yuanxue60616 Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 (edited) this is my last one I post here. life > nature > rationality Self conscious,irrationality and analogy, induction 1: Rational thinking and the self of rational thinking If and only if we know the definition of self in human thinking, can we know the structure of human thinking. I will start by discussing the basis of rational thinking-formal logic and use logical paradox as testing. There are three basic laws of formal logic. 1: The law of identity 2: The law of non-contradiction 3: The law of excluded middle The law of identity states that something is what it is. Expressed as symbols: A = A. The law of non-contradiction says that a statement cannot be both true or false at the same time and in the same way. Expressed as symbols: A ≠ -A. The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either true or false. Expressed as symbols: = A or = -A. When thinking rationally, there must be a "self" existing in the process of thinking. The three laws of formal logic only use opposing concepts A and -A. To define the self of rational thinking, in addition to A and -A, we must introduce a third presence. This is in conflict with formal logic. Formal logic proves that the self of rational thinking cannot exist outside of A and –A. As it is not A or -A, the self of rational thinking can be defined as below. 1: ≠ A and ≠ -A. 2: inseparable with both A and -A. 2: Irrational thinking and the self of irrational thinking By putting all three laws of formal logic through reversion, I derive the laws of anti-logic. The way to achieve reversion is to reverse the signs into their opposites: the “=” is now “≠”; the “≠” is now “=”; the “A” is now “-A” and the “or” is now “and”. Here I only do the odd-numbered transformation because the even-numbered transformation does not produce results of anti-logic. The law of identity becomes two laws of difference. 1: A ≠ A; 2: A = -A. The law of non-contradiction becomes two laws of contradiction. 1: A = -A; 2: A ≠ A. The law of excluded middle is more complex, it can offer a variety of results. It produces two laws of middle. 1: ≠ A and ≠ -A; 2: = A and = -A. The law of excluded middle can also derive: ≠ A or = -A, = A or ≠ -A, etc. These are not anti-logic, therefore not required. It is easy to tell that the law of difference 1 and the law of contradiction 2 are the same; the law of difference 2, the law of contradiction 1 and the law of middle 2 are same. Removing duplicates, we get three laws of anti-logic. The law of difference: A ≠ A; The law of contradiction: A = -A; The law of middle: ≠ A and ≠ -A. The law of contradiction and the law of middle are in conflict. We separate these three anti-logic laws into two groups. Group 1: The law of different: A ≠ A; the law of contradiction: A = -A. Group 2: The law of different: A ≠ A; the law of middle: ≠ A and ≠ -A. Each group represents one type of irrational thinking. Group 1 is the feature of Chinese philosophy. Group 2 is the feature of Indian philosophy. Rationality is the feature of Greek philosophy. The laws of anti-logic also only use opposing concepts A and -A, therefore the self of irrational thinking has same definition as the self of rational thinking. This guarantees that the self of thinking could freely switch between rational and irrational thinking. It’s easy to find that the self of thinking's definition includes the law of middle. 3: Conversion between two type of irrational thinking Conversion 1: When the law of contradiction exists, applying the law of non-contradiction (cannot be both true), Any of A and -A is denied, it will result in the law of middle. Because A = -A. Denying A will also deny -A, denying -A will also deny A. Conversion 2: When the law of middle exists, applying the law of excluded middle (cannot be both false), Any of A or -A is affirmed, it will result in the law of contradiction. Because the law of middle logically requires that "A is affirmed" will result in "-A is affirmed", "-A is affirmed" will result in "A is affirmed". Conversion 1 and Conversion 2 could create a loop. Because self of thinking's definition includes the law of middle, this loop could make “self” constantly reappear. 4: contradiction: analogy and induction There is no contradiction in nature (non-living part). But life could use the law of contradiction. It is the difference between life and nature. The difference between nature and rationality is that nature could has existing satisfy the law of middle. If nature itself completely follows rationality, then it is impossible to grow a life with irrationality. I use symbol “|” represent the self of thinking. Then | exists as (A|-A) in conscious as the definition. A and -A is just opposite in the limited local area, not Boolean. Analogy is projection of (A|-A) to new environment. As | exists in (A|-A). The projection includes self-positioning. It is instantly, do not need reasoning. Assume we have two past self. Exists like (A|B), (B|C). if They project to an environment at the same time, then we have (A|B|C). if B is expressed as not A, not C, then B satisfy the law of middle. Two past self merges with B as one as the law of middle. This is top part of Indian philosophy called “Brahma-atma-aikya”. We have a new self exists between A and C. This is how we really get universality. Inductive reasoning does not lead to universality, nor does it correspond to everyone's actual thinking experience. We often suddenly realize that the two kinds of things that seem to be irrelevant are the same existence or have the same attribute. This identity will not be recognized until we reach a conclusion. Edited March 19, 2019 by yuanxue60616 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 ! Moderator Note You posted the same thing before and then ask for the thread to be closed. Do not keep opening threads on the same thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts