Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

[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...

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.

It is you who is placing meaning on our actions, PB, not us.

Why would this be a problem?

Nothing like separating the wheat from the chaff...

 

[Taffer]

Nothing like separating the wheat from the chaff...

Not only is this not an argument, it doesn't even mean anything. If you have a point to make, I suggest you outline your argument in the commonly accepted form so we can view it. Snide remarks and nonsense comments do not constitue an argument.

 

[RandFan]

Nothing like separating the wheat from the chaff...

Non-argument. Sopistry is one thing in politics but it doesn't really play well here.

 

[Z]

But do they understand the brain at all?

I definitely see a problem in how some people consider the structure of the brain. It seems to me that they have this strawman idea that a physicalist/materialist brain model is like a single computer (maybe an Apple IIe or something), and they laugh because of all the things this Apple cannot do that a mind can.

But, as I said, this is a strawman at best.

A more reasonable concept of what the brain is like, in materialist/physicalist terms, is a closed set of computers - maybe four or five, maybe a dozen or more - which altogether share inputs and outputs with each other, and communicate with each other in different ways. Inputs come in from optic nerves, auditory sensors, etc., finding their ways to different computers in the system; processing occurs and output sent from one computer to another to another. No single computer is aware of its own processing, maybe; but they're sending data back and forth to each other, and are certainly aware of information they're receiving. This provides the whole system with internal awareness like that in our brains, and like this hypothetical system, no one part of the brain is self-aware, but the brain as a whole is aware of itself as a being.

Each individual computer works in a deterministic manner, but is composed of circuit boards of the type I proposed earlier in this conversation: the results of millions of years of plugging in random components and discarding the boards that do nothing or fail in odd ways. These boards work, and they work deterministically; but they don't always work like we would expect them to. As for the programs running on these computers, they're making up the programs as they go along. It's just as likely for a computer to come up with a program that causes 1+1 to equal 3 or aquamarine as it does to equal 2; it isn't until they interface with other sets of computers that they can get appropriate standards of programming together. And this interface is shoddy at best - sensory inputs interpreted and translated over time, and outputs via the meat-sack of our bodies.

Imagine if computers could only talk to each other by semaphor, for example, and could only use image processors with very low frame rates? Now, imagine if this is how we programmed our computers?

It seems to me that some people have this oversimplified concept of what deterministic brain action means. They envision inputs going in one end, being processed as part of a simple mathematical formula, and producing predictable outputs on the other side. What they're failing to realize is that the middle portion - the 'mathematical formula' - is actually billions of formulae, each loaded with hundreds of variables that most of us cannot account for consciously, each modifying every other variable and formula in some unknown way.

It's like dropping a mole of sulphur in a lake, and trying to guess what it will become when it reaches bottom.

I don't think anyone is arguing that oceans have free will; but if I put a plastic boat into the water, can I tell where it's going to wash ashore? Of course not. Does this mean it has free will? Of course not.

ST may not like 'complexity', but complexity accounts for most of the 'problems' that non-materialists seem to have with materialism.

...

Sorry for the long post... just needed to dump some nonsense out of my system.

 

[hammegk]

And I'll point again that the result can be -- in theory -- replaced by single universal Turing Machine. You are apparently free to choose to believe that, and can even argue that position logically. Yet, it remains a circular argument 100% contingent on your underlying choice of "material" as the monism.

I'll continue with my choice; Thought Exists.


Who knows though? Perhaps Darat will eventually choose enlighten us with his not-so-simple-minded alternative.

 

[Z]

And I'll point again that the result can be -- in theory -- replaced by single universal Turing Machine. You are apparently free to choose to believe that, and can even argue that position logically. Yet, it remains a circular argument 100% contingent on your underlying choice of "material" as the monism.

I'll continue with my choice; Thought Exists.


Who knows though? Perhaps Darat will eventually choose enlighten us with his not-so-simple-minded alternative.

Oh I won't argue with you there. Even if the underlying monism is 'thought', it still leads to the exact same results. We could still build such a machine, and it would think just as we do, and be alive, cogniscent, and aware, just as we are. Why? Because we'd be assembling thought in such a way as to create new thought.

