Philosoft

As brute facts. It is impossible not to account for them. Such a universe (without the laws) is, literally, unthinkable.

Understand, you're about to run headlong into evolutionary psychology. I know Vorkosigan at least has been through this thoroughly with a presupper similar to yourself not too long ago. I'd suggest you read his link.

They don't operate independent of one another.

Hmm. How does an immaterial being give rise to immaterial laws that affect material things? Is it just something a material being can do, by virtue of its status as an immaterial being?

Yes. You're simply defining the laws of logic as independent entities, when this has yet to be shown, and then constructing your own version of materialism that a priori can't account for them.

I'll ask again. What is the proof (mathematical, logical, etc) that the LoNC is a metaphysical thing that prescribes how material things should be?

Proof, please. Show your work.

However, they do not necessarily exist as you say they do. For all physical and abstract things we classify as "existing," it is logically possible for these things to "not exist." This is not the case with the LoNC. "A universe wherein the LoNC does not hold" is not a thinkable proposition.

No. It is an attribute of existence. My silver wristwatch exists, yet there is not a metaphysical thing called "silver" that precedes the existence of my watch. It is an attribute of the watch; it can exist neither before nor after the watch.

I take it you reject the Incompleteness Theorem?

Done. Now how does this prevent me from condemning the terrorists' actions?

Enough sophistry. I said I have no idea.

I certainly hope so.

Why not? Be specific.

Which don't need to be given rise to.

Which "moral standards" are you speaking of? Christian? Islamic? Humanistic?

Some are. But your continuous misuse of the word "exist" is leading you to false conclusions.

Which are neither self-evident nor necessary.

Please. You know very well there are plenty of hypotheses that account for consciousness, and even some empirical evidence that it is a function wholly dependent on the brain.

Of course not, when your definition includes "exists in such a way that it cannot be accounted for by materialism."

I was referring specifically to theories about how matter can develop perception and consciousness. I know very little about these theories. However, it is certainly logically possible and thinkable that matter gave rise to consciousness and I have seen no airtight arguments that materialism cannot account for consciousness. Hence, my statement is correctly read as, "I don't know anything about materialistic theories of consciousness but there is nothing that renders them logically impossible." A supernatural explanation is seriously premature.

Nihilism is silly. Especially when you attempt to derive it from a strawman version of materialism.

RogerLeeCooke

"A universe in which the law of non-contradiction does not exist is an unthinkable proposition."

I hope I've quoted correctly. Although I'm almost wholeheartedly on the side of the person who wrote these words in the current debate, I still must demur on this one point. *I*, at least, can conceive such a thing. I remember writing a whole essay about it back in 1958, when I was in high school. My English teacher, who read the essay, wrote only one word at the top: "Relativity?" To this day, I don't know what he meant.

The major philosophical problem that I see is that we still haven't succeeded in being sufficiently precise in our language as to what knowledge IS. To me, it's a relation between the Universe and the individual human mind, but I'm hard-pressed to flesh that skeleton out. I keep working on it and hope to do better as I get older (if I'm lucky enough to go on getting older!).

Many years later than I should have, I started reading Wittgenstein's "Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung" just this morning. The first thing that struck me was that the English translation is a bad one. (My version has English on one side, German on the other.) I'm going to ask one of my German colleagues if I'm right about this, since I'm by no means an expert in German, but I think I found a glaring mistranslation in the very first paragraph. Wittgenstein's German is simple (by German standards), so it's appalling that the British publisher couldn't find someone competent to translate it. And, I must say, I don't understand why the clear and simple German title was rendered into English as Latin ("Tractatus Logico-philosophicus"). What was wrong with calling it "A dissertation on the philosophy of logic"?

Kantian

That's because Wittgenstein modeled the title after Spinoza's book <a href="http://www.yesselman.com/ttpelws1.htm" target="_blank">Tractatus Theologico-Politicus.</a>

A straightforward translation misses a lot of historical background, methinks.

~Transcendentalist~

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Kant ]</p>

sotzo

The fact that we all agree to use these rules proves absolutely nothing. We may all be mistaken.

The only way that we can say we are mistaken about the law of non-contradiction is to affirm its truth since being mistaken about something presupposes there is a "correct" view that would avoid the mistake.

I still don't get why you think we can't proceed unless we have some absolute guarantee IN ADVANCE that we will never turn out to be mistaken.

We can't proceed in practice because reality will not allow it. Sure you can espouse, for the sake of conversation, that "The fact that we all agree to use these rules proves absolutely nothing" as you have done above. But then that very statement, if true, assumes that we can prove something to be true versus its converse.

To summarize, I'm not arguing that we can know all truth absolutely (I feel that's where some of you are pushing me). I'm arguing that the existence of truth presupposes an immaterial standard for which the materialist cannot give an account. Hence, he/she uses the standard (unavoidably) and then either has to say that:

1. Materialism can account for it by....(???, which is what I'm hoping someone will explain in this thread)

OR

2. Such a standard doesn't really exist, we just use it out of convention (as you have done in this post)

The former, in my view, can never be forthcoming, though I welcome an attempt to show contrary; the latter is like the man who believes he can prove that he does not exist, not realizing he must suppose his existence to disprove it.

cheers,

jkb

sotzo

Vork:

Sotzo, you have already been apprised of the existence of evolutionary psychology. This field has already shown that morals can evolve. A <a href="http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html" target="_blank"> Primer on Evolutionary Psychology</a> is available here. Please do not claim again that you have not heard how materialism can give rise to moral and social behavior.

