Well, if I understand your question correctly, then "evolution" and "programming" are the only known answers. I don't know the process according to which we evolved the capacity for logical abstraction, but it seems pretty clear that it was selected for.

I'm confused. I think you're crossing two different lines of reasoning. I'm not arguing that one side is "more logical" than the other. It's a matter of determining the implications of various assumptions.

In one understanding, logic is established a priori. It doesn't matter if you don't know where it comes from. It is simply established and you are stuck working within its confines.

In the other, logic is established a posteriori. It is the result of certain processes that have been seen to be somehow useful within the system. But this is where it breaks down. "To be seen" requires logic to have already been established.

I agree with this. I don't think I'm "justifying" logic, nor do I think I've ever tried to do this.

I disagree. The dilemma is larger for you than it is for me, though not by much. We both agree that if anything about this universe were to be true at all, and that we have the capacity to reach such conclusions, then logic simply must be.

If logic is imposed from the outside by fiat of God (or the universe or whatever), then fiat of God (or the universe or whatever) is the thing that is defining and establishing truth. In this setting, the dilemma is that we cannot appeal to any higher authority and question or challenge the particular logic being established.

If logic is contingent, then any truth it defines is contingent as well. In particular, there is no way for logic to establish itself as actually being connected to reality. It establishes its own little dominion and exerts control to all the things within it, but can never reach outward to the rest of reality and make valid claims of valid perception of that larger reality. Another way of saying this is that once logic establishes itself in this manner, it closes itself off to reality.

Contingent logic cannot speak about reality with any authority, but fiat-logic can.

Logic is still established a priori. The explanation for logic is established a posteriori. Very, very different things.

I believe my thoughts come from my brain. However, my thoughts are established a priori, and my conception of the "brain" is established only a posteriori as a result of my thoughts. The explanation for my thoughts, the state of affairs giving rise to my thoughts, is a construct of my thoughts that only existed after my thoughts began to exist.

This is all based on the assumption that anything can be other than contingent in the first place. Logic can speak about reality, but only in terms of premises (including the premise of fiat-logic) that are fundamentally contingent. The effect is the same. A human's thoughts are contingent by nature, and anything extending from those thoughts is also contingent. The question of an absolute "reality" behind those thoughts is irrelevant, because we humans can only work in conceptions of that reality (not in the reality itself), and our conceptions are necessarily contingent. The world a human lives in is always contingent.

In other words, inside/outside again.

Right. It seems evident to me that our interpretation of the outside comes from within, and I don't think the idea that we are directly acting on anything "outside" can hold up to scrutiny.

O rly then why do we live in a society based on contracts?

Society is not functional unless their is a universal recognition by individuals of certain "outside" conditions.

Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii......I stumped madnak.

What no smash?

Where's your riposte?

I can't find it; I must have left it somewhere in the ontology.

What "within"? Where do you draw the border and why?

The laws of society could be a result of cultural evolution. Ancestral tribes that had co-operative and altruistic norms would have been better able defend themselves and survive and reproduce than other groups. Modern society, with its arbitrary rules, is just an extension of that basic morality which itself conformed to principles of behavioral economics (e.g., rules such as "do not murder" are adaptive, as each individual of a group with such a rule would have a better chance of survival than a group in which murder was permitted).

There's no need for 'outside' interference in this story, unless you would want to suggest that the first social instincts and group norms were implanted or helped along.

I think the inside/outside paradigm got missed here.

Inside = The universe is inside our heads because that's the only place that we can really understand our interactions with it and everything about it.

Outside = The universe is really on the outside, feeding our senses information which our brains then translate into useful information so that we can interact with the universe.

There is no border. That's the whole point. Everything is within, because I can't draw a border.

When I was born, I knew nothing of any "external world." As I began to have sensory experiences, I started to piece together a concept of an "outside world" based on those experiences, more or less as a way to "solve" the "puzzle" of these varying (and confusing) inputs. I have no a priori knowledge of any outside world, the very existence of an outside world is therefore an a posteriori and thus a contingent conclusion.

Thus, it can never be meaningful to suggest anything necessary based on my concept of an external world, which is wholly contingent.

My basic premise (which Aaron seems to disagree with) is that you can't get something necessary out of something contingent. No matter how remarkably consistent my "outside world" seems to be, it is still my own construction and it is still contingent. The fact that my solution to the puzzle works quite well doesn't change the fact that my solution is based wholly on the (contingent) sensory inputs to which I've been exposed. It's an idea I've constructed in my mind!

So what I call the "external world" exists within my mind, and therefore cannot be external. It doesn't make sense to speak of an "external" world, it is a category error.

Sure. Information merely exists as abstraction and in that I agree. It's not something one can be sure of, but it explains a lot and makes sense - no need to chop off our own head with absolutism.

However what you are describing seems to be sort of a "fog of self", and I'm curious as to where the fog starts and where it ends. I mean...if "everything" is interconnected it seems to me that even the sense of self is probably merely an abstraction.

Well, self is everything, so the "sense of self" (as distinct from not-self) is an abstraction.

So you are not a solipsist? Or am I misinterpreting you?

I am literally shocked that even you could have thought this was remotely relevant to the post you quoted. Let alone that you thought the reason he ignored it was that you stumped him. If it were any other poster (besides maybe pletho) I would be forced to conclude that you were making a joke by trying your damnedest to illustrate that logic isn't universal.