So far we have established that the argument for Free Will is not circular, it is not an infinite regression, it is grounded in an axiom, as well as being a properly formed deductive syllogism.
That might seem to be enough for an ordinary argument to be considered acceptable. But when it comes to Free Will and other assaults on the ideology of AtheoMaterialism, there is and will be a never ending series of continuing attacks, trying mightily to gain a foothold for the materially unprovable propositions of Atheism and Philosophical Materialism. The discussion of Free Will is identified as having two major components or threads: (1) being able to do otherwise, and (2) the ultimate source of one's will. (Note 1) We are still on (1), whether or not we can actually control any of our actions, or whether they are fully causal and pre-determined.
Since the argument for Free Will itself is not defeatable on terms of its logical structure and grounding, the attack on Free Will then takes another tack: Free Will, some philosophers declare, is imaginary: we are all deluded by thinking that we have Free Will.
A recent spate of attacks has come in the form of scientific experiments. Regardless of the methodology, the experiments consist of measuring brain activity which exists before a decision is consciously made. Delays ranging from a few milliseconds (Note 2), to as long as 8 seconds are claimed. From this simple data, philosophers infer that the neurons are making the decision subconsciously and without conscious involvement, and that the conscious mind is therefore merely informed of the decision, ex post facto. And from that inference, the second inference is derived: there is no Free Will.
The ancillary inference is philosophically important to AtheoMaterialists: IF we are deluded to think that we have Free Will, THEN there is no Free Will.
This falls nicely under the AtheoMaterialist concept of total causality, the determinism that is seen in non-living nature. Or does it? If there are acausal occurrences that are observable, then an acausal agent exists… somewhere. Under the delay theory, the acausal agent is merely transferred from the conscious mind to the neural activity of the pre-conscious. So the free agent is the neuron conglomerate in the brain, which decides and activates, and then informs the conscious mind.
So before we even begin to investigate the logic of the delay, we can see that the argument does not defeat free agency (Free Will plus ability to implement it) in any way. Free agency is merely moved back a level, into the pre-conscious neural level.
But to take on the “delusion” aspect of the argument anyway, despite the early failure of the argument, there are some logical considerations.
If we let X => Free Will,
We can say that if Free Will is a delusion, Then Free Will does not exist.
IF [X is a universal delusion], THEN [ !X ].The contrary of this would be,
IF [!(X is a universal delusion)], THEN [X].Because the contrary is valid and matches empirical observations, then the original proposition is false.
(This matches empirical observations)
Notice also that even if we actually were under a universal delusion that X, that still doesn’t prove that X doesn’t actually exist, only that the belief that it exists is a delusion. The original statement is non sequitur in the sense of comparing a belief to an existence; existence does not depend on belief or non-belief: Category Error and Black & White Fallacy. Further consequences of the original proposition are found below.
From an objective standpoint, using “universal delusion” as a premise in any argument against a universally held, empirical (note 3) concept, X, looks like this:
IF [universal delusion that X], THEN [!X]Contrary:
IF [!universal delusion that X], THEN [X]Therefore the original statement is logically false.
(coherent, valid, empirical)
More to the point is that any statement which requires that belief in the existence of X be declared universal delusion goes directly against universal observation, and violates empirical standards. moreover, providing empirical proof of universal delusion is not possible, as is the case with any universal statement; and universal delusion is not an axiom.
Other consequences of a theory of universal delusion:
(a) What we think we observe empirically in ourselves and others is a delusion, one that is universal in scope; empiricism itself is suspected of being delusional, throwing all objective knowledge into the category of universal delusion.
(b) What we experience cannot be known not to be delusional also, throwing all subjective knowledge into the category of universal delusion at the particular level.
But what about the delay? What does that mean? There are several aspects of this issue, the first of which is the types of mental activity required in order to make a decision. John Locke presented a categorization of mental functions which are necessarily activated as inputs are processed into decisions: apprehension; comparison; differentiation; judgment; comprehension.
Some of these include complex operations, such as comparison which requires scanning memory for comparable situations and their outcomes, transferring that information into comparator files. The differentiation process requires that rules based comparison be done, so that the proper rules must be found and loaded into place for the differentiation process to proceed. If there are no prior situations to compare, and no rules found, then the differentiation must be done based on axioms of worldview or view of reality. Judgment itself might need consequence scenarios set up and differentiated.
The initiation of the process is not necessarily conscious, and in fact the whole process might be subconscious if the decisions are common, previously made, trivial in nature. I might drive home from work safely, with no conscious input to the process and no memory of the drive, my mind still occupied with work-stuff.
On the other hand most of the process can be made consciously too.
The point is that there are a great many steps, serial in nature, that obtain to a decision. The measurement of delays from start to finish shows absolutely nothing regarding what the mind is actually doing. To make inferences based on such data is irresponsible from a logic standpoint.
And finally, asserting universal delusion as a premise is not rational.
Notes:
1. Timothy O’Conner; Free Will, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
2. Libet’s experiment. Lots of google sources.
3. This does not apply to any concept which is internally non-coherent a priori, such as that white = black, which is independently demonstrated to be false; and it is also not an empirical concept which is universally held.
Hi, I don't believe in God and accept the fact that free will exists. I am thus surprised by your series on free will since you seem to think that it does not fit with atheism. I will try to go through it while writing notes to see where we are 'supposed' to disagree.
ReplyDeletePART 1 - DEFINITIONS
Free will
No problem with the definition. This is a crucial point to keep in mind:
constraints exist but are not fatal to the existence of free will.
Agent
I am not sure that I agree with this definition because of this sentence:
we will use the concept of human causation of effects, those effects being outside the expected causation of the known four physical forces.
Human behavior cannot be predicted using physics so it is different from the four physical force, I agree, but, humans cannot do anything that cannot be described using the four physical forces once the action has been performed. In order words, any human action can be modeled using the four physical forces; any human action can be described physically.
The only exception is thinking. We are not able, as of now, to explain in detailed what happens in the brain when thinking is going on. We know that a least part of it is purely physical since we have instruments to measure the brain activity. The question is to determine if there is something more.
Perhaps this slight disagreement will not change anything but I keep note of it while I continue reading.
Self
= Mind.
Ok.
Life
Life = 'Human life including the human experience.'
Not just biological life.
PART 2 - CIRCULAR ARGUMENT
ReplyDeleteThe syllogism has a normal syllogistic structure; there is no circularity. Free will exists if the premises are true.
Using the hand analogy, 'Part 2' could have also stated that free will was acquired and the consequence is that humans can use this ability to make choices (freedom of decision or choice).
PART 3 - INFINITE REGRESSION
This seems obvious to me. Free will can exist without an appeal to an infinite regression of choices. The demonstration of how absurd the world is if we deny free will is sufficient to confirm that the intuitive acceptance of free will as an axiom is valid.
PART 4 - COHERENT ARGUMENT
So far we have determined that the argument for Free Will is a valid syllogism, that it is neither circular nor an infinite regression, that it is grounded, axiomatically, and that it is not internally non-coherent.
All objections and corrections welcome.
None!
PART 5 - DELUSION
We are still on (1), whether or not we can actually control any of our actions, or whether they are fully causal and pre-determined.
The question has been answered already. From PART 1 (see comment by 'Stan'), it was already determined that several types of actions exist:
1. Autonomic controls: e.g. heartbeat, and other functions not consciously controlled.
2. Semi-autonomic controls: e.g. breathing, which is autonomic but can be overridden.
3. Subconscious functions: e.g. memory access, data transfer.
4. Conscious functions: thought development, creative and purposeful functions.
Therefore, the answer to the question is 'yes', we can actually control some of our actions.
The rest of the post simply repeats that Free Will exists and that denying it is logically false since we determined that Free Will can be accepted as an axiom.
CONCLUSION (...for now...)
After 5 parts, I don't see any reason to disagree, even if the definitions did not appear to be perfectly clear at first.
What I don't understand is why this is supposed to be impossible to accept if we don't believe in God?
Max,
ReplyDeleteHello and welcome;
The Philosophical Materialist viewpoint is that because all things are material, then cause and effect is the operative axiom for all of existence. Thus the actions of all parts of existence are purely causal, in the sense that the positions of all the particles in the universe at a given time determine with complete exactitude what the positions will be in the next instant: all actions are deterministic, and cannot be otherwise.
This eliminates any possible freedom of manipulation of outcomes by agents working intentionally (non-deterministically). Humans would be "uncaused causers", operating independently and intentionally despite preexisting particle alignments and locations. This, if true, would invalidate Philosophical Materialism, and by extension all Atheist positions based on material evidence. So Free Will and agency contradict PM by indicating a dualism which is in play.
If there is no Free Will and associated agency to intentional causation, then nothing we think or do has any truth value, and our concept of our own Free Will and agency is a complete delusion.
This concept of universal delusion naturally extends to all of conscious "rationality", meaning that all thoughts and theories including Atheist thoughts and theories are meaningless and without truth value.
The only way that Free Will can exist is in an axiom which contradicts the proposed axiom of Philosophical Materialism; both cannot be correct, one must be false. And ironically, choosing the axiom of Philosophical Materialism negates Atheist precepts just as does choosing the dualist axiom.
That's why Atheist philosophers do one of two things. Either they contend that there is no incompatibility beween the two axioms (aka "compatibilism") without explanation of the apparent dualism, or they adhere to the Materialist claim of total determinism, regardless of the effect of negating their own truth value.
It would seem that the only coherent position is that of dualism, which is what we are on about here. Is dualism in the form of Free Will coherent? We are searching out the logical aspects of that.
Thanks for the welcome!
ReplyDeleteYes dualism seems to be the quickest way to present what I believe too.
I thus really don't understand why you claim that it conflicts with atheism or The Philosophical Materialist viewpoint to use your own words. The viewpoint you described seem very extreme and I have never heard anybody focusing on these ideas alone. For sure it does not fit with what I believe, even though I remember discussing with some friends a few years ago and I was forced to concede to them that I am a materialist...
Long story short, I say that I was forced to because I thought it was a silly idea that means nothing. After careful discussions I concluded that they were correct and that I am a materialist. Quickly after though, they also conceded that it is useless: but it is the only way to describe our position since we don't believe that anything exists outside the material world. It does not mean that there could not be something else; I just don't know what it means to even talk about it.
Anyway, I am curious to see where your next post on the topic will go. Perhaps I will understand what your problem with atheism VS free will is... I really don't see it as of now.
Oh actually I just thought of something else concerning dualism.
ReplyDeleteI see no contradiction between a purely physical mind and human free will for the same reason that I don't see any problem with physical dice generating random numbers.
Technically, if we could analyze the exact position of dice when we are about to throw them, and if we could analyze the exact force acting upon them, then we could always predict the exact way they are going to bounce around and thus predict the outcome.
This is, in real life, virtually impossible to do as soon as the dice are thrown from a sufficiently high position, or with enough strength. Does it mean that the dice have something magic that prevents us from describing them using the laws of physics?
“Perhaps I will understand what your problem with atheism VS free will is... I really don't see it as of now.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is not mine, as you suggest; it is a long-standing issue for Materialists. Here is a pointer to John Searle’s comments:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/radio4/transcripts/1984_reith6.pdf
Virtually every philosopher writes on the subject, and the big dogs of artificial intelligence do too. Bertrand Russell considered the issue intractable in his “Nine Lectures on the Mind”, where he proposed an unknown “substance” for the mind in order to satisfy a materialist conflict with dualism by creating a material dualism.
” I see no contradiction between a purely physical mind and human free will for the same reason that I don't see any problem with physical dice generating random numbers.”
Randomization being perfectly in line with expectations of entropy, this analogy doesn’t seem to fit. What is being generated mentally is agency, intentionality, and purposeful intellectual creativity, none of which is an expectation of particle motion, especially under entropic influence. All analogies fail ultimately (or they would be tautologies), some fail sooner than others. It is always best to address the actual issue straight on.
We are not discussing magic; we are discussing what can be known, how that can be known to be a valid deduction structurally, whether it is coherent, grounded, and contains truth value, and whether there is any empirical evidence for or against it.
So in this case, is there empirical reason to think that the brain, being particle states, generates its own software, so to speak, which leads directly to anentropic agency? (Presuming that one accepts that Free Will exists, of course). What about particle positions is predictive of agency?
Here’s an example of an Atheist philosopher denying the existence of Free Will:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-01-01/free-will-science-religion/52317624/1
Here is a discussion at a site which is highly valuable:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
Here is a discussion on Hume’s approach to Free Will:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-freewill/
The first reference did not word-wrap; I'll try this:
ReplyDeletehttp://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/radio4/transcripts/
1984_reith6.pdf
"The mind" is not a thing. As we learn more about the brain we find "the mind" is a process that the brain does. Thus your logic (and the logic of those who came before the age of MRI machines etc) is based on a category mistake.
ReplyDeleteTo believe something supernatural is doing the thinking instead of the brain is something you are yet to support with argumentation.
Hi Stan,
ReplyDeleteThe problem is not mine, as you suggest; it is a long-standing issue for Materialists. Here is a pointer to John Searle’s comments:
Thanks for that link. I went through it all (thank god I am on vacations!) and it was very interesting. However, I fail to see where the problem is with materialism is. Searle appears to make an argument from incredulity to support his notion that dualism is incorrect. Just because he does not find a way to reconcile dualism with a materialist belief does not convince me that I cannot. I could be wrong of course, but I do reconcile the two easily (even if it's not easy to explain ironically).
Virtually every philosopher writes on the subject
Indeed, that's one reason why I find this so interesting myself! I had simply never ran into someone like you who says that it's "my" problem because I am a materialist but not "yours" because... well actually that's what I am still waiting for.
...he proposed an unknown “substance” for the mind in order to satisfy a materialist conflict with dualism by creating a material dualism
I don't see the need for injecting an unknown 'substance'. It just complicates things more. I would need to read his work to know why he proposed such a thing...
...All analogies fail ultimately (or they would be tautologies), some fail sooner than others. It is always best to address the actual issue straight on.
Of course all analogies fail at some point. That's why they are... analogies. The dice analogy serves only to show that the same set of physical objects can be described differently depending on the context of the observers. In one instance it appears to be completely predictable, while in another it appears to be completely random. We know it's neither, just like free will. No human is 100% free nor 100% pre-determined. I thought you were clear about that yourself from the very beginning...
we are discussing what can be known
Can you clarify what you mean by this because what I see in these posts is a clash between 2 sets of beliefs, not two sets of knowledge?
Knowledge is closely related but it is not the issue here. Note that it does not mean that I don't value what you wrote after, quite the contrary. It is essential for any rational thinker to discuss...what can be known, how that can be known to be a valid deduction structurally, whether it is coherent, grounded, and contains truth value, and whether there is any empirical evidence for or against it.
Next, a very good question you asked, and which the next link you gave tries to answer, is:
ReplyDeleteis there empirical reason to think that the brain, being particle states, generates its own software, so to speak, which leads directly to anentropic agency?
I strongly believe that the simple answer is 'yes'. Brains can generate their own 'software'. The article states something that made me giggle (especially because it comes from a biologist):
We can't impose a nebulous "will" on the inputs to our brain that can affect its output of decisions and actions, any more than a programmed computer can somehow reach inside itself and change its program.
Actually, as a software engineer, I can assure you that he is wrong... it is not that hard to program a program that can alter its own code, making it extremely hard for humans to come along and predict exactly what the software is going to do. I see humans in exactly the same way, but to a degree of complexity which is exponentially higher than the most advances computers.
I will have to postpone my reading of the plato.standford.edu links for later...
P.S. if you want to create real links in your post, you can use the HTML tag 'a' like this:
< a href ="http://www.something.com">The text to display < / a >
Just remove the spaces between the 'a' and the < , > and /
It then become:
The text to display
When I get the email notifications in gmail, the web addresses are already transformed into links we can click on (there was no problem with your first attempt for instance) but when we are on the website itself, then we cannot click on the link if you don't use the HTML 'a' tag, and this can be quite annoying since we need to copy/paste... anyway, just my software geek 2-cents...
LiWon,
ReplyDeleteIt is your assertion which requires proof, and not the proof of blood flow in the cranial blood vessels. You appear to assert that the brain generates its own software which it then operates; that is outside of the ability of particle motions to perform, unless magical qualities are attributed to particles.
The production of MRIs is being interpreted via extrapolations which are not warranted by anything other than than the improper faux axioms of Philosophical Materialism.
Empiricism done properly demands that precise causes be demonstrated, not epiphenomena. Projecting that blood flow indicates a cause is improper science. Blood flow indicates that the brain is operating, processing actions of the mind. It has no bearing on the source of the mind. There is no direct connection, either empirically or intellectually, between the flow of blood, and the source of the mind.
Hi Stan, what can be demonstrated empirically is that the mind-body relationship exists in the "body -> mind" direction, in the sense that physical impacts on the brain causes the mind to change.
ReplyDeleteThis implies that (at least part of) the mind is physical since it is influenced by a physical body.
It is thus impossible to prove that the mind is purely non-physical.
Is it possible to prove that it is 100% physical? I would reply with a very careful 'yes', since it's hard to reach 100% certainty on that question, but my understanding of the way humans think is sufficient to convince me that it all depends on the material world.
This comes close to the same argument you used for free will. Denying free will makes our world and thinking processes fall into absurdity, we can thus take it for granted that free will exists, it becomes an axiom. The fact that minds are at least partially physical leads me to conclude that they must be completely physical for similar reasons. Remove the material world from the mind -> body interaction, or remove the material world from the thinking process of the mind alone, and nothing makes sense. What does it mean to think if you don't have a material world to think about? Can you even think of anything? How could you know if your thinking is correct or not? Could you sort real things from imaginary things in your mind? Could you reason? Could you get new knowledge? How could your thinking process ever start?
I think I will need to present you my 'baby argument' but I have already posted enough for now since you did not even have time to reply to the previous long comment... I guess you are not on vacations as well ;-)
Max,
ReplyDelete(Yeah, I know how to create links, I’m just too lazy to type it out, so I put it off on the reader…)
Why it’s not my problem:
Atheists have to believe some incredible (literally) things in order to sustain their belief system. In this case it is that the brain comes with software that is self-modifying, embedded in the particles of the brain. That is too incredible to be accepted without some serious proof, and since Atheists demand empirical validation for their beliefs, empirical validation, experimental replication and non-falsification is required in order for this to be believed. That’s why it’s not my problem, it is the problem of the Philosophical Materialist to provide adequate material evidence. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof – Sagan, the Atheist friend of logic up to a point.
All that I have asserted so far is that Free Will exists and passes logical tests, qualifying for axiom status. From that point, some of the Philosophical Materialist objections will be analyzed for their coherence and empirical proof.
Self-modifying software is not a desirable product and as far as I know it is not an acceptable technique for providing non-contradictory (deterministic) output. So attributing it to the brain is another extraordinary assertion requiring extraordinary evidence. From Turing to Minsky the proposition has been that all mental functions have corresponding algorithms. So the brain either would have to come pre-loaded with all the algorithms for rationality, intentionality and creativity, or the algorithms would have to be developed, meaning that a super-algorithm must pre-exist or have been downloaded from somewhere. So the knowledge of the source of the brain’s software, if it is to be considered material, is put in jeopardy by Godel’s hierarchy requirements.
As for beliefs vs. knowledge, unless radical skepticism is invoked it is possible to know what one’s actions are and whether one could have done otherwise. This is more than a belief, it is axiomatic under the conditions of empirical observation: it could not be otherwise unless total delusion is invoked. If Free Will cannot be observed empirically due to internal delusion, then no factoid can be known empirically for the same reason. The premise of delusion expands to all knowledge, because it is a form of radical skepticism. So under the delusion proposition, Materialism is meaningless, making the entire idea internally non-coherent.
I will be addressing compatibilism in a few days.
Max,
ReplyDeleteYes, I am not online full time, but I do get on a couple of times a day.
You conclude that the mind is partly physical based on your presumption that the mind works only on inputs from the senses - at least I think that is your position.
Much of the mind's work is subconscious as it controls organic functions. The conscious mind, if it exists, operates on inputs, yes, and it also can direct mind to body controls, as when you decide to lift your arm, or get out of your chair. The mind is able to cause physical occurrences directly, via neural pathways. And the mind is able to consider purely abstract concepts, and to deduce further concepts from them. The intellectual paths to solutions to non-linear differential equations have no material reality to consider, only symbolic creations embued with abstract meanings.
