Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

hammegk said:
Congratulations. After 14 pages you've reached the free-will conundrum; one of the reefs that sink materialism for those who think they have free-will.
Click to expand...
Rhetorical. A no win situation. We let the opposition points stand and they declare victory. We debate and they declare victory. Sorry. The rhetoric doesn't fly.
 
Taffer said:
So first you say that we can be wrong, but machines can't, and that is the difference. Then, when we correctly point out that you could create a machine which could be just as wrong as us, you say "why would anyone want to build such a machine"? Me thinks you are not discussing this honestly, sir.
Click to expand...
I am only trying to be realistic.

Deliberately building machinery that may be totally unreliable to prove a philosophical point sounds like a government project to me. I'm in the private sector.
 
President Bush said:
I am only trying to be realistic.

Deliberately building machinery that may be totally unreliable to prove a philosophical point sounds like a government project to me. I'm in the private sector.
Click to expand...
Who claimed "totally unreliable". If it was you to score some rhetorical advantage then it is disingenuous and a strawman. No one that I know of is making such an argument. On the contrary.

...acts as inconsistently as a human does...
Click to expand...
This was what was said that you responded to and it does not equate to "totally unreliable".

And your point is completely ridiculous. It's a hypothetical. A mind experiment. We can build such a machine and therefore it is possible and given an unintelligent designer such as natural selection it is understandable.

You are a sophist PB.
 
Taffer said:
Logic is, quite simply, a human construct. It is a word, and rules, used to describe a consistantly observable universe, based upon observational rules of that universe. It employs causality, which is observable in our universe. It employs exclusions, which is observable in our universe. Each of the atomic propositions can be reduced to their observable 'cause' (i.e. that which enspired us to construct these laws). The reason why there is no reason machines could not do 'logic'? Because they already do. A logic gate is just that. There is no special property of human logic that makes it different from the universe. Logic is a mechanical representation of a causal universe.
Click to expand...
Atomic propositions? Logic deals with propositions, generally taking them as premises and combining them to reach conclusions. When was the last time you observed a proposition?

Taffer said:
I ask you a question, then. Can machines perform mathematics?
Click to expand...
We have already discussed both logic gates and mathematics in this thread. If you want the answer you can do a little reading.
 
chriswl said:
Why do mechanisms and logic have to be "the same thing" before we can accept that mechanisms can do logic? "Wings" and "flight" are not the same thing but planes and birds can still fly.
Click to expand...
There is no question that we build machines to help us with certain tasks; the issue is whether we are relying on anything more than causality among physical things when we do that. Flight is quite well understood in terms of cause and effect. Why would we ever think that a machine, which we built to do what we want through the application of deterministic principles, was ever implementing or "doing" anything more than causality required of it?

chriswl said:
When I say logic has inevitability I mean that if you are doing logic correctly (which is to say if you are doing logic at all) then your actions are predictable and inevitable. Like a forced move in chess. Obviously a machine could work in this way.
Click to expand...
Strangely, I think the inevitability of logic is what makes it most like free will... the fact that we are able to understand correct logic seems very unlike a forced move. (more on "freedom" below)

chriswl said:
So one thing can only be a source of another thing if it is the same kind of thing, is this your contention? And the same similarity must exist if one thing is to be reduced to another thing. But this just rules out all emergent or supervenient properties.
In this sense logic would be a weakly emergent phenomenon of certain configurations of the physical world.
Click to expand...
Logic deals only with propositions... a set of premises, and any conclusions drawn from them, are propositions. I have a very hard time imagining what a material proposition might look like. Further, when we consider that logical inference is a capacity or power that we humans possess, which deals with propositions... well, you can see how difficult I find it to think of this as a materially emergent anything.

I would like to delve more into emergence. I do think "emergent property" is a misnomer (i realize you didnt use that phrase, but others do). I will need to re-read what you said in the other thread.


chriswl said:
This doesn't follow. Logic is usually better than illogic for creatures like humans as it better aids our survival. Or helps us satisfy desires that originally evolved to aid our survival.
Click to expand...
Why is it better? If you say "because it is true", then you are merely presuming its truth... we could deduce that logic is more like a giraffe's neck, or camoflage..., and wonder whether it has any actual truth value. If logic is an evolutionary product, we could just as easily evolve away from it... irrational fanaticism might be the way it will go. I personally think that logic is a better thing than a mere survival aid.

It also does not seem to me that logicians are any better at passing on their genes. Intuition and emotion are much more useful from a survival standpoint (my spouse, for example, does not appreciate when I start applying logic in our relationship ;) ). This last paragraph offered more for humour than anything else...


chriswl said:
I don't understand your point here. In as far as the human is doing logic he is also merely doing what he is "designed" to do by his training. Note, if he is doing correct logic then he is not exercising "free will" either (he is not free to infer that 1 + 1 = 3 while still being correct). Of course there may be rather more than just "logic" involved in programming a computer. But you are not arguing that human creativity or emotions make us different from machines so you can't really use that argument.
Click to expand...
You mention "training". Logic is not like a technical skill, such as being an electrician, nor is it a matter of collecting facts, like some might view history (not me! no historian onslaught please). Logic is something you see for yourself, even though you may need guidance in order to gain a deep vision of it. A logician sees for himself. My background is originally in mathematics and physics. What astonished me about math was that I could see the truth of propositions which go infinitely beyond the possibilities of materiality.
You bring up free will. The odd thing is not that we are constrained somehow to be logical - as though logic was a straightjacket - but that we are free to be logical... by this I mean the freedom of the human mind to see and assent to the truth. This corresponds to the freedom of the will to assent to the good. Now lets never speak of this again (on this thread anyways... we dont want to invite the wrath of hammegk).

Out of time again... the evolutionary demands of child rearing call...
 
stillthinkin said:
Atomic propositions? Logic deals with propositions, generally taking them as premises and combining them to reach conclusions. When was the last time you observed a proposition?
Click to expand...

I suggest you learn a bit about formal logic, if you think 'atomic propositions' are things which exist.

We have already discussed both logic gates and mathematics in this thread. If you want the answer you can do a little reading.
Click to expand...

They are called "logic gates" for a reason. Because they perform the basic, atomic, logical connectives. How, exactly, is the computer not performing 'logic'?

ETA: By the way, it is the 'causality' of logic gates (not the gates themselves, but the observed phenomenon of them) upon which logic is based. As I have already said, and you have ignored, it is based upon observed universal causality.
 
stillthinkin said:
You mention "training". Logic is not like a technical skill, such as being an electrician, nor is it a matter of collecting facts, like some might view history (not me! no historian onslaught please). Logic is something you see for yourself, even though you may need guidance in order to gain a deep vision of it. ...
Click to expand...

This I absolutely disagree with. Logic, the form you've been harping on in this thread, is absolutely a learned skill. A simple glance at any given cross-section of any normal population will demonstrate that. You're referring more to common sense - which is a folk-version of logic, and not always correct. Common sense is something learned at momma's knee, a survival skill learned because failure to do so can be catastrophic. Formal logic - with propositions, arguments, et. al. - is a complex learned skill - to do it right, anyway.

That you don't seem to understand logic only tells us more about why this topic started...

Off-subject for a moment - one area of study I find fascinating - fascinating enough that I've decided to work toward a degree - is in early childhood education. Just raising six kids, I've learned so much about how much learning is actually involved in things we take for granted. Having an autistic child has further developed this awareness, since things we mostly assume happen naturally don't with him. I'm quickly finding that even basics like cause-effect relationships, ordered-sensations, etc. are all learned - programmed - into the brains of children. Folks like ST here seem to have forgotten that they DID have to learn logic and reasoning, just like a machine would have to be programmed with them; and just like a machine, if the human doing the teaching does so incorrectly, the child's logic suffers as a result.

The more I learn about childhood mental development, the more I can see the deterministic, physicalist aspects of the mind as true.
 
Well said, zaayr, as always.

To futher his point about the difference between formal logic and common sense, stillthinkin, please tell me if you think the following argument is valid:

P1 - God both exists and he does not exist
P2 - Grass is purple
C - Therefore, President George W. Bush is the smartest man alive
 
Last edited:
stillthinkin said:
Why would we ever think that a machine, which we built to do what we want through the application of deterministic principles, was ever implementing or "doing" anything more than causality required of it?
Click to expand...
Wrong question. Why would we ever think that humans are "doing" anything more than the causality required of them?

To date this has only been asserted. You are, quite simply, begging the question.
 
I less than three logic said:
So, are you claiming the ability to prove RandFan wasn’t deterministically required to ask that question, and you to reply as you did… and me to post this as I have? :)
Click to expand...
If RandFan were deterministically required to ask that question, how could it be a meaningful question? Hey, now that I think about that...

Other than this, no one could be in a position to compare theories with what's observed while rejecting those theories not corresponding to what's observed... if they were strictly determined to begin with. :cool:
 
President Bush said:
If RandFan were deterministically required to ask that question, how could it be a meaningful question? Hey, now that I think about that...
Click to expand...
"Meaningful"? That's argument?

Other than this, no one could be in a position to compare theories with what's observed while rejecting those theories not corresponding to what's observed... if they were strictly determined to begin with. :cool:
Click to expand...
Why would this be a problem?
 
President Bush said:
Other than this, no one could be in a position to compare theories with what's observed while rejecting those theories not corresponding to what's observed... if they were strictly determined to begin with. :cool:
Click to expand...
This is so presumptious as well as fallacious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom