Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

[RandFan]

Hello... is this thing on?

Guess I'm on ignore. Oh well. I tried.

 

[Fifty Thousand Bucks]

The Little Big Horn

Dear ILTHL,

Thank you for the note on "fitful". I must have been sleeping rather fitfully to write such. Undoubtedly, I was still dreaming of P-Zombies!

But back to the ball. You wrote:

As a logical fallacy equivocation is also called ambiguity of terms; they mean the same thing in this context, and it doesn’t necessarily require you to use any word more than once. It’s a fact that people are required to eat from time to time in order to live (ok, aside from using a feeding tube or other medical intervention). If I say, “I’ve been lost in the desert for almost a week, and I need something to eat and a shower,” it would be fallacious to conclude that if I never receive either of those I’ll die. Need was used ambiguously within that sentence, and the fallacious conclusion was the result of equivocation even though it was only said once.

This is all well and fine, although I think mostly wrong on the details. However, you haven't addressed my challenge to you in my post. My question is still unanswered: What did I say that indicated confusion of meaning re "need", or involved equivocation on the word, or traded on ambiguity?

Either point out what it was I said that justified your charge (and I will gladly accept correction) or back away (and I will declare you a gentleman). It is a challenge you can't really lose.

That you used "need" as an ambiguous term in your sentence is not support for your claim that I did the same.

You also wrote:

Perhaps this confusion stems from a misinterpretation. “At the end of the day,” that’s the qualifier you used in your sentence, and the one which I repeated, for when “we need what we need” applies. Now, I took “at the end of the day” to mean when everything is explained or when we have a complete and comprehensive understanding of the phenomena, not literally “at the end of the day” as in when the sun goes down. With this I agree. When everything is fully explained we’ll need every principle that was needed to explain it. The problem is, we are not at this point, no where near this point in fact, and may never reach that point. The only needs that apply now are the ones that logic and the evidence impose. The needed principles of the dualistic notion, as of now, have neither. There is no evidence of an additional immaterial component, and the logical reasons are presented on fallacy, usually as an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity, or on appeals to consequence or emotion. To say those principles are founded just because they are necessary by dualistic explanations is quite simply incorrect.

Whose confusion? Mine or yours?

For my part, I think you go too far in asserting that there is "no evidence" of immateriality. Given that no one has yet delivered the desired/promised materialist demonstration of any number of things (e.g. intentionality) short of denying the phenomenon of intentionality as illusion or the hand waving of emergent properties (Note: I prefer the latter to the former simply because it doesn't deny the obvious. My assertions are about something or other.), wouldn't the more prudent statement be that the evidence is, say, not compelling?

You also wrote:

As for your dismissal of the p-zombie argument, that is something I’d tend to agree with you on. However, simply dismissing it or possessing the ability to “sleep fitfully without it” (which, by the way, means to sleep restlessly or poorly, so I’ll assume you didn’t mean that term) does not prove the argument false. As I said, the p-zombie argument seems to withstand counter-argument well; simply ignoring it doesn’t change anything, and it certainly isn’t an argument against it.

Are you sure you read my post? I don't recall simply dismissing the P-Zombie argument without counterargument or ignoring it, simply or otherwise. I thought that I had presented a fairly robust argument against it. The fact that it didn't include every possible intermediary premise shouldn't obscure this.

Finally, you wrote:

So far, Stillthinkin is arguing from assertion. He has simply asserted that material cannot “do logic” or experience, and from this assertion he has concluded, that since humans do logic and experience, we are not (or at least not completely) material. The problem is that his assertion is completely logically unfounded and rests solely on fallacy. He has not and in all actuality cannot prove that material is incapable of “doing logic” or experience. He can find the notion ridiculous, he can say no evidence shows it can or does; we could even agree on both accounts, but that doesn’t prove it true. Each is a fallacious argument, argument from personal incredulity and from ignorance respectively, and the logic does not support the conclusions. A proof built on fallacy is no proof at all.

I confess that I haven't followed or adequately analyzed all of ST's postings. But why shift from my post to his? Moreover, I'm not persuaded that everything ST has said is assertion without any backup, as you suggest. And finally, assuming for the sake of argument that ST is resting on assertions alone as you say, I should think you might wish to consider what evidence might support those assertions. You are a clever person. It shouldn't be difficult for you to investigate these things for yourself. Unless, of course, you are wedded to an apriori that is unassailable by any argument or evidence.

For my part, I find it difficult to identify all that many such intellectual fortresses in my life. I'm fairly particular when it comes to the hills I am willing to die on.