Why should one conclude that this means that the mind is a physical "thing"?
"It is your assertion which requires proof, and not the proof of blood flow in the cranial blood vessels."
ReplyDeleteYou want "proof" that the brain does the thinking? I'm afraid science can only give you supporting evidence.
"There is no direct connection, either empirically or intellectually, between the flow of blood, and the source of the mind."
You say this? How to think without a working brain?
Is thinking so disconnected from the brain that you think it still happens without a working brain? This is something you need to provide evidence for.
It is not enough to disbelieve the evidence that the brain does the thinking - you must provide evidence that it doesn't.
Hi again Stan,
ReplyDeleteWhy it’s not my problem:
Atheists have to believe some incredible (literally) things in order to sustain their belief system.
To support their non-belief you mean?
In any case, I have no idea what you are talking about...
In this case it is that the brain comes with software that is self-modifying, embedded in the particles of the brain. That is too incredible to be accepted without some serious proof,
As you mentioned earlier, analogies have a limit, and this one does not make exception. I don't believe that the particles of the brain list some sort of fixed programs. What I believe is that because of our prior states as living things, we can make decisions and actions that are all limited by the physical world we live in. That's where the 'baby argument' comes in. Let me introduce it to you...
Stan, do you agree that at point in your life you, the person we label 'Stan', were a baby? Of course you do you say... Now, here's what this imply: At point in your life, the physical body known as Stan was not aware of itself, was not able to make rational arguments, was not able to find truth, and so on... All you were able to do was to perceive the world around you, copy information to your brain somehow (memories...) and slowly learning how to control that body of yours.
A few years later, you started to be able to actually realize that you exist in this world. The world was not controlling you anymore, you were slowly starting to control the world, up to a certain point, so that the outcome of your own actions could yield a result that you expected. All of this happened in what we call your mind, but really it is clear that the body started all of this. The process of thinking came way long after the body. In short, the mind came after the body. The two are linked and one cannot escape this fact unless they think it's all an illusion (is that what you mean by Radical Skepticism by the way?).
Therefore, the baby example serves us well here to see how the software analogy actually works. A newborn is like a blank page of code. Actually, it's more like a template in C++ but I won't get into that. The point is that the baby is then slowly programmed to do certain things by its body, its environment and, of course, even its parents. The program is started way long before the baby can actually realize what its own program is doing. It's only much later in life that the baby actually becomes able to realize that and alter its own program, slightly, in order to make conscious decisions and perform certain actions instead of others.
Is this a proof that the brain is purely physical? Of course not. That would put me in some sort of 'genius' circle that I don't pretend to be in. The idea is only to show how, if we see the brain as a machine, we can actually make sense of both the will to choose and the restrictions imposed on our physical self. The empirical verification of that belief comes with the analysis of the brain that MRI images gives us, where we see that the brain is, at all time, continuously moving stuff around (moving energy among the brain cells) while the thinking process is going on.
Self-modifying software is not a desirable product
ReplyDeleteSorry but you are simply wrong... it is very useful...
and as far as I know it is not an acceptable technique for providing non-contradictory (deterministic) output. So attributing it to the brain is another extraordinary assertion requiring extraordinary evidence.
To be clear, it is an analogy only, and since we are not able to create a real sentient AI yet, then there is no reason to support the assertion you claim required evidence. You push the analogy too far... The brain is 'like' a program that re-program itself, but it is a natural occurring thing part of a living organism. It is not literally a machine... The rest of your paragraph follows from the abuse of the analogy I am afraid. I am sorry if I was not clear the first time.
As for beliefs vs. knowledge, ...
Perhaps I don't understand you but your paragraph does not address the concern I had. You said that 'we are discussing what can be known' and wanted to clarify that we are talking about the 'belief' in free will and the 'belief' in gods, or lack thereof (atheism).
Therefore I agree with your idea of rejecting delusion as a premise since it would voids us of any knowledge. My point is that, with that knowledge, especially with our common shared knowledge, it is possible for us to believe, or not, in free and/or gods. I don't see any conflict with any of the 4 possible combinations and I am pretty sure they all have their group of believers. Only 1 of them is completely right. 2 of them are correct on one issue but not the other. One group is completely wrong. They can still all hold these different beliefs.
In other words, nobody is forced to choose between 'Free Will + God' and 'No Free Will + No God'. I hope that's more clear now.
You conclude that the mind is partly physical based on your presumption that the mind works only on inputs from the senses - at least I think that is your position.
No. My position is that the mind is definitely affected by the physical body that it controls and/or* originates from. An entire personality can be changed because of brain damage. This is proof that the mind, the self, the 'you' Stan is, at least partially, physical.
* NOTE : I use and/or to show you that it is not based on a pre-supposition. It does not matter if the mind is purely physical or not. The point is made without any assumption.
And the mind is able to consider purely abstract concepts, and to deduce further concepts from them.
ReplyDeletePurely abstract? I disagree. We are not able to consider purely abstract concept in the sense that we always, without exception, have a way to describe physically our abstract concepts. Remember the discussion I mentioned I had with some friends? Well that was precisely about that. I was in your "camp" Stan regarding that issue, and I was very stubborn about it, but I eventually changed my mind. Perhaps you won't because you are not an atheist but you should consider it.
This example might help you understand what I mean exactly: Can you think of 'nothing' and 'infinity'?
Think about it, and tell me if you are actually able to think about them without resorting to anything that can be translated into physical things.
The intellectual paths to solutions to non-linear differential equations have no material reality to consider, only symbolic creations embued with abstract meanings.
There are 2 scenarios here. Either you started with a real-world problem. That makes you equations map back to a material phenomenon first, before the abstract concecpts. Or, you can start with abstract mathematical symbols and then move from there. But where did the symbols come from? Obviously they were simply created by humans to have discussions about real life problesm. Mathematics, even if we often hear the expression, is not discovered, it is rather invented to approximate the observations we make in the real world.
Even imaginary symbols like the letter 'i' are used to make real-life calculation. I remember my circuit analysis classe in university and we were using 'i' all the time ('j' actually in electricity...). How did we know that our answers were correct at the end of the problem? Because 'i' had gone away during the process...
Why should one conclude that this means that the mind is a physical "thing"?
We have established (at least I believe that we have) that the mind is at least partially physical. The real question to ask is thus:
Why should one conclude that this means that the mind has some non-physical properties?
Max,
ReplyDeleteFirst regarding your baby theory:
You have stated your version of the “blank slate” theory, which is that mind is blank until somehow filled. I think that the blank slate is adequately refuted by John Locke, who pointed out that humans are born with full capacities or faculties which include the innate capabilities of apprehension, comparison, differentiation, judgment, and comprehension. These are the tools of the intellect, which inhere with every mind/brain development. Even newborns are capable of these processes as shown by recognizing who is and is not “mother”, an accomplishment involving all the processes, plus the assertion of will by screeching until the real mother returns. The mind is not a blank slate, the memory is the blank slate. The mind arrives fully functional and operates on what information it has, which at first is none. As information is gathered, the comparison, differentiation and judgment faculties are able to give more reasonably informed outputs. Parents do not program the child, they provide information for the child to process.
John Locke,” An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”, 1693.
Your presupposition is this:
” All of this happened in what we call your mind, but really it is clear that the body started all of this. The process of thinking came way long after the body. In short, the mind came after the body.”
Just as life is conferred only by other life, so minds are conferred only by other minds. The physical body doesn’t have a physical mind, or corpses would think. Or would at least have mind chunks available at the post mortem. Life comes first, not body, and there is no reason not to suppose that life bestows the mind. The question then becomes, “what is life”? And the first step there is to recognize that the body does not bestow life, it is life that bestows the body.
Because the empty slate or baby story is not the definitive story of the mind, these stories are neither necessary nor sufficient to prove that the mind is in any way physical, in the sense of existing in lumps extractable for examination. When a mind is dissected and the decision last week to go get ice cream is seen as a separable part of the brain, then there will be sufficient evidence of an empirical nature to make such a claim. But it is not likely that the mind works in that manner, nor is it likely that such physical mind-lumps will ever be found.
The next temptation is to declare that the mind is merely physical states, which then demands the next question, “states of what”? What is initiating, controlling, using and comprehending the states? Just “states in the brain” as an explanation is insufficient for explaining comprehension, creativity and so on.
Searle explains why AI and the “meat machine” concept is not sufficient to explain mind. Machinery, which is deterministic, works on the basis of syntax alone; there is no way for a machine to have semantic capability (understanding of the meaning). This is shown by Searle’s Chinese Room, which he explains here with clarity:
(OK, I’ll make it easy for you)
Searle on AI, Mind and Sematics vs Syntax
Positing the mind as a computer, a “meat machine” is reductive to the level of absurdity. Those engaged in Artificial Intelligence need to do this in order to keep faith in their ability to install intellect into deterministic machines. It’s been half a century since Turing-Church, with virtually no progress except for “expert systems” which are still deterministic.
Actually this all will show up in the next article, you are getting a preview here. It’s interesting stuff. We can’t resolve it here, but we can reveal the issues.
”Sorry but you are simply wrong... it is very useful...”
ReplyDeleteCould you provide examples of executables which freely decide to modify themselves? In other words, non-deterministically, without prior control algorithmically.
”You said that 'we are discussing what can be known' and wanted to clarify that we are talking about the 'belief' in free will and the 'belief' in gods, or lack thereof (atheism).”
First the discussion in this thread has been in reference to the knowledge that we have Free Will, and not the issue of Atheism. However, let’s take that on.
Atheism is not non-belief. It is the specific belief that there is no deity or sentient first cause for the universe. The modern dodge of claiming non-belief is an intentional avoidance mechanism devised in order to not have to provide the material evidence for their belief which they demand of others. It works like this:
Possible belief systems:
1. Non-belief: has not heard of the proposition, or has forgotten it. (Ignorance).
2. Dis-belief: has heard the proposition and rejects it. (Atheism).
3. Has heard the proposition and doesn’t care. (Apathy).
4. Has heard the proposition and needs more information: Agnosticism.
5. Has heard the proposition and accepts it. (Deist/Theist).
It is not possible to have heard the proposition and not have a position on it, unless one has forgotten it or is apathetic to it; Atheists are in neither category. Atheists have a positive belief that there is no deity.
The reason for this deception is to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, which occurs when charging Theists with having no material evidence for their beliefs, while the AtheoMaterialists also have no material evidence for their own beliefs. (the demand for material evidence for a non-material entity is also a Category Error). Since Atheists tend to advertise their “evidence” and “logic” based belief system, they cannot allow themselves to be exposed to the reality that they are not evidence based at all. And since they make demands based on logical fallacy, they are also not logic based. Atheism is a worldview which is supported only by opinion.
(continued)
” In other words, nobody is forced to choose between 'Free Will + God' and 'No Free Will + No God'. I hope that's more clear now.”
ReplyDeleteYes that is more clear
That argument is a little far removed from the actual debate, which is agency vs. determinism.
1. Agency and Determinism
2. Agency and non-determinism
3. No Agency and determinism
4. No Agency and non-determinism.
Now let’s establish the definitions:
Agency: the ability to choose objectives and implement paths to those objectives.
Determinism: the restriction of all material stuff to Cause and Effect, including causal chain regressing to the creation of the universe.
There is no reason to accept 2, 3, or 4, since they all require belief in anti-axiomatic propositions.
That leaves case number 1.
In order to accept case 1 and maintain Materialism, it is necessary that one or the other of these definitions be modified in order to fit the conclusion (rationalization in order to obtain desired result). For example, 1 requires either that,
(a) determinism be redefined so that Cause and Effect is not total, or that
(b) Free Will be redefined as delusional because Cause and Effect is truly total.
Option (a) is called Compatibilism. Because it is now non-absolute, the concept of Cause and Effect becomes a football to be kicked one direction or another. If Cause and Effect is not absolute, then what are its limits? Why is it not absolute? What is the proof for this, other than opinion?
The only solution to case 1 which does not require rationalized manipulation is that Free Will / agency is not a material entity, subject to the causal chain.
” * NOTE : I use and/or to show you that it is not based on a pre-supposition. It does not matter if the mind is purely physical or not. The point is made without any assumption.”
There is no question that damage prevents the mind from access to the full set of faculties. That does not mean that the mind is physical, which I now suppose is your position.
(continued)
”We are not able to consider purely abstract concept in the sense that we always, without exception, have a way to describe physically our abstract concepts.”
ReplyDeleteYou have made a statement with the assurance of universal truth value; that is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. I suggest that manipulation of non-eigenvectors can and does exist without physical referencing. I suggest that the development of string theory occurred without being couched in physical necessity as the math progressed. The physical postulates (branes and strings) occurred post hoc.
Regarding your friends, be sure to think for yourself, using the principles of syllogistic deductive logic in analyzing their propositions.
”This example might help you understand what I mean exactly: Can you think of 'nothing' and 'infinity'?
Think about it, and tell me if you are actually able to think about them without resorting to anything that can be translated into physical things.”
That actually proves the point: we can use the abstract concepts despite their non-material content. E=MC2 can be expressed E-MC2=0 quite satisfactorily. When we say that “no” (zero) machines in this universe violate the 2nd law of entropy, we can understand that abstraction. There are zero rats on my table. The term X/0 refers to an abstraction which is infinity, an abstraction which is useful.
Denying abstraction is an extraordinary claim… yada yada.
”But where did the symbols come from? Obviously they were simply created by humans to have discussions about real life problesm.”
Regardless, the symbols are abstractions. Plus, it is not obvious that a del or cross product or a partial derivative are purely functions of material objects.
”How did we know that our answers were correct at the end of the problem? Because 'i' had gone away during the process...
Actually “j” commonly refers to a relationship – phase angle – and does not go away.
”We have established (at least I believe that we have) that the mind is at least partially physical. The real question to ask is thus:
Why should one conclude that this means that the mind has some non-physical properties?
On the contrary, the above discussion indicates clearly that the mind is not physically encumbered because it is not part of the universal causal chain, see above. Also, the discussion has not had the intention to prove anything except that the physicalist conception is incorrect as it has been demonstrated up to this point. One might from that infer something about the mind, but it is not time yet to do that. There might be other arguments that show conclusively that the mind is material, but that has not yet been done.
Self-modifying software is not a desirable product
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I want to stress that the brain is not literally a computer. It's an analogy not a tautology.
Secondly, whether something is desirable or not has no effect on whether it is true.
Thirdly, self-modifying software is a desirable product and has been since the SSEC. The easiest for a layman to understand is probably the polymorphic code of modern viruses.
And on a more personal note:
I think a large part of Stan's argument (if you could call it that) is based on deliberate misunderstanding how the brain works. Deliberate because I think his worldview hangs on the the mind being supernatural so he is compelled to believe nothing about thinking is physical. I feel he wishes to go back to the day when philosophers considered the brain a organ for cooling the blood. Unfortunately for him science has moved on. I doubt evidence can sway him from his position because it is not held rationally but religiously. If he admits that any part of thinking is physical or drugs affect personality or brain injury affects personality then his belief in the supernatural world takes a blow from which it can not recover. What we see is religion in action. It can not provide evidence it's supernatural claims so it tries to cast doubt on science and the physical world. As always, the rational can see that the supernaturalist has provided nothing but hot-air.
Avaul(NZ):
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the brain is a computer belongs to Turing-Church up through Marvin Minsky, not me. It is the concept of AI that all mental activity is algorithmic, and it is that faction which refers to the human brain/mind as a "meat machine". These are diehard materialists. And they are refuted by another diehard materialist, John Searle, to whom I have given links.
I have made no claims other than that the claims of Materialists do not stand up. You have made no progress in refuting that, you merely charge religion when your paradigm is challenged.
I have referred to Locke's understanding of the mental faculties, which you have not refuted. I have referred to Bertrand Russell's Nine Lectures on Mind, which you have not acknowledged. I have referred to the resources at plato.stanford, which you have not mentioned.
You appear to be a drive-by pisser. If you have something concrete to offer, then you are invited to do so. Since you declare yourself to be rational, then give us a syllogistic argument to discuss. If you have nothing of substance, then just move out of the way while the rest of us have actual discussions.
Have you missed my questions of February 8, 2012 4:26 PM? If not, where are my questions and statements addressed?
ReplyDeleteThank you.
LiWon,
ReplyDeleteMy apologies, I did forget to address your comments; so here we go:
Stan said,
”"It is your assertion which requires proof, and not the proof of blood flow in the cranial blood vessels."”
LiWon said,
”You want "proof" that the brain does the thinking? I'm afraid science can only give you supporting evidence. “
If by “supporting evidence” you mean indirect evidence, then you are making assertions without direct evidence to support them. Unless I misunderstand your comment, which is possible since it is not very clear. Also you ignored the rest of my comment, which is this:
”You appear to assert that the brain generates its own software which it then operates; that is outside of the ability of particle motions to perform, unless magical qualities are attributed to particles.”
Can you address this?
Stan said
”"There is no direct connection, either empirically or intellectually, between the flow of blood, and the source of the mind."
LiWon said
”You say this? How to think without a working brain?
Is thinking so disconnected from the brain that you think it still happens without a working brain? This is something you need to provide evidence for. “
That is not what I said of course, it what you extrapolated based on your Materialism. What I said is that blood flow does not prove a source for the mind. You have not proved that blood flow is necessary and sufficient to prove that the brain is the source of the mind, rather than the brain being exercised by the mind.
”It is not enough to disbelieve the evidence that the brain does the thinking - you must provide evidence that it doesn't”
And of course the proposition was made by you, not by me; you must prove that blood flow is necessary and sufficient to prove conclusively and without doubt that the brain makes the mind.
Hi Stan, so many points...
ReplyDelete...regarding your baby theory...
I completely disagree with your opinion regarding newborns, or John Locke's opinion should I say... Newborns have a fully functional brain, yes, but I find it misleading to pretend that they have a fully functional mind. They don't choose anything; they don't consciously process any information. This sentence is thus false:
As information is gathered, the comparison, differentiation and judgment faculties are able to give more reasonably informed outputs. Parents do not program the child, they provide information for the child to process.
Parents feed information to the child that the child simply accepts, without any question. That's how it works. You need to go extreme denial to pretend otherwise!
The physical body doesn’t have a physical mind, or corpses would think.
Corpses don't have a working brain and we have no way to know if they have a mind or not since we interact with minds through bodies! Ironically, you are the one who believes (I assume) that they still have a mind... somewhere...
Life comes first, not body, and there is no reason not to suppose that life bestows the mind. The question then becomes, “what is life”? And the first step there is to recognize that the body does not bestow life, it is life that bestows the body.
Absurd. That's a strange way to define 'life' (definitely not a biological definition) and it even includes your own your conclusion in it: that the mind cannot possibly come from a body.
I am glad that you show that it's also your pre-supposition. At least it's clear but I am afraid this is a conversation stopper... How can we even discuss what these things mean if you flat out say that the mind cannot possibly be a product of the brain? What is there to talk about if you have your own definition of what 'life' is? How can you dissociate your version of "life", this mystic pre-body life, from the actual biological 'life' that biologists study by looking at... bodies?
Let's see what it leads to anyway with this following statement:
... these stories are neither necessary nor sufficient to prove that the mind is in any way physical, in the sense of existing in lumps extractable for examination...
That's where you show that we not only disagree, but also misunderstand each other. I must be missing something because that is not what I was trying to prove at all.
My point is only that the physical world affects the mind. Do you deny this?
...Positing the mind as a computer, a “meat machine” is reductive to the level of absurdity...
... Could you provide examples of executables which freely decide to modify themselves? In other words, non-deterministically, without prior control algorithmically...
You push the analogy too far.
...the discussion in this thread has been in reference to the knowledge that we have Free Will, and not the issue of Atheism. However, let’s take that on.
Again, we misunderstand each other. I don't understand why because it's pretty simple to me:
- I don't believe in gods
- I believe we have free will
That's it. That's all wanted to say with respect to Free Will versus Atheism. Yet, you pretend that it's impossible to logically hold these two positions... or I misunderstand what you mean, because I don't understand why you brought up agency vs. determinism and I certainly don't agree with your assertion that:
In order to accept case 1 and maintain Materialism, it is necessary that one or the other of these definitions be modified in order to fit the conclusion
Regarding abstract concepts...
