Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

[President Bush]

...humans don't make mistakes.

Thank you for your vote.

 

[RandFan]

Sure, why not. You're substituting "descriptions" in your quote for "predictions" in mine.

Truth is, generally, defined as the true or actual state of something. Bohr indicated that it seems we must give up on the idea of knowing such a thing to make the predictions/descriptions which you call truth.

This does not seem controversial to me.

I concede that I was the one who used the word truth. Science doesn't really deal in absolute truths. The purpose of science is to understand and explain the natural world around us. Quantum mechanics helps us do that at the atomic and sub atomic levels in a way that we couldn't before quantum mechanics.

For instance, if we use classic mechanics to try and understand the relationship of electrons and nucleus it would seem that the electron couldn't remain in orbit but instead would collide with the nucleaus in short order. Quantum mechanics helps us understand why the electron normaly remains in a stable orbit around a nucleus.

I don't know about you but that sure seems like truth to me. Forgive my presumption but I don't think Bohr would argue, do you?

In the end the proof is in the pudding (short version of the proverb). Quantum mechanics has been around since the early 1900's and it's still going strong. If quantum mechanics didn't provide a frame work for understanding the natural world at the atomic and sub atomic level it is for damn sure we wouldn't still be using it.

 

[RandFan]

Thank you for your vote.

That would be great in the politics section. However if we are going to be precise in our language regarding computer data files and eliminate the term "corrupt" from our language to avoid any ambiguity then we must be consistent. Words are used to convey ideas and if a data file can never become corrupt then a human can never make a mistake.

 

[chriswl]

Both (2) and (3) are correct. No logical inferences are done by the machine, it has been designed to do what it does by a human being, deterministically and causally. Any inferences are done at the time the machine is designed.

Then this must also apply to the human operator. He is carrying out his instructions on the production line in a mechanical fashion (how else are we able to automate his job?). He makes no logical inferences, they were all done (on your definition of "logical inference") by the supervisor or process engineer who devised the working procedures. We are not really thinking if we are simply following instructions.

The problem is that "logical inference" has now become rather ellusive. The programmer had to learn how to program. He follows explicit rules and a lot of unconscious, implicit rules-of-thumb when devising programs. So, much (some would say all) of what he does would not really qualify as making logical inferences. That only leaves the kind of creative flashes of insight or intuition that cannot (it is often assumed) be reduced to mere mechanism.

This now leaves you with a definition of "logical inference" that is not only different to everyone else's but is exactly the opposite to the definition everyones else uses. "Logic" has been redefined as creativity and inspiration.

At this point you really need to tell us precisely what you mean by "logical inference". Or better still, come up with a more appropriate term for what you mean.

 

[stillthinkin]

The issue is not whether you have "appealed simply to complexity" (another pun ). My point is that complexity does not reside in material things.

True -- complexity lies (roughly) in the way those material things are configured.

If you want to put it that way, then let me expand it more: complexity lies in the way material things are considered to be configured. A rock or a brain can only be considered as simple or complex, as can an atom or the entire universe... rocks, brains, atoms and the universe are neither simple nor complex in themselves. "Complexity" is a similar word to "chaos" or "order". These words all refer to how we think about things, what we think we know or think we dont know.

Complexity is experienced in the act of consideration. People perplex about things and when a subject matter gets too involved for a person, he attributes it to the complexity of something outside of himself - but this is another anthropomorphic projection. Complexity is nothing more than projected perplexity.

You seem to be implying that complexity is a subjective quality -- this is not entirely true. In algorithmic information theory^WP, we can describe how complex systems are (by modelling them as programs being executed in some arbitrary programming language) using such measures as Kolmogorov complexity^WP.

I didnt mean merely to imply it; complexity is entirely subjective. Thanks for the references to Alg Info Theory and Kolmogorov. But these do not concern material things themselves, but are part of human attempts at understanding -- primarily at understanding other human practices of understanding, such as mathematics.

 

[chriswl]

If you want to put it that way, then let me expand it more: complexity lies in the way material things are considered to be configured. A rock or a brain can only be considered as simple or complex, as can an atom or the entire universe... rocks, brains, atoms and the universe are neither simple nor complex in themselves.

Now this is just silly.

 

[stillthinkin]

Now this is just silly.

A rock in ballistics is very simple.
How a rock will fracture under pressure requires an extremely complicated analysis. You let me know when you have figured out how granite, for example, will crack.

 

[stillthinkin]

Then this must also apply to the human operator. He is carrying out his instructions on the production line in a mechanical fashion (how else are we able to automate his job?). He makes no logical inferences, they were all done (on your definition of "logical inference") by the supervisor or process engineer who devised the working procedures. We are not really thinking if we are simply following instructions.

Any logic which a machine appears to do was actually done by the person who builds or programs the machine... same with any mistakes a machine apparently makes. The machine does what it has to. The "operator" can have a coffee if he wants to, and can spare the attention. Obviously once a machine is built, we may be able to use it without the same level of attention to detail that the designer had to exercise.

The problem is that "logical inference" has now become rather ellusive. The programmer had to learn how to program. He follows explicit rules and a lot of unconscious, implicit rules-of-thumb when devising programs. So, much (some would say all) of what he does would not really qualify as making logical inferences. That only leaves the kind of creative flashes of insight or intuition that cannot (it is often assumed) be reduced to mere mechanism.

This now leaves you with a definition of "logical inference" that is not only different to everyone else's but is exactly the opposite to the definition everyones else uses. "Logic" has been redefined as creativity and inspiration.

At this point you really need to tell us precisely what you mean by "logical inference". Or better still, come up with a more appropriate term for what you mean.

Logical inference is "rather ellusive" only if you dont know what it is. Most of what a human being does would not qualify as logical inference. But so far, human beings are the only things that actually ever do logical inference. When you thought through that argument, did you not employ any logical inferences? Such as, for example, Modus Tollens?

