Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

[President Bush]

If you want to claim the possibility doesn’t exist, that it is impossible for machines to ever do what humans can do...

Where have I done this? My point stands:

Ok, is it demonstrable that machines can't ever do this? Poor wording on my part but you have not demonstrated that machines cannot ever do this only that they don't do it now.

How is this not the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative?

I merely answered your question, RandFan. Now you want me to explain why no machine will ever do a knock off of Tesla's performance? Shouldn't the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, that a machine can (someday) knock off Tesla's performance?

What doesn't yet exist cannot be shown to be substandard.

 

[I less than three logic]

Where have I done this? My point stands:

Didn’t even say you needed to. My reply isn’t wrapped up in that one sentence. However, since you asked, I’ll explain it for you. Randfan first asked for things humans can do that machines don’t. You answered him, and your answers were in order for the question of don’t, as in currently. Randfan corrected himself, stating he should have used can’t instead of don’t, thus extending the timetable indefinitely to allow for the possibility of what we don’t currently understand or our current limitations. You then accused him of committing a fallacy. Which is probably an attempt to circumvent answering the question.

Unfortunately for you, Randfan isn’t saying that such machines exist, or even that they will exist, only that the possibly that they may one day exist, might exists. Since he is not claiming that your inability to prove they don’t exist proves that they do or will exist, this is not a negative proof and not the fallacy you’re attempting to claim it is. He is claiming that our inability to prove it impossible means that may be possible. You should read the entire article you linked to. Towards the middle is this little bit.

This fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of god, and the existence of aliens in the following form:

• "A supernatural force must exist because there is no proof that it does not exist".

However, the converse is also true, according to the argument from ignorance:

• "I have not seen proof that something supernatural exists, therefore a supernatural force cannot exist".

So, what is your answer to “What is it that humans do that machines can't? (ever)”


Here is an example, from the wiki article on an argument from ignorance that you may be able to draw some similairity to, and that you may want to avoid.

"The solar system must be younger than a million years because even if the sun was made of solid coal and oxygen it would have burned up within that time at the rate it generates heat" " (an argument from ignorance, from 19th Century encyclopedias, based on the assumption that because there was no known means at that time of producing heat more efficient than coal, this logically put a limit on the Sun's possible age.

Bolding in the quotes is mine.

 

[RandFan]

How is this not the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative?

We need to go back.

Stillthinkin: Humans make mistakes and machines don't.

RandFan: To avoid begging the question we can't start by assuming that machines are fundamentally different than humans. This must be demonstrated.

(I asked a question how are machines and humans different?)

PB: Machines don't "spontaneously visualize, independently problem solve, then invent... machinery".

This is a god of the gaps type argument. It assumes that since there is a gap in our understanding (we don't as yet know how to make machines to do this) that their must be something fundamentally different from machines.

But your answer PB doesn't in fact demonstrate that we are fundamentally different. You only list things that humans can do that machines can't. Machines may very well do this someday. What is fundamentally different about machines to presume that they never can do this?

More importantly,

What is it that humans can do that violates the principles of physicalism? That is, what things do humans do that are impossible for any mechanical system ever to do?

Of course you skipped this question didn't you PB? I'm guessing we aren't about to get an answer either.

1.) Your list of things is just a list of things and doesn't tell us how humans and machines are different. Again, it requires a god of the gaps assumption that there is something unknown that is different without telling us what the underlying difference is.

2.) The claim that humans make mistakes and machines don't is still simply asserted. No argument to date has been made to substantiate the claim.

 

[President Bush]

Randfan first asked for things humans can do that machines don’t. You answered him, and your answers were in order for the question of don’t, as in currently.

RandFan indicated that he believed I had demonstrated with this post that machines can not do (now) what humans do.

Randfan corrected himself, stating he should have used can’t instead of don’t, thus extending the timetable indefinitely to allow for the possibility of what we don’t currently understand or our current limitations.

Then he asked the wrong question (for his purposes), originally. But his was the question I answered, and appropriately.

In this act of correcting himself, then, RandFan informed me I had not demonstrated that machines will not ever do what humans do with my example of Tesla's visualization and invention of his alternating-current motor.

You then accused him of committing a fallacy. Which is probably an attempt to circumvent answering the question.

RandFan's original question had nothing to do with a demonstration of how machines will not ever do what humans can. I never would have answered a question concerning the possibility or impossibility of machines someday doing what humans do. My example of Tesla was not meant to answer the question of whether machines will someday do what humans do. Yet my quite appropriate answer to the simple question of what is it that humans do that machines don't was not accepted as I was told it didn't demonstrate how machines will never do what humans do. As though it were meant to.

