Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

[stillthinkin]

Beyond a certain level of complexity any control mechanism needs logic.

I have never encountered a "control mechanism" that had a "need".

That is, you can only achieve so much by connecting up lots of seperate thermostat-like regulator systems.

I agree. Whether you take one TTL gate, or combine trillions, you still have a machine.

You need some sort of global control, some concept of an overall "state" that can take a discrete number of values e.g. fight/flee, hunt, sleep in the case of animals.

That sounds a lot like an homunculus.

Once you have discrete states then you need logic to deal with them e.g. IF rival is bigger than me AND acting in a hostile way THEN run away. You can't just have some analog combination of desires and fears and mix them all up and end up with a sort of compromise (shuffle off slowly or fight half-heartedly). You need rules for transitioning between clearly defined states.

Again, who needs what now? We are talking about a machine: a TTL gate, marbles rolling down a slope, an abacus. At what point do these become needy?

This is true for simple creatures that are not sentient as well as more complex ones so it is not related to self awareness or thinking. Simple instinctive behaviour can involve logic.

The question is not whether animals or human beings can use logic. The question is whether machines do. I dont think instinctive behaviour qualifies as "logical"? Do animals reason toward their instinctive behaviours using logic?

Viewed like this, of course, logic is not only compatible with materialism but it is a wholly material phenomenon - a consequence of natural selection.

I dont think you have proven this point.

 

[Jekyll]

I believe the main question of this post is whether material things do logic.

I see no reason why not. It's quite possible to make a device which will enumerate through the logical deductions that can be legitimately made from a set of axioms.

The setting of the axioms and the evaluation of the deductions, as to whether they are interesting or relevant is clearly harder, but irrelevant to the task of doing logic.

 

[IllegalArgument]

LOL who cant spare a toe? One could still count to 19 anyways...


Who speaks this language? Do electrons? If logic is descriptive, can you tell us what does logic describe? Can you provide an example? I would submit that only premises are descriptive.


If it has no force, how does it do anything? Is it logic that proves things, or is it we who by means of logic prove things?
I believe the main question of this post is whether material things do logic.


And you were worried about your toes...

I need all my toes for dancing.

I called it a language, so here's the question, I don't have the answer for. What is a language in the material world.

While we are at it, what's a map?

 

[stillthinkin]

I believe the main question of this post is whether material things do logic.

I see no reason why not. It's quite possible to make a device which will enumerate through the logical deductions that can be legitimately made from a set of axioms.

We have already done what you suggest. An abacus is a device which, with the addition of a motor and some gears, could run through all possible arithmetic additions within the scope of its maximum value. Is the device doing logic?

If we make the device, and we tell it (excuse the anthropomorphism - "we mechanically design into it") what its operational parameters are, how is it doing logic?

 

[Jekyll]

We have already done what you suggest. An abacus is a device which, with the addition of a motor and some gears, could run through all possible arithmetic additions within the scope of its maximum value. Is the device doing logic?

If we make the device, and we tell it (excuse the anthropomorphism - "we mechanically design into it") what its operational parameters are, how is it doing logic?

Yes, if it follows the correct rules it's doing logic and producing the correct deductions.

 

[Z]

The laws of physics, the basic parameters that govern the observable (non-quantum) universe, operate under basic principles of logic. All else stems from that.

The quantum level may indeed act under a different set of rules, but I won't get into that.

Of course, logic is what you define it to be. Any and every natural system exhibits some form of logic; otherwise, all would be absolute chaos, with no cause/effect patterns of any sort. As long as effect follows cause in an understandable and fairly predictable pattern, logic exists.

Logic, essentially, becomes the underlying order of the material universe.

...

OOOOOOrrrr I could just be blowing smoke from my lower orifices...

 

[stillthinkin]

Yes, if it follows the correct rules it's doing logic and producing the correct deductions.

I submit that in this scenario we are doing logic with the aid of a counting device. This is not qualitatively different from counting with your fingers.

 

[I less than three logic]

I submit that in this scenario we are doing logic with the aid of a counting device. This is not qualitatively different from counting with your fingers.

If it defines its own parameters and decides which action to take based on those, is it still finger-counting?

 

[stillthinkin]

The laws of physics, the basic parameters that govern the observable (non-quantum) universe, operate under basic principles of logic. All else stems from that.

Can you explain how gravity is logical? Or, how does the electrostatic force "operates under principles of logic"? How would a law of physics use a principle of logic to make an argument, or come to a conclusion?

The quantum level may indeed act under a different set of rules, but I won't get into that.

Do you mean quanta are illogical? We can save it for later if you like.

Of course, logic is what you define it to be. Any and every natural system exhibits some form of logic; otherwise, all would be absolute chaos, with no cause/effect patterns of any sort. As long as effect follows cause in an understandable and fairly predictable pattern, logic exists.

Logic, essentially, becomes the underlying order of the material universe.

Egads! Dude! "Stuff does stuff. Ergo, logic." Seriously, I will wait to see how you respond to the other points above.

OOOOOOrrrr I could just be blowing smoke from my lower orifices...

Doing it that way will save your lungs.

 

[stillthinkin]

If it defines its own parameters and decides which action to take based on those, is it still finger-counting?

By "it" do you mean a machine?

 

[I less than three logic]

By "it" do you mean a machine?

Yes. Well, more accurately it would be software, not a “machine” per se.

 

[stillthinkin]

Yes. Well, more accurately it would be software, not a “machine” per se.

Well sonofagun, I write software for a living! True, a machine runs the software... or the software runs the machine... I think the combination is still a machine.

 

[Jekyll]

I submit that in this scenario we are doing logic with the aid of a counting device. This is not qualitatively different from counting with your fingers.

