Those darned Laws Of Physics

[Soubrette]

Darat

You mea.....

Jeremy

Indeed And I can see why for you the syllogism wouldn't hold - but what about if you were a Hard Materialist? Would it hold then - in your opinion?

I like the basketball analogy more now I understand it better

And leaps of faith or given axioms - wonderful phrases we would all do well to consider sometimes

Sou

[Darat]

Quote:

Stimpy said:

..snip...

Perhaps I should clarify. When I say "materialism", I am referring to modern scientific materialism, which is both reductionist, and assumes a closed physical world. I cannot speak for any other forms of materialism, because I do not know of any other forms of materialism that are not incoherent.

...snip...

Stimpy - can you defend the assumption of "reductionism" in the "scientific materialism" you talk about.? Or is it one of the premises of "SM"? - Thanks

[toddjh]

Quote:

Originally posted by Soubrette
Indeed And I can see why for you the syllogism wouldn't hold - but what about if you were a Hard Materialist? Would it hold then - in your opinion?

Yes, I think so. And note that I don't insist that people aren't governed by some set of uber-laws of physics, either. In fact, I don't even consider that an unknowable question, like I do materialism as a whole. I believe it's possible in principle to test whether consciousness is a physical or metaphysical phenomenon, even though the means to do so probably won't be available for many, many years, even if they're practical for humans at all.

Jeremy

----
I believe it's possible in principle to test whether consciousness is a physical or metaphysical phenomenon, ...
----


Great guru, what is consciousness?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Darat,

Quote:

Stimpy - can you defend the assumption of "reductionism" in the "scientific materialism" you talk about.? Or is it one of the premises of "SM"? - Thanks

Both.

First of all, the assumption of reductionism is an assumption of the scientific method. In that sense, you could think of it as a pragmatic assumption, rather than as a belief. In other words, you don't know whether it is true or not, but you pragmatically assume that it is, in order to apply the scientific method.

That said, the complete set of axioms of the scientific method form a falsifiable hypothesis. That is, if they are all true, then the scientific method should work. If the scientific method didn't work, we would never know which of the axioms were false. We would just know that at least on of them is not true.

This means that the success of the scientific method, the fact that it does, in fact work, constitutes supporting evidence for the hypothesis that its axioms are true. Not proof, just supporting evidence.

Thus the belief that scientific materialism is true is not just a leap of faith. For somebody who is unaware of the success of the scientific method, it would be, but for anybody who knows how successful the scientific method is, it is a belief based on overwhelming supporting evidence. Claiming that we don't know whether the assumptions of the scientific method are true or not, would be like claiming that we don't know whether the gravity will be turned on tomorrow.

Dr. Stupid

[Darat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
…snip…



Thus the belief that scientific materialism is true is not just a leap of faith. For somebody who is unaware of the success of the scientific method, it would be, but for anybody who knows how successful the scientific method is, it is a belief based on overwhelming supporting evidence. Claiming that we don't know whether the assumptions of the scientific method are true or not, would be like claiming that we don't know whether the gravity will be turned on tomorrow.

…snip…

Whilst I totally agree that the scientific method has been and still is the singularly most successful tool humans have ever invented/created - it is still based on “unprovable” premises.

In other words the one “white crow” could bring the whole edifice crashing down to its foundations. No matter how successful it has been to date it is still based on assumption.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Darat,

Quote:

Whilst I totally agree that the scientific method has been and still is the singularly most successful tool humans have ever invented/created - it is still based on “unprovable” premises.

In other words the one “white crow” could bring the whole edifice crashing down to its foundations. No matter how successful it has been to date it is still based on assumption.

That is exactly the point. Once you get beyond the inherently flawed notion of "absolute knowledge", the fact that it could be proven wrong becomes a strength, not a weakness. Our knowledge that the premises of the scientific method are true is not absolute knowledge. It cannot be proven in the logical sense. Only abstract logical tautologies can be "proven".

