Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

[Z]

FTB:

The notion of p-zombies is a particularly annoying one. Not because it challenges anything; but because it's inherently a dualist notion.

Simply enough, if a thing acts like it's conscious, it's conscious. If a thing acts like it's having an experience, then it's having an experience.

Which, of course, implies that machines are capable of concsiousness, as are animals, insects, etc. This is the part that drives dualists crazy - they can't relinquish sole control over 'consciousness'.

Too bad...

 

[AWPrime]

Can you agree with this statement: if materialism is true, then mistakes are impossible, and therefore when we believe we have made one it is a delusion.

No

Mistakes may be a label but that doesn't make it impossible.

 

[chriswl]

I dont think your proposed definition of truth will survive a materialist accounting either. In a materialist world, there is no such thing as something that doesnt work; the idea is just as illusory.

Evolution provides the explanation. Animals need senses and brains that "work" when it comes to finding prey and avoiding predators (and lots of other activities too). Evolution equips them with such capabilities in a way that is entirely compatible with materialism. When animals acquire such capabilities they implicitly develop sensitivity to what we could call "truths" such as "there is a crocodile hiding in that river".

The process of uncovering even a single new result in mathematics (for example) is an amazing and wonderful spectacle, and the dream of mathematicians. There is nothing straightforward, mechanical, or uncreative about it at all. Further, the notion of truths being hidden, known by no one, is, I think, something of an absolutist one.

I don't mean hidden in that sense, I merely mean not immediately apparent until you crank the handle and work through the logic. If you are just doing logic then what you are doing is indeed mechanical and uncreative.

You've heard of the distinction between analytical and empirical statements? Analytical statements are tautologies, like 1 + 1 = 2. There is nothing new about '2' that is not contained in '1 + 1'. Empirical statemets are statements like "there is a crocodile in the water hole". They require new information not contained in the statement itself to judge whether they are true. Logical statements are analytical.

You mentioned mathematics. Mathematicians are creative when they discover new theorems, but that's because they do more than merely apply logic. Otherwise we could reduce mathematics to a logical procedure and automate it. But Goedel tells us this is impossible.

If machines can do logic, but cant make mistakes - what would we mean by a "bug"?

A failure of a specific, physical machine to correctly perform in accordance with its specification. The machine just does what it does, what it has to do according to the laws of physics. But it's not doing what what we (wrongly) expected it to do. The mistake is ours.

I have had the sneaking suspicion that a number of people on this thread were avid science fiction fans. The phenomenon of the sadly-merely-logical thinking machine is a product of romanticism, which disparaged reason and rationality... and of course, logic.

Well I'm not actually a science fiction fan myself. Anyway, I think you'll find very few people round here who disparage reason and rationality. We just don't share your wildly inflated view of logic.

You jumped quite quickly, it seemed to me, from our "matter doesnt make mistakes" discussions right to "the boat of truth is sinking" (my metaphor). Why was that?

Your notion of "quick" and mine seem to be radically different. If you were trying to get there you were taking forever about it. Its just the flip side of the same argument.

 

[stillthinkin]

In either case, whether this “stuff” is “physical” or “non-physical”, Stillthinkin still has the same problem. His position still seems dualistic. That there is a fundamental component that humans possess that allows us to “do logic” that nothing else has or can have; a soul, an incorporeal ball of think, or whatever you’d like to call it.

If we know how matter behaves, according to the laws of physics, chemistry, etc., and if we know that we human beings do things that merely material, determined things dont do, then we all have a problem with materialism. I think people should be a little bit more skeptical about materialist claims. I am getting the impression that the adherence to it is much closer, rationally speaking, to "blind faith". People seem willing to dismiss all of human experience as illusion rather than deny materialism, much the same way creationists claim that the devil planted dinosaur bones to deceive evolutionists.

As long as everything is made from the same “stuff”, and this “stuff” is capable of “doing logic” when in the configuration of our as-perceived physical brain, then, at least theoretically, this “stuff” may be capable of “doing logic” in other as-perceived physical configurations. Stillthinkin appears to be denying even the possibility.

People were not getting the case of "doing logic", so I switched to "making mistakes". So the question became, can something material make a mistake? 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 know matter always does exactly what it "should", according to deterministic laws of physics. We know machines dont make mistakes. Even when they break down (according to our evaluation) they do so precisely because of the laws of physics, the properties of different materials, and so on. So I believe that at this point, we are asking "if matter cannot make a mistake, but human beings do, then what is the explanation?" Some say it is an illusion/delusion.

I may ask, in what configuration do we put matter, so that it ends up not obeying the laws of physics? It should be obvious that no level of complexity, no configuration, would ever amount to matter making mistakes.

Also, I think all monisms are describing the exact same thing, the baggage and confusion only comes into play when attempting to address the unknown/unknowable.

You assume that monism must be true, and dualism must be false. As FTB said (more or less), if two principles are necessary, then monism is nonsense. On the face of it, we are aware of many many different kinds of things - in a monist explanation, how would there ever be "two" anything? By what principle would two things arise from an absolute monist reality? But be that as it may, the issue with materialist monism is that it is much too small to contain known phenomena - but if you insist, we can retain monism by switching to "existential monism", where being is the basic principle of all things, rather than matter.

 

[stillthinkin]

....Thereby proving conclusively how clueless you really are, ST.

My suggestion to you: keep thinking. One day, you might get it right.

In the meantime, what has been conclusively proven, for the audience (since we know ST isn't actually reading anything), is that materialism and logic are clearly compatible - indeed, that logic depends on a materialist paradigm. We have conclusively proven that ST is working from a dualist assumption, one he is unwilling to let go of even for hypothetical situations. Further, we have proven that, if ST's point is to be proven, he must demonstrate the existence of ANY single non-material thing which can 'do logic'... for that matter, that he has to demonstrate the existence of any non-material thing... or his entire argument falls flat.

His argument amounts to an assumption that something (the human mind) does logic, and is not material; and a lesser assumption that no material thing, anywhere, any time, can ever do logic. Hence, he demonstrates his inability to think without assumptions, his inability to grasp the basics of materialism, his complete lack of logical capacity, and his lack of imagination - all at once.

Gentle Reader, I ask you... where is the substance of his statement? Where is the beef, as they say?

If materialism is true, then humans are purely material. If humans are purely material, then logic is done by a material thing. This isn't hard to understand. No problems there.

Sir, you desperately need a logic course... it is your only hope. Perhaps someone can teach you the difference between things like "ad hominem" and "circular reasoning" vis a vis legitimate logical argument. It is a faint hope, given that you have already stated that logic is an illusion.

 

[nescafe]

If we know how matter behaves, according to the laws of physics, chemistry, etc., and if we know that we human beings do things that merely material, determined things dont do, then we all have a problem with materialism.

Why? Materialism does not require strict determinism.

I think people should be a little bit more skeptical about materialist claims. I am getting the impression that the adherence to it is much closer, rationally speaking, to "blind faith". People seem willing to dismiss all of human experience as illusion rather than deny materialism, much the same way creationists claim that the devil planted dinosaur bones to deceive evolutionists.

You should read the Materialists... thread. It goes into far too much detail on this sort of thing. It may take a few weeks to get through it, though...

People were not getting the case of "doing logic", so I switched to "making mistakes". So the question became, can something material make a mistake?

You are making a category error here. "Making mistakes" in the sense that humans do simply does not apply to the behaviour of atoms and molecules.

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.

I do not see why the mindbogglingly huge set of electromagnetic interactions among the set of all atoms that compose me is insufficent to the task. From an information theory standpoint, I can be modelled as a huge (and hugely inefficent) computing device.

We know matter always does exactly what it "should", according to deterministic laws of physics.

Strictly speaking, the laws of physics are not purely deterministinc -- there is a reason that quantum mechanics describes everything in terms of probability waves.

We know machines dont make mistakes. Even when they break down (according to our evaluation) they do so precisely because of the laws of physics, the properties of different materials, and so on.

Same category error as before.

So I believe that at this point, we are asking "if matter cannot make a mistake, but human beings do, then what is the explanation?" Some say it is an illusion/delusion.

