Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote:Not if you write words like 'peruse' when you mean 'read'

but it is justified by merit of the considerable explanative qualities of the synthesis.

That is in its favour

Surely the processes by which we make images out of sense data can be explained only by reference to the brain-mind? It's inconsistent to presume that deductive logic, like mathematics, is man-made and also to claim that deductive logic is a biological product of natural selection.

A_Seagull wrote:... and I am talking here of the logic of the material world ( albeit our perception of the material world) where the fundamental particles appear to follow their own logic.
..

I am talking here of the logic of the material world ( albeit our perception of the material world) where the fundamental particles appear to follow their own logic.

Belinda wrote:A_Seagull wrote:

I am talking here of the logic of the material world ( albeit our perception of the material world) where the fundamental particles appear to follow their own logic.

True, fundamental particles type theories is one way to describe and explain me. There are several ways to describe and explain a human being . One of those alternative ways is that of the surgeon whose biological and technological theory tends to be more mechanical and technical than that of the physician who is more into my mind and feelings.

What I am saying is that explanatory models such as surgical techniques, and such as theories about fundamental particles, are good for what they are good for and no more or less. It appears that theories about fundamental particles which are not causally determined , unlike biological or psychological theories, are not theories that aid understanding of the whole human being.

I agree with Hobbes that formal logic is man-made, an invention not a discovery. However I still await Seagull's telling of what benefits emerge from his synthesis.

A_Seagull wrote:

Belinda wrote:A_Seagull wrote:

I am talking here of the logic of the material world ( albeit our perception of the material world) where the fundamental particles appear to follow their own logic.

True, fundamental particles type theories is one way to describe and explain me. There are several ways to describe and explain a human being . One of those alternative ways is that of the surgeon whose biological and technological theory tends to be more mechanical and technical than that of the physician who is more into my mind and feelings.

What I am saying is that explanatory models such as surgical techniques, and such as theories about fundamental particles, are good for what they are good for and no more or less. It appears that theories about fundamental particles which are not causally determined , unlike biological or psychological theories, are not theories that aid understanding of the whole human being.

I agree with Hobbes that formal logic is man-made, an invention not a discovery. However I still await Seagull's telling of what benefits emerge from his synthesis.

The symbolism of formal logic is certainly man made, but I am not talking about formal logic. I ma talking about logic in general, the logic of algorithms. The functioning of the eye has a certain logic to it: A photon is incident on the retina, it gets diffracted, it is absorbed by a cone..... etc. So too is there a certain logic in the function of the brain. If you don't believe that you must believe that the brain works by magic. And I don't believe in magic.

The symbolism of formal logic is certainly man made, but I am not talking about formal logic. I ma talking about logic in general, the logic of algorithms. The functioning of the eye has a certain logic to it: A photon is incident on the retina, it gets diffracted, it is absorbed by a cone..... etc. So too is there a certain logic in the function of the brain. If you don't believe that you must believe that the brain works by magic. And I don't believe in magic.


Calling this logic is an abuse of language

Belinda wrote:Hobbes wrote:

The symbolism of formal logic is certainly man made, but I am not talking about formal logic. I ma talking about logic in general, the logic of algorithms. The functioning of the eye has a certain logic to it: A photon is incident on the retina, it gets diffracted, it is absorbed by a cone..... etc. So too is there a certain logic in the function of the brain. If you don't believe that you must believe that the brain works by magic. And I don't believe in magic.


Calling this logic is an abuse of language

It is inductive logic. But Seagull is calling it 'logic' meaning analytic, deductive logic. The process of seeing with eyes as described above cannot be deductive and analytic. It's synthetic and causal. Between the stages as described there is cause and effect. True, as David Hume has pointed out, causation is invisible and as far as we know is no more than constant conjunction. Seagull seems to know more than constant conjunction of events , however it remains for Seagull to show what that is . It is not deductive logic according to the eye and vision example he provided.

Before we get hung up on Kantian terminology, I suggest what Seagull is pretending to have "found" is a phenomenal logic inherent in nature. And that is what I call an abuse of language.
If there is logic to be found from the observation of the real world it has to exist, like the truth as a conceptual relationship between the mind and the natural world, not inhering in the natural world; that is why I call it an abuse of language.

Belinda wrote:A_Seagull wrote:

Yes you are quite right that 'happiness is not a matter for deductive logic'. What I was doing, (and I should have been more explicit) is taking an abstract deductive logical system and formulating a mapping between the logical goals of the system and correlating it with what can be called 'happiness'.

That would be a great thing if you can do it. I suspect that you would have to begin with faith in certain initial axioms.

A_Seagull wrote:
So far as I am concerned in this debate, we have not yet reached the stage at which deductive logic begins.

.

A_Seagull wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:
So far as I am concerned in this debate, we have not yet reached the stage at which deductive logic begins.

.

Errata!! There is a typo in my post of Fri 25/Nov! This should have read :

"So far as I am concerned in this debate, we have not yet reached the stage at which inductive logic begins."

Systematic wrote:Firstly, I believe that free will is impossible without a soul. The will would just be an amalgamation of experience and situation and genes unless there is a soul.

Secondly, I think that we do have a soul, since we have free will. Also, I am a liberal, or rather an anarchist. I don't see the point in punishing someone for their preferences unless those preferences impede the preferences of others.

Thirdly, I think that the two-party system of government is flawed. I don't want the government mandating anything including a gun ban. Both parties are pro big government. I think that to be a mistake.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dave Mangnall wrote:So you're saying I could use my free will, the one I don't have, to disengage from discussion because it's so pointless.

No, Dave...I'm saying that given the truth of Determinism, there wouldn't be any point in the discussion at all. For how could "discussion" be thought to "change" anything, when a) the state of a person's mind is not the result of free will, but merely of physical preconditions, and b) "change" is only an appearance, being only our misunderstanding of the deep truth of Determinism -- nothing "changed," really: things just proceeded as they were naturally predisposed to proceed.

Both a) and b), of course, are what you would have to believe in order to be a Determinist.

So I'm asking you why you are "discussing, with a view to "changing" people's views, presumably, when you say you are a Determinist. That's seems inconsistent to me, so I want to see how you're thinking about what you're doing.

Of course, if the only reason you're doing it is because you were "fated" to do so by natural forces, then I suppose no response is required. But I'm thinking that perhaps you don't actually believe it...or rather, you say, you believe it, and even sincerely think you believe it; but like every other Determinist I've ever met, find it utterly impossible to live in consistency with your profession of belief.

So you argue, even though you would have to think that changing minds is conceptually impossible in a Deterministic universe...