You can either reject the concept of knowledge completely, or accept the idea of probabilistic, provisional knowledge. All of our knowledge about "reality" is provisional and probabilistic. Hence my previous statement about the gravity being turned on tomorrow. I cannot "prove" that gravity will function tomorrow, but to claim that I do not know that it will, is nothing less than rejecting the concept of knowledge itself.

Dr. Stupid

[c4ts]

Quote:

Originally posted by Soubrette
c4ts

Actually I'd like to move away from the conclusions that Frank reaches beyond his syllogism and just concentrate on the it alone. I'm not interested at this point in time in Logical Deism, the goddess etc - all I'm interested in is that syllogism. I want to understand why it provokes such a strong response And I want to see why it doesn't provoke such a strong response in me - where am I looking at it differently compared to you

So you don't believe that the laws of physics affect the behaviour of people? And if you don't - what do you think does affect their behaviour?[/b]

Well, that depends on how you look at it. Things like levitation, teleportation, and walking through walls aren't part of human behavior, and laws of physics are used to explain why we can't do such things, so in that sense I can say the laws of physics are affecting behaviour. Also, things like emotions are biochemical reactions on a physical level, and emotions affect behaviour except when someone has enough self control to restrain themselves. But in the same way, desires affect behaviour, and desires don't seem to be explained by the laws of physics alone (the laws of biology or psychology aren't the same as the laws of physics). On a more straightforward level, if a tractor obeying the laws of physics flips over and crushes your spine because you did not operate it in a safe manner, it has changed your behaviour for the rest of your life (because you're paralyzed).

So I am not saying the laws of physics don't affect people's behaviour, but that they can affect people's behaviour only to a certain degree. It is certainly not the way commands affect behaviour. But I don't know what would constitute the rest of behaviour.

Quote:

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Libertarian free will" is meaningless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only if you can demonstrate that it is inconceivable that our actions can be anything other than determined, or a consequence of innate randomness, or some mixture of those two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That is a tautology. The definition of "random" is "non-deterministic". If you mean something else by the word "random", you need to define what you mean by it.

It doesn't mean non-deterministic if we believe in libertarian free will. Randomness means innately uncertain.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly the train of mental events leading to me choosing A rather than B is neither determined by physical laws nor is a consequence of incorrigible "mental laws". Rather the sequence of events may be influenced by the Will. By the Will I mean an intrinsic facet of the self which has the capacity to choose. Such an action inniated by the Will would neither be entailed by physical laws, "mental laws" nor be random.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So all you have done is add another set of laws. The "will laws".

Crucially though what the Will decides is not determined from without, but is a spontaneous decision by an individual. Thus from one second to another second we do what we do because of what we are, but what we intrinsically are is not something imposed upon us externally, but is an elementary reality which cannot be further analysed. In other words what we do is a consequence of ourselves. But the self itself is self-determining.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously very difficult to define. But I would say that anyone who maintains that we can only act as a consequence of physical laws, mental laws, or randomness has the onus of demonstrating why this is so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Libertarian free-will is incoherent because it asserts that the will is not constrained by any natural laws. It literally asserts that the will is neither deterministic nor random. It must be one or the other.

No it mustn't. If you mean by deterministic, imposed from without, so that our behavior is circumscribed by physical laws or some sort of mental laws, then I do not see this as being necessarily true. Behavior could be determined from within. In this situation behavior might not exhibit any patterns which can either be captured by any physical laws or "mental laws", but nevertheless the behaviour isn't random in that the behavior is dictated by the Will and is in general accordance with how a person might be expected to behave in certain given specific circumstances.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edited to add: btw it is perfectly possible for the Will to make an arbitrary decision and yet not at all be random.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, it isn't. If it is not random, then it is determined by something, which means it is not random.

ok but determined by the self whose decision is not compltely dictated by factors external to the self.

[DanishDynamite]

c4ts:

Quote:

So I am not saying the laws of physics don't affect people's behaviour, but that they can affect people's behaviour only to a certain degree.

