The last two comments are between someone calling himself “Dr engineer” and Cephus; first, Dr Engineer:
It's amazing how aggressively irrational Stan is. It's like he's got rational thing backwards. Things aren't real until you prove that don't exist. I get a lot of people who argue like Stan in my business. In my case they want to believe they've found free engery or perpetual motion. They are always over 70 years old and are always self-taught. They own every physics book and have picked up a lot of phrases but they don't know they don't understand -because- they don't understand. They are consumed and bother me everyday.
It's likely the same case with Stan.”
Ignoring the literary errors, we see the crushing logical analysis above. Actually it has no logical analysis contained within at all, it is merely a serial Ad Hominem personal attack. One might think that a “Dr Engineer” would actually attack the argument and evidence, rather than the person. Let’s take this apart piece by piece:
(1) “ It's amazing how aggressively irrational Stan is. It's like he's got rational thing backwards. Things aren't real until you prove that don't exist.”
Ignore the double negative; he didn’t really mean that (probably). What he means is that anything which is not based on a material object is not rational. Now does he prove that claim? No, it is an empty assertion, the same as made over and over by Cephus. It is a necessary, unprovable First Principle of Materialism, and hence, Atheism. Being unprovable in pursuit of the desired result is no problem for the Atheist.
(2) ” I get a lot of people who argue like Stan in my business. In my case they want to believe they've found free engery or perpetual motion”
False analogy: intended as a Red Herring to deflect attention from the actual argument being made, onto unrelated physical fallacies. This is a common fallacy tactic of AtheoMaterialist avoidance.
(3) ” They are always over 70 years old and are always self-taught.”
Another Ad Hominem personal attack in pursuit of discrediting the source rather than addressing the argument. Also it is likely to be false, a personally fabricated deprecation. Either way, however, it has no bearing on the argument which has not been addressed, after many days of trying.
(4) ” They own every physics book and have picked up a lot of phrases but they don't know they don't understand -because- they don't understand.”
Another False Analogy and Red Herring; if there is bad logic in the argument with which they were presented, then they should address that rather than refer to other unrelated people who they deprecate. But neither Dr Engineer nor Cephus do that type of analysis.
(5) ” They are consumed and bother me everyday.
It's likely the same case with Stan”
To Dr Engineer: Prove it. Do it. Prove it. Prove that there is no rational content in the Argument. Making unsubstantiated denigrating claims is irrational and merely slander. You have not made even one rational case against the deductive argument; you merely attack the arguer; that is cheap, very cheap, because it has no rational value.
On to Cephus:
” We've talked about the similarities between religious apologists and conspiracy theorists on the podcast and they really do share most of the same characteristics. They get emotionally attached to their beliefs and therefore, everyone else has to be wrong because they cannot imagine ever making a mistake or misthinking their position. That's largely why it's so pointless to debate with them, they are unable to objectively evaluate their own beliefs. I even asked Stan, if he's asserting that the supernatural cannot be proven by any objective means whatsoever, what is it that convinced him that it's real and he sidestepped that question.So let’s address his points one at a time:
I pointed it out then and I point it out now, that's why people like Stan fail. They're not really interested in reality.”
(1) ” We've talked about the similarities between religious apologists and conspiracy theorists on the podcast and they really do share most of the same characteristics. They get emotionally attached to their beliefs and therefore, everyone else has to be wrong because they cannot imagine ever making a mistake or misthinking their position. That's largely why it's so pointless to debate with them, they are unable to objectively evaluate their own beliefs.”First, he resorts to the usual False Analogy which is intended to create a Red Herring away from having to actually analyze the argument being given: the argument is denigrated by the False Association with another, completely different and unrelated category, which is of no, or questionable, logical value. Fallacy.
Second, unlike Cephus, I have unemotionally and logically evaluated a very long belief in Atheism, a belief which is demonstrably without either evidence or logic and also is demonstrably irrational for demanding evidence which is a Category Error Fallacy and not relenting in the face of that logic error. Unlike Cephus, the deductive argument uses actual logic which is grounded in First Principles; it uses premises which are based on the current sciences of Physics and Cosmology; and it confirms the argument by using Argumentum Ad Absurdum. Unlike Cephus, when logic shows incontrovertibly that a belief is false, that finding has an impact upon my worldview, and I modify the worldview to maintain its rationality.
Cephus refuses to do that, refusing even to show the logic errors, if any, in the argument. (Actually he never even read the argument). He denigrates to the argument as “feelings”, and is satisfied with that deprecation as a logical analysis, rather than using actual disciplined logical reasoning.
(2) ” I even asked Stan, if he's asserting that the supernatural cannot be proven by any objective means whatsoever, what is it that convinced him that it's real and he sidestepped that question.”
That is a deliberate falsehood, aka lie. If my response is not there, it is because he refused to publish it. It went something like this:
“Objective” does NOT mean requiring a physical object in order that more than one person can observe it. Objective means that a concept is available scrutiny and analysis outside of the subjective space of a single person.
Even the observation of a physical object must be done via the sensory system: hence it is subjectively apprehended, and the individual analysis is done internally to the individual mind thereby being subjectively performed. The analysis is put into an argument, then the arguments are concepts which are compared for congruence and coherence.
If "Dr Engineer" were actually an engineer, he would know that this is exactly how engineering design reviews are performed. The arguments are conceptual, based on perceptions which are analyzed against certain rules, and then the analyses are put into arguments and compared for congruence and coherence.
The exact same process applies to logical analysis of a logic-based argument. Objective analysis is completely available using the rules of Aristotelian logic.
Neither Cephus nor Dr Engineer have demonstrated any knowledge whatsoever of Aristotelian logic, which is basic knowledge taught in college classes, Logic 101. Cephus has avoided the challenge of using Aristotelian, disciplined, deductive logic to prove his Atheism and his Materialism, and has rejected such logic when it blatantly demonstrates the failure of his personal theories of existence. He has called such use of logic, "feelings".
"I pointed it out then and I point it out now, that's why people like Stan fail. They're not really interested in reality."
Contrary to Cephus, I am very interested in everything which is rational, extant and true, not just what is exclusively material-only. The prejudicial use of the term "real" to mean "material" is part of the self-deception of Materialism. If their arguments were not circular and their premises were based in actual First Principles, they would not be able to deceive themselves so easily and completely.
87 comments:
I was thinking.
How would an atheist prove that there is no supernatural?
How do I prove there is?
Hi Stan, after reading the exchange at Cephus, it seems clear to me that the biggest problem is that you guys do not even try to discuss... He keeps saying 'there is no evidence', when he should stick to 'the evidence you present is unconvincing' and you keep complaining that he does not address your evidence instead of trying to explain why you find it convincing.
Back to the last thread I commented on...
"By skipping to the third challenge you handily avoided the basic argument for monotheism.
- I don't see any argument for monotheism in these 3 challenges. What are you referring to? All I see is challenges for Atheists to prove something; something they may or may not even believe in.
- My intention was to go to the most recent, thinking that it was the most relevant and/or most powerful argument you had to present. I assure you it was no dodge...
- I put 'why' in bold up there because it's the same problem here. You tell me that I avoided the basic argument for monotheism but the posts you referred me to (Challenges to Atheists) contain no such thing. Am I am missing something? I don't see any sticky post with your reasons to believe in god... point me to your post about 'why' you believe in god and I will surely not avoid it.
"reason is based on empirical observation (inductive) and contraries analysis of what appear to be universal principles, which are accepted as logic:"
Everything you wrote about reason, logic and science makes sense but I don't get what's the point you are trying to make.
Next, are the 'universal principles' limited to what you listed below?
"The principles are: Tautology: if it exists, then it exists; if it does not exist, then it does not exist.
Non-Contradiction: It cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously.
Excluded Middle: It cannot somewhat exist and somewhat not exist."
Obviously, no problem here.
"Much “reasoning” is not logic based; rationalization seems to far outweigh rationality. So logic must apply first, and underlie reasoning as its foundation."
This is very important, and I agree completely with you.
'Reasoning', if not logic bases, is not the same as 'using Reason'. The verb is still 'to reason' (unfortunately) but in this case it refers to any thinking process reaching a conclusion, but it is not using 'Reason' per se, since the thinking process may or may not be logic based and the conclusion may or may not be logically valid. i.e. the verb 'to reason' cannot be associated with 'using Reason'. The verb 'to reason' does not always refer to a logic based thought process.
"” "7. Deduce Reason From Chemistry (using empirical premises)."
I don't know how to do that.”
And yet this is something which a Materialist must accept if nothing but the physical exists."
I believe the point you implicitly made is this:
Materialists believe that humans evolved, naturally, and developed the ability to use Reason. Hence, you are trying a gotcha question about how we can link molecules (Chemistry) to simply self-reproductive molecules (Abiogenesis) to human beings (Biology) to humans using Reason.
Correct?
The problem is that each step is complex and is meaningless when it comes to Reason, a purely human affair. You asked for a broad jump between 2 completely disjoints things, as if the belief of Materialist was 'Chemistry hence Reason' Therefore, that's why I replied that "I don't know how to do that".
If nothing but the physical exists, Reason exists as a consequence of the material world existing. As you pointed out, logic must apply first, and underlie reasoning as its foundation. Logic is a statement of universal principles derived from observation. Since we, humans, observe the physical world and use logic, I guess we can say that we are the ones who bridged the gap from Chemistry to Reason. There you go!
"This is the theory of deterministic, evolved moral values, another necessity of Materialism."
Moral values, both at the personal and group level, evolved over time, yes. What's your point?
Whether the material is all there is or not has no impact on this. It's a fact. It's actually one of the facts that lead me to believe that humans created gods, not the other way around.
" Yet there is nothing else within Materialism which is not Material. If Materialism is true and valid, it is universal, and must be derived from that universal. But it is circular, as you note; therefore, Materialism cannot be a deduction, it is a presupposition only. "
It is 'not' a presupposition. The presupposition of the Materialist is that the material exists, i.e. rejection of the 'brain in a vat' scenarios. If you reject that presupposition, it means you start with the idea that the material world may be all fake and not really existing. You become the Radical Skeptic. The Materialist, on the other hand, starts with the material world to build knowledge and beliefs. Next...
It is also 'not' a deduction. It cannot be. Materialism, just like Atheism, is the rejection of something: non-material existence. Therefore, continuing from the previous paragraph, the principle is that the Materialist never gets to beliefs including the existence of independent non-material things. The Materialist does not need to deduce that 'the material is all there is', no, the Materialist simply claims that he/she does not believe that anything non-material exists outside of human thinking.
It's complicated though since things like numbers, logical absolutes, or the stock exchange clearly exist, yet have no material presence. That's where the concept of 'reduction to the material' arises, where any non-material being explained in material terms falls into the 'material' category for the purpose of existence. A non-material existing thing would need to be shown to be outside this category to falsify Materialism. You wrote some examples that I will address below...
As a side note, this is why Atheism and Materialism are not exactly the same thing. All Materialists are Atheists, but not all Atheists are Materialists. Some Atheists do believe that humans have a non-material soul, for example. This is pretty common among New Age-style beliefs system where people reject gods but keep their supernatural beliefs in an afterlife, soul and some sort of common consciousness.
" you are arguing that thoughts must be physical due to being attached to a physical substrate. "
Correct. Thoughts, human thoughts, the only ones we know of, are attached a physical substrate: the human body. No human body, no thoughts. It's that simple. I don't even know what a non-human thought would be.
" This would render the story in a book to be physical due to being attached to ink on paper. "
No, that's not why the story is 'physical'. But yes, the story is 'physical' because without physical human beings to read the story, there is no story.
" it is meaning which is conveyed by reconstruction of symbolic physical structures into non-physical comprehension. "
You just claim that it is non-physical, but I argue that it is physical precisely because a physical human being is reconstructing the meaning. The meaning is in the consciousness of the human doing the reading. It is physical.
" IF {[meaning has no specific self-contained material attributes in its own right] AND [meaning exists]}, THEN [there is non-material existence]. "
You define meaning as non-material and then claim that because meaning exists, non-material existence exists. Fair enough, but this non-material existence depends on material human beings to exists, so that still does not help your cause. Materialism still stands since the non-material existence you described can be reduced to the material.
" the concept is that the universe contains no meaning without human thought. "
That's accurate, yes. What else is meaning if not human-thought-meaning?
" But the universe is a coherent set of principles which are applied to material things; those principles have meaning regarding the behavior of the universe, and they are discoverable by intelligent beings and codable into coherent, meaningful thoughts which are transferrable as information. "
That actually support my points yes. Humans do all of that, not the universe by itself. No humans, no meaning. You seem to commit the same error I pointed out before, where you reverse the order of discovery: we create laws to describe the universe, not the other way around.
