Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

[stillthinkin]

A control mechanism needs input and ouput in order to be a control mechanism. A mechanism with only inputs might be a recording mechanism, a mechanism with only outputs might be a command mechanism, but to be a control mechanism inputs and outputs are required features. Like wheels on a bicycle.

The control mechanism will exist and be quite content without any inputs or outputs. It might not be useful to you, but that is your need. We are the ones who need machines.

I think it is another anthropomorphic projection to say that, for example, "machines need us to maintain them and fix them". They dont need that, we need it if we want to keep the machines operating.

My car doens't need me to push the gas pedal. If I need to drive my car somewhere, then I need to push the gas pedal. If the car is going to move, then there is a sense in which it needs to have the gas pedal pushed. But this is a projection of my need. Material things dont need anything.

 

[stillthinkin]

Er, yes we started this post at the "machine" side of things - can material things do logic. Transistors were proposed as something material that does logic. Regarding primitive animals, please do not confuse "doing logic" with "exhibiting mechanisitic causality".

There's no difference.

Think about p-zombies, hypothetical people who are exactly like you or I in every respect except that they are not conscious. They have no qualia.

Would you really deny that they do logic? Even if one was a philosopher or a mathematician? Is there still something more to doing logic that they would not be doing?

Because p-zombies are not conscious, they can easily be imagined as purely mechanistic automatons, even by non-materialists. There is nothing to them other than mechanism.

If you really think there is a difference between human real logic and p-zombie fake logic then you are conflating logic and consciousness. Because consciousness is the only difference between p-zombies and humans.

Interesting Gedanken experiment. I would like to hear more about these hypothetical p-zombies... do you have an author who discusses these? They sound "booksie".

The problem with it is that the definition is "negative" - they are exactly like us except they lack conscionsness. Consciousness is not really well defined, and what its lack would entail, in a being which would otherwise have it, is even more puzzling.
When I am asleep I am not conscious. A person in a coma is not conscious. I suspect you mean lacking consciousness even when awake? But this sounds contradictory... maybe it isnt. But then you talk about them doing mathematics and philosophising? Would an unconscious thing do that, when even we dont do that in our sleep? Do these things have conversations? Do they discuss things they arent aware of? I assume these things dont dream?

Then you go on to say they are mere mechanisms. But is that clear from your definition of p-zombie? I would say that if they are mechanisms then they dont do logic.

Folks, this has been fun - except maybe for being called an "intellectual coward" and a "verbal masterbator" (is that someone who talks with his hands a lot?) - and I do want to respond to a lot of these posts, but I am afraid I do not have the time today.

 

[stillthinkin]

In a reality that is wholly what we perceive as "physical" what cause-effect would you propose as demonstrating a failure to obey rules described by logic?

Every effect caused by gravity (that we can yet measure) follows exactly logical rules.

By a "rule described by logic", do you mean something like the Newton's law of gravity? F = Gm1m2/r2, if i recall correctly. I dont see what is logical about this law. Logic is about rules of argument to obtain correct conclusions from premises - isnt it? The law of gravity is an observed phenomenon that matter exhibits. It says that the force attracting two material objects is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the two objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. That isnt "logical", it is just a fact... a really cool one.

(addicts motto: just one more post)

 

[RandFan]

Interesting Gedanken experiment. I would like to hear more about these hypothetical p-zombies... do you have an author who discusses these? They sound "booksie".

The problem with it is that the definition is "negative" - they are exactly like us except they lack conscionsness. Consciousness is not really well defined, and what its lack would entail, in a being which would otherwise have it, is even more puzzling.

When I am asleep I am not conscious. A person in a coma is not conscious. I suspect you mean lacking consciousness even when awake? But this sounds contradictory... maybe it isnt. But then you talk about them doing mathematics and philosophising? Would an unconscious thing do that, when even we dont do that in our sleep? Do these things have conversations? Do they discuss things they arent aware of? I assume these things dont dream?

