Open call for Presups

[HitchSlap]

Again, the truths that are the Laws of Logic transcend the mind of mankind. A rock would still be a rock and not a tree whether we are here to observe it or not.

The "laws of logic" are descriptive, and are "transcendent" to the extent that any description would be. Descriptions are useless without an observer.

 

[HitchSlap]

Again, the truths that are the Laws of Logic transcend the mind of mankind. A rock would still be a rock and not a tree whether we are here to observe it or not.

How do you know this?

 

[Silmarien]

How do you know this?

Are you suggesting that rocks turn into trees when nobody is there to watch them?

Because if so, we've really hit hard irrationalism here.

 

[Chriliman]

Are you suggesting that rocks turn into trees when nobody is there to watch them?

Because if so, we've really hit hard irrationalism here.

I think he’s saying there’s no way to know that they don’t. We can only assume based on observation that rocks don’t turn into trees when no ones looking.

You’re right though, it is irrational to assume they do.

 

[Sanoy]

Do you agree that logic not only tells us what is but what we "should" think about something. Nature can only provide a description of what is but cannot provide a prescription of what ought to be so it cannot tell us how we ought to think. Logic is also immaterial and conceptual while nature is just the opposite.

Yeah I think there is a good distinction there. The logical process can tell us things about worlds that don't exist, and predict things in the world that does exist - it can give us remote, a priori descriptions. But that doesn't speak of the process itself, where are we getting this process from? - the process and format in which a proposition is completed. Why do we happen to have a scope of reasoning that can fathom even non existent things? Why do we even have reason when behavior is all that is required for survival. That process itself must have an explanation because it works unfailingly for all things when applied correctly and adequately informed. As Nagel would say, 'we can explain the interworkings of a calculator but not why it's correct.' It's correct because we gave it this process, but where did we acquire that process?

Logic seems to be a plan for thinking correctly. There needs to be a reason why the logic we have access to is 100% accurate for all possibilities in its scope, and the only place that I know that has formal causes is an intelligent agent. If we designed an AI we would pass on our logic to guide it's behavior through intuitions. Shurely that AI would then wonder about the scope of it's thinking and come to the same question. Through introspection, it would see that it's behavior is being guided and coerced along a particular scope of fantastic success and fulfilment, and ponder the mind of its creators based on the programming they left behind.

 

[Sanoy]

I think he’s saying there’s no way to know that they don’t. We can only assume based on observation that rocks don’t turn into trees when no ones looking.

You’re right though, it is irrational to assume they do.

That claim , 'that there is no way to know that they don't', is self defeating too. It is a knowledge claim that requires non observational consistency, it's an a priori statement, so there must be some epistemic bedrock that goes beyond mere observation.

In simpiler terms it can't be observed that 'there is no way to know that rocks don't turn into trees.' In any case there would have to be some epistemic bedrock before observation to turn observation into information.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That claim , 'that there is no way to know that they don't', is self defeating too. It is a knowledge claim that requires non observational consistency, it's an a priori statement, so there must be some epistemic bedrock that goes beyond mere observation.

In simpiler terms it can't be observed that there is no way to know that rocks don't turn into trees. In any case there would have to be some epistemic bedrock before observation to turn observation into information.

Are you suggesting that non-existent things, us in this hypothetical, could know things? How could we know if we didn't exist anything about the rules of the universe? That rocks don't turn into trees is an observation about this universe--where we exist.

 

[Sanoy]

Are you suggesting that non-existent things, us in this hypothetical, could know things? How could we know if we didn't exist anything about the rules of the universe? That rocks don't turn into trees is an observation about this universe--where we exist.

That was'nt a hypothetical, just a rejection of that premise claim. I can confirm that If A doesn't exist it doesn't have any properties, which includes knowledge. That conclusion is derived a priori, as I can't observe something that does not exist. It must actually exist first, for me to observe it.

 

[Silmarien]

I think he’s saying there’s no way to know that they don’t. We can only assume based on observation that rocks don’t turn into trees when no ones looking.

You’re right though, it is irrational to assume they do.