How about if we make someone with no understanding of what is going on enter the parameters for us?

By your definition, are they doing logic with the device or are we doing logic with them?

What happens if I ask you to enter the parameters for me?

 

[I less than three logic]

Well sonofagun, I write software for a living! True, a machine runs the software... or the software runs the machine... I think the combination is still a machine.

I agree it is still a machine. However, I find it odd that a software designer would think computer/software is incapable of performing anything more than counting. You don't believe that software complex enough is capable of logic based decisions?

 

[chriswl]

Would you define pattern matching as logical? An animal has a behavior that is linked to certain sound, when it hears the sound, it runs. Is that logical? Or just using logic to describe a animal behavior.

I'd say its logic. Just about. Its the seed from which more complex logic develops.

 

[stillthinkin]

I agree it is still a machine. However, I find it odd that a software designer would think computer/software is incapable of performing anything more than counting. You don't believe that software complex enough is capable of logic based decisions?

A computer is not capable of any decisions, logic based or otherwise. Counting is an example of a very simple logical process which, it was argued, a machine could do. I submit that the logic involved, even in something so simple as a counting machine, originates and remains in the human being who designed the machine.

Computers are machines which we design; they move bits around, based only on what decisions we have made as to where bits should go. A computer, regardless of how complicated, is not qualitatively different from marbles rolling down a slope with tracks and gates. At what number of bits or marbles would such a device ever "do logic", let alone achieve consciousness or experience anything?

Yes, I admit that I have written software that opens a popup and says "Thinking..." while the software continues on its way doing what software does, and then the popup is closed in the FINALLY block. Do you imagine that the computer was really thinking while the prompt was displayed? Do you suppose that at some level it was aware even that it was displaying a word on a monitor? Is a computer even aware of what the letter A is?

The original claim was that transistors do logic. This notion is false, a simple anthropomorphism.

BTW, ILTTL, I did mean to respond to your original post (the one which you edited to say you had the wrong poster etc.)... you bring up the issue of computers having some form of experience in that post, which is why I pursue issues of a computer thinking and awareness here.

 

[chriswl]

I have never encountered a "control mechanism" that had a "need".

The mechanism satisfies a design goal. The needs come from that. Evolution is the designer.

I agree. Whether you take one TTL gate, or combine trillions, you still have a machine.

Same with lots of neurons. What is so different about carbon compared to silicon?

The question is not whether animals or human beings can use logic. The question is whether machines do.

Er, no the question was "Materialism and Logic, mutually exclusive?" That's why I picked the example of primitive animals, things that we can agree don't have "minds". In effect they are machines, albeit biological ones.

I dont think instinctive behaviour qualifies as "logical"? Do animals reason toward their instinctive behaviours using logic?

They are not conscious of the logical decison-making processes any more than my computer is. But that's irrelevant to the question.

I think the question you really want to ask is "is consciousness compatible with materialism?" That's a tough question. But logic's easy.

 

[stillthinkin]

I have never encountered a "control mechanism" that had a "need".

The mechanism satisfies a design goal. The needs come from that. Evolution is the designer.

So evolution used modus ponens, or some other method of formal logic, to arrive at a solution for satisfying a need. You have a very anthropomorphic view of evolution.

I agree. Whether you take one TTL gate, or combine trillions, you still have a machine.

Same with lots of neurons. What is so different about carbon compared to silicon?

No difference. If you reduce thought processes to material causes, then logic, truth, falsehood, modus ponens, and the like are reduced to illusion. That means these thoughts and arguments -- both yours and mine -- cannot go anywhere. In software we call that a HALT. In the thread that spawned this one, I called it "the thought that ends all thought", and a "reductio ad absurdum".

The question is not whether animals or human beings can use logic. The question is whether machines do.

Er, no the question was "Materialism and Logic, mutually exclusive?" That's why I picked the example of primitive animals, things that we can agree don't have "minds". In effect they are machines, albeit biological ones.

Er, yes we started this post at the "machine" side of things - can material things do logic. Transistors were proposed as something material that does logic. Regarding primitive animals, please do not confuse "doing logic" with "exhibiting mechanisitic causality".

I dont think instinctive behaviour qualifies as "logical"? Do animals reason toward their instinctive behaviours using logic?

They are not conscious of the logical decison-making processes any more than my computer is. But that's irrelevant to the question.

So animals do logic, or they do not? Who or what is making these logical decisions if not the animal (we arent back to the rational powers of evolution to do logic to satisy some alleged design need, are we?)

I think the question you really want to ask is "is consciousness compatible with materialism?" That's a tough question. But logic's easy.

No the question was "Materialism and Logic, mutually exclusive?" as you have already pointed out. This one is a lot tougher than you think.

Can we get one thing straight folks: human beings do logic. Machines do not.

I submit that some of you confuse causality with logic.

 

[Z]

As is so often stated in so many threads here, define your terms.

You, as a software engineer, should know full well that machines do logic, for some definitions of 'machine' and 'logic'.

Many types of machine can be constructed to 'do logic' - from silicon and transistors to water wheels to marbles rolling downhill. Interpreting that logic is a different issue altogether... and a machine could further be made to interpret the logic from another machine.

The point I'm reaching for is, define your terms. Precisely.

Apparently, you think there is some mental process humans are capable of that machines are not. I want a precise definition of what you think that is, because so far, I cannot picture anything short of imagination and non-logical, non-linear thought that a machine either cannot do now nor could possibly do in the future.

Semantics, my friend. They'll get you every time.

 

[CapelDodger]

I have never encountered a "control mechanism" that had a "need".

A control mechanism needs input data and output instructions. Without either it serves no function.