double post.

It isn't really necessary to imagine  another possible world for me to reply to this.  Imagine instead that there are purple trees in your bathroom.   When you imagine purple trees in you bathroom that doesn't mean that the purple trees actually exist in your bathroom.  The purple trees may or may not exist in your bathroom, but either way the purple trees definitely exist in your mind.  If you imagine other possible worlds those worlds exist in you mind, and the rules of logic for those worlds also exist in your mind.  In every possible world that you imagine the same  rules of logic apply, and there is a single intelligent mind that all those worlds have in common.  That mind is your mind. 

 

 edit:  spelling correction

Pardon the French but, Bullshit. The connection is definitional, have you ever seen rain that wasn't the falling part of a cloud?

No, they would making the error of taking imprecise language for granted on which to base logical inference. "It is raining" is equal to "there is a cloud" with the unspoken qualification that the cloud is in a certain state. To affirm the presence of a cloud in that state would logically imply rain, no fallacy involved.

 

You can if you refine the precision of your language to better reflect the nature it is allegedly representing.

You are focusing too intently on my choice of words and not intently enough on the concepts that I was trying to express with them. I think that my meaning was quite clear, so I suspect that you are merely engaging in a pointless and irritating form of verbal-pedantry, but I will try to express my meaning in other terms on the off-chance that you really are as dense as you portray yourself to be.

The things that exist outside of the mind follow a particular pattern of behavior. One aspect of this behavior is a thing cannot exist and not-exist at the same time. Another aspect of this behavior is that two bodies cannot occupy precisely the same location at the same time. In other words, I am talking about the most fundamental facts about the world outside of our minds that we hope to reflect in our systems of reasoning. This outside-the-mind stuff is what I was referring to with the expressions "the territory" and "the physical embodiment of the laws of logic." Whether it is proper to call them physical is unimportant, because you can call them whatever you want: the banana-laws, the atom-behaviors, whatever. What is important is that you distinguish those behavioral facts from our systems of reasoning that are confined to mental activity, which are what I was referencing with the expressions "the map" and "the mental codification of the laws of logic." Again, what you call them is unimportant. What is important is that the inside-the-mind stuff is not the same thing as the outside-the-mind stuff.

The first premise says that "the laws of logic" exist in all possible worlds. If you are talking about the outside-the-mind stuff, then there is no problem with that premise. If you are talking about the inside-the-mind stuff, then you are asserting your conclusion in one of its supporting premises, which would mean that you have committed the fallacy of begging the question. In order for this premise to be considered established, one must interpret it as talking about the outside-the-mind stuff.

The second premise says that "the laws of logic" are ontologically dependent upon a mind. If you are talking about the outside-the-mind stuff, then your second premise assumes the truth of the conclusion that you have set out to establish, which would mean that you have committed the fallacy of begging the question. If you are talking about the inside-the-mind stuff, then there is no problem with the premise.

You conclude the argument by saying that "an intelligent being exists in all possible worlds." As I showed in the two paragraphs above, one must interpret the first premise as talking about outside-the-mind stuff and the second premise as talking about inside-the-mind stuff in order to avoid the fallacy of begging the question. Fallacious reasoning cannot establish the conclusion. Interpreted such as to avoid fallacy, do the premises eliminate the possibility that there is a conceivable world with the same outside-the-mind laws of physics as our own world and also has no minds in it? No. That remains a viable option because it can be asserted without contradicting the premises. Hence, your conclusion has not been established.

Now, I have rewritten the above paragraphs about five times to make them clearer, and I think that the result that you see does communicate my meaning and objection clearly enough that you can address the concepts that I am putting forward instead of quibbling about my choice of words. Any attempt to continue with the pointless and irritating pedantry that you used before will only result in me dropping out of this discussion with you because, to speak frankly, I do not have the interest or patience that would be needed to deal with the kind of pseudo-intellectual fucktard who would do such a thing. If you want to be taken seriously, then make a substantive reply this time.



I appreciate that you took the time to respond to his counter-argument about my description of modus tollens arguments, especially under these circumstances, seeing as how I'm so sick of typing for now. Thank you

Fortunate_Son, the squirrel would like to offer you a peanut if you can tell him why, without being able to use logic because, alas, he has no mind, he can distinguish a leaf from an acorn.

 

 

No, the law of gravity is an a posteriori principle describing a physical behavior.  Logic does not reflect physical behavior.

No.  I said nothing other than that a mind is necessary to have laws of logic.  Without a mind, there can be no truth.  And there are absolutely no possible worlds where truth does not exist.  So to even posit that A has the property of being ~A is actually a TRUTH STATEMENT you are attempting to make about A.

I fight fire with fire.  Christians are not necessarily tree-hugging pacifists.  Jesus certainly was not a hippy.  He was a warrior and he did not play nice all of the time either.  Shutting the mouths of obstreperous twits (and to be fair, I've read your posts and you are more down to earth than most of the idiots here) requires a degree of aggression. 

That makes no sense.  You are saying that A has the property of being A?

Properties are non-defining characteristics of a thing.  Once you get into essentials, you are no longer talking about properties.  You are just simply defining something.  To say, for example, that a dog has the property of being a canine is saying that there could potentially be a dog that is not a canine, but still a dog.  

We do not base the laws of logic on things.  They are prerequisites for any kind of comprehension that we have of sense objects.  For you to assert that we identify these as properties and codify them into laws suggests that we create logic by using logic.. how would you be able to codify your observations into laws if you were not already using logic?  

A priori means not justified in experience.  It applies to propositions, not objects.  What epistemology classes are you talking?  If we have to observe something in order to know it and justify it, then it is not a priori.

And I've imagined a universe where 1 + 1 = 3.  I've done it.  I've imagined it.

You are begging the question.  I'm arguing that (A = A) is not outside-the-mind stuff.  These are not properties that objects have.  You do not observe the property of ~B in A nor do you observe the property of A in A. 

You are saying nothing more than that the laws of logic can exist without a mind because they are descriptions of the way non-mental objects behave.  This is begging the question on your part.  We know that logic is a process of the mind and we know the ontological nature of the laws of logic is that they are truth statements.  No truth statements can exist without a mind.  You are simply positing that they somehow refer to physical objects beyond the statements, as if "A being A" is a behavior.  It ISN'T.  It's an identity statement, an application of the LAWS OF LOGIC.  And as I keep on saying, this sort of codification requires LOGIC TO BEGIN WITH. 

Any law is ontologically dependent upon a mind.  The laws of gravity are ontologically dependent on minds.  The issue is the nature of the laws themselves.  The laws of logic are A PRIORI.  They are NOT FALSIFIABLE.   If you go forward with your idea, you would have to somehow establish (1) how the laws of logic are potentially falsifiable, and (2) if you could actually justify them when they are reflections of the way that the outside world behaves.  (1) is problematic because you cannot tell me how, for example, something can both be and not be at the same time.  (2) is also a problem because you cannot possibly observe the entire universe for all time to know that they will always be true.

Do I care?

Seriously dude, all this back and forth metaphysical jargon and you can't take 10 seconds to address the squirrel scenario?

 

The squirrel is starting to cry... look what you did.

 

Animals do not use logic.  They simply act on instinct.  Their brains simply function according to physical laws.  They have no free will. 

And your evidence for this is...?

It has been amply demonstrated that physical behavior does not deviate from that which we call "logic." If so, please let me know how physical reality does deviate from logic. If you cannot demonstrate this, then logic does indeed reflect physical behavior.

Where did "truth" come from? You're introducing a new element, unjustifiably so, and without any supporting argument.

You are discussing our conceptions, not the physical reality on which our conceptions are modeled. The fact that we can use logic only implies that we are capable of second-order thought -- the ability to think about thinking. Logic is a model of how we think, which is itself a physical process. How we think is based entirely on observable reality (though the results of our thinking is often not based on reality at all).

I was perfectly polite in my post. You started the passive-aggressive bullshit. If you had addressed my post in the same tone I had used, I would've refrained from cursing out of respect. But as you refused to show respect, I figured I might as well toss it out the window, too.

