• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

Flip the thing around!

You have the whole arguement ass end backwards. Materialists are usually accused of being determinists. Meaning they believe that the universe is governed by physical laws, laws of causation. That's the whole basis of the endless free will debate.

A materialist universe is suspremely logical. A causes B causes C, infallibly. Everything is ordered by logical laws.

What the real question is, is whether a materialist can believe in illogic. Can a materialist look and an action or a decision and judge it illogical? Certainly at some level all things in a materialist universe must be logical because they are ultimately caused by the deterministic laws.

If a man paints himself red and sticks ostrich feathers in his ass. There must be reasons at a material level why he did so. Maybe a chemical imbalance in his brain or a bizzare upbringing. Just as computers can only emulate (give the appearance) random number generation. A materialist universe can only give the appearance of illogic.

When a materialist calls something illogical she can only mean. That is unexpected or that wouldn't be an advisable course of action.
 
Fifty Thousand Bucks said:
Query: Am I to take it that it is self-evident/a priori/[fill in the blank as you wish] what we are talking about when speaking of matter? Maybe I've read too many dead white males (2,300 plus years of accumulated dust!) but matter has never seemed all that simple (clear, intelligible, etc.) to me.

Although authority is a slender thread on which to hang the acceptance of a proposition, I seem to recall Mr. Chomsky saying - something to the effect - that we really don't know what we are talking about when speaking of materialism since we don't have much of a grasp of matter. (Actually, now that I think of it, not too far from those accumulations of Greek dust.)
Click to expand...
First off, welcome.

Your point is well taken. For my part, matter is a good short-hand for "the stuff stuff is made out of". So far as we know, this is all one type of stuff, though we do not know everything about it. Whatever this stuff is, it seems reasonable to me to accept that everything is made out of it unless some different form of stuff (the immaterial kind) can be shown to exist, or it can be proven that some real (another dangerous word, btw) phenomenon cannot in principle be explained in terms of stuff.

I believe stillthinkin's position is that the human capacity for logic is such a phenomenon. That is where we disagree.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
I believe stillthinkin's position is that the human capacity for logic is such a phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Odd really. The usual argument is that humans show they are more than mere machines by their capacity to be more than just logical. Hence the supposed oposition between logical, rational, calculating machines and creative, emotional human beings.

Am I the only one who detects a similaty between stillthinkin's arguments and "Intelligent Design". Are you an ID proponent, stillthinkin?
 
AtaraX said:
You have the whole arguement ass end backwards. Materialists are usually accused of being determinists. Meaning they believe that the universe is governed by physical laws, laws of causation. That's the whole basis of the endless free will debate.
Click to expand...
Welcome aboard AtaraX. The materialist position, like every hypothesis, is questioned on all kinds of fronts... "food goes in here" doesnt really apply ;). The question "what is matter anyways" is a very good one one, as are the issues of free will, intellection, morality and responsibility, etc.

AtaraX said:
A materialist universe is suspremely logical. A causes B causes C, infallibly. Everything is ordered by logical laws.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, a materialist universe is supremely causal. Logical inference is then a mental effect of causation in the brain, no less than are emotion, consciousness, etc. Under the materialist hypothesis, the statements "NOT (A & ~A)" and "I like green" and "we must eliminate short people" are equally caused. If logic is a result of causation, then these statements are equally logical.

AtaraX said:
What the real question is, is whether a materialist can believe in illogic. Can a materialist look and an action or a decision and judge it illogical? Certainly at some level all things in a materialist universe must be logical because they are ultimately caused by the deterministic laws.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But further, on what basis can a materialist allow a distinction between the experience of valid logical inference vs. fallacy or faith? What would be the causal difference to a "meat machine"?

AtaraX said:
If a man paints himself red and sticks ostrich feathers in his ass. There must be reasons at a material level why he did so. Maybe a chemical imbalance in his brain or a bizzare upbringing. Just as computers can only emulate (give the appearance) random number generation. A materialist universe can only give the appearance of illogic.
Click to expand...
Or he did this because he is going to a costume party... but your point is taken... healthy brain function is a necessary condition of rational thinking and behaviour. Of course, this begs the question of why we would call one brain healthy and another not. If machines are all there are, then machines are all there are. To say one machine is healthy while another is not would mean... what?

