Happy Atheist Forum

At the community’s request, I’ve decided to make a separate thread for each of these arguments. Mods, if at any point you want to combine these threads, feel free. I don’t want to litter the boards with these. I can always go back and edit the first post of whatever thread they get combined into and make it something of a table of contents with the syllogism of each argument.

The argument from subsistent existence was robust in that it gave us a pretty comprehensive picture of God. Due to its nature, it was also a very technical discussion. I want to do a less technical argument this time that is much more limited in scope and objective. Here, we are simply trying to give evidence for the supernatural. Before I present the argument formally, let me give one piece of background information.

The worldview on which most versions of atheism are built is called philosophical naturalism, materialism, or physicalism. The central idea is that everything that exists is strictly natural and obeys the laws of nature. There are no ghosts, gods, angels, demons, souls, or magic. Obviously, on this view, there is just no room for God.

I think we can demonstrate the deficiency of that general position this way:

1.   If rational thought is possible, materialism is false;
2.   Rational thought is possible;
3.   Therefore, materialism is false.

While this doesn’t prove God exists, it certainly makes that process a lot easier, since if there is a supernatural it would need supernatural explanation. We’ll look at just a few implications of this after we defend the proof above.

First, let’s define our terms. We have already defined materialism, so let’s define rational thought if it isn’t obvious to everyone. Rational thought is thought which is characterized by reason, and reason, of course, is the intellectual faculty by which knowledge is gained.
 
Now, for the argument itself, (2) is obviously true. The entire argument hinges on (1). Why should we believe it? Very simply, because if materialism were true, then everything would be determined by the laws of nature. Everything. Rocks don’t stop to ponder whether or not they should fall. They do so because that’s just what happens. But that means that what goes on in your head is no exception. Your thoughts arise, in this scheme, from what your brain does. Yet the brain is just chemistry and biology. It may be very complicated chemistry and biology, but it is still just chemistry and biology. This atom is colliding with that one which causes that atom to do that. Ultimately, your thoughts are determined by the chemistry in your brain.

In other words, if there is no part of you that is capable of stepping “outside” the laws of nature and “thinking for itself,” then everything in your brainâ€"including your thoughtsâ€"is absolutely determined by the laws of nature. If that is true, then you aren’t thinking anymore than a rock is thinking when it falls. You are doing the exact same thing a rock is doingâ€"exactly what the laws of nature demand of you at this moment in this time given your particular physical composition.

Now, we don’t consider a rock’s falling “rational.” It isn’t irrational. It is arational, meaning it is just doing what it is doing without any thought, because that is what it does. Likewise, under materialism, your thoughts aren’t rational. They are arational. The idea that you are considering arguments for anything and coming to the “right conclusion” is just an illusion. You are thinking what you are thinking, as am I, because this is what nature has decided we will think at any given moment.

In short, there is no “intellectual faculty by which knowledge is obtained.” There is just chemistry going on in your brain.

The only way to have rational thought is to posit some part of you that exists outside the laws of nature and works independently of them. This immaterial aspect of you would have to be able to actively influence the laws of natureâ€"to make this neuron fire in that way to generate this thoughtâ€"for rational thought to be possible. That, however, denies materialism.

So the case is clear. Materialism is not, by definition, a rational position. It is, at best, an arational position. Only non-materialistic positions can claim to be rational. And, of course, if there is an immaterial world there must be an immaterial cause. There is nothing in this proof that requires that cause to be the omnipotent God of the Bible, but that cause must at least be intelligent if it is to account for the intelligent immaterial aspect of humanity. At minimum, then, we see that if rational thought is possible, there must be an intelligent, immaterial being that causes our own intelligent immaterial aspects.

As a quick addendum, it's worth noting that this entire argument is built on the idea that rationality must be self-determined to be rational in the first place. This is because if I am forced to make a decision by nature, it isn't really a rational decision. It is just a description of what I had to do by nature. This idea though, can be extended a bit more generally to say that if materialism is true, then nothing is self-determined (because everything is determined by the laws of nature); but our thoughts, if not our actions, are self-determined, and therefore, materialism is false.

Rational - Characterized by reason, which is the intellectual faculty by which knowledge is gained.
Arational - Just doing what it is doing without any thought, because that is what it does.

I fail to see why thoughts can't be both rational and arational, by your definitions.

I've always known materialism to mean something else so I'll stick with naturalism.

QuoteIn other words, if there is no part of you that is capable of stepping “outside” the laws of nature and “thinking for itself,” then everything in your brainâ€"including your thoughtsâ€"is absolutely determined by the laws of nature. If that is true, then you aren’t thinking anymore than a rock is thinking when it falls. You are doing the exact same thing a rock is doingâ€"exactly what the laws of nature demand of you at this moment in this time given your particular physical composition.

This seems to all boil down to Determinism. Thought is not completely free. The brain directs itself; you have but the illusion of control. Your brain is run by natural processes. I wouldn't call it "the exact same thing as a falling rock," but yes, there are natural explanations for thought process. All thought stems from brain. If you have evidence that suggests it is coming from beyond nature, by all means, publish it now.

Quotebut our thoughts, if not our actions, are self-determined, and therefore, materialism is false.

When you sleep at night, do you will your dreams? Do ever, unwillingly, make snap judgments about a person upon meeting them for the first time? Doesn't this alone prove that your thoughts are not always self-determined?

That being said, there's nothing you can do which your brain cannot will. You can will anything you want, but you can only will what you will. No man can will his own will. Freewill is a myth.

Quote from: "Reginus"Rational - Characterized by reason, which is the intellectual faculty by which knowledge is gained.
Arational - Just doing what it is doing without any thought, because that is what it does.

I fail to see why thoughts can't be both rational and arational, by your definitions.

Because rationality requires deliberation. If I trip and fall, my falling isn't rational. It is just what happens. It makes no sense to call an action "reasonable" or "rational" if it is strictly externally determined, be it by gravity, instinct, whatever.

[edit:] With reference to the definition, reason is that which allows us to gain knowledge, and it in that the knowledge requirement that we see the need for deliberation. Epistemologists have long debated the exact definition of the "knowledge," but most everyone agrees that in order for something to be classified as knowledge, we have to have good reasons for believing it (so the old definition, "a justified, true believe," Gettier's problem acknowledged). This justification implies deliberation. Having reasons (which is different from the general faculty of reason) that can be good or bad implies that some beliefs are rational and some are not based on what we accept and the thought process we employ. Thus, for one person, a fact can be knowledge and for another that same fact may not. For example, I may be holding an ace of spades in my hand and ask you to guess my card. You may say "Ace of Spades," but if it is a pure guess, then while I have knowledge of my card, it seems evident that what you have is not knowledge.

Now, if a person's thought process is necessarily determined by the physics in his brain, then there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad reason" for anything. You don't really believe anything because of this or that; you "believe" it because its just the way the physics works. In still different terms, to be rational is a normative statement; we ought to believe this or that, whereas if our believes are determined, they are not normative, but purely descriptive; we do believe this or that.[/edit]

Quote from: "Sophus"This seems to all boil down to Determinism. Thought is not completely free. The brain directs itself; you have but the illusion of control. Your brain is run by natural processes. I wouldn't call it "the exact same thing as a falling rock," but yes, there are natural explanations for thought process. All thought stems from brain. If you have evidence that suggests it is coming from beyond nature, by all means, publish it now.

I didn't assert thought was completely free, but it is evidently at least partially free. I can "think for myself." If my thoughts are strictly determined by the physics of the brain, then I cannot think for myself. Nature does my "thinking" for me. That isn't rational. It's arational.

To be rational is to look at a set of facts and make a conscious decision about what ought to done in light of those facts that is consistent with reason. That whole process is meaningless if everything we think and do is externally determined.

QuoteWhen you sleep at night, do you will your dreams? Do ever, unwillingly, make snap judgments about a person upon meeting them for the first time? Doesn't this alone prove that your thoughts are not always self-determined?

My dreams aren't rational, nor are snap judgments about people. But again, I am not arguing that our thoughts must be 100% free to be rational. I am saying those thoughts that are rational must be self-determined.

QuoteThat being said, there's nothing you can do which your brain cannot will. You can will anything you want, but you can only will what you will. No man can will his own will. Freewill is a myth.

I'm not worried about free-will. I am worried about self-determination. I agree that free-will is a myth. Our will is free only to the extent that we can choose between two or more logically possible alternatives.

The issue is strictly and totally whether or not we are able to make our own decisions, or if our decisions are forced on us by chemistry and physics. If the former, we can in some sense be rational. If the latter, it makes no more sense to call any thought or idea rational than it does a rock falling off a cliff. Any view that embraces materialism is at best arational, not rational, because you didn't come to it. You were forced to it by the chemistry in your brain. There is no merit "realizing" anything that anyone else hasn't "realized." You are just doing what the physics has determined you will do. No more and no less.

Since we, meaning science in general, still know so little about the way the brain functions, your argument is still, in my opinion, stretching to place a "god" figure into the equation.

Since I am NOT a philosopher, perhaps I'm not seeing the "bigger" picture you are trying to paint here.  It still seems like a lot of verbage to "explain" the existence of god or the supernatural.

Quote from: "Martin TK"Since we, meaning science in general, still know so little about the way the brain functions, your argument is still, in my opinion, stretching to place a "god" figure into the equation.

Since I am NOT a philosopher, perhaps I'm not seeing the "bigger" picture you are trying to paint here.  It still seems like a lot of verbage to "explain" the existence of god or the supernatural.

There's not very much philosophy in this, and still less science. About the only philosophical distinction we need is description vs. prescription and self vs external determination.

Description describe what things do. The laws of physics are descriptive in nature. They don't tell us what rocks ought to do. They describe what they actually do in this or that situation, and from that, we can make predictions of what they will do in the future.

Prescription describes what things ought to do. Moral laws are prescriptive. I ought not kill. There can be no prediction based on a prescription, because there is no guarantee that the thing will do as prescribed. Logical laws are prescriptive, not descriptive. If A is bigger than B and B is bigger than C, then A is bigger than C. Thus, if A is John, and B is Mark and C is Jerry, then I ought to believe that John is bigger that Jerry. That doesn't believe I will, but because I ought to and don't, I am being illogical or irrational.

External determination is when I do something because something else decides I will do it. If I trip and fall, my falling is externally determined. Gravity, which is not the same thing as me, made me fall. I had no choice in the matter.

Self-determination is when I do something because I will it. If I pitch myself to the ground purposefully, then I determined my fall.

Now, if materialism is true, then everything is externally determined. Nothing is self-determined. In that case, it makes no sense to speak of prescriptive laws, because there is no possibility of what something ought to do. There is only what things are determined to do by something external to themselves. In still other words, if materialism is true, then all we have are descriptive statements, and since logic is not descriptive, the logic is impossible.

Therefore, on any version of materialism, rational thought is impossible. We can describe what we think, but we cannot characterize our thoughts as rational. Materialism, then, is not rational, and atheism built on materialism is equally not rational. Both are, at best, arational. A materialist cannot say that anyone ought to believe (or not believe, or withhold belief concerning) anything, because such a statement is prescriptive, which is forbidden by materialism. But since atheists do make such statements, they are actually affirming, knowingly or not, that prescriptive statements are meaningful and therein denying their own materialism. If, then, we believe that prescriptive statements are possible, then we must logically deny materialism. Therefore, if logic exists, then materialism is not just arataional, it is actually irrational.

I like it.  Easy to read. Straight to the point.  Mind body problem.  Maybe someday somebody will be able to settle it.  This argument doesn't.  Physicalists have nothing better either.

If rational thought is physical, we have to explain the ability to make choices.  If things are physically determined, how can we make rational choices?  However........

If rational thought is non-physical, we still have to explain why it appears that the non-physical is being created by the physical.  Every single observable rational thought appears to have been created by a living brain.  

Nobody wins.

@JAc3510:

I do think it's counter productive, if this is an attempt at an open discussion, to open with a straw man.

That said, you made several positive assertions without the careful language of saying that those positive assertions are merely what you think is true, and that you rely on them without evidence to support them for your conclusion. Being that this is philosophy, and all you've brought forth was speculation I can understand you taking a strong stand on what you've carefully thought out, however I do still take issue with these strong claims as if they're reality. For me, all that does is create a negative view of how you come to conclusions and how you deal with those that you disagree with.

Secondly, there is evidence done in scientific studies that show that the brain makes decisions before the people making the decisions are aware that they've made a choice. Now after reading up in the Libet experiments one could say that they're making the decision before they're aware of it, however this does little to show that people are making conscious decisions because their awareness of the decision occurs after the decision was made. Another point against the Libet evidence is that maybe people still make conscious decisions in other areas, however until we can test for this, it remains an unknown. So while I do agree that the Libet experiments and other scientific studies done on decision making aren't enough for me to accept them as truth, that is the way I'm leaning due to people attempting to disprove the studies without success. So right now the evidence is leaning towards the brain doing what it does and then making up the actual decision process as we become aware of the decision.

Quote from: "Jac3510"The issue is strictly and totally whether or not we are able to make our own decisions, or if our decisions are forced on us by chemistry and physics. If the former, we can in some sense be rational. If the latter, it makes no more sense to call any thought or idea rational than it does a rock falling off a cliff. Any view that embraces materialism is at best arational, not rational, because you didn't come to it. You were forced to it by the chemistry in your brain. There is no merit "realizing" anything that anyone else hasn't "realized." You are just doing what the physics has determined you will do. No more and no less.

Chemistry of the brain, yes. That qualifies as something within nature, not beyond it. This supports [strike:3tcnwbda]materialism[/strike:3tcnwbda] naturalism, not refutes it.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I like it.  Easy to read. Straight to the point.  Mind body problem.  Maybe someday somebody will be able to settle it.  This argument doesn't.  Physicalists have nothing better either.

If rational thought is physical, we have to explain the ability to make choices.  If things are physically determined, how can we make rational choices?  However........

If rational thought is non-physical, we still have to explain why it appears that the non-physical is being created by the physical.  Every single observable rational thought appears to have been created by a living brain.  

Nobody wins.

The second question isn't hard to explain. It can be explained with reference to an immaterial aspect of man (in fact, this must necessarily be so). Since it is an aspect of man, it only comes into existence with man, and the man would not be a man without it. The theological position behind this is called traducianism. Further, we don't deny that immaterial thoughts are rooted in what the brain does. We only assert that the brain can only create immaterial thoughts because there is an immaterial aspect to man. This is best explained by what is called a lower and higher order capacity. Higher order capacities (like thought) rely on the full development of lower order capacities. So, for example, suppose something is physically wrong with me that impairs my lower order capacities (perhaps a head injury gives me brain damage). Just as if you take away the foundation from the house and it crumbles, so having taken away these lower order capacities, the higher order ones aren't manifested. It isn't that they aren't there. It is that they can't be utilized. Or again, imagine an eye that gets disconnected from the optic nerve. That lower order capacity is non-functional, which means the higher order capacity of sight, while still in the eye, cannot be expressed because the lower is gone.

If thought is a higher order capacity, then it relies on lower order capacities, which would include a properly functioning brain. In that case, the higher order would work, and the immaterial aspect of ourselves could make such decisions.

But shy of that, if determinism is true, materialism is not rational; it is arational.

Quote from: "Davin"@JAc3510:

I do think it's counter productive, if this is an attempt at an open discussion, to open with a straw man.

It's less productive to make an accusation without demonstration.

QuoteThat said, you made several positive assertions without the careful language of saying that those positive assertions are merely what you think is true, and that you rely on them without evidence to support them for your conclusion. Being that this is philosophy, and all you've brought forth was speculation I can understand you taking a strong stand on what you've carefully thought out, however I do still take issue with these strong claims as if they're reality. For me, all that does is create a negative view of how you come to conclusions and how you deal with those that you disagree with.

Taking lessons from Hack, are we? How about you demonstrate this to be the case rather than pronouncing my positions as not "carefully thought out"?

QuoteSecondly, there is evidence done in scientific studies that show that the brain makes decisions before the people making the decisions are aware that they've made a choice. Now after reading up in the Libet experiments one could say that they're making the decision before they're aware of it, however this does little to show that people are making conscious decisions because their awareness of the decision occurs after the decision was made. Another point against the Libet evidence is that maybe people still make conscious decisions in other areas, however until we can test for this, it remains an unknown. So while I do agree that the Libet experiments and other scientific studies done on decision making aren't enough for me to accept them as truth, that is the way I'm leaning due to people attempting to disprove the studies without success. So right now the evidence is leaning towards the brain doing what it does and then making up the actual decision process as we become aware of the decision.

What makes you think I'm not aware of this research? That's rather presumptive on your part. The most this does is challenge (2) in my argument above. I've spent my time defending (1) precisely because atheists spend so much of their time talking about how important it is to be rational. If you agree that rational thought is actually impossible, then we can have a different conversation.

Now, if you would like to actually engage the argument, I'd be happy to have the discussion. I always am. This one is very simple. Without self-determination, "rational" is a meaningless word. In the deterministic world of materialism, self-determination is impossible, ergo, rational thought is impossible. The logical and necessary conclusion is that materialism is arational at best and irrational at worst. If it is arational, then so is belief in God and unicorns and evolution and gravity and everything else. There are no intellectually superior positions the moment we posit materialism. If rational thought is possible, then materialism is irrational and thus intellectually inferior to any kind of supernaturalism.

Unless, then, you can present me with a third choice, the dilemma for the materialist is this: is materialism on the one hand arational and perfectly on par with every other belief system or is it irrational and inferior to supernaturalism?

Quote from: "Sophus"Chemistry of the brain, yes. That qualifies as something within nature, not beyond it. This supports [strike:1sr4db8m]materialism[/strike:1sr4db8m] naturalism, not refutes it.

