I decided to email the fellow running the 'Stanford Challenge'

 

http://i53network.org/The_Stanford_Challenge.html

 

Here are our exchanges.

 

#1 Todangst to Tripplehorn

Dear Kelly:

From your site, you write:

"If you answered that the law of noncontradiction is material, then in order to collect your money, you must give an empirical demonstration"

What other types of demonstration are there?

"of where the law of noncontradiction is located."

Simple. In a brain. The demonstration is that I can provide you with the law by telling you about it.

"Moreover, you must tell us, in pounds, the exact weight of the law of noncontradiction."

The law is encoded, neurochemically, in my brain. The bundle of neurons devoted to the concept are in my cerebral cortex... I don't see much value in giving you a weight for these neurons...

"Lastly, if you claim that the law of noncontradiction is located in an object like a symbolic logic textbook, then you must prove that if the textbook was destroyed, the law of noncontradiction would perish with it."

The concept is created a priori, whenever a sentient brain contemplates existence. One concept, multiple representations.

Now, you tell me: how can something exist immaterially? How can an idea exist without a brain? You use the term 'immaterial, I have a challenge for you:

Give me a (positive) ontology for 'immateriality' that does not steal from materialism Do not provide a completely negative description, ( i.e. devoid of any universe of discourse). I offer you 5300 dollars if you succeed.

 

 

From Kelly to todangst #2

Thank you for your email.

If the law of non-contradiction is material, then the laws of logic in my brain are different from the laws of logic in your brain. If i said that 2+2=5, and you said that 2+2=4, how would you settle that dispute. Because you see, i could just appeal to my personal laws of logic that exist in my brain, and you could then appeal to your personal laws of logic that exist in your brain. The laws of logic then becomes subjective, and rational discourse is impossible. Anyone could say anything, and they would be right since they are appealing to the laws of logic that exist inside their brain.

The only way to resolve this contradiction is to appeal to a transcendent principal that exists outside of ourselves that governs both of us (and the principal remains true whether or not we agree with it).

Secondly, you write, "How can an idea exist without a brain?"

Is it your position that man created the laws of logic or discovers the laws of logic because if he created the laws of logic, then that means before the evolution of the first brain, 2 plus 2 did equal 5 (and 6, 7, 8,9,10, etc.). So i guess i am asking did man create math or discover math? For if man created math, then what is from stopping me from creating my own math (such as having a system where 2+2=5), and how would you go about trying to rationally prove me wrong.

Yours
Kelly

 

From Todangst to Kelly #3

Hello,

Thank you for your email.

If the law of non-contradiction is material, then the laws of logic in my brain are different from the laws of logic in your brain.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. There is one universe, impacting upon similar brains, in a similar fashion. For any particular law of logic, we have one law, based on one definition, and multiple representations of that law, in material brains, or books, etc. And we would expect this to be so, since we would expect the same universe with one set of basic metaphysics, to have the same impact on similar brains.

Your response is a basic error that leaves out the fact that the universe is a singular constant. Once you recognize this error, you see that the assumption that there would be 'different laws of logic' is unsubstantiated.


>If i said that 2+2=5, and you said that 2+2=4, how would you settle that dispute. Because you see, i could just appeal to my personal laws of logic that exist in my brain, and you could then appeal to your personal laws of logic that exist in your brain.


This comment is defeated by my above points. One universe with one basic metaphysics. One definition, multiple representations. You must explain how different brains could possibly, sanely glean different metaphysics, given ONE universe with one basic metaphysics.

Hint: You can't.

The only way to resolve this contradiction is to appeal to a transcendent principal that exists outside of ourselves that governs both of us (and the principal remains true whether or not we agree with it).

The only way to solve the 'contradiction' is to refer to the rules that govern the numbers 2 and 4. We can expect that two minds can conceive of the same rule, given that the universe itself is the constant, with its one basic metaphysics.

Secondly, you write, "How can an idea exist without a brain?"

Is it your position that man created the laws of logic or discovers the laws of logic because if he created the laws of logic, then that means before the evolution of the first brain, 2 plus 2 did equal 5 (and 6, 7, 8,9,10, etc.).

You didn't answer the question. In fact you ran from it. So I'll ask it again:

How can an idea exist without a brain. For you to make your claims, you have to be able to answer this question. Please don't respond with another argument from ignorance.