Cheers,

FTB

 

[I less than three logic]

This is all well and fine, although I think mostly wrong on the details. However, you haven't addressed my challenge to you in my post. My question is still unanswered: What did I say that indicated confusion of meaning re "need", or involved equivocation on the word, or traded on ambiguity?

Either point out what it was I said that justified your charge (and I will gladly accept correction) or back away (and I will declare you a gentleman). It is a challenge you can't really lose.

That you used "need" as an ambiguous term in your sentence is not support for your claim that I did the same.

First, I didn’t accuse of committing equivocation, only that you were treading close to that line. So, I have no problem retracting that claim because I never made it in the first place. Second, you did not have to use need ambiguously within your own post to commit the fallacy, only use the ambiguousness of the term to change the meaning of the word mid-argument which is why I said you were treading close. My use of need never meant it was required, and certain that its use means that what was being implied as needed makes that principle founded. I agreed with your statement on what is needed, but only whist retaining the qualifying statement for when that particular phrase applied. Also, reading back through my post I noticed a typo.

Yes, at the end of the day, we need as many principles as we need. However, you can just go adding unfounded principles simply because you’re uncomfortable with the consequences of not having it.

This should have read can’t, not can, and that was in the context of ST’s and most dualistic arguments. I can see how this could certainly lead to this confusion we appear to be in. If so, I apologize.

Now, for the sake of logic I’d like to move down within your post before addressing the remainder of it.

I confess that I haven't followed or adequately analyzed all of ST's postings. But why shift from my post to his? Moreover, I'm not persuaded that everything ST has said is assertion without any backup, as you suggest. And finally, assuming for the sake of argument that ST is resting on assertions alone as you say, I should think you might wish to consider what evidence might support those assertions. You are a clever person. It shouldn't be difficult for you to investigate these things for yourself. Unless, of course, you are wedded to an apriori that is unassailable by any argument or evidence.

I’ve always been speaking in terms of ST’s argument from the start of this little side chat with you. I don’t even know what your argument is let alone what I’d be arguing against. In fact, I find myself agreeing with you on many points, but perhaps not the reasons you hold those points, I think. You addressed my post in which I was addressing ST’s argument, and, with this thread being intended to be about ST’s argument, I naturally assumed that was what the context of our conversation was about.

Now, if you don’t agree that his argument is simply an assertion, perhaps you can point to the evidence that supports it. As for speculating what evidence I would accept, that’s easy. I simply require empirical evidence that something immaterial exists, along with empirical evidence of the said immaterial thing’s interaction with the brain correlating with brain functions and thoughts/experience. See, quite simple. The only other way to prove it must exist is to know absolutely everything else about the brain, how it works in absolutely every way, and prove that what it does just isn’t possible without this immaterial component. Quite an impossible task if you ask me. Most people find proving a negative to be like that.

Whose confusion? Mine or yours?

For my part, I think you go too far in asserting that there is "no evidence" of immateriality. Given that no one has yet delivered the desired/promised materialist demonstration of any number of things (e.g. intentionality) short of denying the phenomenon of intentionality as illusion or the hand waving of emergent properties (Note: I prefer the latter to the former simply because it doesn't deny the obvious. My assertions are about something or other.), wouldn't the more prudent statement be that the evidence is, say, not compelling?

I assumed the confusion was on my part for misinterpreting your meaning of that phrase, which is why I went into detail explaining what I took the meaning of that phrase to be. If there is something you disagree with there, please point it out. Also, I’ve already stated above what evidence I’d expect for this immaterial stuff, so I don’t agree the “evidence” is not compelling; it appears non-existent. The only other way to assert it exists is on faulty logic. Even within this statement you invoke an argument from ignorance. The failure to prove materialism true or to deliver demonstrations for everything people would like it to explain does not even provide evidence for immaterial notions, let alone prove they are correct. It simply means the evidence supporting materialism in those cases is lacking, nothing more can be drawn from that lack of evidence.

Are you sure you read my post? I don't recall simply dismissing the P-Zombie argument without counterargument or ignoring it, simply or otherwise. I thought that I had presented a fairly robust argument against it. The fact that it didn't include every possible intermediary premise shouldn't obscure this.

It seemed to me you simply dismissed the p-zombie argument by a hand weave saying it was just wordplay.