Everything a human thinks, does or experiences is governed by the laws of physics. At least, there is no evidence to the contrary.

In this sense, the conclusion of Franko's logically flawed jingle (properly interpreted), is correct.

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
c4ts: Everything a human thinks, does or experiences is governed by the laws of physics. At least, there is no evidence to the contrary.

In this sense, the conclusion of Franko's logically flawed jingle (properly interpreted), is correct.

True, but even so, this does not imply fatalism. The Franko character refuses to accept that some of the laws of physics are non-deterministic. The conclusion may be correct, but it certainly isn't what he meant.

[c4ts]

Quote:

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
c4ts: Everything a human thinks, does or experiences is governed by the laws of physics. At least, there is no evidence to the contrary.

In this sense, the conclusion of Franko's logically flawed jingle (properly interpreted), is correct.

So even though I can imagine things that do not follow the laws of physics, they govern my thoughts anyway? Or are you just talking about mental activity itself?

[DanishDynamite]

Tricky:

Quote:

True, but even so, this does not imply fatalism. The Franko character refuses to accept that some of the laws of physics are non-deterministic. The conclusion may be correct, but it certainly isn't what he meant.

True. Our future cannot, even in principle, be predicted with 100% accurracy.

c4ts:

Quote:

So even though I can imagine things that do not follow the laws of physics, they govern my thoughts anyway? Or are you just talking about mental activity itself?

The process by which you imagine things, is governed by the laws of physics. What you imagine, is not.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Eyes,

Quote:

That is a tautology. The definition of "random" is "non-deterministic". If you mean something else by the word "random", you need to define what you mean by it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't mean non-deterministic if we believe in libertarian free will. Randomness means innately uncertain.

And that is different from "non-deterministic" how? If something is deterministic, then it is necessarily certain. If it is innately uncertain, then it cannot be deterministic.

Put simply, something that is random is clearly non-deterministic. If you are going to claim that non-determinism alone is not enough for something to qualify as random, then you need to explain what the additional criteria are.

Quote:

So all you have done is add another set of laws. The "will laws".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crucially though what the Will decides is not determined from without, but is a spontaneous decision by an individual. Thus from one second to another second we do what we do because of what we are, but what we intrinsically are is not something imposed upon us externally, but is an elementary reality which cannot be further analysed. In other words what we do is a consequence of ourselves. But the self itself is self-determining.

Our decisions are clearly influenced by outside factors. Even if you allow for some non-reducible "will" that makes the decision, it is affected by outside influences. That will is either deterministic or random, and the mechanism of the influence is also either deterministic or random. Thus the overall process is either deterministic (if both are deterministic), or random (if either or both are random). Either way, Libertarian free-will goes out the window.

Quote:

Libertarian free-will is incoherent because it asserts that the will is not constrained by any natural laws. It literally asserts that the will is neither deterministic nor random. It must be one or the other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No it mustn't. If you mean by deterministic, imposed from without, so that our behavior is circumscribed by physical laws or some sort of mental laws, then I do not see this as being necessarily true.

That is not what deterministic means.

Quote:

Behavior could be determined from within.

Not completely. And even if it were, it would still be deterministic.

Quote:

In this situation behavior might not exhibit any patterns which can either be captured by any physical laws or "mental laws", but nevertheless the behaviour isn't random in that the behavior is dictated by the Will and is in general accordance with how a person might be expected to behave in certain given specific circumstances.

This is contradictory. The will interacts with the physical and mental world. The laws that describe it are therefore necessarily a part of the natural laws describing the physical and mental.

If the will is not described by any natural laws, then nothing it interacts with can be either. If it can be, then those laws manifest in the laws describing how the will interacts with other things. Indeed, our decisions are those interactions. The will can be thought of as a black-box algorithm, with our environment as the input, and our decisions as the output. If the will is deterministic, then there is a set of rules that dictate what our decisions will be for any input. If it is random, then those rules are probabilistic.