ReplyDeleteI maintain my position even if you pretend that it is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. The first supporting argument I will make is this: You did not answer my questions. Can you, yes or not, think about 'nothing' and 'infinity', literally?
The answer is 'no' Stan. You cannot, I cannot, nobody can. They are abstract concepts that we use to describe problems and work with numbers.
Your E=MC^2 is actually proving my point. You can move the MC^2 to the left and you get 0 at the right, but what is this '0'? That's the point! Can you think of it other than being the number '0'? Can you think of it as being literally nothing or will it always be Energy minus mass?
I consider them material for that reason. Yes they are imaginary concepts that we have in our mind, but we have material ways to discuss them.
The point is not that abstraction does not exist. The point is that from a philosophical point of view, all that is abstract can ultimately be expressed materially because we humans are not able to do otherwise. All our thoughts can be expressed one way or the other using our bodies because...
Our bodies feed us the information that help us build the abstraction world in our mind. This imaginary world we can all think of in our minds can be mapped to the material world, either by pointing to a real physical thing, or by being expressed using a medium of your choice.
More examples...
There are zero rats on my table.
Exactly, there is not nothing; simply no rats. That's a material way to describe 'nothing'.
The term X/0 refers to an abstraction which is infinity, an abstraction which is useful.
Exactly, infinity is very useful in math and we have a material way to talk about it. But again, can you know think of infinity alone, by itself? What would it even mean? It's an abstract concept created by humans to solve problems... that's it.
Actually “j” commonly refers to a relationship – phase angle – and does not go away.
No I was talking about how we used to use 'j' instead of 'i' in calculation using complex numbers. You know when you have something like '3 + 4i', well in electricity calculations, we would use '3 + 4j' because 'i' is usually use for current so it would be confusing.
And yes, the 'j' does disappear at the end of a problem when it comes down to giving the actual value that we can measure. If we get to an answer that has an imaginary component, then we know it cannot represent an actual measurement.
Regarding your friends, be sure to think for yourself, using the principles of syllogistic deductive logic in analyzing their propositions.
Discussing in person with people is a great way to learn and correct your previous mistakes Stan. I don't know if you do it often or not but perhaps you should try it more instead of reading books by authors who you know will simply confirm what you already believed.
You missed the point completely by mentioning my old friends like that. The point was not that they thought for me, quite the opposite, the point was that we discuss with each other, clarified the terms we were talking about, expressed our ideas in different ways so that we could find common ground. Only then was I able to switch one tiny little belief: I realized what materialism actually means and I realized I believed it to be an accurate representation of what I believe.
Nothing changed besides that...
” Parents feed information to the child that the child simply accepts, without any question. That's how it works. You need to go extreme denial to pretend otherwise!”
ReplyDeleteFirst, I suspect from this that you have not recently lived with children under 5 y.o. The third word they learn and use is “no”. I live with a 5 y.o. and I can attest that children resist programming quite assertively.
Second, children are quite well attuned to reality in terms of the Lockean precepts. Parents do not in any manner form the structure of the child’s neural connects; they do not program the child; they do supply data to the child, which the child uses by manipulating the faculties with which he is endowed. That is not programming, it is guiding the filling of the child’s memory banks for use in future comparison.
So no, the feeding of information (data) to the child is not programming.
” Corpses don't have a working brain and we have no way to know if they have a mind or not since we interact with minds through bodies! Ironically, you are the one who believes (I assume) that they still have a mind... somewhere...”
It is the Materialist position that minds are material, because material is all that there is, there is nothing else. So if there are minds, then they should be found in the brain, regardless of whether the brain is living or dead. Either that, or materialism is wrong.
Stan said,
”Life comes first, not body, and there is no reason not to suppose that life bestows the mind. The question then becomes, “what is life”? And the first step there is to recognize that the body does not bestow life, it is life that bestows the body.
You said,
Absurd. That's a strange way to define 'life' (definitely not a biological definition) and it even includes your own your conclusion in it: that the mind cannot possibly come from a body.”
“Absurd” is not an argument, it is a conclusion. Since you made this conclusion, then you must share your path to that conclusion so we can evaluate it; otherwise it is just an opinion. For example, how can you prove that the body exists before life? What experimental, empirical proof do you hypothesize?
Further, there is no “definition of life” contained in the statement, it is a statement of sequence. And my conclusion has not been stated.
”I am glad that you show that it's also your pre-supposition. At least it's clear but I am afraid this is a conversation stopper... How can we even discuss what these things mean if you flat out say that the mind cannot possibly be a product of the brain? What is there to talk about if you have your own definition of what 'life' is? How can you dissociate your version of "life", this mystic pre-body life, from the actual biological 'life' that biologists study by looking at... bodies?”
Biologists will tell you that life comes only from other life: that is the justification for the evolutionary theory of Common Descent. Disagreeing with that is disagreeing with biology. If you disagree, then present your case. So far you have only denied that to be the case.
As for the mind being purely a product of the brain, that is little more than a superstition, with no data to support it in terms of how sentience arises from non-sentient particulates. The expectation of intellect arising out of minerals or electrons is the mysticism in play here. It is a necessary belief in order to preserve the unprovable theories of Philosophical Materialism, which in turn is a requirement for most of Atheist understanding of the universe and its creation. But while it is necessary as a Procrustean belief (I think I love that term), it is not necessary for open thinking about ultimate possibilities, such as described by Russell (pre-eminent Atheist, btw).
(continued)
” My point is only that the physical world affects the mind. Do you deny this?”
ReplyDeleteI disagree that this is your only point; just above you claim that it is a show stopper to not accept that the brain causes the mind. There is no reason to accept that because it steps outside the bounds of scientific discovery and into a flawed philosophy.
However, I do accept that the brain is the material interface for the mind, regardless of whatever source the mind might have. In that sense, the mind causes material things to happen, such as the decision to raise your arm results in physical responses in the neural path, the muscles, and the position of the arm. That is not the issue in play, though. The issue in play is whether the decision to raise the arm was caused by a totally causal chain of particle motions and positions which extends backwards to the origin of the universe.
Stan:
” ...Positing the mind as a computer, a “meat machine” is reductive to the level of absurdity...
... Could you provide examples of executables which freely decide to modify themselves? In other words, non-deterministically, without prior control algorithmically...
Max:
You push the analogy too far.”
Absolutely not, unless you consider the mind to be totally without free will or agency. That is what free will and agency are. Either they are free, or they are controlled algorithmically or otherwise.
” Again, we misunderstand each other. I don't understand why because it's pretty simple to me:
- I don't believe in gods
- I believe we have free will
That's it. That's all wanted to say with respect to Free Will versus Atheism. Yet, you pretend that it's impossible to logically hold these two positions... or I misunderstand what you mean, because I don't understand why you brought up agency vs. determinism…”
Yes: it is not logical to hold two contradictory positions.
You must explain why determinism does not contradict Free Will and agency. If every action and thought is pre-determined, then they are not freely chosen.
” and I certainly don't agree with your assertion that:
‘In order to accept case 1 and maintain Materialism, it is necessary that one or the other of these definitions be modified in order to fit the conclusion’.
Your statement stands as an opinion, one without substantiation. Please elaborate on why you think what you think. I suspect, without actually knowing for certain, that your personal definitions are modified in order to accommodate the two contradictory concepts – and that is what many materialists do. But there has to be an adequate explanation for why a totally predetermined event is also “free” and not predetermined.
Hi Stan,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I suspect from this that you have not recently lived with children under 5 y.o. The third word they learn and use is “no”. I live with a 5 y.o. and I can attest that children resist programming quite assertively.
5 y.o. is too old already if we want to use the 'baby analogy'. Who taught the 5 y.o. child that 'no' means 'no'? Did the child knew that since birth? The environment had nothing to do with the understanding of what 'no' means?
Can a 5-day-old baby say 'no' to the food you want to feed him/her? Usually they don't, but in some cases they do... right? The question is then: did they decide to say 'no'? Did the 5-day-old baby reason to come to the conclusion that today he/she does not want that kind of food?
Second, [...] feeding of information (data) to the child is not programming.
Of course it's not programming. You push the analogy too far again...
It is the Materialist position that minds are material, because material is all that there is, there is nothing else. So if there are minds, then they should be found in the brain, regardless of whether the brain is living or dead. Either that, or materialism is wrong.
You are correct regarding one thing: I don't believe that anything 'real' exists which is not material. That's why I am what we call a materialist.
However, it's not materialism that makes me think that the mind is material. It's because I understand that the mind can be material that I am now in a position to believe that all that exists is material, including the mind.
Are you trying to turn this around?
To be clear, in principle, minds could show some non-material components, but I simply don't know what you mean. Concepts, thoughts, emotions or any other thing that we label as 'abstract' are not material in the sense that we cannot touch them, but they come from people who have material bodies, which have material brains, which are able to share these abstract concepts with us using the material world.
It's not much more complicated than that really... I simply don't see any other way but I am open for your explications. You would need to define what you mean by non-material first however, and I am afraid that this is another conversation stopper.
In other words, this is the problem you keep expressing here and it will come back later in your comment. You are trying to make me choose between 100% material and 100% non-material as a starting point. I reject both. I don't have any pre-supposition. I ended up believing that the mind is 100% material but I did not start with this belief. I reached this conclusion by analyzing what a non-material thing could be, and found nothing. Please let me know if you have an explanation, but I am afraid you don't.
[regarding life comes first, not body...] “Absurd” is not an argument, it is a conclusion.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. It is my conclusion that your description of what life is is absurd.
For example, how can you prove that the body exists before life? What experimental, empirical proof do you hypothesize?
Absurd questions. I have no idea what you are talking about. A body is alive (it has life "in" it) or it is dead (it has no life "in" it). Your views seem to be strangely different from that.
Further, there is no “definition of life” contained in the statement, it is a statement of sequence. And my conclusion has not been stated.
Your conclusion is implied: Life is something different than what biological life is. You wrote it in your definition section already. Life implies 'human life' and all that comes with it, or at least more than just being alive in a biological sense. Your usage of the word life seems to be closer to the usage of the word in sentences such as 'My life is boring' rather than 'This animal is a simple life form'.
Biologists will tell you that life comes only from other life: that is the justification for the evolutionary theory of Common Descent. Disagreeing with that is disagreeing with biology. If you disagree, then present your case. So far you have only denied that to be the case.
You're the one with a blog that challenges evolutionist; you are in denial of what biology teaches us about the real world of living things. I don't think I need to add more to that...
As for the mind being purely a product of the brain,...
Again, I did not try to convince you of that. I am merely trying to make you concede that the mind is definitely influencing the material world AND being influenced BY the material world.
At the same time, I am not hiding my belief that the mind is purely a product of the brain. The problem I have with your comments is that you are trying to hide your own pre-supposition that the mind is non-material, has to be non-material and nothing else. You are not even able to grant the FACT that material things can affect the very core of what we label the mind.
Will you ever acknowledge that?
I disagree that this is your only point; just above you claim that it is a show stopper to not accept that the brain causes the mind. There is no reason to accept that because it steps outside the bounds of scientific discovery and into a flawed philosophy.
Again, to be crystal clear, this is my only point. My belief is that the mind is 100% material, but I am not making this point. I am not trying to prove this to you. I am just being honest and telling you that this is what I believe. What I do what to convince you of, or rather make you admit, is that we have all the evidence needed to conclude that the mind is influenced by the material world.
... The issue in play is whether the decision to raise the arm was caused by a totally causal chain of particle motions and positions which extends backwards to the origin of the universe.
ReplyDelete[...]
unless you consider the mind to be totally without free will or agency. That is what free will and agency are. Either they are free, or they are controlled algorithmically or otherwise.
[...]
You must explain why determinism does not contradict Free Will and agency. If every action and thought is pre-determined, then they are not freely chosen.
No, that's not the issue, because I accept the fact that we have free will. At this point, this is a red hearing that only tries to blur the subject and attempt to go back to the beginning.
Your statement stands as an opinion, one without substantiation. Please elaborate on why you think what you think. I suspect, without actually knowing for certain, that your personal definitions are modified in order to accommodate the two contradictory concepts – and that is what many materialists do. But there has to be an adequate explanation for why a totally predetermined event is also “free” and not predetermined.
My above statements should offer an answer to this, but if it does not, please let me know and I will try to repeat.
Finally, I wonder if you will come back to the notions of abstract concepts we discuss since at this point this is the only "non-material" things you seem to be talking about, and I don't see why you even consider them to be purely non-material. As I explained, they are not purely abstract. They can always be translated into material symbols or tools, so please support your assertion that humans are able to think about purely abstract concepts, in the sense that these concepts cannot possible be expressed in terms of materials things.
On a side not, if you could acknowledge that you understood my example with the letter 'j', or ask for more explanations if I was not clear enough, that would be great...
Thanks for your time Stan, I appreciate this discussion but I am afraid I will have to stop very soon due to a lack of time so I just wanted to throw that out there before I leave for good...
More from Max:
ReplyDeleteRegarding abstract concepts...
”I maintain my position even if you pretend that it is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. The first supporting argument I will make is this: You did not answer my questions. Can you, yes or not, think about 'nothing' and 'infinity', literally?
The answer is 'no' Stan. You cannot, I cannot, nobody can. They are abstract concepts that we use to describe problems and work with numbers.
You have no idea what anyone else can think of. You are making universal claims with no evidence whatsoever, based on your opinion.
Proposition:
P1: IF [no one can think of R], Then [R does not exist].
P2: [no one can think of R];
C: THEREFORE [R does not exist].
You cannot prove either P1 or P2. The argument fails at every stage.
”Your E=MC^2 is actually proving my point. You can move the MC^2 to the left and you get 0 at the right, but what is this '0'? That's the point! Can you think of it other than being the number '0'? Can you think of it as being literally nothing or will it always be Energy minus mass.
I consider them material for that reason. Yes they are imaginary concepts that we have in our mind, but we have material ways to discuss them.
You have contradicted your own position right here: we cannot think of imaginary concepts, but we can have them in our mind? Yes, we can.
And as for zero, it is an cardinal which precedes "1", and none is an ordinal which precedes "first". What is the material component? 1 cow? I did not say that or need that material addition to the abstract concept. This is an example of why the premises above fail.
Plus there are consequences for the proposition, were it actually valid: Included as consequences would be that Atheists have exactly no way to declare that there is no deity, no first cause, no non-physical existence, etc. because there is no physical component to consider, so they cannot argue a non-physical concept. And being unable to argue that there is no non-physical existence nullifies the argument that there is no non-physical existence: a specific non-coherence.
”The point is not that abstraction does not exist. The point is that from a philosophical point of view, all that is abstract can ultimately be expressed materially because we humans are not able to do otherwise. All our thoughts can be expressed one way or the other using our bodies because...
Our bodies feed us the information that help us build the abstraction world in our mind. This imaginary world we can all think of in our minds can be mapped to the material world, either by pointing to a real physical thing, or by being expressed using a medium of your choice.”
You seem to contradict yourself. Either abstraction exists or it doesn’t. Which is it? You originally seemed to claim that it did not exist because it all referenced material entities. Now you are saying that that is not what you mean, you mean only that material entities must be referenced in order to talk about it. Again which is it?
At any rate, have no proof of this, it is an abstraction in your own mind.
(continued)
There are zero rats on my table.
ReplyDeleteExactly, there is not nothing; simply no rats. That's a material way to describe 'nothing'.
Wrong, it is zero. There are no rats materially there even to consider. It’s an hypothetical. What else is not on my table? There are no elephants, no Volvos, etc. There are no rats involved, because there are no rats involved. There are no rats. Zero. None. There is nothing on my table.
The term X/0 refers to an abstraction which is infinity, an abstraction which is useful.
Exactly, infinity is very useful in math and we have a material way to talk about it. But again, can you know think of infinity alone, by itself? What would it even mean? It's an abstract concept created by humans to solve problems... that's it.”
There is no material content to the statement above. What is the meaning of meaning? What is the meaning of the meaning of meaning? The above statement is an abstraction, one which I understand. So what is your actual argument? Make a syllogistic proposition so that it is perfectly understood, please.
”Actually “j” commonly refers to a relationship – phase angle – and does not go away.
No I was talking about how we used to use 'j' instead of 'i' in calculation using complex numbers. You know when you have something like '3 + 4i', well in electricity calculations, we would use '3 + 4j' because 'i' is usually use for current so it would be confusing.
And yes, the 'j' does disappear at the end of a problem when it comes down to giving the actual value that we can measure. If we get to an answer that has an imaginary component, then we know it cannot represent an actual measurement.”
j=i; it is meaningless to differentiate them because the two terms are equivalent. Why is this even relevant? What are you arguing for or against? (And the j is not restricted to current, it found in many calculations including voltage to voltage, field theory, etc. It is resolved in physical terms, but it is still the square root of -1. Electrical engineering also refers to hole flow rather than electron flow; holes do not flow, electrons do. The use of hole flow is an abstraction which has become a convention. So what?)
In order for you to prove a universal statement, you will have to either get universal opinion on your side (highly unlikely in this case), or you will have to disprove every possible case of refutation (always highly unlikely). So probabilistically, your opinion that abstractions do not exist, only material existence exists, has roughly zero chance of acceptance (yes, I can conceive of that quantity; zero probability: a double abstraction). Actually I had to presume that to be your argument since I have not heard a resolution for “abstraction is really just material, and no abstraction means [Q]”... whatever Q might be.
(continued)
”Regarding your friends, be sure to think for yourself, using the principles of syllogistic deductive logic in analyzing their propositions.
ReplyDeleteDiscussing in person with people is a great way to learn and correct your previous mistakes Stan. I don't know if you do it often or not but perhaps you should try it more instead of reading books by authors who you know will simply confirm what you already believed.”
I discuss Atheism and Philosophical Materialism very nearly every day right here with people like yourself, and I have been for years now. And your comment shows your ignorance of Atheist thought at the major league level: virtually everyone I have quoted is an Atheist. That’s why stepping away from your buddies and into the big time thinkers is important, so that you know the actual arguments and the positions taken on them by the “public intellectuals”. And even more important is to study logic and learn how to apply the rules of discernment. You appear to think otherwise.
The problem here is that people come here believing that because they think something, that makes it logical. And they are vehement that what seems logical to them must be accepted as reasonable, despite being alerted to the fallacies and logical grounding problems in their proposals. That is irrational behavior. What makes something logical is formulating the argument as a proposition using the principles of syllogistic deduction, and then verifying the argument’s structure, and the truth value of its premises and subpremises; then fallacies and presuppositions must be identified. This does not come from casual conversation, because it requires rigor and discipline within known boundaries.
”You missed the point completely by mentioning my old friends like that. The point was not that they thought for me, quite the opposite, the point was that we discuss with each other, clarified the terms we were talking about, expressed our ideas in different ways so that we could find common ground.
Actually the point was that finding common ground is not a logical technique. Logic is a specific discipline, with specific requirements.
”Only then was I able to switch one tiny little belief: I realized what materialism actually means and I realized I believed it to be an accurate representation of what I believe”
You consider Materialism to be a tiny belief switch? That is like changing from toilet paper to an acetylene torch. Philosophical Materialism is the basis for all philosophy which is denialist philosophy by its nature, based on sliding scales of skepticism, with exactly no proof of its claims, either logically or empirically; it is the secular religion of personal elevation of self. It denies the exact absolutes which are necessary for grounding its arguments so that they have incorrigible truth values rather than beer parlor opinions. Philosophical Materialism, when held to its own standards, fails, with no recourse.
Logic and rationality don’t just happen. They are rigorous disciplines with rules which are easily accessed, and applied. Philosophical Materialism makes fundamental claims which are failures when logic is applied.
”Nothing changed besides that...”
Then either you were always a Philosophical Materialist, or you haven’t come to grips with what it actually is. That is why reading is important. Especially the discipline of logic.
OK. This is getting lengthy and off track. So what I’m doing here is summarizing what I understand to be your positions. If I have that right then we can proceed again. I wrote a lengthy reply to your latest comments but I will save that back.
ReplyDelete1. You believe that determinism is compatible with free will (you accept that, but have not justified it). It has been demonstrated that such compatibility is contradictory; you have not addressed that.
2. You claim that children cannot learn until they are programmed to do so by parents/environment. How the executable is downloaded into an empty brain and then installed, you have not explained. In other words, how does a child learn how to learn? Especially with no original capability? And if the parents / environment do not perform the installation of the executable, is the childs' brain still empty? And finally, in your material universe, what does the executable look like? What does it weigh? What are its dimensions? Color? Is it room temperature, or is it hot or cold?
