Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

[CapelDodger]

Consider the two statements:
1. "The car needs gas."
2. "We need to put gas in the car."

These are both normal statements in English, and we wouldn't be confused to hear it put either way. The general idea in both statements is the same: "refueling the car is a condition of our continued use of said car" (who talks like that - but I trust you get the idea).

Do you agree, however, that in (1) the use of the word "need" involves an anthropomorphism, while (2) does not?

No, I disagree. It's just a common usage of the word, as in "the stew needs garlic" which doesn't, I think, anthropomorphise. "Need" as in requirement, rather than desire or appetite. How I got into a semantic discussion I don't know ...

 

[stillthinkin]

So... are you ready to state your argument, in proper format? Premises - arguments - conclusions... etc.?

We're ready to listen...

You seem to be confused about the nature of the argument as it has proceeded, implicitly, since this thread began. You ask for a clearly delineated argument, here it is:

H. everything that exists is material (def: materialism)
P1. material things do not combine premises by logical inference to reach conclusions
P2. something exists which combines premises by logical inference to reach conclusions
S1. by P1 and H, NOT P2
S2. P2 and NOT P2
C. reductio ad absurdum: there is no logic (principle of non-contradiction)

 

[stillthinkin]

No, I disagree. It's just a common usage of the word, as in "the stew needs garlic" which doesn't, I think, anthropomorphise. "Need" as in requirement, rather than desire or appetite. How I got into a semantic discussion I don't know ...

The phrase "the stew needs garlic" certainly is anthropomorphic. It is a projection of your need for the stew to taste a certain way. If the person next to you disagrees, then does the stew both need garlic, and need less garlic?

"Semantics" is about meaning. Can you think clearly without attending to what words mean, particularly in a language where the same word can mean different things? How do we avoid equivocation without doing semantics?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

P1. material things do not combine premises by logical inference to reach conclusions

I am frankly astounded that you can believe this.

All X have property Y.
Z is an X.
Z has property Y.

If a human goes through these steps, he has made a logical inference. Why has a computer, follwing the same steps, reaching the same conclusion, not made a logical inference?

 

[chriswl]

H. everything that exists is material (def: materialism)
P1. material things do not combine premises by logical inference to reach conclusions

But you are material. If you weren't you would have great difficulty operating a keyboard. And yet you appear to be able to "combine premises by logical inference to reach conclusions". So P1 is wrong.

 

[Z]

You seem to be confused about the nature of the argument as it has proceeded, implicitly, since this thread began. You ask for a clearly delineated argument, here it is:

H. everything that exists is material (def: materialism)
P1. material things do not combine premises by logical inference to reach conclusions
P2. something exists which combines premises by logical inference to reach conclusions
S1. by P1 and H, NOT P2
S2. P2 and NOT P2
C. reductio ad absurdum: there is no logic (principle of non-contradiction)

Ah - an absurd argument, got it.

See, the problem here is that P1 is clearly wrong, given H. Why? EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS is material. That means you, me, our minds, the sun, love, everythying.
Hence, we know that P1 is wrong, given H, because material things DO COMBINE PREMISES by logical inference to reach conclusions. Humans do so, and humans are material things, as given in H.

Ergo, your statement is false.

 

[Z]

OK, peanut gallery, here we have the crux of his problem:

He's already assuming dualism or idealism secretly, while stating materialism!!!

It don't work that way, NotThinkin'. You start with H: everything that exists is material (def: materialism). That means EVERYTHING. That means that anything which [does logic] IS MATERIAL. Why? Because EVERYTHING IS MATERIAL.

There's nothing immaterial once you start with H. You can't say that no material thing does logic, but something does logic, so H is false. It just doesn't work that way.

There's no proven immaterial component to mind.

Full stop.

 

[stillthinkin]

The argument is logically complete and binding... if the hypothesis and the premises are true, then we are reduced to an absurdity.

yet more ad hominem from zdragon!

Please note that you cannot presume upon hypothesis (H) in order to argue that "human beings are entirely material objects which combine premises by logical inference to reach conclusions" -- this would be circular reasoning (begging the question).

chriswl and zdragon, you might want to take up the study of formal logic so that you can do it a little more carefully.

How nostalgic for me; this is bringing back memories of tutoring formal logic at university many years ago...

Marquis, you are correct in reasoning that if you can provide a single counter-example to P1, then the premise fails and you will have shown that the argument does not hold. I believe I have answered your question about how what we do is different from what computers do in post 36 of this thread.

 

[stillthinkin]

A) Mockery and insult are likely the expressions of contempt and hatred. So are we asking whether it is ever appropriate to contemn and hate someone?
B) What is the purpose of mockery and insult? Is it a form of argument? Or is it an admission on the part of the donor that he cannot come up with anything valuable to offer?
C) I do not believe it is appropriate to mock even "Young Earth Creationists" for their beliefs. I believe you have the right to present rational argument, from premises these folks will grant (eg. biblical, everyday life experience, maybe the constitution if they are American)

Was the name "windbag" taken?

Tool.

Cheerfully withdrawn.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Marquis, you are correct in reasoning that if you can provide a single counter-example to P1, then the premise fails and you will have shown that the argument does not hold. I believe I have answered your question about how what we do is different from what computers do in post 36 of this thread.

