And what about logical concepts that we can't imagine because they don't exist: For example, when we say that there can't be other type of logic/mathematic than that we have (e.g. a logic where "p" is and is not), we are saying that this logic can't exist: does not exist (or in other words, this logic with consistency does not exist). Why can't we imagine that non-existent form of this logic with consistency? @MarkOxford

If we imagined the contrary of what it is (it is a logic without consistency (illogical) and it is not a logic with consistency (logical)) we could imagine that illogic being logical. I don't know if you understand me

A lot has been written – here and elsewhere – about alternative logics. One thing to remember is that it’s one thing to write down a formal system and conduct deductions in that system. It’s another thing to go beyond the formalism and somehow ‘think in terms of’ that new logic. As I and others said at the start, we need to be clear on what we mean by terms like ‘imagine’, ‘conceive’, ‘mentally picture’ or what have you.

I think you should really have a look at the debate about conceivability and metaphysical possibility. Here’s a good place to start: plato.stanford.edu/entries/modality-epistemology

but the main question that i've got is: when someone says that "x" "logic" is impossible because it's illogic, we could say that it's a logic without consistency (illogic). that logic with consistency does not exist. If we imagine that nonexistent logic with consistency, then, that illogic idea would become logic. i don't know if this reasoning is correct, but if it is, then why can't we do that?

@MarkOxford

and could we ever build a computer able to simulate illogical situations, thoughts? or the same limits we discussed before would apply again? @MarkOxford

See, the thing is there are no ‘illogical situations’. That’s what I’ve been trying to say. So, there just isn’t anything there to imagine / simulate / depict, or what have you. So, absent a notion of conceivability that allow you conceive of things that don’t exist – not here or in any possible world – switching from brains to computers won’t make a difference. (Hence my literature suggestions about conceivability.)

Ok. Let's summarize to conclude this: Illogical situations don't exist so there just isn’t anything there to imagine / simulate / depict...etc. And we haven't got a notion of conceivability that allows us conceive of things that don’t exist (because of this, we can't conceive, for example, a logic where 1+1=3 but with consistency (a logic)).

Also, because of this, we or someone else wouldn't be able to imagine/know how to depict any of these situations with information, so we couldn't make representations or computer simulators that would build these situations or thoughts to help us imagine or know how would these situations be.

correct me if i'm wrong

@MarkOxford