AtaraX said:
When a materialist calls something illogical she can only mean. That is unexpected or that wouldn't be an advisable course of action.
Click to expand...
And the terms "unexpected" and "adviseable" are only the effect-illusions of a meat machine. Logic is no more logical than it is illogical.
 
chriswl said:
Marquis de Carabas said:
...that some real (another dangerous word, btw) phenomenon cannot in principle be explained in terms of stuff... I believe stillthinkin's position is that the human capacity for logic is such a phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Odd really. The usual argument is that humans show they are more than mere machines by their capacity to be more than just logical. Hence the supposed oposition between logical, rational, calculating machines and creative, emotional human beings.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that it is impossible to reduce logical inference to an effect of "stuff". Or if we attempt such a reduction, then we lose the ability to differentiate between logic and illogic.

chriswl said:
Am I the only one who detects a similaty between stillthinkin's arguments and "Intelligent Design". Are you an ID proponent, stillthinkin?
Click to expand...
No, I am not a proponent of ID, or creationism at all... I do not think the two creation accounts in the book of Genesis are historical... nor do I think that even their authors thought they were historical. That being said, how would it affect this discussion if I were an ID proponent?

For clarification, I assume here that by "ID" you refer to the "American phenomenon" recently before the courts there. I am not entirely familiar with it, but from what I have read it smacks of "junk science". However, I do think the following principles are true:
1. "to be is to be one"
2. "to be is to be (potentially) intelligible"
3. "the cause of intelligibility in being is that the source of being is intelligent"
These are philosophical principles, all open to discussion and dispute of course. Natural science is based upon (2), but does not need (3) at all. Natural science could only need to rely on (3) if (2) were false, which is why I think "American ID" is junk science. Principle (3) has been called "intelligent design theory" as well. This is why I clarify.
 
stillthinkin said:
On the contrary, a materialist universe is supremely causal. Logical inference is then a mental effect of causation in the brain, no less than are emotion, consciousness, etc. Under the materialist hypothesis, the statements "NOT (A & ~A)" and "I like green" and "we must eliminate short people" are equally caused. If logic is a result of causation, then these statements are equally logical.
Click to expand...
They are the results of logic they are not necessarily "logical". That we can abstractly construct illogical statements, concepts or ideas does not render the statements logical (see Arthur C. Clarke's Hal in 2001). The subjective IS logical and objective. What makes it subjective is the different variables resulting from the interaction of our genetic predispositions and environment. If we all had the exact same genetic make up and experienced the *exact same environment we would all have the same subjective experiences.

*By exact I mean exact and not simply similar as in the raising of twins.

And the terms "unexpected" and "adviseable" are only the effect-illusions of a meat machine. Logic is no more logical than it is illogical.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Well, that which seems illogical is as logical as anything we deem logical. Back to Wittgenstein's Tractatus and his later views of it. What is, is. How we deem that which is, is purely a human construct. Infanticide is only illogical when viewed through modern moral constructs. At the end of the day all behavior and thought, no matter how seemingly "illogical" are in fact the results of logic operations.
 
stillthinkin said:
"A & ~A" is seemingly illogical. If materialism is true, then this is logical.
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely "A & ~A" is a symbolic representation of an abstract concpet. The concept was arrived at via the the use of logic and inference.

A cannot equal Not A therefore "A & ~A" is illogical. That IS logical, right?
 
stillthinkin said:
How can matter confuse things?

While we are not confusing things, how about not confusing logical inference and causality?
Click to expand...
You have not shown that you or I are anything more than matter. So if you or I can confuse things, and we are 100% matter, then apparently matter can confuse things. You are still assuming the P1 of your proof is true. Yet you have presented no support for it. Simply asserting it, or relying on fallacy won't cut it.

Also, I have said nothing about causality, perhaps your matter should not confuse me with other posters.
 
How can material things not work right? Is that what I'm reading, r.e. why some brains are healthy and work, and some do not?

How can a car not work right? How can a river suddenly stop flowing?

Material stuff breaks down at the macro and micro level. It just happens. Crystals crack, mountains erode, rivers dry up... brains sometimes just don't work.

It doesn't denigrate the nature of materialism that this is true. Materialism doesn't assume that all complex materialist systems are going to work 100% of the time. If anything, the fact that minds can 'break' or 'be sick' is more proof, not less, of the material nature of thought and reason. After all, if our minds were immaterial spirit stuff, why would any brain status affect them? Why would a bullet through part of our grey matter cause us to change personality, or lose the ability to identify ourself, or cause us to forget all of our past, etc., etc???