Monism really has no choice, in the end, but to lead to the same conclusions... if taken sufficiently far enough.

But Hammy, just a quick note - the above long-winded overblown post was directed specifically at ST's idiotic notion that machines cannot 'do logic' - and his vastly oversimplified understanding of the mind in materialist terms. That post doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it. Sure, under idealism, we can come up with a similar model... but that's not what the debate here was.

What do you think, Ham? Is logic compatible with a physicalist/materialist account of the brain? Or is there something about materialism that denies the possibility of logic?

 

[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...

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.

It is you who is placing meaning on our actions, PB, not us.

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

 

[hammegk]

What do you think, Ham? Is logic compatible with a physicalist/materialist account of the brain? Or is there something about materialism that denies the possibility of logic?

Dare I say I think it's the silliest argument I've seen anytime lately?


As to your point on results of monism choice being the same under either scenario, you are 99.99...9+% right (god, free-will, maybe even life itself are in the .00...01%). Idealism gives you to a free pass to 100% as I see it (not that idealism explains god.etc just allows god.etc as possible).

 

[Z]

I think materialism does too - just not in a form most idealists find palatable.

 

[I less than three logic]

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.

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. Am I way off target here? If not, then I’d disagree with that statement. 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, so even if it were deterministic the end results do not have to match or even be remotely close to one another.

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. As Hammegk is fond of saying, thought exists, as well it might. Yet, I don’t see any reason why thought, as it constitutes reality, can’t be deterministic as well. Although, I believe that idealism is less constrictive than materialism when it comes to the possibilities it can allow.

 

[hammegk]

I think materialism does too - just not in a form most idealists find palatable.

Let me fix that.

materialism does too - just not in a form idealists find logical ... Idealists, or anyone else for that matter (so to speak ).

There.

 

[Z]

No, pretty sure I had it right the first time. It's perfectly logical to say that God = spacetime. Just not very useful to the idealist.

Likewise, that life is just an active biological process, or that thought is just intercommunication between brain nodules, or that free will is just a functional illusion... just not particularly palatable.

Logic is a different issue altogether. Whichever logic you use will lead to different results; for example, starting with the presumption that what you see is reliable should lead you to materialism; starting with the presumption that what you think is reliable is likely to lead to idealism. Starting without presumptions should lead to solipsism.

In my silly opinion, though...

Of course, thought might be ultimately made of matter. Then again, matter might ultimately be made of thought.

Only one thing seems clear - there's not two classes of 'that which is' that are so fundamentally different, that we have to embrace dualism.

 

[stillthinkin]

You mention "training". Logic is not like a technical skill, such as being an electrician, nor is it a matter of collecting facts, like some might view history (not me! no historian onslaught please). Logic is something you see for yourself, even though you may need guidance in order to gain a deep vision of it. ...

This I absolutely disagree with. Logic, the form you've been harping on in this thread, is absolutely a learned skill. A simple glance at any given cross-section of any normal population will demonstrate that. You're referring more to common sense - which is a folk-version of logic, and not always correct. Common sense is something learned at momma's knee, a survival skill learned because failure to do so can be catastrophic. Formal logic - with propositions, arguments, et. al. - is a complex learned skill - to do it right, anyway.

Where on earth do you come up with "folk version common sense" as my definition of logic? How many times have I referred to Modus Tollens or Modus Ponens? When we are making correct logical inferences, do we see for ourselves that we are doing it right, or do we take someones word for it? When I grasped the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, do you think it was by "folk version common sense at momma's knee" that I knew it was true and correct? Perhaps you think logical inference is a matter of taste. I know better. Again, you betray your ignorance of formal logic. I am sorry you find it complicated, but that is your own subjective issue.

