Sorry, I added some thing particularly:

That 1+1=3 is false is a shortcut for the expression: There is no mind that
tough seriously that 1+1=3 and acted upon it. Or, if it ever existed, it or
its descendants will dissapear.  This reduces truth to existence

That something is god means that the one that assumes that will survive
better. This reduces moral to existence. Ought to is.
------

Evolutionary logic:

I always emphasize that there is a evolutionary logic, which  unlike any
other logic, is tautological, that is, it assumes no axioms beyond natural
selection (which is tautological per se)  My purpose is to define here this
logic as clearly as I can.

Because it is tautologica, evolutionary logic a good foundation for an
absolute notion of both truth (including existence) and morals, because the
false dicotomy is-ougth is unified under this logic.  This logic is
convergent with the classical philosophical-religious logic that depart
from common sense, introspection, inspiration and intuition, but also with
science in the modern sense. Besides being materialistic, it debunk the
Humean nominalist-positivist reductionsisms and, as i said, brings back the
classical philosophical notions.

Really all the modal logics are parts of this evolutionary logic. The
directions of the arrows of the modal logics have a clear evolutionary
background. for example G x -> x, Ox ->x, [] x -> x, Bx -> x.  I hope that
you will understand the evolutionary reasons behind these implications and
in which degree.

What is this evolutionary logic?

Under evolutionary logic, truth, existence and goodness  becomes different
aspects of the same essence, which have different names when seen from the
point of view of logic, epistemology or morals.

The truth of this logic is by definition  equal to
 the-continuation-of-the-mind-in-the-world.
The non sequitur, the definition of false, is the non-continuation-of-the
mind-in-the-world.

That means that everything that contributes to the continuation of the mind
is true, exist and is good. Everything that does not contribute does not
exist, is false and is evil.

If a notion in the mind contributes to his deat, this notion is, evidently
non existent (is disappearing or will disappear soon). It is false
(non-sequitur). And it is not good (contributes to the death of the holder
and his society).

That 1+1=3 is false is a shortcut for the expression: There is no mind that
tough seriously that 1+1=3 and acted upon it. Or, if it ever existed, it or
its descendants will dissapear.  This reduces truth to existence

That something is god means that the one that assumes that will survive
better. This reduces moral to existence. Ought to is.

It is a fuzzy logic which assign various degrees of truth, existence and
godness depending on the degree, immediacy and clarity with which something
contributes to the persistence of the mind.

There are immediate, evident, and universally consensuated  concepts that
are true, exist and are good: For example, that persons are males and
females, the existence of persons, to preserve persons lifes.These
sentences are respectively true, exist and are morally good because the
knowledge included in these statements contribute inmediately and
universaly to the persistence of the human minds in  society.

In the other extreme, there are  more subtle facts that  do not contribute
to an inmediate and universal persistence of the minds, but perhaps in the
long term, and in some circumstances. Or maybe there is no universal
consensus:  The existence of the electron, the existence of God, drug
prohibition, the platonic realm etc.

The accumulation of knowledge of  these truths happens by many mechanisms
at different levels: One of them is biological darwinism, that develop
specific circuirtry to recognize humans, recognize human faces,  handle
social reasoning. These process evolves brain hardware that instantiates
the above statements about persons (by the way, besides tat, it has been
demonstrated that , due to social evolutionary pressure, we have special
circuitry for handling deontic logic).

There are also social mechanisms of accumulation of evolutionary knowledge,
by tradition, philosophical, scientific debates, and also violent
confrontation. among peoples and countries. The reason why Lamarkism is not
true is more a factual consequence of the defeat of the USSR than a direct
consequence of scientific debate. It may be said that lisenko Lamarkism was
disastrous because ti contributed to the defeat of the USSR. But had the
USSR won the cold war, we would accept the scientific truth of lamarkism,
since socialism would have been sucessful and lamarkism is the only
coherent evolutionary theory compatible with marxism, and darwinism is not.
It would be far more painful and long term to convince people to get rid of
it .

Tradition, another way of evolutionary knowledge, is a collection of
sucessful best practices

All these processes of knowledge adquisition are instances of a single
process operating at differente levels: this is the process of natural
selection, which is  the process of variation and selection at the
biological, social, scientific, political, mind reasoning levels.

Althougn this is formulated in crude materialistic terms,  This is
identical to the classical philosophical and religious thinking, that takes
into account the reality of the whole experience of existence of the man in
the word in all the dimensions: social and individual.   You may find
Biblical and Philosophical texts that assimilate truth, existence and the
good. When a classic philosopher interrogates his Nous or a religious
inquires its Soul, it is making use of the internally accumulated
evolutionary knowledge.