Where did I claim that materialism could not give rise to behavior, moral or otherwise?

Materialism can account for behavior, what it canot do is provide a basis for distinguishing between what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Again, all you have to do to remain consistent is say that the events of 9/11 were caused by biochemistry developed within a certain culture carried out on that of another culture. It was neither "bad" nor "good", rather it was just behavior.

Rather than citing another article, please just give a brief synopsis of how materialism gives rise to immaterial laws of logic and/ore immaterial standards of morality. That's all I'm asking for.

cheers,

jkb

Vorkosigan

Materialism can account for behavior, what it canot do is provide a basis for distinguishing between what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

Sotzo, I am not clear on what senses of the word "materialism" you mean Are you claiming that if there is no transcendent supernatural entity, we have no basis for morality? Are you claiming that solely material objects are not moral actors? Or that the philosophy of materialism provides no basis for moral belief? I concur with the last.

Again, all you have to do to remain consistent is say that the events of 9/11 were caused by biochemistry developed within a certain culture carried out on that of another culture. It was neither "bad" nor "good", rather it was just behavior.

Alternatively, I could agree with the first sentence, and say that the cultural and social attitudes and actions that created 9/11 were wrong. Nothing in materialism either as a philosophical stance or as an observation about the origin of things precludes moral statements. I don't need some kind of transcedent standard to deplore what I see as evil.

Rather than citing another article, please just give a brief synopsis of how materialism gives rise to immaterial laws of logic and/ore immaterial standards of morality. That's all I'm asking for.

Logic is built into humans because it is necessary for social functioning. Morality grew out of this same complex sociality. Humans who engage in complex social exchanges needed to remember things like who cheated them, how, where and when, detect cheaters on social contracts, fulfill social contracts, engage in reciprocal exchanges, jockey for enhanced social status in a sociality where groups are extremely fluid and fuzzy, and where individuals may have multiple memberships and roles, learn, obey parents and other adult members of the community, assess data using imperfect and contrary information, etc, etc, etc,.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. I commend you to the vast literature on iterated prisoner's dilemmas; it accounts very effectively for the emergence of morals and moral behavior.

Hope that's not too long. But I really recommend the Primer, it talks at length about how cognition and gives a discussion of the emergence of logic.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I'm arguing that the existence of truth presupposes an immaterial standard for which the materialist cannot give an account.

Well, you are not really arguing it, you're just proclaiming it. What do you mean by truth? What do you mean when you say truth exists?

sotzo

My guess is that Sotzo is not thinking of moral behavior (but of course he/she can speak for him/herself on that account), but rather asking how moral truth can be explained by evolution.

You are correct good professor! (And I mean that with sincere respect...I saw your website and I wish I could understand one sixteenth of what you research!!

In both ethics and epistemology, it is very difficult to get the absolutists to understand that they are assuming what they are trying to prove. They don't seem to grasp the idea of a "working hypothesis." All of logic is a working hypothesis as far as I'm concerned. I use it, and I regard people who reject it as lunatics; but that's not the same thing as saying it is absolutely correct.

But isn't this just semantics? That is, to say that something is unavoidable even to the point of calling those who reject it "lunatics" but stop short of deeming that "something" absolute seems just a play on words!

If we truly cannot know that the law of non-contra. is absolute then we should just cease to make any statements at all if we think by using statements we are conveying correct information.

You believe that absolutism on laws of logic is an incorrect position, a belief which presupposes the law of non-contradiction. You very position cannot make sense unless the law of non-contrad. is true! How, then, can you say the law of non-contra. is not absolute?

I don't need absolute assurance of any luminous first principles in order to proceed.

So your luminous first principle is that you are skeptical of everything except being skeptical of everything. Do you see how this is unavoidable?

I posted essentially this above, and got a reply showing no understanding of what I had said. The author simply assumed yet again that we have to be reassured from the beginning that our logic is correct

We don't have to be "reassured" - presupposing them can't be avoided as your statements above have shown.

, and if we don't have such an assurance, we have to regard every statement as just as true as every other statement.

If the law of non-contradiction is not true, then there is no way to say that it is not true, nor differentiate between the truth and falsehood of other claims to any degree since truth/falsehood would cease to be a dichotomy. So how do we not "have to regard every statement as just as true as every other statement" if the law of noncon is not itself true? Please explain how that epistemology would work under that scenario.

When people reason that illogically, it does, I confess, make you wonder if logic is truly the basis of anything at all.

But, by your own admission, that would make you a lunatic, which I believe you not to be!

cheers,

jkb

sotzo

Hey Vork:

I will reply to your other post which lays out an explanation for materialism giving rise to morality. But I want to answer this other post of yours so that you know my position.

Well, you are not really arguing it, you're just proclaiming it. What do you mean by truth? What do you mean when you say truth exists?