 

[chriswl]

Logical inference is "rather ellusive" only if you dont know what it is. Most of what a human being does would not qualify as logical inference.

Do you agree that what you describe as "logical inference" is more commonly refered to as insight, understanding or intuition? Or do you have a better synonym?

 

[chriswl]

A rock in ballistics is very simple.
How a rock will fracture under pressure requires an extremely complicated analysis. You let me know when you have figured out how granite, for example, will crack.

Well, a flat beach is very complex if you consider the precise position of every grain of sand. But if I then write some words on the sand have I really changed nothing except in the head of an observer who understands English? Would the proverbial Martian really claim there was no difference?

 

[69dodge]

Any logic which a machine appears to do was actually done by the person who builds or programs the machine... same with any mistakes a machine apparently makes. The machine does what it has to.

When people do logic and when people make mistakes (or when they appear to do those things, depending on our definitions), perhaps they are also doing what they have to. Can you explain why you don't think so? (If you don't think so. Which is how it looks to me.)

Logical inference is "rather ellusive" only if you dont know what it is. Most of what a human being does would not qualify as logical inference. But so far, human beings are the only things that actually ever do logical inference. When you thought through that argument, did you not employ any logical inferences? Such as, for example, Modus Tollens?

I don't see how that helps. Someone who is comfortable calling what computers do "logic" would also be comfortable saying that computers employ Modus Tollens when they do it.

It really isn't clear to some of us---me, for example---exactly what you mean by "logical inference". In particular, what "part" of it, if that is the right word, can people do but computers can't? Obviously, it isn't the very important part that consists of producing valid conclusions from premises, as computers can do that quite well. Must do it quite well, as I suppose you will point out, if they have been so programmed. But they certainly can do it. And why should we hold against them their inability to make mistakes while doing it? Isn't a lack of mistakes, on the contrary, very desirable when doing logic? Necessary, even?

You say people can do logic. And you say people can make mistakes. If I make a mistake while doing logic, am I still doing logic? Or do I merely think I am? How can I ever be sure that my logical inferences are free of mistakes? I can't be, of course, though sometimes I may feel more or less sure. Is this sure feeling, which I sometimes have and which computers don't, really all that important? It's just a feeling. Sometimes I feel sure, and am wrong anyway. Logic ought to be about getting the right answer, not about feeling sure of possibly wrong ones.

Perhaps it is only computers which can do logic, and we poor humans have to settle for a crude approximation to it, which often fails us.

 

[RandFan]

It really isn't clear to some of us---me, for example---exactly what you mean by "logical inference". In particular, what "part" of it, if that is the right word, can people do but computers can't?

This is crucial. To avoid begging the question we cannot first assume that humans are not machines and therefore their behavior is proof that they are not machines.

For such an argument to be logically valid it would first have to be demonstrated that humans do something that machines don't. This has not been established, only asserted.

What is it that humans do that machines don't? Remember, no assumptions. We can't start assuming that humans make mistakes and machines don't. It must be demonstrated that there is an appreciable difference.

 

[President Bush]

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

Spontaneously visualize, independently problem solve, then invent... machinery.

In Feb of 1882, Tesla took a walk in the city of Budapest with a former classmate. While a glorious sunset overspread the sky, Tesla engaged in one of his favorite hobbies-reciting poetry. The setting sun reminded Tesla of some of Goethe's beautiful lines:

The glow retreats, done is the day of toil;
It yonder hastes, new fields of life exploring;
Ah, that no wing can lift me from the soil,
Upon its track to follow, follow soaring...

Suddenly, Tesla snapped into a rigid pose as if he had fallen into a trance. "Watch me!" he said, "Watch me reverse it!"

Tesla's friend said, "I see nothing, are you ill?"

"You do not understand," said Tesla, "It is my alternating-current motor I am talking about. Can't you see it right here in front of me, running almost silently? It is the rotating magnetic field that does it. See how the magnetic field rotates and drags the armature around with it? Isn't it beautiful? I have solved the problem."


http://www.amazon.com/Prodigal-Geni...ef=sr_1_1/104-1105087-7355958?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

[Z]

Actually, I would state the problem as, what is it that humans can do, that no machine will ever be able to do, and why?

After all, a thousand years ago the answer of 'add one plus one' would have sufficed.

Another great question: 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?

And another: what is it that humans can do that no animal can do? Of course there are some possible answers, but we have to eliminate all answers which remain unprovable like 'believe in the supernatural' or 'find things beautiful'... Unless you're Doctor Friggin' Doolittle...

 

[RandFan]

Spontaneously visualize, independently problem solve, then invent... machinery.

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. That's a fallacy.

 

[RandFan]

Actually, I would state the problem as, what is it that humans can do, that no machine will ever be able to do, and why?

Thanks. You beat me to it.

Another great question: 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?

This is the salient point. Until you demonstrate such a violation you are simply begging the question.

 

[Taffer]

That's a fallacy.

In all fairness, it's not fallicious, it's just a bad argument.

However, I agree with both you and zaayr. Those who disagree must at least give reasons as to why they think machines couldn't do these things.

 

[RandFan]

In all fairness, it's not fallicious, it's just a bad argument.

Fair cop.

 

[President Bush]

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]

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.

No, it is not a shift in the burden of proof, or asking you to prove a negative. No one is claiming they will or even can perform the said tasks, only that the possibility may exist. If you want to claim the possibility doesn’t exist, that it is impossible for machines to ever do what humans can do, then the burden of proof is on you. To claim there is no evidence that they can or will ever be able to is deploying an argument from ignorance fallacy. This is the exact same trap atheist fall into when claiming to be able to prove God doesn’t exist.