And which Bible did you read? Jesus turned over some tables, and cursed a fig tree in a snit, but otherwise preached about turning the other cheek. If he was a warrior, he wasn't a very good one.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Properties of things are indeed essential to identity. The physical existence of a neutron in an atom is its "thing". It is what it is. However, it's properties -- its position in relation to other particles, its lack of charge, its velocity -- distinguish it from other particles within the atom. It is part of its identity. Without this unique set of properties, the neutron would not exist as a unique "thing." (Normally, I would use the word "entity," as in an element of a set, but I am hesitant to do so. I would not want you to misinterpret my meaning, and assume I was attributing intelligence to the neutron. This has happened before, with others who do not understand the various meanings of "entity" within context.)

Logic is a prerequisite for comprehension. Not that our comprehension of reality is dependent upon reality. Logic is one of the tools we use. However, the "Laws of Logic," as you call them, are tools we achieved through second-order thought -- thinking about thinking. Conceptualizing about concepts. These tools are as intrinsic to reality as Newton's Laws are intrinsic to gravity.

We don't create logic by using logic any more than we create math by using math.

It seems we agree that in the physical world, a thing cannot be another thing. Let's start there.

In a world in which a thing cannot be another thing, evolution would favor animals that are able to distinguish that a thing cannot be another thing. For instance, nature would favor a squirrel that can distinguish a nut from a leaf, just to use a completely random example. Further, nature would favor a squirrel that was able to identify a particular tree as "home," from among all the existing trees.

As animals evolved the ability to process information (which is nothing more than relationships between things -- the "properties" of things, and the things themselves), those that were able to process information in a way that conformed to physical reality would in fact be more successful than those that were unable to distinguish the real from the unreal, or one unique thing from another unique thing. In fact, the more accurate the mapping between information processing, and the information itself (that is, reality), the more successful the animal will be.

This is simple evolution here. Nothing surprising.

So why should it surprise you that humans evolved to have a fairly accurate mapping between our conception of reality, and reality itself? And if reality itself is "logical" (that is, internally consistent), then why should we not develop the ability to process information logically? And then once we start questioning how we know things, we would naturally discover "logic."

You don't have to jump through a bunch of epistemic hoops to get to logic. It was already there, in the reality in which we live. All that is required is that reality is internally consistent.

Sorry. I have never taken a philosophy class. I have perhaps misapplied the term. I reckon I should've simply said that logic is contingent on reality; reality is not contingent upon logic.

At least, it is not contingent upon our understanding of logic. There is that conceptual model of logic we carry around in our heads, but it reflects a "real" logic only about as much as Newton's Laws reflect "real" gravity (at least, at normal day-to-day ranges of speed and mass).

If you have imagined an entire universe based on that, please explain what that universe would be. You simply stated something that is nonsense. That does not constitute a universe.

That's not logic.  That's like saying that there is no qualitative difference between lovemaking with a human being and doing it with a robot that duplicate all of the motions. Brain activity does not equal logic.

What are you talking about?  The law of gravity is based on our repeated observation of how objects fall.  This is potentially revisable, something could conceivable start floating up in the air and then we would have to revise the law itself.

We did not formulate the law of identity based on the repeated observation that objects happen to be what they are.  This is not something that is potentially falsifiable insofar that an object being itself is not a physical behavior.  I really do not understand how you could interpret it this way.

The laws of logic have nothing to do with physical reality.  They have to do with the comprehension of physical reality.  In order for us to understand physical reality, we must have self-verifying principles which allow us to comprehend what we perceive.  Logic is not something that we acquired from experience.  It is inherent to the human condition.

What?  The nature of the laws of logic is that they are truth statements.  Anytime you say something is true, you are applying logic.  How is that not relevant? 

So you are reducing logic to brain chemistry?

Read Revelation 19:15, Ecclesiastes 3:1, Daniel 9:26, and Matthew 24:6, 10:34, 11:12.

But not ALL properties.  For example, you are still going to be Nigel even if you stop being bold because boldness is a contingent property that you have.  Whereas a dog would stop being a dog as soon as you remove the property of it being canine because, in fact, canine is not a property but essentially an identity statement.  

It would still be a neutron, just different.

Thinking and conceptualizing requires us to already be predisposed to using logic.  Therefore, it cannot be derived in this way.  I have cut out much of your post because a lot of what you've written trades on this contradiction.

Once again, you are treating existence as a property, i.e. "A is a property of A."  Do you really want to do this?  Because then I will prove God using the ontological argument.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.  What model of logic do we carry in our heads?

