What? Being logical doesn't make you immune to arriving at contradictions. We are constantly presented with contradicting information and concepts. The thing is how you resolve it - a logical, rational person will acknowledge it and try to reconcile it. An irrational person will double down and commit logical fallacies to run away from it or brush it aside to alleviate the resulting cognitive dissonance and not thinking about it (Orwell called it doublethink).
Language isn't contingent on logic. You can say lots of illogical things with language.
That's a non-sequitur. How language is used is a different problem of what language is. Predication requires logic and this is philosophy of language 101. You can't form thoughts or sentences without appealing to the laws of logic.
I guess what you mean is it engages in faulty reasoning which is correct. People do too. But again what matters here is not to have the model reason for me, but to make it acknowledge a contradiction in the presented information, which it does.
What? Being logical doesn't make you immune to arriving at contradictions. We are constantly presented with contradicting information and concepts. The thing is how you resolve it - a logical, rational person will acknowledge it and try to reconcile it. An irrational person will double down and commit logical fallacies to run away from it or brush it aside to alleviate the resulting cognitive dissonance (Orwell called it doublethink).
Language isn't contingent on logic. You can say lots of illogical things with language.
That's a non-sequitur. How language is used is a different problem of what language is. Predication requires logic and this is philosophy of language 101. You can't form thoughts or sentences without appealing to the laws of logic.
I guess what you mean is it engages in faulty reasoning which is correct. People do too. But again what matters here is not to have the model reason for me, but to make it acknowledge a contradiction in the presented information, which it does.
What? Being logical doesn't make you immune to arriving at contradictions. We are constantly presented with contradicting information and concepts. The thing is how you resolve it - a logical, rational person will acknowledge it and try to reconcile it. An irrational person will double down and commit logical fallacies to run away from it or brush it aside instead.
Language isn't contingent on logic. You can say lots of illogical things with language.
That's a non-sequitur. How language is used is a different problem of what language is. Predication requires logic and this is philosophy of language 101. You can't form thoughts or sentences without appealing to the laws of logic.
I guess what you mean is it engages in faulty reasoning which is correct. People do too. But again what matters here is not to have the model reason for me, but to make it acknowledge a contradiction in the presented information, which it does.