Comment to Foundations of Logic facebook group – in response to responses to Gerasimos Manentis’ post:
A. Someone is a bachelor iff he is unmarried and man.
B. Someone is a bachelor iff he is unmarried and man and seeks to get married.
Is there a logical relation between A and B?
[ 9/1/21 ]
This example is also a basic illustration of the context sensitivity of logic to reality.
A logic system may be true or false to its own postulates and conditions, but the relationship of the postulates and conditions to reality is rarely (if ever) one to one; and therefore any system of logic can fail in reality if the context changes sufficiently to invalidate any of the approximations used.
When one looks closely at the data available from neuroscience, over 90% of the signals in our brain are internally generated, and something less than 10% are generated from the environment; thus our learning (at all levels) is more about aligning sets of “internal systems” with external stimuli, than it is about strictly training systems with stimulus response – and of course we are sufficiently complex that one can usually find instances of any form of learning one can conceive of if one looks closely enough; from binary truth values, to trinary, through higher forms all the way to Bayesian systems of fundamental uncertainty.
Thus is seems clear from the data that none of us get to experience reality directly, we all seem to live in our own personal “virtual reality”.
Thus the rules of our experiential “personal virtual realities” and the rules of whatever the “objective reality” beyond may be, can be very different things.
We all seem to have the ability to make our stories about our own personal virtual realities so internally self consistent that they are not open to new datasets or falsification by any external influence. That seems to be one of the fundamental issues with the sort of intelligence that we seem to be.