Of course. That is the point I was making in the part you quoted. If thoughts are determined by the chemistry in our brains, then our thoughts are not rational. They are arational, and thus, materialism, and the atheism that is based on it, is arational, and equally so with every other belief system. Far from being intellectually superior as a position, materialism, by its own necessity, is absolutely on par with every other belief, no matter how ridiculous.

Jac3510-The second question isn't hard to explain. It can be explained with reference to an immaterial aspect of man (in fact, this must necessarily be so). Since it is an aspect of man, it only comes into existence with man, and the man would not be a man without it. The theological position behind this is called traducianism. Further, we don't deny that immaterial thoughts are rooted in what the brain does. We only assert that the brain can only create immaterial thoughts because there is an immaterial aspect to man. This is best explained by what is called a lower and higher order capacity. Higher order capacities (like thought) rely on the full development of lower order capacities. So, for example, suppose something is physically wrong with me that impairs my lower order capacities (perhaps a head injury gives me brain damage). Just as if you take away the foundation from the house and it crumbles, so having taken away these lower order capacities, the higher order ones aren't manifested. It isn't that they aren't there. It is that they can't be utilized. Or again, imagine an eye that gets disconnected from the optic nerve. That lower order capacity is non-functional, which means the higher order capacity of sight, while still in the eye, cannot be expressed because the lower is gone.

None of this answers the question Chris. In order to settle the argument, you have to show  how it happens.  I'm not asking you to do that, because if you could, you wouldn't be on this forum.  You'd be too busy with your world wide fame.  The same could be said for any physicalist that could soundly refute your claims with actual evidence.  Saying that man has an immaterial aspect won't cut it, just as the physicalists claim that proof will come someday doesn't cut it.  Neither solution is compelling to my eyes.

:hmm:

 :blink:

Quote from: "humblesmurph"None of this answers the question Chris. In order to settle the argument, you have to show  how it happens.  I'm not asking you to do that, because if you could, you wouldn't be on this forum.  You'd be too busy with your world wide fame.  The same could be said for any physicalist that could soundly refute your claims with actual evidence.  Saying that man has an immaterial aspect won't cut it, just as the physicalists claim that proof will come someday doesn't cut it.  Neither solution is compelling to my eyes.

Ok, I think you might be missing my point. Let's start with (1) in the argument. Whether or not physicalists are right or wrong, can you agree with the logic of (1)? If all thought is strictly determined by nature, can you see why such thought could not be classified as rational, but rather, at best, only arational?

I fully admit that I am taking (2) as a given. If you want to believe that rational thought is impossible, I won't try to quarrel with you on it. I'll simply ask that you accept the logical corollary that materialism (and the atheism founded on it) is not a rational position, and further, that all other opposing views are equally rational in that all are perfectly arataionl. In other words, if you agree with (1) but choose to reject (2), I won't challenge you on that, but I will ask you to accept the necessary fact that theism and atheism are completely equal worldviews. Both are just as arataional, and thus, no atheist has the right to say that atheism is more rational than Christianity.

If you accept (2), it doesn't matter if we can explain how rational thought works or not, then you must accept that materialism is false.

So - I am not going to defend the truth of (2). I am assuming it because atheists do. If you want to accept it, then I ask you to accept the conclusion. If you reject it, I ask you to accept the logically necessary conclusion that materialistic atheism is non-rational. All this is built, then, on (1), which is what I am defending. Can you see that? That is my argument.

My basic question then is simple: is (1) correct? Do you agree that if materialism is true then rational thought is impossible? If not, can you explain where I am wrong in arguing that rational thought is impossible if it is completely externally determined and descriptive?

Quote from: "Martin TK"Ok, in PLAIN ENGLISH, one sentence or two, no mumble jumble or fancy words, you know for us uneducated folks, could you tell me what you are attempting to show with this.

Example:  God does not exist because there is no evidence of his existence.  Otherwise, you left me on the side of the argument about four posts ago.  I'm planning to sue the three universities where I got my degress, obviously they didn't learn me nuttin.

Let me try. I am arguing that only one of these two statements is true:


1. If logical thought is impossible, atheism may well be true, but the position is no more rational than any other position since all thought is nothing more than what physics had caused us to think at any given moment. Logic has nothing to do with it, because it doesn't exist.

2. If logical thought is possible, then there is something that exists beyond the physical world--in other words, something supernatural has to exist.

edit: please note both of these statements are the conclusions I am trying to draw. In and of themselves, they are not the argument. You asked what I am trying to show with this. That is what I am trying to show. One of those two statements must be true. You can't have logic in an atheistic world that denies the supernatural.

Quote from: "Jac3510"1. If logical thought is impossible, atheism may well be true, but the position is no more rational than any other position since all thought is nothing more than what physics had caused us to think at any given moment. Logic has nothing to do with it, because it doesn't exist.

Or option three:

We are subjectively trying to observe an objective world which doesn't care what our subjective interpretations are. Merely because logic/knowledge is not absolute does not mean we discard all theory of logic and/or reason altogether. To do so would require we also ignore all further argument you made.

Says one to the other, "Let go of reason, I'll tell you the reason why!"
"But," she responds, "after that I won't have any reason to believe you."

Our knowledge isn't perfect (we've been down this road before ) but what is reasonable must stand up to tests and scrutiny. There is a smart way to build a bridge, and there is a dumb way, because one won't keep it from collapsing. Thus there's a smart way to conduct science at observe the world around us.

QuoteFar from being intellectually superior as a position, materialism, by its own necessity, is absolutely on par with every other belief, no matter how ridiculous.

This scenario of yours would still require an objective universe, an objective reality. In which case some interpretations of it would still be more accurate than others. Not all interpretations are equal, regardless of whether you conform to option 1 or 2.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"None of this answers the question Chris. In order to settle the argument, you have to show  how it happens.  I'm not asking you to do that, because if you could, you wouldn't be on this forum.  You'd be too busy with your world wide fame.  The same could be said for any physicalist that could soundly refute your claims with actual evidence.  Saying that man has an immaterial aspect won't cut it, just as the physicalists claim that proof will come someday doesn't cut it.  Neither solution is compelling to my eyes.

Ok, I think you might be missing my point. Let's start with (1) in the argument. Whether or not physicalists are right or wrong, can you agree with the logic of (1)? If all thought is strictly determined by nature, can you see why such thought could not be classified as rational, but rather, at best, only arational?

I fully admit that I am taking (2) as a given. If you want to believe that rational thought is impossible, I won't try to quarrel with you on it. I'll simply ask that you accept the logical corollary that materialism (and the atheism founded on it) is not a rational position, and further, that all other opposing views are equally rational in that all are perfectly arataionl. In other words, if you agree with (1) but choose to reject (2), I won't challenge you on that, but I will ask you to accept the necessary fact that theism and atheism are completely equal worldviews. Both are just as arataional, and thus, no atheist has the right to say that atheism is more rational than Christianity.

If you accept (2), it doesn't matter if we can explain how rational thought works or not, then you must accept that materialism is false.

So - I am not going to defend the truth of (2). I am assuming it because atheists do. If you want to accept it, then I ask you to accept the conclusion. If you reject it, I ask you to accept the logically necessary conclusion that materialistic atheism is non-rational. All this is built, then, on (1), which is what I am defending. Can you see that? That is my argument.

My basic question then is simple: is (1) correct? Do you agree that if materialism is true then rational thought is impossible? If not, can you explain where I am wrong in arguing that rational thought is impossible if it is completely externally determined and descriptive?

Every single time I disagree with you, you claim I'm missing your point.  Every single time I try to restate your point in my own words you say I have it wrong.  Chris, respectfully, the mind body problem doesn't get solved with a proof, not in 2010.  The proof of God was a fun intellectual exercise.  I mean no disrespect, but this here is a real problem with a real solution.

This is my point. The brain is not the big bang.  Martin T K is a relative expert in this stuff (I presume) and he hasn't said peep.  Why?  Because he doesn't know.  Nobody does.  I don't know if your characterization of rational thought is correct.  I don't know if your characterization of the workings of the brain is correct.  All I know is that the brain has been studied inside and out and we haven't found anything supernatural yet. Logic doesn't change that.

Furthermore, you can't point to one unexplained thing and say a position is arational or less rational than Christianity.  Christianity is full of apparent contradictions that you get away with because we can't know the nature of God, or we don't know what the bible is really saying.  You and I both know that if there was to be proof of a physical solution to the mind body problem, you would just find a way to make it consistent with Christianity, just like you did with evolution.  This problem is not just a problem with human brains.  Animal brains work in much the same way.  What does trudacianism say of animals?

@Jac
Imagine that you see a bowling ball and a feather.  You think to yourself "If I pick up the bowling ball, it will feel heavier than the feather, because I've held a bowling ball and a feather at some point in my life, and the bowling ball weighed a fair amount while the feather was very light."  It's a rational thought, correct?  Now, I see at least three options for what could really be going on:
1. Something not made of matter is doing the thinking.
2. Thought is purely materialistic, and there is some sort of chemical illusion going on.  Reality is not as it seems.
3. Thought is purely materialistic, but there actually is a ball and a feather, and you actually have held them at some point in time, and so on.  

So is number three exceedingly unlikely?  Impossible?  If number 3 is reality, then does it mean that the "rational thought" you had was actually not rational?

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Davin"@JAc3510:

I do think it's counter productive, if this is an attempt at an open discussion, to open with a straw man.

It's less productive to make an accusation without demonstration.

Quote from: "Jac3510"The worldview on which most versions of atheism are built is called philosophical naturalism, materialism, or physicalism. The central idea is that everything that exists is strictly natural and obeys the laws of nature. There are no ghosts, gods, angels, demons, souls, or magic. Obviously, on this view, there is just no room for God.

I think we can demonstrate the deficiency of that general position this way:

      1. If rational thought is possible, materialism is false;
      2. Rational thought is possible;
      3. Therefore, materialism is false.

Not only is this an assumption on what most atheists think, but the philosophy not inherently atheist. The only thing it takes to build a "version" of atheism, is to not believe in any god or gods. This is a very common misconception that atheists often have to correct with most theists. To say that atheism is built on a philosophy is straw manning (a misrepresentation of an opponent's position that is attacked instead of the opponents actual position), atheists into one hastily generalized grouping even if the words most, many and/or a lot are used. If you want to take on the philosophies themselves, then all good and fine, but to try to attach opponents to them (unless your opponents had already stated that those are the philosophies that they subscribe to), is disingenuous at best.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteThat said, you made several positive assertions without the careful language of saying that those positive assertions are merely what you think is true, and that you rely on them without evidence to support them for your conclusion. Being that this is philosophy, and all you've brought forth was speculation I can understand you taking a strong stand on what you've carefully thought out, however I do still take issue with these strong claims as if they're reality. For me, all that does is create a negative view of how you come to conclusions and how you deal with those that you disagree with.

Taking lessons from Hack, are we? How about you demonstrate this to be the case rather than pronouncing my positions as not "carefully thought out"?

See what I mean? Clearly in my post I stated "[...]I can understand you taking a strong stand on what you've carefully thought out[...]" yet you claim I said the opposite of that. You made the conclusion that I said something else despite clear wording. You attacked something other than what I said. You stating strong positions as if they're facts, constantly misrepresenting what I'm saying and/or ignoring the questions I ask in this and other threads lead me to the conclusion that you're not willing to have an honest discussion with me.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteSecondly, there is evidence done in scientific studies that show that the brain makes decisions before the people making the decisions are aware that they've made a choice. Now after reading up in the Libet experiments one could say that they're making the decision before they're aware of it, however this does little to show that people are making conscious decisions because their awareness of the decision occurs after the decision was made. Another point against the Libet evidence is that maybe people still make conscious decisions in other areas, however until we can test for this, it remains an unknown. So while I do agree that the Libet experiments and other scientific studies done on decision making aren't enough for me to accept them as truth, that is the way I'm leaning due to people attempting to disprove the studies without success. So right now the evidence is leaning towards the brain doing what it does and then making up the actual decision process as we become aware of the decision.

What makes you think I'm not aware of this research? That's rather presumptive on your part.

Point to where, in my post, that I made this assumption/presumption that shows that I didn't think that you had researched this?

Quote from: "Jac3510"The most this does is challenge (2) in my argument above.

I think this evidence relates to 1) as well because if rational thought is possible along with materialism, then the first premise can be discounted. However it does also relate to the second premise that if the Libet (and similar) evidence shows that we're not making decisions, it would definitely discount the second premise.

Quote from: "Jac3510"I've spent my time defending (1) precisely because atheists spend so much of their time talking about how important it is to be rational.

It's important for me to be rational whether that rationality is determined or something else, however I won't be speaking for other atheists just because I am an atheist, and it seems like a bad idea for you to be speaking for atheists because you're a theist. Whether determinism is true or not it doesn't matter to me, because I'll be the same no matter what reality is shown to be, because I am the way I am right now. So even if determinism is shown to be true, I'll still advocate for rationality, just as I would if it's shown to be false.

Quote from: "Jac3510"If you agree that rational thought is actually impossible, then we can have a different conversation.

I don't yet agree as I clearly stated in my post by saying "So while I do agree that the Libet experiments and other scientific studies done on decision making aren't enough for me to accept them as truth[.]" Discussions are much easier if you discuss what I say instead of something else while pretending to respond to me.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Now, if you would like to actually engage the argument, I'd be happy to have the discussion. I always am. This one is very simple. Without self-determination, "rational" is a meaningless word. In the deterministic world of materialism, self-determination is impossible, ergo, rational thought is impossible. The logical and necessary conclusion is that materialism is arational at best and irrational at worst. If it is arational, then so is belief in God and unicorns and evolution and gravity and everything else. There are no intellectually superior positions the moment we posit materialism. If rational thought is possible, then materialism is irrational and thus intellectually inferior to any kind of supernaturalism.

First we'd have to prove (doesn't require absolute certainty, just enough evidence to support it), that rational thought can't exist in a materialistic world. To just posit without evidence that it is impossible, is an intellectually inferior position, just as assuming supernaturalism without evidence is.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Unless, then, you can present me with a third choice, the dilemma for the materialist is this: is materialism on the one hand arational and perfectly on par with every other belief system or is it irrational and inferior to supernaturalism?

This is a clear false dichotomy (false dilemma, the "either or" fallacy): just because no one can yet bring another option doesn't mean that I must accept either of those positions. If determinism is false, it doesn't mean that I should accept supernaturalism, or vice versa.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

1.   If rational thought is possible, materialism is false;

As with the other, it falls down rather quickly.

"Materialism" is one of those words, like "God," that is just a placeholder for goalpost-moving.  Nobody ever is able to pin down what it means or even tries; they just argue vehemently that it means thus-and-such.

In any event, there is a material device before me.  It can prove theorems and play a good game of chess, two things that most people associate with reason.  You could, of course, declare them as "not rational thought," simply because a computer can do them.  Many people do that.  Usually philosophers do so just as soon as a program to do something for the first time is written.  However, it reduces your entire argument to question-begging.  If rational thought is, by definition, something not material, then it can trivially be shown to contradict determinism.  Then the argument presents no new information and isn't an argument at all, just more words about the conclusion you have predefined.

Quote from: "epepke"

Quote from: "Jac3510"

1.   If rational thought is possible, materialism is false;

As with the other, it falls down rather quickly.

"Materialism" is one of those words, like "God," that is just a placeholder for goalpost-moving.  Nobody ever is able to pin down what it means or even tries; they just argue vehemently that it means thus-and-such.

In any event, there is a material device before me.  It can prove theorems and play a good game of chess, two things that most people associate with reason.  You could, of course, declare them as "not rational thought," simply because a computer can do them.  Many people do that.  Usually philosophers do so just as soon as a program to do something for the first time is written.  However, it reduces your entire argument to question-begging.  If rational thought is, by definition, something not material, then it can trivially be shown to contradict determinism.  Then the argument presents no new information and isn't an argument at all, just more words about the conclusion you have predefined.

But what your computer does is %100 predetermined.  It does exactly what you tell it to do, until you tell it to do something different. Isn't software just instructions for a computer?  Rational choices made by living things are a different things from computations performed on computers. Right?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"But what your computer does is %100 predetermined.  It does exactly what you tell it to do, until you tell it to do something different. Isn't software just instructions for a computer?  Rational choices made by living things are a different things from computations performed on computers. Right?

That depends on what you mean by "It does exactly what you tell it to do" because in programming, it doesn't only do what you program it to do... it can, but that's just for basic programs and new programmers.

Let's take a chess program for instance:
The programmer doesn't tell the computer what to do for every single move, they don't even tell it what to do for a single move other than it must make a move itself. The programmer gives the computer a set of rules to follow and the computer makes a choice based on those rules. For a chess program, the logic is a lot more complicated than just: if this, then do this. If the human player moves King pawn to King three, the programmer didn't program for that specific instance, nor the billions of other possible chess board configurations. The programmer gave the program the ability to make a choice based on what the program receives as input, not all the things the computer does was specifically programmed into it. If the programmer had to tell the program exactly what to do for every single situation... we wouldn't have 3D computer games yet because the amount of things that would have to be specifically programmed for would take way too much processing and storage and a program as simple as the first Asteroids game would've been too big to even fit on a 1TB hard drive just to fit the if else logic that would require.

Is a computer programmed to assess the inputs, determining what to do with those inputs and then giving the outputs of what the computer chose any different than human rational thought (assessing the situation, going off of what you know might be consequences of your choice and choosing what you think is the best solution)?

I guess ultimately it comes down to what the definition of "rational thought" is, because to me, it's the same thing that programs can do.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"But what your computer does is %100 predetermined.  It does exactly what you tell it to do, until you tell it to do something different. Isn't software just instructions for a computer?  Rational choices made by living things are a different things from computations performed on computers. Right?

