Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

AWPrime said:
You assume perfect perception, which is 'quite wrong'.
Click to expand...
Well, I assume mechanisms have mechanistic results.

Let's assume only the laws of physics, chemistry, the principle of causality, and so on, and then come up with a theory explaining how these principles, as they are exhibited in material things, might result in something which can 1.) make logical inferences, 2.) get confused... and perhaps we can go from there?

Let's be clear as well: to (a) observe that there are things which exist and have certain capabilities, and then to (b) hypothesize that all these things' capabilities can be explained by materialism... and then to argue that all things observed under (a) are material because of (b) is to beg the question.

Indeed, FTB made a point a while back about the definition of materialism. Perhaps we should start with that.
 
stillthinkin said:
Where do I claim I have accomplished the task? Are you confusing me with another poster again?

The very simple argument I presented only requires one counter-example to be defeated. No valid counter-example has been found, though many were offered right from the start of this thread... they have been easily dismissed. The case of a human being is not valid because when it is offered it begs the question of the hypothesis. So, let us say that the argument asks a question: what is a valid example of something material which combines premises by logical inference to reach conclusions?

And please, lets avoid the fallacy of begging the question.
Click to expand...
No, you are still wrong. I'm not begging the question. EVERYTHING does not need to be material for humans to be only material. This is your false dichotomy. Materialism can be false and people could still be 100% material, there is nothing illogical about that. If you want to presume humans have an immaterial component you’ll have to show that to be the case, not simply assume that is so to hold up your argument.

Edited to bold your argument from ignorance, the fact that no counter-examples have been shown does not prove your premise true.
 
Last edited:
Show either that part of a human which is immaterial or explain why logic cannot be achieved materialistically. I'll keep following the thread to see if you do, but otherwise I'm out. This has become nothing but an endless circling.
 
stillthinkin said:
Well, I assume mechanisms have mechanistic results.
Click to expand...
That is something different. From one POV one can only gain a limited amount of data, then it is up to experiences and learned logic to fill in the gaps.

And these don't need to match to the truth.
 
stillthinkin said:
Well, I assume mechanisms have mechanistic results.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that they also have entirely mechanistic causes too. Philosophers refer to this as the causal closure of the physical.

It means that the logical statements that you type, which appear on my physical computer monitor, must have purely physical causes. Which means they have as their source your physical body, not some immaterial mind.

This is why people who believe in immaterial minds rarely use logic as an example. The exceptions being theologians like Plantinga who are quite happy to imagine God breaking the laws of physics. Non-materialists usually restrict their arguments to causally inefficacious qualia.
 
chriswl said:
Don't forget that they also have entirely mechanistic causes too. Philosophers refer to this as the causal closure of the physical.
Click to expand...

.... purely physical causes. Which means they have as their source your physical body, not some immaterial mind.
Click to expand...
Materialism at it's finest.

This is why people who believe in immaterial minds rarely use logic as an example. The exceptions being theologians like Plantinga who are quite happy to imagine God breaking the laws of physics.
Click to expand...
Or as is tacitly implied immaterial minds in material bodies. That is, the usual dualism nonsense.

Non-materialists usually restrict their arguments to causally inefficacious qualia.
Click to expand...
Idealists should reject the idea that 100% of qualia are causally inefficacious. Some quale is then what we perceive as matter reponding to -- and if free will exists --effecting Reality at least in our perceived-as-physical brains.
 
AWPrime said:
stillthinkin said:
Well, I assume mechanisms have mechanistic results.
Click to expand...
That is something different. From one POV one can only gain a limited amount of data, then it is up to experiences and learned logic to fill in the gaps.

And these don't need to match to the truth.
Click to expand...
So some mechanistic results of the mechanisms of my brain dont have to match to the "truth", but other mechanistic results of the mechanisms of my brain do have to match to the "truth"?

Do I have that right?
 
stillthinkin said:
So some mechanistic results of the mechanisms of my brain dont have to match to the "truth", but other mechanistic results of the mechanisms of my brain do have to match to the "truth"?
Click to expand...
"Truth"? Truth is a human construct.
 
chriswl said:
Don't forget that they also have entirely mechanistic causes too. Philosophers refer to this as the causal closure of the physical.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that an immaterial thing could not physically affect a material thing... I would say "some philosophers make this up without basis".

chriswl said:
It means that the logical statements that you type, which appear on my physical computer monitor, must have purely physical causes. Which means they have as their source your physical body, not some immaterial mind.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the things I type have my mind and person as their source? But you would have me believe, for the sake of the unverifiable tenet of materialism, that I am an illusion of my body. By this way of thinking, Stalin was no different than a tsunami, 9/11 no different than a tornado.

chriswl said:
This is why people who believe in immaterial minds rarely use logic as an example. The exceptions being theologians like Plantinga who are quite happy to imagine God breaking the laws of physics. Non-materialists usually restrict their arguments to causally inefficacious qualia.
Click to expand...
Ya people do, say, and think all kinds of things. Oops... I mean bodies type all kinds of things.
 
Cesium atoms radiate at a frequency of 9,192,631,770 hz. Does that Truth require a human?
 
stillthinkin said:
This reminds me of the times when my friends and I used to sit around drunk and talk the silliest nonsense. Oh the memories...
Click to expand...
That's all well and good but it doesn't change the fact that "truth" is a human construct.
 
stillthinkin said:
So you are saying that an immaterial thing could not physically affect a material thing... I would say "some philosophers make this up without basis".
Click to expand...
How would something that is not material affect a material thing?

Perhaps the things I type have my mind and person as their source? But you would have me believe, for the sake of the unverifiable tenet of materialism, that I am an illusion of my body. By this way of thinking, Stalin was no different than a tsunami, 9/11 no different than a tornado.
Click to expand...
A tsunami is not as dynamic as a human and does not have the potential for empathy or compassion. Otherwise, yes.
 
stillthinkin said:
So some mechanistic results of the mechanisms of my brain dont have to match to the "truth", but other mechanistic results of the mechanisms of my brain do have to match to the "truth"?

Do I have that right?
Click to expand...
Of course, if the input (senses) or the reference data (experiences) is wrong or unclear, then the output can be wrong.
 
RandFan said:
A tsunami is not as dynamic as a human and does not have the potential for empathy or compassion. Otherwise, yes.
Click to expand...
It would take a single human being a number of lifetimes to be anywhere near as dynamic as a tsunami. And what is it about Stalin that should give us the idea that he was capable of empathy or compassion?
 
AWPrime said:
Of course, if the input (senses) or the reference data (experiences) is wrong or unclear, then the output can be wrong.
Click to expand...
How would something material ever be wrong? How does the chain of causality among physical things ever amount to being "wrong"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom