Questions related to Logical Thinking
That formal logic is beneficial to philosophical research and teaching is something hardly anyone would doubt. However, if you think more carefully about formal logic, you realize that it is not so easy to say exactly *what* its benefits are (especially when you consider that a large part of serious philosophical research is done entirely without the use of formal logic).
(a) So, what do you think are its benefits?
(b) Is there anything formal logic can do for research and teaching that could not be done just as well without it?
Years ago, I discussed with one of my teachers the difficulties we have with the quantum mechanics (QM). The question appeared whether the human logic might be not enough general for understanding the QM. My teacher inclined to a positive answer. I inclined to trust our logic.
So, what you think? Why do we have so big problems with the QM? Could it be that our logic is not enough general? Or, alternatively, the logic is O.K. but simply, we don't try enough hard to use it?
For instance, should we accept (especially in the quantum world) that an object can exist, and, not exist, at the same time? Of course, our logic refutes such a possibility.
But, what you think?
The outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic significantly limited people-to-people contacts. It is especially noticeable for elderly people living alone, who are additionally at group of risk. Multiplayer computer games by offering online gameplay allow you to regain a substitute for contacts with another human being and train skills such as memory, reflex or logical thinking. Hence the idea of involving older people to join the game was born. By presenting the available resources of games, they will be provided with a way of virtual contact with another person who is not necessarily a family member. Moreover, these games often require developed cognitive skills that can be shaped through them.
Pemphigus vulgaris is an autoimmune bullous disease. It is one of the difficult to treat conditions. Some cases of Pemphigus vulgaris are difficult to control even with high doses of systemic corticosteroids, other immunosuppressive agents and biologics. As diets containing thiols, thiocyanates, phenols and tannins can precipitate pemphigus in a genetically predisposed individual, it is logical to think that dietary restriction may help in disease control. Then what could the dietary advice to a patient with pemphigus vulgaris?
We have a responsibility towards producing our own thoughts and feelings correctly when speaking out loud, yet people will often skip over or miss out their “connecting” words when talking out a sentence. Words can become so common-in-use that people say them from habit rather than from true meaning.
Words only mean something when they have context; A situation to describe, an emotional feeling, and the direction in which the words are presented.
With that in mind, i have come to question the definition of intelligence.
Intelligence is widely defined as "The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills”.... Or, it is defined as "The collection of information of military or political value" … In fact! The term is used so broadly across a range of disciplines that even today’s scientists are yet to agree on what intelligence is, does and means.
"Intelligence" derives from the Latin nouns intelligentia or intellēctus, which in turn stem from the verb intelligere, to comprehend or perceive. In the Middle Ages, intellectus became the scholarly technical term for understanding”
I recently started a degree in Psychology with the Open University, and one of the first textbook topics i read about was 'measuring intelligence'....
Intelligence comes from the Latin word intelligere "to understand”.
In order to understand something, one must compare and measure it against something else. Therefore the word ‘intelligence’ implies that it is a tool for measuring.
So why is it, that we are under the impression that intelligence can be measured, when in fact intelligence is the tool we measure with?
I have come to terms with, and now understand what, Intelligence is and how it should be used properly as a word in our language. But most importantly, how the word ‘intelligence’ has seemingly misled many-a-mind into believing that it is a thing to be measured rather than a thing to measure with.
Intelligence is not a thing to observe or measure. It is the thing, the tool! For what we are trying to measure; our mental abilities.
Rulers, protractors, thermometers, clocks, etc. were all designed to measure a specific thing.
I envision the intelligence tool to be a 5(+)Dimensional observational tool, an instrument for measuring our mental abilities as thus:
1) ‘Emotional processing’ + ‘Logical thinking’ + ‘Intuitive actions’ (ELI)
2) The amount of ‘Time’ it takes one to process vs how relevant speed is to the task.
3) Which type of human (or animal) is being measured and in what culture or environment.
...Does this make sense?
My knowledge on the matter so far has led me to believe that skills and knowledge, which are judged to be ‘clever’, depends very much so on the culture or environment of where/who/what the measurement is testing.
This could also point towards the possibility that all mammals share the same amount of “intelligence” but have it distributed in different amounts across all 3 (ELI) catagories...And who knows what that could mean for the way we look at our animal friends in the future....
What should musicians’ health education sound like? The floor is yours!
Workshops funded by Realab and the IMR
Wednesday, 19 September OR Monday, 24 September 2018 | 11.30 AM, Royal Northern College of Music (RNCM), Manchester, UK
Tuesday, 25 September OR Saturday, 29 September 2018 | 11.30 AM
Institute of Musical Research, Senate House, London, UK
The physical and psychological demands of the training and practice that musicians must achieve to perform to a high standard can produce deleterious effects on their health and wellbeing. However, music conservatoires still endorse practices that are informed by tradition more than evidence, while health literacy and critical thinking are still not embedded in music students’ core training. Finally, there are no guidelines or regulations regarding what conservatoires should provide in terms of health education.
We want to address that AND we need your help!
We invite psychologists (both researchers and practitioners, from any specialism and not restricted to those who work with musicians) to join us in this discussion! We have prepared comprehensive lists of topics and we shall discuss their relevance and priority in small groups. Additionally, we will brainstorm ideas about what other topics might be needed as part of the conservatoires’ curricula.
Places are free, but limited. While we prioritise psychologists (due to the nature of our task and topic focus), we also welcome:
- Health professionals working with musicians
- Philosophers (yes, yes! We’d also like to discuss cognitive biases and logical fallacies!)