Can you also provide an ontology for immateriality that doesn't steal from materialism? Oh, and please don't send a list of negatives, provide a postive set of attributions.

Thanks.

Kelly to todangst #4

Hello Chris, Thank you for your reply. For this email, I am going to assume that you are an atheist but if you are not, i am sorry that i might have misrepresented your positions. You write that "the universe is a singular constant" How do you know that. Do you now have an answer for Hume regarding the problem of induction. First, you are going to have to establish that the universe is a singular constant, and if you cannot establish that, then there is no reason for someone to say that different laws of logic exist in my brain than from your brain. You write, "How can an idea exist without a brain" My answer is that no idea can exist apart from the mind of God. I will now ask you the question that did math exist before the evolution of a brain. So when 2 organisms were laying next to 2 other organisms, were there 4 total organisms, or does a brain have to authorize that there are 4 total organisms for there to be 4 total organisms. If a brain is not there to authorize the 4 organisms, are there then 5 total organisms. My positive ontology is the Bible as interpreted in the Westminster Confession of Faith. (this is my first principal.) Below is something i wrote to someone else. I am copy and pasting it so that you might better understand my position. The ONLY valid way to argue for the Bible is to presuppose it and if you do not, I completely undermine my own argument. Here is why. "You are right, i cannot prove the Bible, if i did, then i would simply undermine my own position since the Bible is suppose to be believed on by faith, and not on logic. The Bible is my ultimate authority, and if seek to use extra-biblical principals (such as autonomous logic, archeology, autonomous science, etc.) to prove the bible, then those extra-biblical principals become my ultimate authority, and thus i undermine my own position.

The Bible is therefore my axiom, I assume that it is true, and then test it. We do the same thing with math, we assume math is true, and therefore we are able to "know" that 2+2=4. We cannot prove math with math without begging the question. We are all forced to beg the question somewhere, but i as a Christian only beg the question once, that is, with the Bible, and through the Bible, i am able to understand the rest of reality." Your first principal is yourself (i assume), and if you presuppose yourself as your ultimate epistemological authority, you can literally know nothing. I believe i establish that on the third question on the 5300 Challenge. Well anyway, thanks for your email. I look forward to hearing from you. Kelly p.s. the next email i receive from you, i may not respond right away. I am pretty busy in general, so please be patient... Talk so you soon.

 

Todangst to Kelly #6

Hello Chris, Thank you for your reply. For this email, I am going to assume that you are an atheist but if you are not, i am sorry that i might have misrepresented your positions. You write that "the universe is a singular constant" How do you know that.

Hi Kelly.

You are misreading my words as if they are an inductive statement. Instead, I am providing you with simple, basic metaphysics. To exist is to exist as something, to have identity. We know these things axiomatically. We know them a priori.

These axioms are defended through retortion. Any attempt to refute them must rely upon them.

From the fact that something exists, and that it exists as something, and not it's own negation, we have a basic metaphysical basis for deduction.

Do you now have an answer for Hume regarding the problem of induction.

You probably don't know what the 'problem' actually is. You probably, mistakenly, believe that the 'problem' is that one must assume a "uniformity of nature" as both a necessary and sufficient grounds for induction.

This post will refute your commonly held misperceptions as to what the problem is:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/an_easy_argument_to_refute_van_tillian_calvinist_presuppositionalism

And this post will show why there's no 'real problem' with induction:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/why_the_problem_of_induction_really_isnt_a_problem_and_why_theists_dont_even_get_it_right

Even Hume himself argued that induction was not irrational, but merey without an axiomized foundation. However this problem was solved by Kolmogov in 1933.

I have a lengthy examination of Hume's work if you'd like to read it... (have you ever even read his work, let alone the centuries of philosophical responses to it? Do you even know what the 'problem' is?

In addition, you probably are unaware that the scientific method is both inductive and deductive, working from statistical probabily and falsification, meaning that the 'problem of induction' is simply not a problem to science at all.

> First, you are going to have to establish that the universe is a singular constant

I've already answered this: This is simple, basic metaphysics.

You write, "How can an idea exist without a brain" My answer is that no idea can exist apart from the mind of God.

That is not an answer. It's a naked assertion, that relies on an incoherent term "god"

To actualy answer, you must provide:

1) an ontology for immateriality that does not steal from materialism.

2) A method for demonstrating how ideas can exist part from brains.

