Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25
  1. #1
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    One Mind Trap to Rule them all!



    -Introduction and thanks-
    For the past 12 years I have had the pleasure of debating on this site, and it has been an influential part of my life. Each of you here have been given me something to think about and new perspectives. For that, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I count you all brothers and sisters. Because, like my actual brother, we disagree to even maddening levels, but we love each other and have a genuine desire to see each others lives prosper.

    So I consider this my fair well thread. The last thing that I can offer you to think about. In the future, I hope that when you hear of a “Mind Trap” you will recall this thread and ODN in general with fondness.
    ----

    Consider if you will, Newtons cradle.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ion_book_2.gif

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LnbyjOyEQ8


    The ultimate Mind Trap, is the impassable wall of separation between the meta-physical and the physical. I have often called this “access to logic”. There are in fact several walls, that trap the mind and separate it from the physical.

    1) Why things happen in the physical world.
    On naturalism, thought A is followed by thought B, not because of the content of the thought, but because of chemical necessity. Just as in Newtons Cradled above, the ball on the right can be assigned any “meaning” or “thought”, and it has no effect or force on how the physical balls act. This means that if the above cradle happens to represent a logical thought, it is nothing short of miraculous, for there is no naturalistic reason for it to represent a given thought.

    The question an atheist must ask himself, is why do any physical states not only represent an idea, but actually contain that idea.
    Scientific prediction- As we learn to understand the brain and how it works, we will find that specific chemical reactions, are not linked to a specific idea across the population, such that chemical A+B+C =/= thought Y. This is not to be confused with any kind of general reaction. Like chemical A inducing non specific thoughts of happiness. This I also not to be confused with “feelings”. If this is the case, it is a defeater for any hope of a naturalistic access to abstract thoughts.

    2) There is no physical mechanism to select proper logical thoughts from illogical thoughts.
    Because it is not the meta-physical corresponding idea that causes a set of physical reactions, there can be no purely physical process which selects a logical progression over an illogical progression. So that evolution when it is acting on a population, can not select right thinking over wrong thinking, it can only select right action. So that we as right thinking creatures are nothing short of miraculous.
    -Interlocutor 1- The evolutionist will say “But right thinking would produce better results, and thus be selected”.
    -Response- This is not the case, because there is not distinction and there are many more correct actions(IE ones that lead to survival) connected to incorrect thoughts. Especially, when the thought itself is not the cause of the action. (see Point #1). Further, if the thoughts are connected (which is not supported on naturalism) then there are still many more incorrect thoughts that lead to right actions, because illogical thoughts by necessity don't have to follow.
    Challenge- In order to sustain the Interlocutor #1. One must show that there is an evolutionary significant distinction. This of course would be very difficult, and I think it is ultimately impossible due to it being wrong. The largest challenge is that it is clear that logical thought is not necessary for survival. Animals do not reason, and yet thrive.


    -Conclusion-
    On naturalism our experience is unintelligible. Our access to logic can not be consistently made sense of. The only proposed world view that does, is one that includes a spirit mind. A mind that can access the ideas and use logic because B actually does follow from A. The greatest mind trap of all, is that on naturalism, one is not really engaging in intellectual debate, but at best a series of chemical reactions that have nothing to do with the ideas supposedly being debated.
    To all the atheist who ask for evidence of the "super natural". Of some instance of our natural world being effected by some element that is beyond the natural world. This is it. Consciousness and access to logic can not be created in the natural world. Nothing in the natural world can ascribe "meaning" and meta-physical consequence to any given set of natural conditions, or arrangement of atoms. The physical is nothing more than a complex Newtons cradle. The Atheist statement of faith(for lack of a better term) "The cosmos is all there is, or was or ever will be." Is wrong, and we experience the falsification every moment.


    -
    Exercise for home.

    I want you to imagine a dear love one, picture them in your mind. What color is their hair? What do they smell like? What does their voice sound like? Certainly, you have a vivid mental picture of them.
    Now, where did all that stuff occur? What physical process is responsible for “choosing” the specific loved one?
    This exercises is for the purpose of bringing to your attention that you experience a spiritual daily life.



    Links of possible interest -
    General review of the problem – Christian POV
    https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/3-fail...-consciousness

    Review of the problem – Atheist POV
    https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-M.../dp/0199919755



    – Preaching section
    This is why Christians say, that the atheist must sit in the lap of God in order to slap his face. The atheist must appeal to consciousness and logic, which he can not establish or justify his own use of. My response to those who have asked, “why do you believe in God”, has been “Because it is obvious”. For me reason Atheism fails to be a consistent and viable world view, is because it must consistently borrow from the ideas of Christianity, and make assumptions that do not make sense upon it's own self.
    The atheist rejects God on moral grounds, but can not establish morality other than in terms of personal preference. When the question of “Why is there evil in the world”, if taken to be understood as “why are there things I don't like in the world”, losses it's force. The atheist often portraits himself as being the most logical, but must take our access to logic and it's metaphysical force on faith, that contradicts his entire naturalistic world view.



    Thank you all for engaging with me. I have learned a lot here, from those on my side and those portraying the other side. Thank you for portraying the other side to me, it has been a special kind of education that one can not put a price on. Thank you Apok, for providing a forum for the discussion of these ideas. For creating a forge of reason, that pushed us towards civil discourse. My hope and prayer is that you will come to know and appreciate that you are created in the very image of God, and what that truly means.


    P.S.
    Did I win the internet? I have the most points.
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/m...putation&pp=25

    I know the front runners had to quit in order for me to reach the top, but in the end availability is the most valuable ability there is. Joking
    To serve man.

  2. Thanks Dionysus, Squatch347 thanked for this post
    Likes Sigfried, Belthazor liked this post
  3. #2
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    For the uninitiated, what MT is describing here is the so called "Hard Problem of Consciousness", which, in a terribly inadequate nutshell, posits that:

    We cannot account for subjective experiences in the mind by describing the physical processes that give rise to those feelings of subjective experiences. Put another way, even if we could know every physical thing there is to know about a given person, we still could not know what it's like to BE that person.

    Consequently, proponents of the existence of this problem often conclude that this accounts for the existence of something other than physical that gives rise to consciousness - typically something like a "soul".

    There are many ways to consider this problem, but since I can only speak for myself here, the way that resonates most strongly with me is to simply deny that there is a problem.

    If we're talking about conscious experience, we're talking about interactions with the physical world that impact the state of our brains. Since this thread is centered on our access to logic, consider that logic is often informed by our so-called "intuition" about the world; things often simply make sense or they don't. Our intuitions about the world and the "logical" intuition we have about are simply another kind of feeling; another kind of experience.

    Smell something you enjoy, your brain responds positively. Smell something you dislike, your brain responds negatively. If you feel pain, you recoil. If you feel pleasure, you embrace it. Hear a song; have a conversation; see an attractive person; laugh at a joke; feel sorry for a sad event; get awestruck by a majestic scene; read a book; paint a picture; write a song; fall in love; ALL of these things are experiences that WOULD NOT happen if they didn't have an impact on your brain. Moreover, if you damage parts of the brain, its capacity for conscious experience is often diminished. It can also be diminished by disease, drugs, etc. Damage it enough, and consciousness stops altogether.

    And because all of these experiences absolutely depend on the existence and proper function of the brain, it doesn't appear that there needs to be anything extra to account for conscious experience. That's not to say that there's a full account of the mechanics that give rise to consciousness, but, again, there doesn't appear to be the need for anything extra - or anything "beyond" the physical - to account for it.

    Consider that just 80 or so years ago there wasn't a clear distinction between "alive" and "not alive", and some philosophers suggested that living things needed something extra to animate them - again, some proponents believed that accounted for the existence of "souls" (re: "Vitalism"). Now the distinction between a living and a non-living thing is about as well-understood as anything in science and, consequently, you don't hear much about vitalism anymore. So it seems to me that the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" is really just vitalism pushed into another space where the explanation for a given phenomenon is incomplete.

    Here's an interesting debate/discussion on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoZsAsgOSes

  4. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  5. #3
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    @ Dio, thanks ever so much for being here, with me at the end. As the only member of ODN that I have met in person, I hold you in a very special place in my memory of this place. I hope you are well, and that as these ships pass in the night, you will sail on to great things.

    First issue, Conciousness an obvious product of the brain, I'll offer this as a side note, with the only intention of showing that it isn't as clear cut and beyond question as some may think.
    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    And because all of these experiences absolutely depend on the existence and proper function of the brain, it doesn't appear that there needs to be anything extra to account for conscious experience. That's not to say that there's a full account of the mechanics that give rise to consciousness, but, again, there doesn't appear to be the need for anything extra - or anything "beyond" the physical - to account for it.
    While it may seem intuitively true that our consciousness is directly linked to the brain, it is in no way a given.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPGZSC8odIU
    To sum up the video, our intuition about the brain is a lot like Newtonian physics. A good rule of thumb, but as you get to the extremes it breaks down and doesn't really apply at all.
    Like your example about the brain and damage, works pretty good, until you find someone who basically doesn't have a brain, but works at high intellectual level.
    https://youtu.be/sPGZSC8odIU?t=1645
    Or for the growing documentation of near death experiences. Which include documented accounts of accurate description of operations (at a significantly higher rate than those that do not report NDE). The inclusion of idiosyncratic events, such as pushing up glasses in a funny way, or other odd motions. (basically specific details, specific to the event).



    For now, I'll take the above as a side issue, I want to highlight something else as well.
    The problem I am trying to highlight, is that even if we take consciousness as a product of the brain, and define it as simply the natural experience of that complex chemical process, that does not explain our access to logic, and only creates a one way street. You still need to establish the other direction, namely from the idea to the physical.

    If consciousness is a string of chemical reactions, then it is a miracle that any string of chemical reactions would represent any logical thought. Because, there is no necessary connection between the physical effect, and the mental construct. (see op)

    Dio, your response assumes that the experience is connected to the action(in the sense of a two way street), and there simply is no reason to think that given naturalism. In fact, we have reason to think the opposite. In short, your consciousness is along for the ride. Strapped to the chemical rocket of your body. Smell a dish, the idea that you "like it", is actually a miracle, because the chemical composition of your brain is going to make you eat it. You could very well have thought you hate it, or the color blue, or quite literally ANY of an infinite number of ideas. It is what chemistry does.. it reacts, and it reacts in defined ways. (Not that you must agree, but do you get what I'm saying?)

    It is one thing for us to speak about our experience of the world, it is another for the world view that we ascribe to, to account for it and have explanatory power.
    To serve man.

  6. #4
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ Dio, thanks ever so much for being here, with me at the end. As the only member of ODN that I have met in person, I hold you in a very special place in my memory of this place. I hope you are well, and that as these ships pass in the night, you will sail on to great things.
    The feeling is quite mutual, my friend.

    (P.S. I can't rep your thread; I have to spread it around first.)

    Ok, so first I want to say outright that I know this is not an issue that will be resolved in this thread. Far greater minds than ours have pondered/discussed it far better than we will, so I won't pretend as if any response I give here is meant to settle or conclude the matter.

    Second, I won't put myself in the business of persuading anyone here. We're discussing the issue, and that's the way I intend to move forward. I got tired of thinking of these things of having "winners" and "losers" a decade ago.

    Third, and last, I doubt I will post much beyond this post. In fact, this may very well be my last. I'm not interested it getting lost in details well past the point of productive discourse, so if no one offers anything interesting enough to think about past this post, I will respectfully bow out, with 15 years of thanks for challenging and interesting conversation.

    ----------------

    Alright, so I looked at the famous video of the student who had "no brain".

    Putting aside that Bruce Greyson is a highly controversial figure (because I don't wish to attack the man), what strikes me is the great leaps he consistently makes when talking about things like Near-Death Experiences (NDE's) and describing the claimed experiences of people who've had them. For example, he'll say something like "This person said they felt like their thinking was much more clear; performing at a much higher level" while they were near death, as if them feeling that way meant that they were that way. This is to say, just because they felt like their minds were performing at a high level doesn't mean that they were performing at a high level. The same thing can be said about every experience these people said they felt.

    Also, the Dr. overseeing the college student's case never actually published any work on the matter. This raises difficult questions that, as a man of Dr. Lorber's caliber should have anticipated given the extraordinary claims he made, he curiously failed to gather data for and prepared to answer. As remarkable as his finding was on the surface, this incredible oversight on his part makes his claims quite dubious given their incredible nature.

    Last, it remains demonstrably and consistently true that damaging parts of the brains affects consciousness. Damage it enough, and consciousness stops. At best, Dr. Lorber's observations of the student in the video only suggests that there's still a lot left to understand about the human brain, and there's literally nothing in it to suggest that consciousness exists apart from it. Show me someone expressing consciousness WITH NO BRAIN AT ALL, then we can talk. Until then, we're just left with the brain - even minute parts of it - sometimes doing weird s#!t that we don't understand.

    I admit that there are some very interesting claims from some, such as the feeling of leaving their bodies, and reportedly being able to describe details in the room that they could not have known, having been heavily sedated, etc. The problem I see there is that those claims, like all paranormal claims, have no reliable, corroborating evidence to support them; they appear to be little more than ghost stories, insofar as actually verifying them are concerned.

