me. And please see the title of this thread.

The misleading title is what threw me.

 
 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
03 January 2019 02:21
 
nonverbal - 02 January 2019 01:41 PM
Speakpigeon - 02 January 2019 12:56 PM

Is my English skills so poor I couldn’t articulate the simple idea that recognising our sense of logic as a sense of perception also avoid the embarrassment of having to rely on extrasensory perception to support our reasoning?
Beats me.
EB

Is they so poor? You tell me. And please see the title of this thread.

Why is it you can’t articulate your point? Am I supposed to read your mind? You think extrasensory perception works?
So, please, see indeed the title of this thread: “Extrasensory perception?
See? See the exclamation mark at the end of it? It signal it’s a question, and therefore not an assertion.
Second, even without an exclamation mark, it would still not be an assertion of the existence or my belief in the existence of extrasensory perception. It would merely signal what the subject of the thread would be.
Further, my OP makes clear the idea of extrasensory perception wouldn’t be my first rational choice.
EB

 
Speakpigeon
 
Avatar
 
 
Speakpigeon
Total Posts:  168
Joined  01-10-2017
 
 
 
03 January 2019 02:22
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 02 January 2019 03:45 PM
nonverbal - 02 January 2019 01:41 PM
Speakpigeon - 02 January 2019 12:56 PM

Is my English skills so poor I couldn’t articulate the simple idea that recognising our sense of logic as a sense of perception also avoid the embarrassment of having to rely on extrasensory perception to support our reasoning?
Beats me.
EB

Is they so poor? You tell me. And please see the title of this thread.

The misleading title is what threw me.

Misleading? Can you explain how exactly it could possibly be misleading?
EB

 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›