Yes and that is all you need to know for that is what you asked.
Have not seen any evidence for that.
Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?
- Thread starter RandFan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- exclusive logic materialism mtually
stillthinkin
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 223
Please clarify.
Do you mean that you are not aware of the empirical support for relativity as opposed to newtonian mechanics?
Are you a goldfish by any chance?..... OOOoo forget it here it is:
S: The question was "how can matter confuse things".
A: You assume perfect perception, which is 'quite wrong'.
S: Well, I assume mechanisms have mechanistic results.
A: 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.
S: 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?
A: Of course, if the input (senses) or the reference data (experiences) is wrong or unclear, then the output can be wrong.
S: How would something material ever be wrong? How does the chain of causality among physical things ever amount to being "wrong"?
A: person greets you and asks if he can come in to your home, you say yes. However you couldn't have seen that he has a gun on his back, he then shoots you and steals your money. You in this example was wrong in your assessment, this assessment was based upon what you could see and your experiences with others, both of which are limited.
S: How was this an example of "wrong"? Material stuff did stuff, then some material stuff went through some other stuff, and there is a bunch of stuff left. The same stuff that was there before, just rearranged. Explain where the "wrong" comes in.
A: If it was right/perfect you wouldn't have been shot. It makes it clear that material processes may get a wrong interpretation of the situation.
S: What material process went "wrong"?
A: The matter worked as it should but the conclusion still didn't match reality, and that is the anwser to the question.
S: So matter can be wrong about a conclusion?
Yes, a person/brain (matter) can be wrong/confused even it fully obeys materialism.
There is no contradiction, they are two parts of the same piece.
stillthinkin
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 223
The question was:
While pursuing that, you might also tell me what a material conclusion looks like.
While pursuing that, you might also tell me what a material conclusion looks like.
stillthinkin
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 223
Sorry, they are vastly contradictory - as relative velocities increase, for example. But either way, it doesnt really matter for the purposes of this thread.
Well I did answer that question, for in my example I used a material/logic thought process that reached the wrong conclusion that didn't match what was really going on.
We can also see such events with computers that wrongfully identify items.
You don't know the meaning of your own question?............ LMAO....... Sorry
No there not, both of them have their own area in which they work.
stillthinkin
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 223
We are all quite familiar with thought processes going wrong. You claim this can be explained materially. So I ask again: how can a material state be wrong about anything? How does a material thing not match reality?
Last edited:
You need to be more specific, for it feel like I am talking to a brick wall. For what is immaterial in my example?
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
What is your basis for this statement? Please give me an example.
If an index in a database becomes corrupt it can return illogical data.
I'd rather kill this one. I've shown why your position makes no sense. Why are you still arguing for it?
stillthinkin
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 223
In your example, you propose the case of someone inviting a stranger into their home, who then shoots them. This was offered as an example of something material being wrong.
If we describe this event materially, then it is a case of one piece of matter launching another piece of matter through a third piece of matter. We could go into more detail, and say that a material mammalian digit pulled the material trigger of a material gun, etc. etc. This was all the result of a material set of circumstances which can be traced (theoretically) through physical causality back to the big bang. So I ask you, how is this an example of something material making a mistake?
A thing, property or law does not have to be known, understood or knowable to humans in order to be logically a thing, property or law.
Anything that exists - exists. The properties of the thing exist, any laws that can be observed to govern the thing exist (insofar as they are verifiable).
Materialism is only the logical statement that everything that exists - exists (whether or not we currently know of or understand it). A denial of materialism is really a denial of logic.
If you (religious person of any persuasion) want your god to be real then you have to accept that he/she exists and is therefore bound by materialism.
Anything that exists - exists. The properties of the thing exist, any laws that can be observed to govern the thing exist (insofar as they are verifiable).
Materialism is only the logical statement that everything that exists - exists (whether or not we currently know of or understand it). A denial of materialism is really a denial of logic.
If you (religious person of any persuasion) want your god to be real then you have to accept that he/she exists and is therefore bound by materialism.
Well the brain of the mammal that invited the other mammal in has made a mistake.
Can't you see that?
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
And a brain they connect to. Not after m'dog has had its way with it, of course.
stillthinkin
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 223
If it was physically, materially, deterministically, caused by preceding physical states... then how was it a mistake? Tell me how the matter made a mistake.
What do you qualify as mistake?
stillthinkin
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 223
Your example was fine (I am not arguing, for example, that if i didnt see the gun it wasnt a mistake). Well, when we do sums of numbers, we can make mistakes. We can make mistakes when we are doing arguments, we can make mistakes on a Formal Logic exam.
I would think that in a materialist view, mistakes would have to be illusory, since everything matter does is actually physically, mechanistically determined. There really can be no such thing as a mistake.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
True. In some sense ... (I just couldn't resist
.)Is consistency a human construct? I'm not at all so sure about that. My gut-feeling is that any inconsistent universe will cancel itself out.
Doubtless there are philosophers out there who can explain the difference between "truth" and "consistency" better than I can.
That would be a wrong vision, just because a judgement doesn't impact the mechanisme, doesn't make it any less of a mistake or less materialistic.
As it is that viewpoint of yours has nothing to do with the topic but more about if a self exists.