Then you go on to say they are mere mechanisms. But is that clear from your definition of p-zombie? I would say that if they are mechanisms then they dont do logic.

Folks, this has been fun - except maybe for being called an "intellectual coward" and a "verbal masterbator" (is that someone who talks with his hands a lot?) - and I do want to respond to a lot of these posts, but I am afraid I do not have the time today.

Yes, P-Zombies (hypothetically) do logic but they are not aware that they do logic. They don't experience the quality of red they simply respond to the color the way a computer can be programmed to respond to a color.

Robots today can be programmed to mimic human emotion to a degree, to frown when poked or smile when a friendly face enters a room (assuming it has the means to smile and frown) but the robot would not likely experience emotion since we don't even know how to program a computer to feel emotion.

This is a P-Zombie. For all intents and purposes everyone but me is a P-Zombie since I can't really prove that you experience emotions or are sentient.

 

[hammegk]

I dont see what is logical about this law.

I'd say the language of Mathematics provides the most logical construct we have to work with.

 

[Z]

Curious - someone hung up on 'logic' and its philosophical definitions, and they haven't heard of P-zombies?

A first year student, or an armchair enthusiast? YOU decide...



BTW - still awaiting a valid argument structure.

 

[RandFan]

Curious - someone hung up on 'logic' and its philosophical definitions, and they haven't heard of P-zombies?

A first year student, or an armchair enthusiast? YOU decide...



BTW - still awaiting a valid argument structure.

stillthinkin is a good guy. I admit I was kind of taken back by it also. But give him a chance. He'll get up to date. Perhaps we should extend a formal invitation to Franko, WinAce and Interesting Ian?

Ok, let's not.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

st,

Mechanisms cannot do logic. Is this a fair paraphrase of (part of) your position? If so, please answer the following:

1) What is it about logic that a mechanism cannot do?
2) What is non-mechanistic about the human brain?

 

[stillthinkin]

Well that was a dodge if I've ever seen one. I wonder if you really believe someone other than yourself is impressed by all your fancy talk that really doesn't communicate anything, except how highly you regard yourself. I think we have that established now. How's about you respond to #64.

Until you present an argument, you can't expect to be taken seriously. You have not made an argument. I thought you were here to teach us about logic, yet you haven't demonstrated any such knowledge. We are skeptics, so show us some fudging evidence of your (implied) claim.

When are you going to respond to #54?

 

[stillthinkin]

I'd say the language of Mathematics provides the most logical construct we have to work with.

Gravity is a fact, not a mathematical result. We have observed the relation between objects and the force they exert on each other. We have a value for G, roughly 6.7E-11... there is nothing logical about this value. There is nothing logical about the fact that matter is attracted to matter.

An argument can be logical, or it can be fallacious. A simple statement of fact is not logical. Even the conclusion of an argument is logical only insofar as it is viewed with respect to the premises from which it is derived.

 

[stillthinkin]

Mechanisms cannot do logic. Is this a fair paraphrase of (part of) your position?

That is a fair paraphrase... "machines" might be better but whatever.

If so, please answer the following:

1) What is it about logic that a mechanism cannot do?
2) What is non-mechanistic about the human brain?

1. machines cannot make an inference.
2. i think the question is, "what is non-mechanistic about the human person". This is a very interesting question. If matter is entirely mechanistic (deterministic), and human beings are not entirely deterministic, then something about humans has to be non-material. I suggest we stick with (1) for now, we are having enough trouble with that one.

 

[Jekyll]

Minds, Machines and Godel [/B]which the theorem was first posited. I would post a link but am unable to do so as this is my first post. The Lucas Theorem is a challenge to the Turing-Church thesis and there is a considerable amount of debate ongoing concerning both. The theorem in essence argues against the idea of the brain as a "meat machine."

The paper is quite dense, as most of this material is, but I just thought it may add something to the debate.