Please do so in your next response, or concede that you are unable to do so.

I will now ask you the question that did math exist before the evolution of a brain.

No a priori system can exist without a brain, and a universe/set of constants.But this does not mean that people can ignore the basic metaphysics of our universe, so it is not a grounds for arguing that math is entirely subjective or random.

Now, I will again ask you to answer my question above.

My positive ontology is the Bible as interpreted in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

(this is my first principal.)

This is NOT an ontology for immateriality. The bible does not provide a positive ontology for immateriality, or 'transcendence"

Please be honest with yourself and concede that you don't have an answer.

Below is something i wrote to someone else. I am copy and pasting it so that you might better understand my position.

I understand your position - you don't actually have one. Your inability to answer my questions is proof... now, all I need you to do is recognize this. addendum: Here is my lengthy examination of Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning the Human Understanding"

http://candleinthedark.com/hume.html

Now, honestly ask yourself:

Have you actually, really, read Hume?
Have you critically examined what you read?
Have you really understood what the 'problem' is?
Do you realize that even Hume, the one who recognized the problem, was not unseating induction?
Do you know Hume's own solution?
Do you know what the 'arguing to inductive uncertainy' fallacy is?
Have you read the wealth of philosophical responses to Hume?
Do you know the various methods in science that have arisen to deal with the problem? (Hints: statistical probability, falsification)?


If you can't answer these questions, you have no business debating this issue.
Kelly to todangst, #6

 

Thank you for your email.

I understand the problem of induction enough to know that it cannot be justified, and even if the SEP recognized that you justified your inductive inference with some formula (Bayes' theorem, etc.), then you would still need to justify how you know that formula would continue to operate uniformly in the future. Hume did not take his problem of induction far enough because he did not include math as part of the problem. For instance, every time he added 2+2, he got 4. The next time he added 2+2, there is no way he could have known that he would have gotten 5. In the same way that he could not know that fire caused hotness, he also could not know that 2+2 caused 4. The laws could change at anytime. So my question to you then is how do you know that 2+2 could not equal 5 in the next 10 minutes. Unless the non-Christian knows everything, he can know nothing (and not even that). In order for your answer to be self sufficient you must base it off your first principal (which is yourself). If you simply axiomize math as an independent principal, this is not an acceptable answer, and you have not justified how you know that the laws of math will continue to operate the same in the past as they have in the future. I, as a Christian, can bring back all my information to my first principal, and i expect you to be able to do the same.

In regards to my positive ontology. If you go to the bottom of the 5300 challenge, you will note that i answered all the questions i posed. Lastly, i have already told you that an idea can exist apart from a human brain because all ideas originate in the mind of God. I could not be more clear on this.

If in your next answer you cannot tell me how it is that you are 100% certain, without simply axiomizing your answer, that the laws of math will continue to operate the same way in the future as they have in the past, then there is a good chance you may not receive an email back from me.

I apologize fthat the tone of this email came off harsh.

Anyhow, i do look forward to hearing from you again.

Yours
Kelly

p.s. I noticed that your email was hanniballecturer. Are you a professor?

 

todangst to Kelly #8

Hello Chris,


Thank you for your email.

I understand the problem of induction enough to know that it cannot be justified,

Kelly you don't understand what the "problem' actually is, nor do you seem to even have a understanding of the centuries of philosophical responses to the 'problem'. In order to debate an issue, you have to actually know what your opponent's position is, and be able to argue it as well as he or she can.

I think that the "problem of induction" is only a problem because: a) Some people look for certainty in induction, when induction is probablistic b) historically, the problem arose before probability theory was mature and c) People assume that a 'problem of induction' somehow justifies questioning induction itself, when in fact this would be a logical fallacy: a reason to doubt an outcome is not a reason to reject the outcome in of itself. You need negating evidence to reject the prediction outright. These are just some of the errors implicit in your misunderstanding of induction.

If you don't look for certainty, and you know about modern probability and statistics, the problem of induction is not a problem at all. The whole (deductively-created) theory of probability and statistics is dedicated to telling us something about "populations" from "samples." It's made for induction.

Basically, today, logicians only see the 'problem' as a problem if and only if one holds to inductive arguments as if they were deductive. The fact that some people are unsatisfied with the various solutions to the problem is hardly a reason to reject induction.