    As far as consciousness being a two-way street, meaning that we interact with the world and develop our intuitions by the interactions, I don't see how it could be any other way. I mean, imagine a person born without the ability to see, hear, touch, taste, or smell anything; suppose there was a person that, from birth, could never have any kind of sensory experience at all. What sort of claims could that person make about themselves? Would they even know what it is to "be"? Would they have a sense of anything at all? If they did, I have no idea what it could be.

    You appear to think that such a person would be capable of understanding abstract ideas without any kind of input to guide them. Even if you're right, I honestly have no idea what you mean by it, and I don't think you do, either.

    Here's what I mean: I think that when you ascribe this innate knowledge to the "soul", you are making the same kind of mistake people make whenever anyone talks about the "supernatural'. They say it's supernatural, but what they mean by it either means "things we don't know", or something so vague as to resist explanation altogether.

    People also do it without invoking the supernatural. For example, when someone says "UFO", they leap from "UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object" to "intelligent lifeforms from another planet hovering in our atmosphere in a spacecraft". They go from having no idea what it is to knowing everything about what it is except what their names are and what color shirts they wear. People do this with consciousness, too. They see or hear about some cognitive event they cannot explain, then leap from that to "that means the mind exists apart from the body, in the form of a transcendent, immaterial, immoral soul, just like the Bible says." It's an incredible leap that I just cannot make.

    Bear in mind that I'm NOT saying you or anyone else is wrong. I'm simply saying that the connections you tend to make do not follow at all from what you're observing.

  7. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  8. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    LOL, farewell arguments.

    Consider this on the topic of logic...

    Every computer that exists is nothing but logical. They all operate on digital logic as a base mechanism, and they do so at a physical level using switches. They are 100% entirely logical systems that are entirely 100% physical and deterministic.

    I submit that the natural world is the basis of logic. The core laws of logic are all grounded in our experience of the natural world. Things are not other things. Things are not non-things. It's self-evident in the world around us. Computers are an expression of this, natural laws constricted into a frame of opperation that is a purely logical endavor.

    So to say logic is inaccessible to naturalism is flies in the face of every computer on earth. And when you think on it deeply, all of the natural worlds is, in itself an embodiment of logic... and that is because logic is essentially just a language of symbolism we use to describe the nature of reality.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  9. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  10. #6
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Ok, so first I want to say outright that I know this is not an issue that will be resolved in this thread. Far greater minds than ours have pondered/discussed it far better than we will, so I won't pretend as if any response I give here is meant to settle or conclude the matter.
    Well, not with that attitude mister.

    As to the NDE stuff, I really didn't want to focus on that, because it isn't really well established science. I only wanted to point out that it isn't unquestionably settled.
    In that, there is a whole lot of stuff that isn't understood, and the very idea that the brain is the cause of consciousness, is not an established fact, so much as a starting primes.
    The ultimate example is that, like you said about damaging the brain, and you reduce function. The same is true about your phone, but it isn't the cause of the voice speaking to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    As far as consciousness being a two-way street, meaning that we interact with the world and develop our intuitions by the interactions, I don't see how it could be any other way. I mean, imagine a person born without the ability to see, hear, touch, taste, or smell anything; suppose there was a person that, from birth, could never have any kind of sensory experience at all. What sort of claims could that person make about themselves? Would they even know what it is to "be"? Would they have a sense of anything at all? If they did, I have no idea what it could be.
    I would think that they would absolutely know what it is to be them. As it goes. "I think therefore I am". Knowing that you are is the most basic of all knowledge, and it isn't dependent on any sensory element.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    You appear to think that such a person would be capable of understanding abstract ideas without any kind of input to guide them. Even if you're right, I honestly have no idea what you mean by it, and I don't think you do, either
    Not quite. My argument is not about what a person with no senses could discover or know.
    My point is that the non-physical thing of "ideas" has no effect on our world, or your body. It isn't the "idea" that you like chocolate cake that makes you eat it.
    It is the purely bio-chemical reactions that just so happen to have that Idea attached to it.

    The two way street I am talking about seems to be getting lost in translation.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Here's what I mean: I think that when you ascribe this innate knowledge to the "soul", you are making the same kind of mistake people make whenever anyone talks about the "supernatural'. They say it's supernatural, but what they mean by it either means "things we don't know", or something so vague as to resist explanation altogether.
    My first concern is to make .. what apparently is a very complex idea. I kinda thought it was simple. I feel I am not getting through with it.


    Lets talk super natural... I'm not trying to appeal to the unknown. I am trying to appeal to the very idea of "super-Natural".
    So, if one says that the univers is physical and that is all there is. Then "ideas" are the definition of super natural.
    They have no weight, no measurement, they are abstract and not concrete.
    So I am not saying "man we really don't understand the brain, thus it is a gateway to the supernatural". I'm trying to say, that the brain accesses the supernatural, because the subject of ideas is the definition of super-natural.
    This would include logic.

    (This part is not an argument, but exploritory)
    So, do I have that wrong?
    Are ideas abstract?
    Is the brain physical?
    Does the abstract exert force on the physical?
    How is that different then "supernatural" or "spirit"?


    -----
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Every computer that exists is nothing but logical. They all operate on digital logic as a base mechanism, and they do so at a physical level using switches. They are 100% entirely logical systems that are entirely 100% physical and deterministic.
    Well, that really isn't any different than the rest of reality. The universe acts in a logical manner.
    That doesn't imply access to the ideas of logic itself.

    Nore does intellegent creation of the use of logic, imply a natural access to logic.
    It is just question begging.
    I mean, my argument is that the brain does not have access to logic. So the same argument applies to computers.
    My same objections apply. (Namely that the ideas don't have force on reality).

    The brain, like a computer does not say "i think therefore I am" because of the force of the ideas, but from the force of the physics working in the matchine.
    I mean, I am all for using computers as an analogy to shed light on some issue, I think it is perfect for what I am trying to point out.

    I had thought I called attention to the simplest form of physical with newtens cradle. Not sure how a computer or a brain acts any different so as to make a distinction to avoid my point.
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    So to say logic is inaccessible to naturalism is flies in the face of every computer on earth. And when you think on it deeply, all of the natural worlds is, in itself an embodiment of logic... and that is because logic is essentially just a language of symbolism we use to describe the nature of reality.
    Are you saying that
    1) Logic is not ideas?
    2) Ideas are not abstract but physical?
    3) That ideas have force on the physical?

    If not, then I don't think you are addressing the point I am trying to make.


    Maybe you misunderstand what I meant by "access to logic". I don't mean that the laws of logic are not at work on the thing. Newtens cradle, computers and brains all work in accordance with the laws of the universe, and in some other universe we could even accept here that logic could be different.
    by access, I mean an interchange of causality between the physical, and non-physical ideas.
    Am I wrong to think that logic is in the second group?

    ----------------
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3lF2qEA2cw
    ----------------
    To serve man.

