Materialism and Logic, mtually exclusive?

[RandFan]

Once might help. Please indicate, specifically, what I said that you are referring to here.

So, you DON'T know what your argument is? I'm trying to help you PB I really am. You are telling us honestly that you don't even know what argument you are making? Really? You've been making the same one for awhile now. Ok, let's go back.

I wondered: If RandFan were deterministically required to ask the question why we would ever think that humans are "doing" anything more than causality required of them... how could it be a meaningful question?

Here is your "question" PB. Now, from this question tell us what your premises are and what conclusion logically follows from those premises? Sometimes the best way to spot the fallacy of an argument is to try and diagram the argument. If you don't even know what the premises are or if you can't identify them then you don't even know if you are in fact making an argument. So Just list them one at a time and then tell us what the conclusion is.

P1
P2
P3
Conclusion.

 

[President Bush]

Here is your "question" PB.

I wondered: If RandFan were deterministically required to ask the question why we would ever think that humans are "doing" anything more than causality required of them... how could it be a meaningful question?

Now, from this question tell us what your premises are and what conclusion logically follows from those premises? Sometimes the best way to spot the fallacy of an argument is to try and diagram the argument. If you don't even know what the premises are or if you can't identify them then you don't even know if you are in fact making an argument. So Just list them one at a time and then tell us what the conclusion is.

P1
P2
P3
Conclusion.

I'll give it a shot, though I've never been "required" before to write such an argument, RandFan.


1. Causal determinism is the idea that every event is necessitated by prior events and the laws of nature.

2. If causal determinism is true, RandFan asking the question "Why would we ever think that humans are 'doing' anything more than causality required of them" was completely fixed by prior events and the laws of nature.

3. It is not up to RandFan what the laws of nature are or what happened in the past.

4. Therefore, RandFan asking the question "Why would we ever think that humans are 'doing' anything more than causality required of them" was completely fixed by circumstances that are not up to him.

5. If an action of RandFan's is not up to him, he is not free.

6. Therefore, his question "Why would we ever think that humans are 'doing' anything more than causality required of them" was not freely asked.

7. "Why would we ever think that humans are 'doing' anything more than causality required of them" is a question of free will.

8. If a question of free will were not freely asked, it would contradict the basis of that question.

9. A question without basis is meaningless.

10. Therefore, if RandFan were causally determined to ask the question "Why would we ever think that humans are 'doing' anything more than causality required of them" it would constitute a meaningless question.

 

[Taffer]

By your same reasoning, PB, nothing anyone does has meaning.

 

[RandFan]

I'll give it a shot, though I've never been "required" before to write such an argument, RandFan.

It's good for you. It will help you identify your error.

1. Causal determinism is the idea that every event is necessitated by prior events and the laws of nature.

2. If causal determinism is true, RandFan asking the question "Why would we ever think that humans are 'doing' anything more than causality required of them" was completely fixed by prior events and the laws of nature.

3. It is not up to RandFan what the laws of nature are or what happened in the past.

4. Therefore, RandFan asking the question "Why would we ever think that humans are 'doing' anything more than causality required of them" was completely fixed by circumstances that are not up to him.

5. If an action of RandFan's is not up to him, he is not free.

6. Therefore, his question "Why would we ever think that humans are 'doing' anything more than causality required of them" was not freely asked.

7. "Why would we ever think that humans are 'doing' anything more than causality required of them" is a question of free will.

8. If a question of free will were not freely asked, it would contradict the basis of that question.

9. A question without basis is meaningless.

10. Therefore, if RandFan were causally determined to ask the question "Why would we ever think that humans are 'doing' anything more than causality required of them" it would constitute a meaningless question.

I think you stopped short of the conclusion that you really want. Aren't you trying to disprove materialism?

In any event, given all of your assumptions, so what? So what if I ask meaningless questions? So what if I have no choice but to ask about meaningless questions? So what if I ask questions about free will that contradict free will?

See, you are not getting us from point A to point B. If if we assume all of your premises (I don't necassarily BTW but that's another thread) it doesn't prove what you think it proves.

 

[RandFan]

By your same reasoning, PB, nothing anyone does has meaning.

That's right. PB needs to read Dennett.

 

[RandFan]

See, you are not getting us from point A to point B. If if we assume all of your premises (I don't necessarily BTW but that's another thread) it doesn't prove what you think it proves.

One more thing PB, we are discussing materialism and not free will. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Freedom Evolves

(a review)

Daniel Dennett's latest book Freedom Evolves continues the themes that have become his trademark in previous titles such as Consciousness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea. His task is to give a thorough account of how we--and our minds--evolved and to calm fears that such an account presents a threat to the concept of free will.

In one of the most arresting and important chapters in the book, Dennett lays bare several common misconceptions about determinism and introduces a toy model which demonstrates how simple, mindlessly deterministic automata appear to make rational 'choices' to avoid harm in their limited environment. Dennett claims that misunderstanding of determinism is still prevalent among scientists and philosophers who subsequently misrepresent his views as they continue to resist a materialistic treatment of mind. Their fear is that if we should ever be revealed to be 'mere machines' this will bring with it a death sentence to consciousness and free-will. Such fears resist Dennett's argument as wrong and an insult to our sense of human dignity. After carefully addressing those fears, Dennett goes on to show how we humans can be both a creation of and a creator of culture; arguing that we are of course a species of animal but the emergence of human culture is a major innovation in evolutionary history providing our species with new tools to use, new topics to think about and new perspectives to think from.

 

[President Bush]

So what if I ask meaningless questions?

Doesn't this belong in Forum Community?

 

[RandFan]

Doesn't this belong in Forum Community?

No, it's an important question. The point of argument is to arrive at a conclusion. The point of the thread is whether or not materialism and logic are mutually exclusive. You seem to think that the fact humans find meaning in various and sundry things proves that consciousness transcends the physical world (is more than just materialism) and to prove it you make an argument that ostensibly demonstrates that we have free will.

1.) It doesn't prove that at all.
2.) The debate isn't about free will.

So, my questions remains, "so what?"