Is logic just a method of interpretation?

I admit a slight, but possibly necessary, vagueness in my terms here so I will spend the first couple of paragraphs endeavoring to define them. I am using interpretation as the method by which we process internal and external input. Our "thought process" is separate from feelings, emotions, and sometimes even the occasional unexplained thought which enters our minds (maybe even the thoughts themselves). It is also separate from sight, sound, and other external sensory data. I cannot pinpoint where exactly the thought process lies as that is a discussion for philosophy of mind and identity, but I can say with I think some accuracy that many examples of the things I mentioned "enter" our thought process rather than already being apart of it. This is possibly more easily accepted for the external sensory data than some of the internal sensory data.

So the thought process is that area of ourselves (possibly even the self) which interprets all of that information. In using the word logic in the original question I am referring to the broader umbrella of rational thought. Rational thought inherently must be in language and possess at least basic forms of classification and definition. Seeing a sports car and thinking "that's a nice car" would be thereby considered rational thought. Logical argument and debate is simply a very advanced usage of rational thought rather than coming to define it.

The question on the table then is whether rational thought is only a method of processing. The reason I bring this up is because it seems frequently considered to be the definition of processing itself rather than only a method by which we could process. The two other potential methods of processing which I think most starkly illustrate a potential contrast are music and dance.

In improvised jazz the group plays together harmonizing through a mutual love and understanding of music. Does this actually require any rational thought to happen? If you spoke with most jazz musicians, they would say they were not thinking. In fact they would most likely tell you that thinking is contrary to what they are trying to do. Yet they are communicating quite vividly both with each other and the audience. One musician introduces a new note or chord and the rest immediately respond playing off of the new input. That requires processing to happen, but I'm not sure that rational thought was ever involved.

In interpretive dance the same thing is true. The performer does not necessarily respond to a rational thought process of what they want the next movement to be or mean. They are following a process which cannot be adequately articulated in language. Yet this process can produce a striking work of art which many would say has deep meaning. Is meaning then not as associated with rational conclusion as many of us might like?

I use those two examples because they are two of the most obvious I can think of, however similar things could be said of the processes of writing fiction, acting, painting, and even rock climbing. We are quick to admit that mathematicians process differently from theoretical physicists, but we seem far more loathe to admit that the whole of rational thought is not the height of understanding but simply another method of processing. It may not even be as well-defined as it often subjectively seems.

Logic is the manipulation of symbols according to formal rules.

It seems from your explanation that you are not speaking of "logic" nor of "rational thought", but rather of cognitive thought. Logic has nothing at all to do with interpretation but rather with definitions/declarations. Rational thought refers to logic toward a specified goal.

And cognitive thought is a process, similar to drawing pictures, for the mind to assemble complete sentences or thoughts that are interpretations of belief. Now if you want to call belief, "interpretations of reality", then I guess the answer would be "yes".

Logic is independent of belief and thus rationale is independent of belief except in choosing the goal to pursue. The goal is chosen first by what we call the "heart" or the emotions. Cognitive thought attempts to make complete logical statements involving those goals and the rationed steps for achieving them ("rationale"). But the cognitive thought process is not required for the same decisions to be made. Cognitive thought merely makes it easier and in some cases causes a weakness in ability to perform due to attrition of the more direct thinking processes. Cognitive thought requires a physical sensed language (words, pictures, touches, smells, tastes).

If I get your question right, I could argue that not only is rationality a method of processing but it creates the very concepts that it rationaly processes itself. Enlightenment rationality and the modern categorisation of reality grew up hand in hand. With the examples you give I could then say even if you aren't using your rationality for processing in those examples, you are still using the categorisation of reality you grew up in which from which is part of rationality.

James, I agree cognitive thought is what I'm referring to. Are you saying that belief is separate from cognitive thought and that cognitive thought derives from it, or that it's part of cognitive thought? Do the emotions precede all other processes of any kind? I would argue we cannot make a decision based on an emotion. I want to respond to your post here, but I couldn't if I couldn't think through your argument. If I couldn't think through your argument, I think I also wouldn't want to respond.

Grendel, I agree with you in some sense. I don't think anyone can turn off the classification and labeling since it's what allows us to interact with the world no matter what we're doing. I couldn't press a key on the piano if I couldn't identify the piano as well as the key. On the other hand I'm still not sure this makes the cognitive thinking a superior method of processing. It's necessary to be sure, but I see too much evidence of the radically different ways in which people think.

My girlfriend is a visual artist and a very talented one. She does not possess a high talent for logical reasoning, and long statements of thought do not come as easily to her as they do to me. Yet I can be talking about something extremely complex, and she'll come up with an idea for a painting based on what I'm saying which in many ways perfectly illustrates what I was talking about. When I talk with her about how she came up with it, the image just formulates itself in her mind in a certain way. This is not a language-oriented reasoned out process where she thought about the meaning of what I was saying and tried to find symbolic images to correspond. It's very intuitive, whatever intuitive means.

I also play piano and do some composing. I can improvise on piano as well. When I'm improvising or composing, I'm listening for what sounds good. That is my thought process. It's a comprehension of harmony and improvising on that harmony which is devoid of assigning conceptual meaning to the notes.

I worked with someone at one point who worked in abstract mathematics. He had a fantastic mind for that sort of math, but he told me if he ever watched a movie then he wouldn't remember the beginning by the end. Did an ability for abstract math limit his narrative ability? If it did, it would poke a huge hole in the idea that we derive all meaning from narrative interpretation. In abstract math, we probably don't.

What I don't see anywhere is an explanation for any of this. We all talk with each other through language for the most part so it's common to think that the sort of understanding which produces language is the one we all have. Yet it seems that everyone has abilities in visual interpretation, music, and math. Those abilities vary as do our abilities with language. An artist with an incredible ability to communicate through art may have a poor ability to communicate through language. We go to an art museum to see the art. Many of us do not read the cards with accompanying information. We are there to see the art because it contributes to some kind of thought process directly without any sort of reasoned language necessary to interpreting it. It's considered bad form for a director to introduce a theatrical production or film even if they are highly abstract or lack words.

The reason I'm having so much trouble defining terms here is because I haven't heard any that seem to fit. Where are all of these things classified in mental processes? I know psychology hasn't gotten there, but has philosophy at all? If I write poetry, what kind of process am I using? If I write a novel, what process am I using compared to that of the poetry? I know they're different processes in some way because I've seen the final products and heard the authors speak.

If I paint a painting because of a visual inspiration that was never filtered through any other sort of process, what is that process that I used exactly? Was it filtered through any other process without it being consciously filtered through it? Is there a superior process which governs the processes which produce music, art, literature, science, math, and philosophy, or are they individual processes that don't always correspond with each other? I think this is getting more towards my central question. If we take into account that there is a wide variety of processes used in mental interpretation and the production of output, how do we classify them? Is there a hierarchy?

James, I agree cognitive thought is what I'm referring to. Are you saying that belief is separate from cognitive thought and that cognitive thought derives from it, or that it's part of cognitive thought? Do the emotions precede all other processes of any kind? I would argue we cannot make a decision based on an emotion. I want to respond to your post here, but I couldn't if I couldn't think through your argument. If I couldn't think through your argument, I think I also wouldn't want to respond.

The entire mountain of thought response from zero to the very top;

0) affectance response
1) physical response
2) physiological response
3) emotive response
4) cognitive response
5) congressional response
6) congress of congressional response
7) ultimate response

Each level is separated merely by the scope of information involved. Additional congresses of congress of congressional responses can be added infinitely if life were to spread throughout the universe. Each level utilizes a logic process. Each level "interprets" the significance of the level below it such as to decide or logically conclude its own response.

Belief is a conclusion based upon the logical processing of the information passed up from the lower levels. Believe it or not, the emotions are the result of a logic process involving merely a smaller scope of information. The cognitive process "senses" a set of emotive responses (similar to the Senate receiving bills, a request to act, from the House or the House hearing the lobbyists, activists, or representatives) and draws a conclusion (a logical process) based upon what has been passed to it.

James, is there somewhere I can read more about this scale of thought response? I'd be interested to see at least a paragraph or two of description concerning what happens on each level, how it gives way to the next one, and on the higher levels how they utilize the previous. It seems interesting, but I don't feel that I can question it until I fully understand it.

James, is there somewhere I can read more about this scale of thought response? I'd be interested to see at least a paragraph or two of description concerning what happens on each level, how it gives way to the next one, and on the higher levels how they utilize the previous. It seems interesting, but I don't feel that I can question it until I fully understand it.

I was tempted to give explanation for each, but chose to make it short. As far as reading the details, you will have to purchase a book on Rational Metaphysics
...after I finish writing it.

..or just keep asking questions that might have short answers.

I was tempted to give explanation for each, but chose to make it short. As far as reading the details, you will have to purchase a book on Rational Metaphysics
...after I finish writing it.

..or just keep asking questions that might have short answers.

Well I guess I'll have to wait for the book to get your full answer then.

I know psychology hasn't gotten there, but has philosophy at all?

To answer your question, semiology, would be philosophy's best attempt at going there. Your gf would just be better at speaking a perfectly rational language of signs better than you.

An alternative would be arguments against physicalism and that the artistic mind is seeing something beyong logical processes. http://www.philosophy-index.com/jackson/marys-room/