3. You claim first that abstractions cannot be thought about without reference to material objects, then you claim that they can.
4. You make the universal claim that no one can think about abstracts such as zero and infinity. You have not provided universal material evidence to support that claim. Plus, since I claim that I can do so, how do you propose to empirically prove that I cannot?
5. You claim that I err in reading books by authors who agree with me, a claim you make in response to points made by Atheist and Materialist authors which you mistakenly believe are in agreement with my views, authors who make points which you do not address.
6. You have been asked to place your beliefs into deductive syllogistic form so that they can be analyzed using the rules of logic. I have placed some of your propositions into that format but you have ignored that, quite likely because logical analysis decorates the fallacies under which your propositions operate.
7. You have ignored the issue of the mind initiating actions, such as deciding to raise your arm. Such initiation indicates a complete breech with determinism.
8. You have claimed that the evolutionary principle of "life coming only from other life, regressing to the abiogenesis of the original common ancestor" is not understandable, is not biological, and thus you did not address it, although it is a common biological, Atheist and Philosophical Materialist premise (It is fundamental to evolution and "Common Descent" theory. It's not my theory and I certainly did not make it up.
9. You have not addressed my comments on the use of the discipline of logic and its structured analytical techniques, rather than merely hunting for justifications for prior beliefs.
10. You have not addressed the issue of the failed logic of Philosophical Materialism and its internal non-coherence.
If you would address these issues, I think we would be back on track.
Hmpf. I forgot one item.
ReplyDelete11. You believe that the physical brain generates the mind. That presumes that physical entities cause sentience and intellect. So the explanation for this phenomenon must include first, why we should expect the intellect to arise from changes in electron position, and second, how electron flow becomes intellect and qualia procedurally. If there is no continuity between electron position change and intellect/qualia, then the Materialist position is unsubstantiated blind belief (religion). Moreover, the inability or refusal to budge from the Materialist position is dogmatic in nature.
OK. This is getting lengthy and off track.
ReplyDeleteAgreed! I thought I would not reply at all actually but I like the way you split the issues into points…
So what I’m doing here is summarizing what I understand to be your positions. If I have that right then we can proceed again. I wrote a lengthy reply to your latest comments but I will save that back.
I write this before even reading the rest so I could be wrong, but I am under the impression that you misunderstand some, if not most, of my opinions so I am glad you proceeded in that order.
1. You believe that determinism is compatible with free will
No.
2. You claim that children cannot learn until they are programmed to do so by parents/environment.
No.
How the executable is downloaded into an empty brain and then installed, you have not explained.
You push the computer software analogy too far. People are not programmed. They are alive.
In other words, how does a child learn how to learn?
I am not behavioral specialist but from what I understand, learning, at the most basic level, is simply a matter of remembering stuff. So babies don’t learn how to learn, they just remember what happened to them, what they saw, heard, touched, felt, etc… The complex part of learning comes much much later.
Especially with no original capability?
I see no reason to reject the idea that the memory capabilities of a brain are present at birth since it is quite believable that the brain, the physical brain, is able to do such a thing at birth. We cannot say that neurons X and Y are responsible for it, and probably won’t ever be able to, but since we perceive the world and can remember that perception, I don’t see why it’s so hard to believe that this material brain is able to remember stuff the second it is turned on.
And if the parents / environment do not perform the installation of the executable, is the childs' brain still empty?
The mental capabilities are there, but if there were no parents, no environnement, nothing to teach the child anything, then yes, the brain would be “empty” in the sense that it would not be able to know anything. This is of course an absurd scenario but several experiments have been done on chimps and it is clear that isolation has strong consequences on development. So in a way, yes, if the parents were not there to perform the “installation”, nothing would work. Note however that the way you wrote the above sentence is, again, pushing the analogy way too far… I was just trying to go with it anyway.
(2) And finally, in your material universe, what does the executable look like? What does it weigh? What are its dimensions? Color? Is it room temperature, or is it hot or cold?
ReplyDeleteYou push the analogy too far to be taken seriously.
3. You claim first that abstractions cannot be thought about without reference to material objects, then you claim that they can.
It’s not easy to explain, especially not online… The idea is that in our everyday life, there are things that are non-material/abstract, in the sense that they are not things that we can touch, smell, hear, etc… but that we can talk about, discuss, think about. These things are the abstract things.
My point is that all of these abstract, non-material, things are in fact mappable to real physical things.
The reason why we never talk about all of those things as being material is because it is completely useless to talk about them like that. What we do, because it’s practicle, is that we label them as abstract (non-material) or not (material). The abstract things that map to real things are the material ones while the abstract things that do not map to real things are the non-material ones.
They are still all abstract and non-material in the sense that they are thoughts in our minds, but they are also still all material in the sense that we have ways to discuss them using the material world. This then answers another point you had, which I am sure will come up later in this list, which is that all that we can think of is necessarily made up of real things that we can discuss with others.
4. You make the universal claim that no one can think about abstracts such as zero and infinity. You have not provided universal material evidence to support that claim. Plus, since I claim that I can do so, how do you propose to empirically prove that I cannot?
I don’t know what you mean by ‘universal material evidence’ in that context. All I am saying is that whatever we can think of, we can describe it, using the material world. This means that all our thoughts can be map to a material thing, a material representation.
This is not surprising since we are after all living human beings that are mainly observer of a real physical world. It thus make sense that out thoughts are merely rearrangement of what we actually perceive.
In theory, it is not impossible that you are able to think of things that are purely abstract, but I don’t need to prove that you cannot. The proof that you cannot is not needed because if you can, you have absolutely no way to tell us about these things. So feel free to pretend that you can, but nobody can believe you. Not because we are closed minded but simply because it is, by definition, impossible for you to show us what you mean. You cannot discuss with us something you think about in your mind without using the material world. It’s that simple.
5. You claim that I err in reading books by authors who agree with me, a claim you make in response to points made by Atheist and Materialist authors which you mistakenly believe are in agreement with my views, authors who make points which you do not address.
I have no problem with that. My problem is just that we are two human beings having a discussion and I don’t think that the one who can quote more people than the other deserves more respect, or should be considered more knowledgeable, or should be consider right by default. Classical logic, the one we all assume to be working for the purpose of discussions like ours, is not complicated. As long as no fallacies are expressed, anybody can be taken as seriously as any famous author and their viewpoints should be weighted for what they mean rather than for quotes they can be supported with.
(3) 6. You have been asked to place your beliefs into deductive syllogistic form so that they can be analyzed using the rules of logic. I have placed some of your propositions into that format but you have ignored that, quite likely because logical analysis decorates the fallacies under which your propositions operate.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry but I did not see you place any of my opinion in deductive syllogistic form so that’s why I did not address any. I don’t have the intention to present my own for now since I did not know it was necessary and did not take the time to think about it. I might do so later…
7. You have ignored the issue of the mind initiating actions, such as deciding to raise your arm. Such initiation indicates a complete breech with determinism.
I believe that we have free will so the point is irrelevant.
8. You have claimed that the evolutionary principle of "life coming only from other life, regressing to the abiogenesis of the original common ancestor" is not understandable, is not biological, and thus you did not address it, although it is a common biological, Atheist and Philosophical Materialist premise (It is fundamental to evolution and "Common Descent" theory. It's not my theory and I certainly did not make it up.
No idea what you are talking about. Common descent is a fact; so what? Why does it bother you?
9. You have not addressed my comments on the use of the discipline of logic and its structured analytical techniques, rather than merely hunting for justifications for prior beliefs.
I value the discipline of logic as much as you do I am sure. I thus don’t understand the value of this random comment about it.
10. You have not addressed the issue of the failed logic of Philosophical Materialism and its internal non-coherence.
You have a blog dedicated to analyzing atheism so I am sure you have a lot to say about that but unfortunately (or fortunately?) it is not my case. I don’t care about philosophical materialism since it does not mean much to me. As I explained before, it’s only after a discussion with friends several years ago that I realized that materialism is the correct word to describe certain of my beliefs. I did not even know that it was the case before I could really understand what the word means; but it is still just a word! Nothing changed since I learned what it really means…
(4) 11. You believe that the physical brain generates the mind.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely yes.
That presumes that physical entities cause sentience and intellect.
Not really because I would not say ‘cause’; I would say that certain physical entities, certain humans, do have the property of sentience and intellect.
So the explanation for this phenomenon must include first, why we should expect the intellect to arise from changes in electron position,
I see it the other way around. We are humans who are made of, among other things, electrons and trillions of cells. We are sentient, intelligent and have free will. We also know that we evolve just like any other animals and share common ancestors with close cousins and more distance common ancestors with more distance cousins. These cousins don’t seem to have the same level of intellect and self-consciousness that we have so clearly there is something that makes us different.
My belief is that what makes us different is a different brain; a different arrangement of neurons and cells that gives us the ability to do extraordinary things compared to other animals.
The supernatural explanation is that… God did it I guess?
Both are not proven true now since we cannot show how neurons give rise to sentience and we cannot show that any gods exist. I simply prefer the first one since it does not imply an extra supernatural belief. I stick with natural beliefs for now.
and second, how electron flow becomes intellect and qualia procedurally. If there is no continuity between electron position change and intellect/qualia, then the Materialist position is unsubstantiated blind belief (religion). Moreover, the inability or refusal to budge from the Materialist position is dogmatic in nature.
I find this very amusing because I don’t think you can explain how the non-material mind you believe in actually interact with the material body. You just assert that the mind can control the body, at least in part, but offer no mechanism, no connection is identified, no predictions can be made using that model. Essentially, you just pretend that it could work but do not even try to explain how.
The naturalistic explanation on the other hand, even if incomplete, goes in line with the fact that we know that the material world can influence humans’ personality, reasoning process, actions, and so on. We know for sure that it goes both ways in several different types of behavior. You are the one who want s to add an extra layer of complexity with the addition of a non-material mind.
This is why I must repeat and add some new questions:
- Do you believe that the mind is affected by material chemicals and physical means?
- Do you believe that the brain could have evolve and be selected for agency?
- Do you believe that minds can do more than just represent the real world in their thought process?
For each of these questions, my answer is yes and, along with other pieces of evidence, it leads me to conclude that the mind is entirely the product of a human brain. I cannot prove it with 100% certainty for the simple reason that we don’t know enough about the brain yet, and probably never will. For me, it simply makes more sense than to believe that the mind is detached from the body, yet intrinsically linked to it.
Max,
ReplyDelete1. Your original statement said that you saw no problem with being Materialist and having Free Will. Materialism is strictly Deterministic (except for rogue Compatiblists which are rejected by the Materialist Determinists). Free Will steps completely out of the Determinist/Materialist chain of causality. Free Will and Determinism are contraries; originally you accepted the compatibilist dogma; now you claim not.
2. If babies don’t learn how to learn, and they are empty-brained, then how do they learn how to learn? Your denial that that is a learned capability contradicts your position that babies have no inherent mental faculties at birth: empty brained.
You originally claimed the brain was empty, and without capabilities so Locke was wrong. Now you claim that the brain “is able to do such a thing at birth”, and, “The mental capabilities are there”, which directly contradicts your original position.
There is no analogy in play. We are discussing actualities within the framework of Philosophical Materialism. If there are executables being installed into a child’s empty brain, then the executables are necessarily material, under your philosophy of Philosophical Materialism. Being Material, then they must have material characteristics. So I asked for material characteristics, at which point you balked, claiming that the analogy was pushed too far, when it was not an analogy.
On 2-11-12, you said:
”This sentence is thus false:
‘As information is gathered, the comparison, differentiation and judgment faculties are able to give more reasonably informed outputs. Parents do not program the child, they provide information for the child to process.’
Parents feed information to the child that the child simply accepts, without any question. That's how it works. You need to go extreme denial to pretend otherwise!”
Now you have denied that parents do NOT program the child, claiming that statement to be false; therefore parents DO program the child. In order to support that statement evidence is required. Now you seem to claim otherwise. Either they do or they don’t. It is not an analogy, it is the real world in which a child exercises mental faculties: were they installed by the parent as executables or not? If not, then where did they come from? How did the child come to have the faculty of learning?
(continued)
(continued from above)
ReplyDelete3. I specifically created a syllogistic analysis on 2-11-12, showing logical failure of your position. I asked for similar analysis from you; your response seems to be that you can believe in “no gods” and “free will” and be happy with that, with no explanation of why you accept the blatant contradiction involved.
4. Abstractions. You say,
” They are still all abstract and non-material in the sense that they are thoughts in our minds, but they are also still all material in the sense that we have ways to discuss them using the material world.”
Your insistence that they are both “non-material” at the same time they are “all material” merely shows that you accept contradictions in your reasoning. This is shown throughout, and especially when you make claims and then contradict them later. In your world, contradictions can pop up whenever a situation requires an illogical rendering in your mind, and you accept that, and portray it as logical despite the obvious internal non-coherence.
That characteristic makes it impossible to carry on a conversation with any rational basis to it. Logic and rationality cannot contain contradictions. Conversation which contains frivolous changes back and forth between accepting a position and then denying having accepted it, and promoting other internal contradictions, cannot result in any beneficial outcome. Truth and validity have just one position; falsity has innumerable, and includes all forms of contradiction.
For that reason, it appears to me that it is very likely a waste of time to continue in this vein, and I have stopped at number 3 without reading the rest of your responses. Perhaps you can convince me as to why we should continue, and what steps you might take to provide a continuous and linear, internally coherent proposition. Otherwise, I think I’ll not pursue this further.
4. No I don’t accept contradictions, so if you are able to show any please do so because I would rather be corrected and embarrassed for having been wrong than not knowing where my mistakes were.
ReplyDeleteWhat you pointed out however is not a contradiction and as I have mentioned before it is not easy to explain so I am not surprised that you don’t get it, and you probably never will since with text it’s hard to pinpoint the exact moment where you stop following the train of thought.
Anyway, what you see as a contradiction is the idea that there are ways to explain non-material things in terms of other material things, thus making all non-material things material. This is the simplest and shortest way to explain what materialism means to me.
Now I could go on and try to explain what I mean by that but the explanations are already all over this comment threads, and do not wish to pursue this discussion until we resolve this dilemma. So I would like you to point out more precise examples of where you see a contradiction if you want to. If not, then that’s it; you don’t understand what I believe and I don’t blame you for not accepting it since it’s impossible to accept something we don’t understand...
Finally, as a side note, talking about how “my world” works when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about does not make the discussion progress. This is simply a useless ad hominem attack that should stay in your head. This is what I do with my opinion of your theistic system of beliefs.
I pointed out three contradictions in the first three items. You do not accept that they are contradictions since they apparently make sense to you. However, because they are contraries, they are contradictory, regardless of whether or why you believe them. I discuss your world because it exists outside the bounds of logical thought, which imposes discipline on thought in order to disallow falseness in thinking. Your thinking accepts contradictions and doesn't consider them contradictory, much less an issue for your propositions. So your mental world exists outside the boundaries of the world of disciplined logical thought. That observation is demonstrably the case.
ReplyDeleteWhen you claim that an entity exists as "all material" simultaneously with existing as "all non-material", that is a contradiction. To further claim that it is not a contradiction is irrational.
You may believe whatever you wish, of course, but you are not entitled to claim that it is congruent with logical restrictions.
For this reason, we can get no further in this conversation, and I will not pursue it. I do recommend that you study the discipline of logic and its application to thought; to claim that knowledge of historical thinkers and their contributions to western thought is unworthy of your effort due to the superiority of your philosophical discoveries with your friends is an amazing hubris which you should reconsider.
Hi Stan,
ReplyDeleteHere are what I consider to be the conclusions of this discussion:
- Stan says that Max believes in A and B
- A and B contradict each other
- Max says that he does not believe in A (and/or B depending on the issue)
- Stan does not care and tells Max that he should study logic
OK, here's what actually occurred. You claimed to believe in A and !A simultaneously. You claimed that that was not a problem. Now you claim not to believe in either one (it appears): yet another contradiction. What is A?
ReplyDeleteA = material thing, T.
!A = non-material thing, T.
A = empty brained child at birth (Locke => wrong: no faculties).
!A = child has mental faculties at birth. (just as Locke says).
A = Determinism.
!A = not-Determinism (Free Will).
Again, your position (which changes, but I'll go with the first), is that you believe in A and !A simultaneously.
The comment about studying logic stands. In your case, understanding the Principle of Non-Contradiction would help. Google it; it's a logical necessity.
Best wishes,
Over and out.
Hello, sorry to bother you again even you said you were done!
ReplyDeleteThanks to the way you wrote it above, it is now easier to explain the parts you did not understand.
A = material thing, T.
!A = non-material thing, T.
The problem here is that your A and !A are not properly defined and thus fall under the equivocation fallacy. Google that if you don’t know what it means...
The materialist position is that all the things that we label as non-material in everyday life, such as concepts, idea, minds, thoughts, emotions, etc... are products of the human body/brain, which are material.
Therefore, the word material in A means something different from the word material in !A. Surely you would not argue that the same word can have more than one meaning depending on the context?
A = empty brained child at birth (Locke => wrong: no faculties).
!A = child has mental faculties at birth. (just as Locke says).
The way you wrote it here, I believe only in !A. The brain is not empty at birth. This is just ridiculous... However, the point was that I disagree with the idea that babies make decision and judgment. Go read the examples you quoted from Locke; that’s what I disagreed on.
In other words, it’s not a black or white question like the way you wrote it here. It’s not empty-brain VS fully-functional-brain, it is rather somewhat-full-brain VS full-brain.
A = Determinism.
!A = not-Determinism (Free Will)
I only believe in !A.
Your problem is that you pretend that A = Determinism = Materialism. Google the law of identity.
Max,
ReplyDeleteNote: I wrote the response below, but then I thought that I should put this thought first: Your concept of Philosophical Materialism is quite unlike any conception I have come across. You have made up a theory which you call Materialism, but doesn’t map to any that I have read, and that is quite a few. That makes it unintelligible to me because I can’t understand your Materialism as it is slowly being revealed, I have to reference the Materialism that is common amongst Atheists and philosophers.
So I suggest that you write down a set of principles for your theory, that you defend them concept-by-concept, and then you bring that back here so we can discuss what your actual principles are.
Writing them down will help gel them into firm principles, hopefully so that we don’t have to deal with contexts which change in the middle of an argument.
End of Note.
Response to your comment:
Part 1.
You said,
”Therefore, the word material in A means something different from the word material in !A. Surely you would not argue that the same word can have more than one meaning depending on the context?”
This is entirely too much. To redefine the meaning of a word in the middle of a proposition or argument is absurd. If there is a perception of a sliding context within a single argument, then there is no possible way to communicate using words or sentences or logical constructs. You cannot change the meanings of words at will just to satisfy your incorrect posits.
Moreover, A and !A are logical constructs. They are defined mathematically in set theory. Explain why you think you are immune to that?
Now let’s take your actual statement:
”The materialist position is that all the things that we label as non-material in everyday life, such as concepts, idea, minds, thoughts, emotions, etc... are products of the human body/brain, which are material.”
Disregard your unprovable conclusion that they are products of [ something ]. Just decide what they actually are: are they material or not material? You seem not to want to answer this.
Here is a question that was posed to you on 2/11/12:
”You seem to contradict yourself. Either abstraction exists or it doesn’t. Which is it? You originally seemed to claim that it did not exist because it all referenced material entities. Now you are saying that that is not what you mean, you mean only that material entities must be referenced in order to talk about it. Again which is it?”
You are apparently changing context mid-sentence to suit yourself. Does abstraction exist, non-materially, or not?
(continued)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeletePart 2.
”The way you wrote it here, I believe only in !A. The brain is not empty at birth. This is just ridiculous... However, the point was that I disagree with the idea that babies make decision and judgment. Go read the examples you quoted from Locke; that’s what I disagreed on.”
I had said, that Locke’s position is:
”humans are born with full capacities or faculties which include the innate capabilities of apprehension, comparison, differentiation, judgment, and comprehension. These are the tools of the intellect, which inhere with every mind/brain development.”
Then I gave examples which demonstrate the requirement for the validity of that statement. Your only position is that you don’t believe it. That is not an argument it is an abdication. Demonstrate why this is false, if you can. Be advised that I can produce studies which show that babies can communicate using sign language as early as 6 months, demonstrating full cognitive abilities prior to the development of oral language. This capability might be inherent even earlier. My family members have used this and confirmed its validity.