Quote:

No, it isn't. If it is not random, then it is determined by something, which means it is not random.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ok but determined by the self whose decision is not compltely dictated by factors external to the self.

That is also contradictory. If the self is deterministic, then its state at any point in time is determined entirely by its initial conditions, and its external influences. What determines those initial conditions? Either they are random, or they are determined by something outside of the self.

You are asserting that there is something to the self which is not determined by anything outside of itself, and yet which is not random. That is contradictory. It must be one or the other.

Dr. Stupid

[whitefork]

I do wish people would not call those three claims a syllogism. It's not. In fact it is not even an argument in the formal sense since its third statement (the alleged conclusion) does not follow by any rules of inference from the first two (the alleged premises)....

Unless "composition" is a valid rule of inference and not a formal fallacy, in which case all arguments of that form are valid:

All geometric figures are made of points.
Points have no dimension.
Geometric figures have no dimension.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

[Underemployed]

Hmm, I thought geometric figures were also made up of lines between points...These have at least one dimension, yes?...Someone who knows about maths can explain to me how many points a circle has.

A revised syllogism for Franko:

The behaviour of what we call atoms is consistent with equations we have made up after observing the universe.
We are made of atoms.
Our behaviour is consistent with equations we have made up after observing the universe.

Can't say fairer than that, now can you? Not as punchy, though. Can't have everything.

[justsaygnosis]

I think this is the thread you started before your trip.


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...threadid=12693

[Soubrette]

curses to reality imposing limits on my virtual time

ok - a whole load of interesting ideas here

First to Tricky:

You talk about the fallacy of composition - am I understanding you correctly in that I think you are talking about the terms used being inadequate to convey the meanings behind them (obey, people are made of atoms etc). Or is there an actual objective fallacy of composition with the syll...sorry Whitefork - with the jingle? If the latter - could you explain in very simple terms - it may astound you to know () that I've never done formal logic - all I know about it is what I've read on the boards.

Also I think I'm still going to take issue with the idea that the ultimate laws of physics being unreal because the knowledge of the them is probably unattainable. It doesn't matter if we can know them or if we cannot know them - they either exist or they don't, surely? If you say that they cannot exist because we cannot know them - then aren't you starting to sound a little like UcE?

Stimpy - could you explain in very simple terms why the two premises do not lead to the conclusion? I am assuming this to be the case even if we ruthlessly expunge the word obey from the jingle and use something like Win's alternative. (Although thinking some more on that I think Win was talking about our mathematical ideas of the laws of physics rather than the ultimate laws of physics.

c4ts - so would you consider yourself to be a modern materialist? If not - how would you categorise your beliefs?

And Whitefork - could you give me a little more detail as to why you feel that this jingle doesn't fit the formal pattern of a syllogism - or perhaps more accurately, why it doesn't follow as an argument in the formal sense - and I need it simple

and last - justsaygnosis - thanks for the link - I thought that one had died - but this discussion was started on another thread, not one of mine, I just want to see where it takes me really

Sou

Soubrette: Love the new avatar.

Tricky mentioned the Fallacy of Composition. What follows is a link to a great webpage describing some common Fallacies of Ambiguity. Composition is about halfway down the page.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

There it is.

[Soubrette]

Quote:

Originally posted by SpaceLord
Soubrette: Love the new avatar.

Tricky mentioned the Fallacy of Composition. What follows is a link to a great webpage describing some common Fallacies of Ambiguity. Composition is about halfway down the page.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

There it is.

Thank you

And thanks for the link too - I'll peruse it now

And please feel free to call me Sou - everyone else does and it's easier to type

Sou

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Soubrette
First to Tricky:

You talk about the fallacy of composition - am I understanding you correctly in that I think you are talking about the terms used being inadequate to convey the meanings behind them (obey, people are made of atoms etc). Or is there an actual objective fallacy of composition with the syll...sorry Whitefork - with the jingle? If the latter - could you explain in very simple terms - it may astound you to know () that I've never done formal logic - all I know about it is what I've read on the boards.