Yes, I find it highly entertaining when someone's response to the presuppositionalist insistence that all other worldviews are irrational is to immediately embrace irrationality.

It's a legitimate move, I think, but as soon as you make it, you need to embrace irrationality whole-sale. No falling back on science as a method of obtaining knowledge once you've suggested that nothing that we observe might exist independently of our observations.

 

[Chriliman]

That claim , 'that there is no way to know that they don't', is self defeating too. It is a knowledge claim that requires non observational consistency, it's an a priori statement, so there must be some epistemic bedrock that goes beyond mere observation.

In simpiler terms it can't be observed that there is no way to know that rocks don't turn into trees. In any case there would have to be some epistemic bedrock before observation to turn observation into information.

So we can at least assume that if there's no observation of a thing then knowledge of that thing can't be obtained?

 

[Sanoy]

So we can at least assume that if there's no observation of a thing then knowledge of that thing can't be obtained?

We can have intentional ''inexistence', that is, more or less, that we can think about things that exist and things that do not exist but could have existed. So we can know things about Pegasus even though we will never observe Pegasus ( unless the laws change ). And if they do change we can make predictions about Pegasus, like needing a better lasso and saddle. The logical process guides our thoughts in thinking correctly about things that could exist, propositions about what could exist, and also guides observation into information.

 

[Athée]

Yeah I think there is a good distinction there. The logical process can tell us things about worlds that don't exist, and predict things in the world that does exist - it can give us remote, a priori descriptions. But that doesn't speak of the process itself, where are we getting this process from? - the process and format in which a proposition is completed. Why do we happen to have a scope of reasoning that can fathom even non existent things? Why do we even have reason when behavior is all that is required for survival. That process itself must have an explanation because it works unfailingly for all things when applied correctly and adequately informed. As Nagel would say, 'we can explain the interworkings of a calculator but not why it's correct.' It's correct because we gave it this process, but where did we acquire that process?

Logic seems to be a plan for thinking correctly. There needs to be a reason why the logic we have access to is 100% accurate for all possibilities in its scope, and the only place that I know that has formal causes is an intelligent agent. If we designed an AI we would pass on our logic to guide it's behavior through intuitions. Shurely that AI would then wonder about the scope of it's thinking and come to the same question. Through introspection, it would see that it's behavior is being guided and coerced along a particular scope of fantastic success and fulfilment, and ponder the mind of its creators based on the programming they left behind.

A really interesting post. It seems like you are getting at the account for logic which is interesting. It seems to me that the laws of logic are necessary. Certainly they obtain when there is matter in a given possible world, but if you read my hypothetical about the Nothing reality, I think it strongly motivates the intuition that logic applies in all logically possible worlds. If this is so then we don't a God to act as the grounding for the existence of logic. However, you also asked a question about how we can use logic which is a different thing. That is essentially what is meant by reasoning. You can account for why we reason and why it is mostly effective by positing a God. Another account is that evolutionary reliabalism is the case. In either story we have an account of reason (but not a justification because it would be circular), the question then becomes which story is true and we can then look at the evidences.

 

[Chriliman]

We can have intentional ''inexistence', that is, more or less, that we can think about things that exist and things that do not exist but could have existed. So we can know things about Pegasus even though we will never observe Pegasus ( unless the laws change ). And if they do change we can make predictions about Pegasus, like needing a better lasso and saddle. The logical process guides our thoughts in thinking correctly about things that could exist, propositions about what could exist, and also guides observation into information.

Sure, we can think about things that don't exist out there, in objective reality, but as soon as we think of them, they do exist in our thoughts. So is it really possible to think about something that doesn't exist anywhere, not even in your thoughts? I'm sure there's whole branch of philosophy on that subject.

