Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

[Marquis de Carabas]

I have designed and built a number of machines, including DDL and TTL circuits. I am familiar with what they do and how they work. Like any other machine, they do what stuff does... if a marble rolls down a track, and there is an opening in the track, the marble falls down the opening. It does not infer its way into the hole. If a set of transistors form an AND gate, and both the inputs go to +5 V, then and only then does the output go to +5 V. The transistors are not making an inference any more than the marble is.

Or any less than the marble. Or any more or any less than the neurons in your brain.

 

[stillthinkin]

The first thing anyone, anywhere, has to do to disprove materialism is to show that something immaterial exists.

Until then, all we can say is that humans are material things, humans do logic, and the answer to the thread title is, "No."

The first thing anyone, anywhere, has to do to prove materialism is to show that nothing immaterial exists.

Until then, all we can say is that humans are partly immaterial things, for that reason humans are capable of doing logic like nothing else is, and the answer to the thread title is, "Yes."

submitted as an example of a proper verbal substitution

 

[I less than three logic]

We have at least two definitions for "logic":
1. "to combine premises by inference to reach conclusions"
2. "what transistor-transitor functionality provides in a computer"

To equate these two in an argument is an equivocation, which is a fallacy.

Note that in my argument H,P1,P2 etc. I use defn 1 without equivocation.

You have not proven that your P2 is anything more than just material, and thus a direct violation of P1. Your premises are faulty, and your proof unsound.

 

[chriswl]

We have at least two definitions for "logic":
1. "to combine premises by inference to reach conclusions"

Now define "inference".

This is where you sneak consciousness in. To infer implies conscious thought.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

st,

Going back to my earlier syllogism, I believe we are in agreement that both a human and a computer or capable of returning Z has property Y from the input All X have property Y; Z is an X. Correct?

And we are also in agreement that the output would have been reached by largely analogous processes. Correct?

If so, then the only distinction worth mentioning is that the computer does not--so far as we know--appreciate its answer. If X, Y, and Z are states, capitals, Texas, both devices return Texas has a capital, but it is only to the human that this means anything. It seems to me that it is this distinction that prevents you from allowing that computers do logic.

For myself and (or so I interpret) the others, logic refers solely to the process of reaching the output from the input(s). Understanding (whatever that means) is irrelevant. Am I right in thinking that it is here the disagreement truly lies, that you do believe understanding is a relevant factor in determining whether a process is logical?

 

[RandFan]

The first thing anyone, anywhere, has to do to prove materialism is to show that nothing immaterial exists.

You mean you want us to prove a negative?

Until then, all we can say is that humans are partly immaterial things, for that reason humans are capable of doing logic like nothing else is, and the answer to the thread title is, "Yes."

Arguing from ignorance?

 

[Z]

You mean you want us to prove a negative?

Arguing from ignorance?

That's how most of his kind works.

We have never seen or experienced any immaterial thing. We may not be able to do so. Yet in his mind, we must prove that these things don't exist, anywhere.

So, for that matter, invisible pink unicorns, faeries, and dragons are all real, too, until proven otherwise.

I think we've proven beyond reasonable doubt that stillthinkin' lacks, severely, in reasoning faculty, and is unfamiliar with the modern state of science or philosophy. Yes, I know, ST - ad hom. Big whoop. The fact remains, your premises are unsound, and your argument is invalid.

Show me the immaterial elements to the human. I can show you the material ones. Until you can do the first, we must assume that humans are material beings.

End of argument.

 

[I less than three logic]

You mean you want us to prove a negative?

Agreed. Not only is this a fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof, it is also irrelevant. No one here is attempting to prove materialism is true, only refute the statement that materialism and logic are incompatible.

Arguing from ignorance?

Plus a false dichotomy and an all-around general non-sequitur. Even if materialism is false, that does not mean people are part immaterial. There could be immaterial things, thus materialism is false, but people could still be 100% material. So to say that materialism is false, therefore people are part immaterial is, quite simply, non-sequitur. Only by setting up the false dichotomy that materialism is true so people are all material, or materialism is false so people are part immaterial could you come to make this statement. Which in turn is based on an argument from ignorance, "since materialism hasn't been proven true, it is false".