I've never done formal logic either, so don't expect my explanations to be authoritative.

My purpose in rewriting the... thing... was to remove the "composition". I took out the part that said humans had a trait because the things they are made of have that trait, which (I hope) eliminates the fallacy of composition.

(Just so you won't have to scroll down, my jingle was:

P1: All real things are constrained by the perfect laws of physics.
P2: Humans are composed only of real things
C: All componants of humans are constrained by the perfect laws of physics.)



Unfortunately, that dang nearly, but not quite, makes MY syllo... uh... jingle into a "begging the question" fallacy, since P1 and C are nearly, but not quite identical. Only the possibility that humans could be composed of things other than real things keeps it from being so.

Quote:

Originally posted by Soubrette
Also I think I'm still going to take issue with the idea that the ultimate laws of physics being unreal because the knowledge of the them is probably unattainable. It doesn't matter if we can know them or if we cannot know them - they either exist or they don't, surely? If you say that they cannot exist because we cannot know them - then aren't you starting to sound a little like UcE?

Actually, this makes me the Anti-Elephant. the Ultimate Laws of Physics, like Infinity, are concepts, or if you wish, mathmatical limits. If "ideal" things are not real (as stated in my definition), then these concepts, while useful, even vitally important, are not real things. However, I rely on the concept being understandable, or my jingle is worthless. (Some might say, "too late" )

UcE believes that Infinity is more than a concept and is in fact a real thing. Here we differ.

[Edited to say: P.S. I like your new avatar, but my favorite is still your first one.]

[whitefork]

Quote:

Originally posted by Underemployed
Hmm, I thought geometric figures were also made up of lines between points...These have at least one dimension, yes?...Someone who knows about maths can explain to me how many points a circle has.

You can say something like

Points are dimensionless
Lines are made of points
therefore lines are dimensionless.

Or

Lines have one dimension
Geometric figures are made of lines
therefore geometric figures have one dimension.

It doesn't matter. The point is that this argument:

X is made of A
A has attribute Q
Therefore X has attribute Q

Is not valid because it can have true premises and a false conclusion.

Valid argument - where the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true. A valid argument can have false premises, but in that case the conclusion may be either true or false.

See the threads called Introduction to Formal Logic and Fallacy of Composition for discussions ad nauseum.

There is a least one individual here who disagrees with this definition of validity. In his view, a valid argument has true premises and a true conclusion, and the terms in the conclusion must be present in the premises. This view is not widely held.

[Loki]

Sou,

Welcome back - nice trip?

The syllogism is pretty simple to expose - there are 3 different 'truths' here.

1. The premises are true,
2. The conclusion is true.
3. The argument (syllogism) is true (valid).

Franko says "if the premises are true, and the conclusion is true, then the argument must be valid".

This is the core of the problem - Franko's summary is not a true statement! logically, the argument is valid onlyif the conclsuion is always true when the premises are true. As Whitefork (amongst many others) have done, it's easy to produce examples of Franko's jingle in which the "form" os followed, and where the premsies are true, yet the conclusion is clearly false. Therefore, the "form" of his syllogism is false.

In other words, it's entirely logic to say (when refering to Franko's syllogism) that :

1. The premises are true,
2. The conclusion is true.
3. The argument is invalid.

All this does is to reduce Fanko's jingle to the status of "statement of opinion" rather than "logical proof".

Franko is trying to say "my syllogism is a logical proof - logic forces you to accept the conclusion if you cannot defeat the premises". This simply isn't true - accepting his premises does not force me to accept his conclusion. Of course, I can accept his conclusion anyway!

[Loki]

Stimpy,

Quote:

You are asserting that there is something to the self which is not determined by anything outside of itself, and yet which is not random. That is contradictory. It must be one or the other.

Now, let me just say that this is exactly the line I've been arguing with various people. However, dropping into Devils Advocate mode for a moment, why must "Will" reduce to either determinstic or random? Why can't we define 3 essential "behaviours" within the physical realm, rather than 2?

1. Determined
2. Random
3. Willed

In this instance, "Willed" is a "base attribute", not reducible to anything else. It is only available to "conscious" objects. Given that definition, why must "Willed" be a contradictory concept? Can't it be a standalone concept? Sure, it might be viewed as an "unlikely" property, but why must it be considered contradictory/illogical?

[whitefork]

Hello Loki - Yeah, I just can't get enough of this.

My problem with this - I will call it a paralogism - is that I don't know what Atoms, Obey, Laws of Physics, and YOU mean. For all I know, the atoms are Dalton's or Democritus's. Laws of physics? Newton, Archimedes, Einstein, somebody else?

I don't understand the terms so I can't evaluate the truth of the claims.

[BroodingSkill]

Ok I'm gonna put my foot in my mouth and my neck in the noose here so be nice. I'm taking a course in Descrete Mathmatics in school right now and decided to make a truth table out of Franko's little jingle. So here it goes...

Given: atoms obey TLOP
people are made of atoms
people obey TLOP
(I hope I haven't mistated that..)

Let: P=atoms
Q=TLOP
R=people

so I think we're left with this

P and Q
R and P
---------------
therefore R and Q

Now I hope I haven't got this wrong, I often get things wrong, so please correct me if you disagree.

Now for the purposes of this I'll use T=true and F=false.

The truth table for the "and" logical connective is this.

P Q| P and Q

T T T
F T F
T F F
F F F


So accounting for three variables I come up with this.


P Q R| P and Q| R and P| R and Q

T T T T T T
F F T F F F
F T T F F T
T F T F T F
T F F F F F
T T F T F F
F F F F F F

The right most column( R and Q) is the most important here. This whole thing speaks to the propostional form of the arguments and the not the truth of the individual propositions. So baring this is mind the syllogism is not a "tautology" which means that all possible values of its propostional variables are true for all conditions(plus if you think I left out any conditions in the left column please say so I will correct it and adjust where appropriate). It isn't a "contradiction" which is that all of the truth values of the propostional variables are false for all conditions. So what we are left with is a "contigency" which is neither a tautology nor a contradiction. Again this is about form and not the truth of the propositions themselves, that must be determined by other means.

Lastly, I thank anyone who bothered to read this, and I thank anyone who is willing to help me, I'm sucking in this class but I'm far from dead yet and I wish to apply what knowledge I gain at every opportunity. So thanx.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Sou,

Quote:

Stimpy - could you explain in very simple terms why the two premises do not lead to the conclusion? I am assuming this to be the case even if we ruthlessly expunge the word obey from the jingle and use something like Win's alternative. (Although thinking some more on that I think Win was talking about our mathematical ideas of the laws of physics rather than the ultimate laws of physics.

It is the fallacy of composition, as Tricky said.

Formally, the syllogism can be expressed as follows:

All A have characteristic x.
B is made of A.
Therefore B has characteristic x.

This conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. Any number of counter examples can be presented to demonstrate this, such as:

All atoms are smaller than a chicken.
All animals are made of atoms.
Therefore all animals are smaller than a chicken.

The conclusion can be correct, for some values of A, B, and x, but it is not in general. That is why the syllogism is flawed. Given the proper definition of "obey", all three statements of the syllogism are true, but that doesn't change the fact that the third statement cannot be deduced from the first two. In order to make it into a formal proof, you would need additional steps. Specifically, you would need steps that explain how composition works with respect to atoms, and that explain which characteristics are preserved by composition, and which are not.


Loki,

Quote:

You are asserting that there is something to the self which is not determined by anything outside of itself, and yet which is not random. That is contradictory. It must be one or the other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let me just say that this is exactly the line I've been arguing with various people. However, dropping into Devils Advocate mode for a moment, why must "Will" reduce to either determinstic or random? Why can't we define 3 essential "behaviours" within the physical realm, rather than 2?

1. Determined
2. Random
3. Willed

In this instance, "Willed" is a "base attribute", not reducible to anything else. It is only available to "conscious" objects. Given that definition, why must "Willed" be a contradictory concept? Can't it be a standalone concept? Sure, it might be viewed as an "unlikely" property, but why must it be considered contradictory/illogical?

Good question. In principle, it is not. The problem is that simply stating it, as you have, does not constitute a formal definition. You have said that there are three mutually exclusive "behaviors", and attached names to them, but what are they?

I have a coherent formal definition for determinism, and a coherent formal definition for random. Under those definitions, anything must be one or the other. You can provide different definitions if you want, but when you do o, all you will be doing is taking behavior that I call either deterministic or random, and putting it in your "willed" category instead.

In other words, the argument is incoherent until such time as formal definitions for the three behaviors are provided, and even if you provide such definitions, the entire argument becomes a semantic one.

Dr. Stupid

[Soubrette]

Ok

I think I'm getting a glimmer of understanding here - thanks to all who have the patience to keep on explaining

In essence:

The terms are not well defined thus are open to too much interpretation.

The conclusion is not a forgone conclusion from the premises (although all three may be true - subject to the lack of definition)

Is this what I'm understanding so far?

Brooding Skill - I hope someone can help you with your mathematical proof - it's totally beyond me but thanks for adding it

Sou

[BroodingSkill]

Sou, thank you, I'm just tying to learn and repeating and applying seem to work well and I thank you all for your indugence.

[Soubrette]

Quote:

Originally posted by BroodingSkill
Sou, thank you, I'm just tying to learn and repeating and applying seem to work well and I thank you all for your indugence.

I find repetition works for me - in the end

And I'm glad you added it to the thread - it was relevant (I think)

Sou

[Loki]

BroodingSkill,

Quote:

Given: atoms obey TLOP
people are made of atoms
people obey TLOP
(I hope I haven't mistated that..)

Let: P=atoms
Q=TLOP
R=people

so I think we're left with this

P and Q
R and P
---------------
therefore R and Q

Nearly there ... the composition fallacy occurs because the syllogism actually resolves to :

Quote:

P and Q
R and P1
---------------
therefore R and Q

P = Atoms
P1 = made of atoms.

The syllogism assumes P == P1, which is an implicit further premise.

[BroodingSkill]

Thanx Loki, the wording always trips me up. I guess that's one more thing I need to study.

[The Fool]

Franko's Jingle may be useful to franko. It may be useful to others as a point of debate. As far as Logic is concerned it is purely and simply a textbook example of Fallacy of composition. It could be used as a shining example of this fallacy in a first year logic class. It is simply a statement of franko's beliefs. Because it is structured in 3 lines doesn't make it a syllogysm. It is a fallacy. It is also not a sonnet, It is not a fourteen-line poem in iambic
pentameter with a carefully patterned rhyme scheme. It does not pass that test so it is not a sonnet. It does not pass many other tests either. It is a deliberately structured piece of smoke and mirrors used to support a fallacious argument.

It is not a joke either....It fails the "funny" test as well.....

[c4ts]

Quote:

Originally posted by whitefork
I do wish people would not call those three claims a syllogism. It's not. In fact it is not even an argument in the formal sense since its third statement (the alleged conclusion) does not follow by any rules of inference from the first two (the alleged premises)....

Unless "composition" is a valid rule of inference and not a formal fallacy, in which case all arguments of that form are valid:

All geometric figures are made of points.
Points have no dimension.
Geometric figures have no dimension.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Tangent time!

In mathematical terms, here is why the syllogism is correct given only the first two statements:
p = 0 (given)
n = any positive integer >0 (given)
magnitude of any figure = 0n
0n = 0 (property of 0)

Here is why the first statement is false:

I say if points have no dimension, then no amount of points can make a geometric figure. Let all geometric figures have parts. Let points have no part. The part cannot be greater than the whole (postulate). In order for a point to have any part whatsoever, the part would have to be more than no part, therfore greater than the whole, therefore it is absurd. Bow to Euclid, Q.E.D.

[hammegk]

Even after the oodles of logical obfuscation above, does your *I* seem more real to you than your bag-o-bones *me* that is perceived by your *I*?

Is it true that "Atoms obey the laws of the universe-that-is"?

Is it true your *me* is composed of "atoms"? But what do you know about your *I*? Is it "atoms" too?

[MRC_Hans]

So, if I take the liberty to conclude on the debate so far, in relation to Sou's original questions, the jingle is really a Tautology (True, but meaningless statement).

Ranging from the hard-core Materialist to devout Theist, it has the virtue of stating the obvious:

Atoms obey tlop: Yup, Materialist through Theist should have no problem with this.

People are made of atoms: Materialists and Theists might both say, well, but not entirely. The Materialist would mention information as an additional component, the Theist would, of course, mention Soul.

People obey tlop: Here the jury is out, but this is not especially between Materialists and Theists; scattered among the crowds are psi-, astrology-, black cat-, etc. believers.

None of it has any logic evidence value, and the purpose Franko is using it for (debunking free will) is moot. This doesnt even depend on how you view the laws of physics:

Having to act within a rule set only limits willful choice, it doesnt preclude it.

Accepting TLOP as a conscious entity does not preclude free will, as said entity might support it.

Then why the heck are we wasting so much time on it? Dunno


Hans

Quote:

Originally posted by MRC_Hans


People are made of atoms: Materialists and Theists might both say, well, but not entirely. The Materialist would mention information as an additional component, the Theist would, of course, mention Soul.

You mean the materialist would say a non-materialist would say "soul". And by the way, I wouldn't say people are made of atoms at all. I find the notion perfectly stupid if not meaningless.

Quote:

People obey tlop: Here the jury is out, but this is not especially between Materialists and Theists; scattered among the crowds are psi-, astrology-, black cat-, etc. believers.

Again this is utterly absurd. I have free will. And I mean what materialists call "libertarian free will".

[MRC_Hans]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You mean the materialist would say a non-materialist would say "soul". And by the way, I wouldn't say people are made of atoms at all. I find the notion perfectly stupid if not meaningless.



Again this is utterly absurd. I have free will. And I mean what materialists call "libertarian free will".

Mmmm, I have certainly heard non-materialists mention "soul" on numerous occasions.

People not made of atoms AT ALL? What then, in your opinion, are our bodies made of?

Well, we agree that its absurd. Thats exactly what I'm saying: The sillogism has no relevance for the discussion on free will at all.

Hans

[Peskanov]

Ian;

---
quote:
Again this is utterly absurd. I have free will. And I mean what materialists call "libertarian free will".
---

Sorry if this has been already discussed, but what makes you think you have "libertarian free will", and how do you tell the difference with other definitions of free will?
(Please, point me to the thread if it is already discussed)

Quote:

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat



Good question. In principle, it is not. The problem is that simply stating it, as you have, does not constitute a formal definition.

We don't need a formal definition nor is one possible in any case. We cannot give a formal definition of phenomenal consciousness yet it would hardly be possible to deny it exists.

Quote:

You have said that there are three mutually exclusive "behaviors", and attached names to them, but what are they?

You don't know what free will is?

Quote:

I have a coherent formal definition for determinism, and a coherent formal definition for random. Under those definitions, anything must be one or the other.

Ok you've made that claim. Now why don't you try and demonstrate it?

Quote:

You can provide different definitions if you want, but when you do o, all you will be doing is taking behavior that I call either deterministic or random, and putting it in your "willed" category instead.

Ok, I decide to scratch my nose. You say that it is determined. Fair enough. But suppose that I deny the physical world is closed, so that my scratching of my nose is not completely physically caused. Would you say that my action is therefore mentally caused and is still therefore determined?