"Neither observation nor interpretation nor organization of information into codes, nor thought itself is material. None of those contains any mass/energy or space/time. "
By stating that none of those 'contain' material stuff (mass/energy or space/time), you concede that you do not understand Materialist beliefs. Observations, interpretation and any other examples you give can be explained in physical terms since humans do the observations, interpretations and so on. It is not necessary to explain how an idea is formed by these 4,000,000 electrons to make it material; that's not the point. The point is that if you did not have your human body to do the thinking, then none of this would happen.
"no amount of discussion of pre-existence of the universe being necessarily non-material, nor of rule-based existence, etc would convince you of anything"
Yes, we did discuss that before. You cannot prove that the universe is not infinite; you cannot prove that 'pre-existing' means anything with respect to the universe. All you do is asserting that there must have been 'something' before the universe existed. No deduction.
" the non-deduceablity of either Materialism or Atheism is no barrier to you "
Correct. I will repeat the same as above to be clear... The 2 are NOT deducible because they are stating a LACK OF BELIEF in the supernatural, to sum up everything in 1 category.
" you actually meant that to say “cannot be known to exist until proven.” (You are not in charge of creating any deity’s existence by means of your belief or disbelief…) But that statement has a complement: “cannot be known NOT to exist until proven.” "
Correct. Correct. However, if we cannot know either, we are justified to NOT believe and we are NOT justified to believe.
"under Materialism, “proven” means using material techniques, naturally"
Of course, there is no non-material technique to prove anything. You are a human using his brain to think about things. You share these thoughts through material media. That's material techniques.
What would a non-material technique be!?
"an Atheist must support his denial with objective material evidence: empirical data"
No. Rejecting an invalid deduction does not require empirical data. The SUBARU example I gave on another thread serves this point as well. I don't need to show you a car for you to believe that SUBARU has 3 letters is wrong. The deduction was wrong, the thought process was wrong. That's not empirical data but that's certainly material.
"the Atheist has no case for supporting his worldview, which renders his worldview as always internally non-coherent."
The problem is that you never attack Atheists' worldview. You only attack the ideas that you have regarding Atheism or Materialism. This line is one of many ad hominem attack that you use while complaining about people like Cephus who do the same. He calls you irrational without really addressing any of your claims; you accuse all Atheists to have internally non-coherent worldviews without addressing their beliefs. Atheism is a non-belief!
" our position is sometimes Atheistic, sometimes Agnostic. "
Not sometimes. It is ALWAYS both! I don't know if gods exist, hence I am an Agnostic. I don't believe gods exist, hence I am an Atheist. I don't believe supernatural things exist, hence I am a Naturalist. I don't believe non-material things exist OUTSIDE human thinking, hence I am a Materialist.
One last thing after this long comment.... I insist that there is nothing emotional here. It honestly seems to me that the emotions come from your side Stan. And by 'your' I don't mean you personally necessarily but the 'Theist' side in general. Most people are raised with the religion of their parents and never think too much about it. They become very uncomfortable when it gets attacked... that's where the emotions lie.
Hugo,
You disappear, then you come back and make a book-dump. That's ridiculous, if you want me to go back two weeks and restart in the middle of a conversation, well, that's not gonna happen. I started reading your first comment, had no idea what you were referring to, so I quit.
If you have one thing to restart with, go ahead. But I'm not going to do a whole book's worth on a long ago thread.
Disappear? Long ago? lol
I am replying to your comments left 9 days ago here:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2013/10/agw-again.html
I can copy/paste my comments there if it helps you follow :-)
Done, yw!
Ex-Republican,
To begin, the term "supernatural" has a "superman" sound to it that cries out, "comic book fantasy!"
Let's think of the contrary of material to be "non-material", and our definition of that to be something on the order of existing without mass/energy, either in space/time, or not in space/time.
There are frequently-used examples, such as qualia, intellect (mind), consciousness, animation (as in living things), mathematics, logic, the First Principles, meaning, discernment, intentionality (agency and non-determinism), quantum probability fields, dimensions 4 through 11 claimed by String ("M") Theory, theories - including the theory of Materialism, etc.
The objections to these "things" being non-material takes the form of denialism, usually. For example, consciousness is said to be non-existant because it is merely the memory of that which the subconscious homuculus has already decided and done, and then communicated to the memory. That also serves as an "explanation" for the "illusion of agency", which is attributed not to the conscious, but to the homunculus agent in the subconscious. (That just moves the question of determinism down one step, it doesn't actually solve it).
The existence of the non-material cannot be proven to the Scientistic true believer, who will assert the
"science of the gaps" position, claiming that science will someday understand and resolve all possible questions. Such people will not be convinced, ever, that non-material issues cannot be addressed by material technologies which are necessary to the testing of empirical hypotheses.
Because non-material issues fall completely outside of the purview of science, only logic and discernment are of use in their discussion, not physical testing. And that means that logic and discernment must be understood and used in a disciplined fashion.
Stan, your answer to Ex-Republican is interesting since it addresses one of the main points I was discussing in my long comments:
""non-material", and our definition of that to be something on the order of existing without mass/energy, either in space/time, or not in space/time."
If that's what your definition of non-material is, then all the examples you gave below do not fall into it. I would like to discuss them but there are many, so tell me which one you consider to be most sure about. Which one would exist without mass/energy, either in space/time, or not in space/time yet have the exact same meaning?
Most of them fall back to the same thing: material human beings think about them, hence they exist. In that sense, I agree that they are not defined by any material components, yet they exist only because material human beings do exist.
See you next week if you're interested... cheers!
@Hugo: why don't you dry up and blow away? You're back again, with your usual tricks. I give it two days before everyone here is pissed at your stubborn refusal to follow reason or rules of logic. You want what you want, and it's obvious you're bored.
As for that crack about "the evidence you present is unconvincing", you are once again full of shit. Cephus clearly stated his standards for being convinced by the evidence. It had to be material in nature.
When he was presented with the novel idea that a non-material being cannot be verified by material evidence - a Category Error - he refused to accept that it was a Category Error. That's the end of his 'reasoning' and the next step was to delete Stan's responses.
This is not open season for BS artists like you to come in and stir things up. You never had anything to contribute because you're just another raging ego and there's no shortage of those out there.
Get your sorry ass over to Cephus' blog and soak yourself in his juices. You two are of like mind. Stop wasting Stan's time. Stop wasting mine with your endless reams of nonsense. You seem to think increasing your posts makes them true.
I wish he would just ban you and get it over with. But it's his blog, not mine.
Feh!
"why don't you dry up and blow away?"
Hi to you too Steven!
You wrote comments to complain about what I write here yet did not address a single thing I write. Look, I will show you examples of how to do that:
"stubborn refusal to follow reason or rules of logic"
Give me an example and I will correct it.
" it's obvious you're bored"
I explained to you on the other thread how wrong you are about that. I like to discuss these topics and it's just a few minutes of pass time. I am extremely busy these days...
Will you correct your mistake? Of course not. You don't want to discuss, just complain.
"Stop wasting mine with your endless reams of nonsense."
I am wasting your time by forcing you to read and reply to my posts?
"I wish he would just ban you and get it over with. But it's his blog, not mine."
No problem with that. It's just talking... on the internet. Seriously...
Hugo,
Your assertion requires two truths:
(a) thought is material;
(b) objects of thought are material.
For your assertion to have any truth value, you must prove that every object of thought is a material object. Start with the empirical proof that Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot is a real material obejct. Russell's point was that objects of thought are not material unless they are proven so.
That is widely accepted, to the point of being universal, except for yourself.
Your confusion of thought (not to be confused with mental activity) of an object of thought, with actual existence is fundamental, so if you can prove that unicorns and pixies and santa clause are physical objects because they exist in thought, and if you can prove the physical existence of matrix mathematics (and many other things) you will be quite famous.
And if you can prove that thought itself, including comprehension, discernment, creativity, agency, etc, are purely material, then you will have proved that thought necessarily is deterministic and therefore has no truth value. Due to having no truth value, the "proof" that thought is material also has no truth value - a classic non-coherent paradox. The result is a commitment to total non-rationality.
Your position is actually a False Analogy, because it compares a thought to an object of the thought. Apples/oranges.
I suggest that your spare time be used in reading on these subjects.
"They get emotionally attached to their beliefs and therefore, everyone else has to be wrong because they cannot imagine ever making a mistake or misthinking their position. That's largely why it's so pointless to debate with them, they are unable to objectively evaluate their own beliefs." - Cephus
Projection?
"Logic is a statement of universal principles derived from observation." - Hugo
(1) Mere observation of what material thing(s) would create "principles" (non-material things)?
Did the law of gravity exist prior to and independent of the non-materialist thinking of Newton? Do physical "laws" of the universe exist independently of any human observer? If so, then it seems that the existence of the non-material must be accepted, thereby rendering as false the position that only the material exists. On the other hand, asserting that the physical "laws" only come into existence through the agency of human observation renders physical reality contingent, so how did any of the universe "evolve" prior to the arrival (evolution?) of the first "thinking" human being?
(2) Universal principles in what material sense?
In a purely material realm, there would be no "universals", only particular material (physical) entities, without regard to aggregation.
As a curiosity:
Does "software" exist as a physical entity?
If so, I would ask you to prove it, using any physical measuring device currently available. Yet "software" obviously exists, independently of any particular human thinking about it. You wouldn't be reading this blog without it.
Thanks for your response Stan, the condescending comment about reading more was not necessary. I will ce back to you soon.
Robert, the quote you pasted actually quoted Stan. Ask him. Rest to be addressed later.
Cheers
Hugo,
I cut and pasted the quote from your number 7, 28 OCT 2013 at 5:00pm post. I was unaware that you were quoting Stan, since there were no italics or quotes around the part of your response as given here:
If nothing but the physical exists, Reason exists as a consequence of the material world existing. As you pointed out, logic must apply first, and underlie reasoning as its foundation. Logic is a statement of universal principles derived from observation. Since we, humans, observe the physical world and use logic, I guess we can say that we are the ones who bridged the gap from Chemistry to Reason. There you go!
Regardless of the original source, I think that my comments still apply. Perhaps I'm missing something vital... If the starting ASSUMPTION (in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary)is that "nothing but the physical exists", then it seems pointless to create a chain of "logic" which arrives eventually at - the starting point. It certainly does not seem (to me) to prove that only the physical exists, since that was the ASSUMPTION to begin with. What did I miss in that paragraph?! (Any help in this regard from others will be greatly appreciated.)
Looking forward to your response to the "rest", whatever that may be.
BTW, I am in the process of moving, so I may be off the Internet for several days. Please don't take a lack of timely response for a lack of interest. Thanks!
Hugo,
My comment was not condescending, it was serious. There is considerable literature regarding the areas which you address with off-the-wall assertions like the one you made above. Which shows that you have not read anything on the subject, AND you have not analyzed your own thoughts for basic logical coherence. Which in turn means that you are just throwing out stuff which pops into your head.
That is incredibly annoying. And you don't care about that, either, you just keep doing the same thing in spades whenever you have spare time to waste.
So unless you have a carefully considered and personally analyzed position - which you have actually researched - AND - which you find to be coherent under the rules of logic, kindly don't waste our time here with it.
Robert,
You are right, it is completely classical circular reasoning, unanalyzed and just a whim which pops into his head.
You said:
"Your assertion requires two truths:
(a) thought is material;
(b) objects of thought are material."
I don't see how you get that from my 'assertion' and I don't know which 'assertion' you are even talking about. What I can say is that the two 'truths' are wrong. So it seems I agree with you.
(a) is wrong because I don't claim that 'thought is material'. I claim that 'thoughts are the product of material beings'. Humans think; they produce thoughts. That's what thoughts are. If you disagree with that, tell me what 'thoughts' are for you. Tell me what you believe and why. I see no reason to believe that there exist some other kind of 'thoughts', which is non-human.
(b) is wrong and much simpler. What we think about, objects of thought, can point to material things, or not. Your next sentences discuss that more in length.
Quote:
"you must prove that every object of thought is a material object"
I don't believe that every object of thought is a material object. Let me think... ok I am done. I just thought of a flying blue camel. I am pretty sure that does not exist in the material world. The object of my thought was not material. Again, it seems I agree with you, yet you want me to prove the opposite.
"Russell's point was that objects of thought are not material unless they are proven so.
That is widely accepted, to the point of being universal, except for yourself."
The claim is that I reject his point. I am quoting you Stan.
So if I tell you, no, I do agree with his point. What do you reply?
a) "That's not what I got from your text because of --quote--
b) (Nothing)
c) "Ok I thought that's what you meant. We agree then."
d) "According to your worldview, you have to disagree with Russell!"
Let me quote you again: "The result is a commitment to total non-rationality."
If you pick d), I think that you will hit that result you described.
"Russell's [real] point was..."
...that theists should explain why the god they think about in their head still exists if they all stop thinking about it. Defining it as existing as a non-material being (because it's the greatest-thing-you-can-think-about-which-is-greater-than-something-that-does-not-exist) is not very convincing. You said you had deduction for such god (not material evidence because that's a category error) but I don't know where to find your best line of reasoning for the existence of god. I have read some version in the past; don't remember where, but how could I know if it's your most convincing... Where is it?
"Your position is actually a False Analogy, because it compares a thought to an object of the thought. Apples/oranges."
I don't know what part you call the False Analogy. What I do know is the difference between a thought and the object of a thought, as discussed above.
Right now, in my head, I can think of 'Stan'. This is a thought that I have in my head. This particular example of a 'thought' does point to a real material object: the human being that uses a computer to write comments on the internet using the name 'Stan'.
At the same time, there are many version of this 'Stan' in my head; a tall one, a short one, a white one... They are all thoughts but no more than 1 can possibly point to the real object, Stan, and most likely none! I am bound to make a mistake when conceiving 'Stan' since I have no idea what 'Stan' really looks like. I only have a very abstract thought of 'Stan'. Even though I read a lot of what 'Stan' writes and know 'Stan' exists as a human being, the thought of 'Stan' that I have is still no more than a non-material thought that may be very far from its targeted object: the real person called 'Stan' that is reading these lines right now.
@Robert
"Did the law of gravity exist prior to and independent of the non-materialist thinking of Newton?"
No.
"Do physical "laws" of the universe exist independently of any human observer?"
No.
" If so, then it seems that the existence of the non-material must be accepted"
Even 'if so', you are confusing the 'laws' which are manmade with what they describe: the universe. Without human observers, the universe would still be what it is. The "law" of physics we know today would still work, but nobody would have thought about them yet. They are descriptive laws; based on repeatable observations of the material universe.
"thereby rendering as false the position that only the material exists"
To be clear, my position is not that 'only the material exists'. It's more accurate to say 'I only believe the material exists, or, I don't believe anything non-material exists'. All the things we label as 'non-material', like concepts or thoughts, are all human dependent and thus don't contradict Materialism.
"In a purely material realm, there would be no "universals", only particular material (physical) entities, without regard to aggregation."
If we are in a purely material realm right now, the universals you refer to are universals. Stating what you 'think' a purely material realm should look like does not make the current realm you live in non-material. We, humans, are material beings living in a purely material realm in my opinion. There are universals in my opinion, such as the laws of logic we discussed above. What's the problem? The world makes perfect sense...
"Does "software" exist as a physical entity?
If so, I would ask you to prove it, using any physical measuring device currently available. Yet "software" obviously exists, independently of any particular human thinking about it. You wouldn't be reading this blog without it."
Hum, yes, software exist physically, I don't understand what non-physical software even is?
There is something very interesting here by the way, related to language. My first language is not English, it is French. And in French we don't have a collective noun for 'software'. Everything piece of software is always refer to as an 'application' or 'a software', even though that sounds weird in English.
The point is that for me it's even more obvious that software exists as a physical entity because in my mother tongue, 'a' software is always something I can count. 1 software, 2 software, etc... In English though, the word is non-countable, like water or love, so it's easier to think about it as a general thing that just 'exists' without a real physical presence. It becomes the 'essence' of an 'application'. The lines of codes somehow makes the application have some 'software' property that's not really physical yet exist since we use software everyday.
Going back to English only... "software" is the collective noun that refer to the consequences of writing lines of computer code. What's non-material about it? No material code, no software. It's that simple.
I have been a programmer for 5 years btw :)
" If the starting ASSUMPTION (in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary)is that "nothing but the physical exists""
I don't.
I start with 'the physical exists; it's not imaginary'.
@Stan
To finish...
*****
What's below this line is a useless response to your useless rhetoric. If you don't like it, why do you keep on using it while simultaneously complaining about others doing it? ;-)
*****
"My comment was not condescending, it was serious. "
I know you are serious. I believe you, even if you don't believe me. I have no reason to doubt. You have been very consistent and I thus understand you very well. From your perspective though, things are very different. I am one of many pointless online persona who came your way so I don't blame you...
Anyway, the point is that I didn't doubt the seriousness of your post, but it does not make it less condescending. You implied the following:
- I don't think about what I write
(off-the-wall assertions)
(you have not analyzed your own thoughts for basic logical coherence)
(throwing out stuff which pops into your head)
(whim which pops into his head)
- I don't read about the things I write about
(you have not read anything on the subject)
(unless you have a carefully considered and personally analyzed position)
- I don't take the time to understand what you write
(you just keep doing the same thing in spades whenever you have spare time to waste)
Why write all these things Stan if you think I am the one wasting your time.
Instead, why not...
- Explain why what I wrote is wrong
- Explain your beliefs and why rational beings should believe them
You did neither and continue to write about how stupid you think I am, or how illiterate I am, or how my ideas just 'pop' into my head and then I shit them out to a computer screen. If it were the case, I would not have waited 9 days to have time and reply to your long previous comment... I would not have waited for that comment you are reading just now. These words were carefully chosen.
On the other hand, you did not even quote a single thing I wrote and explain why it's wrong. You just wrote what you 'think' I meant. Since it's not what I 'really' meant, you wasted your time... but I am not to blame.
Take care!
Hugo,
First I said this:
"Neither observation nor interpretation nor organization of information into codes, nor thought itself is material. None of those contains any mass/energy or space/time. "
Then you said:
”By stating that none of those 'contain' material stuff (mass/energy or space/time), you concede that you do not understand Materialist beliefs. Observations, interpretation and any other examples you give can be explained in physical terms since humans do the observations, interpretations and so on. It is not necessary to explain how an idea is formed by these 4,000,000 electrons to make it material; that's not the point. The point is that if you did not have your human body to do the thinking, then none of this would happen.”
This response is confused in the following manner:
(a) The existence of non-material entities is admitted on the one hand, where non-material entities are realized to exist by humans, and the realization itself is non-material;
(b) On the other hand, there is no non-material existence without the human, so there is no non-material existence.
This is a logical error of internal non-coherence; it violates the First Principle: Non-Contradiction. Either there is non-material existence or there is not.
Further, your emphasis on the word “contain” is confusion between the concept of “material in its nature” and “uses material nature as a carrier”. Meaning, for example, has no material component. There is no jar full of meaning, except this one jar on my desk which I will happily sell you.
This is also a denial that there exist, without human invention or intervention and prior to human existence, either rational relationships in the universe which are discoverable, or informational systems in the universe which contain meaning which is discoverable. (Both of which are necessary for science).
So, for example, mathematic relationships which are discovered do not inhere universally, they exist only in the brain, and if there were no humans, they would not exist.
Thus “two things plus three things” would not always and forever be ”five things”, unless a human with a mind exists to create that to be the case. Thus, rock and rock together with rock and rock and rock would not of necessity equal rock and rock and rock and rock and rock, because there are no non-material relationships except in the human physical existence, and equality is a non-material existence available only to humans, under your principles.
Hugo, that is absurd. Yet it is exactly your claim.
”Why write all these things Stan if you think I am the one wasting your time.
Instead, why not...
- Explain why what I wrote is wrong
- Explain your beliefs and why rational beings should believe them”
Hugo, you ignore all explanations of your logical errors. I have just given you yet another explanation just above. I predict, based on past performance, that you will not accept it.
I have explained my belief in the rules of Aristotelian logic to the point of giving classes in it. It is up to you to explain why that thought process is not necessary in your world.
By ignoring both of those things and persisting in using your own personally invented logic rather than Aristotelian, arguing under that constraint is a waste of my time. However, I would entertain a further demonstration by you where you explain and enumerate the rules of your Hugo-logic system, the rules of Materialism in Hugo-world, and an example of the disciplined argument in favor of your conclusions which is based on the overt use of your rules for Hugo-logic and Hugo-materialism. I will not reply, because I do not subscribe to those rules myself. But it would be interesting to read.
Hugo,
As a finality:
You said this:
" You just wrote what you 'think' I meant. Since it's not what I 'really' meant, you wasted your time... but I am not to blame."
Perhaps you are not expressing what you "really think" in terms which the rest of the world can comprehend. I have only that which you write to go by. If that does not contain what you "really think" and it is not your fault that such is the case, then what is the point in discussing anything with you?
If you do not think with internal contradictions, then you should not write using them, either.
I apparently overlooked something important: we seem to be discussing "Materialist beliefs." If it is a priori pointless to attempt to discuss theist beliefs (without regard to any evidence or logical argumentation), then it seems just as pointless to discuss "Materialist beliefs." Asserting a particular belief repeatedly doesn't seem to accomplish anything positive regarding understanding. Thanks for the exercise in futility.
Sorry but I have to go in the wrong order:
" Further, your emphasis on the word “contain” is confusion between the concept of “material in its nature” and “uses material nature as a carrier”. "
You quoted yourself above and you're the one who used the word 'contain':
"Neither observation nor interpretation nor organization of information into codes, nor thought itself is material. None of those contains any mass/energy or space/time."
I agree that these examples are things that do not 'contain' mass/energy and I agree that they 'exist', so this supports you point (a):
"(a) The existence of non-material entities is admitted on the one hand, where non-material entities are realized to exist by humans, and the realization itself is non-material;"
All of these labels refer to things that exist because humans came up with them. Hence, they depend on human existence to exist themselves. The material reality is thus a more fundamental level of existence than their non-material existence that we use as a framework for discussion.
"(b) On the other hand, there is no non-material existence without the human, so there is no non-material existence."
That is correct. If humans were to disappear, there would be no non-material existence as defined here.
"This is a logical error of internal non-coherence; it violates the First Principle: Non-Contradiction. Either there is non-material existence or there is not."
There is non-material existence right now because we humans exist. The problem is that you have tons of examples which are, for you, examples of things that exist independently of humans yet are considered non-material. That's where I disagree. I firmly believe that all examples you raised are reducible to the material. That's why I am a Materialist; not because I claim: 'Everything that exists is material'.
Looking at examples:
"Meaning, for example, has no material component. There is no jar full of meaning, except this one jar on my desk which I will happily sell you."
- Meaning is a human affair. No human, no meaning.
- Meaning is an abstract term; it cannot be 'in' a jar. It's 'in' your head.
- A jar can have 'meaning' for someone; let's say because it was the first jar ever bought for their house. In that case, a person would be willing to buy a jar 'full of meaning', even though it means something different of course, but that's actually the correct usage of 'meaning' in that case.
"denial that there exist, without human invention or intervention and prior to human existence, either rational relationships in the universe which are discoverable, or informational systems in the universe which contain meaning which is discoverable"
'Rational' is a human term. There is nothing 'rational' without humans being rational. That's the definition of the word.
'Information' is a human term. Even the most complex DNA molecule or the most advanced software does not recognize information as 'information' in the human sense.
Both are non-material of course.
"mathematic relationships which are discovered do not inhere universally, they exist only in the brain, and if there were no humans, they would not exist.
Thus “two things plus three things” would ...
Hugo, that is absurd. Yet it is exactly your claim."
The relationship is there, there would just be no human to call it a relationship. It would mean nothing without the human looking at the relationship. There would still be 5 rocks in your example, but nobody to count them, nobody to claim there are 2+3 rocks. The relationship, as a concept, would not exist. The 'real' material fact that there are 5 rocks would still be the same brute fact.
"I have explained my belief in the rules of Aristotelian logic to the point of giving classes in it. It is up to you to explain why that thought process is not necessary in your world."
"Hugo, you ignore all explanations of your logical errors. I have just given you yet another explanation just above. I predict, based on past performance, that you will not accept it."
You don't understand what Materialism is. Actually, the biggest problem is that you don't want to discuss what you believe and why so instead you dance around pretending that my illogical brain believes a bunch of ridiculous things.
The basis of my worldview and thus Materialism is also not addressed: the primacy of existence. You choose the primacy of consciousness for your worldview, which I think is fallacious. I raised that point before but you don't seem to understand...
Aristotelilan logic is a tool. Use the tool to prove your beliefs. But you won't, so I have no reason to believe that there is a god or that there is some non-material existence that exist independent of humans.
It simply means that I base my beliefs in what exists, or not, based on the material existence first. You, on the other hand, start with your own mind and concepts as a basis. Both yield valid reasoning for almost everything we can think of. Problems arise when you circle back on yourself and start to address what a mind is, what a mind can produce or how it is generated. In your 'primacy of consciousness approach', there is no way that you cannot exist, since you think. Hence, you conclude that you exist and that you are a non-material mind, since that's what you started with, before even acknowledging that the world is real. I don't believe you. You are physical. You are a human. Prove to me why I should believe that you have a non-material mind and then I can talk again... but you won't, since you have dodged your burden of proof enough now that it's clear you won't try again. You will probably complain like Robert that this discussion is about Materialist beliefs, which is the only thing I discuss since I am a Materialist and these are my beliefs.
Alright, we are done here... cheers!