It is an illusion/delusion in the same sense that the modern nation-state, economics, religion, the ego, and the institution of marriage are.

I may ask, in what configuration do we put matter, so that it ends up not obeying the laws of physics? It should be obvious that no level of complexity, no configuration, would ever amount to matter making mistakes.

Category error again. Humans do not and cannot violate the laws of physics, because the laws of physics are nothing more than a highly detailed and accurate description of how the universe and its constituent parts work. What we call "mistakes" are (usually) errors of judgment, goal-setting, etc.

 

[chriswl]

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.

 

[hodgy]

Sir:
Out of charity, I'll not take your categorization of materialism as a proposition literally. (Btw, would you care to take a crack at defining a proposition for us? B. Russell spent many sleepless and largely unproductive hours trying.)

From an early age I read philosophy and from an early age I realised most of it was obsolete or plain b******t. I'm not claiming to be cleverer or more well educated than any particular philosopher, however, I will not be persuaded by an apparently learned authority unless the argument put forth makes logical sense to me. You are free to assume that I do not see the point and continue to explain it to me but appeals to named authorities (at least in this respect) hold no water for me. you are also free to assume and / or show that I am wrong or stupid, Mr Russell's sleeplessness does not in itself provide evidence for that.

So, then, materialism, I take it, boils down to the view/stance that everything that exists is

Yes

- You do mean "should be", right? - labelled 'material.' To keep it simple:

No

Materialism = (def) The view that for any thing you wish, it should be labelled 'material.

What I wish is irrelevant. What exists, exists (and can therefore be considered material). Anything that does not exist - does not exist. Things that do not exist do not half, 50% or 'in another plane' exist - they just do not exist.

No matter how strange reality is (it may well be comprised of the dream of a troll sleeping beneath a bridge in fairyland) nevertheless it is realtiy. Whether we know or understand it is irrelevant. If the troll exists he may be considered 'material'.

Lemurs, then, for instance, exist and thus, by your def, the materialist should label them 'material.'

Presuming their existence, then, the materialist should also so label mathematical theorems, international relations, and - to bring things back to the thread topic -logic.

Of course, you don't really wish to restrict your 'should' to materialists, do you? You not only wish to define 'materialism' as above but also to add that the view is true.

Okay. Let's apply the label 'material' to logic:

Logic is material.​

Well, the existence of a consciousness that can perceive and understand logic is material. Logic in itself boils down to 'truth' I suppose - what is, is.

But you also say that 'material' is 'just a word', not a 'concept in itself.'

What does this mean?

From your point of view I'm probably muddying the waters with that comment. What I mean, however, is that its a just a label for things that genuinely exist - Woden may well be Lord of Valhalla, in which case he exists, in which case he is material. My objection is against Gods (etc...) that supposedly can exist yet not be material. IMO this is a logical contradiction, since anything that exists is de facto material. If not, the word 'material' is pointless so let's invent a new word that means 'material'

I've no idea what you mean by 'concept in itself' and thus I've no idea what you are trying to get at by denying that - the word? - 'material' is a concept in itself. However, I might have a glimmer re your phrase 'just a word.'

Hopefully, I explained myself above.

Are you saying, then, that in the statement, LOGIC IS MATERIAL, the predicate is just a placeholder to be filled in at some later date? Or not filled in at all? As you - not me - said, we don't know the nature of material. Is it that we'll never know it? Is it that we can't know it?

We have a concept and understanding of logic - it is fundemental to reason. If we take a position that doubts logic then the discussion we are having now becomes irrelevant. Logic provides the context for discussions of this nature and without it they are pointless.

Query: On your version of materialism, what the difference between your LOGIC IS MATERIAL and LOGIC IS X? Or if you will, LOGIC SHOULD BE LABELLED 'MATERIAL' ALTHOUGH WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MATERIAL IS (MEANS?)?

You are unnecessarily conflating 2 arguments, I hope my position is explained above but I will expand if necessary.

That's just one sentence. I could go on. But I'm not sure I ought. Apparently I'm still missing the point as you have assured us readers that:

Yes - its logical, bloody obvious, staring everyone in the face and really very simple.​

I await enlightenment re IT.

