tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post115411491654856941..comments2023-07-08T06:13:19.344-07:00Comments on biblioblography: WHAT FAITH, EVOLUTION? BURSTING FIVE BUBBLESKrystalline Apostatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1155872383555026252006-08-17T20:39:00.000-07:002006-08-17T20:39:00.000-07:00Well, neither of us seem to deny the laws of logic...<B>Well, neither of us seem to deny the laws of logic so i don't really follow....?</B><BR/><BR/>But your asking for proof of them. And that pretty much sums up what <I>I</I> think about logic.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>It basically says that somce there is nothing immaterial, immaterial logical laws cannot exist. Which is question-begging <BR/></B><BR/><BR/>"a negative concept - and a negative definition without a universe of discourse is meaningless... because the term "immaterial" is meaningless."<BR/><BR/>It says that what you are trying to argue is meaningless. In essence, you're explanation is not really explaining anything.Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1155673245261926952006-08-15T13:20:00.000-07:002006-08-15T13:20:00.000-07:00MesoforteYour post at 4:35Well, neither of us seem...Mesoforte<BR/><BR/>Your post at 4:35<BR/><BR/>Well, neither of us seem to deny the laws of logic so i don't really follow....?<BR/><BR/>Your post at 5:51<BR/><BR/>It basically says that somce there is nothing immaterial, immaterial logical laws cannot exist. Which is question-beggingToffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056150137595422127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154998858492563112006-08-07T18:00:00.000-07:002006-08-07T18:00:00.000-07:00MF:Thanks for having that link on your blog. ^_^He...MF:<BR/><B>Thanks for having that link on your blog. ^_^</B><BR/>Hey, thanks for being such a regular. I've learned a few new things this day.<BR/>It's kinda nice to sit back & watch the play unfold, rather than write the script, IAMOS.Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154998286434137622006-08-07T17:51:00.000-07:002006-08-07T17:51:00.000-07:00Goosehenry"Finally, there is no reason to hold tha...<B>Goosehenry</B><BR/><BR/>"Finally, there is no reason to hold that these axioms are "immaterial", or transcendent or transcendental - 'immateriality' is a negative concept - and a negative definition without a universe of discourse is meaningless. Unless someone can show how something immaterial can exist, how something immaterial can interact with physical brains, and how something immaterial can act - at all without violating basic physics (the principle of conservation of energy) then the claim remains incoherent - because the term "immaterial" is meaningless."<BR/><BR/>http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic<BR/><BR/><B>RA</B><BR/><BR/>Thanks for having that link on your blog. ^_^Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154993752908231002006-08-07T16:35:00.000-07:002006-08-07T16:35:00.000-07:00Let me draw out something that is close to what I ...Let me draw out something that is close to what I mean, from "Atheism: The Case Against God," by George H. Smith. (Pg 143-144)<BR/><BR/>"(b) The three laws of logic may be stated in different ways, depending on whether they refer to things, classes, or propositions. Her is the formulation from a standard text on logic:<BR/><BR/>1. The Law of Identity: For thinks, the law asserts that "A is A," or "Anything is itself." For propositions: "If a proposition is true, then it is true."<BR/><BR/>2. The Law of Excluded Middle: For things: "Anything is either A or not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, such as P, is either true or false."<BR/><BR/>3. The Law of Contradiction: For things: "Nothing can be both A and not-A.: For proposotions: "A proposition, P, cannot be both true and false."<BR/><BR/>These principles are simple enough, and few people would be foolish enough to deny them outright. But some Christian theorists deny them indirectly; that is to say, they argue that the laws of logic are without rational foundation and must be taken on faith. On what grounds is this assertion maid? Usually on the grounds that the laws of logic, strictly speaking, cannot be proven true. Therefore, concludes the theologian, in the absence of proff, we must accept them on faith.<BR/><BR/>What does it mean to say that the laws of logic cannot be proved? <I>Formal proof involves and inference from a set of given premises</I>, and in the case of logical laws, there are no available premises from which they can be derived. Any attempt to prove the Law of Idenitity, for example, would result in question begging, because any attempted proof would assume the Law of Idenitity. The laws of logic are incapable of proof.<BR/><BR/><I>First, the laws of logic are fundamental to all concepts, thought and communication</I>. <I>We cannot prove them because they are presupposed by the very concept of "proof," and to demand proof for them is to commit the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept.</I> Even the denial of these principles entails their acceptence. <I>Therefore, we accept the laws of logic because we must accept them; they are self-evident <B>[basic facts]</B> and neccasarily true</I>. Faith plays no part here."<BR/><BR/>This is similiar to the position I take when I argue against concepts. The laws are observable, but they can't stand to formal proofs because of The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept and such.Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154991964698517952006-08-07T16:06:00.000-07:002006-08-07T16:06:00.000-07:00I am saying logic is not dependent on nature, nor ...<B>I am saying logic is not dependent on nature, nor part of nature.</B><BR/><BR/>And I'm saying that logic is a basic fact about our thought processes. And we could observe them at work within our thought processes.Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154991482978877512006-08-07T15:58:00.000-07:002006-08-07T15:58:00.000-07:00I am saying logic is not dependent on nature, nor ...<B>I am saying logic is not dependent on nature, nor part of nature.<BR/><BR/>We are both saying that logic is a part of nature then.</B><BR/><BR/>Sorry, I read that wrong.Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154991445830524602006-08-07T15:57:00.000-07:002006-08-07T15:57:00.000-07:00Exactly. If my thought are physical then how can t...<B>Exactly. If my thought are physical then how can they be true about some other physical thing?<BR/><BR/>Example - my thoughts/belief about the universe are true.</B><BR/><BR/>I wasn't asking the same question, I was asking what you meant precisely.<BR/><BR/>First, understand that the 'physical' (matter) is just condensed energy. So understanding that, all processes whether physiological or psycological rest upon energy. If you want evidence of this, refer to the splitting of the atom.<BR/><BR/><B>You know its a tree becasue somebody told you. You know it doesn't suddenly change into a car in the middle of a discussion becasue of the laws of logic.</B><BR/><BR/>Whenever you have to reference your mind when observing something, such as a tree, you draw up what a tree is and what it is not. That instantaneous process is logic.<BR/><BR/><B>Processes that use the laws of logic. <BR/><BR/>Is this logic in you brain? Do they reside in matter&motion&energy? Or do you make use of objective laws of logic? Are they immaterial?</B><BR/><BR/>The only thing that is immaterial in our universe is nothing. <I>Everything</I> else is tied to material.<BR/><BR/><B>What if two people understand them differently? </B><BR/><BR/>What's 'them' specifically?<BR/><BR/><B>I am saying logic is not dependent on nature, nor part of nature.</B><BR/><BR/>We are both saying that logic is a part of nature then.<BR/><BR/><B>That is correct. Does the mind equal the brain, ie. mere matter? Does logic reside there? Is it just a function of the brain?<BR/><BR/>Or are there objective logical laws? </B><BR/><BR/>Would not those laws apply to the mind, making them observable within the mind? <BR/><BR/><B>The blog post deals with evolution. I stated that evolution cannot account for logic.<BR/><BR/>If you want to criticise my worldview using logic you must account for objective logical laws which apply to both you and me.</B><BR/><BR/>Your premise (from earlier) is that thing you call 'god' is the origin of logic and reason. I am asking a valid question about the premise of your assertion.Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154990571773531582006-08-07T15:42:00.000-07:002006-08-07T15:42:00.000-07:00MF"How can one piece of matter be true 'about' ano...MF<BR/><BR/>"How can one piece of matter be true 'about' another?"<BR/><BR/>Exactly. If my thought are physical then how can they be true about some other physical thing?<BR/><BR/>Example - my thoughts/belief about the universe are true.<BR/><BR/>"I'm just saying that the reason I understand it to be a tree is because my brain uses logic."<BR/><BR/>You know its a tree becasue somebody told you. You know it doesn't suddenly change into a car in the middle of a discussion becasue of the laws of logic.