@Hugo: you are the very definition of a complete waste of time. You talk in circles and utterly disregard any attempt to set you straight. You want what you want what you want. The end. And you alternate that with insults and slander.
With any luck, you truly ARE done here. None of us wishes to join you in your delusional state. Me, I have a garage to clean.
"Cheers", indeed.
"you are the very definition of a complete waste of time."
@Steven, you are hilarious. You waste your time by reading what I write and then write to complain that I waste your time. Just ignore buddy. Ignore and move on... Or you can actually try to support your points instead of acting as Stan's cheerleader?
"You talk in circles and utterly disregard any attempt to set you straight. "
Set me straight regarding what Steven, you do not quote anything. You just 'waste your time' by writing insults. That's all you do.
"And you alternate that with insults and slander. "
I alternate insults? Where? You guys are the one insulting me left and right,lol!
I am insulting you now yes I guess, by showing out ridiculous you are with your content-less post. But don't worry, Stan disagrees with me on Materialism/Atheism hence he will always like that you pat his back. Good boy Steven.
"With any luck, you truly ARE done here."
You hope we are done, if you are lucky? Just ignore if you want it to be over! What non-sense is that? This thread is buried down on the second page now. Unsubscribe from the emails if you don't want to waste your time! Hilarious... But again, Stan will not agree with me on how stupid you are.
"None of us wishes to join you in your delusional state."
Delusional state about what Steven? Everything you write about me is wrong and you address nothing that I write. So who's delusional here?
"Me, I have a garage to clean.
"Cheers", indeed."
Thanks for the useful bits of information.
And yes we are done here I think since Stan refuses to even come close to explain what he believes and why. Nobody else has anything to propose. Everything you write back to me are insults and rhetorical bullshit about how irrational I am. I think you missed the part where he explicitly said he was done:
". I will not reply, because I do not subscribe to those rules myself. But it would be interesting to read."
Thanks to both of you, Stan and Steven. Obviously, at least 1 of the 2 won't be able to resist and write. Let's see who wins...
"You will probably complain like Robert that this discussion is about Materialist beliefs, which is the only thing I discuss since I am a Materialist and these are my beliefs."
Hugo, my reason for investigating this site was specifically to learn as much as possible about classical logic and how to use that logic correctly (without committing logical fallacies). In an exchange with my oldest son (an avowed atheist or agnostic - it is never quite clear which he self-identifies as), he used similar assertions to your own, violating the basic "laws" which I knew from classical logic: (1) the "law" of identity; (2) the law of non-contradiction; and (3) the law of the excluded middle. I presumed that he "might" have a better grasp of post-modern logic, which might (somehow) have superseded the classical laws of logic. In my investigations so far, I have found nothing which negates or supersedes the classical laws of thought.
If two parties are not in agreement as to the fundamental laws of logic to be used as the basis for reasoned discourse, then it should be obvious that there will never be any common ground upon which to base a discussion. Hence my conclusion that continuing this conversation is an exercise in futility. I meant nothing offensive to you per se.
I am reminded of the story regarding "Turtles all the way down." Here's a version from Stephen Hawking:
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's tortoises all the way down!"
Hugo,
I will take several of your comments and then do a summary of where this conversation stands.
1. Embedded in your comment is this:
”You don't understand what Materialism is. Actually, the biggest problem is that you don't want to discuss what you believe and why so instead you dance around pretending that my illogical brain believes a bunch of ridiculous things.
The basis of my worldview and thus Materialism is also not addressed: the primacy of existence. You choose the primacy of consciousness for your worldview, which I think is fallacious. I raised that point before but you don't seem to understand...”
I understand perfectly well what Materialism consists of, and it is not “primacy” as you claim, it is this:
Everything is physical
From plato.stanford.edu:
The interpretation question asks:
• What does it mean to say that everything is physical?
The truth question asks:
• Is it true to say that everything is physical?
These are not primacy issues, they are totality issues, with no secondaries.
Now your next objection is a standard Red Herring:
” Actually, the biggest problem is that you don't want to discuss what you believe and why so instead you dance around pretending that my illogical brain believes a bunch of ridiculous things.”
As has been pointed out numerous times, this blog is not about my beliefs, it is about Atheism, and what Atheists can prove to be true and valid regarding their own worldview and belief set.
However, you have been given a chance to address the Challenges in the right hand column, and your response was to skip the first two, and then claim that there was nothing in the third to discuss. So I then gave you a specific deduction which was presented in the Challenges. Have you addressed it? If not why not? Is it because you do not want to defend your Atheism, and would rather attack whatever you think my personal beliefs might be? If so, then go find some other venue where you don’t have to defend your Atheism/Materialism.
” The basis of my worldview and thus Materialism is also not addressed: the primacy of existence. You choose the primacy of consciousness for your worldview, which I think is fallacious. I raised that point before but you don't seem to understand...”
Again, primacy is incorrect; Materialism claims physical things are the Totality of existence. And I do not claim consciousness as “primacy”. My original, waaaay back then position, if that’s what you are referring to now, was that your claim to knowledge starts with exclusivity for mass/energy existence, while actual knowledge requires mental acuity first in order to apprehend/compare/discriminate/decide/place in memory (similar to John Locke’s position in Treatise on Human Understanding). My position progresses from how knowledge happens to what can be known. Your position progresses from a declaration of what exists to a declaration of what exists. You were pointed to your circularity, which you now attempt to turn back on me (completely unsuccessfully).
2. You said,
” It simply means that I base my beliefs in what exists, or not, based on the material existence first. You, on the other hand, start with your own mind and concepts as a basis. Both yield valid reasoning for almost everything we can think of. “
No, actually they do not. Your argument starts and ends with physical existence (circular), which you justify by using mere denials. That is a consistent part of your thought process.
3. You said,
” Problems arise when you circle back on yourself and start to address what a mind is, what a mind can produce or how it is generated. In your 'primacy of consciousness approach', there is no way that you cannot exist, since you think. Hence, you conclude that you exist and that you are a non-material mind, since that's what you started with, before even acknowledging that the world is real. I don't believe you. You are physical. You are a human. Prove to me why I should believe that you have a non-material mind and then I can talk again... but you won't, since you have dodged your burden of proof enough now that it's clear you won't try again.”
This is the kind of crap that makes trying to have a discussion with you merely annoying.
First, my argument is nothing like you describe it.
Second, I have never denied the existence of the material world; I have, though, pointed out the use of indiscriminate radical skepticism which you use to avoid any conclusion which might be inconvenient to your worldview. For example, your Category Error demand (born out of your Category Error belief in physical existence only) in which you demand that I prove to you, materially of course, since all existence is Material until you, Hugo, say otherwise, that my mind is non-material.
It should not need to even be said that brain and mind are not referring to the same “thing”, since one of those is material and survives death to the point that it can be put in a jar or sectioned for analysis as was Einstein’s brain. On the other hand, Einstein’s mind cannot be put under a microscope, because it never, ever was merely mass/energy responding to prior states of mass/energy existence as does all mass/energy which is not controlled by the non-physical agency of a non-physical mind.
If mind and agency are physical things, then they violate the First Principles, all of them, but especially the Law of Non-Contradiction (since it can both exist yet not exist materially), and the mind violates the principle of Cause and Effect by creating (at a minimum) motion which is not pre-determined by position, inertia, impact and gravity as are all mass/energy motions (Bertrand Russell, “Nine Lectures on Mind”). So if the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of Cause and Effect are falsified by such physical, material things, then neither rationality nor science nor cogent arguments can exist.
Apparently you are here to demonstrate the latter (non-cogent arguments), in defense of the former (strictly material mind). But it doesn’t work that way, because there are actual rational reasons to believe in rationality, and hence the First Principles of Rational Thought, especially the Principle of Non-Contradiction.
Thus it is up to you to demonstrate the congruence of your demand with the First Principles. Or explain why you have no Burden Of Proof.
4. You said,
” Aristotelilan logic is a tool. Use the tool to prove your beliefs. But you won't, so I have no reason to believe that there is a god or that there is some non-material existence that exist independent of humans.”
That is a lie, straight out. You avoided the Challenges in the right hand column, and now you deny what exists in them. You have been provided disciplined deductive arguments, with grounded premises based in current physics and cosmology, using valid deductive structure.
Hugo, that really pretty much tears it for you, yet again. Not only do you avoid addressing the argument, you make false claims like the one above.
Let’s get one final thing straight: Aristotelian logic is a model of the rational universe, and is used to compare human concepts to the rational, universal principles which inhere. Slipping out of those principles and into other thought processes produces a chaos mentally just as if the universe itself slipped out of those principles and started to behave chaotically.
A person does not choose chaotic thinking because it is rational; it is not rational: it is irrational. There is some other reason to choose chaotic thinking
The Kalām cosmological argument utilizes Aristotelian logic in a rather pure form.
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
Premise 2: The universe (which includes everything physical and all relationships between physical entities, whether known to humans or not) began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, something must exist as that cause, which cannot be physical (otherwise, it would exist inside of and as part of the universe, and thus have no causal relationship to the universe as a whole).
This establishes at least one non-material cause which does not exist merely as the thought process of one or more human beings, considering that the effect (the universe) of that "first cause" necessarily precedes the existence of any and all human beings.
I'll forgo detailing any implications which are secondary to the basic argument regarding possible attributes of this "first cause" (such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc.) Specifically, I'd rather avoid (at this point) any consideration about whether this "first cause" is a "First Cause" (i.e., a "god" or God).
Please do me a favor and do not modify the syllogism as is typically done by atheists, to wit, that "Everything that exists has a cause." The usual atheist retort (based on the incorrect form of premise 1) is "If everything must have a cause to exist, then who (or what) created that specific cause (thereby creating an infinite regress)?"
If you cannot defeat this argument using Aristotelian logic, then I submit that this is a proof of the existence of at least one non-material entity, thereby invalidating your claim that the material (physical) is all that exists.
@Stan: our pal Hugo has trolled here in the past. Did you get rid f him, only to let him back in to tie up more of our time with meaningless twaddle?
Look, I get the idea of needing an emotional atheist off which you can riff. Fine. But it's like watching a scientist attempting to reason with a monkey whose best argument is flinging a handful of shit.
The scientist (and his fellows) wipe the shit off their faces and begin trying to reason again. It's just a matter of time until Hugo drops another deuce and starts the whole thing over again.
For pity's sake, it isn't even new stuff. He's just recycling from within his pocket universe.
Steve
@Steven
You're the one who sounds like a troll... 3rd time now?
Stan and Robert made some good points that I will address once I have some time so that it's not just a 'bubble in my head'.
If Stan wants to ban me, no problem, it's his blog, not yours.
Descarte's "Cogito ergo sum" (Latin for "I think, therefore I am") seems to have more than one possible interpretation with regard to the mode of argumentation shown in some of these comments.
The traditional (original?) interpretation of Descarte is that if something (rather than nothing) is "thinking" (whatever that might turn out to be), then that something must exist in order for it to be "thinking." This speaks to the primacy of existence: no existence, no "thinking."
If I understand the mode of argumentation that "thinking" is only done by human beings AND is purely physical (by virtue of being done derivatively by a physical being), then Descarte's dictum would seem to have an alternative meaning: Because something is "thinking", it brings into existence the "something" that is thinking, which did not exist prior to the "thinking." "I think, therefore I create my own existence." (I have no idea how to express that reformulation in Latin.)
This second mode appears to me to be the proverbial creation of "something" from "nothing." "Nothing" has no causal power to create ANYTHING. Therefore, it seems to me that this second mode of thought is logically incorrect. (I'll forgo any attempt to determine which logical fallacies might be involved.)
I think (therefore I choose to think that I exist ;+) ) that the idea that non-material entities (mathematics, logic, etc.) only come into existence through human agency is fallacious.
There is a distinct difference between "discovery" (coming to knowledge of what already exists) and "creation" (bringing into existence that which previously did not exist). All empirical science is focused on "discovery" of natural relationships and properties of physical matter. That knowledge is then used to combine already existing physical entities into new entities ("creation" through recombination, not creation ex nihilo). That physical "laws" exist a priori to "discovery" by a human being does not entail either "creation" of those laws at the moment of "discovery" nor does the existence of those laws depend on the a priori existence of human beings.
To give a silly example, if gravity did not exist prior to Newton's formulations, then how did Newton avoid flying off into space?
Here's an amusing little joke along these lines:
God was once approached by a materialist who said, “Listen God, we’ve decided we don’t need you anymore. These days we can clone people, transplant organs and do all sorts of things that used to be considered miraculous.”
God replied, “Don’t need me huh? How about we put your theory to the test? Why don’t we have a competition to see who can make a human being, say, a male human being?”
The materialist agrees, so God declares they should do it like he did in the good old days when he created Adam.
“Fine” says the materialist as he bends down to scoop up a handful of dirt.”
