materialism and laws of logic

[malfunktion]

I find the discussions of materialism on this board very fascinating.

Quick question: how do materialists explain the existence of abstract concepts in and of themselves? For example, are concepts themselves considered "material" in some way? How would you classify the "laws of logic" as being material?

[Upchurch]

I think a strict materialist would describe abstract concepts as human thoughts. Human thoughts, in turn, are composed of different combinations neurons and molecules in the brain.

Much like a picture on a computer screen. That picture isn't literally stored on the computer's hard drive, but is encoded in the bits and bytes of the hard drive.

[arcticpenguin]

Information.

Information does not exist unless it is embodied in some material. Thoughts, ideas, concepts, like computer programs, would not exist if they were not stored or processed in some material medium.

[arcticpenguin]

So if you damaged a part of somebody's brain, they might lose their memory, or some of their thinking ability.

Hey, you know, that could actually happen.

[malfunktion]

Wouldnt that make the laws of logic dependent on the human brain? I thought the laws of logic existed in some independent form?

So the laws dont exist apart from somebody's brain?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by malfunktion


So the laws dont exist apart from somebody's brain?

LOL. Welcome to the board, m.

Careful, you will have the materialists here (er, well now I think they are all naturalists) hurting themselves with their usual illogic. :D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

{whatever} :rub:
Originally posted by malfunktion

Wouldnt that make the laws of logic dependent on the human brain? I thought the laws of logic existed in some independent form?

So the laws dont exist apart from somebody's brain?The conceptualization of the laws of logic, and/or physics, and/or whatever are indeed dependent on the human brain. The things those conceptualizations represent are consequences of the material world.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
:rub:
You need it worse than I do, don't you?


The conceptualization of the laws of logic, and/or physics, and/or whatever are indeed dependent on the human brain. The things those conceptualizations represent are consequences of the material world.

Leave it to you to think that "conceptualization of" and "existence of" are one and the same. Can't you find a few irrelevant links to post too?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Leave it to you to think that "conceptualization of" and "existence of" are one and the same. Read it again, hammegk. That is the exact opposite of the point I was making. I was pointing out that the conceptualization of a thing (i.e. that which is information stored in the human brain) is different from the thing itself, which is a consequence of the material world.

At least, from a materialist's point of view.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by malfunktion
I find the discussions of materialism on this board very fascinating.

Quick question: how do materialists explain the existence of abstract concepts in and of themselves? For example, are concepts themselves considered "material" in some way? How would you classify the "laws of logic" as being material?
Concepts are abstract, they dont exist concretely. Because concepts are abstract, they do not exist in a material sense.

Here's a little reference chart:
Abstracta:
Red
Pi
Concepts
Evil

Concreta:
Praying Mantis
Yahweh (Me, not that other Yahweh)
O₂
James Randi Educational Foundation
Gravity

That pretty much answers the question in full.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by malfunktion
Wouldnt that make the laws of logic dependent on the human brain? I thought the laws of logic existed in some independent form?

So the laws dont exist apart from somebody's brain?
Watch out when you play around with Logic.

What Logic IS NOT: A set of laws that govern human behavior.

[Lord Kenneth]

The Laws of Logic are concepts that describe how the world works. It depends in what sense you use it as-- the laws themselves are basically how the universe operates, our conceptions of those laws are basically a part of our brain functions.

Love, and other emotions, exist not as a force but as an emotion caused by brain chemistry.

[malfunktion]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Watch out when you play around with Logic.

What Logic IS NOT: A set of laws that govern human behavior.

Yeah in reference to laws of logic I was referring to the laws of physics. So I think Im starting to understand the argument. The concepts themselves cannot exist unless there is some mechanism to store and process them?

So if all of human kind died would the laws of physics still hold true and exist? Is this sort of like if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?

Your response also brings up a new point, if you say logic does not govern human behavior are you saying all moral codes are "illogical" to some extent? So the law: dont murder doesnt contain some sort of "logic?"

