The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE
- Thread starter devhdb
- Start date
-
- Tags
- materialism
If you think science boils down to "What scientists say it is and nothing else" then sure.
MohamedTaqi
Thinker
Conventional logic systems (from Syllogistic, Propositional, Quantificational and Modal logic, to the more specific systems like belief, deontic...etc) are all based on two axioms.
- The law of non-contradiction
- Identity
These two are axioms, that philosophers agree on before presenting any arguments.
And then, there is meta-logic, where the axioms are too, questionable : what makes them true?
I don't know any meta-logic, because I didn't study it myself, but you are free to take a look.
The point is, that when arguing other objects, we simply use these tools.
But if we are in thread that questions the tools myself (a thread on meta-logic) , then be my guest : I will take an introductory course in meta-logic, and see what we can make of it.
I only personally took a course on these logics :
- Syllogistic
- Propositional
- Quantificational
- Modal
- Belief
- Deontic
And all of them are widely used in philosophical arguments, and all of them are based on the two axioms I mentioned.
Last edited:
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
Gottlob Frege. What a loser.
Prove to me that conventional logic system work. Without using conventional logic systems.
Then whatever you use to prove that the conventional logic systems work? Prove that works, again without using it.
Keep doing that until I tell you to stop.
Ultimately, sure. Again, there are lots of books trying to define "Science". That is no more an answered question than any of the other ones floating about here.
MohamedTaqi
Thinker
Those are tools, that can be questioned in a topic about meta-logic.
Not in a topic about consciousness.
When we discuss consciousness, we use the tools not prove them.
The same goes for math : when you do 1+1 , you use the tools, not question them.
Sure, there are people who do in philosophy of math, and meta-logic.
But I already told you (check the update to my last reply) : I did not study meta-logic.
RedStapler
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2020
- Messages
- 839
So, what is this thing in consciousness we are missing? You surely realize that claiming "something is misssing. That's it" is not very convincing.
MohamedTaqi
Thinker
Besides, if you want to prove that it works, you have to prove that it doesn't work, and see where that leads you.
If you assume it doesn't work, then you stop there, don't use it.
As for the law of non-contradiction, let's denote it by C , Let me give it a humble try .
If the law of non-contradiction is false, then it is true and false at the same time (C & not-C) ...
using Modus tollens it follows :
Which is equivalent to :
You can clearly see that the result is absurd : If the law of non-contradiction is true or false, then it is true.
I can use a reductio ad absurdum to establish that the law of non-contradiction is true.
But philosophers in meta-logic use different approaches to look into what makes these axioms true, as I said , I didn't study them, I am only a computer programmer for a living.
Last edited:
Well all of this just puts us back to my main point.
I don't buy anything of this. Not for a second.
Why? Because of any of the "philosophers" in this thread actually believed the nonsense they are spouting off in the way they are claiming to, they would do this in every discussion. The existential crisis would literally never end for them.
This "We can't discuss the epistemology before we explain the epistemology that explains the first epistemology repeated forever" fetish, it were honest and true, would effect every single moment of your life equally.
You'd be down in the politics threads demanding we prove Trump and Biden exists outside the Matrix before we talk about politics. If someone started a thread about apple pie recipes you'd have the same existential "but what about the qualia of the taste of the pie?" fits.
But you aren't. Because you don't care (to this degree, in this way) about how we get answer to questions when the answers to the questions are the ones you want to hear.
Every "philosopher" in this thread is an intellectual coward, intellectually dishonest, and a hypocrite... because I know when go to the cross the street you still look both ways. You don't step into the street blindly and when the bread trunk bearing down on you honks at you stand there in an exisential fugue state because you can't take action until you metaphysically prove that the truck exists.
You're fine and dandy with reality until it tells you there is no God, you don't have soul, or that you otherwise aren't special. You're fine when science tells you to take this aspirin to get get rid of your headache, treat it like dirt when it tells you're just a highly evolved 3rd species of chimp, a collection of mental processes running on a 4 lb meat computer inside a ball of bone and that's all you are.