Well, its obvious to me

 

[hodgy]

My understanding, limited as it might be, is that materialism comprises everything that exists physically (materially) as opposed to the metaphysical which comprises everything that isn't physical that exists (assuming that it exists).
Now perhaps the metaphysical is simply nonsensical but it is a branch of philosophy that is separate from materialism.

The problem here is allowing people to draw a distinction between physical and metaphysical - this distinction is just an artifact of superstition and irrationallity it is not a genuine categorical difference. There may well be ghosts, trolls, gods and fairies but if they exist - THEN THEY EXIST, so they are real and material. What is so hard to comprehend about this concept?

I have, in fact, seen them at the bottom of my garden and am frequently transported to their fantastical world. In consequence, I relate their stories to my friends and family and ensure that their moral messages are well-heeded.

 

[hodgy]

Apologies for the sarcasm in the above post but the point is that if that was true then of course the fairies etc... should be considered material - whatever the nature of their reality, they effect ours.

 

[Z]

Until anyone can prove that what humans do is impossible given a sufficiently complex physical system, we have no reason to believe humans are anything but a complex physical system.

Until someone can show us an immaterial thing, we have no reason to believe in the immaterial.

Until someone shows us an invisible pink unicorn, we have no reason to believe they exist.

Ergo, the logic statement ST attempted to lay out is faulty, as it assumes, against the hypothesis, that humans are more than material.

CAN ST MAKE THE SAME LOGICAL STRUCTURE WITHOUT ASSUMING THIS, AND STILL CLAIM LOGIC IS INCOMPATIBLE TO MATERIALISM?

It's like he's saying rocks can't think, so humans are immaterial, or something. Here's the thing: everything humans do boils down to physical processes of atoms, molecules, etc. We don't necessarily understand it all yet - it's an awful lot to understand - but we understand enough to know that there's no mysterious immaterial thing floating in the ether near our bodies...

 

[stillthinkin]

If we know how matter behaves, according to the laws of physics, chemistry, etc., and if we know that we human beings do things that merely material, determined things dont do, then we all have a problem with materialism.

Why? Materialism does not require strict determinism.

Funny I was the first one to point that out. You will have an argument from folks who like to think matter is determined.

I think people should be a little bit more skeptical about materialist claims. I am getting the impression that the adherence to it is much closer, rationally speaking, to "blind faith". People seem willing to dismiss all of human experience as illusion rather than deny materialism, much the same way creationists claim that the devil planted dinosaur bones to deceive evolutionists.

You should read the Materialists... thread. It goes into far too much detail on this sort of thing. It may take a few weeks to get through it, though...

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.

People were not getting the case of "doing logic", so I switched to "making mistakes". So the question became, can something material make a mistake?

You are making a category error here. "Making mistakes" in the sense that humans do simply does not apply to the behaviour of atoms and molecules.

If there is a category error, then it belongs to materialism. 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".

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.

I do not see why the mindbogglingly huge set of electromagnetic interactions among the set of all atoms that compose me is insufficent to the task. From an information theory standpoint, I can be modelled as a huge (and hugely inefficent) computing device.

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.

We know matter always does exactly what it "should", according to deterministic laws of physics.

Strictly speaking, the laws of physics are not purely deterministinc -- there is a reason that quantum mechanics describes everything in terms of probability waves.

A forum member has the delightful quote in his thread footer: "there is no idea so stupid that Quantum Mechanics has not been brought to its defence" (or words to that effect).

We know machines dont make mistakes. Even when they break down (according to our evaluation) they do so precisely because of the laws of physics, the properties of different materials, and so on.

Same category error as before.

Are we machines, or are we not? The "category error" is a necessity of materialist reductionism.

So I believe that at this point, we are asking "if matter cannot make a mistake, but human beings do, then what is the explanation?" Some say it is an illusion/delusion.

It is an illusion/delusion in the same sense that the modern nation-state, economics, religion, the ego, and the institution of marriage are.

You forgot the lightbulb, and logic . Can you say in what sense you mean? The examples you site dont exactly jump off the screen as "illusions".