“Whoa!” says God, shaking his head in disapproval. “Not so fast. You first create your own dirt.”
(Please forgive me for substituting "materialist" for "scientist" in that joke; it just seemed apropos vis-a-vis our current discussion.)
Premise 1: Only material (physical) stuff exists.
Premise 2: Any non-material (non-physical) stuff that exists is derived indirectly from the existence of physical (human) beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, only the material (physical) exists.
If I am not mistaken, premise 2 is at least implicitly accepts that non-material entities exist. That those non-material entities exist provisionally (indirectly) as the result of human thinking does not change the existence or non-existence of those non-material entities. In the question of "existence versus non-existence", the law of the Excluded Middle applies: it is either one or the other, and cannot be both in the same sense at the same time. How a particular entity came into existence is not the proper question and is not germane to the question of existence versus non-existence.
Since premise 2 accepts the existence of non-material entities, the conclusion is obviously false and does not follow from the premises given.
Have I worked my way through this properly? If not, please lay out the steps in a syllogism so that I can try to understand it.
Well, let's see.
Premise 1 cannot be proved, either emprically or logically, so it can't be asserted as a truth claim or used as a logical premise.
Premise 2 also cannot be proved, either empirically or logically, so it also can't be asserted as a truth claim or used as a logical premise.
It's hard for me to get past those defects so that second order issues can be addressed.
I should add that the first premise should be the conclusion; valid premises must be found which support the conclusion:
IF [ X ], THEN [There is no non-material existence].
What principle, X, would prove the conclusion?
Thank you for your elucidation of the fallacious "reasoning" that I gave above. The syllogism is mine, not Hugo's. I take ownership of it simply to avoid an accusation of putting words into his mouth.
I was trying to capture the sense of the "argument" (actually, the assertions) used by Hugo, to wit, that only the material exists. Perhaps I misunderstood or failed to accurately convey the sense of his argumentation (assertions). I'm sure he will correct my misunderstanding or misstatement of his position.
This is the same problem that I had with my son. He would make dogmatic assertions. When confronted with the lack of proof or the internal contradictions of his assertions, he would either (1) change his assertions, (2) engage in ad hominem attacks, or (3) reject (without any logical reason[s] given) any logic argument which did not conform to his assertion that he was just being "logical and scientific" (and I was not because I "didn't understand logic") and that everything he stated WAS "logical" because he defined anything he said to be "logical". (Talk about circular reasoning!) I thought that assertion was rather uninformed (and patently false), since I am trained in both electronics and software as an engineer, and have been a professional in these fields since 1968 (when he was born). I guess he couldn't grasp the idea that I might have studied things before he was born, since "history" (actually, "his story") didn't begin until he arrived on the scene.
Robert,
I did understand what you were trying to do; it's just that the argument fails right at the starting gate.
I can't know the exact status of your son, but I do know the following regarding the Atheists I have encountered here.
For those with ideologies to defend, emotion rules in the form of (1) rationalization, where the conclusion is presupposed "truth", and premises are sought in order to defend the "truth" (a form of anti-rationality); (2) avoidance, to stop the attack on their presupposed "truth" claim. As you point out, avoidance has many forms, from denial of rational authority of counter claims (or the claimant), to changing the subject with Red Herrings, to running away altogether; (3) Ad Hominem, as you say, where rhetoric takes the conversation out of the realm of disciplined Aristotelian logic.
With Hugo, the tactic is to make truth claims and then to deny any logic fallacies which are pointed to in his claims. The resistance to demonstrated logic is irrational and therefore it is emotional.
The issue with your son is not a rational issue, it is most likely an emotional need in his life which is satisfied with an attachment to a self-satisfying ideological position.
Atheism is a carrot/stick ideology, which is pulled by the carrot of the self-perception of elitism due to the claim of possessing logic and evidence, and is pushed by the need to escape from having to comply with external authority, from moral authority to intellectual authority.
The newly minted Atheist experiences a euphoria at the sense of personal elitism on one hand, and the escape from hated authority on the other hand. They experience freedom, and personal exaltation. (Hence the term "free thought").
When someone is personally self-endowed with elitism, self-perception of superior intellectual prowess, and self-endowed personal moral-authority and logic-authority, there is an emotional attachment to that new, powerful self-image which is stronger than real logic.
The placing of the self into the positions of determining both morality, and determining what are the principles of logic (his own logic) renders the person so self-oriented that it produces a sort of egomania that resembles narcissism, especially in the sense that the person sees absolutely no problem within himself - the problem is in everyone else. Thus there is no treatment, because the person cannot/willnot admit that there is a problem.
You'll have to decide if or how this applies to your son: it might not.
One thing to possibly consider trying is to point out that "you are having an emotional reaction, not a logical argument" while maintaining your own cool. Then let it set for whatever time it needs to percolate. There is the possibility that this approach would produce an unanticipated consequence though, because stating what is true might be perceived as an attack, and produce an even worse emotional attack.
The issue is not an easy one to see a solution for.
Robert,
I remember discussions with Atheists who actually claimed that logic is just a mental device to come up with whatever conclusion is wanted at the time, so logic is not a path to knowledge.
Most Ideologists who lay claim to logic have never studied it. They have no concept of how to make their own ideas congruent with rationality. So they merely declare them rational, and emotionally fight off attacks by disciplined logic with rhetorical dodges which easily become heated.
Stan, thank you for your gracious analysis. The exchange between my son and I ended by mutual agreement because he had insufficient time (with work and a new son) to think about and respond to my arguments. Sadly, I suspect the subject will never be discussed again between us.
I appreciate your time in responding. Thank you!
Robert,
In looking back into my own situation, there was nothing that my own parents could do or say that would have influenced me. I am grateful for the freedom and grace they allowed me, so that I could make my own way through the maze. It took me a verrrrry long time, but no one else could have done it for me.
To Hugo (and anyone else who likes a challenge):
Part 1:
I copied the following interaction in order to have it juxtaposed to my further response.
~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~
"Does "software" exist as a physical entity?
If so, I would ask you to prove it, using any physical measuring device currently available. Yet "software" obviously exists, independently of any particular human thinking about it. You wouldn't be reading this blog without it."
Hum, yes, software exist physically, I don't understand what non-physical software even is?
There is something very interesting here by the way, related to language. My first language is not English, it is French. And in French we don't have a collective noun for 'software'. Everything piece of software is always refer to as an 'application' or 'a software', even though that sounds weird in English.
The point is that for me it's even more obvious that software exists as a physical entity because in my mother tongue, 'a' software is always something I can count. 1 software, 2 software, etc... In English though, the word is non-countable, like water or love, so it's easier to think about it as a general thing that just 'exists' without a real physical presence. It becomes the 'essence' of an 'application'. The lines of codes somehow makes the application have some 'software' property that's not really physical yet exist since we use software everyday.
Going back to English only... "software" is the collective noun that refer to the consequences of writing lines of computer code. What's non-material about it? No material code, no software. It's that simple.
I have been a programmer for 5 years btw :)
~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~
Part 2:
Before getting into discussion, there is a clarification I'd like to point out regarding the English use of "software." There is the possibility of being specific (i.e., counting 1 copy of Internet Explorer, 2 copies of Internet Explorer, etc.). There is also a generic possibility using the category "software" as a descriptive phrase, somewhat in the same sense as specifically counting human beings (1 Hugo, 1 Robert, 1 Stan, etc., giving us three specific instances of "man") and the generic term "man" (more correctly "mankind," but then the feminist contingent might excoriate me for that male chauvinist terminology!) I only have one year of French lessons from high school, which was approximately 50 years ago, so I'll take your word for it that there is no French word which can generically refer to "software" as an aggregate generic category. I find that somewhat surprising, though.
For the purpose of my original question, it does not matter whether you want to consider a specific "application" or "program" instance or the generic category "software."
There is an assertion that "software exist physically." If that is a true statement, then it should be possible to demonstrate that physicality by measuring it. Let's agree to leave aside the ridiculous (such as a scale for measuring weight, or a ruler for measuring length); I think that we can agree that those tyoe of measuring devices are not applicable. There are electronic devices (voltage meters, oscilliscopes, logic analyzers) which are capable of measuring electrical signals within digital circuits. I don't think we will have any disagreement that the modern digital computer hardware is completely physical. Given your assertion that "software exist physically.", it should be possible (at the bare minimum) to use one of the accepted physical measuring devices to measure that physical entity thereby "proving" its existence, regardless of the aggregation referred to as "software".
Part 3:
My specifc challenge is to measure (and thereby "prove") the physical existence of "software" (in either the generic or specific sense) anywhere within the hardware of the computer using the standard physical measuring devices. (If you know of another physical measuring device that you would prefer to use, please feel free to use it.) I will go so far as to allow you to pick any memory cell at random within the processor's RAM, measure it using any one of the aforementioned physical measuring devices and tell me what subcategory of "software" is contained within that memory cell: is it an instruction (or part of an instruction), data, or garbage? There is no requirement to identify the application or program that is associated with the contents of that selected cell. There is only one restriction: that you NOT "cherry pick" a memory cell which has a predefined meaning known to you, such as the first memory cell in ROM.
Please don't attempt to evade the request for empirical results by asserting that "software" is merely the source code. As a programmer, you are well aware that symbolic source code is not executable. (Even if it is loaded as data, as for instance within an editor program, you still cannot determine the physical nature of it by examination of the contents of a memory cell. To conflate the source code representation with "physical software" is to confuse the map with the territory.
Since you gave your background, here is mine:
I started in this field back in the era BEFORE digital computers became ubiquitus. I began work as an electronics technician on analog flight simulators. I redesigned the circuitry of a twin-jet utility aircraft (Lear jet) simulator to simulate a Boeing B-52. The first digital computer that I wrote programs on was an IBM System 3, which used punch cards to enter programs and data. I wrote maintenance diagnostics programs and language translators. I designed and wrote one of the first disassemblers for the Radio Shack TRS-80. I continued in the field up until 2004, when I retired. At the time of retirement, I was proficient in approximately 35 different computer languages, including everything from raw machine code up to 4th generation languages such as SQL. Two large-scale examples of things I have done: (1) I designed and wrote a complete suite of applications to find and eradicate Year 2000 problems, regardless of the source coding language. (2) I designed the U. S. Federal government IRS Excise Tax database system.
Good luck with your measurements!
Robert,
This should be interesting.
Hugo: "Nobody else has anything to propose."
Hmmm, I have proposed two different things for you to consider: (1) the Kalām cosmological argument, and (2) the "Prove that software is physical" challenge but haven't seen either of those addressed by you.
I've made no ad hominem attacks on you or any of your "arguments" (and not even attempted to identify or address the logical fallacies inherent in your argumentation).
I am presuming that you have had insufficient time to reply. I am eagerly awaiting your response; I hope I am not waiting in vain.
Got eye surgery, no more glasses!
Won't be back for a little while.
I wish you a speedy and successful recovery! Thank you for the status update.
Hugo:
How is your vision after the surgery? I hope all is going fine for you.
Are you still interested in responding to this thread, or have you lost interest? Just checking to see if this comment thread is still "live"...
Stan:
As a result of your latest post (referring back in time), I was browsing through the "http://atheism-analyzed.net/", specifically "BOOK 1: Handbook of Logic and Rational Thought ©" and found the following in section 1.4 What are Human Thought and Consciousness?:
Computers, in fact provide an interesting comparison to the brain / mind. A computer is actually an accumulation of circuits: wiring, gates, and components that are energized
electrically. However, without software, the circuits do nothing but bind up into an incomprehensible state. In order to function, a computer requires two more intangible additions to the tangible, physical circuitry. It needs resident start-up software, permanently installed within the circuitry. And it needs functional software added after the machine has started and lands in a rational state of readiness. Without the intangibles of the two types of software, the computer is merely, as they say, good only for a boat anchor.
I think this illustrates the classical distinction between potentiality and actuality quite nicely. Just as the circuitry has potentiality within its physical structure, it still requires actualization with an intangible (software) in order to achieve the synergistic effect to become a computer. No software, no computer, only the potentiality to become a computer. In like manner, the mind/soul is required in order to bring to life the physical body. When the animating mind/soul is not present, what remains (the physical body) is merely the potential for being human, but is not fully human.
Thanks Robert, vision is great now but recovery is longer than expected for 1 eye. Definitely still interested in discussions; I don't intend to turn off email notification... However, even shorter on time than before, for multiple reasons, and I do want to think about what I write so I don't know when...
1 thing that's quicker to address is the 'emotional' aspect. It really makes no sense to me to be called 'emotional' with respect to Atheism as I don't see why I would 'want' for gods not to exist, nor do I have any emotional reason to reject religion or the Christian God I grew up with. I got nothing against people who believe nor the gods they believe in since I just don't believe they exist outside of their minds. A lot of people do reject/accept gods for emotional reasons but I personally don't fall into that category, just like you 2, according to what you write here at least. To be even clearer, I can think of at least 2 categories of emotional Atheists, the 'rebellious teen' who reject the family tradition and the 'drama survivor' who stops believing after a tragic event they think a god would not allow to happen. Both have wrong reasons to not believe...