Part 3:
”Your problem is that you pretend that A = Determinism = Materialism. Google the law of identity.”
Actually the problem is for you to explain how Materialism can exist without Determinism. You are asserting an apparent contradiction, depending upon your current definition of "Materialism", which you change depending upon context, apparently.
This is an example of where your concept of Materialism demonstrably deviates 180 from the other, common versions of Materialism. Your version doesn’t map onto the conventional understanding of the term.
Here's the thing. You seem to retreat to the idea that "Well, I believe such-and-so, so that's the right answer". But you brought that here without any visible substantial thought regarding either the necessary subpremises to support your thoughts, nor their logical consequences. As the old saying goes, thoughts have consequences. And true thoughts must be grounded in true premises.
This is what basic syllogistic deduction looks like:
Premise 1: IF [Q is true], THEN [Y is true];
set/subset
Premise 2: Q is true;
affirms the antecedent
Conclusion: THEREFORE, Y is true.
confirms the consequent
But there is work to do before this can be accepted as either valid or true. First premise 1 must be shown to be an actual relationship, not merely something dreamed up. That requires justification.
Next the relationship must be shown to be fully coherent (congruent with the Law of Non-Contradiction, and the Law of Excluded Middle).
Then the truth of the premise "IF Q is True" must be demonstrated to have a truth value of 1 by examining all the subpremises which are necessary to its assertion. It must be traced back to a fully grounded position (axiom) which is incontrovertable, and incorrigibly true.
And after all this, the contrary of the proposition must be examined to see whether the two postions are contradictory.
Finally, any empirical evidence against the proposition must be considered, as well as empirical evidence for it.
This is the logical process. Perhaps you know this and just choose not to use it; that decision would need a very robust defense.
Max,
ReplyDeleteI do have another question: are you seriously arguing against the need to study and understand the discipline of logic and how it removes fallacy from the pursuit of truth?
If so, why? What is your defense for that decision?
Hi Stan,
ReplyDeleteI am really sorry for not fitting into any pre-defined category of Materialist you have encountered before. Perhaps that would have saved you a lot of time if we had clarified that before... I would love to write down what principles I believe in and why so I will try to find the time. Let’s just address your post for now...
Last question first: logic is essential to study and I agree with you on that. However, logic is nothing more than a set of tools and conventions that we already agree on. What is actually more important is the definition of words and premises that we use.
Going back to the beginning, I thus agree that to redefine the meaning of a word in the middle of a proposition is absurd. There is another thing that could be happening though: the meaning of a word can appear to be clear for both parties at first, but happens to be different. This then gives the illusion that the meaning changed, from one’s point of view, when it actually never did for the other. This can go both ways obviously, no matter who is involved...
Another thing closely related to logic is your “attack” (for lack of a better word) on my belief in what you label as A and !A. You said:
A and !A are logical constructs. They are defined mathematically in set theory. Explain why you think you are immune to that?
Obviously, I don’t think that I am immune to that. The problem is that if you define !A as a certain B, and if that certain B is anything else but NOT (A), then there is always the possibility that we disagree on your definition of !A / B. Not sure if it’s clear so let me know...
Now regarding this statement I made:
”The materialist position is that all the things that we label as non-material in everyday life, such as concepts, idea, minds, thoughts, emotions, etc... are products of the human body/brain, which are material.”
You replied
Disregard your unprovable conclusion that they are products of [ something ]. Just decide what they actually are: are they material or not material? You seem not to want to answer this.
First, I agree that it is not provable. Materialism is not something you can prove true since it’s the sum of negative beliefs regarding existence. It tells you that I don’t believe that certain things are purely non-material. Again, I have the feeling that this won’t fit with the other philosophers/writers/bloggers you have ran into so I might need to expand on that later...
Second, what do I mean by purely non-material? This answers your question: they are both material (because they are not purely non-material) and they are also non-material because we don’t describe them in terms of what they are made of. Again, very confusing to describe because it’s only when have such discussions that we get to differentiate between the immaterial world of abstract concepts and the purely immaterial world of... whatever that would be.
From what I understand, at this point your objection would be that what I label as both material (because they are products of brains) and non-material, because they are abstract, cannot be defined in terms of electrons or chemical patterns, etc... In other words, because I believe that the physical brain is the generator of all abstract objects, you expect me to also believe that there is a way to describe them using physical things. The problem obviously is that I cannot do that. Does it mean that I am not justified to believe it is the case?
Instead of answering, let’s turn the question around. If purely non-material things exist, and if minds are one of these, then there is a mechanism that allows the non-material mind to interact with the material brain and the rest of the material world through the body. Can you explain to me how that works exactly? No, right? Does it mean that you are not justified to believe it in this case?
This is essential to pursue with the rest of the comment and I ran out of time so I will wait for your answer to these last questions...
Max says,
ReplyDelete”I am really sorry for not fitting into any pre-defined category of Materialist you have encountered before. Perhaps that would have saved you a lot of time if we had clarified that before”
No need to apologize, let’s just move forward.
”Last question first: logic is essential to study and I agree with you on that. However, logic is nothing more than a set of tools and conventions that we already agree on. What is actually more important is the definition of words and premises that we use.”
I disagree. What seems logical to you appears not to map onto the discipline of logic, as it is presented in numerous college text books. For example, the definition of words and the validation of premises is part of logic, not a separate issue.
”The problem is that if you define !A as a certain B, and if that certain B is anything else but NOT (A), then there is always the possibility that we disagree on your definition of !A / B. Not sure if it’s clear so let me know...”
But here is where you deviate from standard logic. [!A] is defined purely in terms of [A]. It is not logically possible to define !A as anything other than the subset which contains no A. As I showed before:
U = Q & !Q.
The universe, U, has two subsets: that which contains [Q] and that which contains [no Q]. There is no other definition possible under the rules of logic. If you want to smuggle in some other meaning for [no Q], then that must be justified formally, and fit into some sort of logical definition. For example:
If you want to define [!Q] as [B], tautologically, then [!B] = [Q], which is the same thing as the original, only using different letters. In other words, it is a trivial substitution. However, I suspect that you really want [B] to be different from [!Q], so that the “Q” has a different meaning; that is an illegitimate substitution.
”First, I agree that it is not provable. Materialism is not something you can prove true since it’s the sum of negative beliefs regarding existence.”
I disagree here. Philosophical Materialism is a positive statement of a positive belief concerning propositions about existence. I do agree that it is not provable, and further it makes truth statements concerning the evidentiary requirements for knowledge which it cannot ever, under any circumstances, satisfy for its own propositions. In other words, it is internally non-coherent.
(continued)
(continued)
ReplyDelete”Second, what do I mean by purely non-material? This answers your question: they are both material (because they are not purely non-material) and they are also non-material because we don’t describe them in terms of what they are made of. Again, very confusing to describe because it’s only when have such discussions that we get to differentiate between the immaterial world of abstract concepts and the purely immaterial world of... whatever that would be.”
Again I disagree. First, you declare that they are not non-material as a truth statement; what is your evidence as a materialist? What sort of material evidence can you provide for that truth statement? Second, we don’t describe them in terms of what they are made of because it is not possible to apply mass/energy (the components of material existence) to them. It is not possible because they are not so composed.
An old story: a commenter once claimed to have a “jar full of meaning” on his desk which he would willing sell… Would you purchase such a thing?
”In other words, because I believe that the physical brain is the generator of all abstract objects, you expect me to also believe that there is a way to describe them using physical things. The problem obviously is that I cannot do that. Does it mean that I am not justified to believe it is the case?”
I think you are avoiding answering the question: are abstract thoughts material or not?
”Instead of answering, let’s turn the question around. If purely non-material things exist, and if minds are one of these, then there is a mechanism that allows the non-material mind to interact with the material brain and the rest of the material world through the body. Can you explain to me how that works exactly? No, right? Does it mean that you are not justified to believe it in this case?”
There is a fundamental difference in the evidentiary philosophies involved. Materialism, well, maybe not your materialism, but Philosophical Materialism holds that knowledge is only possible based upon the existence of sufficient material, physical evidence to support its belief; without material, physical evidence, propositions have no validity. Now if you want to accept beliefs based on propositions which are without any sufficient, material, physical evidence to support their belief, then you have stepped into the realm of blind belief, i.e. religion. So are you suggesting that you have an unsupported religious belief, and that it is justified; if so you have stepped well out of Philosophical Materialism.
As for what I think, first that is irrelevant to the Materialist issue at hand, and second, I do not subscribe to the Philosophical Materialist evidentiary theory because it is non-coherent and therefore irrational. So it is apples to oranges.
So what is needed as a part of your new philosophy is a statement of your evidentiary theory, which will tell us what you allow as valid beliefs vs. what restrictions you place in order to block non-valid beliefs. Just referring to the term “logic” by itself is not enough, because most of those who use the generic term have no concept of what it entails.
Hi Stan,
ReplyDelete... the definition of words and the validation of premises is part of logic, not a separate issue.
I probably did not make myself clear. I mean that the validation of premises IS the most important part. Hence the definition of words IS very important.
[!A] is defined purely in terms of [A]. It is not logically possible to define !A as anything other than the subset which contains no A.
There are two different things here. First, you are absolutely correct regarding placing objects into either set A or set !A. Therefore, when you ask me if something is material or not, it has to fall into either A (Material) or !A (Immaterial). I’ll go back to that.
However, that’s not what I was talking about when I said:
The problem is that if you define !A as a certain B, and if that certain B is anything else but NOT (A), then there is always the possibility that we disagree on your definition of !A / B.
Here, I was referring to statements. You can either accept a statement, in other words consider it to be true, or reject it. Or, a statement can either be true, or not-true. The mistake you make is that you want me to choose between A is true, or A is false, or even worse, you want me to choose between A is true or B is true, when I consider them to be different. Again, not sure if that clears things up; let me know...
Philosophical Materialism is a positive statement of a positive belief concerning propositions about existence.
That’s not my philosophy then. In its simplest for, Materialism for me means that I reject the notion that there are things that are both Non-Material and independent of humans. It is not a positive belief because I cannot prove that such things don’t exist. I simply don’t know what they could be and the positive part of it, if there is one, is that I believe there is no way for any other humans to prove that they exist.
First, you declare that they are not non-material as a truth statement; what is your evidence as a materialist? What sort of material evidence can you provide for that truth statement?
I don’t understand what you mean. It’s as if you want me to prove the meaning of the adjective ‘material’?
Second, we don’t describe them in terms of what they are made of because it is not possible to apply mass/energy (the components of material existence) to them. It is not possible because they are not so composed.
Can you prove that? No. That’s the whole point, and it goes back to the question of whether the mind is material or not, and whether the brain contains the thoughts that the mind think of. That’s why the last part of my last comment and the questions I asked you are essential; yet you tried to avoid them...
An old story: a commenter once claimed to have a “jar full of meaning” on his desk which he would willing sell… Would you purchase such a thing?
ReplyDeleteNo, because meaning is attributed to things by people who have working brains, and as far I we know we currently have no means to extract what people think out of their head other than by asking them to talk, write, move, etc...
Asking such a silly question, even if it’s purely humoristic, shows that you still completely misunderstand my position and will continue claiming that it’s illogical because I cannot show you the electrons that mean ‘apple’. I don’t find it insulting but it is simply an insult on a belief you cannot grasp apparently. Don’t take me wrong, I see from the title of your blog that you were an Atheist for 40 years, but it still does not mean that you had the same views on certain questions like this one...
I think you are avoiding answering the question: are abstract thoughts material or not?
What do you mean by material when you ask such a question? That is the problem.
In everyday life, no, of course they are not material. We differentiate between abstract thought and real objects precisely because one is material and the other is not.
That’s not what Materialism is about.
Err...... got to run.....
Max,
ReplyDeleteLet’s try to get this straightened out as a first priority:
You said,
” However, that’s not what I was talking about when I said:
The problem is that if you define !A as a certain B, and if that certain B is anything else but NOT (A), then there is always the possibility that we disagree on your definition of !A / B.
I am unable to discern anything but my original understanding, so let’s try this as a more rigorous approach:
First step: define A and its complement, !A in terms of the Universe:
(1) U = A & !A;
For some reason we say that !A = certain B:
(2) !A =B;
Thus,
(3) U = A & B;
But, for some reason, we now change the meaning of B to be something different than !A which is the complement of A (assuming that your statement of NOT(A) means !A):
(4) U = A & [something, B, which is NOT (!A)];
This definition of U contradicts equation (1), and leaves U without a complete definition, and thus the equation (4), is non-valid.
Your statement: ” and if that certain B is anything else but NOT (A)” is an illegal move. You cannot define an entity one way and then redefine it mid-proposition as something else.
You first defined !A as all entities except those entities which fall into set A (the complement of A, as required to satisfy U).
Then you chose to redefine !A as some B which is different from the original !A.
That is not a legitimate procedure; you must not change meanings in the middle of an argument.
I don’t know how to make this any more clear. Logic and mathematics are not allowed to be defined to suit the tastes of the user.
You said,
” The mistake you make is that you want me to choose between A is true, or A is false, or even worse, you want me to choose between A is true or B is true, when I consider them to be different. Again, not sure if that clears things up; let me know...”
This is entirely not the case. Please draw some Venn Diagrams for clarification of what you are doing by changing definitions mid-stream.
”In its simplest for, Materialism for me means that I reject the notion that there are things that are both Non-Material and independent of humans. It is not a positive belief because I cannot prove that such things don’t exist. I simply don’t know what they could be and the positive part of it, if there is one, is that I believe there is no way for any other humans to prove that they exist.”
ReplyDeleteThen we should call this “Maxism”. Thanks for laying in out, it seems clear.
I would like to get this straight, though: you reject a concept, Q, due to inability to obtain proof, presumably meaning evidence?
Again, what are your evidentiary standards, and how can you prove them necessary and sufficient to render probable truth values?
Keep in mind that skepticism never produces knowledge, it merely attacks assertions that knowledge is possible. Asserting skepticism is a slippery slope to solipsism. To avoid that, it is necessary to produce a personal standard for evidentiary validity, even though it is probabilistic (all evidence is probabilistic due to the inductive fallacy). And then you must justify why your standards are correct, necessary and sufficient, in the face of skeptical probing.
So what are your evidentiary standards, and your justification for them?
I said,
ReplyDeleteFirst, you declare that they are not non-material as a truth statement; what is your evidence as a materialist? What sort of material evidence can you provide for that truth statement?
You said,
”I don’t understand what you mean. It’s as if you want me to prove the meaning of the adjective ‘material’?”
No, the standard meaning of “material” is mass/energy. Under the common understanding of Philosophical Materialism (not Maxism apparently) the only knowledge which is allowed is that knowledge which has supporting material (mass/energy) evidence, since all that exists is mass/energy. In other words, if a concept has empirical, experimental, replicable and replicated, and unfalsified hard data, then it is allowed to be considered knowledge, under Philosophical Materialism.
So any assertion made by a Materialist cannot be allowed any truth value if it is not accompanied by the Materialist’s own mass/energy data, as required by the evidentiary standards of Philosophical Materialism.
Let’s linearize this:
(1) Under Philosophical Materialism, only mass/energy exists.
(2) If there is knowledge, then it is mass/energy.
(3) If there is evidence, then it is mass/energy.
(4) Evidence supporting PM must be mass/energy.
(5) Evidence regarding non-mass/energy requires mass/energy evidence per (3).
(6) Non-mass/energy cannot provide mass/energy evidence.
(7) Therefore, non-mass/energy cannot exist.
Now it should be clear that (5) is a Category Error, and is not logical. That renders the rest of the argument illogical also, as is shown here:
(1) Under Philosophical Materialism, only mass/energy exists.
(2) If there exists knowledge, then it is mass/energy.
(3) If there exists evidence, then it is mass/energy.
(4) Evidence supporting PM must be mass/energy.
(5) Evidence regarding non-mass/energy requires mass/energy evidence per (3).
(6) Non-mass/energy cannot provide mass/energy evidence.
(7) Therefore, the Category Error in (5) renders Philosophical Materialism false, since it cannot logically demand mass/energy evidence of a non-mass/energy existence.
This should demonstrate the constraints on Materialist evidentiary standards.
I said,
ReplyDelete"Second, we don’t describe them in terms of what they are made of because it is not possible to apply mass/energy (the components of material existence) to them. It is not possible because they are not so composed."
You said,
"Can you prove that? No. That’s the whole point, and it goes back to the question of whether the mind is material or not, and whether the brain contains the thoughts that the mind think of. That’s why the last part of my last comment and the questions I asked you are essential; yet you tried to avoid them..."
Yes, I can prove that you cannot find evidence for Z by examining only !Z.
If this is your question,
"Instead of answering, let’s turn the question around. If purely non-material things exist, and if minds are one of these, then there is a mechanism that allows the non-material mind to interact with the material brain and the rest of the material world through the body. Can you explain to me how that works exactly? No, right? Does it mean that you are not justified to believe it in this case?"
First of all, this statement is a Tu Quoque, which you used to avoid answering the question posed to you:
"I think you are avoiding answering the question: are abstract thoughts material or not?"
I gave my position on Tu Quoques as illegitimate answers to questions at that time. Let me ask the question again, because this has been going on from the very start without any resolution:
Are abstract thoughts purely material (mass/energy) or not???
Your position is not an answer, it is an attempt to justify having a belief without evidence for support, which is the exact position which you reject up front regarding non-materialism. For you, it is justified; for others, not at all.
You are taking positions now which are beliefs without evidence: blind beliefs, which are religious, not rational... unless you can provide material evidence in support.
And it appears that you take these positions, not because of logic, but because you wish to justify a belief and need to find positions which support that belief. That process is rationalization, a logical fallacy: affirming the consequent.
"What do you mean by material when you ask such a question? That is the problem.
ReplyDeleteIn everyday life, no, of course they are not material. We differentiate between abstract thought and real objects precisely because one is material and the other is not.
That’s not what Materialism is about."
It is precisely what Philosophical Materialism is about. Still not sure about Maxism. Here you appear to concede that non-material entities do exist, but then you deny that to be of any consequence to "materialism".
So now you are going to provide your new definition of "materialism", right? The definition which does not care about non-materialism?
Keep in mind that a definition must be clear about both what it is, and provide differentiation from what it isn't. Any concept R has a corresponding complement, !R, unless it is the universal; declaring a universal without universal evidence is ill-advised.
Max,
ReplyDeleteYou have taken the position that you don't need to read anything; but at least take the time to google up materialism. If not that, then go here, (1 a:), please.
What you espouse is not materialism, and you should not use the term for your belief because that is not a match.
Hi Stan,
ReplyDeleteSo we are going to discuss Maxism? That is a very funny way to present it, why not... I will start by replying to that first:
You have taken the position that you don't need to read anything...
I am not against reading anything. I do however find it useless to quote anything right now because we are two people discussing and we could both find material (pun intended) that supports any position on anything. More importantly though, we can also have our own interpretations of certain, if not most, passages of the references we can quote.
The BEST example of this will be given right away. You then said:
... take the time to google up materialism. If not that, then go here, (1 a:), please.
The definition states that:
...theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter
This is exactly what I believe!
Yet, because we have different interpretation of this definition, you think that I believe something else. And I insist that it is our interpretations that differ, not my Maxims VS this Materialism, because my Maxism is exactly the way it is written above. Now, I don’t feel like putting even one extra line break here because I can almost already hear you type on your computer that this definition means a bunch of things, contradictory things, that you have already talked about... because we don’t interpret it the same way!
So the real question here is where do our interpretations differ? I think the most important keywords here are ‘manifestations or results of matter’, and this is where you scream ‘contradiction!’ when I tell you that I do accept the notion that some things, like abstract concepts, are not material. And this is where I scream back at you... ‘equivocation fallacy!’. However, I won’t go further into that one first because there is a more basic problem, and you mentioned it in your previous post: solipsism.
The definition states that physical matter is the only OR fundamental reality. The ‘or’ is very important here because it shows that the materialist position is not a positive belief about the uniqueness of our reality, it is rather the conclusion of a belief system that starts with the notion that the material world is real and we are part of it. But let’s back track even more...