I may ask, in what configuration do we put matter, so that it ends up not obeying the laws of physics? It should be obvious that no level of complexity, no configuration, would ever amount to matter making mistakes.

Category error again. Humans do not and cannot violate the laws of physics, because the laws of physics are nothing more than a highly detailed and accurate description of how the universe and its constituent parts work. What we call "mistakes" are (usually) errors of judgment, goal-setting, etc.

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?

 

[RandFan]

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.

If there is a category error, then it belongs to materialism.

?

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[stillthinkin]

I dont think your proposed definition of truth will survive a materialist accounting either. In a materialist world, there is no such thing as something that doesnt work; the idea is just as illusory.

Evolution provides the explanation. Animals need senses and brains that "work" when it comes to finding prey and avoiding predators (and lots of other activities too). Evolution equips them with such capabilities in a way that is entirely compatible with materialism. When animals acquire such capabilities they implicitly develop sensitivity to what we could call "truths" such as "there is a crocodile hiding in that river".

In a strict materialist accounting, where everything is explained in terms of particle physics, you will have a hard time making sense even of "survival". There is no particle which does not survive being consumed by a crocodile; mass is conserved. Within a broader physicalism, such as that of Aristotle, evolution can make sense. But once you try to account for the animal in terms of the particles of its body, you lose the only thing which cares about surviving: the animal itself.

If machines can do logic, but cant make mistakes - what would we mean by a "bug"?

A failure of a specific, physical machine to correctly perform in accordance with its specification. The machine just does what it does, what it has to do according to the laws of physics. But it's not doing what what we (wrongly) expected it to do. The mistake is ours.

If we make a mistake while making a machine, but the mistake remains ours... then how is it that when dont make a mistake, the behaviour of the mechanism becomes its own? If the mistake is ours and not the machines, then how is the logic we put into the machine an activity of the machine? Machines do what they have to do, according to the laws of physics - they dont make logical inferences any more than they make mistakes.

I have had the sneaking suspicion that a number of people on this thread were avid science fiction fans. The phenomenon of the sadly-merely-logical thinking machine is a product of romanticism, which disparaged reason and rationality... and of course, logic.

Well I'm not actually a science fiction fan myself. Anyway, I think you'll find very few people round here who disparage reason and rationality. We just don't share your wildly inflated view of logic.

LOL "wildly inflated"? That seems undeserved! I submit that what we dont share is the romantic disparagement of logic as something trivial and mechanical.

You jumped quite quickly, it seemed to me, from our "matter doesnt make mistakes" discussions right to "the boat of truth is sinking" (my metaphor). Why was that?

Your notion of "quick" and mine seem to be radically different. If you were trying to get there you were taking forever about it. Its just the flip side of the same argument.

Where do you think I was trying to get? I am afraid that if the "boat of truth is sinking" in a materialist account, then we can conclude that materialism and logic are indeed incompatible. What is logic if there is no such thing as true or false? Or do we not get there just as quickly? Comparatively, we are at post 353, while the Materialists thread that Nescafe recommended is at 3229. I am not even sure what they have concluded .

 

[nescafe]

To address the category error statements:
When speaking of particles interacting, "making mistakes" can only mean "the particles did not interact in a manner that is consistent with what we know with the laws of physics". When that happens, we revise our knowledge of what the laws of physics are. If we ever observed a particle interaction that could not be described mathematically, then we could meaningfully say that a particle "made a mistake" (although what that really would say is "the universe is inconsistent", which is a much scarier thought).

When talking about humans, what we really mean when we say "we made a mistake" is that "this outcome was not what I anticipated". Anticipation is nothing more than trying to predict the future. We already know we can build (virtual) machines that try to predict the future -- every program that plays any sort of game tries to do so. When those programs make a mistake (that is, the outcome of whatever situation was not what they anticipated), it is almost never because the infrastructure they were implemented on failed -- it is almost always one of two things:

• they had to give up searching for the best response to an event of some sort (due to time constraints or lack of computational power or whatever)
• their model of the situation did not account for something that turned out to be important to the outcome.

Neither class of mistake happens because the program violated the local "laws of physics" -- the underlying hardware can function without a hitch and those sorts of errors will still happen.