That's my point.  You do the same thing when you imagine a universe with no minds and yet still apply mental existents to it.

 

Also, as a head's up, many here do not accept logical arguments of any sort as pure proof of what is true in reality.  We don't care if you can come to the conclusion that you think something is true.  We need to see it in reality to accept its truth.  People can think wrong (they often do), so a common way to externally validate our thoughts is their reflection in reality.  Basically, materialists need empirical evidence for truth.  We do this because we know how human thought has been, and will continue, to be erroneous if not based on actually observing what is concretely around us.  This is why Bob doesn't like philosophy.  It has little use, especially since science has damn near taken over all of its domains. 

 

/rant

 

No, I am a neutral monist, I do not believe consciousness resides in brains, guess again.

 

 

So what? You would use UI to prove UG as its consequence, anyway. I'm simply bypassing all that handwaving to tell you that a thing is what it is because that is the nature of things being things.

 

 

Yes, I am saying that the logic of UI, and of course, UG, is derived from that very process. The logic we engage in presently is a matured, refined version of it and its consistency derives from the basic nature of the labelling/cataloguing interaction itself.

 

 

No it doesn't, not inherently, anyway. In discourse, maybe I'll grant you, but not in things.

 

 

Que? I said "naturally AS counting" not "from counting", you can relate Bayes Theorem directly from a table of frequencies, it can be directly observed as a consequence of sorting, just like counting.

 

 

Actually you must, there is no avoiding it because ~B is the universe in which B exists and at no time have you ever observed B without ~B nor will you so the very notion of "not observing" ~B in A is ultimately absurd, it's all one universe, Fortunate_son.

 

"A" isn't a property it's a label, what A labels you most definitely do observe in A. This is the category error that others have been contending that you're making.

You must have reading comprehension problems.

 

So, I'm a plagiarist and a liar?

It's irrelevant to the point that your argument is similar to it.  The point I was brining it up for, which might have escaped you, is that your argument makes the same mistake.  Your argument is dependant on a premise which not everyone will take for granted and which, unique to your argument (with regards to Plantinga's), happens to be completely incorrect, namely the premise that, 'The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon a mind.'  They are not, not in the way in which you mean. 

Logic clearly exists independent of the existence of a mind.  Here your interlocutors are talking exclusively of a human mind and they've extended that to all biological creatures.  It's clear you take issue with this, because the mind you're referring to (which I'll take to be the intelligent being in your conclusion) is your god.  It's clear that that's what your talking about because not every possible world will have biological creatures at all or from it's inception (or indeed before it), which would be a requirement of your argument.  The only thing, then, that fits the bill is your god.  So, for the sake of brevity, as you might say, your god=a mind=an intelligent being.  It's clever of you not to use your god directly at all in your argument, so let's rewrite that argument to make what's indirect direct.

(1) The laws of logic exist in all possible worlds.

(2) The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon god;a mind;an intelligent being

THEREFORE, god;a mind;an intelligent being exists in all possible worlds.

Here's your original argument, with out obvious mention of god.

Well, I take issue with your definition of god, for one.  This doesn't prove that definition at all.  Particularly, it doesn't prove that the being is sufficient for it's own existence nor that it's unable to be improved upon.  In fact, those requirement are entirely unnecessary given the form of your argument.  You're argument fails at proving your god exists (which is really what it sets out to do), but that's not the only reason to reject it!

If we look at premise 2 again, and ignore that your god is rejected right off the bat, then we have the problem that logic exists and works independently of mind and that it necessarily must.  Premise 2 can be rejected on the basis of that belief.  Unlike Plantinga's argument, where the controversial premise has yet to be shown to be true (because there is no evidence for it), the statement you've made is patently false.  I think that's been covered quite well by others and you have yet to respond showing comprehension of that.

Throwing out that premise negates your condition for refutation wherein a person would have to prove, 'That the laws of logic do not exist in all possible worlds AND that logic does not require a mind.'  No one here, except you, believe that there is any world in which logic does not exist nor does anyone here, except you, believe that logic requires a mind (especially your god).  As for the other condition, it's nonsense.

So, while everyone else here continues to argue with you, as they might, I'm quite done.  Your argument is very, very bad.

Yeah, right.