Cheers
Hugo:
Thank you for replying. I'm sorry you're having problems with recovery for the 1 eye. I hope it will recover fully and quickly.
I'm glad you are still interested in responding. I didn't want to push the issue; I just wanted to make sure I wasn't wasting my time waiting for your reply.
I'm not sure what to think about the "emotional" aspect vis-a-vis atheism. I do know that some atheists become very emotional and vitriolic in their responses when challenged. I have had the same experience with some of the "true believers" who have never closely examined their own beliefs. Rather than examine the basis for their beliefs (logical or otherwise), they would rather attack anyone who disagrees with their worldview, without providing any logically based justification for that worldview. IMHO, that's not a very good way to increase one's own understanding, and certainly does not help others to understand that worldview.
The chain of reasoning (based on the First Principles of logic) is of utmost importance in arriving at various conclusions. If one does not accept the axioms of logic a priori, then no rational discussion is possible. If there are flaws in the individual steps, then the conclusions will be erroneous, regardless of how well stipulated the "arguments" might be. There also seems to be a heavy reliance on rhetoric (rather than logical principles) in arguments about theism versus atheism. Perhaps that is the meaning of the reference to the "emotional" aspect of atheism.
I rejected the very concept of God after being raised in a very loving Christian home. I did so on an emotional basis: some of the people who were supposedly the best examples of "good" Christians were some of the worst people I've ever seen. Not in the same category as murderers, rapists, etc. but they could lie and backstab with the best in the world. I also was completely turned off by the dictatorial approach "Believe it because I said it; otherwise, you are going to rot in hell." I'm not sorry, but my mind doesn't work like that, and I despise coercion.
It was only after a long and circuitous route of study (through atheism and Eastern religions) that I came back to Christianity. Along the way, I found that there are very good arguments in favor of the one creative intelligence. That didn't bring me all the way back to Christianity, but it did provide sufficient reason to accept (at a minimum) the Deist position (and to thereby contradict the atheist position). Dr. Antony Flew's book "There IS a God" had some very powerful arguments in it. The remainder of the journey took me through several contemporary philosopher/theologians, who provided a completely rational justification for a belief in a personal God. Surprisingly perhaps, it was NOT a study of the Bible or commentaries on it which convinced me, but reasoned arguments. It took quite a lot of time to search out web sites (like this one) where the emphasis was on using logic properly from First Principles, rather than an appeal to emotion as the basis for faith.
Opposing viewpoints (such as yours) are always helpful in sharpening one's understanding of the philosophical issues.
Hugo:
Are you still thinking about a response? I'm just checking...
I'm re-reading a very well written book:
New Proofs for the Existence of God - Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert J. Spitzer
ISBN 978-0-8028-6383-6 (pbk)
The physics chapters are WAY over my head, but still understandable by a layman. The metaphysics is much more accessible (to me).
Highly recommended if you're interested in some very good argumentation in the Scholastic tradition, combined with a very readable collection of the results of modern physics in establishing the reasonableness of the theistic position.
Hi, still thinking? yes and no... I am always thinking and reading when I have some free time, but I won't take the time to sit down and write something anytime soon unfortunately... you will get an email updated anyway so it does not really matter how long it takes, doesn't it? ;)
Actually, I did start a response on my phone the other day when I was waiting for something. I decided not to post it, as it was incomplete, but I guess I can copy/paste it here anyway and maybe take a few minutes to complete it...
***************
First, this quote is very good; I would say the same:
"Opposing viewpoints (such as yours) are always helpful in sharpening one's understanding of the philosophical issues."
Regarding logic and first principles, I agree completely, but I think it's a distraction. Whatever is true is true, it cannot be both true and not at the same time, it cannot be neither. But what do we do when we disagree on what's true? We need to bring up more facts and true statements. So what really matters is how we determine their truth value.
Going from bottom to top, the first example I see is the computer-software analogy to discuss the body-soul issue. If we want to address the question of whether the soul comes entirely from the material body or not, it is question begging to say that a non-material soul is needed for a body to be alive. So if we start with the notion that the soul is necessarily non-material, we accomplish nothing... This is what I get from a sentence like this: "the mind/soul is required in order to bring to life the physical body. When the animating mind/soul is not present, what remains (the physical body) is merely the potential for being human, but is not fully human." to me this is an example of a non-true statement. It could be true, but I don't see any reason to believe it, and I cannot prove that it's false.
I think a better starting point is simply this: either consciousness is 100% material, or not. If it is, humans have "souls" only because they have a body. If you start by claiming that a body 'needs' an immaterial soul to be alive, you start with your conclusion that the soul is what gives rise to life, within a body. You essentially shut the door to the possibility that the soul is actually nothing but the result of a living body. There is no argument; just an assertion.
One of the main reasons (perhaps THE main reason) why I consider myself a materialist is because I don't see reasons to believe there more to the soul than what we understand by interacting with humans, which have physical bodies. Souls are nothing more than consciousness; what humans experience when their body is alive. Not the other way around. It's possible that consciousness somehow survives the death of the body, in the form of a non-material soul, I just find it unlikely and see no evidence convincing me that souls do survive. In other words, I consider souls to fall under the category of 'material' since they are the product of a material body. They are immaterial for practical purposes only: we discuss immaterial thoughts, feelings, abstract concepts, etc, all the time, but if they are coming from a physical body, they still support materialism.
***************
You see, simply re-reading these short paragraphs and trying to make sure I write everything clearly took me quite some time, and yet there will surely be disagreements and misunderstandings because our positions are so different on this topic... and I probably made at least 1 mistake I did not spot... *sigh* ... I like it but it takes too much time!
Cheers,
Hugo
Hugo:
Thank you for taking the time to pass along your preliminary thoughts.
I'm not in favor of making an analogy between computer and human on the obvious basis, i.e., physical = body = hardware; non-physical = mind/soul = software, where "=" means "equivalent" (in some [hopefully] relevant sense). I was not trying to make use of that analogy in this challenge:
Measure (and thereby "prove") the physical existence of "software".
I was trying to determine the logic used for deriving your assertion that "only the material exists." It appeared (perhaps only to me) that it was simply based on an a priori belief in the truth of materialism, rather than a position arrived at through logic, beginning from First Principles. A simple physical test should be all that is required to "prove" (at least in some relevant sense) that "software is physical." On the other hand, if such a physical test cannot be devised (even in principle), then it appears (again, perhaps only to me) that it must be conceded that "software is NOT physical", which makes the original assertion ("only the material exists.") to be incoherent (contradictory).
That appears (to me) to be a much simpler (and earlier) issue to resolve before trying to determine the analogic relationship (if any) between mind/soul/body vis-a-vis computer hardware/software.
Given that we are both programmers, I think we both are in agreement that "software exists." The germane (not German) questions I have asked are: (1) Is it physical or is it non-physical? (2) If it is physical, can you prove its existence inside any physical memory cell by using any physical measuring device currently available?
Perhaps I misunderstand your position vis-a-vis materialism... If so, my apology in advance.
I seek satori, not argument for argument's sake.
That was quick :)
"your assertion that "only the material exists." "
That's not my assertion and not my belief. I don't believe anything exists beside the material, not that only the material exists. The former leaves the door open, the other does not.
Software is non-material in the sense that it represents the 'meaning' of some computer code. But it's dependent on material computers to exist, hence not refuting the materialist position.
--snet uisng my phnoe, pradon any spllenig msitake.
Thank you for that quick reply! No problem on any spelling arrows that I could sea!
Software is asserted (by you) to be non-material in your response, as representing the 'meaning' of some computer (source?) code. To me, it doesn't matter (a little pun) what dependency it has vis-a-vis a physical computer or a physical human being in order for it to be brought into existence, or for it to execute once it exists. It exists non-materially. That in and of itself contradicts the proposition that "Only the material exists", which is the materialist position. Given that contradiction, why would you continue to assert a belief in what you have apparently accepted is false? I'm really curious, and not trying to be pejorative.
The 'meaning' of software inheres in the intention of the programmer, a priori to creating the source code and prior to the conversion from the source code to executable form. Consequently, that 'meaning' exists a priori to creation and insertion (in either source code form or in executable form) into any physical computer. It exists as 'meaning' whether there is any physical computer on which to execute it or not. It exists - period. It is non-physical - period. I believe that does refute the materialist position, which is NOT that YOU believe it to be true, but that "Only the material exists."
As an aside, I have often seen a bumper sticker that causes severe mental indigestion. "God said it - I believe it - That settles it." To me, it is totally irrelevant whether it is believed or not; ones belief has no bearing on the truth or falsity of ANYTHING. None of that entire set of run-on statements "proves" anything to me.
I note that you still have not addressed the measurement challenge directly. Do you have access to the relevant measuring devices or to any technician who could assist you with the measurement? Or are you now willing to concede that which you just stated - that software is non-material and thus cannot be located by ANY physical measuring device in ANY memory cell of ANY physical computer?
If your position is that you will continue to believe the materialist position regardless of any counter-argument, then there really is little point in belaboring that position. You are certainly entitled to your own beliefs, whether rationally grounded or not.
May I insert this one thought: If software is material, then it must exist materially, independent of all other material existences, and therefore it must be excisable from a CPU in chunks of software which are available for examination.
Just as there exist no chunks of meaning, there also exist no chunks of software, which is pure meaning. Meaning can be represented using various types of material icons, such as printed characters, or relational states. But meaning is not physically contained in those characters or states, it is inferred from them by an intelligent receiver.
Example: Rosetta Stone. This contained characters which are not pure meaning, but which were icons used for the transferrence of representative meaning from one culture to another - only after the meaning was deduced. If the meaning were physical, material, then it would have been immediately obvious (because it was physically "there") and would not have required deduction.
Software is likewise imbued with meaning by human intellect, which is applied to various media for blind operation in which no meaning is either attached or derived as the carriers are constantly changed, and then provided back to human intellect, where meaning is inferred from the final icons which carry it.
This is confirmed in Information Theory, where signal transfer capability is measured without addressing any meaning - because the signal itself is meaningless, but is the subject of the theory.
One of the many fascinating things I have studied over the years is random numbers generation. The earliest random number generator that I encountered was hardware. A Zener diode was biased very close to the breakdown voltage. The output was digitized through a shift register and then loaded into a series of latches. Whenever the simulation computer needed a "random" number, it simply read whatever value was stored in the latches. The number that was obtained was TOTALLY unpredictable and TOTALLY random.
Contrast that hardware random number generator with the typical software version. At best, the software can generate only a pseudo-random sequence. The distribution of those numbers may be uniform across a selected range, but (ultimately) the sequence will repeat. In principle, the range is sufficiently large so as to allow for useable statistical inferences. (Refer to The Art Of Computer Programming, Volume 2 by Donald Knuth, for a discussion of the mathematics and the appropriate algorithm written in the MIX assembler language.)
It is ASSUMED by most computer types (both hardware and software) that because the physical circuitry is determinate logically, that anything which can be computed using that deterministic hardware MUST be determined (i.e., predictable, at least in principle). This is demonstrably false.
Here is an example program, written in Chipmunk BASIC, a free BASIC interpreter. (I only use this for illustration purposes; I'm certain that a similar program can be written in virtually any procedural language that is Turing-equivalent.)
10 randomize 16367
20 input "Enter the first number: ";n1
30 input "Enter the second number: ";n2
40 print str$(n1)+" added to "+str$(n2)+" = "+str$(rnd(1)*n1+rnd(1)*n2)
Each time this program is run, you will NOT get the accepted MATHEMATICAL value, regardless of the two numbers that you input.
This brings to mind certain questions.
(1) Is the hardware "broken"? No.
(2) Is the software (presuming it is physical) "broken"? No.
If the hardware is determinate in its physical functionality, and the software behavior is dependent upon and constrained by that determinism (when reduced to the physical level) in order to calculate "correctly", then why does this program work as it does? It works as designed through MY INTENTIONALITY, utilizing the conventions that have been established by the hardware designer and the software designer of the software that it utilizes to realize that intentionality.
I submit that it is PRECISELY because software is NOT physical that it is unconstrained by ANY physical substrate on which it executes. I also submit that software per se is totally unconstrained by any physical limitations whatsoever, real or imagined.
This reminds me of the very old Radio Shack advertisement from the 1970s:
"You are only limited by your imagination."
The "Crazy Bob" corollary is:
"Most people cannot IMAGINE how limited THEIR imaginations actually are!"
Interesting statement:
" I also submit that software per se is totally unconstrained by any physical limitations whatsoever, real or imagined."