  11. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    MindTrap

    You should look more into AI advances of the recent years. They have self-aware machines that are capable of recognising their own existence and identity. It's not actually all that complicated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx6kg0ZfhAI You just need some context, an observational ability, and a way to register the distinction of objects like yourself. Though there are many other aspects of self awareness computers have always had.

    Human consciousness is a huge range of individual traits and properties and while computers have many of them, none of them yet have all of them. So computers are not human. But, if you want to talk bout any individual property that humans have, you can probbly find it in todays AI world. Other than for learning and fun, there isn't much need to build a computer that is human, humans are cheap and abundant. Generally we want machines to do things humans can't do or have difficulty doing. (I'm off on a tangent but I'm trying to demonstrate why reproducing humans is not a primary AI gaol beyond the accademic sphere.)

    I'm not even sure what you mean by a non-physical thought. We cant access non-physical things so far as I can tell. Your brains are filled with physical properties and you can change your thoughts by changing your brain. And when you think, that is also reflected in thour brain.

    I don't understand how you can say a brain doesn't have access to logic. Why? Logic is everywhere. Everything in the universe is logical, how could our brain not access it?

    Are you saying that
    1) Logic is not ideas?
    2) Ideas are not abstract but physical?
    3) That ideas have force on the physical?
    I see Ideas as being information. Logic is information. Usually we mean human ideas, not all logic is human ideas, no.
    Ideas are physical, as much as anything else is.
    Yes ideas have a kind of force or substance, though for the human brain, they are representational.

    For instance, the idea of 3 is information I can type. This "3" here has a physical representation. You see it as a pattern of photons, it is also a pattern of electrical switches, it is also a represented by another binary abstract which in turn is represented by electrical states which are in fact electrons wich are composed of something else etc.... Or I could get out 3 coffe beans and put them on a plate and represent 3 that way.

    3 is never truely non physical or abstract. We just don't have awarenes of how it is physically represented in our minds, and not having awareness of it we deem it to be non-physical. People didnt think air was physical at one time because they couldn't really observe it, that's how we are. If we can't interact, it just is. But as we learn to interact and examine the world and ourselves at a deeper level we can start to understand that our understanding is not some mystical force but part of the way all things in this universe opperate. It is at least as physical as anything else is. (and I say it that way because some theories would have the physical world be an issusion itself, just information representation. That's possible, we don't have an easy way to access and test that yet.) But if a rock is physical, then so are our thoughts. That is where our investigations are leading us.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  13. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    [CENTER]
    The ultimate Mind Trap, is the impassable wall of separation between the meta-physical and the physical. I have often called this “access to logic”. There are in fact several walls, that trap the mind and separate it from the physical.
    Indeed, we have discussed "access to logic" before, but I like the way you state it here much better than in the past

    However, though you suggest it, I don't see a "wall of separation" as necessary, the way you do.

    Geology shows a progression in the complexity of life. From very simple forms to much more complex. Take for example the eye.
    "https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/eye/"
    96% of animal species have eyes. The first animal eyes did little but detect light—they helped to establish day/night cycles and coordinate behavior—but more-complex eyes soon evolved. A predator who can see its prey from a distance, or a prey animal that can see the shadow of a predator approaching, has a clear survival advantage over those who can't. Even a slight improvement in image quality provides a significant survival advantage, allowing for the step-by-step evolution of increasingly complex eyes.

    I see the same situation with respect to the brain. As animals grow more complex, they are capable of things simpler animals aren't capable of doing or even contemplating. The contemplating part is the significant issue, since otherwise no learning could take place. The ability to learn is the basis of logic.

    To paraphrase Apok, "logic is ordered thought, nothing more". As animals make decisions, memory of those decisions forms a right/wrong. Enough memory and logic seems inevitable to me.
    The thing that is missed is not every passed on trait needs to be a positive trait. As long as a negative trait does not interfere with reproduction it can be passed on.

    So, unless you can show life can not evolve ("learn" from success/mistakes) absent God, I don't see a problem.

  14. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  15. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You should look more into AI advances of the recent years. They have self-aware machines that are capable of recognising their own existence and identity. It's not actually all that complicated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx6kg0ZfhAI You just need some context, an observational ability, and a way to register the distinction of objects like yourself. Though there are many other aspects of self awareness computers have always had.
    I don't think that is what "self aware" means.
    But here self awareness is not my point of contention.
    I think it is relevant, but I think it is off track here.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Human consciousness is a huge range of individual traits and properties and while computers have many of them, none of them yet have all of them. So computers are not human. But, if you want to talk bout any individual property that humans have, you can probbly find it in todays AI world. Other than for learning and fun, there isn't much need to build a computer that is human, humans are cheap and abundant. Generally we want machines to do things humans can't do or have difficulty doing. (I'm off on a tangent but I'm trying to demonstrate why reproducing humans is not a primary AI gaol beyond the accademic sphere.)
    A very interesting topic to be sure, with all sorts of implications.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I'm not even sure what you mean by a non-physical thought. We cant access non-physical things so far as I can tell. Your brains are filled with physical properties and you can change your thoughts by changing your brain. And when you think, that is also reflected in thour brain.
    I'm not sure how to respond to this part.
    I mean I can say that your brain is not sad, you are.
    But if you equte your brain with yourself, then that wouldn't be true.. but that is just an assumption on both sides.

    So, my focus is going to be more on the non-physical nature of an Idea. So more on that below.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I don't understand how you can say a brain doesn't have access to logic. Why? Logic is everywhere. Everything in the universe is logical, how could our brain not access it?
    There seems to be some confusion in the thread as to what I mean by "access to logic", and I appreciate the question to give me the chance to elaborate.

    Access to logic is a distinction, between acting according to logical laws.

    Like, a thing not being itself, and not itself at the same time and in the same sense (law of identity).
    I think this is the level and in line with what you speak of when you say that "logic is all around".

    And the use of what the laws means in an abstract sense.
    Such as to say "X idea follows from Y idea".

    ----

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I see Ideas as being information. Logic is information. Usually we mean human ideas, not all logic is human ideas, no.
    Ideas are physical, as much as anything else is.
    Yes ideas have a kind of force or substance, though for the human brain, they are representational.
    I need you to explain what you mean by "ideas have force".
    What does that mean?

    How is the law of identity physical? how is the idea of a married batchelor real?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    For instance, the idea of 3 is information I can type. This "3" here has a physical representation. You see it as a pattern of photons, it is also a pattern of electrical switches, it is also a represented by another binary abstract which in turn is represented by electrical states which are in fact electrons wich are composed of something else etc.... Or I could get out 3 coffe beans and put them on a plate and represent 3 that way.
    Representational is the key here.
    You will only ever be able to point to representations of ideas, not the actual idea.
    Because Ideas are non-physical abstracts.
    This is the heart of the problem I am trying to bring up.