Logic is the process. It little matters why a device can make logical inferences, just that it does. Computers can do so because we designed them to do so. Humans can do so because natural selection designed us to do so. Maybe only natural selection can perform logic, and we are merely the tools? (How's that for anthropomorphic? )

 

[stillthinkin]

Logic is the process. It little matters why a device can make logical inferences, just that it does. Computers can do so because we designed them to do so. Humans can do so because natural selection designed us to do so. Maybe only natural selection can perform logic, and we are merely the tools? (How's that for anthropomorphic? )

LOL yes, that is very anthropomorphic.

How about we have a little fun, and prove that if everything is material, then God exists?

 

[I less than three logic]

What evidence do you have that P1 is true? How do you support this premise without using an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity?

What evidence do you have that you are anything more than just material, thus proving P1 false, besides this argument that already assumes that you are more than material?

 

[chriswl]

chriswl and zdragon, you might want to take up the study of formal logic so that you can do it a little more carefully.

Perhaps you could help me out here, it seems asonishingly simple:

You are clearly a "material thing".
You can clearly "combine premises by logical inference to reach conclusions".
So the statement "material things do not combine premises by logical inference to reach conclusions" is false.

No advanced logic required here, I think.

Unless the "logical inferences" are carrried out by your non-physical mind. But how is your non-physical mind able to type? How can it be more than an epiphenomenon without violating the observed laws of physics?

 

[stillthinkin]

What evidence do you have that P1 is true? How do you support this premise without using an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity?

If it is false, then we should be able to find some counter-examples. All the counter-examples offered so far fail as anthropomorphisms.

What evidence do you have that you are anything more than just material, thus proving P1 false, besides this argument that already assumes that you are more than material?

The fact is, human beings are very enigmatic and bizarre things. We have many similarities with animals, but I think the differences are even greater. I find the dismissal "X is nothing but Y" is resorted to a little too easily, and is often accepted without argument.

The being proposed in P2 which exists and does logical inference is "me". If I can find nothing else besides "me", and things like me (human beings) which can do this, then we have to ask -- what is different about us?

 

[I less than three logic]

If it is false, then we should be able to find some counter-examples. All the counter-examples offered so far fail as anthropomorphisms.

Anthropomorphism is not evidence that the counter-example is it false. It may be an irrational reason to believe it is true, but it does not constitute evidence that it is, in fact, false. To believe so is an argument from personal incredulity.

The fact is, human beings are very enigmatic and bizarre things. We have many similarities with animals, but I think the differences are even greater. I find the dismissal "X is nothing but Y" is resorted to a little too easily, and is often accepted without argument.

The being proposed in P2 which exists and does logical inference is "me". If I can find nothing else besides "me", and things like me (human beings) which can do this, then we have to ask -- what is different about us?

This has provided no evidence that you are more than just material.

 

[CapelDodger]

The phrase "the stew needs garlic" certainly is anthropomorphic. It is a projection of your need for the stew to taste a certain way. If the person next to you disagrees, then does the stew both need garlic, and need less garlic?

Yeeees ... perhaps I should walk my path and you walk yours, best thing all round I think. (Nice oxymoron. As if a stew could have too much garlic!)

"Semantics" is about meaning. Can you think clearly without attending to what words mean, particularly in a language where the same word can mean different things? How do we avoid equivocation without doing semantics?

How do we get any clear thinking done if we spend all our time on semantics?

 

[stillthinkin]

Perhaps you could help me out here, it seems asonishingly simple:

You are clearly a "material thing".
You can clearly "combine premises by logical inference to reach conclusions".
So the statement "material things do not combine premises by logical inference to reach conclusions" is false.

No advanced logic required here, I think.

No indeed, your conclusion is true if your premises are true... your first premise has to have the word "only" understood though, "You are clearly only a material thing," or you are commiting an error.

Unless the "logical inferences" are carrried out by your non-physical mind. But how is your non-physical mind able to type? How can it be more than an epiphenomenon without violating the observed laws of physics?

Only part of me has to be material in order to type. I would deny, of course, the premise "I am clearly a material thing." I agree it is quite disconcerting that there needs to be some non-material explanation. Keep in mind (excuse the pun) that at this point it is only a "something else", a definition by negation: "not material". And each of us remains a "one entity" as well.

 

[stillthinkin]

Yeeees ... perhaps I should walk my path and you walk yours, best thing all round I think. (Nice oxymoron. As if a stew could have too much garlic!)

No no, I heart garlic! But I am sure we could find someone who likes it less. Or we could just build a computer with a distaste for garlic

How do we get any clear thinking done if we spend all our time on semantics?

Not all our time, just some of it, needs to attend to semantics. Otherwise semantic errors, such as pathetic fallacy and equivocation, are inevitable. If a person makes an error on the semantics, then the rest of the argument is useless.

 

[stillthinkin]

Anthropomorphism is not evidence that the counter-example is it false. It may be an irrational reason to believe it is true, but it does not constitute evidence that it is, in fact, false. To believe so is an argument from personal incredulity.

If the only reason a particular thing is believed to be a suitable counter-example turns out to be anthropomorphic (aka pathetic fallacy), then a person may still believe it is a valid counter-example. I agree with you, it is irrational to do so. So why do it?

 

[I less than three logic]

If the only reason a particular thing is believed to be a suitable counter-example turns out to be anthropomorphic (aka pathetic fallacy), then a person may still believe it is a valid counter-example. I agree with you, it is irrational to do so. So why do it?

The pathetic fallacy is a literary criticism, not a logical fallacy.

It does not prove that what ever you're applying the trait to does not, in fact, have that trait.

ETA - Besides, until you prove that you are more than just material, you provide your own counter-example to P1. Yourself.