Oh, and the idea that induction can be 'justified' by 'assuming god' is utterly nonsensical. You can't even provide a positive ontology for your claim. Please read here for more:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts

And assuming a 'uniformity of god' is even more problematic than assuming a 'uniformity of nature." Please also understand that simply asserting 'the bible is your ontology' is just ridiculous. You know that's not an answer. It's a dodge.

>and even if the SEP recognized that you justified your inductive inference with some formula (Bayes' theorem, etc.), then you would still need to justify how you know that formula would continue to operate uniformly in the future.

You really don't know what the problem is. You assume, erroneously, that the assumption of "uniformity of nature" is both a necessary and sufficient condition for justifying induction and that logicans actually rely on this as a 'response'. This is a common error - usually seen in people who've never read Hume or any philosophical response to Hume.

Science does NOT attempt to justify induction by using the assumption of a uniformity of nature: (Science also works through falsification (rejecting the null hypothesis) and statistical probability, not 'induction', so this is yet another response to the problelm you are probably unaware of...)

From one of the essays I sent to you:

As already mentioned previously, the assumption of a uniformity of nature is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for building inferences from the past to the future. So the assumption is not only circular, it simply fails to provide a justification for such inferences. In addition, Howson & Urbach point out, assuming a uniformity of nature is doubly a nonsolution, since it's a fairly empty assumption. For how is nature uniform? And what, really, are we talking about. What would really be needed are millions upon millions of uniformity assumptions for each item under discussion. We'd need one for the melting temperature of water, of iron, of nickel, etc, etc. For example "block of ice x will melt at 0 Celsius;" for these types of assumptions actually say something. Furthermore, the uniformity of nature assumptions fall prey to meta-uniformity issues - for how are we to know that nature will always be uniform? Well, we have to assume that too. And how do we know that the uniformity of nature is uniform? Ad infinitum. So, to "solve" the philosphical problem of justifying induction by uniformity of nature solutions doesn't really work.

From:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/why_the_problem_of_induction_really_isnt_a_problem_and_why_theists_dont_even_get_it_right

I addressed this error in my previous emails to you. You don't even seem to realize that no one uses the assumption of a uniformity of nature as a sufficient justification for induction - OTHER methods are used.

You might also be interested to learn how assuming a 'uniformity of god' utterly fails to provide a justification for induction, and in fact falls to the same problems faced by someone using a uniformity of nature argument!

http://www.rationalresponders.com/an_easy_argument_to_refute_van_tillian_calvinist_presuppositionalism

> Hume did not take his problem of induction far enough because he did not include math as part of the problem. For instance, every time he added 2+2, he got 4. The next time he added 2+2, there is no way he could have known that he would have gotten 5.

Hume did not discuss mathematics under the problem of induction because math is not inductive!! Math is deductive! There is no problem of deduction! There is no need to justify deduction by assuming a uniformity of nature! Deductions are axiomatically true!

> In regards to my positive ontology. If you go to the bottom of the 5300 challenge, you will note that i answered all the questions i posed.

Kelly. Please. You have not answered a single thing concerning a positive ontology for immateriality. Please stop fooling yourself. Again, please read this essay:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts

And actually learn why your position is incoherent.

 

> Lastly, i have already told you that an idea can exist apart from a human brain because all ideas originate in the mind of God. I could not be more clear on this.

 

Actually, you could be infinitely more clear. You could begin by defining 'god' coherently, without stealing from materialism. Then you could explain how saying "ideas originate in the mind of god' actually answers the question of how something could be immaterial!

You see, the truth is, you're not answering anything.

> If in your next answer you cannot tell me how it is that you are 100% certain, without simply axiomizing your answer,

Without 'simply axiomizing my answer"? You really don't grasp how justification procedes by providing a deduced, axiomized system, do you?

Funny how you wave your hand at that, yet believe that saying "my ontology is the bible' is actually a coherent response concerning your ontology!

> that the laws of math will continue to operate the same way in the future as they have in the past,

One more time: Math is a deductive system. Mathematical truths are necessary truths. We define numbers, a priori. There is no 'problem of deduction' and deduction does not depend upon a uniformity of nature as both a necessary and sufficient justification for propostions that are tautologically true!

If you can't even figure out that math is deductive, then I see little reason to continue. You've been exposed as someone who doesn't really grasp the issue. Sorry.