    What makes "3" represent anything in particular? Why not something else? and what force does the idea have on the representation?
    (this is part of the first wall in the OP)

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    3 is never truely non physical or abstract. We just don't have awarenes of how it is physically represented in our minds, and not having awareness of it we deem it to be non-physical. People didnt think air was physical at one time because they couldn't really observe it, that's how we are. If we can't interact, it just is. But as we learn to interact and examine the world and ourselves at a deeper level we can start to understand that our understanding is not some mystical force but part of the way all things in this universe opperate. It is at least as physical as anything else is. (and I say it that way because some theories would have the physical world be an issusion itself, just information representation. That's possible, we don't have an easy way to access and test that yet.) But if a rock is physical, then so are our thoughts. That is where our investigations are leading us.
    Well, that is a lot of assertions of faith.. I really can't take them as proofs to contradict my point.
    What I do take from this is your assertion that ideas are physical in nature.
    And I'm not sure I completly get what you mean by that.


    ------ Summary---
    Sig, you say that your thoughts are a reflection of the brain states. Due to the first wall to accessing logic, the brain state B that follows Brain state A, has nothing to do with the thought it represents.
    Because the though that it represents doesn't have physical force. Thus it is the chemcial necissity, not the logical necissity.

    ----
    Question to opponent.QUESTION FOR ALL-
    Is Sigs line something you ascribe to? That there is no such thing as the abstract ideas?


    -----------------------------------------
    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I see the same situation with respect to the brain. As animals grow more complex, they are capable of things simpler animals aren't capable of doing or even contemplating. The contemplating part is the significant issue, since otherwise no learning could take place. The ability to learn is the basis of logic
    This applies to the second wall. Namely that evolution does not select proper thought, it selects proper action.
    As there is no necissary connection between the abstract idea, and the actual action. Then Evolution is simply not equiped to select abstract logical thoughts over proper action attached to illogical thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    o paraphrase Apok, "logic is ordered thought, nothing more". As animals make decisions, memory of those decisions forms a right/wrong. Enough memory and logic seems inevitable to me.
    Your really assuming an awful lot in here.
    The problem I bring up is that thoughts are ordered by chemcial reaction, not abstract ideas".

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    So, unless you can show life can not evolve ("learn" from success/mistakes) absent God, I don't see a problem.
    by defining logic simply as "ordered thought", all thoughts are inherently logical, because they have an "order" to them.

    ---
    Summary
    --
    Unfortunately, your not really showing that the walls to logic I have presented don't exist. You are simply begging the question. Your assuming that because we do learn, then we must have access to logic according to the naturalistic world view. But it is not justified, and the reasons I lay out stand as walls against it being consistent with the naturalistic world view.

    I tell you "evolution doesn't have a mechanism to select proper thought because XYZ" you say "geology has shown a series of evolution where proper thought was selected..."(paraphrased)

    Surely that isn't a rebuttal, but question begging on your part.


    --------------------General Questions to all ------
    Do you understand what I mean when I say "access to logic"?
    In relation to the first wall to accessing logic, do you understand what it means to say that thought B follows chemically and not logically from thought A?
    In relation to the second wall, do you understand what it means to say that evolution is selecting action and not thought content?
    To serve man.

  16. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There seems to be some confusion in the thread as to what I mean by "access to logic", and I appreciate the question to give me the chance to elaborate.

    Access to logic is a distinction, between acting according to logical laws.

    Like, a thing not being itself, and not itself at the same time and in the same sense (law of identity).
    I think this is the level and in line with what you speak of when you say that "logic is all around".

    And the use of what the laws means in an abstract sense.
    Such as to say "X idea follows from Y idea".

    ----
    True, understanding this "access" has been somewhat elusive thus far.

    ---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    --------------------General Questions to all ------
    Do you understand what I mean when I say "access to logic"?
    In relation to the first wall to accessing logic, do you understand what it means to say that thought B follows chemically and not logically from thought A?
    If I may paraphrase you from a different thread dealing with this same idea:
    "the human brain could be akin to a radio or tv. Receiving signals from our consciousness. This is why when part of your brain is damaged part of the "signal" is lost" and it just seems thought processes are lost."

    Is this correct?

  17. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    True, understanding this "access" has been somewhat elusive thus far.
    So when we make a logical argument, we are appealing to the force of logic.
    Idea B follows logically from Idea A.

    A system that acts mechanically independent of this does not have "access" to the logic of the argument.

    Such that, suppose we placed two dominoes next to each other. We called the first one "idea A" and the second one "idea B".
    Then we pushed the first one, and due to physical forces of gravity Idea A lead to idea "B". (*note* this reflects the abstract nature of ideas, that are symbolically attached to different physical states *ask now to learn more*)

    As it was the force of Gravity, and no the force of logic that was the cause, it can't be said that in that instance idea B followed from idea A logically.

    (This is the "newtons cradle" I referenced earlier.)
    In order for one idea to Logically follow from the other, it must be the force of the idea that causes the connection, not some physical force.


    --Common error--
    It is an error to conflate a physical system that accurately reflects logical process, to be using so because of the force of logic, when it is other natural forces that are the actual cause.
    In the instance of the dominoes, the idea they are connected with, are arbitrary. It could just as well have been an illogical order, but the dominoes would have still fallen.

    Be it a computer, or a human brain, from the pov of naturalism they both have the same fault.

    ---

    Was this helpful? A specific question may help to pinpoint the miscommunication.
    To serve man.

  18. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Representational is the key here.
    You will only ever be able to point to representations of ideas, not the actual idea.
    Because Ideas are non-physical abstracts.
    This is the heart of the problem I am trying to bring up.
    Ideas are representations, they don't exist except as representations. Every idea you have is representational. And it is represented by physical connections, electricity, and chemistry in your brain. Just like every idea a computer has is represented by electricity on a circuit.

    You only say ideas are abstract because you can't peek inside your brain and experience how they are physically represented. So you have the implicit experience that they are not represented and are somehow independent of the "physical" universe. Logic is justt a representation of reality, a symbol to assign to observational expereince. It is meta-information.

    Some useful terms here
    "Actual" vs. "Representational"
    An actual house is, well, a house. A picture of that house is a representation of that house. The house is actual, the picture is representational. They are both real, the house is actually a house, an the picture is actually a picture.

    "Abstract"
    An abstraction is also a generalization. So, the word house could refer to any specific house. It is a category, a generalization, an abstraction. It's meaning to any individual is really dependent on their own experience with houses or representations of houses. They understand that the generalized house is any place where one dwells and has some sense of a right to reside there etc... And that is all based on expereince or representation as well.

    "Imaginary"
    This is a representation of a thing that is not actual. So, a drawing of a dragon is a piece of imagination. So is a drawing of a house that is not based on an actual house. Typically, all imagination is based on some kind of reference experience but is then re-combined, extrapolated, or otherwise modified to create a representation that has no actualized counterpart.