That depends on what you mean by "It does exactly what you tell it to do" because in programming, it doesn't only do what you program it to do... it can, but that's just for basic programs and new programmers.

Let's take a chess program for instance:
The programmer doesn't tell the computer what to do for every single move, they don't even tell it what to do for a single move other than it must make a move itself. The programmer gives the computer a set of rules to follow and the computer makes a choice based on those rules. For a chess program, the logic is a lot more complicated than just: if this, then do this. If the human player moves King pawn to King three, the programmer didn't program for that specific instance, nor the billions of other possible chess board configurations. The programmer gave the program the ability to make a choice based on what the program receives as input, not all the things the computer does was specifically programmed into it. If the programmer had to tell the program exactly what to do for every single situation... we wouldn't have 3D computer games yet because the amount of things that would have to be specifically programmed for would take way too much processing and storage and a program as simple as the first Asteroids game would've been too big to even fit on a 1TB hard drive just to fit the if else logic that would require.

Is a computer programmed to assess the inputs, determining what to do with those inputs and then giving the outputs of what the computer chose any different than human rational thought (assessing the situation, going off of what you know might be consequences of your choice and choosing what you think is the best solution)?

I guess ultimately it comes down to what the definition of "rational thought" is, because to me, it's the same thing that programs can do.

Thanks for the info.  It makes me wonder why Jac3510 chose "rational thought" for this proof.  He'll explain soon enough I'm sure.   Anyway, I have another question:  

Would you call the choices being made by this complex chess program "free will"?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Thanks for the info.  It makes me wonder why Jac3510 chose "rational thought" for this proof.  He'll explain soon enough I'm sure.   Anyway, I have another question:  

Would you call the choices being made by this complex chess program "free will"?

Well that's another thing people can get all semantic about. The program makes it's choices autonomously, just as people make their choices autonomously, it wouldn't be very useful if the program had to have a man behind it making choices for it. So if you consider autonomous choices "free will" then yes. Now a program can also be programmed to perform actions directly by people. So while I think that a program can be programmed to make autonomous choices, not all programs make autonomous choices and quite often (in the case of the video game example) the program is both making choices and doing what it's told by a user.

So by my definition that a thing that makes autonomous choices has free will, then yes I would consider that a program can have free will. If you have a different definition, then let me know and I'll either try to explain how that matches or concede that a program can't yet do that.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Thanks for the info.  It makes me wonder why Jac3510 chose "rational thought" for this proof.  He'll explain soon enough I'm sure.   Anyway, I have another question:  

Would you call the choices being made by this complex chess program "free will"?

Well that's another thing people can get all semantic about. The program makes it's choices autonomously, just as people make their choices autonomously, it wouldn't be very useful if the program had to have a man behind it making choices for it. So if you consider autonomous choices "free will" then yes. Now a program can also be programmed to perform actions directly by people. So while I think that a program can be programmed to make autonomous choices, not all programs make autonomous choices and quite often (in the case of the video game example) the program is both making choices and doing what it's told by a user.

So by my definition that a thing that makes autonomous choices has free will, then yes I would consider that a program can have free will. If you have a different definition, then let me know and I'll either try to explain how that matches or concede that a program can't yet do that.

Well this is a little disconcerting.  I do believe I'm quite sure that computers don't have free will.  However, I don't have a solid reason for believing so.  I'm sure I could go find one, but that doesn't change the fact that I presently am quite sure of a thing that I have no proof of.   Wait for it..........

    [spoiler:3e3t8fkt]Nope, still nothin[/spoiler:3e3t8fkt]

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Well this is a little disconcerting.  I do believe I'm quite sure that computers don't have free will.  However, I don't have a solid reason for believing so.  I'm sure I could go find one, but that doesn't change the fact that I presently am quite sure of a thing that I have no proof of.   Wait for it..........

    [spoiler:zzb0k4v4]Nope, still nothin[/spoiler:zzb0k4v4]

Take your time, you don't have to accept any concept that you're not comfortable in accepting. It's probably because I didn't provide enough for you to accept it or you don't accept my definition of free will.

The other problem is how people define free will, I'm sure this example doesn't match a few of those definitions. However having done quiet a bit of programming from "machine learning" (a program that can learn how to do things based on input, being corrected, watching someone do something and some other methods) to completely sequenced programs (programs that do a specific set of instructions the same way every time), so I'm sure I can provide lots of different examples.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"But what your computer does is %100 predetermined.  It does exactly what you tell it to do, until you tell it to do something different. Isn't software just instructions for a computer?  Rational choices made by living things are a different things from computations performed on computers. Right?

Davin's answer is pretty good, so I'll just add to it.  I'll reiterate that there's basic software development, and there's more sophisticated software development.

Entirely aside from the fact that there exist religious sects who think that everything in the universe is predetermined, things aren't that simple for computers.  It is entirely possible to incorporate a true, genuine source of nondeterminism that is made out of material, such as a bit of Americium from a smoke detector with some detectors.  So arguments about determinism fall flat.

Some programs can be very sophisticated indeed.  I once saw a paper describing some artificial life development on the CM-5.  Using a 3-D physics model, simplified body parts (parallelopipeds connected by muscles), and a very simple neurological model, the network of computers evolved various creatures.  They couldn't play chess, but they could do things like leap, swim, compete for a "food" source, and move toward a light.  Some very familiar forms evolved, such as serpents, fish with fins, and crab-like creatures with claws.  There were some unfamiliar forms too (shades of the Cambrian, perhaps).  One interesting thing about this was that it was possible to display the nervous systems of the creatures that evolved.  They worked, but they were hard for engineers to understand exactly how and why they worked.  I'm pretty smart, and I couldn't figure them out by looking at them.

ETA: Another interesting thing was that, using the original simple integration method, a creature evolved to leap by flopping around on the ground until it hit a point where it exploited the inaccuracy of the integration that sent it flying.  Note that there was no intent on the part of the programmer to make this happen; that's just how it evolved.  The programmer had to change the integration to a more sophisticated form (if memory serves, second-order Runge-Kutta) to prevent similar occurrences.

