Godlessness and choice

[quatona]

That is only Naturalist scientists. And they think that both conscious AND unconscious acts are the function of brain cells which are made up of chemicals and as I stated earlier chemicals behave according to the laws of physics, not logic.

How exactly do chemicals escape the laws of logic?

 

[Ana the Ist]

That is only Naturalist scientists. And they think that both conscious AND unconscious acts are the function of brain cells which are made up of chemicals and as I stated earlier chemicals behave according to the laws of physics, not logic. Now do you understand?

Not really...

I read an article yesterday about an AI that was built to play a video game called Dota. I won't go into the specifics of the game except to say that it's got multiple complex variables that change rapidly throughout a game ...think of it as 1000 times more complex than chess. The impressive part of this is when the AI was created, it didn't really understand the game...it learned how to play by playing successive versions of itself. It learned more and more until it was successful enough to beat a professional player.

So when you claim that we can't use logic or reason if our brains are purely "natural" I don't know why you think that is. Our brains are highly complex...capable of organizing, remembering, and processing information in many different ways. I don't see why the fact that there's no magic involved means that we cannot use logic or reason.

 

[Ed1wolf]

How is that an ad hominem? It's basically dismissing your argument as complete gibberish, because that's what it is. How in any way does that attack you as a person?

Dismissing someone's argument in an arrogant manner without even attempting to refute it or prove that it is gibberish is treating someone like they don't even exist, seems like a plainly implied ad hominem to me. In fact, in a way, the ultimate ad hominem.

 

[Ed1wolf]

How exactly do chemicals escape the laws of logic?

They cannot produce propositions, weigh their reasonableness and come to a conclusion based on those propositions.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Not really...

I read an article yesterday about an AI that was built to play a video game called Dota. I won't go into the specifics of the game except to say that it's got multiple complex variables that change rapidly throughout a game ...think of it as 1000 times more complex than chess. The impressive part of this is when the AI was created, it didn't really understand the game...it learned how to play by playing successive versions of itself. It learned more and more until it was successful enough to beat a professional player.

The key sentence is your first one "it was built/designed to play the game". Highly sophisticated computers can "learn" many things especially if they are specifically designed or programmed to do such things so that is no surprise. This computer is just going thru the same motions that it was programmed to do just down different programmed paths, it is not experiencing free will or true open ended reasoning.

ana: So when you claim that we can't use logic or reason if our brains are purely "natural" I don't know why you think that is. Our brains are highly complex...capable of organizing, remembering, and processing information in many different ways. I don't see why the fact that there's no magic involved means that we cannot use logic or reason.

Yes they are highly complex but according to naturalists, they are just highly complex chemicals. And we know that chemicals only operate according to the laws of chemistry not the laws of logic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The key sentence is your first one "it was built/designed to play the game". Highly sophisticated computers can "learn" many things especially if they are specifically designed or programmed to do such things so that is no surprise. This computer is just going thru the same motions that it was programmed to do just down different programmed paths, it is not experiencing free will or true open ended reasoning.

It's true it was built to play the game...but it taught itself how to do that. No strategies on how to win were programmed into the AI...it had to develop those all on its own.

Yes they are highly complex but according to naturalists, they are just highly complex chemicals. And we know that chemicals only operate according to the laws of chemistry not the laws of logic.

I don't know why you keep repeating that...is there some chemical interaction that defies logic? Why would that mean that we cannot use logic?

 

[quatona]

They cannot produce propositions, weigh their reasonableness and come to a conclusion based on those propositions.

Ah, so you didn´t mean they behave illogically (or escape logic), you meant they aren´t reasoning.
But I hope you do understand that a system is capable of doing stuff that its parts aren´t capable of? Like cells can´t walk, but humans can. And chemicals can´t reason, but humans can. Silicon can´t calculate, but computers can. One hand can´t clap, but two can. Etc. etc.

 

[Ed1wolf]

It's true it was built to play the game...but it taught itself how to do that. No strategies on how to win were programmed into the AI...it had to develop those all on its own.

Yes, but such things don't go outside its program or behaving according to how the electrical charges would expect to behave IOW it does not reason according to the laws of logic. Which is how you would expect a brain to act but it doesn't because the human mind CAN reason unlike chemical processes.

ana: I don't know why you keep repeating that...is there some chemical interaction that defies logic? Why would that mean that we cannot use logic?

The product of chemical reactions are not produced by logic, they are produced by the laws of chemistry. But yet we can produce conclusions by logic, this is evidence that our minds are not completely tied to the physical.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, but such things don't go outside its program or behaving according to how the electrical charges would expect to behave IOW it does not reason according to the laws of logic. Which is how you would expect a brain to act but it doesn't because the human mind CAN reason unlike chemical processes.

I'd argue that it did reason...albeit in a limited sort of way

The product of chemical reactions are not produced by logic, they are produced by the laws of chemistry.

Which follow the laws of logic.

But yet we can produce conclusions by logic, this is evidence that our minds are not completely tied to the physical.

We could just as easily create an AI that follows the laws of logic. It's also worth pointing out that people don't automatically think logically...logic is something that has to be learned...like everything else.

I don't see how our ability to use logic...or the fact that "chemicals" are a part of our brains...provides evidence for the non-physical.

