Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

[stillthinkin]

No, I am not an illusion, I dont think. I am not sure where you get the idea that I thought I was.

That seems to be what you are argumenting.

Can you quote me where you find me seeming to argue that. You might have me confused with zaayrdragon, who stated that lightbulbs are illusions?

We were fleshing out a materialist account of the phenomenon of "mistakes".

No, not really.

Well, I really thought that is what I was doing.

I believe we have reached the conclusion that if materialism is true, then "mistakes" are actually an illusion of the conscious mind.

No, they are the products of the concious mind and therefore not illusionary. If you do want to claim this you can also say that you as a concious person don't exist.

I believe you also gave an example of a machine making a mistake, perhaps I am wrong. But ok, mistakes are products of the conscious mind. I am not sure that means they are necessarily not illusory, since the mind does produce illusions too. Or are all products of the conscious mind not illusory?
Further, can you tell us what the conscious mind is a product of, in a materialist account?

 

[AWPrime]

Well, I really thought that is what I was doing.

You just seem to try to blur all of the used terms.

But ok, mistakes are products of the conscious mind. I am not sure that means they are necessarily not illusory, since the mind does produce illusions too.

You got your terms mixed up (Illusion: distortion of a sensory perception.) you might mean hallucination?

Further, can you tell us what the conscious mind is a product of, in a materialist account?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

 

[chriswl]

We were fleshing out a materialist account of the phenomenon of "mistakes". I believe we have reached the conclusion that if materialism is true, then "mistakes" are actually an illusion of the conscious mind. The argument is that matter doesnt make mistakes, but always behaves deterministically - it does exactly and only what it has to according to the laws of physics. At this point I am only trying to clarify whether that result - mistakes are illusory - is a valid conclusion from materialist theory.

You could say that "correctness" and "mistakenness" exist nowhere in the material world. The human brain just does what it does and the switching of its neurons is neither "true" nor "untrue". We are evolved creatures programmed to survive, not programmed to correctly understand "the truth".

"The idea that one species of organism is, unlike all the others, oriented not just toward its own increated prosperity but toward Truth, is as un-Darwinian as the idea that every human being has a built-in moral compass--a conscience that swings free of both social history and individual luck." -- Richard Rorty

But we humans still talk of truth and correctness and mistakes and errors. So what could we mean by this if we really are just the machines imagined by materialism?

One obvious answer to this would be to take the Pragmatic approach to Truth. Truth simply means "what works". Mistakes are things that don't work and the criteria for what works is derived from evolution. Things that work are those things that help us spread our genes. Or that satisfy impulses that evolved (in a different environment) to help us spread our genes.

 

[CapelDodger]

You could say that "correctness" and "mistakenness" exist nowhere in the material world. The human brain just does what it does and the switching of its neurons is neither "true" nor "untrue". We are evolved creatures programmed to survive, not programmed to correctly understand "the truth".

OK, but with quibbles : "programmed to breed" and "The Truth" (capitalised to stress the importance of an absolute concept).

But we humans still talk of truth and correctness and mistakes and errors. So what could we mean by this if we really are just the machines imagined by materialism?

For me the really hard question is "what is self-awareness?". Consciousness, the sense of identity. If anything's immaterial it's that.

 

[Fifty Thousand Bucks]

Awaiting Enlightenment

I think you may be missing my point. Materialism does not require that a person understands the nature of material, or that material conforms to a single law or specification. Materialism does not have a prerequisite for gravity, quarks or black holes.

Fundementally, Materialism is the proposition that everything that exists is given the label 'material' (but its just a word, not a concept in itself). Since things that don't exist - don't exist - then they are immaterial. This is the logical problem for anti-materialists and is also why Randfan correctly asked the question about 'what is, is' being a tautology.

Yes - its logical, bloody obvious, staring everyone in the face and really very simple. But still people like to invent and believe fairy stories. If you feel that my description of Materialism is wrong then fine - let's call it HodgyMaterialism and let anyone who so desires make logical arguments against it.

Sir:


Well, then, let me see if I can find your point this time. I'll start by trying to parse the following:

Fundementally, Materialism is the proposition that everything that exists is given the label 'material' (but its just a word, not a concept in itself). Since things that don't exist - don't exist - then they are immaterial. This is the logical problem for anti-materialists and is also why Randfan correctly asked the question about 'what is, is' being a tautology.​

In fact, I'll start with the first sentence of the foregoing:

1. Fundamentally, materialism is the proposition that everything that exists is given the label 'material' (but its just a word, not a concept in itself).​

Out of charity, I'll not take your categorization of materialism as a proposition literally. (Btw, would you care to take a crack at defining a proposition for us? B. Russell spent many sleepless and largely unproductive hours trying.)