[reprise]

The fundamental forces wouldn't cease to exist or start to function in a different manner just because there were no human beings around to observe them - those forces are material in nature.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Information.

Information does not exist unless it is embodied in some material. Thoughts, ideas, concepts, like computer programs, would not exist if they were not stored or processed in some material medium.
not really, you can have information in electromagnetic waves and gravitational waves.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

not really, you can have information in electromagnetic waves and gravitational waves. a.k.a. photons and gravitons via quantum partical/wave duality.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by malfunktion

Yeah in reference to laws of logic I was referring to the laws of physics. So I think Im starting to understand the argument. The concepts themselves cannot exist unless there is some mechanism to store and process them?

As concepts, no. The concept of red does not exist without an observer. But the physical properties of a red object exist independently of an observer.

So if all of human kind died would the laws of physics still hold true and exist? Is this sort of like if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?

Obviously, as the laws of physics preexisted humans.

Your response also brings up a new point, if you say logic does not govern human behavior are you saying all moral codes are "illogical" to some extent? So the law: dont murder doesnt contain some sort of "logic?"

It contains "some sort" of logic, but it is not basic logic; as we all know there are situations where logic would tell you to kill.

Hans

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Upchurch
a.k.a. photons and gravitons via quantum partical/wave duality.
yes, but they are not material, and as far as I know, the light only behave like a particle when it hits something.
When light is just traveling around, it is just a wave.

The point is that is possible to have information in "time and space" and not only in material.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

The point is that is possible to have information in "time and space" and not only in material. But spacetime and energy are also part of the material world. The material world isn't just matter.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Upchurch
But spacetime and energy are also part of the material world. The material world isn't just matter.
:D
I get your point, but it should have a new name for that, it looks like a contradiction.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Read it again, hammegk. That is the exact opposite of the point I was making. I was pointing out that the conceptualization of a thing (i.e. that which is information stored in the human brain) is different from the thing itself, which is a consequence of the material world.

At least, from a materialist's point of view.

Well, if you say so I guess. Where & when did that "emergent property" emerge from? You'll make a materialist out of me next.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Where & when did that "emergent property" emerge from? "the thing itself...is a consequence of the material world"

[Correa Neto]

Please note that for some cosmologists and physics, information is the very basis of the universe- matter, energy, that´s all information, and entropy can be described in terms of information.
Just look at SciAm´s holographic universe article (there´s a topic about it somewhere here).

Information will still be here after mankind disappears. We will no longer proccess it (eventually something else will- or maybe not), but the information will still be here.

[Upchurch]

Very true, but we're talking within the context of materialism.

[Dancing David]

Thought experiment:
An alkien species exists which has a different brain architecture than ours, would not perhaps the way they view the associations in the universe be different. Might they not have different rules of logic. And while they might find and discover the order in physics, might they not organise and view the laws differently than we do?

(What do you expect from the son of an anthropologist?)

Culture is relative, the rules of culture are relative, the logic of cultures varies but can be transmitted.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
"the thing itself...is a consequence of the material world"

Even assuming materialism "true", that seems like faith rather than logic. We were discussing logic and math.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

We were discussing logic and math. Yes, within the context of materialism.
Originally posted by malfunktion

how do materialists explain the existence of abstract concepts in and of themselves?My emphesis.

Please try reading the thread before trolling ...I mean, replying.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by malfunktion
I find the discussions of materialism on this board very fascinating.

Quick question: how do materialists explain the existence of abstract concepts in and of themselves? For example, are concepts themselves considered "material" in some way? How would you classify the "laws of logic" as being material?

I would say that materialism must conceive of logic as having an objective existence. Isn't this is one of the axioms of materialism ?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


I would say that materialism must conceive of logic as having an objective existence. Isn't this is one of the axioms of materialism ?

Uh, no.