 

[Z]

The first thing anyone, anywhere, has to do to prove materialism is to show that nothing immaterial exists.

Incorrect. You can only disprove a notion like materialism or idealism; you can never truly prove it.

Basic logic.

Until then, all we can say is that humans are partly immaterial things,

Incorrect. No evidence of any immaterial component exists.

for that reason humans are capable of doing logic like nothing else is,

Incorrect. Several other things are capable of doing logic.

and the answer to the thread title is, "Yes."

Incorrect.

submitted as an example of a proper verbal substitution

Incorrect. But we've come to expect that of you.

 

[stillthinkin]

Going back to my earlier syllogism, I believe we are in agreement that both a human and a computer or capable of returning Z has property Y from the input All X have property Y; Z is an X. Correct?

We do not agree on even that much about what a computer does. A computer has gates, each of whose output bit state depends on its input bit state(s). We build these gates. We then arrange these gates to do things that we find desireable, like doing arithmetic. Any logic a computer appears to do, is something which we have built it to do. The activity of the computer, including the logic of it, is entirely ours own.

And we are also in agreement that the output would have been reached by largely analogous processes. Correct?

The outputs are analogous because we built the machine.

If so, then the only distinction worth mentioning is that the computer does not--so far as we know--appreciate its answer. If X, Y, and Z are states, capitals, Texas, both devices return Texas has a capital, but it is only to the human that this means anything. It seems to me that it is this distinction that prevents you from allowing that computers do logic.

Not the only distinction, but I agree of course that a computer does not "appreciate" the output. The computer does not do what it does by logical inference, it does what it does because we make gate assemblies that do what we want.

For myself and (or so I interpret) the others, logic refers solely to the process of reaching the output from the input(s). Understanding (whatever that means) is irrelevant. Am I right in thinking that it is here the disagreement truly lies, that you do believe understanding is a relevant factor in determining whether a process is logical?

The problem with reducing logic to merely the process, is that the process can be incorrect. We have built buggy hardware. The output was not logical, it was not what we wanted... and this was a human mistake, not the mistake of a machine.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

We do not agree on even that much about what a computer does. A computer has gates, each of whose output bit state depends on its input bit state(s). We build these gates. We then arrange these gates to do things that we find desireable, like doing arithmetic. Any logic a computer appears to do, is something which we have built it to do. The activity of the computer, including the logic of it, is entirely ours own.

A human brain has neurons, each of whose output state depends on its input states. The genetic code and subsequent development build these neurons. Experience and training arrange these gates to do things we find desireable, like doing arithmetic. Any logic a brain appears to do, is something natural selection and experience have built it to do. The activity of a brain, including the logic of it, is nature's own.

The outputs are analogous because we built the machine.

True, but by my stance, obviously irrelevant.

The problem with reducing logic to merely the process, is that the process can be incorrect. We have built buggy hardware. The output was not logical, it was not what we wanted... and this was a human mistake, not the mistake of a machine.

I would accept this argument if human logic circuits were not at least as buggy.

 

[stillthinkin]

We do not agree on even that much about what a computer does. A computer has gates, each of whose output bit state depends on its input bit state(s). We build these gates. We then arrange these gates to do things that we find desireable, like doing arithmetic. Any logic a computer appears to do, is something which we have built it to do. The activity of the computer, including the logic of it, is entirely ours own.

A human brain has neurons, each of whose output state depends on its input states. The genetic code and subsequent development build these neurons. Experience and training arrange these gates to do things we find desireable, like doing arithmetic. Any logic a brain appears to do, is something natural selection and experience have built it to do. The activity of a brain, including the logic of it, is nature's own.

I have built machines, but I have never built a brain. hammegk's post 42 above might require a response at this point.

The problem with reducing logic to merely the process, is that the process can be incorrect. We have built buggy hardware. The output was not logical, it was not what we wanted... and this was a human mistake, not the mistake of a machine.