    ---------- Post added at 10:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 PM ----------

    So when we make a logical argument, we are appealing to the force of logic.
    Idea B follows logically from Idea A.

    A system that acts mechanically independent of this does not have "access" to the logic of the argument.

    Such that, suppose we placed two dominoes next to each other. We called the first one "idea A" and the second one "idea B".
    Then we pushed the first one, and due to physical forces of gravity Idea A lead to idea "B". (*note* this reflects the abstract nature of ideas, that are symbolically attached to different physical states *ask now to learn more*)

    As it was the force of Gravity, and no the force of logic that was the cause, it can't be said that in that instance idea B followed from idea A logically.

    (This is the "newtons cradle" I referenced earlier.)
    In order for one idea to Logically follow from the other, it must be the force of the idea that causes the connection, not some physical force.
    The dominos example requires some more thought than you give it I think.

    Assigning an idea to a domino is a kind of representation. So we represent two ideas with dominoes. Then you topple them into one another and say that this represents logic, that gravity acts as logic does. Well, that doesn't actually work out. Gravity is not logic. Logic is a representational system of symbolism used to determine a truth prospect. Gravity is a force applied between two objects based on their mass and possition in spacetime. Why would you expect it to work out such that gravity is a stand in for logic?

    However, lets say I want a physical representation of numbers. I want to count people coming into a store. I set it up so that everytime someone walks into the store a bean falls into a jar. i decide the beans represent people. Provided I set my machine up so that it functions correctly, I can count the beans "representational" and determine how many people came in. The beans and the people share a property of countable. Each is discrite and individualized. Because they share that property, we can make an easy substitution when examining that property. (the law of identity describes this property of countability/individualization, but that law, as I said, is a representation of the actuality of the physical world we inhabit).

    Computers, as you may or may not know, basically just count and compare in various ways, we call it binary logic. Because that counting and comparing is accurate and consistent, we can get accurate consistent information from them. On top of that counting we build many layers of abstraction and representation. Choose a nonsensical abstraction or representation and you will get nonsensical answers like in the dominos. Choose a good representation and abstraction, one that shares essential properties, you will get a counting machine that accurately represents reality like the bean counter does.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  20. #13
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Domino comparison
    This is important....
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The dominos example requires some more thought than you give it I think.

    Assigning an idea to a domino is a kind of representation. So we represent two ideas with dominoes. Then you topple them into one another and say that this represents logic, that gravity acts as logic does. Well, that doesn't actually work out. Gravity is not logic. Logic is a representational system of symbolism used to determine a truth prospect. Gravity is a force applied between two objects based on their mass and possition in spacetime. Why would you expect it to work out such that gravity is a stand in for logic?
    I am afraid you have missed the entire point of the example.
    The whole point is that gravit is not logic. That the physical forces are what govern the interaction, and not the representations.



    ---
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Ideas are representations, they don't exist except as representations. Every idea you have is representational. And it is represented by physical connections, electricity, and chemistry in your brain. Just like every idea a computer has is represented by electricity on a circuit.
    I don't think you are saying anything different than I did, when I talk about physical brain states or dominoes.

    On naturalsim
    1) Thoughts are simply how we experience certain physical brain states.
    - So in regards to your comments about ideas being representations.. we should be on the same page. yes?

    The assumption we may not share is that ideas are only physical.
    But I don't think at this moment it is central to my point. ..
    So I will focus on the Above domino point and see if I can communicate that to you.


    ---Links of interest--
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHKwIYsPXLg&t=802s
    Last edited by MindTrap028; November 27th, 2018 at 06:07 PM.
    To serve man.

  21. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    I am afraid you have missed the entire point of the example.
    The whole point is that gravit is not logic. That the physical forces are what govern the interaction, and not the representations.
    No one was ever confusing gravity with logic. So that would simply be a strawman if that is the point of it. I think you may have missed the point of the illustration if that is what you think it's point is. i think all of us can agree that gravity is not logic. No one needs convincing of that or even an illustration of that fact.

    "---Links of interest--
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHKwIYsPXLg&t=802s"

    This is a guy who doesn't understand computers for starters, nor is he very insightful about himself. He says the word "understanding" as if it were a mystical unity. A kind of magic that simply is. But understanding comes in many forms and you can dig down into it, analyze it, and take it apart into compnents and assumptions.

    He gives rivers as an example. Humans know what a river is, we understand it. But how do we understand it? It's not magic. Humans aren't born understanding a river. We have to see a river, experience a river, or have a river described tu us in terms of other experiences we have already had, such as, water, moving, etc... These are all sensory inputs we acculate as information in our minds and we connect them together as composits.

    So, I can make a computer that translates a Chinese symbol for river into the English idea of a river, and yes, it knows little about the river. But... I can also teach a computer what a river looks like, what you can do with it, what it is composed of and many other things. It's a lot more work, but it can be done. And the computer will understand a river much in the way a human does, but its composition, meaning, use, and general properties. And I can connect all that to the sumbol in english or chinese we use to describe a river.

    The problem with the Chinese Room is it really isn't showing a different process than in the human mind, it is showing only one level of what our brain does when it processes language, symbolic connection. Relating one symbol with another symbol. It's an important part of how our brains work, but in our brains those symbols also include visual expereinces, emotional expereinces, auditory experinces, tactile expereinces, numerous connections to other ideas and symbols that are very extensive. The Chinese room is really a simplification, that intentionally leaves out many other possible rooms and their functions. It claims to show a different kind of opperation, but what tit really shows is a differnet scale of opperation.

    The problem is, most people who don't work with computers don't really understand them well, and don't understand what is possible given enough time and resources. I grew up in the computer age, and constantly I've talked about what computers will someday do, and people telle me, no, they could never do that, only human minds can do that, yet year after year, computers do the things that people tell me would be impossible. And they can't tell me any reason, other than their philosophy says it "should" be impossible because of theri belief in the magical power of the rational mind.