That's quite interesting, however I think it's wrong. Take this chunk from the principle argument.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/mmg.html

We now construct a Gödelian formula in this formal system. This formula cannot be proved-in-the- system. Therefore the machine cannot produce the corresponding formula as being true. But we can see that the Gödelian formula is true: any rational being could follow Gödel's argument, and convince himself that the Gödelian formula, although unprovable-in-the-system, was nonetheless----in fact, for that very reason---true..... We can (or shall be able to one day) build machines capable of reproducing bits of mind-like behaviour, and indeed of outdoing the performances of human minds: but however good the machine is, and however much better (116) it can do in nearly all respects than a human mind can, it always has this one weakness, this one thing which it cannot do, whereas a mind can. The Gödelian formula is the Achilles' heel of the cybernetical machine. And therefore we cannot hope ever to produce a machine that will be able to do all that a mind can do: we can never not even in principle, have a mechanical model of the mind.

The bit in bold and the central point of the (initial) argument is false or at least misleading. The only reason we know that the Gödel sentence is true is because we have additional knowledge of the system, namely that it is consistent.

This idea is actually used in Gödel's second theorem (which he never actually formally proved himself, I believe) to show that a sufficiently complex and consistent system system can not contain a proof of it's own consistency.

The proof runs as follows, if we prove that the system is consistent we a deduce or prove that the Gödel statement (G :=You can not prove G in the system) which in turn proves not G (that you you can prove G) and hence the system would be inconsistent.

Lucas acknowledges this weakness later in the paper and then tries to defend his thesis by showing that inconstant machines aren't very good either. This misses the point. A consistent inference machine presented with a formal system S and the knowledge that the S is consistent could rightly deduce that Gödel statements for that system are true. Similarly, it could deduce that its own Gödel statements are correct if it, itself, is internally consistent.

To be fair, Lucas also appears to acknowledge this as well towards the end of the paper (I've been typing as I was reading), which leaves me wondering why he bothered to write most of that paper. He then claims that machines can't be people as people as they "know" they are consistent.

I doubt this, while I respect the right of people to think that they are consistent or at least to assume it give an absence of contrary evidence (I, personally, am not that consistent) anyone who tells me that they can prove their consistency and so "know" it in a mathematical sense is clearly a barking loon.

 

[RandFan]

A simple statement of fact is not logical.

Huh? It's not logical that I'm a man?
It's not logical that a crow is a bird?
2 is a prime number is not logical?
The speed of light is 186,282.3 miles per second is not logical?

Your definition of the word logical is very different from mine.
Statements of fact are propositions. We accept them as fact often because they are the results of logical arguments and have become axiomatic.

"Propositions are logical pictures of facts" --Tractatus, Ludwig Wittgenstein

 

[stillthinkin]

Curious - someone hung up on 'logic' and its philosophical definitions, and they haven't heard of P-zombies?

A first year student, or an armchair enthusiast? YOU decide...

yet more ad hominem from zaayrdragon...

BTW - still awaiting a valid argument structure.

You are talking about your request for a proof of "if materialism then not logic"? This entire thread is about that very question. That is how we got on the topic of whether machines can do logic. If machines cannot do logic, then materialism is false: agreed? Or do we need to flesh out the steps? How about you do that, if you think it is necessary and worthwhile, as an exercise.

 

[stillthinkin]

Huh? It's not logical that I'm a man?

correct - that you are male is a fact, not the result of any argument. Logic is about arguments. Your gender could be a premise to a logically correct argument such as:
All men are alive.
RandFan is a man.
RandFan is alive.

It's not logical that a crow is a bird?

Even this statement requires a definition of a bird as a premise and then you would have a logical argument: "all feathered animals are birds, a crow is a feathered animal: therefore a crow is a bird". However, that a crow is perched right now on one of my fenceposts is not a "logical" reality in any meaningful sense at all, is it?

2 is a prime number is not logical?

I seem to recall that there is an argument about whether 2 should be considered a prime number or not. Same issue as the crow, though.

The speed of light is 186,282.3 miles per second is not logical?

Correct. This statement is merely true.

Is everything that is true, logical? If something exists, does that make this something logical?

Your definition of the word logical is very different from mine.
Statements of fact are propositions. We accept them as fact often because they are the results of logical arguments and have become axiomatic.

The overwhelming majority of the things we accept as facts are based on our own experience and/or the testimony of others, not on logical argument. I have never measured the physics constant c or G or E... even though one of my degrees was a minor in physics. We did an awful lot of empirical experimentation - but most of the facts were still granted based on testimony.

RandFan! I want to respond to post #68!! But I have to feed the baby, and spend time with the other two offspring, for the rest of the day... evolutionary imperative you know... and if i stay online, then zdragon might "taunt me a second time".

 

[.13.]

correct - that you are male is a fact, not the result of any argument. Logic is about arguments.

I think RandFan's point is better illustrated using this notation:
RandFan = man. (Or should it be RandFan => man, since all men are not RandFan?)

 

[Z]

yet more ad hominem from zaayrdragon...


You are talking about your request for a proof of "if materialism then not logic"? This entire thread is about that very question. That is how we got on the topic of whether machines can do logic. If machines cannot do logic, then materialism is false: agreed? Or do we need to flesh out the steps? How about you do that, if you think it is necessary and worthwhile, as an exercise.

It is your claim, not ours. The burden to lay out such a proof is yours, not our.

What is 'inference', that you think machines are incapable of it / will never be capable of it?

As I understand it, an inference is a conclusion reached upon observation and prior knowledge. If I hear a thunderous boom during a rainstorm, I can infer that it was the result of lightning. My inference may be wrong or right. A machine can do likewise. After all, what is it that I am doing? Comparing a sound to values stored in memory, and choosing the most likely cause based upon those values. A machine is capable of doing the same thing, actually.

Hence, once again, you are using undefined terms without the infrastructure of a logical proposition, and coming to conclusions that may be said to be false, for some values of the terms in question.

 

[RandFan]

correct - that you are male is a fact, not the result of any argument. Logic is about arguments. Your gender could be a premise to a logically correct argument such as:
All men are alive.
RandFan is a man.
RandFan is alive.

All statements of fact can and are the results of arguments. A=B.

Even this statement requires a definition of a bird as a premise and then you would have a logical argument: "all feathered animals are birds, a crow is a feathered animal: therefore a crow is a bird".

Yes, that is an argument and it is logical.

However, that a crow is perched right now on one of my fenceposts is not a "logical" reality in any meaningful sense at all, is it?

Yes, of course it is a logical reality. Your statement is nonsensical.

A bird at reast, is, quite simply, logical. State is logic. A=b is logical. A crow perched on a fence post is declaration of state. A bird at rest.

By your bizzare reasoning the statment "a body at rest tends to stay at rest" is illogical by virtue of being a statement of fact.

That is a really, really odd thing to say. You are saying that which is axiomatic is illogical.

Correct. This statement is merely true.

It's kind of funny that you can declare a fact illogical (not logical).

Is everything that is true, logical?

Without question, yes.

If something exists, does that make this something logical?

Of course, yes. State is logical. To claim that state is illogical is nonsensical. If I state that I'm hungry will you respond "that is illogical"? If I state "that crow is black" will you resond "that is illogical"?

The overwhelming majority of the things we accept as facts are based on our own experience and/or the testimony of others, not on logical argument.

If those things that we accept as facts are true then they are logical. If they are not then they are fallacious. Our belief is irrelevant. To claim that which is true is illogical is nonsensical.

I have never measured the physics constant c or G or E... even though one of my degrees was a minor in physics. We did an awful lot of empirical experimentation - but most of the facts were still granted based on testimony.

What is a logic gate?

A logic gate performs a logical operation on one or more logic inputs and produces a single logic output. The logic normally performed is Boolean logic and is most commonly found in digital circuits.

By your definition the result of a logic gate is illogical. Let's take your "bird at rest" example. If the purpose of the gate(s) is to test the state of the bird then the result, whatever it is, is illogical.

Also, by your definition a set is illogical. Therefore by your logic A=B is illogical, really?

E=mc2 is a statement of fact. It is, by your definition, illogical. Einstein would have been surprised.

I note that you did not address Wittgenstein's quote. Do you dismiss it? Do you believe that his statement to be illogical or nonsensical? How about the statement "propositions are logical truths"?

RandFan! I want to respond to post #68!! But I have to feed the baby, and spend time with the other two offspring, for the rest of the day... evolutionary imperative you know... and if i stay online, then zdragon might "taunt me a second time".

I have the patience of Job, take your time.

For the record, I whole heartedly disagree with your premise and find it entirely nonsensical. Your idea goes against everything taught me in programming, philosophy and math. Is the bird at rest? Yes. The question and answer are both logical. To state that they are illogical defies common sense and 2,000+ years of philosophical and scientific enquiry.

I think you are stuck on this for some argumentative purpose.

 

[hammegk]

Gravity is a fact, not a mathematical result.

I see. What mathematical results do you propose have meaning ... if they cannot be substantiated by an observer vis-a-vis reality?

An argument can be logical, or it can be fallacious.

So what?

A simple statement of fact is not logical.

"Tautology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tautology (logic), a statement true by virtue of its logical form. "

Even the conclusion of an argument is logical only insofar as it is viewed with respect to the premises from which it is derived.

Faulty premises can be used to construct a logically correct result. That result may not agree with reality.

 

[stillthinkin]

All statements of fact can and are the results of arguments. A=B.

Yes, that is an argument and it is logical.

Yes, of course it is a logical reality. Your statement is nonsensical.

A bird at reast, is, quite simply, logical. State is logic. A=b is logical. A crow perched on a fence post is declaration of state. A bird at rest.

By your bizzare reasoning the statment "a body at rest tends to stay at rest" is illogical by virtue of being a statement of fact.

That is a really, really odd thing to say. You are saying that which is axiomatic is illogical.

It's kind of funny that you can declare a fact illogical (not logical).

Without question, yes.

Of course, yes. State is logical. To claim that state is illogical is nonsensical. If I state that I'm hungry will you respond "that is illogical"? If I state "that crow is black" will you resond "that is illogical"?

If those things that we accept as facts are true then they are logical. If they are not then they are fallacious. Our belief is irrelevant. To claim that which is true is illogical is nonsensical.

What is a logic gate?

By your definition the result of a logic gate is illogical. Let's take your "bird at rest" example. If the purpose of the gate(s) is to test the state of the bird then the result, whatever it is, is illogical.

Also, by your definition a set is illogical. Therefore by your logic A=B is illogical, really?

E=mc2 is a statement of fact. It is, by your definition, illogical. Einstein would have been surprised.

I note that you did not address Wittgenstein's quote. Do you dismiss it? Do you believe that his statement to be illogical or nonsensical? How about the statement "propositions are logical truths"?

I have the patience of Job, take your time.

For the record, I whole heartedly disagree with your premise and find it entirely nonsensical. Your idea goes against everything taught me in programming, philosophy and math. Is the bird at rest? Yes. The question and answer are both logical. To state that they are illogical defies common sense and 2,000+ years of philosophical and scientific enquiry.

I think you are stuck on this for some argumentative purpose.

I think I understand at least part of the confusion... when I say that facts are not logical, I am not saying that they are therefore illogical or false.

What I am saying is that the terms "logical" and "illogical" apply only to arguments. An argument can be logically correct or incorrect. A rock cannot be either.

If there are things that exist, and which are not arguments, but which are illogical - please give an example.

Are you offering Wittgenstein and Tacitus as arguments from authority? I dont really know what they might have meant by their comment. I would be glad if you can provide the quotes, in their original languages as well as an English translation, in some of the author's context as well.