<BR/><BR/>"I didn't say they were neccasarily true if you weren't there, I'm just saying that you can't observe them if you don't stay alive."<BR/><BR/>No argument there.<BR/><BR/>"But the processes involved in understanding speech and thought are neccasarily logical."<BR/><BR/>Processes that use the laws of logic. <BR/><BR/>Is this logic in you brain? Do they reside in matter&motion&energy? Or do you make use of objective laws of logic? Are they immaterial?<BR/><BR/>"We can derive logic by observing how we understand the words to be what they are."<BR/><BR/>What if two people understand them differently? <BR/><BR/>"Are you saying human minds are not 'natural.'"<BR/><BR/>I am saying logic is not dependent on nature, nor part of nature.<BR/><BR/>"I am saying that logic is observable in the human mind, which is natural"<BR/><BR/>That is correct. Does the mind equal the brain, ie. mere matter? Does logic reside there? Is it just a function of the brain?<BR/><BR/>Or are there objective logical laws? <BR/><BR/>"Sorry, but we are still doing the 'god' concept at the same time, so if you have any more to add, please do so."<BR/><BR/>The blog post deals with evolution. I stated that evolution cannot account for logic.<BR/><BR/>If you want to criticise my worldview using logic you must account for objective logical laws which apply to both you and me.Toffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056150137595422127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154989671307782212006-08-07T15:27:00.000-07:002006-08-07T15:27:00.000-07:00GROAN... ok:1) All men are mortal2) George Bush is...<B>GROAN... ok:<BR/><BR/>1) All men are mortal<BR/>2) George Bush is a man<BR/>C) George Bush is mortal</B><BR/><BR/>Bush is a man! I thought he was a monkey.<BR/><BR/><B>The question is how can one piece of matter be true about another? You are the one making this claim.</B><BR/><BR/>How can one piece of matter be true 'about' another? <BR/><BR/><B>You are merely assigning logical absolutes to things.</B><BR/><BR/>I'm just saying that the reason I understand it to be a tree is because my brain uses logic.<BR/><BR/><B>No, but they are still true whether i think about them or not.</B><BR/><BR/>I didn't say they were neccasarily true if you weren't there, I'm just saying that you can't observe them if you don't stay alive.<BR/><BR/><B>Yes, but it doesn't have to be. It is perfectly possible to be illogical both in speech&thought.</B><BR/><BR/>But the processes involved in understanding speech and thought are neccasarily logical.<BR/><BR/><B>Locig applies to propositions, truths, beliefs etc. expressed in speech and writing. We do not derive logic from observing the latter.</B><BR/><BR/>We can derive logic by observing how we understand the words to be what they are.<BR/><BR/><B>It can be. It often is as people contradict each other.</B><BR/><BR/>Its not the talking, its the understanding.<BR/><BR/><B>1st of all we are discussing logic. I asked you where it comes from.<BR/><BR/>Thus far you have claimed that it can be observed, however it cannot. You can stare at the causal processes i nature all you want but logic will not be found.<BR/><BR/>So before you "begin", begin by mantioning the origin of logic. </B><BR/><BR/>Are you saying human minds are not 'natural.' I am saying that logic is observable in the human mind, which is natural. <BR/><BR/>Also, as of yet, I have not spoken of the 'origin' of logic nor do I wish to. I have maintained a possibility once, if remember correctly, but I have not laid it down as an absolute fact. I am merely speaking of ways that it can be observed.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, but we are still doing the 'god' concept at the same time, so if you have any more to add, please do so.Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154988624995596682006-08-07T15:10:00.000-07:002006-08-07T15:10:00.000-07:00MF"Dogs aren't neccesarily four-legged."GROAN... o...MF<BR/><BR/>"Dogs aren't neccesarily four-legged."<BR/><BR/>GROAN... ok:<BR/><BR/>1) All men are mortal<BR/>2) George Bush is a man<BR/>C) George Bush is mortal<BR/><BR/>"It merely does. I suggest talking to a 'brain expert.'"<BR/><BR/>The question is how can one piece of matter be true about another? You are the one making this claim. <BR/><BR/>"1) A tree is what it is.<BR/>2) Above statement is true.<BR/>3) A tree is not a car."<BR/><BR/>You are merely assigning logical absolutes to things.<BR/><BR/>"But you can't think about them if you're dead of starvation."<BR/><BR/>No, but they are still true whether i think about them or not.<BR/><BR/>Yes, but it doesn't have to be. It is perfectly possible to be illogical both in speech&thought.<BR/><BR/>"Its not the 'speech', its how we understand the language itself. But if you wish to pursue this, I will not grant you the idea that I can understand what you are writing."<BR/><BR/>Locig applies to propositions, truths, beliefs etc. expressed in speech and writing. We do not derive logic from observing the latter.<BR/><BR/>"The language isn't illogical, neither is is the use of the language."<BR/><BR/>It can be. It often is as people contradict each other. <BR/><BR/>"Any more you want to add, be sure to get all of them before I begin."<BR/><BR/>1st of all we are discussing logic. I asked you where it comes from.<BR/><BR/>Thus far you have claimed that it can be observed, however it cannot. You can stare at the causal processes i nature all you want but logic will not be found.<BR/><BR/>So before you "begin", begin by mantioning the origin of logic.Toffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056150137595422127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154988418237930882006-08-07T15:06:00.000-07:002006-08-07T15:06:00.000-07:00RAGotta love postmodernism. ^_^<B>RA</B><BR/><BR/>Gotta love postmodernism. ^_^Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154988002305992772006-08-07T15:00:00.000-07:002006-08-07T15:00:00.000-07:00MF:Hey, thanks for the Saphir-Worf reference (tho ...MF:<BR/>Hey, thanks for the Saphir-Worf reference (tho the name is spelled w/an 'h': been watchin' too many re-runs of TNG?;)).<BR/>Love this:<BR/>"Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. (Sapir, 1958 [1929], p. 69)"<BR/>Man-o-man, what I could do w/<B>that</B>, boggles the mind, it does.Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154987795453054392006-08-07T14:56:00.000-07:002006-08-07T14:56:00.000-07:00RAYeah, but it'll probably take me a week also to ...<B>RA</B><BR/><BR/>Yeah, but it'll probably take me a week also to run through all of it and make a coherent argument against it along with outlining my basis.<BR/><BR/><B>Goose</B><BR/><BR/>Yeah, after I get the entirety of this fixed, I'll take about a week to work through all of it, then I can e-mail it to you if you want, or I can just post it.Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154987610151358712006-08-07T14:53:00.000-07:002006-08-07T14:53:00.000-07:00MF:You don't have to 'see' to 'observe'. I look at...MF:<BR/><B>You don't have to 'see' to 'observe'. I look at a tree. It is called a 'tree' because I understand what a tree is.</B><BR/>That sounds a lot like something I read in a TM primer.<BR/>'Everything generates its own reality'.<BR/><B>After I get your confirmation on the definition, the definition will remained fixed for the duration of this argument.</B><BR/>Awaiting Goose's commentary on moral relativity...not anxiously, I might add.<BR/><B>Also, it would be good to have the extras of your belief system, ie whether or not you have free will, etc.</B><BR/>You'd better give Goose about a week on that 1...it'll be, at minimum, about a 1000 words or more. ;)Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154987086887792242006-08-07T14:44:00.000-07:002006-08-07T14:44:00.000-07:00Also, it would be good to have the extras of your ...Also, it would be good to have the extras of your belief system, ie whether or not you have free will, etc.Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154986973056179932006-08-07T14:42:00.000-07:002006-08-07T14:42:00.000-07:00Need to add somethingAfter I get your confirmation...<B>Need to add something</B><BR/><BR/>After I get your confirmation on the definition, the definition will remained fixed for the duration of this argument.Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154986631047378282006-08-07T14:37:00.000-07:002006-08-07T14:37:00.000-07:00GooseHow do we know that? Because we have never se...<B>Goose</B><BR/><B>How do we know that? Because we have never seen it destroyed? No because it would be illogical.</B><BR/><BR/>We will amend the laws of physics if we <I>ever</I> observe matter being created or destroyed.<BR/><BR/><B>Replace smelly with something else then. Four-legged creature for example. Anyway you ought to know what i mean by now.</B><BR/><BR/>Dogs aren't neccesarily four-legged.<BR/><BR/><B>How can it be arranged in order to be "about" something?</B><BR/><BR/>It merely does. I suggest talking to a 'brain expert.'<BR/><BR/><B>Look out the window. Logic is nowhere to be seen.