I submit that the same thing that causes those sorts of mistakes in programs also causes them in organisms:

• Your model cannot account for all the details.
• Details Matter.

 

[nescafe]

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.

True, electrons never fail to notice an electromagnetic field, This does not mean we can predict with any degree of certianty how a large number of electrons, protons, etc. will interact using equations that we know work for describing the interactions of a small number of particles.

To use an even simpler example, consider gravity as defined in classical mechanics. The equation (F = G * ((m1 * m2)/r^2)) which describes the interaction between any two massive objects at (relativly) low velocities is only completly solvable for systems involving two bodies -- when using it to solve it for more than two bodies, you can run into solutions that are chaotic (and hence become useless for predicting the orbit of those bodies after a certian amount of time).

Your charecterization of "complexity" as a dogma that those of the "materialist faith" like to fall back on is amusing, since "complexity" seems to be an inherent feature of any nonlinear system (especially those involving feedback). Please do a bit of reading on Complex systems^WP before dismissing complexity as an article of faith.

 

[nescafe]

It is an illusion/delusion in the same sense that the modern nation-state, economics, religion, the ego, and the institution of marriage are.

You forgot the lightbulb, and logic . Can you say in what sense you mean? The examples you site dont exactly jump off the screen as "illusions".

Couple of reasons:

• The things I listed exist only in the minds of those who believe in them.
• None if the things I describe can usefully be modelled at the level of tons of interacting elementary particles

Your examples are a bit different, in that the behaviour of a lightbulb is very simple, and so can be described usefully in terms of classical and quantum mechanics (not each individual particle, mind you, but we can fairly completly explain why it does what it does), and logic is nothing more than the demand that our explanations of things (and, in some sense, the things themselves) be consistent -- that no part of the universe or our explanations of the universe contradict another part of the universe or the explanation of it.

 

[I less than three logic]

Oh, and here I thought this thread had died.

The word "equivocation" has been mentioned a lot in this thread. What are we talking about when we speak of it? The usual account goes like this. I equivocate when I use a word in more than one way. Normally, using a word in more than one way requires that I use the word twice - otherwise we are talking about mere ambiguity.

And what was it I said the led you to say I’m treading close to equivocation? This:

But your mention of addition misses the point, then, doesn't it. As I et al say, we need however many principles we need - not however many we may add.
​

"Need" suggests foundedness. Don't you think?
​

Fine, "need" is contextual. But it still suggests "foundedness."
​

Well, then, what did I write in the foregoing that suggested equivocation to you? I certainly wrote the word “need” all four times with the intention of using it the same way. Even now, I can’t detect any shift in my usage. Again, what suggested equivocation to you?

If your real concern is ambiguity, not equivocation, let me say that you can substitute the word “necessity” and reformulate. But such substitution still won’t settle all. Why? Because the necessity of which we would be speaking is the necessity involved in theory construction – reducible, I suspect, to neither metaphysical nor logical necessity.

In any case, I see nothing in my words which trade on ambiguity. Do you?

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.

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.

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.

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 less than three logic]

If we know how matter behaves, according to the laws of physics, chemistry, etc., and if we know that we human beings do things that merely material, determined things dont do, then we all have a problem with materialism. I think people should be a little bit more skeptical about materialist claims. I am getting the impression that the adherence to it is much closer, rationally speaking, to "blind faith". People seem willing to dismiss all of human experience as illusion rather than deny materialism, much the same way creationists claim that the devil planted dinosaur bones to deceive evolutionists.

First you’ve offered a proof, remember, so you’ll have to remove those ifs. In which case you’re claiming you know exactly how matter behaves under any and all circumstances, and armed with this omniscient knowledge of matter, you’ve determined that humans do things that matter cannot possibly do. Second, I haven’t even said I was a materialist, let alone that I adhere to it with “blind faith”. Seems like a bit of hasty generalization to assume everyone that is arguing against you is a materialist, hammegk argues against materialism as much as anyone, and has flatly stated he is not a materialist. I would think my reason for arguing against you is similar to his; it is not that I necessarily think materialism is right; it’s just that I find your argument wrong.

