Define: Reason & Logic

[abcqwerty123]

Hey guys/gals! I need a little help with defining the words "Reason" and "Logic", and what the difference is between the two. Please be as technical as need be and supply any examples. This may be an elementary question but I need to fully understand the difference between the two. Thank you in advanced!

[fer]

What about:

"Logic is the set of rules, and Reason is the process of using those rules."

[Pepin]

Logic is a conceptualization of the empirically derived implications of physics and perception. Physically, the matter we observe remains consistent simply due to the nature of the universe. Perceptually, matter which remains in a stable state for any observable range of time can be observed to have relative independence, it can be observed to be what it is and what it is not. Conceptually, these properties and behaviors are abstracted. Through abstraction and comparison, higher level relations can be derived through reason.

[abcqwerty123]

What about:

"Logic is the set of rules, and Reason is the process of using those rules."

 

Have an example?

 

 

Logic is a conceptualization of the empirically derived implications of physics and perception. Physically, the matter we observe remains consistent simply due to the nature of the universe. Perceptually, matter which remains in a stable state for any observable range of time can be observed to have relative independence, it can be observed to be what it is and what it is not. Conceptually, these properties and behaviors are abstracted. Through abstraction and comparison, higher level relations can be derived through reason.

 

I am sorry man, but this is too technical for me. 

[Pepin]

 am sorry man, but this is too technical for me. 

 

Oh, sorry about that, thought that is what you wanted. But rereading your post, I seem to be mistaken.

 

Logic is a set of rules, the base being A is A, which are derived through the nature of the universe. The universe, matter in conjunction with the laws of physics, is consistent. For instance, the properties of behaviors of an electron are the same for every electron. Particles with mass being unable to achieve speeds beyond the speed of light is impossible. Massless particles such as photons being able to achieve speeds other than the speed of light is also impossible. This being the case is not dependant upon any human mind, but simply dependent upon the laws of the universe. It is possible to say an electron is an electron because it retains all of its properties, and behaves in a consistent manner.

 

If the universe did not operate in under any consistent laws, if particles with mass could go the speed of light at one time, and not at others without cause, if no properties of any particles remained constant, then the ability to make the statement "A is A" would be impossible as it could never be observed. Our universe is objective, which is to say that fundamental properties and laws remain constant.

 

Biologically, life evolved in conjunction with an objective universe. Life which developed survival strategies which closer to the nature of reality were far more likely to survive than those that did not. A creature which spots its prey, a blue cluster of cells, will travel in the direction of the blue cluster of cells and not in any other direction. This is because in our universe, in order to interact with matter, you might travel spatially towards it to interact, traveling away does not allow for interaction. The creatures that did not take a path towards their food would not survive. This statement is obvious, but needed.

 

More fundamentally, the assumption in this behavior is that the creature's food is the creature's food. The creature chasing after this blue cluster does not expect the blue cluster to be a predator, or a rock, or an underwater vent, or anything else at random intervals of time. If this creature is able to use its senses to identify its prey and to differentiate it from all else, the premise that it operates under is "A is A".

 

I do not mean to attribute conscious motives to early life, or to even say that early life and even highly evolved life has intention, but to make the claim that the evolution of life is closely related to the laws of the universe. It ought to be no surprise, as the senses are simply physical devices which isolate particular phenomenon in reality. The primary laws which govern survival are the same laws that govern the stars.

 

As life becomes more and more complex, it is able to divide parts of reality into different entities. Its method of division is through observation of sense data, and finding what is mathematically correlative. This may sound complex, so an example is in order. If you are watching a monitor of static, each bit of information is unrelated to all other bits. If a green set of pixels begins to move across the screen, if you notice that when one green pixel moves in any direction that all green pixels move in the same direction, perceptually you will clump all of the green pixels into a single entity. You'd correlate the behavior with one, with the behavior of all. You'd calculate that the movement of the green pixels has nothing to do with the movement of any other pixels. Though this is a gross simplification, it is good enough to get the idea across.

 

The prime assumption in this is that the properties and behaviors derived will remain consistent and are what they are. There can be miscalculations, but they tend to be corrected pretty fast through more observation. You may look at a school of fish moving in harmony and think it is one thing... until they scatter into each individual component.

 

Logic is an abstraction of the properties and behaviors of entities, without reference to any particular entity. With perception we are able to break up reality into parts, ideally with each part being relatively independent from all parts. Though a group of five lions walking across the ground are not truly separate from: the ground, the air, or even the pull of the moon, they are separate enough to see them as separate. Each lion is of course separate from each other, and though they all have the same properties and characteristics with minor variation, we do not perceive one big lion, yet instead five separate lions all with the same properties and behaviors of one. The fact that there are five of them does not change the nature of any individual lion. Again, this is "A is A". Through abstraction, we are able to take the perception of quantity, and drop reference to the perception. If we assign a symbol to it, we can say that "5 is 5", which is derived from the observation of five alike entities in reality which remain consistent.

 

Logical rules can be derived through empiricism. A simple example has to do with spacial dimensions. If something is moving up, it is not moving down. Really, it becomes quite apparent that if something is moving up, it cannot be be moving down. If we abstract the properties and do no refer to the particulars, we are able to derive a theory of opposites, where if A, then not B, or if B, then not A.

 

Logic tends to be practically universal in its application because the universe is objective. But the discernment of which logical rules are valid or invalid is dependent upon the faculty of reason. So it may be valid to use the concept of numbers to describe any amount of lions, but reason would tell us that using non-integer numbers would not be valid. A half of a lion is not a lion, as if you divide a lion in half, it will not at all act like a whole lion. The concept of division is applicable to cake, but only to a point. It can be said that once the slice of cake resembles a crumb, you would not call it cake as it is no longer edible in a practical sense.

 

Reason is also the means of organizing and connecting concepts. It is the means by which logical implications are derived. A great example of this is Einstein's Special Theory or Relativity where he reasoned out the consequence of the speed of light being constant in all reference frames, and discovered the logical implications.

 

In my mind, reason has more to do with particulars, while logic is more generalized. Logic is more of a framework, while reason is more of a process. Reason deals with logic, though it deals with instances, which logic tends not to deal with a whole lot. The majority of logical fallacies are the result of ignoring particulars, where a statement is valid logically, but does not apply to a certain circumstance. A good example I just found is

 

If it rains, the street will be wet

The street is wet.

Therefore it rained.

 

I hope this was helpful. Probably longer than you hoped, but it ought to be more understandable. I have been writing a book on this subject, so this is actually very condensed.