Did logic exist prior to the human brain?
One question, why does it matter?
Not trying to be a douche, but seriously, what is this getting at? Why would it matter to know or attempt to know such a thing?
Taking bringbackwigs question first. We use logic to make decisions, to find new knowledge, to run our lives. If we regard it as only a human thing then we effectively ring-fence all knowledge - it becomes a human mental thing, the ultimate in relativity. If it is something outwith our minds, as a fact of reality then it becomes a conduit to explore reality. So, depending on how you view its 'origins' (if there are such) affects the way you will approach the world. I think that makes it a fairly interesting question.
illy made a very good point that minds in general seem to have logical facilities, which makes it (and btw 'mind' itself) a more than just human thing. Aristotle certainly formalised the rules of syllogistic logic, but that was probably a bringing-together of what was know at he time - that sentences can combine in ways that yield reasonable and unreasonable results. What we now call Classical Logic has been formalised over the last few centuries to give pretty good simple rules for judging the validity of deductions. It is very rigorous and useful in most things, except.... (a) it depends upon a number of assumptions about the meaning of truth, negation and entailment (b) formalising from natural language into its logical form if often not easy - we frequently claim we DON'T mean what the formalisation says (probably because we think and speak in a fuzzy way) (c) notions of existence, universality and modality are multiplex - the latter was given a good basis for looking at necessity/possibility by Saul Kripke with his possible worlds approach, but as in all deep questions there remain some possible inconsistencies/deficiencies. The upshot is that there are a number of systems of logic that one can use, depending on which fundamental assumptions one is making. But rather like the use of Newtonian physics in everyday life, the 'classical' logics are sufficient until you get to the nitty-gritty.
The reason for that potted overview is that it shows we can take logic as a study of something that is 'there', outside us. Just as we can study the relationships between different particles or forces. Our knowledge of logic is developing, it is not a static field. So I'm plumping for logic being prior to everything, being a brute fact, that we can work to discover more about.
I think it was Russell and Whitehead who demonstrated the priority of logic over arithmetic (?). But the interrelationship is there - if you believe that numbers have an independent existence beyond humanity, then the likelihood is that logic has too.
Great post, I love your responses. I have a lot to learn from you.
The ulterior motive for RF is that, a la Morehead (?), he will try to argue that if God created logic, then it is a fixed thing that can be relied on, and thus, even if we use logic to disprove, without question, a god, he will claim that the very existence of logic proves that god exists. Since, he will argue, that if, according to Materialism/Naturalism/et al, it is a human construct of the mind and humans (and their minds) are evolving, then we have no reason to trust logic since it could be overturned tomorrow.
Of course, it is not a strong argument but when one is desperate...
There are many angles you can attack this argument which render it useless, but I'd like to go back to what Callum said:
Logic seems to be brute fact. I agree. Just as 1+1=2 by definition, there are some things that appear to be true of the universe: "A" cannot be both "A" and "not A". In fact, its hard to imagine - quantum physics notwithstanding, which, since only about 10 people in the world understand it, it has little relevance for debate - that a universe could be otherwise.
For example, a ball cannot be in one place and another at the same time. In ideas: a triangle cannot be a circle, too.
Even God cannot make this happen. God cannot make a rock so heavy... (In fact, I successfully argued a while back that god couldn't be the source of logic since the very first instance of him declaring his existence would need a platform which honored the distinction. That is, in order for god to say 'I exist', there would have to be something in place to make sense of what he was saying. There would have to be logic to distinguish non-existence from existence in order for him to Will it. Will requires preconditions which would need to precede and reign over god - which makes him not a god, since he is not omnipotent, hasn't free will, or isn't the creator of everything. Logic would even rule over god, a god could not create logic. BTW, to say that god always existed doesn't help, since even if he always existed the first act, say, of him creating logic in which his Will would make sense (and therefore, "let there be light" would make sense), would require logic already in place to make his Willing of logic to be in place. Plus, we don't need to go down this rabbit hole: the conditions for a universe to exist could just as well always existed instead of adding another layer.)
But I digress.
Logic seems to be brute fact and to add "Magic Man Done It" is an unnecessary step. Logic can be trusted as much as mathematics.
The interesting thing is that RF claims that God created logic, which means he created a joke, since logic seems to disprove a god and opens the door for Faith, or, as RF will contend, that logic proves a god - so why the directive that you need Faith in God in his world view (Xinainty)? Which is it?
He lost this one the moment he asked the question, which, as Callum said, is an interesting question.
(BTW, this "evolution" tact is becoming very popular in the debate circles now because it confuses most people and the Theists love irrational arguments.)