 

[Sanoy]

A really interesting post. It seems like you are getting at the account for logic which is interesting. It seems to me that the laws of logic are necessary. Certainly they obtain when there is matter in a given possible world, but if you read my hypothetical about the Nothing reality, I think it strongly motivates the intuition that logic applies in all logically possible worlds. If this is so then we don't a God to act as the grounding for the existence of logic. However, you also asked a question about how we can use logic which is a different thing. That is essentially what is meant by reasoning. You can account for why we reason and why it is mostly effective by positing a God. Another account is that evolutionary reliabalism is the case. In either story we have an account of reason (but not a justification because it would be circular), the question then becomes which story is true and we can then look at the evidences.

Yeah, I think we are thinking about logic differently. I'm seeing it as a process or a plan, where logic refers to a process of thinking, like a formal cause that results in knowledge. In this, a proposition like 'A cannot also be not A' is a semantic description of the possible states of affairs. It's not logic itself, but the conclusion, in descriptive form, of the process of logic. The process, in us at least, is not necessary so should have an explanation.

I think that, given we're dealing with epistemic bedrock, our only hope of a solution is through abductive reasoning. We know the conclusion, "Therefore there is a valid process in acquiring truth", we just don't know the premise. So we have to plug in premises and see which one better acquires the conclusion. I think the conclusion has to be fully obtained by the premise otherwise the inserted premise, the conclusion, and the format fall into complete uncertainty.

 

[HitchSlap]

Are you suggesting that rocks turn into trees when nobody is there to watch them?

Because if so, we've really hit hard irrationalism here.

The "Laws of Logic" are a product of a mind, it's a descriptive tool we use to define what we observe. If there were were no minds, then there is no 'description,' ergo, rendering any notions of "transcendence" as meaningless.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, I find it highly entertaining when someone's response to the presuppositionalist insistence that all other worldviews are irrational is to immediately embrace irrationality.

It's a legitimate move, I think, but as soon as you make it, you need to embrace irrationality whole-sale. No falling back on science as a method of obtaining knowledge once you've suggested that nothing that we observe might exist independently of our observations.

Unless you misunderstand the point I was making @Oncedeceived, then you're intentionally framing a straw man fallacy.

 

[Silmarien]

The "Laws of Logic" are a product of a mind, it's a descriptive tool we use to define what we observe. If there were were no minds, then there is no 'description,' ergo, rendering any notions of "transcendence" as meaningless.

Yes, but you asked how someone might know that a tree doesn't turn into a rock when nobody is there to observe it. Could you explain precisely what you mean by this, because it certainly seems that you are going further than saying that logic is a descriptive tool and questioning whether concrete physical entities like rocks and trees exist in the absence of mind. This is pretty radical stuff.

Unless you misunderstand the point I was making @Oncedeceived, then you're intentionally framing a straw man fallacy.

I am looking at what you stated. Calling the laws of logic descriptive is not the same thing as suggesting that a rock and a tree might be the same thing in the absence of mind.

I don't even like presuppositionalist apologetics, but this isn't the corner you want to get backed into.

 

[Sanoy]

Sure, we can think about things that don't exist out there, in objective reality, but as soon as we think of them, they do exist in our thoughts. So is it really possible to think about something that doesn't exist anywhere, not even in your thoughts? I'm sure there's whole branch of philosophy on that subject.

Oh man is there ever a whole branch of philosophy on this. It's a very hot topic, with so many questions left unanswered about how we think about things.

 

[HitchSlap]

suggesting that a rock and a tree might be the same thing in the absence of mind.

I'll help you identify your straw man.

Asking how someone may "know" a rock doesn't change to a tree, is not the same as suggesting it does. You're picking a fight where there is none.

 

[Silmarien]

I'll help you identify your straw man.

Asking how someone may "know" a rock doesn't change to a tree, is not the same as suggesting it does. You're picking a fight where there is none.

No, not really. This is precisely what presuppositional apologetics is about. If you cannot offer some justification for the belief that rocks don't change into trees when we're not looking at them, then the presuppositionalist wins.

Saying that we cannot know that rocks don't change into trees doesn't help your case, it's just doubling down on irrationalism. Can you offer a reason why we might think that rocks do not actually turn into trees when there is no observer watching?

Seriously, if you want to take on a presuppositionalist, casting doubt upon the possibility of knowledge is the last thing you want to do. It just proves their case.