sotzo

Inasmuch as it doesn't make sense to speak of a universe without a law of non-contradiction, neither does it make sense to talk about its "existence." It is a heuristic for describing relationships. Nothing more.

It only doesn't make sense to talk about its existence if one holds that the only things that can exist are material.

ME:Yes precisely, because in order to conceive of a universe where the law of non-contradiction would not hold would be to assume the law of non-contradiction.

Philo: I'm not following. Can you elaborate?

Sure. If one could conceive of a universe where the law of non-contradiction did not exist then that would mean (A) the law of non-contradiction exists there as opposed to (non-A) the law of non-contradiction does not exist there. Hence, even the attempt to conceive of such a universe assumes the law.

I am still unclear how one is said to "assume" something when it is not possible to assume it's opposite.

Perhaps "assume" is unclear. However, what I mean by it is that one must use it (the law of noncon), albeit even subconciously, in order to think intelligibly.

I was referring to this statement:
"An immaterial, necessary precondition of intelligible thought coming from a material universe not only requires faith...it requires giving up the very law of non-contradiciton you're wanting to uphold!"

It is not at all clear to me how faith is an "immaterial, necessary precondition."

Thanks for the clarification. What I meant by that was the materialist does indeed exercise faith by holding to "immaterial, necessary preconditions of thinking" on the one hand and brute materialism on the other. Hence, he has to "believe" (have faith) that his materialism can provide the conditions under which an immaterial law exists.

cheers,

jkb

sotzo

Knowledge doesn't grow that way. It's more like a tree, where the branches and the roots grow simultaneously.

Then why don't we decide to change the law of non-contradiction so that nonsense becomes sensical? Why can't I just say my wife is preganant but it isn't the case that she's preganant?

To say that the roots and branches of knowledge grow simultaneously is to argue against that very statement since you have made a definite statement about the roots of knowledge. In other words what you are saying is that the root of knowledge is in having no starting point.

This seems to destroy any hope for having knowledge even about what comprises its roots and branches!

cheers,

jkb

Philosoft

I don't know how to presume other states of existence. As far as I know, we can only comprehend things themselves, we are not born with built-in understanding for states of existence.

Indeed. I don't understand why I was not making this connection.

If there is literally no state-of-affairs that can obtain in the absence of the law of noncon, it is simply wrong to say it is in some way a choice to "use" it. It's like saying I subconsciously "choose" to use electrical impulses to carry information between neurons. Given the structure of the environment, there are simply no possible alternatives.

How is the "use" of "necessary preconditions of thinking" in any way equivalent to faith? If they are necessary for thought itself, how do we conceive of a situation in which they are not present?

sotzo

I don't know how to presume other states of existence. As far as I know, we can only comprehend things themselves, we are not born with built-in understanding for states of existence.

You presume other states of existence ("other" meaning those other than physical states) when using the laws of logic. Unless one wishes to say that the laws of logic are merely conventions and therefore, up to the individual as to their truth/falsehood, one must presume an immaterial ontology (at least with respect to the law of non-con).

I would suggest that we are indeed born with this knowledge of the immutability of the law of non-con and, therefore, born with the ability to understand what comprises a non-physical ontology.

If there is literally no state-of-affairs that can obtain in the absence of the law of noncon, it is simply wrong to say it is in some way a choice to "use" it. It's like saying I subconsciously "choose" to use electrical impulses to carry information between neurons. Given the structure of the environment, there are simply no possible alternatives.

Exactly. And if existence is "what is", then I would say that a law which cannot be denied without it being assumed at the same time exists.
And if such a law exists a materialist cannot account for its existence. Hence, faith is required by the materialist to accept such a thing as an immaterial law in a purely material universe.

How is the "use" of "necessary preconditions of thinking" in any way equivalent to faith?

See above, regarding the faith of the materialist. I'm critiquing the original poster's question on the terms of his own worldview.

If they are necessary for thought itself, how do we conceive of a situation in which they are not present?

We don't. That's the point. Intelligible thought requires these immaterial, invariant laws. The question then is how a materialist can deal with the presence of such a law in a material universe.

If he cannot account for it, then I would suggest to the original poster that he is living out faith himself along with me, the theist. The only thing, is that theism can account for such a thing as an immaterial, invariant law. So I would say that he is taking the greater leap because his faith doesn't even account for intelligible thought.

cheers,

jkb

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Thanks for the clarification. What I meant by that was the materialist does indeed exercise faith by holding to "immaterial, necessary preconditions of thinking" on the one hand and brute materialism on the other. Hence, he has to "believe" (have faith) that his materialism can provide the conditions under which an immaterial law exists.

No "faith" necessary, just solid evidence from the fields like evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, and the human and animal cognitive sciences. There are no gods, so it's not a question of faith; it's an established fact that thinking arises through the action of selection processes on ordinary matter.

Vorkosigan

sotzo

Vork:

No "faith" necessary, just solid evidence from the fields like evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, and the human and animal cognitive sciences. There are no gods, so it's not a question of faith; it's an established fact that thinking arises through the action of selection processes on ordinary matter.

If thinking is merely that which has arisen through the action of selection processes on ordinary matter then I'm sure you'll take no issue with the events of 9/11 since the thinking that lead to such events was merely engrained through material processes. And you can't fault material processes - a machine will be what a machine will be.

I'm sure you'll want to make some distinctions here, but I'm merely replying to your brief paragraph as it has been supplied.

cheers,
jkb

Matt Arnold

I will put an asterisk after the word faith* when I mean the weakened definition: Acting in spite of the inevitable limitations on my knowledge. Supernaturalist believers argue that since I can't be 100% certain, I am acting on faith. They are confusing this faith* with faith as it is traditionally defined by religion.

First, faith* does not lead to knowledge, only actions. By boarding a plane I am acting as if I will arrive safely. But I ought not to claim to know. The more that we constantly act-as-if something is true, the more we get confused and think we know that it's true.

Second, there is also a huge distinction in the attitude he and I have toward it. Since faith*, even when I have to practice it, is acting in ignorance, I regard faith* as a regrettable stop-gap measure, to be reserved only for when I have no choice, and gladly discarded whenever possible.

Third, as a result, the claims I hold on faith* have no resistance to evidence correcting them. By contrast, faith as traditionally defined by religious teaching is not to be challenged by argument or evidence. It is wrong to suggest those who don't have faith are using faith* to cling to their beliefs.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

If faith means 'belief without evidence' (and that is one of the common usages of the term) then faith is exactly what I don't have, don't want, and don't need.

Keith.

Vorkosigan

Naive readings like this do no justice to your intellect, Sotzo. Nowhere do selection processes preclude moral judgements; indeed, as evolutionary psychology has shown, they created them. Materalism just implies that no transcendent moral principle underlies human moral judgements.

Vorkosigan

Philosoft

Things can exist as abstractions, no doubt. This is implicit in my use of "thing." But I perceive only the thing. I have no insight into how it exists.

The laws of logic are part and parcel of existence. They "exist" neither before nor after things. To say the laws of logic were a framework which existence was built around is putting the cart both before and after the horse, when actually the horse and the cart are the same thing.

Of course we know the law of noncon is immutable; we've already stipulated it is impossible to know the opposite.

Okay.

You just said we are born "knowing" these things. So what is it we have faith in? That we are born knowing these things? Propositions that cannot be denied are brute facts. It is impossible not to know these propositions. The materialist does not deny brute facts. Where, then, does faith come in?

Brute facts.

I was afraid you might end up at presuppositionalism. Maybe we can avoid this. Can you tell me your objections to 'brute factualism'?