Like I said it's why there is a "Hard Problem of Consciousness" and not a "Hard Problem of my Digestive Track breaking down the tuna melt I had for lunch" despite both of those being intellectually the exact same thing. Because you don't think God or a Soul or some other "Lookit this quality that makes me special and not just a bag of meat" fairy is hiding in your digestive track, you think there is one hiding in your brain.
Because this whole "We're just trying to figure out how we know stuff" act is a lie. You're trying to find an "out" to avoid the stuff we know that you don't want to accept.
*Claps my hands* COMMENCE THE PEARL CLUTCHING.
I don't buy anything of this. Not for a second.
Why? Because of any of the "philosophers" in this thread actually believed the nonsense they are spouting off in the way they are claiming to, they would do this in every discussion. The existential crisis would literally never end for them.
This "We can't discuss the epistemology before we explain the epistemology that explains the first epistemology repeated forever" fetish, it were honest and true, would effect every single moment of your life equally.
You'd be down in the politics threads demanding we prove Trump and Biden exists outside the Matrix before we talk about politics. If someone started a thread about apple pie recipes you'd have the same existential "but what about the qualia of the taste of the pie?" fits.
But you aren't. Because you don't care (to this degree, in this way) about how we get answer to questions when the answers to the questions are the ones you want to hear.
Every "philosopher" in this thread is an intellectual coward, intellectually dishonest, and a hypocrite... because I know when go to the cross the street you still look both ways. You don't step into the street blindly and when the bread trunk bearing down on you honks at you stand there in an exisential fugue state because you can't take action until you metaphysically prove that the truck exists.
You're fine and dandy with reality until it tells you there is no God, you don't have soul, or that you otherwise aren't special. You're fine when science tells you to take this aspirin to get get rid of your headache, treat it like dirt when it tells you're just a highly evolved 3rd species of chimp, a collection of mental processes running on a 4 lb meat computer inside a ball of bone and that's all you are.
Like I said it's why there is a "Hard Problem of Consciousness" and not a "Hard Problem of my Digestive Track breaking down the tuna melt I had for lunch" despite both of those being intellectually the exact same thing. Because you don't think God or a Soul or some other "Lookit this quality that makes me special and not just a bag of meat" fairy is hiding in your digestive track, you think there is one hiding in your brain.
Because this whole "We're just trying to figure out how we know stuff" act is a lie. You're trying to find an "out" to avoid the stuff we know that you don't want to accept.
*Claps my hands* COMMENCE THE PEARL CLUTCHING.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
An interesting thought. They had slaves to do all the work, so lots of time to kill. No TV in those days, they had to make their own entertainment.
Well they didn't manage to answer any of those questions. They never even seemed to achieve the level of awareness necessary to reject slavery.
MohamedTaqi
Thinker
I can't believe you still didn't get it .
When we talk about politics, there are certain assumptions, axioms if you will, that we start from : that trump exists
We can concern ourselves with that assumption when we are discussing metaphysics.
Because trying to prove everything in any discussion is crazy, not philosophy.
What philosophers do is that they determine their topic, it is called : the Universe of discourse And once they define that, then they lay assumptions or axioms they agree on ... And then start their arguments from that.
I can't really believe you missed my point in the previous comment.
We (US) haven't rejected slavery, we just normalized slavery . . . but that's another thread.
That seems to be a recurring theme in all the "Golden Ages of Philosophy" we're supposed to venerate, an elite ruling class born into the idea they are better than everyone else, with nothing but free time on their hands, slaves or servants to keep them from being distracted by that pesky reality.
I can't help but imagine that pondering the nature of reality is a big easier if you aren't the one toiling in the field.
MohamedTaqi
Thinker
Agree that we are off-topic.
sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
Are you familiar with logic and logical proofs?
None of this requires believing in God or disbelieving we are meat computers. Speaking purely for myself, I would be very surprised if any thought or memory I ever had or will have isn't written in/created by my brain in some meat computer way or other. I certainly don't look beyond science to understand how information is processed and decisions are made within the brain.