P1: That which has real being exists.
P2: A law which must be presupposed in order to define what exists has real being.
C: The law of noncontradiction exists.

Therefore, to answer your first question, truth is that which corresponds to the nature of those things which have real being.

In answer to your second question, by truth existing I mean it has real being and it has real being because if it did not we could not know what real being was in the first place (ie, there would be no reality).

cheers,

jkb

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]</p>

sotzo

Sotzo, I am not clear on what senses of the word "materialism" you mean.

I mean by "materialism" the view that everything that actually exists is material.

Are you claiming that if there is no transcendent supernatural entity, we have no basis for morality?

I am claiming:

1. Materialism can give an account for behavior but not an account for the ability to demarcate one behavior "good" and another behavior "bad - it is just behavior and to say more implies an immaterial standard which per the definition of materialism cannot exist. Same thing with the immaterial law of non-contrad.

2. Hence, an immaterial, supernatural Being is a better hyopthesis around which to work since, at the very least such an hyopthesis provides the preconditions of intelligble thinking (law of noncon) and morality (calling the events of 9/11 evil instead of just behavior).

Are you claiming that solely material objects are not moral actors?

I'm claiming that soley material objects merely behave and their actions are neither moral nor immoral so long as materialism is true since "moral" and "immoral" presupposes an immaterial standard.

Or that the philosophy of materialism provides no basis for moral belief?

Yes, I would say that.

I concur with the last.

Good, we agree on that. So then it is all just behavior that we do...actions and reactions with no differentiation between a "good" action/reaction or "bad" action/reaction. Otherwise, we would be assuming a standard outside of actions/reactions by which to judge actions/reactions. This supposition cannot be permitted by materialism.

Alternatively, I could agree with the first sentence, and say that the cultural and social attitudes and actions that created 9/11 were wrong.

You can do that, but in doing so you give up materialism because "right" and "wrong" are not labels that materialism can provide. You can assert they were wrong, but I have to ask you how you tell one behavior is "right" or "wrong" versus another. Inevitably, you will refer to some standard outside of the material realm itself.

Nothing in materialism either as a philosophical stance or as an observation about the origin of things precludes moral statements.

How do you square this statement with this rhetorical question from above with which you concurred:

"Or that the philosophy of materialism provides no basis for moral belief?"

Are you saying that materialsim does not provide for moral belief yet the materialist can go on making moral judgements? But surely this is inconsistent at best and self-deception at worst!

If I tell you that I am a scientist who uses the scientific method yet I don't believe the scientific method can lead to correct results am I not simply living out the fact of my belief in using it, although I am verbally set against it ?

I don't need some kind of transcedent standard to deplore what I see as evil.

You say you don't, but you have yet to show how materialism can provide the preconditions of calling something "right" versus "wrong". How is it any more than just behavior as the result of molecules in motion?

Logic is built into humans because it is necessary for social functioning.

So logic is contingent on social function? This would seem to mean that the laws of logic don't exist apart from the need for humans to be social. I can't see how the laws of logic would change if I were the last man on earth?!?

Morality grew out of this same complex sociality.

Okay, and going back to the 9/11 example, you would then need to say that the reason for their actions was their social conditioning. How can we hold them accountable under such a view? If morality becomes subject to the mechanics of social conditioning there is no fault to be found, in fact there is no way to fault someone for conforming to the actions caused by their brain. It would be like being upset with a car for going faster when the accelerator was pressed down.

Humans who engage in complex social exchanges needed to remember things like who cheated them, how, where and when, detect cheaters on social contracts, fulfill social contracts, engage in reciprocal exchanges, jockey for enhanced social status in a sociality where groups are extremely fluid and fuzzy, and where individuals may have multiple memberships and roles, learn, obey parents and other adult members of the community, assess data using imperfect and contrary information, etc, etc, etc,.

And they would need that information for survival correct? They would not need it in order to make "right" versus "wrong" choices for the sake of being moral. So, if Osama Bin Laden felt threatened for his survival or even for his group's survival, can we fault him for what happened? If survival is paramount, morality becomes its servant and changes at the whim of the organism trying to survive. This technically means that it is possible that child abuse could be made socially acceptable (and therefore, morally appropriate) if it were found that children were threatening survival.

Certainly, it means that one should cheat on something such as a college entrance exam in order to set himself up for the best job (and hence the best chance of survival) possible. The examples are endless.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

And it appears to be a tip of the iceburg that rests on the razor thin layer of materialism.

I commend you to the vast literature on iterated prisoner's dilemmas; it accounts very effectively for the emergence of morals and moral behavior.

Point well taken. I will read it. Keep in mind however that I am not interested in finding out what the sociological implications of materialism are. Granting materialism, I know what theories will be built. I'm asking more generally how materialism provides a framework with which to say "9/11 was evil" rather than "9/11 was socially unacceptable...at least to us". It seems the latter is unavoidable and hence permits the possibility that one residing in Afghanistan is equally correct to say "9/11 was socially acceptable...at least to us".
But is he equally correct in saying that it was acceptable?

cheers,

jkb

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]</p>