Logic is just the name we give to the study of inference. The aim of a logic (e.g. deductive logic) is to provide us with a set of rules by which inferences may be drawn. Asking the question "did logic exist before man?" is as silly as asking "did chemistry exist?" or "did biology?" You really only need to open a dictionary to figure that out.

Clearly, there was no Logic before its first codification. But was there any logic? If so, what kind of logic could that be? Did the shrew that lived in the Cretacious forest have logic? Does the sunflower? Is there logic to the physical Universe without any life?

Again, your defition of logic is highly esoteric. The term "logic" refers to the science of inference. Questions like "do shrews have logic?" are nonsense. However, what I believe you are doing is making the mistake of confusing logic with the broader subject of reasoning. Reasoning refers to any process of drawing a conclusion from a set of premises. Logic studies the rules by which we can validly draw these conclusions. The two are not the same.

The more I read on this thread the more I become convinced that many of the contributors simply don't know what is meant by the term logic, let alone what its purpose is. To put this right I recommend picking up a copy of Susan Haack's book Philosophy of Logics. It is a fantastic introduction and essential reading for anybody with an interest in the subject. It's the book that I insist my students read before sitting an exam.

YadaYada wrote:
Clearly, there was no Logic before its first codification. But was there any logic? If so, what kind of logic could that be? Did the shrew that lived in the Cretacious forest have logic? Does the sunflower? Is there logic to the physical Universe without any life?



I wouldn't mind your responses if you would just let be-gones be gone. But, anyway, if we respond for the design of mechanical usage of what is essentially "Robots":

Is the expression of operation with the presence of Man to that even logical? Is it for instance logical when it is wrongly realized to His cunning; correctable for the direct decision of Being an unsolvable slave's: --- 'bad' CHOICE.

A sense of humor for the unjustly 'chosen'?

Plotin wrote: I wouldn't mind your responses if you would just let be-gones be gone. But, anyway, if we respond for the design of mechanical usage of what is essentially "Robots":

Is the expression of operation with the presence of Man to that even logical? Is it for instance logical when it is wrongly realized to His cunning; correctable for the direct decision of Being an unsolvable slave's: --- 'bad' CHOICE.

A sense of humor for the unjustly 'chosen'? Quite a heavy burden to bare. So many people, so little humor.

A shrew can "act logically", but it cannot
"do logic" as a practice. It follows a
causality that is different from clouds
and rain-making only in complexity.

Logic is a deliberate simplification and
abstraction. It isn't causality.
A beaver dam breaking in a storm looks
like a logical switch, but it isn't logic.

The adjective "logical" does not mean
"contains logic" or "does logic".
It only means the thing in question is
an analog suitable for logical analysis.
This is only a quirk of language.