The Human Brain is not Naturally wired for Logic

[RainbowUnicorn]

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/fbrQ8F-LQNs

[C C]

Tomorrow's AI may even non-reason in alien ways.

The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete
https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/

[Yazata]

I'm inclined to think that the human mind, and the nervous systems of other animals as well, are wired for logic.  

That's because logic seems to me to exist at a deeper ontological level than cognition. Logic isn't something that our minds impose on reality, I'm much more inclined to believe that it is inherent in how reality behaves, even when human beings or other sentient beings aren't watching. (If that wasn't true, then natural science would be impossible.)

So, I think that not only have human nervous systems evolved to function in conditions where logic prevails and things behave logically so that thinking logically has selective value, I'm also inclined to believe that logic is implicit in how our neurons function (since we are natural beings, part of this universe and not exiles from heaven).

---

I haven't watched the video, but if Tyson is saying that thinking mathematically is difficult for most people, I agree with him.

Mathematics is certainly hard for me. I have no talent for it. (That's perhaps the biggest reason why I abandoned my ambitions to become a scientist and transferred into philosophy during my university days.) I would study for hours and hours and do problem after problem in calculus to prepare for exams, only to see club-kids who got drunk the night before get better scores than me.

There are people for whom mathematical symbolism makes things easier, making all the underlying logical relationships clear. And there are those of us for whom mathematical symbolism only creates an additional layer of confusion.

What I'm describing isn't the same thing as difficulty thinking in abstractions. I find that I have a natural talent for philosophy and excel at it without trying very hard (like those club-kids in math class). Philosophy is all about abstractions and it's most certainly logical, at least in its 'analytic' variant.

But philosophy conducts itself in ordinary language. I think most naturally and effortlessly in ordinary language. Analytical philosophy starts to lose me when it starts to look like mathematics and becomes pages filled with symbolic logic symbolism. (Some Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles are like that.)

I do very well in philosophical logic, better than most philosophy students. But philosophical logic is typically conducted in English and addresses the philosophical problems that logic raises, areas where I'm particularly strong. I'm not very good in mathematical logic.

So I would make a distinction between thinking logically and how logic is expressed and symbolized. There are those of us that aren't encountering any problem with the logic per-se, or with thinking logically, but who do encounter problems with the symbolic language of mathematics.

[Syne]

Tyson's a moron. Math is not logic. Math is a language syntax for expressing logical relations. The trouble people have with it are linguistic challenges...not logical challenges.

[Yazata]

Tyson's a moron.

I don't think that Tyson's a moron, exactly.

But... he does display some troubling anti-intellectual qualities.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/massimo-p...30216.html

"My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature."

In the OP he's photographed in front of a chalkboard full of squiggles. God help him if he has to discuss what the relationship is between the theories of mathematical physics and physical reality. God help him if he ever needs to explain what mathematics is and what kind of reality mathematical truths have. Those are philosophical questions.

And Tyson dismisses philosophy (including epistemology, metaphysics and the philosophy of science) as bullshit that's best not studied.

I have to say that Neil Degrasse Tyson isn't somebody that I respect a great deal or whose views interest me. I'm interested in precisely the kind of questions that he dismisses. Of course he's got a nice cushy NYC job and lots of money and admirers, so what I think won't hurt him a whole lot.

[Syne]

Yeah, and apparently he doesn't even know that the foundations of logic were laid in philosophy.

Granted, when I was much younger, I thought philosophy was a waste of time too. So maybe Tyson's just immature.

[RainbowUnicorn]

Tomorrow's AI may even non-reason in alien ways.

The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete
https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/

panning for correlative evidence in meta data...
does not a scientist make

---

Tyson's a moron.

I don't think that Tyson's a moron, exactly.

But... he does display some troubling anti-intellectual qualities.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/massimo-p...30216.html

"My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature."

In the OP he's photographed in front of a chalkboard full of squiggles. God help him if he has to discuss what the relationship is between the theories of mathematical physics and physical reality. God help him if he ever needs to explain what mathematics is and what kind of reality mathematical truths have. Those are philosophical questions.

And Tyson dismisses philosophy (including epistemology, metaphysics and the philosophy of science) as bullshit that's best not studied.

I have to say that Neil Degrasse Tyson isn't somebody that I respect a great deal or whose views interest me. I'm interested in precisely the kind of questions that he dismisses. Of course he's got a nice cushy NYC job and lots of money and admirers, so what I think won't hurt him a whole lot.

Neil Degrasse Tyson, in my personal opinion is like a version of a mathamatician of physics.
he has his quirks & personal opinions & personal theorys, however, he clearly shows to me his ability to formulate highly advanced variables around the core principals of scientific method with relative ease.
soo much ease that he can be quite animated with it in a personal type of explanation.
his critical wit is clearly evident and his ability to apply his personal opinion through sarcasim while being scientific i find to be a traite of personal artistic delivery of his(which i quite like in measured use and find quite helpful to some aspects of conversation & freedom of personal expresion).
note his type of humour is not slap-stick and he does not suffer fools.


"Philosophy" is a science, a science of the human mind which is well documented for the last 5000 years or soo.
anyone dismissing it is obviousely not worth paying attention to.