- Cognitive scientists
- Specialists in music education
- PhD students in any of the topics above
Please note the same workshop will be held four times. Please choose only one and register your interest here: https://mmu.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/musicians-health-education-workshop-sept-2018
For any queries, please contact the organisers: Raluca Matei, AHRC-funded PhD student in music psychology: firstname.lastname@example.org | +44 757 061 2760 OR
Keith Phillips, PhD student in music psychology: email@example.com
As it mentioned in the state of art, word spotting process, in manuscript or printed documents, is based or not in machine learning.
My works is about to propose a system of word spotting in manuscript documents. The proposed approach isn't based an a machine learning.Till now, my system generate good results compared to different works in the state of art.
Is the using of a machine learning permits increasing my results ? Is it considered the only way to increase the results of it exits other methods for that ?
Which intelligence tests or batteries can be used to measure logical mathematical intelligence of youngs and adults?
The 'principle of identity' is defined also as a philosophical principle that generally indicates the equality of an object relative to itself.
In relation to other objects, identity is everything that makes an entity definable and recognizable, because it has a set of qualities or characteristics that make it what it is and, thereby, set it apart from all other entities.
The concept of identity thus connects with Aristotle and the concept of substance, a principle that allows things to remain identical to themselves in time and which causes two things to be identical between them because they have the same substance. From Aristotle's view it will result that in criticism to the concept of substance in modern philosophy, as in David Hume, it will be necessary to challenge the character of identity.
In philosophy starting from the eighteenth century with Christian Wolff, Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten and Immanuel Kant it spreads the expression of "the principle of identity and non-contradiction" that was historically preceded by the "judgment of identity" which has a different meaning. Judgment, in fact, that is to report, asserting or denying a predicate to a subject, affirms that "one thing, if it is, can not be other than that which is. It denies the possibility of any judgment in which the predicate is different from the subject, that is not identical judgment. "If "Socrates is" the identical judgment will say that "Socrates is Socrates"; you will never make a judgment that says "Socrates is not Socrates."
Then when it comes to the principle of identity (A is A) that would re-awaken the useless judgment of identity if you did not link to the Aristotelian "principle of contradiction" whereby "or A is B, or A is not B" where the Eleatic contrast between being and not being is outweighed by the fact that to say "is not B" is not to deny the being of A, but simply that A (keeps being in that) is different from all the other things other than it . So the subject is at the same time itself (identity) and other (otherness) by anything else.
The "principle of identity and contradiction" is developed within Scholastica that puts together the Aristotelian principle of contradiction with the assertion, not Aristotelian of identity of subject and predicate
"A is A, A is not A"
in an attempt to reaffirm the Eleatic immutability of being in the identity of subject and predicate: The principle of identity of indiscernible.
Distinct from ‘principium identitatis et contradictionis’ is instead the special principium identitatis indiscernibilium mentioned in the age of ancient philosophy, medieval and modern art for which it is impossible that there are individual objects perfectly identical (in which case it would not constitute a plurality of reality but of a single reality) then you can only affirm the identity of an object with itself not we being able to grasp the distinction between objects absolutely identical, indiscernible among themselves.
Kant criticized supporting this principle as a multiplicity of actually completely identical to each other, however, retained their multiplicity which could be grasped by observing how these were at a distinct and different mode in space.
The philosophy of identity belongs to those philosophical systems which, starting from the distinction between two heterogeneous realities then considers the same in relation to a higher reality to which the first two belong. An example of these doctrines is Schelling's philosophy where the two spheres of the real and the ideal imply each other since they are the two poles of which one is the power of the other and both are expressions of the Absolute to which two moments are essential: the identity and the difference, or in other words, units and opposition. The absolute is that which is defined as the identity of "identity and difference."
The introduction of the difference makes multiplicity possible. The explication of the absolute in the infinite multiplicity of the universe is really necessary because the time difference is as essential as that of identity. This activity occurs in a polarity of opposing forces, one positive and one negative (+ / -), but the positive (attraction) configures it as A, the negative (repulsion) configures it as multiple and polarized, such that each pole is in turn the union of a '+' and '-'. The One is found in many, and many are endless facets of the One.
The identity in the strict and absolute sense will be, according to Leibniz, when of two things, everything that can be predicated truly of the one can really be predicated also of the other, that is, when the name of the one is interchangeable with that of the other in all the judgments in which this appears, without altering the value of truth.
Logical thinking has taken the contemporary definition of Leibniz, but ruled that it is permissible to speak of identity in an absolute sense, because the identity is always relative to a determined linguistic set, that is, to a certain attribution of meaning to names. The principle of identity puts it this way: everything that is, is or also everything is identical to itself. Hired as a fundamental principle of logical truths with Kant, was a very important part in the post-Kantian philosophy, to Hegel, who took the paradoxical character, so it is effectively denied to every proposition in which subject and predicate are different terms, that is, from most cases of which it makes use (of the form "A is B"). For Hegel, however, the principle of identity must become the principle "of identity and non-identity," "preserving" and "overcoming" at the same time the contradiction.
Problem in academic critical thinking skills: is it a thinking problem or language problem? I'm looking for any published/research papers which discuss this issue.
I want to know if the brain generates the ideas itself by thinking or if it is ultimately linked to the ideas in that field of spoken and discussed ideas. Because the spoken words and statements makes a cloud in the universe, to which we are linked, is full of ideas to which we pay deep attention. The work of brain is confined to just making the deep concentration, but is it so that brain generates the idea itself?
Plenty of work has been done on learning styles, but "learning" is only one type of information processing. For example, decision making is a different process (I think). What research exists concerning "thinking styles"?
I am currently working on my dissertation: Logical Reasoning and Scalar Implicature in Quantified Sentences: A Developmental Study
In our trip looking for the truth, does researching depend on philosophy or needs logic, and on the other hand, should all facts depends on logic?