    It's just wishful thinking, a kind of self agrandiing so that we can see ourselves as fundamentally different from the universe we inhabit. Gods of our own reality as it were. We are pretty amazing, far more complicated than we yet understand. But, so are many things in this universe we are in. It's getting harder and harder every year for dualsits to really point to what the soul can do that something without a soul can't do. I've had discussions about metaphysical zombies a few times. And dualists will claim that even if a machine can do everything a human can do, and is unidentifiable by us as anything other than human, then it still isn't human because it lacks a soul. But if it can do everything we can, then that means the sould does nothing, and if it does nothing, then it likely is nothing.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  22. Likes futureboy liked this post
  23. #15
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No one was ever confusing gravity with logic. So that would simply be a strawman if that is the point of it. I think you may have missed the point of the illustration if that is what you think it's point is. i think all of us can agree that gravity is not logic. No one needs convincing of that or even an illustration of that fact.
    That isn't what the example was for.
    The example is to show that the wall of causation. That the abstract/representative ideas are not the force at work, but physics and chemistry.
    Maybe your getting ahead of yourself?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The problem with the Chinese Room is it really isn't showing a different process than in the human mind,
    EXACTLY!!
    Now your getting closer.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The problem is, most people who don't work with computers don't really understand them well, and don't understand what is possible given enough time and resources. I grew up in the computer age, and constantly I've talked about what computers will someday do, and people telle me, no, they could never do that, only human minds can do that, yet year after year, computers do the things that people tell me would be impossible. And they can't tell me any reason, other than their philosophy says it "should" be impossible because of theri belief in the magical power of the rational mind.
    My point is not about computers, and your missing the point.
    I'm sorry, but your not quite getting it and your off on a tangent.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It's an important part of how our brains work, but in our brains those symbols also include visual expereinces, emotional expereinces, auditory experinces, tactile expereinces, numerous connections to other ideas and symbols that are very extensive. The Chinese room is really a simplification, that intentionally leaves out many other possible rooms and their functions. It claims to show a different kind of opperation, but what tit really shows is a differnet scale of opperation.
    The chinese room does do one thing well. It highlights the difference between mechanical and ideas.
    Your objections do not show a relevant flaw in the example so as to bridge that connection. As to him not understanding computers, computer people don't really understand philosophy apparently.

    I think your objection falls squarely into the "But the room knows" objection.

    But don't get caught up in the computer comparison yet, i really want to know you get the point first.. and so far I don't think you do, or you have sort of skipped over it too quickly in your mind and it doesn't come across.

    It seems to me that you may be so predisposed to believing something does happen, that your not really hearing the objection properly. That isn't intended as a critique, but more of an invitation to take a step back and consider the question, once it is understood properly.

    To be clear, this isn't a distinction regarding consciousness..I don't really care if computers can be self conscious (yet).
    Last edited by MindTrap028; November 29th, 2018 at 09:35 PM.
    To serve man.

  24. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    I'm just reacting to the arguments posted in the video you posted.

    This is a thread about dualism, and you offer an argument for dualism. It hinges upon the idea that logic is in some way independent of the physical universe, such that logic is a kind of force which is beyond the physical. A physical system has not the power to decide what is logical and what is illogical.

    My primary rebuttal is that logic is only a symbolic reflection of the nature of reality. In effect, all reality is 100% logical. It is never illogical. Only by misapplying symbolic representation can we make illogic. So it is illogic that is more uniquely human than logic and it stems from representation.

    The dominoes you set up are utterly logical. They exhibit the principles of identity, property, etc... the core elements of logic, which are based on our observations of the nature of reality. Now, we can decide to assign to them some representational values as you did in the experiment. At that point, you may make rational representations or irrational ones. But it is the mis-assignment of representation that creates illogic, not the dominoes themselves.

    Your position makes some unfounded assumptions and fails to examine from where logic came and what it really does.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  25. Thanks futureboy thanked for this post
  26. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    @ sif, I appreciate that. It wasn't the video that is my argument though. .. just some relates thoughts.

    The argument presented is not an argument t for duelism oer say. If true it may use that way, but it is ot conclusing this duelism. It is conclusing , thus on natrualsim there is a wall between logic and the natural order.

    You say I have assumptions and I am open to discussing those, but as I still think you are a bit off as to what the argument is and what it is concluding, I am skeptical. For example, the way you use the domino example does not address my point or seem to accurately read how I was applying the domino example.

    .. sorru I am on my phone so I can't quote directly..
    So I agree that nature is inherently logical. That is not a point of contention. I agree that ideas and arguments are this ultimately true because they reflect reality.
    Over all you are conxentraiting on aspects of logic, and my argument is more about the thoughts that reflect it, and how those thoughts form and the effects of those thoughts.
    Youbare just a bit off the mark. ... Maybe if you can asked a question about the assumption you think I am working with?

    ---------- Post added at 03:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 PM ----------

    @ sif, I appreciate that. It wasn't the video that is my argument though. .. just some relates thoughts.

    The argument presented is not an argument t for duelism oer say. If true it may use that way, but it is ot conclusing this duelism. It is conclusing , thus on natrualsim there is a wall between logic and the natural order.

    You say I have assumptions and I am open to discussing those, but as I still think you are a bit off as to what the argument is and what it is concluding, I am skeptical. For example, the way you use the domino example does not address my point or seem to accurately read how I was applying the domino example.

    .. sorru I am on my phone so I can't quote directly..
    So I agree that nature is inherently logical. That is not a point of contention. I agree that ideas and arguments are this ultimately true because they reflect reality.
    Over all you are conxentraiting on aspects of logic, and my argument is more about the thoughts that reflect it, and how those thoughts form and the effects of those thoughts.
    Youbare just a bit off the mark. ... Maybe if you can asked a question about the assumption you think I am working with?

  27. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Well, the assumptions I mean are these..

    1. That logic is a "force" in and of itself rather than simply a language for describing reality.

    2. That an idea has any reality beyond representation.

    If your argument is to show a wall between logic and the natural order, the problem with it doesn't ask what logic really is. Logic comes from observing and describing the natural order. Were the natural order different, then logic would be different. Logic comes from the natural order, there is no wall between the one and the other.

    To be more specific, human logic is an abstraction of the natural order. We experience reality, and we model it in our minds. Logic is a conscious set of rules we use to evaluate ideas to see if they are going to prove accurate or not.

    It helps to ask what our higher order thinking is used for. What is it we are doing most of the time when we "think" and what do we gain from it. I propose that what it is best at, is predicting the outcome of actions. We must act in our environment, and we have goals we want to achieve. To achieve goals, we must predict the outcome of our actions in the natural world. If I do X, what will happen? If I want X to happen, what must I do?

    To do that, we have to have a kind of model of the natural world i our mind, a set of rules, and a set of causes. We then play out a cause and effec imaginary scenario. Logic is one of the tools we use to audit these kinds of thoughts, to check to see that our model of events comports with the way reality actually opperates. A good model, one that reflects how things work, will tend to lead to accurate predictions. A bad model, that has mistakes about how things work, will often lead to inaccurate predictions. Illogic is basically a bad modeling of reality. Logic is a good modeling of reality.

    Your second point in the opening is putting the cart before the horse in a sense. It is saying that good accurate thinking doesn't always naturally occur, and thus we must not be natural since we clearly have good accurate thinking (aka logic). It tries to do a loop-de-loop to attack naturalism... AKA If evolution cant guarantee correct thought, then we have no way to evaluate anything we think, since naturalism is something you think, if it is true, you can't be certain you are right, so you can't honestly argue anything as true. I've had this thrown at me lots of times.