By the way, I usually take “communicate”, “express”, “exhibit”, etc. as success terms. Understood in this way, it is contradictory to hold that something communicates experience but lacks experience. (This doesn’t mean we can’t use the words in other ways. Fine.) We are every bit as much (and to my way of thinking more) entitled to say that the thing isn’t really communicating experience as to say it doesn’t have any experience to communicate.

Sure, I’m dismissive of the p-zombie argument. I'll sleep fitfully without p-zombies.

What do you mean by “it isn’t ‘really’ communicating experience”? Sounds like a variant of a no true Scotsman, dismissing the p-zombie’s form of communication as not “real” communication. The p-zombie argument has been attacked before, many times in fact, on this forum. Perhaps you can be the one that puts the nail in the coffin for it. I’d sure appreciate it; I find that particular argument exceptionally annoying.

 

[stillthinkin]

If these are my options, that is, materialism or idealism, hey, I'm a materialist.

Paradoxically, after considering their postings, I suspect that RF and ST would say the same.

I would be happy to confirm what you suspect: if these were the only two options - materialism or idealism - then I would pitch my tent with materialism.

That said, we must add, of course... that we dont even have a complete list of the "options" available to us, and if I understand Godel correctly, we can never have even a complete finite set of axioms. Which then prompts me to ask why anyone would expect a good explanation of reality to be monist.

 

[hammegk]

Once you have a rational comment or alternate suggestion to the statement; "If it effects or affects Reality, it's made of the same stuff."; until then, hello monism.

 

[stillthinkin]

I read the first and last page... sad to see UndercoverElephant got suspended. It looks like an interesting thread. I share UE's frustration expressed in the first page. Materialist argument looks more and more like "dumb faith" to me.

UE's a good friend of mine. We go way back.

Is he back online now?

If everything is material, then matter is the only category. So if human behaviour can be completely explained in terms of material interactions among particles, then it is a valid question to ask: how would material interactions ever amount to a "mistake".

As I said before, a corrupt computer file will return seemingly illogical data. This really isn't controversial or the magic bullet you think it is. It's well understood.

There is nothing "illogical" about a corrupt datafile, nor is it an example of something material making a mistake or malfunctioning. I responded to your example earlier, here.

One magic wand which materialist faith likes to wave is "complexity". Gosh, its all just so "mind-boggling". Well actually electromagnetic interactions are quite simple. We also know they never make a mistake... as CapelDodger put it, electrons dont absentmindedly not notice an electromagnetic field.

Yes, but complex systems can produce seemingly illogical events. These events, including human ones, only seem illogical because we don't fully understand them or we judge them on norms that we pre-define.

I dont think you need a "complex system" to produce a "seemingly illogical event". Are you saying human beings are only "seemingly illogical" when they make mistakes?

Let's work this out, give me an example of what you belive to be a mistake?

I suspect that pun was not intentional. Sometimes those are the funniest kind.

Again - how does matter end up with "judgements" and "goals"? If materialism is true, how does it account for these? In what configuration do we put matter so that it ends up with "judgements" and "goals", and then with "mistakes" regarding them? Further, how does matter end up suffering from delusions?

I'm not certain why you think this is significant. It's not. Sentience is an emergent property of complex systems. I can program a computer to on occasion return 3 instead of 2 as a result of 1+1. It just requires additional programming. Computers CAN make mistakes if they are programed to. They aren't really mistakes and in fact humans don't ever act illogically (make mistakes). What we call a mistake is a human judgment based on relative assumptions.

If a computer does what it is programmed to, how is that a mistake? Are you sure it isnt logical?

"Emergent property" - another bit of pixie dust, falling softly from the magic wand of complexity.

 

[Z]

Once you have a rational comment or alternate suggestion to the statement; "If it effects or affects Reality, it's made of the same stuff."; until then, hello monism.

THANK YOU.

(Just wanted to share my rare support of a Hammegk post... )

 

[RandFan]

Is he back online now?

Yeah, he comes on from time to time.

There is nothing "illogical" about a corrupt datafile...

That's exactly my point. And there is nothing "illogical" about anything that a human does either. Nothing. They make mistakes the same way computers make mistakes. We only interpret the behavior as a mistake. It's not.

...nor is it an example of something material making a mistake or malfunctioning.

It's not meant to be an example but you are begging the question and going far afield. We haven't even defined yet what you mean by mistake. Humans don't make mistakes anymore than computers make mistakes. What we call a mistake is simply labeled as such much the same way people label erroneous data due to a corrupt table a mistake.

I responded to your example earlier, here.

Found it (see below).