Until such time as stillthinkin' can demonstrate the existence of any immaterial stuff, the obvious natural assumption is that everything is material, and that includes humans. Hence, logic is not only compatible with materialism, it would require materialism.

What I wonder, is what university did ST attend? Please don't say Sussex...
 
stillthinkin said:
No, I am not a proponent of ID, or creationism at all... I do not think the two creation accounts in the book of Genesis are historical... nor do I think that even their authors thought they were historical. That being said, how would it affect this discussion if I were an ID proponent?

For clarification, I assume here that by "ID" you refer to the "American phenomenon" recently before the courts there. I am not entirely familiar with it, but from what I have read it smacks of "junk science".
Click to expand...
ID supporters are usually closet creationists but I guess they don't have to be. Their argument (such as it is) is basically a negative one. They insist that "design" is something that humans and possibly other sentient beings do making much the same points you do about "logic". Design supposedly requires intelligence and thus the intricate design found in nature would be impossible without a designing intelligence.

Do you believe that the blind, mechanical forces of evolution could, in themselves, create humans capable of logic? I would guess you don't.

However, I do think the following principles are true:
1. "to be is to be one"
2. "to be is to be (potentially) intelligible"
3. "the cause of intelligibility in being is that the source of being is intelligent"
These are philosophical principles, all open to discussion and dispute of course.
Click to expand...
I find that (ironically) completely unintelligible.
 
Thanks, for the welcome. It's nice to take part in the discussion.

stillthinkin said:
On the contrary, a materialist universe is supremely causal. Logical inference is then a mental effect of causation in the brain, no less than are emotion, consciousness, etc. Under the materialist hypothesis, the statements "NOT (A & ~A)" and "I like green" and "we must eliminate short people" are equally caused. If logic is a result of causation, then these statements are equally logical.
Click to expand...

The answer to that trite Zen koan about the tree falling in the forest is yes of course in made a sound. The interior angles of a triangle will still add up to 180 degrees whether anyone is there to percieve it or not. The rules of math like the rules of logic are both abstract and absolute. These things are not relative. They exist independent of the observer, in the nature and relations of things themselves.

Logic is not a result of causation. Causation is logical. It is one kind of logical relationship. We as observers did not imbue it with that property. Causation would still have been logical were we not here.

stillthinkin said:
Agreed. But further, on what basis can a materialist allow a distinction between the experience of valid logical inference vs. fallacy or faith? What would be the causal difference to a "meat machine"?
Click to expand...

In this case, to a meat machine becomes very important. As a meat machine I don't have unfetered access to the logical causal laws that are governing the universe. I am not omniscient I can't hope to percieve all the factors effecting any situation. So I don't percieve the world at the perfect material casual level that materialist rave about.

I as a limited meat machine stumble about making all sorts of assumptions and hasty generalizations because to do otherwise would mean my destruction from inaction.

It's the best I can do with what I got. Also as a meat machine I cherish the discovery (discovery, meaning they were alway there we just didn't notice them) of logical relations because they allow me to make more accurate assumptions and generalization which help me achieve my ends. I am then also in a position to chastise other meat machines when they contradict those logical relations (fallacy) or actively opt to ignore them (faith).

All this doesn't effect the perfect logical execution of the causal laws by the materialistic universe in the background. Which ultimately dictate all the actions of us meat machines.

stillthinkin said:
And the terms "unexpected" and "adviseable" are only the effect-illusions of a meat machine. Logic is no more logical than it is illogical.
Click to expand...

No, illogic is an effect-illusion on our level. It is evalutive term judging something as not consistent with reality. Logic is real at our level and at the materialist universe level. This is not a biconditional relationship you can't flip around. Illogic does not equal logic. I am saying logic is real. Illogic is not.
 
Last edited:
AtaraX said:
The answer to that trite Zen koan about the tree falling in the forest is yes of course in made a sound.
Click to expand...

Just a quibble, AtaraX (and welcome, also):

The tree displaces air, creating waves of disturbance, but without the proper sensory apparatus to translate such disturbance into a electochemical signal to a brain there is no "sound".
 
Fifty Thousand Bucks said:
Sigh! If this were the best of all possible worlds, would we not all be taking refresher courses in logic?
Click to expand...
You mean, rather than having to make a living? :) Welcome.

I've never been comfortable with compounding existence. But if you'd like try me, I'm open to persuasion. I suppose, then, that I too am still thinkin.
Click to expand...
Still thinkin' runs deep. Advice you probably don't need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom