Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

[Z]

Then a great tragedy of your life is that you have never experienced the joy of understanding a formal proof for yourself. This is why you cannot even understand this thread.

Neither have you.

How do you even know what a formal proof is? Someone taught you. HOw do you know what truth is? Someone taught you.

Show me any infant who has known the joy of understanding a formal proof for themself.

 

[President Bush]

If RandFan were deterministically required to ask that question, how could it be a meaningful question? Hey, now that I think about that...

This is nonsense. It would have just as much meaning whether it was deterministic or not. RandFan would still want an answer whether he was deterministically required to want an answer or (free) willed himself to want an answer.

You have mistated my point:

I wondered: If RandFan were deterministically required to ask the question why we would ever think that humans are "doing" anything more than causality required of them... how could it be a meaningful question?

Not: (If) RandFan would still want an answer whether he was deterministically required to want an answer or (free) willed himself to want an answer.

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.

This sentences doesn’t really make much sense to me, perhaps you can explain what you meant? I think you’re saying that if everything was deterministic then people wouldn’t be able to disagree on theories about observed phenomenon.

That would depend upon the set of variables for each individual in that particular group of people causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences, wouldn't it?

Not talking about groups of people disagreeing or agreeing. I was referring to individuals. Individuals being in a position to to square their theories of the world with what they observe.

It's Election Day here in the US. Voters confronted with election day dilemmas concerning the war in Iraq, how to best conduct what's called the War on Terror, abortion, affirmative action, environmental protection, global warming, the minimum wage, same-sex marriage, health care, and taxation. Difficult moral questions.

Does one vote based upon one's values and beliefs? Does one vote based upon a set of values and beliefs entirely constructed by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences?

Personally, I try to act as though there's a difference.

Every person enters into the situation with a different set of variables, the things they already know or believe won’t be the same between each person

A variable is a measurable attribute. When you say that every person enters into the situation with a different set of variables, you are saying that every person enters into the situation with different measurable attributes. It's just that these attributes can't, really, be measured.

Weird science.

so even if it were deterministic the end results do not have to match or even be remotely close to one another.

Even if it were deterministic? I thought that is what you were arguing?

I don’t know about you or anyone else, but whether everything is deterministic or not makes little difference to me. I make my choices based on what I think at the time of making the choice. However, I have no reason to believe I was capable of thinking of anything other then exactly what I thought to make whatever choice was at hand.

You act as you imagine yourself (in the sense that you can't act against your nature). The key part is that this image doesn't completely determine your behavior.

 

[Z]

Apparently, ST seems to think that newborns automatically know correct from incorrect, and can comprehend a formal logical proof.

Else, he's making false claims.

Ultimately, the ability to appreciate the truth value of a given statement depends upon what we've been taught. There is no way around that fact.

Therefore, logic is programmed.

 

[I less than three logic]

You have mistated my point:

I wondered: If RandFan were deterministically required to ask the question why we would ever think that humans are "doing" anything more than causality required of them... how could it be a meaningful question?

Not: (If) RandFan would still want an answer whether he was deterministically required to want an answer or (free) willed himself to want an answer.

No, you missed the point, mostly because you misread my sentence. That “if” you added to my sentence was not put there for a reason, as it drastically changes what was said.

I doubt RandFan think he knows all the answers, has all the information available, or that his opinions are infallible. He wanted to know what you thought on the subject, why we would ever think that humans are "doing" anything more than causality required of them, and it is that wanting of the answer that is the meaning. Now, whether he was deterministically required to want an answer to that question or it was his free will that made him want an answer to the question makes no difference to the meaning of the question. Also, regardless if it is all determined or a product of free will, whatever information he may have gained as a result of the question could affect, perhaps dramatically, what he ends up thinking thereafter.

Even if it were deterministic? I thought that is what you were arguing?

Not everyone that disagrees with you is arguing the opposite position. I don’t know if determinism is true, it isn’t falsifiable. You can’t prove it is true, and you can’t prove it isn’t. I’m arguing against your notion that if it’s all deterministic, nothing we think or ask has meaning. That is nonsense; we constructed the concept of meaning the same way we constructed all other concepts we use. So, if determinism is true, we did so entirely under determinism all along. Nothing about the concept changes either way.

 

[Taffer]

My point seems uncontroversial to me. Would you please state your objection more clearly?

Sure. It is you who is placing meaning on our actions, PB, not us. You attribute 'meaning' to questions, actions, thoughts, etc. It is up to you to show there is any such meaning.

Oh, and by the way stillthinkin, please answer my question I gave earlier.

ETA: In case you have forgotten, stillthinkin, there is the question.

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

 

[chriswl]

Exactly. Or it is very simple if you consider it as a flat surface. The difference is subjective, a matter of perspective.

Saying it's a matter of perspective isn't really the same thing as saying that its subjective. I can't see the back of the monitor in front of me because I have the wrong perspective. But it has a real and not at all subjective existence. There is no perspective from which it would be a radically different sort of thing from that which it really is.

Are you saying you have increased or decreased the complexity of the sand somehow, by writing in it? Keep in mind that an apparently flat beach is not really flat at all -- the coastline problem.

I'm saying that the message is really there, physically. There is a perspective from which it exists, from which it encodes a measurable amount of information. However long you look you will never discover a perspective from which that message exists on ordinary, flat beach.

Further, there could be a different sonnet written on every single grain of sand...