This is the context in which I asked RandFan if he now wanted me to explain why no machine will ever do what humans do (a knock off of Tesla's performance). For the first time I was actually addressing the question of the possibility/impossibility of future machinery doing what humans do. A question I found completely meaningless.

I responded to a question I found completely meaningless by asking the (logical) question: shouldn't the burden of proof be on your proposed idea (that it is not impossible that a machine will someday do what humans do)?

 

[President Bush]

We need to go back.

Stillthinkin: Humans make mistakes and machines don't.

RandFan: To avoid begging the question we can't start by assuming that machines are fundamentally different than humans. This must be demonstrated.

(I asked a question how are machines and humans different?)

PB: Machines don't "spontaneously visualize, independently problem solve, then invent... machinery".

This is a god of the gaps type argument. It assumes that since there is a gap in our understanding (we don't as yet know how to make machines to do this) that their must be something fundamentally different from machines.

But your answer PB doesn't in fact demonstrate that we are fundamentally different. You only list things that humans can do that machines can't. Machines may very well do this someday. What is fundamentally different about machines to presume that they never can do this?

More importantly,

Of course you skipped this question didn't you PB? I'm guessing we aren't about to get an answer either.

1.) Your list of things is just a list of things and doesn't tell us how humans and machines are different. Again, it requires a god of the gaps assumption that there is something unknown that is different without telling us what the underlying difference is.

2.) The claim that humans make mistakes and machines don't is still simply asserted. No argument to date has been made to substantiate the claim.

Please just read my answer to I less than three logic above, Randfan. Try to remember I am not making stillthinkin's arguments.

He does that just fine on his own.

 

[I less than three logic]

RandFan indicated that he believed I had demonstrated with this post that machines can not do (now) what humans do.


Then he asked the wrong question (for his purposes), originally. But his was the question I answered, and appropriately.

In this act of correcting himself, then, RandFan informed me I had not demonstrated that machines will not ever do what humans do with my example of Tesla's visualization and invention of his alternating-current motor.


RandFan's original question had nothing to do with a demonstration of how machines will not ever do what humans can. I never would have answered a question concerning the possibility or impossibility of machines someday doing what humans do. My example of Tesla was not meant to answer the question of whether machines will someday do what humans do. Yet my quite appropriate answer to the simple question of what is it that humans do that machines don't was not accepted as I was told it didn't demonstrate how machines will never do what humans do. As though it were meant to.

This is the context in which I asked RandFan if he now wanted me to explain why no machine will ever do what humans do (a knock off of Tesla's performance). For the first time I was actually addressing the question of the possibility/impossibility of future machinery doing what humans do. A question I found completely meaningless.

I responded to a question I found completely meaningless by asking the (logical) question: shouldn't the burden of proof be on your proposed idea (that it is not impossible that a machine will someday do what humans do)?

I see, so you think Randfan needs to prove that is not impossible, in other words, he must first prove it is possible? This is simply incorrect. Again, you didn't seem to pay much attention to the part about the claim. No one is claiming it IS possible, only that it MAY BE possible, and until one side proves that it IS possible, or that it IS impossible, the default position is that it is unknown and MAY BE possible.

 

[I less than three logic]

Please just read my answer to I less than three logic above, Randfan. Try to remember I am not making stillthinkin's arguments.

He does that just fine on his own.

Then your answer to Randfan's question is irrelevant to the discussion. This is the fault of Randfan's poor wording of his question. It didn't adequately express what he was looking to have answered, that being what is fundamentally different between humans and machines that would make what humans do impossible for machines to.

 

[stillthinkin]

Of course we can speak that way, but it is an anthropomorphic projection to do so.

Could you answer my question?
Would you ever use the term "corrupt data file"? If yes, why?

I answered the question. I would use the phrase, and I would know I was using it anthropomorphically.

No, not really This is the same as saying "the car needs gas", by which we really mean to say "we need to put gas in the car to make use of it".

Actually no, this was allready dealt with earlier.

No. Statement 1 is a shortened version of "The car needs gas (in order to keep running)."

Such a statement is logically valid. It is not anthropomorphic.

I see: "the car needs gas in order to keep running." Can you tell me why your car needs to run? Perhaps it needs to go somewhere?

 

[I less than three logic]

I see: "the car needs gas in order to keep running." Can you tell me why your car needs to run? Perhaps it needs to go somewhere?

Equivocation... again. You're not keeping the same definition of need through all those statements. The first need is used as "requires" the second and third as "wants".

 

[stillthinkin]

Equivocation... again. You're not keeping the same definition of need through all those statements. The first need is used as "requires" the second and third as "wants".

