Google
 
Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Monday, October 17, 2005

Tremblay, Moore, Curtin on the nature of logic

Zachary Moore has made available a very professional transcript of his appearance on the Hellbound Alleee Show with Jack Curtin. At the end, we debate the (material) nature of logic. If you want to start there, search for "Jack: Just as an example, it answers all the big questions."

I'm slightly dissapointed that I didn't press him on the issue of how Christian contingency can possibly be compatible with the laws of logic, but I think I made all the necessary points during that short period of time.

Post a Comment


24 Comments:

At 10/17/2005 10:52 AM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10/17/2005 10:54 AM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

This is beautiful!!!!! Thank's so much for this. Before I analyze this section on my blog, I'll be preparing to cross examine Zach during his appearance with Gene Cook.

Anyway, since Zach will have his chance to answer the questions during his appearance, I'll just ask him to clarify one thing, if he would be so kind. Zach said that logic exists (as codified) in human minds. Now, what is a "mind" and since it's physical, where is it in the brain?

Also, you guys slipped up, Franc told Jesusfreak that logic existed in "brains." Now, this isn't a mess up if you guys just use those words interchangably, that is- the mind is the brain (i.e., the mind.brain identity thesis). That's fine, I can refute that position, but Frank made recourse to being an objectivist and Rand denied the identity thesis. So, you guys looked kinda, not totally, just kinda, silly. :-)

Frank, here's my question for you. You said: " And from there, it’s a long way, yes, but you can develop modal logic and so on and so forth from that."

Hmmmmm, do you happen to have a resource where this has been worked out? Which logicians admit this? I'd really like to see this. You see, all this was was you trying to act smart. You obviously have no clue about modal logic and how it was "developed."

 
At 10/17/2005 1:48 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Out of curiosity, what do you define the "mind" and "brain" as Paul?

 
At 10/17/2005 3:57 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

this always happens....

Let's say I define the mind as your big toe and the brain as a dingleberry, so what? This has *nothing* to do with Zach's claim. I don't see how my definition matters *at all.* This is just an attempt to avert burden and start attacking my position. I never made a claim, Zach and Franc did. Surely you atheists can understand that since I made no claim (pro or con) then I'm under no obligation. Zach and Franc made the positive claim. They need to tell me what they mean.

Also, why should I define it before them???????

 
At 10/17/2005 3:59 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

The mind is a subset of the brain. Both are physical, neurons, gray matter. So are thoughts. There's nothing magical, religious, supernatural about it.

 
At 10/17/2005 6:40 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

The reason I asked Paul was because you said you can refute the "mind is the brain" claim. So you made some kind of claim regarding it, even if it was only a claim of refutation. And since youre a Christian, I was interested in your take on it to boot.

No need to get defensive about it.

 
At 10/17/2005 6:42 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

I would say that they are NOT one and the same, in the way that stomach acid is not the same as a stomach. However, they are both purely material.

I would say that the "mind" is the consciousness and thought processes that occur within the brain. And of course the brain is a physical organ that peforms and sustains these thought processes that comprise the "mind."

Now that weve all shared Paul, dont you wanna share too? Dont you wanna tell us what you define these things as? Come on, share with the group. Sharing is the path to healing :)

 
At 10/17/2005 7:07 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

So, you agree with me that the mind is a subset of the brain ?

 
At 10/17/2005 8:05 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Franc: "The mind is a subset of the brain. Both are physical, neurons, gray matter. So are thoughts. There's nothing magical, religious, supernatural about it."

Paul: I didn't know the brain was a "set." That seems odd to say. "The set of brain" ???"

Anyway, what is the difference between the mind and the brain, Franc. Also, you said laws of logic exist in brains? Well, can you tell me (and yes, I've done a google search) where, exactly, is the codified law of excluded middle in your brain? Also, since it's physical could you tell me how much that law weighs? Thanks. Oh, extra credit: if we had a powerful enough microscope would I see this : A v B, in your brain? I mean, what does the law of excluded middle look like? I mean, what does it even mean to say that you have *THE LAW* in your brain. Since anything physical should be, in theory, able to be pictured, what does it look like. Oh, and since we have different letters and such does the law of ecluded middle look different in a China man's head than yours?

C'mon Franc, you reeeeeaaaaaallllyyy don't believe this stuff, do you?


Btw, Aaron, i was not defensive. Don't confuse my time constraints and thus my leaving out of the formalities, with anything other than being busy.

 
At 10/17/2005 8:24 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Paul, I haven't addressed you for weeks apart from slapping you on the wrists for being an ignorant little child, so I don't know why you think I would start now. I was addressing Aaron. Pipe down and let the grown-ups talk.

 
At 10/17/2005 10:14 PM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

Well, Franc, maybe you should take it easy on fragile little Paul. After all, he's just got his little chestnuts roasted to a crisp trying to evade my argument here.

 
At 10/18/2005 1:56 AM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Manata said:

where, exactly, is the codified law of excluded middle in your brain?

Give him a PET scan while hes thinking about it to find out.

Also, since it's physical could you tell me how much that law weighs?

Material things dont have to have weight. For example, a sound wave is material but it weighs nothing itself. It is the "nature" of sound (vibration) waves travelling through a medium, like an atmosphere. And the law of excluded middle is also the nature of material things.

Oh, extra credit: if we had a powerful enough microscope would I see this : A v B, in your brain?

It is not visible in the visible spectrum of light Paul. You need device that looks at a different, but very material, portion of the brain: its activity. The device you need is not a microscope, but a PET machine. It stands for positron emission tomography and has been used to discover, for example, what parts of the brain are working when speech is used. Ive even written about it at my blog.

I mean, what does the law of excluded middle look like?

LOL the same thing that electrons or maybe brain matter looks like. What did you think?

I mean, what does it even mean to say that you have *THE LAW* in your brain.

That your brain contains a certain string of information. What does it even mean to say that you have *WINDOWS XP* in your hard drive Paul?

Since anything physical should be, in theory, able to be pictured, what does it look like.

You are totally wrong my friend. Not everything physical can just be "pictured." Materialism doesnt even say that. It says that everything in theory should be detectable. We cant see black holes, but we can detect them. Can you picture a sound wave with a polaroid? How about with a microscope? You can detect the sound thats for sure, but youll never see it! And what is your ear other than a (material) vibration detecting device? Or can you take a picture of your torn open hard drive and point out the magnetic charge sequences on the actual disk that comprise your installed operating system? Can you tell me how much the 010101 coding of an installed-on-the-hard-drive version of IE6 weighs versus IE5.5?

...you reeeeeaaaaaallllyyy don't believe this stuff, do you?

You really dont believe that the visible light spectrum is the only medium in which we can defend the existance of things from the materialistic worldview, do you? Looks like a strawman to me. And you dont really believe that sound waves, the software running on your computer, and your own brain waves arent material do you?

Btw, Aaron, i was not defensive. Don't confuse my time constraints and thus my leaving out of the formalities, with anything other than being busy.

My mistake Paul. Its just that your big toe/dingleberry remark came off as if you had plenty of time to think up such a reply, and that your priority wasnt time but to attack my right to ask the question, therefore not having to answer it.

So far Paul, you havent given us any examples of anything that isnt material. And I am suprised to find that you think everything material can be seen via the visible light spectrum. Do you understand now why there is more to detecting material things than seeing them through a visible light medium? And do you understand now why there is more to claiming that something is material than just the visible light that it may or may not reflect or produce?

 
At 10/18/2005 2:30 AM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Aaron, remember that Paul thinks that our brain can't contain numbers because it would have to contain every number up to infinity. His concept of materialism is that we should be able to show him a little cloud in the brain that says "A is A" on it (as opposed to the soul, which is just magic).

 
At 10/18/2005 11:37 AM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Paul-

The mind is an emergent property of the brain. They are not separate physically.

 
At 10/18/2005 12:39 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Dawson,

http://www.blogger.com/publish-comment.do?blogID=11397797&postID=112857895186479106&r=ok

 
At 10/18/2005 12:42 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

"where, exactly, is the codified law of excluded middle in your brain?

Give him a PET scan while hes thinking about it to find out."


So, are they in different places in different people?

Also, why assume that if he thinks about it, and a PET scan picks up some electrical readings, that means the *law qua law* is in his brain? I've seen no argument here.

 
At 10/18/2005 12:44 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Thanks Zach.

Oh, and you're aware that you're using emergent wrong, at least w/respects to philosophy of mind, right? Emergentivism holds that the mind is an immaterial property of the brain. That it is immaterial does not refute materialism, they say, because it is wholly dependant upon a physical brain and would not exist without it. Or, is that what you mean?

 
At 10/18/2005 12:46 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Aaron: "My mistake Paul. Its just that your big toe/dingleberry remark came off as if you had plenty of time to think up such a reply, and that your priority wasnt time but to attack my right to ask the question, therefore not having to answer "

Paul: Nope, it just took a second, those where the first two things that popped into my mind. I thought it was funny.

 
At 10/18/2005 2:06 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Paul-

That is correct- I disagree with emergentism as you have defined it here.

 
At 10/18/2005 2:50 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Hmmm, then I have no idea what you mean, Zach. I mean, I'm fine with people using terms but I think it is generally accepted that if they use a term that is nowhere defined how they define it, then the onus is on them to explain why they are leaving common parlance and departing from paradigms of philosophical verbiage.

Don't you agree?

 
At 10/18/2005 3:02 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Paul-

I thought this would be implicit. Emergentism, as you have defined it, says that the mind is an immaterial property of the brain. This to me is nonsense. How can a material entity have an immaterial property? Rather, the mind is material, but in common understanding occupies a different paradigm of study than the brain per se. This is typical of other biological parallel networks, such as insect colonies.

 
At 10/18/2005 3:26 PM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

Paul, click here.

 
At 10/18/2005 3:53 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Paul said:

So, are they in different places in different people?

Research suggests not. Did you read the article I linked? Let me quote more of it:

The first language area within the left hemisphere to be discovered is called Broca's Area, after Paul Broca. Broca was a French neurologist who had a patient with severe language problems: Although he could understand the speech of others with little difficulty, the only word he could produce was "tan." Because of this, Broca gave the patient the pseudonym "Tan." After the patient died, Broca performed an autopsy, and discovered that an area of the frontal lobe, just ahead of the motor cortex controlling the mouth, had been seriously damaged. He correctly hypothesized that this area was responsible for speech production.

...The second language area to be discovered is called Wernicke's Area, after Carl Wernicke, a German neurologist. Wernicke had a patient who could speak quite well, but was unable to understand the speech of others. After the patient's death, Wernicke performed an autopsy and found damage to an area at the upper portion of the temporal lobe, just behind the auditory cortex. He correctly hypothesized that this area was responsible for speech comprehension.


What they are saying is that they have used brain scans to determine which areas of the mind control speech processing. Now, the same scientific techniques could be used to find what part of the brain processes information about logical law concepts. So while Im not one of these brain experts, based on their studies I think its reasonable to say that these laws will be processed and stored in the same areas of everyones brain. We have extensive findings from many research projects involving the brain that have found different parts of it being responsible for different thinking and memory functions.

Also, why assume that if he thinks about it, and a PET scan picks up some electrical readings, that means the *law qua law* is in his brain?

Its a concept, and if Franc had received the information about such a concept, and thinks about it in his mind, then necessarily, the concept itself is stored within his brain.

Paul, your argument is so silly, that I could use it to argue that your Windows Operating System is not actually on your computers hard drive. But for some reason I doubt that you would agree with me that the Operating System is indeed not stored on your hard drive.

I've seen no argument here.

Sorry you didnt see it. On the same vein though, Ive seen no argument from you. All ive seen is a strawman being propped up under the guise of the visible light spectrum being the only medium in which to determine somethings material existence.

Paul, there are people who suffer from cerebral palsy and have seizures all the time. Doctors can pinpoint the areas of these peoples brains that cause the seizures, and then they surgically cut out the portions of these peoples brains that cause these siezures. As would be expected, the seizures for these patients cease and their quality of life drastically improves. Now, if what you claim were true Paul, the removal of these faulty areas of the brain would mean nothing and have no effect on the siezues or functionality of these peoples brains.

Why did you ignore what I said about sound waves, black holes, and installed software on a hard drive? Do you understand how these ideas tie in to eachother?

Or here is a better question Paul. Since you refuse to acknowledge the material-based relationship between the neurons of the brain and memory and thought processes, would you agree with me if I claimed that surgical removal of the Wernicke's Area of your physical brain should have no effect on your ability to understand the verbal speech of others? To see where the Wernicke's Area of the brain is, check out that link I posted earlier and see the yellow hilighted area in the illustration that accompanies the article.

If you were right Paul, then there would be no such thing as brain damage in that harming the physical brain would have no effect on that persons memory or thinking capability. I doubt you seriously believe that though. I personally have known people who have suffered brain damage and their memories, motor skills, and thinking capabilites are drastically affected. Alzheimers desiase alone refutes your claims. I think you need to read a book about neuroscience or something.

Oh and yes the big toe dingleberry thing was funny :)

 
At 10/21/2005 3:34 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 

Trackbacks:

Create a Link

<< Home