</B><BR/><BR/>You don't have to 'see' to 'observe'. I look at a tree. It is called a 'tree' because I understand what a tree is.<BR/><BR/>1) A tree is what it is.<BR/>2) Above statement is true.<BR/>3) A tree is not a car.<BR/><BR/><B>Laws of logic are necessarily true even if i starve myself to death.</B><BR/><BR/>But you can't think about them if you're dead of starvation.<BR/><BR/><B>Yes, but it doesn't have to be. It is perfectly possible to be illogical both in speech&thought.</B><BR/><BR/>Its not the 'speech', its how we understand the language itself. But if you wish to pursue this, I will not grant you the idea that I can understand what you are writing.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>They don't have to be.Writing can be illogical, though we can quickly identify fallacies thansk to the objective laws of logic.</B><BR/><BR/>The language isn't illogical, neither is is the use of the language. <BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, omniscient. Creator of all things.</B> <BR/><BR/>Any more you want to add, be sure to get all of them before I begin.Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154984898901371722006-08-07T14:08:00.000-07:002006-08-07T14:08:00.000-07:00MF"That's a violation of the laws of physics, "Mat...MF<BR/><BR/>"That's a violation of the laws of physics, "Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change."<BR/><BR/>How do we know that? Because we have never seen it destroyed? No because it would be illogical.<BR/><BR/>"The first basis is a hasty generalization, so that's a logical fallacy."<BR/><BR/>Replace smelly with something else then. Four-legged creature for example. Anyway you ought to know what i mean by now.<BR/><BR/>"I don't arrange it, it arranges itself naturally."<BR/><BR/>How can it be arranged in order to be "about" something?<BR/><BR/>"I've yet to see something that isn't logical or neccasarily irrational."<BR/><BR/>Look out the window. Logic is nowhere to be seen.<BR/><BR/>"Its impossible to think about them without eating."<BR/><BR/>Laws of logic are necessarily true even if i starve myself to death.<BR/><BR/>"Familiar with Saphir-Worf? You think within language. Language is governed by the three laws of logic. Your thoughts are neccasarily interconnected with logic."<BR/><BR/>Yes, but it doesn't have to be. It is perfectly possible to be illogical both in speech&thought.<BR/><BR/>"This is the three laws at work, which means they are observable in our writing."<BR/><BR/>They don't have to be.Writing can be illogical, though we can quickly identify fallacies thansk to the objective laws of logic.<BR/><BR/>"It is a neccesity to define your terms in all philosophical discourse."<BR/><BR/>Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, omniscient. Creator of all things.Toffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056150137595422127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154541055618068372006-08-02T10:50:00.000-07:002006-08-02T10:50:00.000-07:00GoosehenryDo you believe that other animals can no...Goosehenry<BR/><BR/>Do you believe that other animals can not think or use logic? Is your argument that humans are the only logically thinking species therefore there must be a god?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154404206387180492006-07-31T20:50:00.000-07:002006-07-31T20:50:00.000-07:00Sure. 'We' is a collection of 'I's. & the 'I's hav...<B>Sure. 'We' is a collection of 'I's. <BR/>& the 'I's have it!<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>^_^Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154404044739766272006-07-31T20:47:00.000-07:002006-07-31T20:47:00.000-07:00Goose:Well, you're improving by bits & pieces.Thus...Goose:<BR/>Well, you're improving by bits & pieces.<BR/>Thus far, however, your philosophy seems to boil down to:<BR/>"Humanity is special because of god, & w/out god, we're just a bucket of chemicals."<BR/>Which I have no problem with.<BR/>I feel that we are all responsible for ourselves. We, & we alone. No deity, no special circumstances, no 1 to blame but ourselves. <BR/>Oh, I like this 1:<BR/><B>'We' is not 'I', because 'I' means something specific and 'we' means something specific. The two terms don't mean the same thing. So we is not 'I'."</B><BR/>Sure. 'We' is a collection of 'I's. <BR/>& the 'I's have it!<BR/>(Sorry, couldn't resist)Krystalline Apostatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044558668644447375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154397711367334982006-07-31T19:01:00.000-07:002006-07-31T19:01:00.000-07:00Up there, I was supposed to write 'rational' inste...Up there, I was supposed to write 'rational' instead of irrational.Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154397154278299432006-07-31T18:52:00.000-07:002006-07-31T18:52:00.000-07:00If i say the universe created itself out of nothin...<B>If i say the universe created itself out of nothing for example. A is A, nothing is nothing.</B><BR/><BR/>That's a violation of the laws of physics, "Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change.<BR/><BR/><B>1) Dogs are smelly creatures<BR/>2)Fido is a dog<BR/>C) Fido is a smelly creature</B><BR/><BR/>The first basis is a hasty generalization, so that's a logical fallacy.<BR/><BR/><B>Yet another problem for physicalism. How do you arrange an electrochemical reaction in order for it to be true ABOUT something? (=understand something)?</B><BR/><BR/>I don't arrange it, it arranges itself naturally.<BR/><BR/><B>What is isn't necessarily rational.</B><BR/><BR/>I've yet to see something that isn't logical or neccasarily irrational.<BR/><BR/><B>Laws of logic are. Moral laws are.</B><BR/><BR/>Its impossible to think about them without eating.<BR/><BR/><B>No, but thinking is possible without logic.</B><BR/><BR/>Familiar with Saphir-Worf? You think within language. Language is governed by the three laws of logic. Your thoughts are neccasarily interconnected with logic.<BR/><BR/><B>That is because they are an extension of the logic in the minds of those who created the computer.</B><BR/><BR/>And they are observable phenomenon.<BR/><BR/><B>This we know because of the law of identity.</B><BR/><BR/>This is the three laws at work, which means they are observable in our writing.<BR/><BR/><B>Are the characteristics of the christian God totally unfamiliar to you?</B><BR/><BR/>It is a neccesity to <I>define</I> your terms in all philosophical discourse.<BR/><BR/>Also, I argue on a person-to-person basis. That's the reason my friend (Deist) calls me a compassionate freethinker.Mesofortehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187247135363619155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20169168.post-1154380927759221622006-07-31T14:22:00.000-07:002006-07-31T14:22:00.000-07:00Mesoforte"A specific occurence to understand the c...Mesoforte<BR/><BR/>"A specific occurence to understand the context will suffice."<BR/><BR/>If i say the universe created itself out of nothing for example. A is A, nothing is nothing.<BR/><BR/>"Let's take the law of identity as an example:<BR/><BR/>If A is identical to C, and if B is identical to C then A and B have to be identical.<BR/><BR/>If A and B are identical to C, then there is no point in using multiple terms."<BR/><BR/>Ok look at it this way then -<BR/><BR/>1) Dogs are smelly creatures<BR/>2)Fido is a dog<BR/>C) Fido is a smelly creature<BR/><BR/>"What isn't a 'conceptual pattern of thought'? We think abstractly and conceptually to understand everything."<BR/><BR/>Yet another problem for physicalism. How do you arrange an electrochemical reaction in order for it to be true ABOUT something? (=understand something)?<BR/><BR/>"You're incorrect, logic does not imply rational oughts, it merely says what is."<BR/><BR/>And i ought to conclude what logic implies. It doesn't mean i actually do it, it means i ought to.<BR/><BR/>"Rational is not 'ought', it is a description of what is."<BR/><BR/>What is isn't necessarily rational.<BR/><BR/>"What is the difference between physical and 'non-physical'. There is nothing in the universe that isn't related to something 'physical.'"<BR/><BR/>Laws of logic are. Moral laws are.<BR/><BR/>"Isn't logic a certain way of thinking? Is logic possible without thinking?"<BR/><BR/>No, but thinking is possible without logic.<BR/><BR/>"Are you familiar with computers? Computers operate on these three laws of logic. (And, or, not.) We are able to view these laws in action every time we watch a program run."<BR/><BR/>That is because they are an extension of the logic in the minds of those who created the computer.<BR/><BR/>"We are observing them right now.<BR/><BR/>Take the word 'we'-<BR/><BR/>'We' is not 'I', because 'I' means something specific and 'we' means something specific. The two terms don't mean the same thing. So we is not 'I'."<BR/><BR/>This we know because of the law of identity.<BR/><BR/>"You still have not defined the attributes of the concept you call 'god'"<BR/><BR/>Are the characteristics of the christian God totally unfamiliar to you?Toffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056150137595422127noreply@blogger.com