Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

[RandFan]

From the Dawkin's Thread

You claim you are interested in logic, but if materialism is true then there is no such thing as logic. The thought that ends all thought...

Ah, the age old question, "Where is fancy bred? In the heart, or in the head?" --Willy Wonka and apologies to Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice but I prefer Wonka's version.

Is logic not possible without a soul (homunculus) or at least some other force or something else besides a brain?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

From the Dawkin's Thread

Ah, the age old question, "Where is fancy bred? In the heart, or in the head?" --Willy Wonka and apologies to Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice but I prefer Wonka's version.

Is logic not possible without a soul (homunculus) or at least some other force or something else besides a brain?

Transistors seem to handle it just fine without souls.

 

[RandFan]

Transistors seem to handle it just fine without souls.

So do rivers flowing down hill.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

So do rivers flowing down hill.

As opposed to those flowing uphill?

 

[stillthinkin]

Transistors seem to handle it just fine without souls.

Transistors dont "do logic", nor do they understand anything.

 

[stillthinkin]

As opposed to those flowing uphill?

Either is fine. Find a transistor that can distinguish the two.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Transistors dont "do logic", nor do they understand anything.

If transistors didn't do logic, you couldn't have posted that.

And when did understanding creep into this discussion?

 

[stillthinkin]

From the Dawkin's Thread

Ah, the age old question, "Where is fancy bred? In the heart, or in the head?" --Willy Wonka and apologies to Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice but I prefer Wonka's version.

Is this a version of the chewbacca defense? Perhaps it was just an electrochemicalism.

 

[stillthinkin]

If transistors didn't do logic, you couldn't have posted that.

And when did understanding creep into this discussion?

LOL cute. I suppose if an abacus didnt do logic i couldnt count either.
Do you do logic without understanding it?

 

[I less than three logic]

LOL cute. I suppose if an abacus didnt do logic i couldnt count either.
Do you do logic without understanding it?

You seem a bit selective with your opposition to arguments from ignorance. When discussing the existence of things like gods it is a big no-no. When discussing things like the possibility of silicon and flowing electrons have some form of experience it is no longer off limits?

How do you prove (super) computers can’t/don’t have some form of experience. I can’t prove that you do or don’t. You, like everyone else, knows nothing about “souls”, how they are made, if they exist, if they can be destroyed, how they allow or create experience. Lets do some of that “just-so” asserting thing you like when being agonistic about God. Maybe souls are created when there is sufficiently complex electron exchange within a certain area, such as a brain or the inner workings of a powerful computer. Can you prove this isn’t true? Can you prove no computer will ever “understand”?

ETA - Allow me to apologize. I got you confused with another poster. Sorry.

My opposition still stands. You are using an argument from ignorance. You simply cannot know if a powerful enough computer does not “experience” in some way. You can’t even know if I experience, nor I about you.

 

[RandFan]

Is this a version of the chewbacca defense?

No.

In many cultures it was believed that the heart was the source of a person's personality and was the source of feelings of passion including love and was also believed to house the soul. It is this reason that the modern icon for valentine is called a "heart". The heart has become a metaphor for that human quality that seems to transcend logic and materialism. That which makes us more like Captain Kirk and less like Spock. Using that metaphor, is "fancy" a product of a soul or the brain?

You are free to ignore my quotes as simply rhetoric. It was meant to spark interest in the subject not to prove anything.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

LOL cute. I suppose if an abacus didnt do logic i couldnt count either.

Not even close to analogous. I presume you can count without an abacus. I know you cannot post to the internet without transistors.

Do you do logic without understanding it?

I ask that we leave aside the question of understanding for a bit for it is a tricky one, and not obviously relevant anyway.

I am more curious to know on what basis you deny logic to transistors. Were I to formulate a logical problem, pose it to both you and a CPU (which is, in a manner of speaking, just a bunch of transistors) in the appropriate form, I could expect you both to arrive at the solution by roughly the same processes, deriving truth from the premises offered. In fact, the only significant difference would be speed and efficiency, at both of which the CPU will be by far the superior. How is it not using logic to do this? And what is it using instead?

 

[RandFan]

LOL cute. I suppose if an abacus didnt do logic i couldnt count either.
Do you do logic without understanding it?

Well you couldn't use one to perform logical functions. Perhaps you need to refine what you meant?

 

[stillthinkin]

Not even close to analogous. I presume you can count without an abacus. I know you cannot post to the internet without transistors.

If I count with my fingers, who is doing logic? Me or my fingers?

I ask that we leave aside the question of understanding for a bit for it is a tricky one, and not obviously relevant anyway.

Can you tell me what logic is, when it is not understood? I am glad that you grant, for the moment, that the question of understanding is tricky, but I do not think it is "obviously not relevant" as you put it.

I am more curious to know on what basis you deny logic to transistors. Were I to formulate a logical problem, pose it to both you and a CPU (which is, in a manner of speaking, just a bunch of transistors) in the appropriate form, I could expect you both to arrive at the solution by roughly the same processes, deriving truth from the premises offered. In fact, the only significant difference would be speed and efficiency, at both of which the CPU will be by far the superior. How is it not using logic to do this? And what is it using instead?

I am quite familar with TTL. We can do the same thing with marbles and gates on a sloped plane. The operative word is we. It is we who have done logic when we build machines. It appears that a calculator is "doing logic" when it adds two and two and gets four. An electronic calculator is no more "doing logic" than an abacus is, or my fingers are.

 

[stillthinkin]

Well you couldn't use one to perform logical functions. Perhaps you need to refine what you meant?

Are you saying mathematica addition and subtraction are not logical functions? I submit that they are very logical.

 

[stillthinkin]

No.

In many cultures it was believed that the heart was the source of a person's personality and was the source of feelings of passion including love and was also believed to house the soul. It is this reason that the modern icon for valentine is called a "heart". The heart has become a metaphor for that human quality that seems to transcend logic and materialism. That which makes us more like Captain Kirk and less like Spock. Using that metaphor, is "fancy" a product of a soul or the brain?

You are free to ignore my quotes as simply rhetoric. It was meant to spark interest in the subject not to prove anything.

Ah, I apologize for my snide comment then. It was a cute quote, I like Willy Wonka very much. Delightful story. I think it is appropriate to apologize for snide comments, I hope you agree.

Are you looking for an homunculus?

 

[IllegalArgument]

I guess I'll stick my toe in the water... and probably have it cut off.

Logic is a language that describe "stuff", it has no god, essence, or force.

It's a damn good and useful language, because it can be used to prove and disprove things in the material world.

Maps are never perfect replicas of the material world they describe, but it's better than not having one if you're planning a trip.

I'm probably missing the true point of this thread, but that's my two cents.

 

[chriswl]

Beyond a certain level of complexity any control mechanism needs logic. That is, you can only achieve so much by connecting up lots of seperate thermostat-like regulator systems. 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.

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.

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.

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

 

[IllegalArgument]

.
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.

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.

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.

 

[stillthinkin]

I guess I'll stick my toe in the water... and probably have it cut off.

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

Logic is a language that describe "stuff", it has no god, essence, or force.

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.

It's a damn good and useful language, because it can be used to prove and disprove things in the material world.

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.

I'm probably missing the true point of this thread, but that's my two cents.

And you were worried about your toes...