So, then, materialism, I take it, boils down to the view/stance that everything that exists is - You do mean "should be", right? - labelled 'material.' To keep it simple:

Materialism = (def) The view that for any thing you wish, it should be labelled 'material.'​

Lemurs, then, for instance, exist and thus, by your def, the materialist should label them 'material.'

Presuming their existence, then, the materialist should also so label mathematical theorems, international relations, and - to bring things back to the thread topic -logic.

Of course, you don't really wish to restrict your 'should' to materialists, do you? You not only wish to define 'materialism' as above but also to add that the view is true.

Okay. Let's apply the label 'material' to logic:

Logic is material.​

But you also say that 'material' is 'just a word', not a 'concept in itself.'

What does this mean?

I've no idea what you mean by 'concept in itself' and thus I've no idea what you are trying to get at by denying that - the word? - 'material' is a concept in itself. However, I might have a glimmer re your phrase 'just a word.'

Are you saying, then, that in the statement, LOGIC IS MATERIAL, the predicate is just a placeholder to be filled in at some later date? Or not filled in at all? As you - not me - said, we don't know the nature of material. Is it that we'll never know it? Is it that we can't know it?

Query: On your version of materialism, what the difference between your LOGIC IS MATERIAL and LOGIC IS X? Or if you will, LOGIC SHOULD BE LABELLED 'MATERIAL' ALTHOUGH WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MATERIAL IS (MEANS?)?

That's just one sentence. I could go on. But I'm not sure I ought. Apparently I'm still missing the point as you have assured us readers that:

Yes - its logical, bloody obvious, staring everyone in the face and really very simple.​

I await enlightenment re IT.

Cheers,

FTB

 

[stillthinkin]

Well, I really thought that is what I was doing.

You just seem to try to blur all of the used terms.

"blur" -- har har (I assume the pun was intentional)

But ok, mistakes are products of the conscious mind. I am not sure that means they are necessarily not illusory, since the mind does produce illusions too.

You got your terms mixed up (Illusion: distortion of a sensory perception.) you might mean hallucination?

You got your definition of illusion from wiki -- dont do that, it make some people upset. You should use princeton: "illusion: an erroneous mental representation". I think "illusion" is better term for our purposes here than "hallucination" is. Maybe "delusion" would work too.

 

[RandFan]

Fundementally, Materialism is the proposition that everything that exists is given the label 'material' (but its just a word, not a concept in itself). Since things that don't exist - don't exist - then they are immaterial. This is the logical problem for anti-materialists and is also why Randfan correctly asked the question about 'what is, is' being a tautology.​

My understanding, limited as it might be, is that materialism comprises everything that exists physically (materially) as opposed to the metaphysical which comprises everything that isn't physical that exists (assuming that it exists).

met·a·phys·i·cal

Immaterial; incorporeal. See Synonyms at immaterial

Now perhaps the metaphysical is simply nonsensical but it is a branch of philosophy that is separate from materialism.

 

[stillthinkin]

So, to sum up: a mistake and a light bulb are both inventions and illusions. Logic, likewise, is an invention and an illusion, as you use the term.

Light-bulbs are illusions? Sounds like you will have an argument from AWPrime. I have referred to "doing logic" as "combining premises by logical inference to reach conclusions". If doing that is somehow illusory... you will need to clarify.

 

[stillthinkin]

You could say that "correctness" and "mistakenness" exist nowhere in the material world. The human brain just does what it does and the switching of its neurons is neither "true" nor "untrue". We are evolved creatures programmed to survive, not programmed to correctly understand "the truth".

Precisely where I was going - I didnt think we would get here this fast . If "correct" and "mistaken" and "true" and "untrue" do not fit in a materialist theory of being - perhaps it is the theory itself that is incomplete? Truth and falsehood seem pretty darn basic. I am not prepared to abandon them. I do not feel rationally compelled to do so - quite the contrary.

But we humans still talk of truth and correctness and mistakes and errors. So what could we mean by this if we really are just the machines imagined by materialism?

We not only talk about truth and correctness, we are relying on them, fundamentally, in this thread.