Software in theory could calculate the value of infinite series by merely continuing infinitely, which would continue for infinite time, unless it had a host which could calculate in zero time. The limitations would be from the hardware, not the software.
In other words, entropy would happen in hardware, not in software.
Entropy might be the best indicator of material existence. Ideas do not have entropy, but their carriers do.
Which is why information theory addresses the carrier and not the meaning. If the meaning is lost it is due to the degradation of the carrier or lack of comprehension at the receiving intellect; meaning does not degrade, but can be obscured. The meaning still exists at the source, unless the source has also encountered fatal entropy. Then the meaning must be recovered using forensic/archaeological techniques, or resuscitated by different intellects later on.
A true meaning (in the sense that universal truths have meaning) exists externally to human existence; it can be rediscovered by truthful and humble investigation. Subjective meanings also can be rediscovered, if they are true.
On a different note:
If Materialism is "the case", then it must have the capability of proving its own validity using the tools of Materialism. But Materialism cannot disprove the existence of non-material entities by using only Materialist techniques. So Materialism is caught in a paradox/non-coherence of its own devising, and is rationally false, under the rules of logic (which Atheists insist they use).
Stan: "Entropy might be the best indicator of material existence. Ideas do not have entropy, but their carriers do."
THAT is a very interesting insight! The Second Law of Thermodynamics stipulates that entropy always increases in physical systems. Therefore, any non-physical entity would not necessarily be subject to the Second Law. Absence of entropy does not "prove" that a particular entity is non-physical, but at least it indicates a direction for further investigation of that entity's nature. Universals, mathematics, logic, etc. all demonstrate NO entropy. Any material (physical) entity will ALWAYS demonstrate entropy.
Can this be stated in the form of a modus tollens syllogism?
(1) If (an entity demonstrates entropy) then it is a physical entity.
(2) This entity does NOT exhibit entropy.
(3) This entity is NOT a physical entity.
TIA!
Yes, that works.
Hi,
Robert said: "It exists non-materially. That in and of itself contradicts the proposition that "Only the material exists", which is the materialist position"
+
"It exists as 'meaning' whether there is any physical computer on which to execute it or not. It exists - period. It is non-physical - period. I believe that does refute the materialist position, which is that "Only the material exists.""
Ok, I am not a Materialist then. Software exists, it is Non-physical. Sounds good? I am not that dogmatic about my position that I would impose labels like you did ;)
I will come back to that later... sorry again, taking time here and there when I get a chance... which is almost never...
Regarding the syllogism, it is wrong:
(1) If (an entity demonstrates entropy) then it is a physical entity.
-- If A demonstrates X, it is a B
(2) This entity does NOT exhibit entropy.
-- Entity Y does not demonstrate X
(3) This entity is NOT a physical entity.
-- Entity Y is not a B
More obvious now?
Y could still be a B.
I do agree with premise 1 btw, but 2 cannot be used to jump to 3. Unless 1 actually means: all&only physical entities demonstrate entropy?
--setn uisng my phnoe, pradon any spllenig msitake.
(It's my default signature when I write emails on my phone, doing it there since it's more reliable than directly on the website! )
Stan:
Thanks for the confirmation of the modus tollens form. Sometimes I am not sure if I have captured the appropriate sense of a particular logical term.
Hugo:
As previously stated, you are entitled to your own (subjective) beliefs, but NOT entitled to your own (objective) facts. I'm sorry that you see the way that I have stated the proposition regarding software as mere dogmatism on my part. As you already know, metaphysical (philosophical) discussions are based on all-or-nothing propositions. The two-state nature of a logical proposition is embodied in the law of the Excluded Middle and also the principle of bivalence.
Regarding the syllogism given above. I was attempting to capture the sense of Stan's statements regarding entropy in a concise syllogism, simply because it was very insightful. The modus tollens or the law of contrapositive is a valid form of argument. I refer you to the following Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens
I apologize for being somewhat sloppy in my previous formulation of the syllogism. Your clarification is duly noted and appreciated. Perhaps it would have been more comprehensive to state:
Given an entity which is not known a priori to be either physical or non-physical:
(1) The presence of entropy implies that the entity under investigation is a physical entity. This is true for ALL and ONLY physical systems.
(2) The entity in question does not exhibit entropy - period. The entity in question cannot, even in principle, exhibit entropy.
(3) Therefore, the entity in question is NOT a physical entity.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
It therefore follows, given the materialist position that "Only the material (physical) exists," if any entity exists which does not exhibit entropy, thereby being non-physical, then the materialist position is false. Non-physical entities DO exist (as evidenced by your apparently grudging acceptance that "software is NOT physical"), contradicting that materialist position. That sequence of logic is not a "dogmatic" position, held as a "belief" in contradistinction to the facts, but merely a statement of the facts as derived through logic. Whether you continue to hold to the materialist position (shown to be false logically) or not as a matter of belief is your personal choice. Personally, if I find a logical contradiction in my belief, I jettison the belief immediately.
I can only hope that in attempting to elucidate that syllogism through expansion, I have not (somehow) screwed up the logic.
To both Stan and Hugo:
Thank you for the opportunity to explore these ideas with you. I appreciate your willingness to tolerate the ideas of an "old dog trying to learn new tricks."
HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL!
I think a two step argument might be necessary for clarity.
AXIOM:
If [X is material], THEN [X exhibits entropy].
(all X is entropic; 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, where X is a closed system).
ARGUMENT:
IF [Y is non-entropic], THEN [Y is not material];
Y is non-entropic;
Therefore,
Y is nonmaterial.
Happy thanksgiving to all!
Agreed: your formulation is much clearer and leaves less "wiggle room."
Thanks!
Happy thanksgiving to you 2!
Hi again!
Robert said:
"NOT entitled to your own (objective) facts"
Of course, I agree, but so are you... so when you claim that "X is non-material, hence Materialism is false", that's your OPINION until you demonstratre why your OPINION points to objective facts.
The problem is that the 'X' you chose, Software for now, is not violating Materialism, unless we use the Robert's version of Materialism.
That's why I called you dogmatic regarding labels and that's why I am willing to stop calling myself a Materialist here so that we can continue discussing using common grounds. Look again at the quotes I inserted up here:
Robert said: "It exists non-materially. That in and of itself contradicts the proposition that "Only the material exists", which is the materialist position"
+
"It exists as 'meaning' whether there is any physical computer on which to execute it or not. It exists - period. It is non-physical - period. I believe that does refute the materialist position, which is that "Only the material exists.""
Is there any room for some other interpretations here? No! Your definition of Materialism is clear and not up for debate. I disagree with it and think that you over-simplified it, but for the sake of discussion, I am ok with starting with it. I am not attached to the label 'Materialism' in any way.
Stan, btw, the exact same thing happened with you up here in this thread and several times before. Arguments come down to 'label fight' when I simply try to make sure we diacuss the same things.
Facts are objective, yes, but we are all humans with subjective opinions trying to figure out what facts we all agree are true. Labelling certain things as 'It exists - period. It is non-physical - period.' is not productive when trying to understand why we disagree on Materialism. It poisons the well by labelling Materialism as false, by definition.
So, again, if that's the 'Materialism' you guys want to discuss, then I agree with you! Non-material things such as Software, Love or the number 3 exist, hence Materialism is false. Period.
Can we move on?
@Robert, 1 more thing, a question actually... why did you both acknowledge the mistake you made in your syllogism (implying I knew what it was) AND put a link to what modus tollens are (implying I did NOT know what it was)? it's like you simultaneously think I am so dumb that I need to be told what modus tollens are AND recognize that I know enough to spot subtle errors... really weird...
Cheers!
And again... sorry I am taking just a few minutes on my phone so not much time to think/write in more details...
--snet uisng my phnoe, pradon any spllenig msitake.
Hugo:
I would love to move on! However, it seems that each time we find grounds for agreement (at least in principle) on a common meaning for labels or terms, you then revert to a previously held position which negates that agreement. I like a good argument as much as anyone, but find it very frustrating to have to plow through the same ground over and over.
Re: the question of my OPINION. I am totally in agreement with you that MY opinion (subjectively held) is of no more value than YOUR opinion regarding a matter of (objective) fact. You then proceed to label fact as my OPINION, and cheerily dismiss it.
First, Robert has no version of materialism. Robert has no belief in materialism. Materialism is DEFINED (apparently by everyone but you) as "Only the material (physical) exists." All three of those statements are (objective) facts, not (subjectively held) opinions.
I then posed a simple challenge to you: Prove that software is physical, using any physical measuring device. For the record, you have not provided any indication that you have physically measured any software, thereby providing evidence of its material nature. And so we move backwards...
If, as you stated above, "Facts are objective, yes, but we are all humans with subjective opinions trying to figure out what facts we all agree are true.", then subjective opinions (yours and mine) are irrelevant regarding the existence and truth value of those facts. The question is NOT whether we agree, but whether we can point to objective facts as existing. If an objective fact exists, then a subjectively held opinion as to its non-existence is logically irrelevant.
In this one message, you contradict your own position. First you state:
"Is there any room for some other interpretations here? No! Your definition of Materialism is clear and not up for debate. I disagree with it and think that you over-simplified it, but for the sake of discussion, I am ok with starting with it. I am not attached to the label 'Materialism' in any way."
Then you continue with:
So, again, if that's the 'Materialism' you guys want to discuss, then I agree with you! Non-material things such as Software, Love or the number 3 exist, hence Materialism is false. Period.
You disagree with (supposedly) MY definition of materialism. Very well. Please cite a definition of materialism that is NOT based solely on your subjective belief, and your interpretation of that definition.
Moving on (hopefully)...
The "error" I addressed in the latest syllogism concerned your question, not the form of the syllogism:
"Unless 1 actually means: all&only physical entities demonstrate entropy?"
I corrected the surrounding "assumptions" in order to make it clear that I was addressing "ALL and ONLY physical systems" with regard to entropy. Stan reformulated the syllogism much more succinctly.
I apologize for seeming to be condescending with regard to the link to the definition of modus tollens. The form of the syllogism as I presented it is a valid form of modus tollens. Since you stated "Regarding the syllogism, it is wrong:", I wrongly inferred that you did not understand it to be a valid syllogism. Again, my apology for that erroneous assumption.
So, where does that leave us?
Apparently, back at the beginning, trying to find common labels rather than common facts. So, in the interest of "cutting to the chase", perhaps you can provide your definition of Materialism, and we can begin at that point in a search for common agreement.
Hugo said,
” Facts are objective, yes, but we are all humans with subjective opinions trying to figure out what facts we all agree are true. Labelling certain things as 'It exists - period. It is non-physical - period.' is not productive when trying to understand why we disagree on Materialism. It poisons the well by labelling Materialism as false, by definition.”
Hugo, if a category has no name (label) then we cannot know what we are talking about. So the accusation of, shall we call it “labelism”(?), seems to be an odd accusation to make. Now if you want to redefine the category called “Materialism”, that is up to you. But for our purposes we use the standard definition of materialism which is this:
Materialism: There is no existence which is not mass/energy within the realm of space/time.
Materialism, as so defined, is an underlying premise of most, if not all, Atheism. It refers back to empiricism as the only objective source of knowledge, since only material “things” can be observed independently because that is all that exists.
” So, again, if that's the 'Materialism' you guys want to discuss, then I agree with you! Non-material things such as Software, Love or the number 3 exist, hence Materialism is false. Period.”
Fine. What method would you choose to discuss non-material existence?
Its characteristics? Its limits? Knowledge thereof? Therein?
Given:
(1) "Only the material (physical) exists."
Let's call that statement "Robert's materialism" a la Hugo (although I never previously considered being credited for making that "dogmatic" statement.)
(2) "In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that all things are composed of material, and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions, that things are built not found as in the historically important but scientifically unimportant physicalism."
Let's call that statement the Wikipedia definition of "materialism."
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
Question 1: Are those two statements logically equivalent?
Question 2: Do either of those two statements adequately describe the central tenet of "materialism" a la Hugo?
Question 3: If neither of those two statements capture the relevant central tenet of "materialism", then what definition WOULD capture the central tenet of "materialism" a la Hugo?
Inquiring minds (physical, non-physical, or ???) want to know...
Oops! My bad: I failed to include:
(3) "There is no existence which is not mass/energy within the realm of space/time."
Let's call this "Stan's materialism."
I apologize, Stan, for the omission. I just finished a 12-hours day, walking the beat at the Mall, so I'm too tired to be doing this right now.
It's your turn, Hugo.
Quick reply regarding 2 things:
1) The 'Software challenge: I didn't say it explicitly but I thought I was clear enough... there is no challenge for me to do since I agreed that non-material things exist. Such things cannot be measured, weighted, counted...
2) Regradibg your syllogism, you said: "The form of the syllogism as I presented it is a valid form of modus tollens. Since you stated "Regarding the syllogism, it is wrong:", I wrongly inferred that you did not understand it to be a valid syllogism. Again, my apology for that erroneous assumption."
The syllogism was completely wrong! I find it very important to clarify that even though we agree on its meaning because it represents a reasoning error, and do some reason Stan agreed woth it at first. So both of you thought it was valid and yoy still seen to think it was!
After re-reading it, I found a simpler way to make the error more obvious:
(1) If (an entity demonstrates entropy) then it is a physical entity.
-- All 'A's are 'B's
(2) This entity does NOT exhibit entropy.
-- 'X' is not an 'A'
(3) This entity is NOT a physical entity.
-- Hence, 'X' is not a 'B'
Do you understand why this wrong?
When Stan re-forumalted it, he correctl changed it to somethin which means:
-- All 'A's are 'B's, all 'B's are 'A's. A=B.
-- 'X' is not an 'A'
-- Hence, 'X' is not a 'B'
You 2 insisted that logic be used as a common. If you are serious about it, you would not let a subtle yet MAJOR flaw in reasoning like this one be unnoticed. Your last comment Robert make me doubt!
Finally, quick not on 'my' Materialism. I gave my definition already, here I this thread. Robert dismissed it as something he doesn't care about... more on that when I get a chance, if you don't find it yourself.
Cheers
--snet uisng my phnoe, pradon any spllenig msitake.
Hugo said this:
"That's not my assertion and not my belief.I don't believe anything exists beside the material, not that only the material exists. The former leaves the door open, the other does not."
This is not a statement which clarifies the Definition of the Hugo Theory of Materialism.
However, Hugo also said this:
"The 'Software challenge: I didn't say it explicitly but I thought I was clear enough... there is no challenge for me to do since I agreed that non-material things exist. Such things cannot be measured, weighted, counted..."
So, let's move on to other things such as: how can we develop knowledge of nonmaterial existences; what are the characteristics common to all nonmaterial existences; what are the limits of nonmaterial existences; what validation is possible for nonmaterial existences; etc.
Part 1:
Mon Dieu! Poor René must be spinning in his grave!
Stan and I are serious about using logic, correctly.
The syllogism as reformulated by Stan stipulates axiomatically (self-evident; obviously true) that ALL material entities ("X" being a CATEGORY of things, not a specific thing) without exception exhibit the PROPERTY of entropy, in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This corresponds to "ALL and ONLY physical systems (a CATEGORY) display entropy as a PROPERTY of that CATEGORY."
AXIOM:
If [X is material], THEN [X exhibits entropy].
(all X is entropic; 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, where X is a closed system).
Stan then gave the argument (based on the preceding axiom) regarding a SPECIFIC thing ("Y") about which it is UNKNOWN a priori whether "Y" is a member of the CATEGORY ("X") of material (physical) things or not. If "Y" does NOT exhibit entropy (one of the PROPERTIES that is common to the CATEGORY "X"), then it is not a member of that CATEGORY. It is stipulated that entity "Y" does NOT exhibit the PROPERTY required to place it in the CATEGORY "X" (material [physical] entities). The conclusion follows necessarily that SPECIFIC thing ("Y") is NOT a member of CATEGORY "X" (material things.
ARGUMENT:
IF [Y is non-entropic], THEN [Y is not material];
Y is non-entropic;
Therefore,
Y is nonmaterial.
Part 2:
It is amusing (if not amazing) to see you contradict your own starting position regarding the physical or non-physical nature of software.
Or was it someone other than Hugo (maybe your computer has been hacked by a theist!) who wrote (I am excerpting only the statements relative to “software being physical,” to avoid copying the whole post):
November 4, 2013 at 5:11 AM
Blogger Hugo said...
@Robert
"Does "software" exist as a physical entity?
If so, I would ask you to prove it, using any physical measuring device currently available. Yet "software" obviously exists, independently of any particular human thinking about it. You wouldn't be reading this blog without it."
Hum, yes, software exist physically, I don't understand what non-physical software even is?
There is something very interesting here by the way, related to language. My first language is not English, it is French. And in French we don't have a collective noun for 'software'. Everything piece of software is always refer to as an 'application' or 'a software', even though that sounds weird in English.
The point is that for me it's even more obvious that software exists as a physical entity because in my mother tongue, 'a' software is always something I can count. 1 software, 2 software, etc... In English though, the word is non-countable, like water or love, so it's easier to think about it as a general thing that just 'exists' without a real physical presence. It becomes the 'essence' of an 'application'. The lines of codes somehow makes the application have some 'software' property that's not really physical yet exist since we use software everyday.
Going back to English only... "software" is the collective noun that refer to the consequences of writing lines of computer code. What's non-material about it? No material code, no software. It's that simple.
And from your latest post (or from your hacker poser):
November 29, 2013 at 11:54 PM
Blogger Hugo said...
1) The 'Software challenge: I didn't say it explicitly but I thought I was clear enough... there is no challenge for me to do since I agreed that non-material things exist. Such things cannot be measured, weighted, counted...
Just for clarity's sake, are you explicitly stating that software is non-material, or are you still holding to your original position that software is physical?
Regarding Hugo's materialism":
Am I correct in presuming that the following statement by you represents "Hugo's materialism"?
"To be clear, my position is not that 'only the material exists'. It's more accurate to say 'I only believe the material exists, or, I don't believe anything non-material exists'. All the things we label as 'non-material', like concepts or thoughts, are all human dependent and thus don't contradict Materialism."
Does your "belief" (as previously stated above "... I don't believe anything non-material exists'.") contradict your latest statement ... I agreed that non-material things exist."?
I'm very confused by this switching back and forth, without explicitly conceding that one or the other position is incorrect. Given that damnable Law of Non-Contradiction, I find it very close to insanity to hold contradictory opinions on the same subject at the same time in the same sense, while professing a strong attachment to logic.
But then I don't think using Hugo's logic, so what do I know?!? Maybe I'm crazy... No, after reading your responses, I KNOW I'm crazy!
Part 3:
Given my own personal strait jacket and latest dose of thorazine (Chlorpromazine), I'm feeling much better now, thank you, and looking forward eagerly to my first taste-test of hemlock.
It appears we are back to discussing what Hugo "believes" or what "labels" Hugo intends to use so that "non-material" really means "material," if we only "believe" in re-labeling everything to be in accord with Materialism (whatever that might actually be, since generally accepted definitions do not apply). Click those ruby red (physical, of course, since a metaphor is just another label for "material") slippers, and repeat after me: "There's no place like Materialism, there's no place like Materialism" and before you can blink your eyes, we will all be back in Kansas with Toto.
As much fun as it is attempting to nail Jello to a tree, at this point, I lose interest.
Thank you, Stan, for tolerating my questions and providing lucid responses. I appreciate all of your valuable information regarding First Principles and Logic 101 on your Web site, and also that you have allowed me to post as much as I did, with gentle schooling when needed.
Thank you, Hugo, for helping me to understand why those (like my oldest son) who claim the "high ground" of reason, logic, science, AND Materialism (with a capital "M") manage to sound like the most faithful of the "faith-heads,", no matter what contrary evidence and logic is given.
Thank you, Steven, for at least attempting early on (in your own inimitable way) to short-circuit this prolonged exercise in futility.
Thanks to one and all for a wonderful romp around inside the materialist garden of intellectual delights.
"Good night, good night! parting is such sweet sorrow!" - The Bard
Adieu, mes amis!
@Stan
"So, let's move on to other things such as: how can we develop knowledge of nonmaterial existences; what are the characteristics common to all nonmaterial existences; what are the limits of nonmaterial existences; what validation is possible for nonmaterial existences; etc."
Yes, that's exactly what I think is interesting to discuss since there is something we agree on; knowledge of non-material existence is something we do posses. It's then by analyzing what we can know that I reach a different conclusion: all non-material existence (that I know of) depends on prior material existence, and can thus be accounted for by the material world. We disagree on that conclusion's validity since you believe that non-material things do exist (or existed?) without anything material being required; they would still exist without the material world. I have never been able to understand exactly where along the way we disagree on that topic.
Personally, to arrive there, I start with the 'primacy of physical existence', which I always go back to yet never get to discuss much. I think the simplest way to put it is that I start my worldview with the assumption that the world is real and we can learn something about it. In this world, there are humans who try to make sense of the physical reality around them. They 'think' about what they perceive/perceived expect to perceive, and what others claim to have perceived. Humans have the ability to do something akin to 'fake perceiving' using abstract thoughts, which are 'non-material' representations of material existence, or representation of other abstract thoughts.
Therefore, some abstract thoughts point to things that do exist while others point to things that don't. What we disagree on is which of these abstract thoughts fall in which category. You did some very good examples before, such as mathematics, logic, etc... but they never give examples of things that can exist without the material world, in my opinion... that's why I remain unconvinced that there is any kind of purely independent non-material existence. It's possible technically; I just don't get what it would be.
--snet uisng my phnoe, pradon any spllenig msitake.
@Robert
LOL, you do sound a bit crazy now, actually, you sounded really high in your last comments! Be careful with these meds sir ;)
Not much to add since you are leaving us, no problem with that!
I would take the opportunity to clarify that you got close but missed the mark regarding "Hugo's Materialism". This might be useful if Stan does continue the discussion. The main problem was that you (Robert) expressed the following:
"To me, it doesn't matter (a little pun) what dependency it has vis-a-vis a physical computer or a physical human being in order for it to be brought into existence, or for it to execute once it exists. It exists non-materially. That in and of itself contradicts the proposition that "Only the material exists", which is the materialist position."
To me, it's the ONLY thing that matters vis-à-vis my Materialism. It's the main (only?) reason why you see my worldview as being self-contradictory. I agreed with you that non-material things exist, but I don't believe they do, or would exist, without the material world. Hence it sounds as if I both believe they do and don't exist.
The Software example illustrated this quite well. On the one hand I agree that Software is the non-material meaning that machine code depicts, be it after coding it or simply when the coder is planning it in his head. At the same time, I don't see Software as being purely non-material since without physical computers, there would have never been any Software. What does it even mean to talk about Software if it's not something humans created using computers? Software is by definition related and dependant on the existence of physical machines.
I thought of a little thought experiment that shows how we all have that kind of contradicting ideas... ask yourself: does Santa Claus exist?
Isn't the answer supposed to be a simple 'no'? Maybe not... since Santa Claus certainly exist as a fictional character. It even has an objective identity; anyone claiming he lives at the South Pole and wear a blue jacket is objectively wrong. So Santa Claus exists independently of humans yet would not exist without them. Isn't this an example of an 'accepted contradiction'? Santa Claus both exist and doesn't exist, depending on exactly what we are talking about; he exists as an imaginary figure but does not exist in the real world.
--snet uisng my phnoe, pradon any spllenig msitake.
P.s. 4-hour delay on a flight, so I had lots of time to waste on my phone... back home in a few hours, back to all the things I have going on so I will be back to commenting even less than the last few days.
Cheers!
Hugo,
Let’s get the silly stuff out of the way immediately. There is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, tooth fairy or other childhood fantasies, including Atheist false analogical tropes such as orbiting teapots, FSM, etc. And they are not analogs for any serious discussion. It doesn't, as you claim, "depend on what we're talking about". Either it is, or it isn't. So let’s either get to something which is real but non-physical, or let’s just quit.
You seem to have clouded up the issue of Materialism yet again, leaving yourself a self-created loophole. So what you have done here, is nothing at all, because you now equate childhood fantasy with materialist dependency, thus negating the entire conversation before it can be had.
Materialism says that there are no non—material existences; Hugoism says that there is and there isn’t, and that is presented as a rational argument. You are inducing non-coherence (internal contradictions), and leaving the zone of standard logic.
So either there are independent, coherent, non-material existences, or they are delusions of material states which are dependent on prior material states. There’s no both/and.
We already said that non-material entities are independent, because they are not beholden to material laws, such as entropy. (Nor gravity, nor weak/strong forces, nor any other physical constraint). I’m sure that we have said that known non-material entities such as mathematic relationships, logic, Truth, etc are not dependent upon our universe or any material existence, and are valid in any universe, or without any universe, and without reference to any mass/energy or space/time.
The fact that some (not all) of our comprehension of these things serves to reference physical existence (ontology), as well as non-physical existence (epistemology) does not in any way mean that the non-physical is dependent upon the physical for its existence. Further, there is no sense to declaring that truth is material-dependent, or that logic is material dependent, because that would need an answer to the follow up question: to what material object is logic dependent upon? And which quantum state controls logic? What are the physics of material logic? Is logic deterministically driven by initial physical states just prior to decisions? These issues are absurd, which falsifies the idea that logic is dependent upon some physical lump.
Finally, it makes no difference of what you can "be convinced"; it is only what you can prove that matters. So we should discuss types of proof, perhaps? Sources of knowledge which provide proof? What is knowledge? Cloud the issue with yet more circular definitions?
Post a Comment