I dont think you need a "complex system" to produce a "seemingly illogical event". Are you saying human beings are only "seemingly illogical" when they make mistakes?

Well you haven't even defined mistake. Give me an example so we can discuss it. In any event, yes, a "mistake" or "illogical event" is one that we define as a mistake. It really isn't.

I suspect that pun was not intentional. Sometimes those are the funniest kind.

Not a clue. I asked if you could give us an example of something you would call a mistake and I could show you how it wasn't according to what I believe you to mean by mistake.

If a computer does what it is programmed to, how is that a mistake? Are you sure it isnt logical?

There really is no such thing as a "mistake" if you define mistake as something that is completely illogical. No such thing exists. But if I programed a computer to return 3 as a result of 1+1 an unwary person using the computer would think that the computer made a mistake. No, the person didn't understand all of the variables and programing code of the computer. Same with humans.

"Emergent property" - another bit of pixie dust, falling softly from the magic wand of complexity.

? Do you believe that flight is pixie dust?

 

[RandFan]

You mention brain damage; RandFan suggested earlier the example of a corrupt database returning "illogical data". These would suggest the possibility of mistakes being the result of some kind of "malfunction". But we know that material things dont really malfunction -- matter always does what it is supposed to. When a brain is damaged by, say, a stroke - then matter has done exactly what it is supposed to. When a hard drive fails, it has not done so in violation of mechanistically determined material reality, but precisely because of it. Things break down because matter under stress breaks down, all according to the laws of physics.

Yes, and this IS what the brain does. If it breaks down it returns data that we don't understand or the behavior appears to us to be a "mistake". If there is wiring and connections that are not strong enough to calculate correctly then a human won't return the same results all of the time. Brains make biological connections. The more connections the more accurate the results. This is why it is said that "practice makes perfect". Practice strengthens the connections. Sometimes the connections grow weak or sometimes new connections reroute the process and we make a mistake because we have a false memory or bad pathway, analogous to bad data in a computer.

This can be replicated using neural networks BTW. A speech recognition program will improve its performance with practice. It could be said that in the beginning the program "makes mistakes" but over time makes fewer mistakes. Ditto for humans.

 

[stillthinkin]

There is nothing "illogical" about a corrupt datafile...

That's exactly my point.

I could have sworn it was my point... either way then. I would add, also, that in a materialist account there can be no
such thing as "corrupt". A material thing is always exactly what it is supposed to be, exactly what it has to be, no more and
no less.

And there is nothing "illogical" about anything that a human does either. Nothing. They make mistakes the same
way computers make mistakes. We only interpret the behavior as a mistake. It's not.

Let me see if I follow you: humans and computers make mistakes the same way, but actually that is only our interpretation of what is happening, they arent really mistakes. So, strangely, we are mistaken when we think we are mistaken. On this, see my "pixie dust" comment below.

...nor is it an example of something material making a mistake or malfunctioning.

It's not meant to be an example but you are begging the question and going far afield. We haven't even defined yet what you
mean by mistake. Humans don't make mistakes anymore than computers make mistakes. What we call a mistake is simply labeled as
such much the same way people label erroneous data due to a corrupt table a mistake.

There is nothing here involving "begging the question" or "going far afield"; such claims are mere rhetoric, with which you do tend to litter your responses. In my discussion with AWPrime where I asked him for an example of a "material thing which did not match reality", you originally offered "If an index in a database becomes corrupt it can return illogical data." When I asked a few posts ago "how would material interactions ever amount to a "mistake", you offered "As I said before, a corrupt computer file will return seemingly illogical data", where now you inject the word "seemingly". But please note that when you claim "mistake" is merely a label for "erroneous data" due to a "corrupt table", you need to recognize that terms like "erroneous" and "corrupt" can never apply accurately to a material reality, any more than "mistake" can... if by any of these terms you mean that the material in question should be or can be something other than it is.

I dont think you need a "complex system" to produce a "seemingly illogical event". Are you
saying human beings are only "seemingly illogical" when they make mistakes?

Well you haven't even defined mistake. Give me an example so we can discuss it. In any event, yes, a "mistake" or "illogical
event" is one that we define as a mistake. It really isn't.

It is funny how you can use a phrase like "emergent property" without a definition, but then claim that we need a definition of
"mistake" as though people were familiar with "emergent property" but not familiar with "mistake". A mistake is an error. I dont really know anyone who hasnt made one.

I suspect that pun was not intentional. Sometimes those are the funniest kind.