Philosophically speaking, we cannot be 100% sure that anything exists except our own self. The reason why we can, however, be 100% sure is because even if everything around us was an illusion, then we would still be ourselves, we would still be what we believe ourselves to be, whatever that is. If we are the prisoners of an evil scientist that feeds us false data 100% of the time, we are still what we are, but grossly mistaken. If we don’t believe anything else (and correct me if I am wrong) that puts us in the solipsism category. It also goes back to what you said regarding knowledge and extreme skepticism: if we stop there, nothing can be known besides ourselves since everything else is just something that could perhaps be real, but perhaps not.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I should start using syllogism since you said that it’s essential. What about Descartes’ famous I think therefore I am...
1) If I can think, I exist
2) I can think
C) Therefore I exist.
But that’s just solipsism at this point, I would thus add one more to illustrate why:
1) If the world I perceive through my senses were a perfect illusion; it would appear to me as being real.
2) The world I perceive through my sense appear to me as being real.
C) The world I perceive through my senses could be a perfect illusion.
And then:
1) If the world I perceive is real, it is a fundamental reality that could be one of many
2) If the world I perceive is an illusion, it is a fundamental reality for me, but one of many (at least 2)
C) The world I perceive is a fundamental reality, and could be one of many
At this point, we have thus established that we are safe to assume that reality is real, for all practical purposes, and we can dismiss the idea that there might perhaps be a perfect illusion in its place, the two yielding exactly the same results for the observers that we are. We have also established that there could be another reality but, for us, I don’t know what it would mean at this point...
I am almost sure that you already have objections at this point but I don’t want to put words in your mouth so I won’t list anything. I will thus move to a slightly different topic and hopefully you will understand why it’s related and might even address your objections.
Let’s quote you again:
ReplyDeleteSo what are your evidentiary standards, and your justification for them?
The general answer I would give to such question is that it depends on the context and the level of probability we are looking at. In the context of an escape from the absurd notion of solipsism, I am afraid that I don’t have any specific answers to give but to say that I simply assume that the world is real, and that I can learn something from it (as I have mentioned using the syllogisms basically)
This then brings us back to discussing abstract concepts. When I said above that I exist because I think, what am I thinking of? Essentially, thinking is the generation of abstract concepts. The problem is that this is obviously more complicated than just that and something that can lead to a very long discussion all by itself... I will try to put in syllogism the essential of my belief that I was trying to explain before.
1) If a concept can be written/spoken/expressed using the material world, it is not purely abstract
2) Humans share concepts using the material world, as described in 1)
C) All human concepts (that can be discussed on this blog at least) can be expressed as in 1)
This one is a bit weird because of this notion of what a purely abstract concept is (or would be...). Basically what I am saying is that if purely abstract concepts exist, then you and I cannot discuss them here, since a purely abstract concept, by definition, cannot be expressed using material means. Because I don’t know how other humans think, I cannot pretend to know if they can think of such concepts or not. All I can conclude is that there is no way for us to discuss them, and I certainly cannot think of any myself.
Sorry to not reply point to point to your long last comment (and I was not even done with the previous...) but perhaps this is a better way to clear up what I believe and why. More importantly, don’t think that this is even close to justify why I believe in what we call Materialism. We are not there yet but it simply takes too much time and you are going to have objections already for sure...
Max says,
ReplyDelete” we could both find material (pun intended) that supports any position on anything. More importantly though, we can also have our own interpretations of certain, if not most, passages of the references we can quote.”
Max, that is not the type of reading I meant. What I meant was reading the principles of logic and critical thinking, not opinions for use as weapons in conversation. The difference is in learning how to use a tool, as opposed to learning how to be a tool (pun intended). Correct logic is immutable and if one wants truth in his worldview, then logic is the only way to verify that he has it.
”Yet, because we have different interpretation of this definition, you think that I believe something else. And I insist that it is our interpretations that differ, not my Maxims VS this Materialism, because my Maxism is exactly the way it is written above. “
It’s difficult to see any interpretable slop in that definition, but go ahead…
Ok, on to your syllogisms, keep in mind that a syllogism has a specific format; premise 2 must affirm the antecedent of premise 1:
(1) IF [W is true], THEN [T is true].
(2) [W is, in fact, true];
(C) THEREFORE, [T is true].
As I noted earlier (days ago, now) the first premise must be proven to be an actual, valid relationship (set/subset); next, the assertion of premise (2) must be proven correct (it is merely asserted to be correct here, without proof).
The first syllogism you present is correct.
Your second proposition does not conform, because premise 2) is not the same as the antecedent in premise 1). I would try to put this into a correct format, but I can’t because premise 2) of your argument injects a different piece of knowledge which contradicts the antecedent in premise 1). So I probably can’t properly interpret your meaning, and you will have to rewrite that one yourself.
Your third proposition seems to combine several arguments, but I am not sure… You posit two contraries in the same argument, but don’t affirm any relationship, or so it appears. It’s necessary to stick to the format above, in order to be an actual syllogism. This one might be two syllogisms.
Also I suggest that the use of the terms “real” and “reality” should be replaced with words which are less likely to be taken wrong. For example, many who have come here before have insisted that “reality” and “mass/energy” are tautological in their arguments, and have refused to accept the circularity which they introduce. So using terms such as “mass/energy” rather than “reality” (if that is what we really mean) is important for preventing misunderstandings. Another possibility is the word “actuality” rather than “reality”, if that is what is really meant.
At this point I can't understand your argument, syllogistically.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteOK. On to your second comment.
”The general answer I would give to such question is that it depends on the context and the level of probability we are looking at.”
I stopped reading right there to say: YES. Exactly. Now moving on hopefully…
” I don’t have any specific answers to give but to say that I simply assume that the world is real, and that I can learn something from it .”
Empiricism is always acceptable provisionally and with contingencies understood.
On to your argument re: abstraction: again, the format above is imperative. However, I will take on your first premise:
”1) If a concept can be written/spoken/expressed using the material world, it is not purely abstract”
This is the crux of our disagreement. You are redefining a common word:
Ab’stract, a:
1. Thought of apart from any particular instances or material object; not concrete.
2. expressing a quality thought of apart from any particular or material object; as beauty is an abstract word.
…
abstract idea: in metaphysics, an idea separated from a complex object, or from any other ideas which naturally accompany it.
Webster’s Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary, 1979, Simon and Schuster.
Now, I suspect that you will want to assert your own interpretation, but I think this is a deterministic definition specifically eliminating any connection between an abstraction and any material object. The example given above, the word “beauty”, demonstrates an ability to express, in words, a concept which has no mass/energy attached to it: there is no material object which corresponds to it.
” More importantly, don’t think that this is even close to justify why I believe in what we call Materialism. We are not there yet but it simply takes too much time and you are going to have objections already for sure...”
Please take your time to think your positions through, there is no hurry. I’m going to be here for quite some time to come…
Here are some abstract terms just off the top of my head:
Meaning;
Absurd;
Understand;
Experience;
Exceptionalism;
Transcend;
Abstruse;
Parsimony.
There are plenty more…
Hi Stan, you said: ...reading the principles of logic and critical thinking, not opinions for use as weapons in conversation.
ReplyDeleteEver visited this website?
http://www.criticalthinkeracademy.com/
A valid syllogism is not just the format you presented above.
And yes, I know that you want me to read on the principles of logic and critical thinking. And I reply that I know them. Now on to what you actually said.
...keep in mind that a syllogism has a specific format; premise 2 must affirm the antecedent of premise 1...
I would normally agree with that but from your comment below, I think disagree with your "rules" on the format and the conclusion we can then get from the various formats. I will give an example of that in (B). Moreover, in the second part, what you describe is that: if "A" is used in both premise 1 and 2, it must be the same "A".
the first premise must be proven to be an actual, valid relationship (set/subset)
A premise is either true or not-true. It is either false or not-false. You can then create relationships between them using Boolean math. Set/subset is then an example of the relationships you can create between premises.
next, the assertion of premise (2) must be proven correct (it is merely asserted to be correct here, without proof).
Agreed. That's when we decide to both say "I agree 'A' is true" and move on, or not, and procede to define/refute/rewrite the premise.
Note that it could be other combination of assignation of truth values to premises; "I agree 'B' could be true" for example.
The first syllogism you present is correct.
I had not identified them so I will do it here so that we can discuss them further when needed
(A)
1) If I can think, I exist
2) I can think
C) Therefore I exist.
Format:
1) IF A THEN B
2) A is true
C) B is true
Your second proposition does not conform, because premise 2) is not the same as the antecedent in premise 1)
(B)
1) If the world I perceive through my senses were a perfect illusion; it would appear to me as being real.
2) The world I perceive through my sense appear to me as being real.
C) The world I perceive through my senses could be a perfect illusion.
Format:
ReplyDelete1) IF A THEN B
2) B is true
C) A could be true
That's what I mean by 'you are too strict' : the conclusion is not that A is true, so you are just blocking the discussion by claiming that the syllogism is wrong because A is not proven true. It's not the goal. The conclusion is that A could be true, or not, assuming the fact that we agree that "B is true". We can then test B with !A to see if we can learn something about A.
Let me explain the implicit conclusions that I thought were obvious with B alone...
(B')
1) If the world I perceive through my senses were real; it would appear to me as being real.
2) The world I perceive through my sense appear to me as being real.
C) The world I perceive through my senses could be real.
Format:
1) IF (!A) THEN B
2) B is true
C) (!A) could be true. A could be false.
(B + B')
1) The world I perceive through my senses could be a perfect illusion.
2) The world I perceive through my senses could be real.
C) The world I perceive through my senses could be either real or a perfect illusion
Correct any mistakes please.
You then said:
Your third proposition seems to combine several arguments, but I am not sure… You posit two contraries in the same argument, but don’t affirm any relationship, or so it appears. It’s necessary to stick to the format above, in order to be an actual syllogism. This one might be two syllogisms.
This one was trickier yes, and you are correct that it could be split in 2 simpler ones, but I believe you can follow the harder version. I will go through it again here:
(C)
1) If the world I perceive is real, it is a fundamental reality that could be one of many
2) If the world I perceive is an illusion, it is a fundamental reality for me, but one of many (at least 2)
C) The world I perceive is a fundamental reality, and could be one of many
I don't see any mistake the way I had written it so I will go through the format.
Format:
1a) IF A THEN B
1b) IF (A and B) THEN 'maybe C'
2a) IF !A THEN B
2a) IF (!A and B) THEN C
A : If the world I perceive is real
B : The world I perceive is a fundamental reality
C : My fundamental reality is one of many
With words again, long form:
ReplyDelete1a) If the world I perceive is real, it is a fundamental reality.
1b) If the world I perceive is real and is a fundamental reality; my fundamental reality could be one of many.
2a) If the world I perceive is an illusion, it is a fundamental reality for me
2b) If the world I perceive is an illusion and is a fundamental reality for me. It is surely not the only reality that exists.
C) The world I perceive is a fundamental reality, and could be one of many
Correct any mistakes please.
Also I suggest that the use of the terms “real” and “reality” should be replaced with words which are less likely to be taken wrong. For example, many who have come here before have insisted that “reality” and “mass/energy” are tautological in their arguments, and have refused to accept the circularity which they introduce. So using terms such as “mass/energy” rather than “reality” (if that is what we really mean) is important for preventing misunderstandings.
The words "mass/energy" are useful but not the way you wrote it here. At some point it would not be equal to reality for sure; that's not coherent with the syllogism presented above. So I agree with you that “reality” and “mass/energy” are not tautologically equal.
Another possibility is the word “actuality” rather than “reality”, if that is what is really meant.
I don't see any issue with using Actuality, as long as we agree that it is defined like this:
Actuality = Set of all that exists = "U = A & !A" = "X + !X"
(I prefer to use X rather than A here because it is not to be confused with premises; here we are talking about classifying things regarding a certain attribute X. Things can "be an 'X'" or "not be an 'X'" (= "be a '!X'").
If you like logic just as much as me, you will find it interesting to note at this point that this is precisely why premises can be either true or not-true, or, false or not-false; but it is incorrect to claim that all premises are either true or false. The premise 'This premise is false' is the most common example obviously... It would fail to fit into the wrong definition of:
U = 'False Premises' + 'True Premises'
That's why we have to have:
U = A + (!A)
Where A is the set of all true premises, and (!A) the set of all non-true premises. Conversely, we also have the same with A is defined as the set of all false premises. 'This premise is false' thus falls into (!A) in both cases and does not violate our definition of actuality.
ReplyDeleteAt this point I can't understand your argument, syllogistically.
I thus look forward to see your comments on the new lengthy version above.
I said: ”The general answer I would give to such question is that it depends on the context and the level of probability we are looking at.”
You said: "I stopped reading right there to say: YES. Exactly. Now moving on hopefully…"
Great!
I then said: ”I don’t have any specific answers to give but to say that I simply assume that the world is real, and that I can learn something from it .”
Empiricism is always acceptable provisionally and with contingencies understood.
I agree but your comment seems a bit off to me; I am thus not sure what you meant.
Let me just say that the point here was to say that, following the above syllogisms, I assume, in the case of the world I perceive, that it is 'real' and not an illusion. It is thus considered to be a fundamental reality, which could be one of many.
All of the above could be summarized like that:
I assume, purely based on logic and the fact that I exist, that the world I perceive is real, not an illusion, not imaginary, not dependent on my own existence... and probably other similar synonyms that I forget. I think I could say that it is a rejection of what you called radical skepticism.
There is also an implied step, which is a rejection of solipsism; because this real world that I perceive clearly depicts a lot of minds. They also perceive the same world I labeled as 'real' and they also have minds that exist, and they know they exist, and they believe I exist, even if we could all be part of a massive 'perfect illusion'. Well, most of them do at least... Some people don't believe they exist; very freaky psychological condition, but I digress again.
On to your argument re: abstraction: again, the format above is imperative. However, I will take on your first premise:
I said:
”1) If a concept can be written/spoken/expressed using the material world, it is not purely abstract”
The word 'purely' is important because there is no unique word, as far as I know, that describe exactly what I was talking about. For that reason, I might drop this completely because it will be explained differently later anyway. Let's see what you said before...
You said:
ReplyDeleteThis is the crux of our disagreement. You are redefining a common word:
[Definition of Abstract]
Now, I suspect that you will want to assert your own interpretation, but I think this is a deterministic definition specifically eliminating any connection between an abstraction and any material object.
Yes I have my own interpretation, and I know you have yours. Here are the precisions that might reveal some assumptions that you could have at this point. Let me know if you hold them or not:
1. Thought of apart from any particular instances or material object; not concrete.
This means that we cannot describe [thought, non-concrete objects, abstract objects] in terms of other material objects. In other words, as we usually say, abstract means 'not made of material objects'.
2. expressing a quality thought of apart from any particular or material object; as beauty is an abstract word.
I find this one strange to be frank. To me it means that abstract objects can be made of other abstract objects: beauty is abstract because it describes the abstract thoughts/feelings that we experience when confronted with beauty versus the ones we experience in front of ugliness.
But I see that you had already a different take on this one. You said:
The example given above, the word “beauty”, demonstrates an ability to express, in words, a concept which has no mass/energy attached to it: there is no material object which corresponds to it.
I agree that that there is no material object attached to it because 'beauty' is all about reactions and opinions. You cannot define beauty in terms of facts; it is rather an agreement that humans have, or not, when confronted with something that is beautiful or not. 'beauty' by itself cannot even be thought of because it's a label, there is no 'beauty' but rather a group of 'beautiful things' that each human label 'beauty'.
And this brings another point from before into the game, and I think the last definition meant to address this:
abstract idea: in metaphysics, an idea separated from a complex object, or from any other ideas which naturally accompany it.
I think that 'abstract idea' could be a synonym of the 'purely abstract' thing I was trying to talk about, if properly defined. 'Beauty' would be one of these obviously, along with the list that you put right after that, and I don't see any one that is more "pure abstract" than the others, but I won't take the time to go 1 by 1 since there is so much already... and, this is a side idea I feel; not directly related to the top yet at least...
What a coincidence...
ReplyDeletePosted by a friend:
http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_saxe_how_brains_make_moral_judgments.html
...and then I also watched that one...
http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_decharms_scans_the_brain_in_real_time.html
The mind is not an emerging property of the brain you say?
Max,
ReplyDelete1) The problem is that the kind of emergentism you are exposing here goes against some measurable (but of course not acceptable for some people because of political censorship) evidence about NDEs.
2) But it also implies, I think, and please specify if that was not the scope, that syllogistically, in every case, when you get a fraction -lets say half left or right- of your brain removed, then you "mind" has, in the very same proportionality, less potential capabilities in everything than with any other person who hasn't had their brain removed.
Some studies show that it is not always the case. One of the reductionistic explanations for these cases is the property of neuroplasticity.This was known from about more than 30 years ago, but there was still a straitjacket in the 80s regarding these issues.
3)We don't know yet, by the parameters used within the scientific method and cognitive science, a contingent way of explaining what cosciousness is.
To conclude that mind is totally an emergent property of the brain, consciousness also should be.
Kind Regards.
Hi yonose, I appreciate your input but I am not interested in discussing more topics with more people at this point.
ReplyDeleteHowever, since you addressed your 3 points directly to me, I will quickly give my opinion:
1) NDEs are actually a great ways to test the mind-body relationship
2) You are wrong, that was not the scope
3) I agree that we don't know. I also agree that if we could prove that the "mind is totally an emergent property of the brain, consciousness also should be" because consciousness is a sub-set of the mind. You're stating the obvious...
Max,
ReplyDeleteI have been out of reach for a substantial part of yesterday and today. I started a response, but once again it is getting lengthy and difficult to come back into the thought process for short durations.
I have not forgotten, and I will be able to respond soon.
I did watch those two videos, and there is no indication in either one that the brain generates the software. The brain develops to the point that the mind can be accommodated in more and more aspects.
ReplyDeleteThe brain develops on its own timeframe, but barring any developmental defects, it develops the same cognitive capacities in each individual.
What the study did indicate is that decisions made in the pubescent, adolescent, and young adult phase should be revisited when reaching the fully developed stage, because they probably are incorrect. This reflects greatly on Atheism, which is very commonly accepted in the developing stages of the brain, and then held as axiomatic without disciplined re-examination in the fully developed stage.
Decades ago I bought a Commodore 64 computer. It had no modem, no USB, and could do almost nothing. Computers have grown in capabilities since then. But they did not and do not generate their own software.
The neuroscientists are still only looking at bloodflow in the brain, which is comparable to looking at which part of the CPU is activated. It has absolutely nothing to do with the source of the software.
And the parlor trick of disabling a part of the CPU to change its operation is just silliness. Don't be credulous; give at least some critical thought to these things.
And answer this: Why are Atheists and Materialists so non-critical and non-skeptical of stuff like these videos?
I did watch those two videos, and there is no indication in either one that the brain generates the software. The brain develops to the point that the mind can be accommodated in more and more aspects.
ReplyDeleteThe second video shows that an electrical alteration to the brain makes people change their moral judgement. I don't think you got all the points from these videos. Actually I wonder if you ever watched the 2nd one; my link was not even working...
You also say:
The brain develops on its own timeframe, but barring any developmental defects, it develops the same cognitive capacities in each individual.
So, if they are no defects, the same cognitive capacities are set free, but if there are, then what? The mind is still the same but restricted by this 'vilain' brain that won't let it express itself?
You seem to be missing the point that the experiments done in neuro-science are not proving that the mind is 100% physical; they are showing that it's not 100% NON-physical. Something you refuse to concede for some unexplainable reason...
In other words, the real problem is that you think it's 100% non-physical, and you think I think it's 100% physical. But I don't pretend to be able to prove that it's 100% physical; what I do think is that each and every experiment that we have made on the brain resulted in a shift in what we usually attribute to the non-physical mind. I thus believe that the mind is NOT 100% non-physical, but rather somewhere between 100% and 0%, and I think we can prove that. I know we know that.
I also believe, but cannot be sure of it, that it is actually 100% physical; but I am opened to explanation as to what the non-physical part of it could be. I just don't see what it would be!
What the study did indicate is that decisions made in the pubescent, adolescent, and young adult phase should be revisited when reaching the fully developed stage, because they probably are incorrect. This reflects greatly on Atheism, which is very commonly accepted in the developing stages of the brain, and then held as axiomatic without disciplined re-examination in the fully developed stage.
Yes the study shows, among other things, what you mention. Why did you have to add an 'Ad hominem' attack. Are you getting that desperate really?
