Logic and perception.

[Anonymous No.4721133]

Our understanding of logic is from observation from a human perspective. Interaction and reaction to this stimuli occurs with chemical reactions in the brain which are known as "emotions" which respond accordingly. Although our logic (such as mathematics, science and reasoning) is using the same mechanism of chemical reactions in the brain, does that necessarily mean that our perception of logic is inherently flawed since we can only observe logic through one medium (our senses)?

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4721137]

>chemical reactions in the brain which are known as "emotions"
dropped

[Anonymous No.4721140]

Folksy.

[Anonymous No.4721146]

>>4721137
>I have to let people know what my opinions are, even when I contribute nothing at all!
Fuck off attention whore

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4721151]

>>4721146
Feel free to tell me the chemical process of curiosity.

Your question itself was sort already examined at length, with Descartes doing the first big work on it

[Anonymous No.4721156]

>>4721151

so what are emotions if not that?

is it our souls doing the work?

[« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY No.4721158]

>Although our logic... is using the same mechanism of chemical reactions in the brain...

YOU ARE CONFLATING MIND, AND BRAIN.

LOGIC IS AN ASPECT OF THE MIND, NOT A FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN.

ALSO: BRAIN ACTIVITY IS ELECTROCHEMICAL REACTIONS, NOT CHEMICAL REACTIONS.

>... does that necessarily mean that our perception of logic is inherently flawed since we can only observe logic through one medium (our senses)?

LOGIC IS NOT PERCEIVED VIA THE SENSES; THE SENSES SERVE LOGIC, NOT OTHERWISE.

LOGIC IS PERCEIVED BY ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE MIND; SENTIENCE.

[IMPERATOR BERTRANNVS ARTORIVS (...) !nl4OKiRPjQ No.4721162]

>Our understanding of logic is from observation from a human perspective.
Human, yes, insofar as the human perspective is logical. If you're trying to tell me that an oedipal complex shapes one's understanding of logical, I'll need a damn good reason instead of a mere assertion. Otherwise, as far as I can tell, you're just saying that logic is understood from a logical point of view, which isn't very enlightening.
>Interaction and reaction to this stimuli occurs with chemical reactions in the brain which are known as "emotions" which respond accordingly.
I suppose so, but that doesn't mean logic is inherently emotional in any way. It's like saying that, since a hamburger stirs up in me a certain emotion, the hamburger IS or is BASED ON emotion, which is of course absurd.
>Although our logic (such as mathematics, science and reasoning)
Hold on there buddy. Mathematics and science may have their foundations in logic, but what makes them different from logic is that they add something more, and indeed, certain propositions in mathematics cannot be reduced to pure logic. This is like calling a basketball a circle - its geometry is BASED on that, but it obviously isn't just a circle. As for "reasoning", I have no fucking clue what you mean if not logic.
>is using the same mechanism of chemical reactions in the brain, does that necessarily mean that our perception of logic is inherently flawed
Obviously not. It's not like one's emotions get "clogged up" in one's brain. I don't see what would ever make you think this.
>since we can only observe logic through one medium (our senses)?
You've lost me completely. Logical thinking is OBVIOUSLY not conducted through the senses. When was the last time you did a proof with your tongue? I don't even know what the fuck this means.

[Anonymous No.4721165]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum085.htm
and
De Anima 430a

[Anonymous No.4721167]

>>4721162
>>4721158
>>4721151

Whoa 3 /pol/tards in 1 thread!!!

[Anonymous No.4721172]

ITT: OP BTFO

[IMPERATOR BERTRANNVS ARTORIVS (...) !nl4OKiRPjQ No.4721252]

>>4721167

u wot?

[Anonymous No.4721520]

>>4721158

close, but no cigar.

i'll have high hopes for you when you finally transcend objectivism

[Anonymous No.4721561]

>>4721158
>implying the mind isn't contained within the brain
>implying logic isn't a product of the brain
>implying electrochemical reactions aren't a subgroup of chemical reactions

[Anonymous No.4721571]

>>4721561
Do you have a point or points of your own? I bet you think you're arguing his statements, but you're not. You're not saying anything.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4722212]

>>4721156
Emotions and souls are actions, not objects.