One obvious answer to this would be to take the Pragmatic approach to Truth. Truth simply means "what works". Mistakes are things that don't work and the criteria for what works is derived from evolution. Things that work are those things that help us spread our genes. Or that satisfy impulses that evolved (in a different environment) to help us spread our genes.

If we need to redefine "truth" to be something no one means it to be, we might have a hard time not redefining "logic"? How would a statement be measured against the "what works" definition? If logical inference is a "truth preserver", and truth is now "what works", then what is logic?

 

[Fifty Thousand Bucks]

Metaphysics & Materialism

My understanding, limited as it might be, is that materialism comprises everything that exists physically (materially) as opposed to the metaphysical which comprises everything that isn't physical that exists (assuming that it exists).

met·a·phys·i·cal

Immaterial; incorporeal. See Synonyms ....

Now perhaps the metaphysical is simply nonsensical but it is a branch of philosophy that is separate from materialism.

Dear RF:

I long thought it was an important observation that no two people agree on everything. I still think it important.

However, your post prompted the realization of an equally important observation, namely, that any two people you pick (perhaps, short of the criminally insane, etc.) will agree on many things. (One has only to think of those scifi books/films where the planet earth is under alien attack to get the point. But I too am sometimes slow to come around.)

I'm not going to expand on this. You, I'm sure, don't need me to to get my point.

Anyway, let me add a bit to what you posted re the adjective "metaphysical". Switching to the noun, "metaphysics", many approach metaphysics as the study of being. Or if they are being a bit more subtle, they approach it as the study of being as being.

So understood, metaphysics is at the outset of the inquiry open to the possibility that being - of any sort - is ultimately material/physical. (For confirmation one has only to read the likes of, say, Aristotle, Aquinas, B. Russell, et al.)

And so, the current study of metaphysics - despite the etymology of the word - is open to the possiblity that all beings are material.

Accordingly, in almost any philosophy department in the world, if it has a course on metaphysics, materialism will be treated as an option. Some instructors will hold it is the only viable option, others won't. But virtually all of them will hold that a fair amount of reasoning will be required to draw the conclusion one way or the other.

Cheers,

FTB

 

[stillthinkin]

My understanding, limited as it might be, is that materialism comprises everything that exists physically (materially) as opposed to the metaphysical which comprises everything that isn't physical that exists (assuming that it exists).

met·a·phys·i·cal

Immaterial; incorporeal. See Synonyms at immaterial

Now perhaps the metaphysical is simply nonsensical but it is a branch of philosophy that is separate from materialism.

I think you meant to quote hodgy? That was his idea, which FTB was merely "parsing".

 

[RandFan]

Dear RF:

I long thought it was an important observation that no two people agree on everything. I still think it important.

However, your post prompted the realization of an equally important observation, namely, that any two people you pick (perhaps, short of the criminally insane, etc.) will agree on many things. (One has only to think of those scifi books/films where the planet earth is under alien attack to get the point. But I too am sometimes slow to come around.)

I'm not going to expand on this. You, I'm sure, don't need me to to get my point.

Anyway, let me add a bit to what you posted re the adjective "metaphysical". Switching to the noun, "metaphysics", many approach metaphysics as the study of being. Or if they are being a bit more subtle, they approach it as the study of being as being.

So understood, metaphysics is at the outset of the inquiry open to the possibility that being - of any sort - is ultimately material/physical. (For confirmation one has only to read the likes of, say, Aristotle, Aquinas, B. Russell, et al.)

And so, the current study of metaphysics - despite the etymology of the word - is open to the possiblity that all beings are material.

Accordingly, in almost any philosophy department in the world, if it has a course on metaphysics, materialism will be treated as an option. Some instructors will hold it is the only viable option, others won't. But virtually all of them will hold that a fair amount of reasoning will be required to draw the conclusion one way or the other.

Cheers,

FTB

Thanks Fifty, I intentionally used the adjective metaphysical as opposed to metaphysics because metaphysical is typically constrained to the non-physical (immaterial). My only point is that there exists a philosophical concept of immaterial (metaphysical).

Metaphysics

More recently, the term "metaphysics" has also been used to refer to "subjects which are beyond the physical world". A "metaphysical bookstore," for instance, is not one that sells books on ontology, but rather one that sells books on spirits, faith healing, crystal power, occultismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occultism, and other such topics.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[RandFan]

I think you meant to quote hodgy? That was his idea, which FTB was merely "parsing".

No, Fifty and I are on the same page I think. We are just comming to an understanding as to "is".

To quote Bill clinton, "it depends on what the definition of "is" is. (ok that's really tounge in cheek).