I would accept this argument if human logic circuits were not at least as buggy.

How do we differentiate our buggy circuits from our unbuggy ones? Human beings seem to be pretty buggy, if contradiction is any indication... but perhaps that is the bug of the principle of non-contradiction talking. How can matter contradict itself, after all?

 

[Z]

How do we differentiate our buggy circuits from our unbuggy ones? Human beings seem to be pretty buggy, if contradiction is any indication... but perhaps that is the bug of the principle of non-contradiction talking. How can matter contradict itself, after all?

In an information processing system utilizing multiple organic cross-connections, like thousands of parallel processing units working in tandem, you can almost expect contradictions. After all, there's a common error most people hold about the brain - that it's a single entity. In fact, the brain is multiple entities, all communicating with each other, and creating, as a whole, the persona that is a person; obviously, from time to time, different entities within the brain can disagree, or even come to incorrect conclusions because they access information differently. After all, this is a machine that has to figure out, for itself, how to store, retrieve, and compare information. No one has built it ready-made for its task; it has to manage a long, successful series of trial-and-error executions, and hope it's gotten most of them right.

Probably the biggest argument for NOT building AIs patterned after human brains... who wants a machine that we have to put in school for twenty years, just on a CHANCE of coming out how we need it to be?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I have built machines, but I have never built a brain. hammegk's post 42 above might require a response at this point.

What you have built or not is irrelevant.

How do you know, by the way, that computers don't have an immaterial component?

 

[stillthinkin]

What you have built or not is irrelevant.

I can speak from experience of what it takes to make a computer.

How do you know, by the way, that computers don't have an immaterial component?

The ones I built were made out of matter. Are you suggesting matter has an immaterial component? Is that how it can contradict itself?

Can matter make a mistake?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I can speak from experience of what it takes to make a computer.

So can I. Ask any parent what it takes to make a brain. It's still irrelevant.

The ones I built were made out of matter. Are you suggesting matter has an immaterial component? Is that how it can contradict itself?

The people I know are made of matter. Sperm is matter. Eggs are matter. Nutrients ingested by the mother are matter. I know of nothing else that goes into the making of a brain except matter. Yet you think something else gets in there somehow. On what basis, then, can you know that some immaterial something does not get in the computer you build?

ETA: The point is this: once you let the immaterial in somewhere, you have no grounds for keeping it out of where you don't want it.

 

[hammegk]

How do you know, by the way, that computers don't have an immaterial component?

Do you keep a box of it handy when you are assembling things?

The point is this: once you let the immaterial in somewhere, you have no grounds for keeping it out of where you don't want it.

Hi, immaterialist.

 

[Z]

Yeah, that's the real catch - idealist or materialist, it's all stuff.

The dualist is basically screwed, blued and tattooed.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Do you keep a box of it handy when you are assembling things?

No. Nor do I keep a box of it handy when I fk. So, building humans or computers, no immaterial stuff.

Unless, of course, somebody wants to show some proof of it.

Hint: argument from ignorance is not proof

 

[Fifty Thousand Bucks]

Dust in the wind.

The people I know are made of matter. Sperm is matter. Eggs are matter. Nutrients ingested by the mother are matter. I know of nothing else that goes into the making of a brain except matter.

Query: Am I to take it that it is self-evident/a priori/[fill in the blank as you wish] what we are talking about when speaking of matter? Maybe I've read too many dead white males (2,300 plus years of accumulated dust!) but matter has never seemed all that simple (clear, intelligible, etc.) to me.

Although authority is a slender thread on which to hang the acceptance of a proposition, I seem to recall Mr. Chomsky saying - something to the effect - that we really don't know what we are talking about when speaking of materialism since we don't have much of a grasp of matter. (Actually, now that I think of it, not too far from those accumulations of Greek dust.)

Of course, this isn't much encouragement to anyone wishing to speak of what is immaterial since our grasp of what is immaterial to some extent plays on (via negation) our grasp of what is material.

So, where might this leave us? Umm? Semantics anyone?

Cheers,

FTB