Not a clue. ... I asked if you could give us an example of something you would call a mistake and I could show you how it
wasn't according to what I believe you to mean by mistake.

In your question you misspelled "believe". The pun was that you made a mistake in your request for an example of a mistake.

"Emergent property" - another bit of pixie dust, falling softly from the magic wand of
complexity.

? Do you believe that flight is pixie dust?

Absolutely - the pretentious flights of phantasy by which materialists contort their thinking in order to support the outrageous hypothesis of materialist reductionism is pure pixie dust. Keep sprinking.

 

[RandFan]

I could have sworn it was my point... either way then. I would add, also, that in a materialist account there can be no
such thing as "corrupt". A material thing is always exactly what it is supposed to be, exactly what it has to be, no more and
no less.

So a database never becomes corrupt?

Let's be clear here.

1.) I agree with the concept that nothing is ever "corrupt". Corrupt is simply a word we use to understand that the data file is no longer operating the way we want or intend due to physical processes.

2.) Humans likewise are never corrupt. This is just a word that we use to describe behavior that we do not understand or behavior that is outside of some norm.

#1 and #2 are the same. You are simply asserting that #1 is different from #2 without justifying your assertion.

It is your claim. You need to justify the claim that humans behave in a way that machines do not. Otherwise you are begging the question.

I'm still waiting for an example.

Let me see if I follow you: humans and computers make mistakes the same way, but actually that is only our interpretation of what is happening, they arent really mistakes. So, strangely, we are mistaken when we think we are mistaken. On this, see my "pixie dust" comment below.

You still haven't given me an example so we don't even have something for comparison. However, we use the word "mistake" to convey information about a state or a behavior that is counter to expected behavior or that deviates from the norm (I'm sure there are a lot of other descriptive definitions).

There is nothing here involving "begging the question" or "going far afield"; such claims are mere rhetoric

Ahhh.... NO. Begging the question is not rhetoric. Pixie Dust on the other hand IS rhetoric.

with which you do tend to litter your responses.

No. I don't. I don't talk about things like pixie dust YOU DO. You are projecting.

Pixie dust is not argument. It is not a logical premise. It is not axiomatic. It is sophistry pure and simple.

In my discussion with AWPrime where I asked him for an example of a "material thing which did not match reality", you originally offered "If an index in a database becomes corrupt it can return illogical data." When I asked a few posts ago "how would material interactions ever amount to a "mistake", you offered "As I said before, a corrupt computer file will return seemingly illogical data", where now you inject the word "seemingly". But please note that when you claim "mistake" is merely a label for "erroneous data" due to a "corrupt table", you need to recognize that terms like "erroneous" and "corrupt" can never apply accurately to a material reality, any more than "mistake" can... if by any of these terms you mean that the material in question should be or can be something other than it is.

Odd, I keep asking you for an example and you keep refusing. Why is that? Humans and machines behave in ways that we do not want them to or we do not intend them to.

Examples:

1. My computer returns erroneous data due to a corrupt data file. This is called a malfunction.
2. My assistant returns erroneous data on her report. This is also called a malfunction.

Please to explain the difference?

It is funny how you can use a phrase like "emergent property" without a definition, but then claim that we need a definition of
"mistake" as though people were familiar with "emergent property" but not familiar with "mistake". A mistake is an error. I dont really know anyone who hasnt made one.

Computers make them also. Machines malfunction and so do people. Computers make mistakes and so do people. You are just engaging in a semantic argument without defining your terms. There is no difference between computer errors and human errors. You simply assert that there is. There isn't.

AS to "emergent property" please see this article.

In your question you misspelled "believe". The pun was that you made a mistake in your request for an example of a mistake.

It wasn't intended to be a pun. It would have been nice if you could have pointed it out. In any event. I did the same thing as a machine. I made an error due to faulty states and/or variables in my brain.

Absolutely - the pretentious flights of phantasy by which materialists contort their thinking in order to support the outrageous hypothesis of materialist reductionism is pure pixie dust. Keep sprinking.

See, THIS IS rhetorical. I asked a reasoned question and you came back with something that did not advance your argument and did not in good faith answer my question. Odd that you should accuse me of using rhetoric when I don't and you do it so blatantly (you honestly don't know that something like pixie dust is a rhetorical device?).

A.) You didn't answer my question in good faith.

B.) Your claim of reductionism is a strawman. Materialists don't believe that human intelligence is explained by reductionism anymore than they believe flight is.

 

[stillthinkin]

1.) I agree with the concept that nothing is ever "corrupt". Corrupt is simply a word we use to understand that the data file is no longer operating the way we want or intend due to physical processes.