I've written the following brief essay to deal with people who hold to the common errors your argument is built upon:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_materialist_account_for_abstractions_or_how_theists_misplace_the_universe

I do hope that you actually take the time to actually read Hume some day, and perhaps even learn about what induction is.... Again, I, unlike you, have actually read Hume. I actually know what the problem he identified, and you are completely misrepresenting the problem, and you simply are unaware of how logicians actually deal with the problem. Anyone who tells me that they actually think that logicians rely on 'a uniformity of nature' as the 'solution' to the problem clearly hasn't read anything written in the last 200 years.

My entry on Hume.
http://www.candleinthedark.com/hume.html

If you can't take the time to read Hume, at least read a review of the work where he discusses induction.

Take care, and good luck in your learning.

 

Kelly to todangst #8

Hello Chris,

This conversation we are having is worthless. In the below email, you misrepresented my position in several spots (for instance i NEVER thought that induction was certain), and on top of that, you are mocking me as if i do not understand what you are saying. Our problems (or disagreements) are not intellectual but ethical, thus debating over the email is a waste of both of our times. If you live close to the Texas area, we should schedule a public debate.

Well you will be in my prayers tonight (even though i know you dont believe in that sort of thing)

Take Care,
Kelly

Todangst to Kelly # 9

Hello Chris,

This conversation we are having is worthless.

Is it really that it's worthless, or is it that you're really not prepared for this conversation, and that you need a way to run off while saving face?

Let's test my hypothesis by seeing you go on to ignore the facts of our discussion and simply focus on your emotional reaction to the discussion.

In the below email, you misrepresented my position in several spots

You need to demonstrate this then.

>(for instance i NEVER thought that induction was certain),

And I never said that YOU said it was certain. I just said that it was a mistake to hold to induction as if it were deduction. I never said it was YOUR specific mistake, per se. So you've jumped to a conclusion and made an erroneous assumption.

And this is probably because you really don't spend much time learning about the points I've sent you.... you're too much in a rush to ignore and avoid the facts of this matter, Kelly. You really should take a look at that, and see for yourself where you're fooling yourself.

This is a complex matter, and no one should make grand pronouncements over a topic that they are fundamentally ignorant in.

> and on top of that, you are mocking me as if i do not understand what you are saying.

Well here we go, as predicted, you're hurt and this email is about your emotions.

I am not mocking you. But it is obvious that you never read Hume, that you really don't know what the 'problem' is, and that you have no idea how logicians and philosophers have dealt with the problem.

And I don't just assert that. I demonstrated that you really don't grasp the situation accurately. I showed that you held (and probably still hold) to the common error that philosophers actually try to justify induction through an assumption of a uniformity of nature. However, again, while this is a necessary condition of induction, it is not a sufficient condition for justifying induction, therefore, other means are required for justifying induction.

Rather than being open to learn about your mistake, and correct it, you choose to react to this all as an insult. You're hurt, and you wish to lash out, rather than just accept that you really don't grasp the issue.

But what's wrong with not knowing something? Isn't it better to concede some ignorance and learn from it? What about that famous christian humility?

> Our problems (or disagreements) are not intellectual but ethical,

You can say this to yourself in order to make yourself feel better, but reality dictates that our disagreements are intellectual.

> thus debating over the email is a waste of both of our times.

Again, in other words, you need to run off, while also saving face.

It's only a "waste of time" to you now that I've demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about.

Your answers concering the ontology for your postion are proof of that. Your erroneous assumptions about the use of uniformity of nature as a justification for induction are proof of that. Your inability to even recognize that math is deductive, not inductive, is proof of that.

And rather than keep this intellectual, you instead opt to focus on your wounded pride. Again, everyone is ignorant of something. I wasn't born with this information, and I once made the same sort of basic errors you make. I learned.

Why aren't you willing to learn?

Is your wounded pride too overwhelming?

> If you live close to the Texas area, we should schedule a public debate.

I don't live in Texas. However, we can debate on the Rational Response squad any day, any time.

I will also post our emails on the site, now that you've asked to go public.

I must caution you however: you cannot debate an issue over which you are fundamentally ignorant.

> Well you will be in my prayers tonight (even though i know you dont believe in that sort of thing)

And I will think for you, and learn for you, even though I know you don't believe in that sort of thing.

Take Care,
Kelly

Take care Kelly. You've been exposed. I hope you find the courage to concede this to yourself and allow this to inspire you to learn.