Would that not surprise you? Or would you just shrug and say it's no more complicated than normal sand?

 

[President Bush]

Why would we ever think that humans are "doing" anything more than the causality required of them?

He wanted to know what you thought on the subject, why we would ever think that humans are "doing" anything more than causality required of them

A prior event or set of events caused RandFan to ask this question if he were doing nothing more than what causality requires of him.... external physical events totally outside his control... I'm starting to see what you mean.

Why would an automaton ever think that it was "doing" anything more than the causality required of it?

 

[nescafe]

Why would an automaton ever think that it was "doing" anything more than the causality required of it?

Because it was programmed to do so as a side effect of trying to predict (with incomplete information) what all those other automatons will do.

 

[69dodge]

In your view it would seem that brains and computers may causally implement illogic just as well as logic;

Of course they may causally implement illogic...

in fact, we humans seem to do illogic much more efficiently than logic.

...and often do, as you recognize.

If causality is the source of logic, then logic is no better than illogic.

I do not know what you mean by "better".

In any case, why is logic no better than illogic if causality is the source of logic? And why is it better than illogic if it has some other source? What source do you think it has? How do you know what its source is?

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?

I don't think that.

Why do you think that a person is doing more than causality requires of him, when he logically infers a conclusion from premisses?

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.

What sort of propositions, whose truth you could see, "go infinitely beyond the possibilities of materiality"?

In any case, did you feel as though you were free not to see the truth of those propositions?

 

[RandFan]

My point seems uncontroversial to me. Would you please state your objection more clearly?

Meaning is just a human construct. It's understood from an evolutionary and materialistic perspective. There is no conflict.

One more time. You are appealing to an intuitive sense of "meaning" in an attempt to persuade those who disagree with you to your point of view. It's not argument. It's just as much sophistry as your smilie with the shades is.

 

[RandFan]

A prior event or set of events caused RandFan to ask this question if he were doing nothing more than what causality requires of him.... external physical events totally outside his control... I'm starting to see what you mean.

Why would an automaton ever think that it was "doing" anything more than the causality required of it?

Rhetorical. You are not arguing. You are engaging in fallacy and arguing from ignorance. There is no reason to believe that an automaton won't some day do what we do now. Your argument is circular. You make an assumption and the premise of your argument is based on the assumption.

Your assumption that life would not seem the way that it is if materialism were correct is just an assumption.

 

[President Bush]

It is you who is placing meaning on our actions, PB, not us. You attribute 'meaning' to questions, actions, thoughts, etc.

I assume RandFan is trying to say something when posting here.

 

[President Bush]

Your argument is circular.

Circular? I'll give you circular. Consider this:

Causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences, RandFan asks the question (paraphrased): why would we think that humans are "doing" anything more than what causality requires of them?

My question is: where is the perspective outside what is causually determined from which one might referee whether something meaningful was asked here, in contrast to its manner of presentation on this thread?

 

[RandFan]

I assume RandFan is trying to say something when posting here.

Your point?

 

[RandFan]

Circular? I'll give you circular. Consider this:

Causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences, RandFan asks the question (paraphrased): why would we think that humans are "doing" anything more than what causality requires of them?

My question is: where is the perspective outside what is causually determined from which one might referee whether something meaningful was asked here, in contrast to its manner of presentation on this thread?

There is a problem with your question. Why assume that there is a perspective outside what is causually determined from which one might referee whether something meaninful was asked in contrast to its manner of presentation on this thread?

 

[President Bush]

Your point?

Answering Taffer's question.

There is a problem with your question. Why assume that there is a perspective outside what is causually determined from which one might referee whether something meaninful was asked in contrast to its manner of presentation on this thread?

Wow, we're back on topic on this thread, again.

To answer your question... no assumption is involved. Rather a conclusion, as by reasoning.

 

[RandFan]

Answering Taffer's question.

It would be nice if you could do that by making a point.

To answer your question... no assumption is involved. Rather a conclusion, as by reasoning.

Hence the problem, the conclusion is based on a premise that assumes the conclusion, or to put it another way, it's circular.

You do this a lot. In all honesty I don't know if it is intentional or if you are just being obtuse. I'm guessing the latter but let me see if I can't help you out. You see, an argument is a series of statements that logically establishes a definite proposition (see Monty Python Sketch).

The statements are what we call premises. The conclusion must logically follow from the premises and not simply assumed. Got it?

Ok, let's test you to see if you really did get it. What are your premises and what is your conclusion?

Now, bear in mind the premise can't assume the conclusion. Here, I'll give you an example: Only morally bankrupt people would use the title and name of President Bush as a user name. You in fact use the title and name of President Bush therefore you are morally bankrupt.

See the problem? Ok, now your turn, state your premises and conclusion.

 

[President Bush]

the conclusion is based on a premise that assumes the conclusion, or to put it another way, it's circular.

Where?

 

[RandFan]

Where?

How many times must I explain it to you? Do you even know what your argument is? Could you diagram it and identify the premises and the conclusion? Do you even know how to diagram an argument?

See, I'm guessing that you don't even know what the argument is. I'm guessing that if I had to hold my breath until you could figure out what your premises were and how the conclusion logically followed I would die. What do you think?

I'll tell you what, if you will tell me what the premises are I will see if I can help you diagram the argument, fair enough?

 

[President Bush]

How many times must I explain it to you?

Once might help. Please indicate, specifically, what I said that you are referring to here.