(...and all that while you have still not replied to the syllogism I posted... I don't understand why it's taking you so long. There is almost nothing in there. It's fasctinating howe you seem incapable to see that all I am trying to convince you of is that I start with 'The world I perceive is real and thus have its own sub-set of real and non-real things; there could be others reality but I start with establishing one and will move to more later on...)
Decades ago I bought a Commodore 64 computer. It had no modem, no USB, and could do almost nothing. Computers have grown in capabilities since then. But they did not and do not generate their own software.
Some of them do! We already discussed that!
No they don't become sentient and so on but that's because you push they analogy too far. Machines are not better than us but you have to be dogmatic if you think that it is impossible. It could be in 100 years or 10,000 but one day computers will be able to process much more information then us, act on it, and appear superior to us. We will have tough choices to make but that's another story...
The neuroscientists are still only looking at bloodflow in the brain, which is comparable to looking at which part of the CPU is activated. It has absolutely nothing to do with the source of the software.
ReplyDeleteYou show that you are dogmatic about your "software belief". You assume that parts of the mind exist without the body and start building from that belief. Again, it's a 0% vs 100% problem. We cannot explain 100% of the mind, but we know for sure, that parts of it emerge as the brain grows.
So it's definitely not 100% of mental capacities that are from outside the brain material composition. Neuroscientists find more and more details about the brain that explain more and more of where our mind features come from. You are just incapable of admitting that. You prefer to fall back to the notion that if the mind cannot work at 100%, it's because it is limited by the brain, instead of seeing the obvious: the brain did not grow properly so the part of the mind that does not work properly was not built properly!
And the parlor trick of disabling a part of the CPU to change its operation is just silliness. Don't be credulous; give at least some critical thought to these things.
And answer this: Why are Atheists and Materialists so non-critical and non-skeptical of stuff like these videos?
You deny that the world we observe through our senses is a fundamental reality (be it one of many or not) and you deny that in this world we can affect the physical brain in order to get result at the mind level. Critics is fine, and we should be critical of any videos we watch when they challenge our beliefs, but these two examples here are not in line with your belief that the mind cannot possibly be material at all. You are the one who is stuck with a dogma. It's unfortunate...
Note that all of this is completely irrelevant anyway since the only single thing I want to convince you of in this thread is coming from the syllogism. Every thing else is just a discussion on opinions and a long, very long, red hearing that prevents the discussion on the nature of what we should believe exists or not...
Actually, after reading a bit more of your blog and because of the clear ad hominem attack you just used, it just struck me that this is futile to discuss with you. Thanks for your time.
To conclude:
ReplyDelete"So yes the brain seems to have evolved, or I believe and many people will agree, as the instrument for motricity, the instrument to move. Now because it is so closely related to prediction and so closely related to intentionality when we make an impossible statement and say you know what, thinking may be nothing else but internalized movement. Why? Because it is through movement that we solve many things. And what is it that the brain basically does ultimately in all of us? What it does is generate premotor acts, inside it generates premotor events, all that we can do as human beings with our brain is activation of motor neurons, that is the only output. I tell my students you only activate muscles or you activate glands. To put it differently, you either move or drool, that's all you can do in life. Its true. Ok so you have this apparatus that defines movement beautifully, that predicts that has all sorts of hypotheses on which to act. So thinking is a premotor act. And therefore we are fundamentally moving animals that move intelligently. The more intelligent our movement, the more intelligent we are as animals."
~ Rodolfo Llinás, neuroscientist
Max,
ReplyDeleteI will respond to your earlier comments (later today if I have time), but first I jump to these more recent comments:
”The second video shows that an electrical alteration to the brain makes people change their moral judgement. I don't think you got all the points from these videos. Actually I wonder if you ever watched the 2nd one; my link was not even working...”
Why is it not understandable that adding a defect to the CPU creates changes in the output, without having anything to say about the original software, much less the source of the software? I watched the video. To draw any conclusions other than “breaking or modifying the CPU or its data flow messes up the output” is absurd.
”So, if they are no defects, the same cognitive capacities are set free, but if there are, then what? The mind is still the same but restricted by this 'vilain' brain that won't let it express itself?”
Your moral judgment notwithstanding, kindly prove otherwise.
You seem to be missing the point that the experiments done in neuro-science are not proving that the mind is 100% physical; they are showing that it's not 100% NON-physical. Something you refuse to concede for some unexplainable reason...
They do no such thing. They show that the mind exercises the brain in certain regions as it does its dance across the material to non-material interface which is the brain. Blood flow is not mind, but you accept that it is for some unexplainable reason. The point you claim that I am missing is one which you add, yourself; it is not contained in the data.
”In other words, the real problem is that you think it's 100% non-physical, and you think I think it's 100% physical. But I don't pretend to be able to prove that it's 100% physical; what I do think is that each and every experiment that we have made on the brain resulted in a shift in what we usually attribute to the non-physical mind. I thus believe that the mind is NOT 100% non-physical, but rather somewhere between 100% and 0%, and I think we can prove that. I know we know that.”
If you actually know that, then you will receive international acclaim for having proved that the third First Principle is false: The Principle of The Excluded Middle: nothing can both exist and not exist, nor both be true and false simultaneously. I suggest that you do not know that; you want to know that, only. What you actually are able to claim as knowledge is that when the brain is modified from normal somehow, the mind doesn’t perform normally; there is no evidence that the brain is the mind to be presumed from such experiments.
If a bulldozer is modified to turn only left, that doesn’t mean that the operator knows only how to turn left.
(continued)
”What the study did indicate is that decisions made in the pubescent, adolescent, and young adult phase should be revisited when reaching the fully developed stage, because they probably are incorrect. This reflects greatly on Atheism, which is very commonly accepted in the developing stages of the brain, and then held as axiomatic without disciplined re-examination in the fully developed stage.
ReplyDeleteYes the study shows, among other things, what you mention. Why did you have to add an 'Ad hominem' attack. Are you getting that desperate really?”
I have data to show that to be the case, thanks to PZ Meyer. If you actually read any of this blog other than your own comments, you would know that. I will be categorizing the inputs of over 100 Atheists in the near future, but the raw data quite obviously shows that most respondents to his request for “Why I Am An Atheist” papers became Atheists as juveniles. Your charge is incorrect and not an Ad Hominem; it is fact. We are talking about the brain, its development, and Atheism. You don’t like the facts? Too bad. Like with logic, you cannot make up your own stuff, just to satisfy a personal need.
"...'But they did not and do not generate their own software.'
Some of them do! We already discussed that!"
If I failed to call bullshit then I hope to make up for it now.
Bullshit.
The only way a CPU can create software is if it comes pre-programmed to do so in on-board ROM. Pre-programmed means that someone, some sentient being, not the CPU, predetermined how the CPU was to behave. That is the point of the CMOS boot-up ROM for example: it is pre-programmed by sentient beings to boot-up the machine. Without sentient input, the CPU will just sit there drawing current and generating heat. Even dedicated controllers operate deterministically based on pre-designed logic and pre-designed instructions.
Moreover, if a CPU is allowed to create its own software for accomplishing its own ends, then it is useless as a deterministic machine for human purposes.
I think your prior example included a software trick which allowed another mechanism to supercede a go-to or jmp in order to reduce execution time. That is still deterministic, and pre-decided by external sentient beings who allow the decision to be made based on conditions known to the external sentient agent – not on conditions determined by the whims of the CPU. The CPU has neither whims nor sentience, nor does it have agency to develop whims or sentience.
Another person referred to a computer back in the 1950’s which was said to be self-modifying, but apparently never used or confirmed that feature. It was quickly abandoned in favor of other architectures.
(continued)
”No they don't become sentient and so on but that's because you push they analogy too far. Machines are not better than us but you have to be dogmatic if you think that it is impossible. It could be in 100 years or 10,000 but one day computers will be able to process much more information then us, act on it, and appear superior to us. We will have tough choices to make but that's another story...”
ReplyDeleteYou have to be dogmatic? To think something is impossible? Like, say, a mind which is not physical lumps in the brain? Good grief.
And then what you describe is not sentience, it is deterministic robotics that have superior capabilities and “appear” superior? You continue to mix things together which do not belong in the same categories.
”You show that you are dogmatic about your "software belief". You assume that parts of the mind exist without the body and start building from that belief. Again, it's a 0% vs 100% problem. We cannot explain 100% of the mind, but we know for sure, that parts of it emerge as the brain grows.”
I am definitely dogmatic about not projecting ideology onto technology, which is what you are doing. I do not assume anything. What I am trying to show you is that you do not know the things you claim to know. Let’s take your last sentence:
” We cannot explain 100% of the mind, but we know for sure, that parts of it emerge as the brain grows.”
Your choice of terminology suggests a belief with certainty: emergence. I suspect that to you this means that the mind emerges from the brain, and you claim that this is known. It is not known. If that is what you mean, then your belief is false. You project your preferred interpretation onto a situation, then claim that more is known than actually is. What is known is that the brain expands its capabilities which are then utilizable by the mind, regardless of the source of the mind.
Notice that I did not make claims for my own belief regarding the situation. Your accusation of my dogmatism is directed toward the wrong thing. The next segment might be interesting to you.
MY DOGMATISM:
ReplyDeleteI accept the boundaries of logic, and I understand the reasons for such boundaries.
I accept that truth is a dogmatic limiting requirement placed on knowledge, the purpose of which is to eliminate falseness; truth contains no falseness.
I accept that science cannot ever produce more than temporary, contingent factoids, and never truth; therefore ideology based on science cannot be known to contain truth.
I do not accept ideological extrapolations to be added to contingent factoids which are the current standards of science, which is itself contingent.
I do not accept ideologies which make claims for themselves which they cannot prove, using their own evidentiary requirements.
I specifically do not accept claims for future knowledge based on false premises regarding current knowledge, or on logically failed procedures.
According to you, not accepting ad hoc extrapolations and hypotheses as proof is dogmatic. I accept that accusation temporarily and I suggest that by not accepting logical limits to what you accept as knowledge in defense of your ideology, you are in the dogmatic pursuit of a preferred conclusion, rather than whatever would be found to be true, using the truth-bounded path of logic. Being outside the boundaries of logic, such a pursuit is irrational.
Now the reason that logical limits are considered dogmatic to you probably is based in the consideration of your view of logic. You appear to want to loosen up logical constraints to suit your needs, therefore logic is not an absolute requirement (too strict), it is a malleable tool, changeable for the current needs.
I consider logic to be essential to the derivation of whatever might be true, and I accept the findings after the logical process is completed immaculately.
Now as for dogma, my approach is to respect the process and accept the results; whereas your approach is to modify the process to produce the results you wish.
Your approach nullifies the value of the process, and reifies the desired result in advance.
When you say that a certain restriction is “too strict”, you are nullifying the value of a universally accepted process for filtering falseness and illuminating truth. Btw, they are not my processes; I did not invent them. They are logician’s processes, and I accept them because I see the value of the First Principles and the procedures which obtain.
(continued)
” So it's definitely not 100% of mental capacities that are from outside the brain material composition. Neuroscientists find more and more details about the brain that explain more and more of where our mind features come from. You are just incapable of admitting that. You prefer to fall back to the notion that if the mind cannot work at 100%, it's because it is limited by the brain, instead of seeing the obvious: the brain did not grow properly so the part of the mind that does not work properly was not built properly!”
ReplyDeleteImproper deduction. The mind not working properly does not entail that it is created by the brain. You presuppose what you want to see, not what is actual, which is limited to the inability of the mind to use a defective brain. What you have done is extrapolate, not deduce. Extrapolation goes outside of known fact, into hypothesis, which in turn requires proof. You have no proof. You hypothesize that which you wish to be the case, not that which you can prove. Then you stick to your hypothesis regardless of empirical or logical provability.
” ‘And answer this: Why are Atheists and Materialists so non-critical and non-skeptical of stuff like these videos?’
You deny that the world we observe through our senses is a fundamental reality (be it one of many or not) and you deny that in this world we can affect the physical brain in order to get result at the mind level.”
False and false. Your habit of projecting what you want to be the case is now dominating your judgment. I have never made those claims, and I would not. What I might have done, and hope that I did, is to deny that these claims lead in any fashion to a purely material mind.
”Critics is fine, and we should be critical of any videos we watch when they challenge our beliefs, but these two examples here are not in line with your belief that the mind cannot possibly be material at all. You are the one who is stuck with a dogma. It's unfortunate...”
My dogmas are for legitimate process and not for a specific outcome. I deny that you know many of the things you claim as truth. You even claim above that being critical is necessary only when an input is contrary to your belief. You have proved my point conclusively.
And again, the problem here is for you to prove, materially, your materialist belief, which is that the mind is material (forget the partial material stuff: that has no meaning. Either it is or it isn't). Here is my belief: you can't prove it, either logically or materially.
”Note that all of this is completely irrelevant anyway since the only single thing I want to convince you of in this thread is coming from the syllogism. Every thing else is just a discussion on opinions and a long, very long, red hearing that prevents the discussion on the nature of what we should believe exists or not...”
Unfortunately, your syllogisms are not actually syllogisms and are logically incorrect. I will elaborate on that later today.
(continued)
”Actually, after reading a bit more of your blog and because of the clear ad hominem attack you just used, it just struck me that this is futile to discuss with you. Thanks for your time.”
ReplyDeleteI think you do not know what an Ad Hominem is. Just because you take offense at a question does not make it an Ad Hominem. Read up on Ad Hominems. They refer to attacks on persons which are unrelated to the subject at hand in any way.
I asked for an explanation as to why Atheists and Materialists, who claim logic and skepticism, are not skeptical of data such as your videos which seems superficially to be extensible to Atheist and Materialist ideology. You did not answer, and instead accused me of being ideologically dogmatic against the blind acceptance of irrational extrapolation of factoids in support of your specific ideology.
So, why no skepticism regarding these claims? Why accept them and then extrapolate from them, unquestioningly?
This is not an Ad Hominem. It is an observation of illogical behavior and a request for reasoning in support of it.
You in fact support the claim with your response, claiming only the need to critically examine those assertions which conflict with your own view point.
I can certainly see why you want to give up here.
Now for your source, Rodolfo Llinás, neuroscientist:
” And what is it that the brain basically does ultimately in all of us? What it does is generate premotor acts, inside it generates premotor events, all that we can do as human beings with our brain is activation of motor neurons, that is the only output.”
Absolute bullshit. There is no justification for this claim.
” Ok so you have this apparatus that defines movement beautifully, that predicts that has all sorts of hypotheses on which to act. So thinking is a premotor act. And therefore we are fundamentally moving animals that move intelligently. The more intelligent our movement, the more intelligent we are as animals."
(continued)
IF [thought is a premotor act], THEN [we are fundamentally moving animals that move intelligently].
ReplyDeleteThis assertion fails twice: first, there is no evidence that thought is merely a premotor act and nothing more (an unstated presupposition); and second, the conclusion is not a subset of the assertion: motor activation is neither prior necessity or sufficiency to intelligence; it contains no intelligence, so the assertion is a Category Error.
This, Llinás presupposes to be all that there is. It is necessary, according to his conclusion, that there is nothing more to thought than premotor drive activity (unsubstantiated reductionism). So intelligence is limited to motor neurons firing due to improper categorization of the sets, containing improper causal definitions. And for proof he offers… well, his say so. Evidence = none. Why is thought merely a premotor act and nothing more? He doesn’t offer evidence, he makes an unsubstantiated claim, without either logic or science for back-up.
Thought, including hypotheses, is only motion, nothing more. Evidence? None. This is ideology by decree, accepted as an appeal to authority. In fact, it is a belief statement in the same vein as blind belief: religious dogma by decree.
This radical reductionism cum Category Error (improper set attribution of causality) is ideological, purely and simply. If you want to consider this to be Truth for your worldview, you may certainly do so. But you are not entitled to claim this as either logical or scientific, because it is not. It is, however, a good example of your belief system, it appears: you accept and present this evidence-free, logic-free assertion as presumably some sort of proof. And without critical assessment.
You will believe what you want to be true, and you will likely continue to abuse logic in its pursuit. So be it.
” Actually, after reading a bit more of your blog and because of the clear ad hominem attack you just used, it just struck me that this is futile to discuss with you."
Yes, you will find me unyielding in facing anti-logical assertions and abused logical processes. If that is a problem for you then you are right. If you want me to merely confirm your ideology, then you are in the wrong place.
"Thanks for your time.”
But certainly: you are welcome.
Do you still want an assessment of the formatting of your argument? Never mind, I'll do it anyway.
Yo, I haven't read all this yet but what definition of mind are you using?
ReplyDeleteAre you going with the standard: -conscious intelligent thought. Perception, reason, imagination, memory, emotion, attention, and a capacity for communication?
Do only humans have minds?
From what I see so far it looks like one of you is reasoning about properties of the world from the language used to describe it.
Yo, I was only asking about definitions because it was said before that:
ReplyDelete"Self = Mind.
Ok."
If the mind is the self and the self has a physical definition then the mind is physical by definition... not that the mind is a "thing"... more a process.
Anyway, from my reading, I get that Stan thinks there is an invisible non-physical dimension of minds that the brain "interfaces" with... so instead of the brain doing the thinking, the thinking is done in this other dimension and broadcast or is sent somehow to the brain "interface" which turns the messages into electricity. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Ansell, this started with a discussion of Free Will; see the left column for "Free Will". The first segment contained the definitions.
ReplyDeleteThis is Self:
"There is currently a school of denial which asserts that there is no self, that what we think of as “me”, is just a combination of belief systems and memories and other mental constructs. However, it is possible to think of those things as components of “mind”, so for our purposes here, the self will be congruent with “mind”. When the concept of “mind” is challenged, we will deal with that independently."
You said,
"Anyway, from my reading, I get that Stan thinks there is an invisible non-physical dimension of minds that the brain "interfaces" with... so instead of the brain doing the thinking, the thinking is done in this other dimension and broadcast or is sent somehow to the brain "interface" which turns the messages into electricity. Correct me if I'm wrong."
I use that as an example of an alternate explanation that has every bit as much credibility as thinking that the mind is chunks of material existence.
To claim that mass/energy gives rise to minds is a logical absurdity and is not called for under any principle of physical science, Newtonian or Quantum. And to invoke evolution is the same as invoking a deity; evolution is a placeholder word for magic: it provides zero explanation while satisfying an uncritical audience.
I don't know what the mind is. But those who make claims as if they do know, are blowing ideological smoke. It is very simple to refute their claims because they have neither logic nor empiricism on their side. Their ideology is their only knowledge when it comes to the mind.
What they wish to make these claims do is to perform another miracle for materialism. These claims are purely idological: Atheist-Materialist, neither of which is logical or empirical in itself.
There are several Materialist miracles, starting with the immaculate conception of the universe; the immaculate conception of life; the immaculate conception of intellect - all from the existence of non-material/energy in the pre-Big Bang singularity. These are absolute, post hoc requirements placed by the presupposed ideology of Materialism. And because Materialism is cant, the supporting Materialist miracles cannot be allowed to be refuted, regardless of the lack of logic or empirical support.
Thus, Atheism and Materialism are blind beliefs without evidentiary support, and are therefore blind religious beliefs in nature, and what we see here time after time is religious rationalization in support of Materialist cant, rather than pursuit of truth, whatever it is. Atheism and Materialism are shown to be irrational at their base, and do not perform as they advertise.
”A valid syllogism is not just the format you presented above”.
ReplyDeleteModus Ponens is merely the simplest and most direct. You have not been able to use that format successfully, so there has been no reason to go to the others so far.
”And yes, I know that you want me to read on the principles of logic and critical thinking. And I reply that I know them.”
Then why do you consistently violate them?
” Now on to what you actually said.
‘...keep in mind that a syllogism has a specific format; premise 2 must affirm the antecedent of premise 1...’
I would normally agree with that but from your comment below, I think disagree with your "rules" on the format and the conclusion we can then get from the various formats. .”
Whoa. HALT. Stop right there. The rules of logic are not “my rules”. Not only did I not invent these rules, I had to learn them, and I went into intellectual shutdown until I learned them, and learned why they are true, universally. These rules, like geometry equations, were discovered, not invented. Aristotle discovered most of them, and the subsequent philosophers gave them Latin names and organized them. The digital invention which you are typing on utilizes these rules in its state machines and gates. Every college teaches these exact rules in both its philosophy and engineering departments.