Try and use logic to show me.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Dismissing someone's argument in an arrogant manner without even attempting to refute it or prove that it is gibberish is treating someone like they don't even exist, seems like a plainly implied ad hominem to me. In fact, in a way, the ultimate ad hominem.

Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Dismissing an argument because it's nonsense is the reasonable thing to do when someone provides a nonsense argument. That's not fallacious in the least.

It's also not a personal attack. If you have your feelings hurt because I think your argument is nonsense, that's not my problem. My dismissal wasn't an attack on you or your character, it was in response to your argument. Therefore it's not an ad hominem.

 

[Dave Ellis]

They cannot produce propositions, weigh their reasonableness and come to a conclusion based on those propositions.

Neither can almost anything else in the universe that we know of apart from humans, and possibly a handful of other species.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ah, so you didn´t mean they behave illogically (or escape logic), you meant they aren´t reasoning.
But I hope you do understand that a system is capable of doing stuff that its parts aren´t capable of? Like cells can´t walk, but humans can. And chemicals can´t reason, but humans can. Silicon can´t calculate, but computers can. One hand can´t clap, but two can. Etc. etc.

Yes, but nothing about cells being part of human legs, silicon as part of programmed machines, and clapping hands violates the laws that govern those actions. But reasoning and chemical reactions are incompatible as far as producing the same action. Scientifically they operate on very different principles. One operates according to physical laws and the other operates according to metaphysical laws.

 

[Moral Orel]

One hand can´t clap, but two can.

I disagree.

 

[quatona]

Yes, but nothing about cells being part of human legs, silicon as part of programmed machines, and clapping hands violates the laws that govern those actions. But reasoning and chemical reactions are incompatible as far as producing the same action. Scientifically they operate on very different principles. One operates according to physical laws and the other operates according to metaphysical laws.

That´s quite some presuppositional claims you make there. Care to support them?

 

[Ed1wolf]

I'd argue that it did reason...albeit in a limited sort of way

Yes, but it is limited because it is programmed. But we supposedly know that humans are not programmed, right? Otherwise that would mean that we are the product of an intelligent programmer, horror of horrors!

ana: Which follow the laws of logic.

Yes, of course there is overlap between the laws of logic and physics. But the laws of logic can be used for abstract reasoning, the laws of physics cannot.

ana: We could just as easily create an AI that follows the laws of logic. It's also worth pointing out that people don't automatically think logically...logic is something that has to be learned...like everything else.
I don't see how our ability to use logic...or the fact that "chemicals" are a part of our brains...provides evidence for the non-physical.
Try and use logic to show me.

Only laws of logic can be used for abstract reasoning and discovering non-physical entities such the laws of physics themselves, the existence and nature of theories, meanings, concepts, propositions, and truth itself. Something that operates only by the laws of physics cannot do such things.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Dismissing an argument because it's nonsense is the reasonable thing to do when someone provides a nonsense argument. That's not fallacious in the least.

It's also not a personal attack. If you have your feelings hurt because I think your argument is nonsense, that's not my problem. My dismissal wasn't an attack on you or your character, it was in response to your argument. Therefore it's not an ad hominem.

I consider it an ad hominem, but anyway the main point is that just calling something gibberish or nonsense doesn't prove that it is so my argument stands unrefuted.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Neither can almost anything else in the universe that we know of apart from humans, and possibly a handful of other species.

Exactly, that is the evidence that our minds can transcend matter and in fact are non material.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, but it is limited because it is programmed. But we supposedly know that humans are not programmed, right? Otherwise that would mean that we are the product of an intelligent programmer, horror of horrors!

Limited not so much because it was programmed...but rather because of the limitations built into it.

It's nice of you to try and jump to a different point...but the moment we create an AI that, for example, can create an original painting...your whole argument falls apart.

Yes, of course there is overlap between the laws of logic and physics. But the laws of logic can be used for abstract reasoning, the laws of physics cannot.

I'll need an example of what you mean by "the laws of logic can be used for abstract reasoning" before I can understand what you meant there.

Only laws of logic can be used for abstract reasoning and discovering non-physical entities such the laws of physics themselves,

What? Non-physical entities like the laws of physics themselves?

The "laws of physics" aren't an "entity"...they're just concepts we use to describe reality. They don't exist apart from us as "entities".

the existence and nature of theories, meanings, concepts, propositions, and truth itself. Something that operates only by the laws of physics cannot do such things.

You keep making these claims...but you never explain why you believe them. So I'm forced to keep asking, why not? I don't see anything about our minds that suggests the need for some unnatural force.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, but nothing about cells being part of human legs, silicon as part of programmed machines, and clapping hands violates the laws that govern those actions. But reasoning and chemical reactions are incompatible as far as producing the same action. Scientifically they operate on very different principles. One operates according to physical laws and the other operates according to metaphysical laws.

qua: That´s quite some presuppositional claims you make there. Care to support them?

What is presuppositional about them? It is called basic science.

 

[quatona]

What is presuppositional about them?

"Yes, but nothing about cells being part of human legs, silicon as part of programmed machines, and clapping hands violates the laws that govern those actions. [...but physical processes producing reasoning do]".
"But reasoning and chemical reactions are incompatible as far as producing the same action."
"Scientifically they operate on very different principles."
"One operates according to physical laws and the other operates according to metaphysical laws."
IOW, every single sentence.