2.) Humans likewise are never corrupt. This is just a word that we use to describe behavior that we do not understand or behavior that is outside of some norm.

#1 and #2 are the same. You are simply asserting that #1 is different from #2 without justifying your assertion.

I dont recall asserting that there was a difference; I was asking for an account of how something - anything - could make a mistake. In a materialist account both scenarios #1 and #2 are equally absurd. There is no such thing as corrupt matter, whether in a human being or in a computer. In a materialist account there can no such thing as a mistake. Matter always does exactly what it has to. Agreed?

It is your claim. You need to justify the claim that humans behave in a way that machines do not. Otherwise you are begging the question.

I'm still waiting for an example.

You still haven't given me an example so we don't even have something for comparison. However, we use the word "mistake" to convey information about a state or a behavior that is counter to expected behavior or that deviates from the norm (I'm sure there are a lot of other descriptive definitions).


Ahhh.... NO. Begging the question is not rhetoric. Pixie Dust on the other hand IS rhetoric.

Claiming that someone is begging the question when they arent, or that they are going "far afield", is rhetorical ad hominem. Claiming that an argument is pixie dust is a metaphor. I am glad you dont like rhetorical appeals though, I trust you will work on reducing your reliance on them.

Odd, I keep asking you for an example and you keep refusing. Why is that? Humans and machines behave in ways that we do not want them to or we do not intend them to.

Examples:

1. My computer returns erroneous data due to a corrupt data file. This is called a malfunction.
2. My assistant returns erroneous data on her report. This is also called a malfunction.

Please to explain the difference?

Your examples of errors are fine. Do you understand that in a materialist account there is no such thing as an error, whether human or mechanical? Please, can we agree that there is no such thing as an error or a mistake? Matter simply doesnt make mistakes, it always does what it has to.

AS to "emergent property" please see this article.

I had read that article... I particularly like where it says: "There is no scientific consensus about... how much emergence should be relied upon as an explanation in general. It seems impossible to unambiguously decide whether a phenomenon should be considered emergent." It makes me wonder why you keep appealing to emergent properties. I personally dont think the concept has any explanatory value.

It wasn't intended to be a pun. It would have been nice if you could have pointed it out. In any event. I did the same thing as a machine. I made an error due to faulty states and/or variables in my brain.

I did point it out; I assumed you would find it. I wasnt trying to trip you up, I thought it was funny.
Please note that there is no such thing as a "faulty state or variable" either. Matter is what it is, whatever state it is in is the correct one because it is the only one possible under the given conditions.

See, THIS IS rhetorical. I asked a reasoned question and you came back with something that did not advance your argument and did not in good faith answer my question. Odd that you should accuse me of using rhetoric when I don't and you do it so blatantly (you honestly don't know that something like pixie dust is a rhetorical device?).

Relax, it's a harmless metaphor. I find it odd that you have a problem with "pixie dust", but not with "the pretentious flights of phantasy by which materialists contort their thinking in order to support the outrageous hypothesis of materialist reductionism". You can replace "pixie dust" with "nonsense" if you like.

A.) You didn't answer my question in good faith.

Your question presumes (in good faith I'm sure) that flight is an example of emergence. You believe this simply because flight takes coordination among parts, as we have discussed before. Unless of course we include frisbees. Of course, there is nothing about flight that makes it impossible for an object less complicated than a bird or a plane to do.

B.) Your claim of reductionism is a strawman. Materialists don't believe that human intelligence is explained by reductionism anymore than they believe flight is.

Materialism is reductionist regardless of how much any particular materialist might claim it isnt.

Now RandFan, I have other posters to attend to, and heavy constraints on my time... I answered you out of turn because you said you were "on ignore", which I thought was funny. In retrospect I should have stuck to trying to respond to posters in turn.

 

[I less than three logic]

Your question presumes (in good faith I'm sure) that flight is an example of emergence. You believe this simply because flight takes coordination among parts, as we have discussed before. Unless of course we include frisbees. Of course, there is nothing about flight that makes it impossible for an object less complicated than a bird or a plane to do.

Frisbees don’t fly; they just fall slowly.

 

[RandFan]

I dont recall asserting that there was a difference; I was asking for an account of how something - anything - could make a mistake. In a materialist account both scenarios #1 and #2 are equally absurd. There is no such thing as corrupt matter, whether in a human being or in a computer. In a materialist account there can no such thing as a mistake. Matter always does exactly what it has to. Agreed?