Claiming that I am too strict by not allowing your false format demonstrates that despite your claims, you do not understand logic, or even the purpose of logical rules. You cannot create whatever format you think works to prove your point, unless you either don’t understand or don’t care about logical restrictions on thought.
Your thinking seems to be that the “rules” need to fit your needs, and therefore you can make up rules post hoc. I suggest that you will not be able to contradict Aristotle and every subsequent thinker in your attempt to change the rules.
Surely you can see that if truth exists, it will not be changed by you or me. If truth exists it is totally insulated from any attempt to force it to be what it is not. So the search for truth, if that is what one really wishes, is the search for what is, not what one wishes. So attempts to force a path of reasoning which is goal-directed rather than truth directed will not produce truth, it will produce a rationalized wish fulfillment.
” 1) IF A THEN B
2) B is true
C) A could be true”
Premise 1 purports to prove that B is true by asserting that A is true as evidence. But premise 2 doesn’t prove B is true, it declares B is true right out of the blue, with no evidence at all. And then this unsupported declaration is considered proof that the original evidence was true. You have changed the procedure from proving B to proving A right in the middle of the process. So you have circled around and proved nothing in the process. You then claim a “possibility” that A is true, but in premise 1 you already declared that A was valid evidence.
If you want to declare a possibility, it is done by providing supporting evidence. That is the purpose of the modus ponens: “it is possible that B is true IF A is true.” A is the evidence which is supplied for support, after expressing the possibility.
ReplyDeleteHere’s what I think you actually were trying to do:
IF [B is true],THEN [A is true].
But B is a subset of A, and cannot prove all of A’s proposals because some of them are outside of B. (Unless B occupies all of A, in which case B=A resulting in a tautological triviality). This has an official fallacy name: The inductive fallacy. Here’s why:
Because [every swan observed so far is white], THEN [All swans are white].
But when Europeans finally got to Australia, black swans were found. This is the example used in many, if not all, textbooks. Declaring the truth of a subset says nothing useful about the truth of the superset.
Max, there are three insurmountable problems here. First, you seem to accept this as a perfectly acceptable process for your reasoning. Second, you claim to understand logic and not need any information or training, yet you demonstrate consistently otherwise. Third, you want to prove a favorite conclusion of yours is true and you need to violate actual logical principles to do it, so you invent your own rules.
Intellectual integrity looks for what is true; it does not declare it by any means necessary. In looking for what is true, many syllogistic attempts might be made, but when they are shown to be invalid, intellectual integrity insists that they be abandoned and other attempts made. The rules are the lines and rumble strips at the side of the road, the boundaries of rationality.
This is not your approach. I urge you again to learn the universal rules of logic, and further, to contemplate why they are valid, and why violating them is non-valid thinking, i.e. irrational.
Alright, I will comment on some of these:
”Format:
1a) IF A THEN B
1b) IF (A and B) THEN 'maybe C'
2a) IF !A THEN B
2a) IF (!A and B) THEN C
A : If the world I perceive is real
B : The world I perceive is a fundamental reality
C : My fundamental reality is one of many”
Matt,
You don’t get to make up your own formats, at least not in logic. Every if/then is a proposition which you intend to prove somehow. That’s the whole point. You have four if/then’s in a single argument above. And there’s no “maybe C” in any format. I think I know what you want to prove, but you have to do it legitimately. Let’s break them down. First the Modus Ponens legitimate structure:
1) IF [A], Then [B];
ReplyDeletehow do you prove this relationship to be true? This is an assertion.
2) [A is true];
how do you prove this assertion to be true?
C) THEREFORE [B is true]
Only after proving that premises 1) and 2) are, in fact, true.
So this applies to the first argument like this:
1) IF [the world I perceive is real], THEN [The world I perceive is a fundamental reality]
how do I prove this relationship to be true?
2) [ It is true that the world I perceive is real];
how do I prove this assertion to be true?
C) THEREFORE [The world I perceive is a fundamental reality].
Now. What we have is a valid Modus Ponens deductive argument form, with two unproven elements. When the elements are adequately demonstrated to be true, the argument can be accepted as both valid and true. (Valid and true are two different and separate considerations).
Your second argument makes a trivial statement, A & B, because A includes B, therefore A & B = B. So it becomes,
1) IF [B], THEN [ C or !C]
how do I prove this relationship to be true?
So it is stated thus:
1) IF [My fundamental reality is one of many], THEN [ EITHER (It is true that: My fundamental reality is one of many), OR (It is NOT true that: My fundamental reality is one of many)].
how do I prove this relationship to be true?
2) [ It is true that: My fundamental reality is one of many];
proved in the first argument above, after it has been fully proven.
C) THEREFORE, [ EITHER (It is true that: My fundamental reality is one of many), OR (It is NOT true that: My fundamental reality is one of many)]
So, nothing has been proved using this approach.
Repeat the complete format for the remaining two arguments and analyze for conclusions.
OK, I do have to comment on this issue:
ReplyDelete”Where A is the set of all true premises, and (!A) the set of all non-true premises. Conversely, we also have the same with A is defined as the set of all false premises. 'This premise is false' thus falls into (!A) in both cases and does not violate our definition of actuality.”
The statement, “This premise is false”, is the classic Epimenides Paradox: Epimenides, a Cretan, said, “All Cretans are liars”. A paradox is a statement that is neither true nor false, but is a fallacy of self-contradiction. It is demonstrated in two steps, thus:
IF [A], THEN [B].
But,
IF [B], THEN [!A].
This is the definition of a paradox; it violates the following First Principle: the Principle of Non-Contradiction. If it is true then it is also false, an impossible condition in western logic. It is not proof of a contrary meaning for (!A). It is not possible to use a fallacy to prove a truth.
Stan said -
ReplyDelete"the self will be congruent with “mind”."
Stan called about his other-dimension mind idea-
"an alternate explanation that has every bit as much credibility"
If self is mind and it's credible that the mind is in another non-physical dimension then you are saying that it's credible that we our selves are actually in a non-material dimension. I don't know if that really what you are wanting to say so I was asking for a definition of the word "mind".
In your "explanation" the other-dimensional minds are the puppet-masters, the brain is the string and the material dimension the puppet manipulated.
What can you show that would convince a person that this idea was credible?
Ansell said,
ReplyDeleteIf self is mind and it's credible that the mind is in another non-physical dimension then you are saying that it's credible that we our selves are actually in a non-material dimension."
Even in the "mind is an object" sense, our minds really only exist in the dimension of time. It is changes in the object: state changes in the relative positions of particles related to other particles, synaptic discharges related to other synaptic discharges, which are "mental activity". This is not the same as mass/energy itself having and producing meaning or intellect. So even under the "object" or Materialist theory of mind, the mind is not an object.
So to compare the two ideas, then we are comparing mind as existing in time only, to mind existing in some other dimension.
The credibility comment was intended to reflect on the total non-credibility of mind being generated by particle positions or biochemical electrical ion flow. Or that material agglomerates generate rational states, much less intellect. It is a second order improbability, because it is multiplied by the improbability of life (a prior necessity) being generated from minerals, or particle juxtapositions or electrical discharge from a higher potential to a lower potential.
So the comment was not a comment intended to demonstrate material credibility for the non-material mind - that would be a Category Error - it was a statement that no credibility at all is easily superceded, even if only probabilistically. And that is what I should have said, I suppose, although the other was certainly shorter.
As for puppet vs. master, the obvious difference between a corpse and a living rational person is (a) life, and (b) mind. The brain is still intact, and in your terms, in death it is a loose string.
The idea that the brain is the master renders the conscious experience to be the puppet, which is argued in a prior post in this series. It adds another level of non-credibility.
I have no intention of making a material argument for a non-material brain. But the Materialist argument is easily attacked on the basis of its evidentiary non-existence and logical non-credibility.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteFinally you went back to the actual argument... so perhaps there is something more to get from this.
The problem is that the syllogisms I have been trying to present intended to support beliefs that I thought you shared:
- I believe I exist
- I believe the world I perceive is real
Your misunderstanding of the argument makes you reject the 2nd one (and yes it's a misunderstanding from your part because your long analysis has a lot of mistakes and wrong assumptions; perhaps I should go 1 mistake at a time to make you see them? Let me know; I can write 1 single mistake in the next comment).
In the meantime, you thus appear to be what you call yourself a radical skeptic: you cannot know anything for sure except the fact that you think and exist as this thinking person. You don't have a fundamental reality to get more truth from. All the truth you can get are in your head, and your head alone; the only fundamental reality you seem to accept. Very ironic!
Max,
ReplyDeleteBy all means, show me my mistakes one at a time.
"You don't have a fundamental reality to get more truth from. All the truth you can get are in your head, and your head alone; the only fundamental reality you seem to accept."
Absolutely not the case. Why do you think this?
I have demonstrated for you time and again the places and reasons that your rationalizing violates the accepted principles of logic. Why don't you address that?
I will be interested to see your version of logic errors. However, you cannot escape your violations of actual principles.
If you do not care about or believe in the actual principles of logical processes, why is that so?
If you do care about and believe in the actual principles of logical processes, then why to you continue to violate them?
There seems to be only two possibilities here: (1) ignorance of the actual principles and their use; (2) the desire to force a conclusion despite the necessity of violating logic.
You claim to know logic. So I conclude from that that you desire to force a preselected conclusion despite having to savage logical procedures.
This is going in circles without any end in sight. It is tiring to point you to logic and have you ignore it.
I have demonstrated for you time and again the places and reasons that your rationalizing violates the accepted principles of logic. Why don't you address that?
ReplyDeleteIf you point a legitimate error, I will gladly concede it and correct it. I believe I have done that before actually...
I will be interested to see your version of logic errors.
What will be interesting is to see if you can spot your own errors; the ones you make over and over again.
However, you cannot escape your violations of actual principles.
Agreed! I wonder why you try to escape the principles yourself?
If you do not care about or believe in the actual principles of logical processes, why is that so?
You are the one who does not care; you use them to suit your own pre-conceived conclusions.
If you do care about and believe in the actual principles of logical processes, then why to you continue to violate them?
I don't; if I do, you are unable to show where accurately...
There seems to be only two possibilities here: (1) ignorance of the actual principles and their use; (2) the desire to force a conclusion despite the necessity of violating logic.
Correct, and you definitely fall into BOTH (1) AND (2) depending on the context.
You claim to know logic. So I conclude from that that you desire to force a preselected conclusion despite having to savage logical procedures.
This is going in circles without any end in sight. It is tiring to point you to logic and have you ignore it.
It is tiring for me too... so do you want to know why I replied to the lines above this one anyway?
Because it's an example of the 'Ad Hominem' you keep using.
Look at all these sentences above the one you are reading and tell me if anything is related to the actual arguments. No. You simply assert that I don't know logic and I thus decided to reply doing the same (it was all a scam; I don't care about what I wrote up here).
It's completely futile and useless. They are not direct insult per se, you don't say, 'you are an idiot!', but the usefulness is exactly the same, i.e. NONE. Hopefully this is the last time I have to point that out to you.
So let's go back to what you first said in this comment:
By all means, show me my mistakes one at a time.
I wrote:
1) IF A THEN B
2) B is true
C) A could be true
You replied:
Premise 1 purports to prove that B is true by asserting that A is true as evidence.
You are wrong; that is not the goal nor the assertion nor the assumption.
- Premise A in this case is 'the world I perceive through my senses is a perfect illusion'.
- The goal is to see if we can know A to be true or not, AND, if we can know A to be false or not.
- The assertion is that B is true : The world I perceive through my sense appear to me as being real.
This first syllogism thus intends to show that if A were true, then B would still be true, so we cannot know if A is true or not by having only B.
”I wrote:
ReplyDelete1) IF A THEN B
2) B is true
C) A could be true
You replied:
Premise 1 purports to prove that B is true by asserting that A is true as evidence.
You are wrong; that is not the goal nor the assertion nor the assumption.”
And right here at the very start you demonstrate your unwillingness to either use valid syllogistic logic, or to acknowledge your error. Your statement is both non-syllogistic, and non-valid. I have provided several times correct logical syllogistic structure; you do not use it. These are the facts. You do not like the facts, so you are insulted; that’s too bad. You cannot make up your own rules, fly them in the face of those who have studied and understand actual logic, and expect deviations into illogic to be allowed, just for you. The following are false, also, I will explain one last time why, and then this conversation is over: I will post no more of this nonsense.
”- Premise A in this case is 'the world I perceive through my senses is a perfect illusion'.”
False. The premise is this: If A is true, then B is true. The entire statement is the first premise. It says very clearly that B is true if and only if A is true.
”- The goal is to see if we can know A to be true or not, …”
False. Not the way you have written it; the way it is written the goal is to determine if B is true.
”AND, if we can know A to be false or not.”
False. A is asserted as a condition under which B might be true. B is said to be true if and only if A is true.
”- The assertion is that B is true :”
False. The assertion is that B is true if and only if A is true.
”This first syllogism thus intends to show that if A were true, then B would still be true, so we cannot know if A is true or not by having only B.”
That is tautological by examination of the faulty process. There is no mechanism within your statement which could possibly prove that A is true. I showed you a few days ago how to make a correct statement out of that, and you have not acknowledged it.
I stop right here. There is no point in continuing a discussion with you, because everything I write rolls right off and you continue to use irrational and illegal (false) formats, while charging that my corrections pointing to rational and legal formats are incorrect.
This discussion stops here. I will post no more of your comments. And good grief: Get a logic book!!! You can't make up your own rules.
I wrote:
ReplyDelete1) IF A THEN B
2) B is true
C) A could be true
You replied:
Premise 1 purports to prove that B is true by asserting that A is true as evidence
I then replied:
You are wrong; that is not the goal nor the assertion nor the assumption.
You replied:
And right here at the very start you demonstrate your unwillingness to either use valid syllogistic logic, or to acknowledge your error. Your statement is both non-syllogistic, and non-valid.
Yet you don't say why!
I have provided several times correct logical syllogistic structure; you do not use it. These are the facts.
Yes you provided other logical syllogism; that does not make mine wrong. Point out the mistakes.
You do not like the facts, so you are insulted; that’s too bad.
I am insulted when you say I don't know logic; not when you criticize an argument.
You cannot make up your own rules, fly them in the face of those who have studied and understand actual logic, and expect deviations into illogic to be allowed, just for you.
I don't make my own rules and I don't violate any here. You have not shown where the rules are violated. I understand logic, have studied it and know what I am talking about... apparently more than you even since you refuse to analyze the premises on their own.
The following are false, also, I will explain one last time why, and then this conversation is over: I will post no more of this nonsense.
Hum, I guess I should have read that first... Anyway, you will get my comments so you do whatever you want with them.
I wrote:
”- Premise A in this case is 'the world I perceive through my senses is a perfect illusion'.”
You replied:
False. The premise is this: If A is true, then B is true. The entire statement is the first premise. It says very clearly that B is true if and only if A is true.
The entire statement includes TWO premises that could be discussed separately. I cannot believe it has to go to this. That's what we call Gish gallop, right? You add more stuff, more discussion, more questions, instead of moving forward.
”I wrote:
ReplyDelete1) IF A THEN B
2) B is true
C) A could be true
You replied:
Premise 1 purports to prove that B is true by asserting that A is true as evidence
I then replied:
You are wrong; that is not the goal nor the assertion nor the assumption.
You replied:
And right here at the very start you demonstrate your unwillingness to either use valid syllogistic logic, or to acknowledge your error. Your statement is both non-syllogistic, and non-valid.
Yet you don't say why!”
Max, please listen: there are only a few valid syllogistic structures – surely as a student of deduction you know that. There are false structures, such as “affirming the consequent” in modus ponens, which is the false structure you use and insist upon the right to use. I have said this time and again, yet you continue to claim that your structure is valid.
”I have provided several times correct logical syllogistic structure; you do not use it. These are the facts.
Yes you provided other logical syllogism; that does not make mine wrong. Point out the mistakes.”
Your structure is officially a fallacy; being an expert you would know that. Fallacious modus ponens due to affirming the consequent.
”You do not like the facts, so you are insulted; that’s too bad.
I am insulted when you say I don't know logic; not when you criticize an argument.”
Max, it is obvious that you do not know what “affirming the consequent” means or the affect which it has on logic. You tell me that I am wrong to point it out to you. Yet the error is an official error; look it up. Look for modus ponens. Also look for “distributed”; these are not distributed syllogisms.
” ‘You cannot make up your own rules, fly them in the face of those who have studied and understand actual logic, and expect deviations into illogic to be allowed, just for you.’
I don't make my own rules and I don't violate any here. You have not shown where the rules are violated. I understand logic, have studied it and know what I am talking about... apparently more than you even since you refuse to analyze the premises on their own. “
And here you demonstrate that you do not use the actual meaning of the term “premise” in deductive logic. The first premise is a proposition containing two statements; the second premise is an assertion that the antecedent statement is true. That is modus ponens.
But you insist that your fallacious use is just fine, indicating that you made up something which you defend in the face of absolute refutation: look in any text book on logic. Please. Do it.
(continued)
”The following are false, also, I will explain one last time why, and then this conversation is over: I will post no more of this nonsense.
ReplyDeleteHum, I guess I should have read that first... Anyway, you will get my comments so you do whatever you want with them.”
”I wrote:
”- Premise A in this case is 'the world I perceive through my senses is a perfect illusion'.”
You replied:
False. The premise is this: If A is true, then B is true. The entire statement is the first premise. It says very clearly that B is true if and only if A is true.
The entire statement includes TWO premises that could be discussed separately. I cannot believe it has to go to this. That's what we call Gish gallop, right? You add more stuff, more discussion, more questions, instead of moving forward.”
A and B are not premises, they are statements. The first premise (a proposition) is this:
IF [(statement A) is true], THEN [(statement B) is true].
This is standardized terminology. You do not use it, nor do you seem to understand it.
Max, Gish gallop is a term meaning that all of the opponent’s errors are listed for all to see, the errors being so many and so egregious that the opponent dashes off, intimidated, shouting “Gish Gallop” over his shoulder as he retreats. This is not Gish gallop, it is a single erroneous use of structure, one which you claim supports your entire argument. Repeat, one error. You have a complete misunderstanding of the term “Gish gallop”.
I get the feeling that this is all a big joke you are playing on me, demonstrating that you can get away with wasting my time with pure nonsense. If so, have your laugh, but it is over.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteDid you not post the second part of my comment on purpose or it was lost? I always back them up since I don't trust blogger...
There are false structures, such as “affirming the consequent” in modus ponens, which is the false structure you use and insist upon the right to use.
That's not what I am doing, since in:
1) IF A THEN B
2) B is true
C) A could be true
I am not claiming A to be true, but only 'possibly' true.
I have said this time and again, yet you continue to claim that your structure is valid.
Yep, same here.
And here you demonstrate that you do not use the actual meaning of the term “premise” in deductive logic. The first premise is a proposition containing two statements...
You are correct; I used the wrong words here. My mistake!
It should have been 'statements' because they are part of a premise; you are right.
However, what you went on to say:
...the second premise is an assertion that the antecedent statement is true.
But that is not the case. They are 2 premises that stand on their own feet. I indicated that in the second part of my comment. I am NOT writing a modus ponens syllogism, because it would not work, as you keep pointing out...
I won't insist to continue as I don't know if you really stop posting these or not...
Hello again, I re-read your last comment and realize that I should have replied to that and only that:
ReplyDeleteI get the feeling that this is all a big joke you are playing on me, demonstrating that you can get away with wasting my time with pure nonsense. If so, have your laugh, but it is over.
Don't you realize that I could say exactly the same? Here I am trying to explain to you what I believe and why, starting with...
- I believe I exist
- I believe the world I perceive is a fundamental reality (one of many)
That's it. Nothing more.
Your answer? Your thinking is illogical; buy a logic book.
In other words, you pretended to be interested in hearing another point of view, yet you don't even want to start by accepting such simple starting points.
You are the one who did waste my time with your pure nonsense after all.
I have a feeling you won't post this, but at least I know you can read it. Have fun with your blog kid.
Yo Stan, did you ever answer whether you thought animals had minds or not? And what minds were?
ReplyDeleteIf mind=self then obviously animals have minds. But what I think you wanted to say was perhaps "SENSE of self" instead of "self". If so, then some animals have minds. But there I go again saying "have" minds as if minds were an object instead of a process.