Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How exactly do chemicals escape the laws of logic?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.
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?
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.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ah, so you didn´t mean they behave illogically (or escape logic), you meant they aren´t reasoning.They cannot produce propositions, weigh their reasonableness and come to a conclusion based on those propositions.
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.
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: 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?
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.
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.
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.
They cannot produce propositions, weigh their reasonableness and come to a conclusion based on those propositions.
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.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.
That´s quite some presuppositional claims you make there. Care to support 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 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.
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!I'd argue that it did reason...albeit in a limited sort of way
ana: Which follow the laws of logic.
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.
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.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.
Exactly, that is the evidence that our minds can transcend matter and in fact are non material.Neither can almost anything else in the universe that we know of apart from humans, and possibly a handful of other species.
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!
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.
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.
What is presuppositional about them? It is called basic science.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?
"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]".What is presuppositional about them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?