{sigh} Materialists use the word "mistake" and they use it with purpose. Matter (humans included) always does exactly what it has to, I agree.

Claiming that someone is begging the question when they arent, or that they are going "far afield", is rhetorical ad hominem.

That would be fine if you were not begging the question. You were.

Claiming that an argument is pixie dust is a metaphor.

And it is rhetoric. It doesn't advance an argument.

I am glad you dont like rhetorical appeals though, I trust you will work on reducing your reliance on them.

More rhetoric.

Your examples of errors are fine. Do you understand that in a materialist account there is no such thing as an error, whether human or mechanical? Please, can we agree that there is no such thing as an error or a mistake? Matter simply doesnt make mistakes, it always does what it has to.

I have been making that point. I don't know how many more times I can make it. If you don't want to accept my saying yes then there is nothing I can do about that. I can't escape the fact that words have meaning and the words "mistake" "malfunction" and "error" are useful to materialists.

I had read that article... I particularly like where it says: "There is no scientific consensus about... how much emergence should be relied upon as an explanation in general. It seems impossible to unambiguously decide whether a phenomenon should be considered emergent." It makes me wonder why you keep appealing to emergent properties. I personally dont think the concept has any explanatory value.

Many concepts are controversial. Yes, it does say that but that is not the end all to the discussion and it also makes very good and valid arguments that emergence is a valid concept including.

Although the above examples of emergence are often contentious, mathematics provides a rigorous basis for defining and demonstrating emergence.

I did point it out; I assumed you would find it.

These don't reconcile. You either pointed out or you didn't.

Please note that there is no such thing as a "faulty state or variable" either. Matter is what it is, whatever state it is in is the correct one because it is the only one possible under the given conditions.

This is getting really tiring. If we didn't utilize words like "faulty state" or "error" we would have a very hard time working in groups to solve problems... Oh, wait, there are no such things as problems since there are no "faulty states".

I really can't tell whether or not to take you seriously. Either there is utility in words like "malfunction", "error", "corrupt" or there is not.

Do you agree that there is utility in such words?

Do you agree that you are the one that brought up the argument about mistakes?

Do you agree that it is a fatally flawed argument?

Relax, it's a harmless metaphor. I find it odd that you have a problem with "pixie dust", but not with "the pretentious flights of phantasy by which materialists contort their thinking in order to support the outrageous hypothesis of materialist reductionism". You can replace "pixie dust" with "nonsense" if you like.

It's really frustrating when someone complains about me using rhetoric while they dole it out in bunches. I'm not certain you even know what rhetoric is.

Saying something is nonsense is just the automatic gainsaying of another person's premise or proposition. It is rhetoric.

Asserting that materialist claims are flights of fantasy is rhetoric.

Asserting that materialist hypothesis are outrageous is rhetoric.

Where on earth did you get the idea that these things are not rhetorical?

They are rhetorical because they do not attempt to establish by inference a proposition but instead simply make baseless assertions relying on emotive language in an attempt to sway the listener.

In a word "sophistry".

Your question presumes (in good faith I'm sure) that flight is an example of emergence. You believe this simply because flight takes coordination among parts, as we have discussed before. Unless of course we include frisbees. Of course, there is nothing about flight that makes it impossible for an object less complicated than a bird or a plane to do.

You think the aerodynamics of a bird are not complicated?

Materialism is reductionist regardless of how much any particular materialist might claim it isnt.

Sorry, no.

I answered you out of turn because you said you were "on ignore",

Excuse me?

which I thought was funny. In retrospect I should have stuck to trying to respond to posters in turn.

Dude, I have told you on more than one occasion that I really don't care how long you take to answer. No, conclusions will be drawn by me because you don't respond. Period. I'm honestly not debating in the hopes that the other person simply stops responding. I hope we can come to a consensus or agree to disagree. That's it. My ego isn't that big.

Take all the time you need. I'll be here.

 

[AWPrime]

Do you understand that in a materialist account there is no such thing as an error, whether human or mechanical?

Only in your head.

Why not use our terms? You don't seem to define yours.

 

[Z]

OK, what do we have here?

ST attempting to attack materialist monism by attacking terms which developed over time in a dualist society? While attempting to mis-apply them to fundamental material levels, where such dualist terms lose meaning, and at the same time, attempting to imply that such loss of meaning also occurs on the macro/emergent level. Right?

Pathetique.

