Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Logic is used to proceed from premises that are taken as GIVEN. It can NOT be used to establish the premise . . . that must be a brute fact. Your materialism premise is not a brute fact and cannot even be substantiated by philosophical analysis because it cannot account for consciousness and intelligence. Logic has nothing to do with whether or not your starting PREMISE is valid.
So what you are saying is that robots cannot have consciousness and intelligence through mere Physics and Chemistry? Or is your idea unassailable, as in ... "of course they can, the consciousness pervades the universe, so if they did it wouldn't be because of Physics or Chemistry but because of Esoterica." I wonder. ?
Logic is used to proceed from premises that are taken as GIVEN. It can NOT be used to establish the premise . . . that must be a brute fact. Your materialism premise is not a brute fact and cannot even be substantiated by philosophical analysis because it cannot account for consciousness and intelligence. Logic has nothing to do with whether or not your starting PREMISE is valid.
Oh come ON, Mystic! Logic can NOT be used to establish a premise? Have you not heard of The SM?
If I logically surmise that the earth is indeed spherical, and not flat, I then posit a logical hypothesis and proceed, via a logical plan, to determine the true shape of this planet.
I arrive at an entirely logic-driven set of data, from which I make logical deductions, and come to an entirely LOGICAL conclusion.
You can't really believe that logic is NOT the best way to a reasonable premise, now can you, Big M?
Say... what have you been sipping this afternoon, old pal? I thought I was the only one hereabouts taking oxy-morphone today! But even then, I wouldn't be abandoning common sense.
Logic is used to proceed from premises that are taken as GIVEN. It can NOT be used to establish the premise . . . that must be a brute fact. Your materialism premise is not a brute fact and cannot even be substantiated by philosophical analysis because it cannot account for consciousness and intelligence. Logic has nothing to do with whether or not your starting PREMISE is valid.
I might be able to clarify this. A logical argument cannot establish its own premises. In any logical argument, there are some some statements that cannot be proven within the argument itself. This does not mean, however, that one logical argument cannot support the premises of another. So, for example, if argument A is based on premises P1, P2, and P3, then A cannot establish these premises as conclusions. However, there could be another argument, B, that has, say, P1 as the conclusion of a different set of premises. Ultimately, the only thing that cannot, even in principle, be defended by logic is the formalism of logic itself. You can't use logic to prove the validity of logic itself. Anyway, it is not quite true to say that logic "has nothing to do with whether or not your starting premise is valid." To get at the premise in question, you just need to establish a different argument - one that does not include the premise you are trying to prove. (What counts as a "given" or "brute fact" is relative to a given argument, unless your "brute fact" is something essential to all logic, such as, say the law of noncontradiction.")
In the case of materialism: I would agree with Mystic that materialism, as a premise, is not very strong. If someone can show us how to derive consciousness from materialism (i.e., solve the hard problem) then I will be happy to sing a different tune. But, as I've already said, atheism and materialism are not the same, so giving up on materialism does not mean that you have to be a theist. David Chalmers, for example, very famously gave up on materialism (he became a property dualist - or, more specifically, an epiphenomenalist), but he is not a theist.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 03-22-2013 at 08:36 PM..
I'd like one of the guest believers to explain to me a reasoning of some sort or on topic lack of, why they don't believe in other religions version of the main squeeze - God, Gods or even prophets -beside their own current spirit of choice?
Or better yet, if you are a Mormon, why aren't you a JW, or a Jew, Muslim or vise versa? Are they not convincing enough? Not the true one because...................................?????
In reality, and I know this is a stretch, but your atheist in your approach to all other religions but your own. We aren't that different, we just reject them all. You reject them all but one for one reason or another. Unless of course you're agnostic. Why do you reject other religions like say a middle eastern variety, etc. Any but your own will do for my experimental purposes. You may deny them for logical or illogical reasons. I just really want to hear them.
Some of us (atheists0 reject them on a logical level such as myself. This crap really can't be true because there is just to much of around. Like a string of stores promoting the best, lowest priced, most magical stuff. Its like any business grasping for business. It's been done for years and years now, it holds no water.
It's not logical for only one of the thousands to be actually true, IMO. As of late with the "one God only" idea it really ties a knot in it for me. Everyone has the same God but, now instead of Gods changing, Gods wishes and laws are just changed from religion to religion. Hm...............in my logical mind, not much has changed.
But, every atheist has their own reason for not believing in God. Some crazy little atheists are illogical as hell.
My advice, don't worry about labeling everyone. We are all different, so are you. You believe for a variety of reasons, you don't believe in others versions of their religion for a variety of reasons. That applies whether it's logical or not. IMO, of course.
Why do you want us to be considered a religion anyway? Is there something in it for you we don't know about? You're so darn persistent you little believers you.
03-22-2013, 11:40 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Premises do not have anything to do with validity they are either true or false. Validity has to do with the form or structure of your premises according to the rules of logic. Each premise must either be defended a priori or a posteriori.
So choose your poision.
This idea of consciousness is like asking to reduce the concept of a smile to the material nature of someone's face. It is concieving of the problem in a wrong way. Consciousness is not an object it is the aggregate phenomenon of what the brain, a material object does - yet without the brain their is no consciousness. And until someone shows me consciousness w/out a physical substrate then I will sing the materialism (in the general sense) tune all day long. Just because we do not know how the brain does it does not mean we sing some metaphysical tune. We know that as the brain goes so does the mind. I think alot of misunderstanding is how we use language or the fact that language by its very nature delineates and contrast things that may not be subject to such limitations of language.
This idea of consciousness is like asking to reduce the concept of a smile to the material nature of someone's face. It is concieving of the problem in a wrong way. Consciousness is not an object it is the aggregate phenomenon of what the brain, a material object does - yet without the brain their is no consciousness. And until someone shows me consciousness w/out a physical substrate then I will sing the materialism (in the general sense) tune all day long. Just because we do not know how the brain does it does not mean we sing some metaphysical tune. We know that as the brain goes so does the mind. I think alot of misunderstanding is how we use language or the fact that language by its very nature delineates and contrast things that may not be subject to such limitations of language.
Over in the Philosophy forum, I started a thread focused on the hard problem of consciousness. Would you mind taking a look at what I wrote on this subject over there? I'd love to continue this discussion there, once you've seen more specifically why I think that the assumptions of materialism fail to explain key aspects of experience. Chaos, Qualia, and Consciousness: It's time to solve the Hard Problem
In the case of materialism: I would agree with Mystic that materialism, as a premise, is not very strong.
I disagree. The fact that science works is a pretty good argument that naturalism is a strong premise.
Quote:
If someone can show us how to derive consciousness from materialism (i.e., solve the hard problem) then I will be happy to sing a different tune.
By this argument, any metaphysical approach to knowledge is weak since none of them can answer your question. That's assuming the "hard problem" is really an issue to begin with outside of philosophers making work for themselves.
I disagree. The fact that science works is a pretty good argument that naturalism is a strong premise.
I accept naturalism, but materialism is a much more limited premise. My goal is to find a way to incorporate qualia into the naturalistic (tho not necessarily materialistic) approach of physics. Again, I would really love to see this conversation continue over in the Philosophy forum, where I have already laid out many of the key concepts. Also, this this discussion is more appropriate there, since the debate between theism/atheism has very little to do with the debate over materialism and its alternatives. The alternatives to materialism do not imply theism, and atheism does not require materialism. Chaos, Qualia, and Consciousness: It's time to solve the Hard Problem
03-23-2013, 12:21 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I accept naturalism, but materialism is a much more limited premise. My goal is to find a way to incorporate qualia into the naturalistic (tho not necessarily materialistic) approach of physics. Again, I would really love to see this conversation continue over in the Philosophy forum, where I have already laid out many of the key concepts. Also, this this discussion is more appropriate there, since the debate between theism/atheism has very little to do with the debate over materialism and its alternatives. The alternatives to materialism do not imply theism, and atheism does not require materialism. Chaos, Qualia, and Consciousness: It's time to solve the Hard Problem
Your talking about 'materialism' as a theory of mind (some type of reductive physicalism) - that is why I said materialism as a general concept - that is naturalism. You just said you agree with natrualism. I was not trying to use materialism as a theory akin to reductive physicalism. I don't know how exactly consciousness arises from the brain - but I do know that without it it does not exist. That was simply my point. There is a good book which the author, who examines most all theories of mind, lays out a hylomorphic theory. It is called 'Philosophy of Mind' by William Jaworski - it is a great read. There is also some website he has regarding this book. I think you would enjoy it. I am just not up to trying to figure out how to derive consciousness philosophically or otherwise right now - maybe if others start to engage in it I might get inspired and chime in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh-ohhh! A slip of the logical mind perchance?