So if someone says that a machine has needs, and someone says that a person has needs... is that equivocation?

Perhaps you can explain whether the car requires that it be in running order or not.

 

[President Bush]

No one is claiming it IS possible, only that it MAY BE possible, and until one side proves that it IS possible, or that it IS impossible, the default position is that it is unknown and MAY BE possible.

Wouldn't the default position actually be not-knowing: MAY BE/MAY NOT BE possible?

Then your answer to Randfan's question is irrelevant to the discussion.

Purely for the sake of argument, consider my answer to Randfan's question irrelevant to the discussion you think is taking place here. I'm qualifying the context of this discussion as it has been stillthinkin who's been holding up the other end of this, and I'm not sure that he would agree to the parameters you've laid down.

That said...

RandFan's original question had nothing to do with a demonstration of how machines may someday do what humans can. I never would have answered a question concerning the possibility or impossibility of machines someday doing what humans do. My example of Tesla was not meant to answer the question of whether machines will someday do what humans do. Yet my quite appropriate answer to the simple question of what is it that humans do that machines don't was not accepted as I was told it didn't demonstrate how machines will never do what humans do. As though it were meant to.

This is the context in which I asked RandFan if he now wanted me to explain why no machine will ever do what humans do (a knock off of Tesla's performance). For the first time I was actually addressing the question of the possibility/impossibility of future machinery doing what humans do. A question I found completely meaningless.

I responded to a question I found completely meaningless by asking the (logical) question: shouldn't the burden of proof be on your proposed idea that it is not impossible that a machine will someday do what humans do shouldn't the burden of proof be on the proposed idea that it may be possible that someday a machine may do what Tesla did? (change made based on your criticism of my original wording)

I believe the answer is "yes".

... what is fundamentally different between humans and machines that would make what humans do impossible for machines to.

What's fundamentally different? Ability. We're back where I started here. Humans can spontaneously visualize, independently problem solve, invent. Machines lack the ability to spontaneously visualize, independently problem solve, invent.

I think this common-sense observation is quite relevant to whatever discussion is taking place here, after all.

 

[hammegk]

What is it that humans do that machines don't?

Think.

Remember, no assumptions.

Care to argue the opposite?

We can't start assuming that humans make mistakes and machines don't. It must be demonstrated that there is an appreciable difference.

Isn't this irrelevant bs on 'mistakes' getting tiresome for y'all?

 

[I less than three logic]

So if someone says that a machine has needs, and someone says that a person has needs... is that equivocation?

Perhaps you can explain whether the car requires that it be in running order or not.

No one said it does. However, in order to keep working, as we'd like it to, it needs (requires) gas to do so. Yes, it is our desire to have a running engine, but that doesn't anthropomorphize the word need as a mechanical requirement of the engine to work.

 

[Taffer]

Think.

Show it's not possible.

 

[I less than three logic]

Wouldn't the default position actually be not-knowing: MAY BE/MAY NOT BE possible?

May be and may not be mean the exact same thing here because our not-knowing also means it may be/may not be impossible as well.

What's fundamentally different? Ability. We're back where I started here. Humans can spontaneously visualize, independently problem solve, invent. Machines lack the ability to spontaneously visualize, independently problem solve, invent.

I think this common-sense observation is quite relevant to whatever discussion is taking place here, after all.

You can't simply assert this, prove it. Prove that it is impossible for machines to ever have the ability to spontaneously visualize, independently problem solve, invent.

 

[President Bush]

May be and may not be mean the exact same thing.

Okay, I won't argue.

Except that would change the meaning of your quote here:

No one is claiming it IS possible, only that it MAY BE possible, and until one side proves that it IS possible, or that it IS impossible, the default position is that it is unknown and MAY BE possible.

Now paraphrased as

No one is claiming it IS possible, only that it MAY BE possible, and until one side proves that it IS possible, or that it IS impossible, the default position is that it is unknown and MAY NOT BE possible.

 

[President Bush]

Your edit was quicker than my reply.

 

[President Bush]

You can't simply assert this, prove it. Prove that it is impossible for machines to ever have the ability to spontaneously visualize, independently problem solve, invent.

Here we go again...

 

[Taffer]

Here we go again...

Yes, because you refuse to give an answer. We have scientific reasons to believe that machines are every bit as possible of everything a human can do (including thinking, feeling, etc). You have not given any evidence or argument as to why they couldn't.

 

[I less than three logic]

Here we go again...

Only because you refuse to relinquish your argument from ignorance, we’ve already established that it may be possible or impossible, or as you seem to want to state it, it may not be possible or impossible.