 

[stillthinkin]

No, Fifty and I are on the same page I think. We are just comming to an understanding as to "is".

Sorry, my mistake.

To quote Bill clinton, "it depends on what the definition of "is" is. (ok that's really tounge in cheek).

It's a very funny quote. Certainly we can mean different things by "is", and the president was playing on that... but it was rhetorical suicide to put it that way. He should have said "It depends on what you mean by 'is' in that statement." But lets not pursue that any further

FTB, I believe it is proper etiquette to avoid using all caps, because it LOOKS LIKE SHOUTING.

 

[Z]

Light-bulbs are illusions? Sounds like you will have an argument from AWPrime. I have referred to "doing logic" as "combining premises by logical inference to reach conclusions". If doing that is somehow illusory... you will need to clarify.

Of course it's illusory. Are there things named 'premise' in the material world, like rabbits? Is 'logical inference' anything except a label slapped upon a system of brain processes? That's what I'm referring to. Premises. Combination. Logical. Inference. Conclusions. These are all illusory labels, invented by man to deal with certain brain processes.

It's simple, really.

 

[Z]

Precisely where I was going - I didnt think we would get here this fast . If "correct" and "mistaken" and "true" and "untrue" do not fit in a materialist theory of being - perhaps it is the theory itself that is incomplete? Truth and falsehood seem pretty darn basic. I am not prepared to abandon them. I do not feel rationally compelled to do so - quite the contrary.

And that's a fundamental straw man.

Materialist theories of being have a perfectly good place for concepts such as 'correct', 'mistaken', etc - they are illusory labels, inventions of human thought, used to deal with certain brain processes and social situations. Truth and falsehood don't exist in nature. They are inventions of human thought.

There's no need to abandon them in the materialist metaphysic; rather, the need is to recognize the source of such notions, and the limitations that result. For example, 'good' will only ever be a subjective notion, no matter what group of people want to label things 'good' or 'evil'. What's good for one is evil for another; there's no objective good, no objective evil.

That, I think, is the biggest reason people flock to other metaphysics: they WANT there to be objective moral codes. They WANT some superior authority to tell them what is right, and what is wrong; so that they can assert that authority over others.

But the authority just doesn't exist.

 

[chriswl]

OK, but with quibbles : "programmed to breed" and "The Truth" (capitalised to stress the importance of an absolute concept).

Yes, I agree, that's closer to what I meant.

 

[AWPrime]

You got your definition of illusion from wiki -- dont do that, it make some people upset. You should use princeton: "illusion: an erroneous mental representation". I think "illusion" is better term for our purposes here than "hallucination" is. Maybe "delusion" would work too.

Delusion is better.

Precisely where I was going - I didnt think we would get here this fast . If "correct" and "mistaken" and "true" and "untrue" do not fit in a materialist theory of being - perhaps it is the theory itself that is incomplete? Truth and falsehood seem pretty darn basic. I am not prepared to abandon them. I do not feel rationally compelled to do so - quite the contrary.

I see no conflict between mistakes, true and so on with materialism.

 

[chriswl]

Precisely where I was going - I didnt think we would get here this fast .

Says you on post #309. You call that fast?

We not only talk about truth and correctness, we are relying on them, fundamentally, in this thread.

So is this thread more than "talk"?

If we need to redefine "truth" to be something no one means it to be...

What do you think people mean "truth" to be?

...we might have a hard time not redefining "logic"? How would a statement be measured against the "what works" definition? If logical inference is a "truth preserver", and truth is now "what works", then what is logic?

Oh dear, we're back to "logic" again. I thought we were getting somewhere.

If logical inference is a "truth preserver" then it's completely unproblematic. Logic is just a mechanical procedure. The results of logical inference contain no new information that wasn't contained in the premises. I can infer that my brother's father's brother's son is my cousin. But I haven't discovered any new "truth" in doing this.

Lets try and stick to questions about truth, correctness, error etc. We don't really want to spend another 8 pages arguing over whether computers do logic, do we?

 

[hammegk]

My understanding, limited as it might be, is that materialism comprises everything that exists physically (materially) as opposed to the metaphysical which comprises everything that isn't physical that exists (assuming that it exists).

If "it; that is Reality" exists, it is not metaphysical. Most here have concluded monism is the only logical intellectual position.

Whether 'everything that exists' is best described as "physical" with all the baggage that term carries, or "not physical; that is, immaterial", an intellectual position which also carries unexplicable implications.