    Well, the truth of the matter is humans don't always think logically, our thogts and predictions do often turn out to be wrong. We are not automatically "logical." What we are however, is somewhat self correcting. When we discover our models don't work, we try again using different models. We use feedback loops to try and choose best likely outcomes. Give a human lots of misinformation and they will mess things up pretty badly trying to work out solutions to real world problems. They still might self correct, the trial and error mechanic is partly below our level of conciousness, its hard wired in as a mechanism for discovering correct and incorrect approaches.

    Does that mean our logic is absolute truth when it works? No. We could all be computer programs in a giant simulation and the real reality is actually much different, thus our logic only works in our little program universe. if that's the case, then all bets are off, but we really have to deal with those questions we can actuall address and interact with.

    Philisophically, I'm a pragmatist. Truth is only as good as the purpose you put it to. We can only expereince some fraction of the reality around us, and we do it represeentationally. Any optical illusion will tell you what you expereince is not alway "Truth" it may well never be Truth. But... if it get our needs met, then it is as much truth as we have use for. It proves helpful that the more we understand the better, so we seek understanding sometimes even when we don't yet know what purpose we will put it too. But when knowledge is simply beyond our ability, well, it doesn't concern me much. If all our reality is an abstraction... well it is still our reality that we have to cope with so we should do the best we can with that.

    That is why my own challenge to dualism is a pragmatic one... What is it that the non-physical mind can do, that a physical mind can't do and why?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  28. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  29. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    1. That logic is a "force" in and of itself rather than simply a language for describing reality.
    Are you saying that illogical worlds are possible?
    Specifically, inherently illogical worlds?
    If that is the case, then I can concied that I'm wrong..and win.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    2. That an idea has any reality beyond representation.
    Actually, you have this backwards.
    I am arguing that ON naturalism. Ideas have no force or reality beyond it's hapenstance causation from the physical.
    Wall #1 is about that implication.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    If your argument is to show a wall between logic and the natural order, the problem with it doesn't ask what logic really is. Logic comes from observing and describing the natural order. Were the natural order different, then logic would be different. Logic comes from the natural order, there is no wall between the one and the other.
    This is not the wall being pointed to.
    The wall is one of causation, that on naturalism. The idea has no causaul powers.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    To be more specific, human logic is an abstraction of the natural order. We experience reality, and we model it in our minds. Logic is a conscious set of rules we use to evaluate ideas to see if they are going to prove accurate or not.
    I'm afraid at this point you are simply assuming away my actual point, and that is due to you having missed above.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Your second point in the opening is putting the cart before the horse in a sense. It is saying that good accurate thinking doesn't always naturally occur, and thus we must not be natural since we clearly have good accurate thinking (aka logic). It tries to do a loop-de-loop to attack naturalism... AKA If evolution cant guarantee correct thought, then we have no way to evaluate anything we think, since naturalism is something you think, if it is true, you can't be certain you are right, so you can't honestly argue anything as true. I've had this thrown at me lots of times.
    The entire point of the second wall is that evolution is not equiped to select good ideas from bad ideas.
    I don't see a rebuttal of that, though you do go on a bit.


    ---
    Summary.
    Basically sig, you seem to be mostly attacking the concusion, without addressing the actual points.
    In this post you still miss Wall #1, and while you do try to address #2, you don't accuratly address it iether.
    Wall #2 is about a naturalistic mechanism to select accurate thoughts. You skip far, far ahead in that evolutionary state to concious modeling.
    Which is really, really begging the question.


    You have got one thing correct. And that is the argument is based on denying the natural consequences of wall 1 & 2.
    In that.. the two walls are true only for naturalism. As we do have access, naturalism must be false.

    This doesn't appear to logically incorrect in form, so you have to accuratly address the first two points.


    So.
    1) Do ideas have force?
    You seem to say no here, and that is precisly the point of wall #1. So #1 is correct. (I think you are really missing the vast implications of this point).
    2) Can evolution select good ideas?
    Here you make 2 errors. One you ignore the first wall's implications and speak as though the ideas have some force, and 2 you jump to fully formed man, and just beg the question.
    To serve man.

  30. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Are you saying that illogical worlds are possible?
    Specifically, inherently illogical worlds?
    If that is the case, then I can concied that I'm wrong..and win.
    I'm curious what that argument is for that last point, but...

    Are illogical worlds possible? No, but logic could be different in different worlds. The logic of our world would not necessarily be the same as the logic of a different world. After all, logic is a description of how that world works, not a universal across all imagined worlds.

    Actually, you have this backwards.
    I am arguing that ON naturalism. Ideas have no force or reality beyond it's hapenstance causation from the physical.
    Wall #1 is about that implication.
    Ideas are only representational. That is the possition of naturalism (or at least my version of it) so that would not be a critique at all. It is only a critique if you assume there is some proof that ideas do have an existence beyond being representations. That is the falsee assumption I was attacking.

    This is not the wall being pointed to.
    The wall is one of causation, that on naturalism. The idea has no causaul powers.
    Ideas to dot have causal poweers, who said they did or should?

    The entire point of the second wall is that evolution is not equipped to select good ideas from bad ideas.
    Of course, it does. In evolution that which enables survival is good, and that which does not is bad. The good perpetuates, the bad ceases to exist. So it is simply incorrect.

    Good or bad is always contextual to an object of some kind. I think what you mean to say is it cannot separate truth from fiction. And my rebuttal is to say that is correct, it cannot do so at a metaphysical level. What it can do is build a tool that is useful in survival by making accurate predictions and that requires at least a relative truth to opperate effectively. Evolution does not lead ineveitably to any given solution, any functional solution will do. A functional fiction is as good as a functional truth. But it so happens that functional truths seem to be more common and functional fictions are somewhat rare.

    My Summary

    The critique is based on totally unfounded assumptions. It assumes that logic should have a force, and it assumes that peoples thoughts should always be truth. Both are largely unfounded presuppositions.
    It is not self evident that ideas do or should have any force.
    It is quite obvious that human thought is not always true/accurate.

    ---------- Post added at 11:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 PM ----------

    Clarification

    Ideas have force: In the sense that they are represented by chemistry/electricity in our brain, aka they have a physical form, yes.

    Ideas have force: In that then somehow make things true or that having an idea shapes reality or controls the physical world, no.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mind Trap's
    By MindTrap028 in forum Logical Riddles & Puzzles
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: November 26th, 2011, 04:22 PM
  2. Mind Trap #1
    By MindTrap028 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: June 13th, 2009, 06:44 PM
  3. Mind Trap VS The Dog
    By MindTrap028 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: March 24th, 2009, 11:49 PM
  4. Mind Trap Got hit
    By MindTrap028 in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 21st, 2008, 05:08 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •