Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

[RandFan]

Ok, someone bumped this thread, and I'm sure as hell not going to read it all before, but I remember when I took a course in socilology there was this "<inisert name here> pyramid of needs" or the like. Can I be more vague? Not doing my professor any favors. Anyway, it went something to the effect of

Philosophy
<stuff here>
<more stuff here>
<some more stuff here>
<Food and shelter >

you get the jist....

Basicly it boils down to: only after all other needs are satisfied do you have time to sit around and be Socrates.

I think you are thinking of Maslow's theory of hierarchy.

 

[chriswl]

You make an interesting distinction here, between what we are and what we do... though I think that what we can do is dictated by what we are, while what we are is revealed by what we can do.

I entirely agree, that's why I'm a materialist! I was contrasting the idea that we are more than physical with the idea that what we do is more than physical. The first possibility is something I merely disagree with. The second is a logical absurdity.

If we define materialism as the belief "everything that exists is material" then that would seem to exclude any sort of inner dimension existing which is not material. So I have two questions for you:
1. when you say it would be inaccessible to physical science, what do you mean?
2. why would you think that we have an inner dimension, except based on what we do?

As I've said, I don't personally believe this, and its not compatible with materialism. But I think it is a defensible dualist position. Look up "qualia".

Your position is not defensible either from a materialist or dualist perspective. It insists that our physical actions (which include speech) are somehow more than physical.

 

[hammegk]

But I think it is a defensible dualist position. Look up "qualia".

"Qualia" do not necessarly imply dualism. And interactive dualism of any kind remains a 100% illogical position.

 

[chriswl]

"Qualia" do not necessarly imply dualism.

Agreed.

And interactive dualism of any kind remains a 100% illogical position.

Yes indeed. But Stillthinkin's position seems to be interactive dualism.

 

[Z]

I am only a part-time bystander here but am, nevertheless, curious: what does it look like to critique stillthinkin's perspective while speaking in purely materialistic terms?

Heh. I'm not up to it - I'm a dualist at heart as well. I just argue against idiotic notions like materialism and logic being mutually exclusive.

ETA: And, yes, monism is logically the only defensible position - dualism is illogical and impractical. I believe in it, but it's not reasonable.

 

[hodgy]

Heh. I'm not up to it - I'm a dualist at heart as well. I just argue against idiotic notions like materialism and logic being mutually exclusive.

ETA: And, yes, monism is logically the only defensible position - dualism is illogical and impractical. I believe in it, but it's not reasonable.

WHAT?

All your posts (that I have read) up to this point have seemed reasonable - why would you believe something that you state is 'not reasonable', 'illogical and impractical'?

 

[Z]

WHAT?

All your posts (that I have read) up to this point have seemed reasonable - why would you believe something that you state is 'not reasonable', 'illogical and impractical'?

Who can say? But that's why it's a belief. Beliefs tend to be that way... for me.

Maybe I prefer to believe in it because it seems cool. Maybe it's just fun to believe in something silly.

Maybe I still think Santa's gonna show up with that Pony.

Who knows?

 

[stillthinkin]

In a strict materialist accounting, where everything is explained in terms of particle physics, you will have a hard time making sense even of "survival". There is no particle which does not survive being consumed by a crocodile; mass is conserved. Within a broader physicalism, such as that of Aristotle, evolution can make sense. But once you try to account for the animal in terms of the particles of its body, you lose the only thing which cares about surviving: the animal itself.

This isn't a problem. I was proposing evolution as the source of "error" in the world. I'll happily admit that non-evolved, inanimate objects don't make errors in any direct sense (they may be errors by our, ultimately evolution-derived, human standards). This may be a controversial view even amongst materialists.

So evolution is the source of error in the world... and what is the source of evolution except inanimate matter? Or are there now two types of matter, inanimate and animate? Are there animate sodium atoms and inanimate sodium atoms?

If we make a mistake while making a machine, but the mistake remains ours... then how is it that when we don't make a mistake, the behaviour of the mechanism becomes its own? If the mistake is ours and not the machines, then how is the logic we put into the machine an activity of the machine? Machines do what they have to do, according to the laws of physics - they dont make logical inferences any more than they make mistakes.

I don't think it makes sense to say machines don't make logical inferences. If I replace a human operator with a computer then what happens to the logical inferences that the human performed while doing the job? If they are not now performed by the computer where are they performed? Not by the programmer who merely determines how the logical inferences are to be performed. Where are the thousands of instances of the inference being carried out when the program is operational if not in the computer?

It makes excellent sense to say machines dont make logical inferences. When I push a switch and the light goes on, do you think there was something behind the wall that inferred that I wanted the light on?
Regarding replacing a human with a computer: this is nothing more than a new machine, made again to do what its engineers wanted. It doesnt matter how many machines you put in place to run other machines, the whole system is still a machine that simply does what it has to do according to the laws of physics. It doesnt matter how long you make the paint brush, you cant fire the painter.

Clearly the logic is an activity of the machine. The machine is the only place where this activity could be happening. There are no other candidates. But it is intended to happen according to our specification, to our plan and we are the judges of whether it is carried out correctly. Perhaps the best summary would be that the machine carries out logic but not its own logic. It doesn't really "own" its program.

No, the activity of the machine is due to the causal interaction of the mechanisms we implemented in it, it is not due to the machine doing logical inferences. Machines dont logically argue their way to their outputs. The "other candidate", of course, is always the person who designed the machine.

Computers are based on gates. Take an AND gate, for example. This involves a pair of inputs and one output, and can be implemented with marbles and levers, or with vacuum tubes or diodes or transistors. When two marbles arrive at the inputs, then the levers release a marble at the output. The levers are not doing logic, the person who planned the gate did the only logic involved. With electric gates, same thing: when the two inputs go high (+5v), then and only then does the output go high. The parts are set up to do this, they do not infer the result.

It doesnt matter how many gates of different types you string together... a trillion gates will never be doing anything more than this.

 

[Z]

And a trillion neurons will never be doing anything more than this.

Neurons work in much the same way, genius.

 

[stillthinkin]

Guess I'm on ignore. Oh well. I tried.

Stillthinking, I owe you an appology. I now see what you mean. I thought you had ignored my earlier posts. Again, I'm sorry. Please take your time in answering me. I won't make this mistake again, I promise.

I appreciate your apology.

Your examples of errors are fine. Do you understand that in a materialist account there is no such thing as an error, whether human or mechanical? Please, can we agree that there is no such thing as an error or a mistake? Matter simply doesnt make mistakes, it always does what it has to.

I have been making that point. I don't know how many more times I can make it. If you don't want to accept my saying yes then there is nothing I can do about that. I can't escape the fact that words have meaning and the words "mistake" "malfunction" and "error" are useful to materialists.

What I am trying to do is draw out the implications of materialism. It seems that you and I, at least, agree that one implication of materialism is that there could be no such thing as a "mistake", "error", "faulty state", or the like. The question might remain, then, of what we make of our apparent common experience of our own and others mistakes - but it doesnt really matter right now to me why we think we make mistakes, when we both know that if materialism is true, then there is no such things as a mistake.

If we didn't utilize words like "faulty state" or "error" we would have a very hard time working in groups to solve problems... Oh, wait, there are no such things as problems since there are no "faulty states".
Either there is utility in words like "malfunction", "error", "corrupt" or there is not. Do you agree that there is utility in such words?

Strangely, in a materialist account we might have a problem with "problem" as well, not to mention "utility". At what point would materialism be able to account for these? Some have brought up the case of "survival", but of course we know matter doesnt care about surviving. Matter always survives.

I really can't tell whether or not to take you seriously.

I hope we can both take materialism seriously enough to be willing to flesh out its implications.

You think the aerodynamics of a bird are not complicated?

Terms like "complicated" and "simple" are in the eye of the beholder. When I was 11 years old I found transistors complicated (three conductors!?) A few years later I found them remarkably simple. Transistors had not changed at all in that time.

 

[stillthinkin]

WHAT?

All your posts (that I have read) up to this point have seemed reasonable - why would you believe something that you state is 'not reasonable', 'illogical and impractical'?

Who can say? But that's why it's a belief. Beliefs tend to be that way... for me.

Maybe I prefer to believe in it because it seems cool. Maybe it's just fun to believe in something silly.

Maybe I still think Santa's gonna show up with that Pony.

Who knows?

We all know why we think, say, and believe all the different things we think, say, and believe. It is because of the electrochemistry of our brains. Creationists, Raelians, logicians, Heaven's Gate folks, terrorists, mathematicians, dualists, idealists, monists, materialists... we each believe whatever the current configuration of the material constituents of our brains indicates.

 

[RandFan]

IWhat I am trying to do is draw out the implications of materialism. It seems that you and I, at least, agree that one implication of materialism is that there could be no such thing as a "mistake", "error", "faulty state", or the like. The question might remain, then, of what we make of our apparent common experience of our own and others mistakes - but it doesnt really matter right now to me why we think we make mistakes, when we both know that if materialism is true, then there is no such things as a mistake.

That's fine so long as we have a frame of reference. It is merely our perception of the world around us and the interaction that humans have in the world.

Strangely, in a materialist account we might have a problem with "problem" as well, not to mention "utility". At what point would materialism be able to account for these? Some have brought up the case of "survival", but of course we know matter doesn't care about surviving. Matter always survives.

You are making the same fundamental error as PB. Materialism doesn't need to "account" for them. There is no "problem" with the word "problem" or utility. These are simply words to convey our perceptions of the world.

I hope we can both take materialism seriously enough to be willing to flesh out its implications.

I used to be focused on the "implications" of materialism. There is no need. We only need to understand. We can't change the truth or reality of what is.

Terms like "complicated" and "simple" are in the eye of the beholder. When I was 11 years old I found transistors complicated (three conductors!?) A few years later I found them remarkably simple. Transistors had not changed at all in that time.

I agree.

 

[President Bush]

You are making the same fundamental error as PB.

What fundamental error have I made?

 

[stillthinkin]

Strangely, in a materialist account we might have a problem with "problem" as well, not to mention "utility". At what point would materialism be able to account for these? Some have brought up the case of "survival", but of course we know matter doesn't care about surviving. Matter always survives.

You are making the same fundamental error as PB. Materialism doesn't need to "account" for them. There is no "problem" with the word "problem" or utility. These are simply words to convey our perceptions of the world.

I thought we had established that there was no such thing as an error, let alone a fundamental one? Does this mean that my neurons are in really really bad fundamental state?

I hope we can both take materialism seriously enough to be willing to flesh out its implications.

I used to be focused on the "implications" of materialism. There is no need. We only need to understand. We can't change the truth or reality of what is.

Dude, that sounds so Darth Vader. But I see: either we should take materialism seriously as a theory and pursue deeper understanding by fleshing out its implications... or we simply have to take it on faith as a religion, and ask one of the priests of materialism when we feel like thinking a thought and arent sure if it is a heretical one. I am afraid I only accept materialism as a hypothesis, not as "truth or reality". It seems to me to be a weak hypothesis, and a worse religion.

Terms like "complicated" and "simple" are in the eye of the beholder. When I was 11 years old I found transistors complicated (three conductors!?) A few years later I found them remarkably simple. Transistors had not changed at all in that time.

I agree.

That is good. I hope this means we will avoid appealing to "complicated" and "complexity" as an explanation of how things work.

 

[RandFan]

I thought we had established that there was no such thing as an error, let alone a fundamental one? Does this mean that my neurons are in really really bad fundamental state?

Ok, one more time, as it pertains to computers and software, you claimed that there is no such thing as a "corrupt" data file. I assume that you haven't changed your mind, right?

Ok, assuming that you haven't would you ever use the term "corrupt data file"? If yes, why?

ETA: When you need to rebuild the index of a data file that will no longer work as you want do you refer to the file as corrupt?

 

[RandFan]

IDude, that sounds so Darth Vader.

Rhetorical. I had thought we were beyond this.

But I see: either we should take materialism seriously as a theory and pursue deeper understanding by fleshing out its implications... or we simply have to take it on faith as a religion, and ask one of the priests of materialism when we feel like thinking a thought and arent sure if it is a heretical one. I am afraid I only accept materialism as a hypothesis, not as "truth or reality". It seems to me to be a weak hypothesis, and a worse religion.

