Sorry instead of   "depart from common sense....." I should say that "uses
common sense..."

This is a third try, since many things are written horrendously and
unintelligible.

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

Actually, all the modal logics are consequences 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 with
what I would say.

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. But from the point of view
of evolution, Logic and morals are reduced to the notion of existence.

Because this login has no axioms, it start from nothing, therefore it can
be accused of nihilistic, relativistic, non scientific, because it does not
accept scientific methods, morals or beliefs. It does not even accept
mathematical truths as axioms!. But it embraces absolute universal and
defined notions of truth, existence and morals.

The truth of the evolutionary 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. Something exist is good and is true because it
has been necessary for the existence of the human mind. That notion apply
both to the fine structure constant as well as the love of a mother for his
children. Both are necessary for the existence of humans, and therefore are
observable, are true and are good.

If a notion in the mind contributes to his death, this notion is, non
existent (because no one take it that way).  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 dissapeared time ago"  This reduces truth to existence

That something is good means that the individual or society that accept
this something and act upon it, will have success and will survive. This
reduces morals to existence. It makes "Ought"  a part of the "is".

EL is a fuzzy logic which assign various degrees of truth, existence
and goodness 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, it is true  that persons are
males and females, no doubt there are persons, it is good to preserve
persons lives These sentences are respectively true, exist and are morally
good because the knowledge included in these statements
contribute immediately and universally to the persistence of the human
minds in  society. And because these facts are so important for survival
we have it hardwired in the brain, so we are unable to doubt about it in
the same way that we can not jump from the window of a  fifth floor.

In the other extreme, there are  more subtle facts that  do not contribute
to an immediate 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, Some mechanisms may generate knowledge that contradict
apparently the generated by other mechanisms: 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
that, 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 philosophical, scientific debates, markets. Tradition, another way of
evolutionary knowledge, is a collection of successful best practices.
Fashion is imitation of the successful. Argumentum ad authoritas etc.

Violent confrontation. among peoples and countries is another way filtering
knowledge . 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 of knowledge acquisition are instances of a single
process operating at different levels: this is the process of natural
selection, which is  the process of variation and selection at the
biological, social, scientific, political, even mind reasoning levels.

Although 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:both social and individual, both in the mind
and the matter,  taking philosophy and science not
as theoretical playground but as a guide for good life.   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. It is what Konrad Lorenz suggested when he said
that the Kantian a prioris of the human mind , the intuitive logical,
existential and moral knowledge of the mind  was harwired by evolution.


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

> 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.
>



-- 
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