Materialism does not believe that there is some sort of Valhalla were ideas live and drink throughout the eons. Logic is a human tool made by humans, math is a tool made by humans, the LOP are obserfed and theorised about by humans.

Materialism says that these are human constructs used by humans, existing within the brains of humans and dying when the last human dies.

Sounds like you are confusing materialism and philosophy.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Sounds like you are confusing materialism and philosophy.

Sounds like you are assuming materialism is Truth rather than philosophy. :D

God only knows what Uppie is doing. ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

God only knows what Uppie is doing. ;) Just keepin' my promise to keep the facts straight. :rub:

edited to add:
Oh, yes. I am also posting on topic.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk


Sounds like you are assuming materialism is Truth rather than philosophy. :D

God only knows what Uppie is doing. ;)

Sorry hamme! As you know I have taken the stance that science and materialism are only obsercvational, I make no claims or speculations about the ontology of the material world. I would not say that materialism is truth, I would say that it reflects a set of common beliefs, some of which are subject to verification and replication.

But I hedge the bet by saying that until there is a way to rest a hypothesis about ontology, it is not within the purview of materialism. I really feel that davidsmith73 has mistaken materialism for idealism, they are very divergent but as the Resident Greek says thaey can be convergant.

Truth is like milk, best taken after being pasteurised and/or eaten with cookies. I thought relayivity slew Truth, so now we only have truth, which is always true,

[Azathoth]

re·i·fy
tr.v. re·i·fied, re·i·fy·ing, re·i·fies
To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence.


Abstract concepts like 'Justice' or 'Logic' are not objective, material things. You can't see, smell, weigh, or photograph them. That doesn't mean they are irrelevant or meaningless or negligible.

As a materialist, I still want to 'see Justice done', but I know that I will never literally see any Justice -- just human beings acting in accordance with subjective rules of law and justice.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Uh, no.

Materialism does not believe that there is some sort of Valhalla were ideas live and drink throughout the eons. Logic is a human tool made by humans, math is a tool made by humans, the LOP are obserfed and theorised about by humans.

Materialism says that these are human constructs used by humans, existing within the brains of humans and dying when the last human dies.

Sounds like you are confusing materialism and philosophy.


I recall having many lengthy debates with Stimpy about the nature of objective reality. One of those was that science must assume it to be logical in nature. Now, I understand that the current form that our models of reality take are constructs made from our observations of that objective reality, but all models must be logical. This stems from the fact that you must assume that an objective reality is logical in nature. In other words, materialism (which assumes an objective reality, just like our current scientific framework) must also assume that objective reality is logical. Thus, logic lies outside of the subjective. You are mistaking the map for the territory.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

I recall having many lengthy debates with Stimpy about the nature of objective reality.
Eh, what , did I turn into Stimpy while I slept, ah, I hate it when that happens. ;)
One of those was that science must assume it to be logical in nature. Now, I understand that the current form that our models of reality take are constructs made from our observations of that objective reality, but all models must be logical. This stems from the fact that you must assume that an objective reality is logical in nature.
Perhaps Stimpy and I would disagree on that point, I would say that all science needs is for the material universe to be self consistent. I call that isotropy, but not logical
In other words, materialism (which assumes an objective reality, just like our current scientific framework) must also assume that objective reality is logical. Thus, logic lies outside of the subjective. You are mistaking the map for the territory.

No you are putting Stimpy's words in my mouth!
Something (the tentative universe) being self consistent does not mean that there is this dude called 'Logic' sitting in the Valhalla of Ideas, drinking mead and playing chess.
I would argue that we have a reality that is isotropic until at least 10,000,000,000 years back, and the fact that the universe is self consistent is the way that it is (TWTII). Logic is not nessecary and is in fact redundant, it could have been that the universe was totaly chaotic, in which case if life existed, science would look very different.

TWTII determines the rules of science, there is no Valhalla of Ideas, that is neoplatonism.