People were not getting the case of "doing logic", so I switched to "making mistakes". So the question became, can something material make a mistake? 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 know matter always does exactly what it "should", according to deterministic laws of physics. We know machines dont make mistakes. Even when they break down (according to our evaluation) they do so precisely because of the laws of physics, the properties of different materials, and so on. So I believe that at this point, we are asking "if matter cannot make a mistake, but human beings do, then what is the explanation?" Some say it is an illusion/delusion.

I may ask, in what configuration do we put matter, so that it ends up not obeying the laws of physics? It should be obvious that no level of complexity, no configuration, would ever amount to matter making mistakes.

Now, I’ll have to ask you to define “make a mistake,” because the way this reads it seems you’re defining it as defying the laws of physics. You then appear to suggest that humans can make mistakes using this definition of defying the laws of physics, in which case I completely disagree with you. I see no evidence that humans defy the laws of physics in anyway. As for your mention of begging the question, which you seem fond of invoking, you are incorrect again. We know for a fact that we are made of electrons, atoms, molecules, mixtures, etc. What we don’t know is if we have anything other than those components. You appear to claim our ability to defy the laws of physics means we must have that additional component, yet I don’t believe you’ve shown that we do defy those laws of physics other than through your unfounded assertion of what matter is and isn’t capable of.

You assume that monism must be true, and dualism must be false. As FTB said (more or less), if two principles are necessary, then monism is nonsense.

Yes, if it turns out two principles are necessary then monism may be false. There are monistic views that attempt to account for dualistic properties, you should come across some reading UE’s posts. What you’ve failed to do so far, however, is prove that two principles are in fact necessary.

On the face of it, we are aware of many many different kinds of things - in a monist explanation, how would there ever be "two" anything? By what principle would two things arise from an absolute monist reality? But be that as it may, the issue with materialist monism is that it is much too small to contain known phenomena - but if you insist, we can retain monism by switching to "existential monism", where being is the basic principle of all things, rather than matter.

We are? Many, many different kinds of things? So you’ve gone beyond dualism to some form of pluralism? How many types of things do we need to explain existence? I suppose it doesn’t matter, discussion of metaphysics seems to always be nothing more than fruitless mental masturbation. As I’ve said before, I not really sure I’m arguing for materialism, just against your erroneous argument.

 

[chriswl]

In a strict materialist accounting, where everything is explained in terms of particle physics, you will have a hard time making sense even of "survival". There is no particle which does not survive being consumed by a crocodile; mass is conserved. Within a broader physicalism, such as that of Aristotle, evolution can make sense. But once you try to account for the animal in terms of the particles of its body, you lose the only thing which cares about surviving: the animal itself.

This isn't a problem. I was proposing evolution as the source of "error" in the world. I'll happily admit that non-evolved, inanimate objects don't make errors in any direct sense (they may be errors by our, ultimately evolution-derived, human standards). This may be a controversial view even amongst materialists.

If we make a mistake while making a machine, but the mistake remains ours... then how is it that when we don't make a mistake, the behaviour of the mechanism becomes its own? If the mistake is ours and not the machines, then how is the logic we put into the machine an activity of the machine? Machines do what they have to do, according to the laws of physics - they dint make logical inferences any more than they make mistakes.

I don't think it makes sense to say machines don't make logical inferences. If I replace a human operator with a computer then what happens to the logical inferences that the human performed while doing the job? If they are not now performed by the computer where are they performed? Not by the programmer who merely determines how the logical inferences are to be performed. Where are the thousands of instances of the inference being carried out when the program is operational if not in the computer?

Clearly the logic is an activity of the machine. The machine is the only place where this activity could be happening. There are no other candidates. But it is intended to happen according to our specification, to our plan and we are the judges of whether it is carried out correctly. Perhaps the best summary would be that the machine carries out logic but not its own logic. It doesn't really "own" its program.

LOL "wildly inflated"? That seems undeserved! I submit that what we dont share is the romantic disparagement of logic as something trivial and mechanical.

Implementing it may or may not be trivial but logic is mechanical on any definition that's been in use in the last hundred years or so of philosophy and mathematics.