Off-subject for a moment - one area of study I find fascinating - fascinating enough that I've decided to work toward a degree - is in early childhood education. Just raising six kids, I've learned so much about how much learning is actually involved in things we take for granted. Having an autistic child has further developed this awareness, since things we mostly assume happen naturally don't with him. I'm quickly finding that even basics like cause-effect relationships, ordered-sensations, etc. are all learned - programmed - into the brains of children. Folks like ST here seem to have forgotten that they DID have to learn logic and reasoning, just like a machine would have to be programmed with them; and just like a machine, if the human doing the teaching does so incorrectly, the child's logic suffers as a result.

I agree, everything is learned. However, the truth of a correct logical inference is also something that an individual can see for himself. Everything is learned, but at some point, there are some things we can see as absolutely truthful for ourselves. When are you going to take that logic course, to clear out the webs of confusion?

 

[stillthinkin]

No single computer is aware of its own processing, maybe; but they're sending data back and forth to each other, and are certainly aware of information they're receiving. This provides the whole system with internal awareness like that in our brains, and like this hypothetical system, no one part of the brain is self-aware, but the brain as a whole is aware of itself as a being.

Happy homunculus hunting.

Imagine if computers could only talk to each other by semaphor, for example, and could only use image processors with very low frame rates? Now, imagine if this is how we programmed our computers?

Imagine that. Perhaps then we would have the Dream Clapper, because it could see our hands! But that sounds like science fiction... which sounds familar.

ST may not like 'complexity', but complexity accounts for most of the 'problems' that non-materialists seem to have with materialism.

When did I say I dont like complexity? It shouldnt come as a surprise to you that when you irrationally attribute subjective qualities to material things, that you then find yourself able to turn those material things into a source for subjectivity. But keep relying on those subjective notions - also called anthropomorphisms and transferred epithets. Dont forget about "information", "chaos", and "order" too. Unfortunately they dont "account" for anything either.

Sorry for the long post... just needed to dump some nonsense out of my system.

It should feel better now that you have admitted what it was.

 

[I less than three logic]

Why do you continue to post, stillthinkin? For 15 pages now, you’ve done nothing but reassert the same thing. You have offered no evidence, and the so called proof you offered is founded entirely of fallacy.

Your straw man of the materialist’s claim that complexity is the final explanation is simply wrong. Complexity is not the explanation in itself, but it plays its role in explaining how a materialistic view of the brain can produce thought. People continue to explore the complexity of the brain, to figure out what does what, and with quite a bit of success so far. We can introduce chemicals to make a person happy or depressed, electrically stimulate parts of the brain and invoke sensations of sight or sound, or damage/remove sections of the brain and prohibit these sensations or even the ability to form memories. There is plenty of evidence to form a strong correlation, but perhaps not enough to establish causation.

On the other hand, your explanation offers nothing. You simply change thought from a verb to a noun, claiming thought is produced by an incorporeal substance of thought, which is completely undetectable and defies all current understanding of physics to somehow interact with the matter/energy of the brain. You offer no explanation on how this incorporeal substance produces thought, or any explanation on how it manages to affect the physical substances of the brain. Your proof, as I stated above, offers nothing as well; it is built on the foundation of proving a negative. You can not claim proof what matter is incapable of without first knowing absolutely everything it is capable of.

 

[Z]

Where on earth do you come up with "folk version common sense" as my definition of logic? How many times have I referred to Modus Tollens or Modus Ponens?

I can refer to a carbeurator all I want; that don't make me a mechanic.

When we are making correct logical inferences, do we see for ourselves that we are doing it right, or do we take someones word for it?

Ultimately, we take someone's word for it.

When I grasped the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, do you think it was by "folk version common sense at momma's knee" that I knew it was true and correct?

Yep - ultimately.

Perhaps you think logical inference is a matter of taste.

Taste has nothing to do with it.

I know better. Again, you betray your ignorance of formal logic. I am sorry you find it complicated, but that is your own subjective issue.[/quote]

Nah, hoss, it ain't complicated. It's jess that a few of us'ns realize that everything - including what's right, wrong, makes sense, etc - came from learnin' of some sort - maybe at momma's knee, maybe at poppa's belt, maybe at the schoolmarm's chalkboard.

I agree, everything is learned. However, the truth of a correct logical inference is also something that an individual can see for himself.

... once he's been taught to do so, sure.

Everything is learned, but at some point, there are some things we can see as absolutely truthful for ourselves.

...once we've been taught to do so, sure.

When are you going to take that logic course, to clear out the webs of confusion?

No webs here.

 

[Z]

Happy homunculus hunting.

Whatever.

Imagine that. Perhaps then we would have the Dream Clapper, because it could see our hands! But that sounds like science fiction... which sounds familar.

What is it with dualists and Clappers, anyway? What, they can't come up with good arguments, so they make fun of their strawman instead?

When did I say I dont like complexity? It shouldnt come as a surprise to you that when you irrationally attribute subjective qualities to material things, that you then find yourself able to turn those material things into a source for subjectivity. But keep relying on those subjective notions - also called anthropomorphisms and transferred epithets. Dont forget about "information", "chaos", and "order" too. Unfortunately they dont "account" for anything either.

If there was meaning in this post it's been lost in the idiocy of the poster.

It should feel better now that you have admitted what it was.

Whatever. Listen - get back with us once you have disproven that 'sense of right' or 'sense of correctness' are inherent rather than learned, or once you can address the points being made without empty rhetoric, strawmen, or loads of nonsense. Then we might talk. Until then, all you have is argument from ignorance - and a LOT of ignorance, at that.

 

[stillthinkin]

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.

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

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?

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. Further, there could be a different sonnet written on every single grain of sand... and we would not come close, in considering that possibility, to the complexity of each grain of sand in itself.

 

[stillthinkin]

When we are making correct logical inferences, do we see for ourselves that we are doing it right, or do we take someones word for it?

Ultimately, we take someone's word for it.

When I grasped the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, do you think it was by "folk version common sense at momma's knee" that I knew it was true and correct?

Yep - ultimately.

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.

 

[chriswl]

There is no question that we build machines to help us with certain tasks; the issue is whether we are relying on anything more than causality among physical things when we do that. Flight is quite well understood in terms of cause and effect. 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?

It doesn't need to do any more than causality requires of it. Nor do our brains. Causality is not incompatible with anything we see in the world including people doing logic.

Logic deals only with propositions... a set of premises, and any conclusions drawn from them, are propositions. I have a very hard time imagining what a material proposition might look like. Further, when we consider that logical inference is a capacity or power that we humans possess, which deals with propositions... well, you can see how difficult I find it to think of this as a materially emergent anything.

It has to be or be caused by material things otherwise it cannot lead to effects in the physical world. Why are you so uninterested in this fatal problem for your beliefs? Do you not care about being utterly wrong as long as you are comfortable in your position?

Why is it better? If you say "because it is true", then you are merely presuming its truth... we could deduce that logic is more like a giraffe's neck, or camoflage..., and wonder whether it has any actual truth value. If logic is an evolutionary product, we could just as easily evolve away from it... irrational fanaticism might be the way it will go. I personally think that logic is a better thing than a mere survival aid.

Well, define "better". Getting things right clearly does have survival value and is nearly always more successful than getting things wrong. Logic is a tool we use to help us understand the world. Understanding leads to control.

It also does not seem to me that logicians are any better at passing on their genes.

The argument is about logic, which we all do. Not whatever academic refinements "logicians" have come up with.

Intuition and emotion are much more useful from a survival standpoint

Yes, very often they are as we have to make quick decisions on only partial information. But where we can make use of logic its better to get it right.

You mention "training". Logic is not like a technical skill, such as being an electrician, nor is it a matter of collecting facts, like some might view history (not me! no historian onslaught please). Logic is something you see for yourself, even though you may need guidance in order to gain a deep vision of it. A logician sees for himself. My background is originally in mathematics and physics. What astonished me about math was that I could see the truth of propositions which go infinitely beyond the possibilities of materiality.

I don't see what that's got to do with logic. Mathematics might be "deep". How is logic deep?

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. This corresponds to the freedom of the will to assent to the good.

We are not free.