ST, since you seem to have stopped thinking: 'mistake' is a term developed under a dualist society to describe a state in a given human paradigm, whereby a machine, person, etc. behaves in a manner which is unexpected or undesirable, as related to that paradigm. Unexpected, because we do not have a complete and thorough knowledge of every available variable in every situation, nor the processing ability to calculate all known variables with 100% accuracy. Undesirable, depending on the situation, because the 'mistake' may also lead to a situation which is detrimental to the survival, comfort, or needs of the person or society in question.

Yes, the paragraph above is peppered with more dualist language. That's an unavoidable fact of speaking English: the language developed with a dualist state in mind. Speaking in purely materialist terms would quickly become bulky and overbearing, but could be done, in theory.

Simple processes cannot make mistakes, because simple processes have no frame of reference, no ambiguous states, in which to make 'mistakes'. There are no behaviors which are more or less desirable for a falling rock or a moving electron; there are only behaviors which will or won't happen. But when an organization of matter becomes sufficiently complex, it gains entire categories of complex behaviors, like movement, reproduction, etc. Eventually, the organization becomes complex enough to determine that some behaviors result in survival or reproduction, and others do not; that some result in injury or pain, and others do not. Eventually, the matter reorganizes sufficiently to choose behaviors that, more often than not, lead to beneficient reactions to the organism, while avoiding behaviors that lead to injurious or detrimental reactions.

As the matter becomes even more complex, a complex thought processor comes to exist which is self-referrential, capable of internal communication, etc. This complex computer starts labelling things, and determines that behaviors which lead to detriment are best labelled as 'mistakes'. It's a label, nothing more.

A water molecule can't erode a mountain. A thousand years of rain can. The former is a simple system; the latter, a complex one.

A single carbon atom can't break anything. An arrangement of carbon in a crystalline structure can cut glass.

Matter can't make mistakes. People can.

Same thing.

 

[RandFan]

Hello... is this thing on?

Guess I'm on ignore. Oh well. I tried.

Stillthinking, I owe you an appology. I now see what you mean. I thought you had ignored my earlier posts. Again, I'm sorry. Please take your time in answering me. I won't make this mistake again, I promise.

 

[stillthinkin]

The case of human beings begs the question, since we dont really know (strangely, enigmatically) of what "stuff" we are made... we need to clarify whether things material - electrons, atoms, molecules, mixtures, etc. etc. - which always obey the laws of physics, could possibly ever explain what human beings are and do.

We have no reason to believe that the outward behaviour of humans cannot be entirely explained by considering them as being material entities. This is not a statement of materialism, it leaves open the possibility of humans having an "inner" dimension inaccessible to physical science. It may be rational to hold that physics cannot fully explain what we are but it is not rational to claim that it cannot explain what we do. What we do is physical and this is what physics explains.

You make an interesting distinction here, between what we are and what we do... though I think that what we can do is dictated by what we are, while what we are is revealed by what we can do.

If we define materialism as the belief "everything that exists is material" then that would seem to exclude any sort of inner dimension existing which is not material. So I have two questions for you:
1. when you say it would be inaccessible to physical science, what do you mean?
2. why would you think that we have an inner dimension, except based on what we do?

 

[President Bush]

ST, since you seem to have stopped thinking: 'mistake' is a term developed under a dualist society to describe a state in a given human paradigm, whereby a machine, person, etc. behaves in a manner which is unexpected or undesirable, as related to that paradigm. Unexpected, because we do not have a complete and thorough knowledge of every available variable in every situation, nor the processing ability to calculate all known variables with 100% accuracy. Undesirable, depending on the situation, because the 'mistake' may also lead to a situation which is detrimental to the survival, comfort, or needs of the person or society in question.

Yes, the paragraph above is peppered with more dualist language. That's an unavoidable fact of speaking English: the language developed with a dualist state in mind. Speaking in purely materialist terms would quickly become bulky and overbearing, but could be done, in theory.

I am only a part-time bystander here but am, nevertheless, curious: what does it look like to critique stillthinkin's perspective while speaking in purely materialistic terms?

 

[Demigorgon]

Ok, someone bumped this thread, and I'm sure as hell not going to read it all before, but I remember when I took a course in socilology there was this "<inisert name here> pyramid of needs" or the like. Can I be more vague? Not doing my professor any favors. Anyway, it went something to the effect of

Philosophy
<stuff here>
<more stuff here>
<some more stuff here>
<Food and shelter >

you get the jist....

Basicly it boils down to: only after all other needs are satisfied do you have time to sit around and be Socrates.