??? This is just more rhetoric. It doesn't establish a proposition and it doesn't advance an argument. I would prefer to skip the rhetoric. Leave that to the sophists like PB.

That is good. I hope this means we will avoid appealing to "complicated" and "complexity" as an explanation of how things work.

? I have never appealed simply to complexity. However it took humans hundreds of years from the time of Da Vinci to work out flight. It could not be reduced to a simple explanation. Neither could relativity or quantum mechanics. Sustained self powered flight is a complex thing that the genius Da Vinci couldn't work out. Hell, the Wright Brothers didn't fully understand aerodynamics at their death.

A simple transistor is insufficient to send images from a Mars explorer to earth. Such a feat requires complex electronics and physics.

You are doing it again. Please don't make my arguments for me. I don't do it to you. I would appreciate the same. And please spare me the rhetoric, fair enough?

 

[AWPrime]

I thought we had established that there was no such thing as an error, let alone a fundamental one?

No, that is your error.

 

[President Bush]

I would prefer to skip the rhetoric. Leave that to the sophists like PB.

I don't see my name listed here. Please show me where I've made the fundamental error you referred to in post 392.

 

[chriswl]

So evolution is the source of error in the world... and what is the source of evolution except inanimate matter?

That's my whole point. Logic, correctness and error can arise in systems of inanimate matter. In positing evolution as the source of these things I am clearly defining them as being compatible with a purely materialistic description.

It makes excellent sense to say machines dont make logical inferences. When I push a switch and the light goes on, do you think there was something behind the wall that inferred that I wanted the light on?
Regarding replacing a human with a computer: this is nothing more than a new machine, made again to do what its engineers wanted. It doesnt matter how many machines you put in place to run other machines, the whole system is still a machine that simply does what it has to do according to the laws of physics. It doesnt matter how long you make the paint brush, you cant fire the painter.

This is what you would like to believe. But let's get back to my example. We have replaced a human operator with a computer. The human operator, we both agree, was carrying out logical inferences. After we replace him with the computer, where are these logical inferences now being carried out? There are three possibilities:

1) The computer now carries out the logical inferences.
2) No logical inferences are now being carried out, even though the task is being performed exactly the same as before.
3) The programmer carried out all the logical inferences in one go when he wrote the program.

You are ruling out (1) and I guess you would reject (2). But (3) is ridiculous. The programmer clearly never actually carries out all the many thousand or millions of logical inferences that will have to be made over the years of operation of the machine. The programmer merely specifies the logic, he doesn't execute it.

No, the activity of the machine is due to the causal interaction of the mechanisms we implemented in it, it is not due to the machine doing logical inferences. Machines dont logically argue their way to their outputs. The "other candidate", of course, is always the person who designed the machine.

At no point does the programmer logically argue his way through all the situations that occur in the day-to-day running of the machine. That's why he designed it - to save humans the labour of having to do this.

Computers are based on gates. Take an AND gate, for example. This involves a pair of inputs and one output, and can be implemented with marbles and levers, or with vacuum tubes or diodes or transistors. When two marbles arrive at the inputs, then the levers release a marble at the output. The levers are not doing logic, the person who planned the gate did the only logic involved. With electric gates, same thing: when the two inputs go high (+5v), then and only then does the output go high. The parts are set up to do this, they do not infer the result.

They do infer because that's all inference is. Computers, in fact, prove that logical inference is purely mechanical. Not that anyone has needed proof for hundreds of years now.

 

[RandFan]

I don't see my name listed here. Please show me where I've made the fundamental error you referred to in post 392.

You are a conceit yet you want to be taken seriously. Do you really think that is possible?

FWIW, I have to withdraw my accusation that you are a sock puppet. You wouldn't likely use such a sock to engage in a philosophical discussion in what seems like a possible attempt to be taken seriously. I'm not going to engage you because I doubt your sincerity for obvious reasons. Your silly response to piggy when he called you a troll is reason enough to justify such doubt.

You made your own bed.