2012/11/10 Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com>

> Better written:
>
>
>
> 2012/11/10 Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com>
>
> I always emphasize that there is a evolutionary logic, which  unlike any
>> other logic, is tautological, that is assume no axioms beyond natural
>> selection (which is tautological per se)
>>
>> I will define here this logic as clear as I can.
>>
>> Therefore evolutionary logic a good foundation for an absolute notion of
>> both truth (including existence) and morals. Because is-ougth is unified
>> under this logic.  This logic is rougly speaking convergent with the
>> classical philosophical-religious logic of common sense. Besides being
>> materialistic, it debunk the humean nominalist-positivist reductionsisms
>> and, as i said, return back to the classical philosophical notions.
>>
>> Really all the modal logics are parts of this evolutionary logic. The
>> directions of the arrows of the modal logics have a clear evolutionary
>> background. for example G x -> x, Ox ->x, [] x -> x, Bx -> x, there is a
>> evolutionary reason behind
>>
>> What is this evolutionary logic?
>>
>> Under evolutionary logic, truth, existence and goodness  becomes
>> different aspects of the same essence, which have different names when seen
>> from the point of view of logic, epistemology or morals.
>>
>> The truth of this logic is by definition  equal to
>>  the-continuation-of-the-mind-in-the-world.
>> The non sequitur, the definition of false, is the
>> non-continuation-of-the mind-in-the-world.
>> Everything that contributes to the continuation of the mind is true,
>> exist and is good. Everything that does not contribute does not exist, is
>> false and is evil.
>>
>> If a notion contributes to the mind dead, this notion is, evidently non
>> existent (is disappearing or will disappear soon). It is false (non-
>> sequitur). And it is not good (contributes to the death of the holder
>> and his society)
>>
>> Therefore It is a fuzzy logic which assign various degrees of truth,
>> existence and godness depending on the degree, immediacy and clarity
>> with which something contributes to the persistence of the mind.
>>
>> There immediate evident, and universally consensuated  concepts that are
>> truth, exist and are good: For example, that persons are males and females,
>> the existence of persons, to preserve persons lifes.These sentences are
>> respectively true, exist and is morally good because the knowledge included
>> in these statements contribute inmediately and universaly to the
>> persistence of the human minds in a social environment.
>>
>> In the other extreme of fuzziness are  more subtle and long term facts
>> that  does not produce an inmediate persistence of the mind, but are
>> long term,and in some circumstances  The existence of the electron, the
>> existence of God, drug prohibition, the platonic realm etc.
>>
>> The accumulation of knowledge of evolutionary truths happens by many
>> mechanism: biological darwinism, that develop specific circuirtry to
>> recognize humans, recognize human faces,  handle social reasoning  (This
>> instantiates in brain hardware the above statements about persons). There
>> are also social mechanisms of accumulation of evolutionary knowledge, by
>> tradition, philosophical, scientific debates, and also violent
>> confrontation. among peoples and countries. The reason why Lamarkism is
>> not true is more a factual consequence of the defeat of the USSR than a
>> direct consequence of scientific debate. It may be said that lisenko
>> Lamarkism was disastrous because ti contributed to the defeat of the
>> USSR. But had the USSR won the cold war, we would accept the scientific
>> truth of lamarkism, since socialism would have been sucessful and
>> lamarkism is the only coherent evolutionary theory compatible with
>> marxism, and darwinism is not. It would be far more painful and long
>> term to convince people to get rid of it .
>>
>> All these processes are instances of a single process operating at
>> differente levels: Natural selection. the proces of variation and
>> selection at the biological, social political etc levels.
>>
>> Althougn this is formulated in crude materialistic terms,  This is
>> identical to the classical philosophical and religious logic, that takes
>> into account the reality of the whole experience of existence of the
>> mind-soul in the word in all the dimensions: social and individual.   You
>> may find Biblical and Philosophical texts that assimilate truth, existence
>> and the good.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/11/10 Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is/ought and modal logic
>>>
>>> 1) Hume's universe
>>>
>>> The skeptic Hume said that there is the world of is, which we live in,
>>> and the world of the moralists and religious folk, the world
>>> as it ought to be, and there was not logical connection between them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> A speculation
>>>
>>> The hierarchical "ladder" of modal logic below suggests that there may
>>> in fact
>>> be some sort of logical connection through this hierarchy or
>>> ontology of logical types possibly rearranged in some ascending way
>>> from the following list of types:
>>>
>>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/
>>>
>>>
>>> Modal Logic
>>> [] It is necessary that ..
>>> <> It is possible that ?
>>>
>>> Deontic Logic
>>> O It is obligatory that ?
>>> P It is permitted that ?
>>> F It is forbidden that ?
>>>
>>> Temporal Logic
>>> G It will always be the case that ?
>>> F It will be the case that ?
>>> H It has always been the case that ?
>>> P It was the case that ?
>>>
>>> Doxastic Logic Bx x believes that ?
>>>
>>> ========================================================
>>> 2) A platonist would see things quite differently:
>>>
>>> Platonia, the world of reason and necessity and perfect,
>>> would be more real than the dark caves we live in down here.
>>> So platonists would say that platonia reality, the true world,
>>> the world of being of "is"
>>>
>>> The world down here is referred to by Leibniz as
>>> the world of contingency. Scientists view this
>>> as the actual world, so to them it would be the
>>> world as it is. But a platonist wojuld see the world
>>> down here--in the darkness of plato's cave-- as
>>> the world as it ought NOT to be.
>>>
>>>  --------------------------------------------------------
>>> This all obviously needs to be better sorted out,
>>> but I thought I might just send it out now for comments.
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>> 11/9/2012
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alberto.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to