ETA2: I just remembered it was Karl Sims.

Now, I'm not asserting that computers can currently do everything a brain can do.  They obviously cannot, at least currently.  Nor do I have to show that they ever will, because I don't know; I cannot predict the future better than anybody else.  However, there is enough research that has been done to cast a vast amount of doubt on facile assumptions about what is not possible with matter.  Back in the days when matter was a rock or, at most, a gear, I suppose it was understandable to believe that they couldn't think.  At the present time, the more sophisticated of us understand that there is a great deal that we do not understand about what systems can and cannot do to the point that it is not justifiable blithely to assert that matter cannot do this or that.  It's only by using a cartoon of "the mind" or "the computer" that such assertions can be made to seem plausible, and only then when terms are left sufficiently undefined.

Speaking of undefined terms, I don't know what "free will" would mean if it meant anything about reality.  I know that people like to believe that they have free will, and they like to use it to provide certain justifications (such as punishment of criminals apart from any goal of rehabilitation), but so far, nobody has been able to tell me what it means.  I know what it means to be free from something or even, in Nietzschean terms, free for something, but I don't know what it means as a general term for something that is there or not there.  Neither do I know a test that will distinguish between something with free will and something without it.  When I try to think of definitions of the word "free," I come to the conclusion that an atom of Americium in the absence of extra neutrons is about as free as anything I can think of, and it's definitely material.  When I try to think of definitions of the word "will," I come up against Nietzsche, who ascribed will even to things like bacteria.  So I'm inclined not to find the concept particularly descriptive.

A guy takes two days off and has to come back and write a book . . . :) ) but what is reasonable must stand up to tests and scrutiny. There is a smart way to build a bridge, and there is a dumb way, because one won't keep it from collapsing. Thus there's a smart way to conduct science at observe the world around us.[/quote]
Let's not personify reality. Under materialism, it doesn't care about anything. If materialism is true, then our subjective interpretations are nothing more than a necessary effect of the laws of nature. They aren't really "interpretations" at all. They are exactly what you must "think" at this moment because this is what physics directs you to think at this moment. Thus, no interpretation is rational. It is arational. This is evident in your bridge example. Under materialism, there is no smart or dumb way to build a bridge. People build bridges the way the do because physics directed them to. It is meaningless to say that they "should have" built it another way. You may as well say to a rock that it "should not fall if unsuspended."

QuoteThis scenario of yours would still require an objective universe, an objective reality. In which case some interpretations of it would still be more accurate than others. Not all interpretations are equal, regardless of whether you conform to option 1 or 2.

Again, under materialism, which is the point in discussion, the universe is objective, and this universe would determine all interpretations. No interpretation would be more or less accurate than any other, any more than a rocks falling or not falling is accurate or not. What goes on in your brain is just another physical effect; no more.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Every single time I disagree with you, you claim I'm missing your point.  Every single time I try to restate your point in my own words you say I have it wrong.  Chris, respectfully, the mind body problem doesn't get solved with a proof, not in 2010.  The proof of God was a fun intellectual exercise.  I mean no disrespect, but this here is a real problem with a real solution.

This is my point. The brain is not the big bang.  Martin T K is a relative expert in this stuff (I presume) and he hasn't said peep.  Why?  Because he doesn't know.  Nobody does.  I don't know if your characterization of rational thought is correct.  I don't know if your characterization of the workings of the brain is correct.  All I know is that the brain has been studied inside and out and we haven't found anything supernatural yet. Logic doesn't change that.

Furthermore, you can't point to one unexplained thing and say a position is arational or less rational than Christianity.  Christianity is full of apparent contradictions that you get away with because we can't know the nature of God, or we don't know what the bible is really saying.  You and I both know that if there was to be proof of a physical solution to the mind body problem, you would just find a way to make it consistent with Christianity, just like you did with evolution.  This problem is not just a problem with human brains.  Animal brains work in much the same way.  What does trudacianism say of animals?

Don't get frustrated, Mike. I appreciate your concern over the Mind-Body problem. The reason I say you are missing the point is that, contrary to your initial statement, the mind-body problem has no effect on my argument. The reason is simple: the mind-body problem presumes that there is a mind that somehow has to interact with the body. It presumes the very thing I am arguing doesn't exist. Actually, I would argue that the mind-body problem is incredibly easy to solve on atheism, and I am telling you how to do it. It is a problem for theists, not atheists.

I am asking to address my argument. If you believe that there is no supernatural, then you must believe that everything is determined by the laws of nature since there is nothing that exists beyond those laws (if there were, that would be supernaturalism, which you reject). That means that there is nothing inside of you that can step outside of the laws of nature, which means that everything inside of you is also determined by the laws of nature, including your thoughts. If your thoughts are externally determined, there is no reason to call them rational, because the word "rational" implies prescription. I ought to think this or that. I ought not to think this or that. But the word ought is meaningless is a materialistic universe, because nothing is prescriptive. You can't say I "ought" to think this or that because I have no control over what I think. What I think is just directed by the laws of nature.

The only way to suggest that I ought to think something else is to accept that there is a part of me that exists supernaturally. Thus, if rational thought is possible, materialism is false.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "Reginus"@Jac
Imagine that you see a bowling ball and a feather.  You think to yourself "If I pick up the bowling ball, it will feel heavier than the feather, because I've held a bowling ball and a feather at some point in my life, and the bowling ball weighed a fair amount while the feather was very light."  It's a rational thought, correct?  Now, I see at least three options for what could really be going on:
1. Something not made of matter is doing the thinking.
2. Thought is purely materialistic, and there is some sort of chemical illusion going on.  Reality is not as it seems.
3. Thought is purely materialistic, but there actually is a ball and a feather, and you actually have held them at some point in time, and so on.  

So is number three exceedingly unlikely?  Impossible?  If number 3 is reality, then does it mean that the "rational thought" you had was actually not rational?

Under materialism, the thought is not rational. Your second option is closer to correct than the other two. Take out the last sentence in that. There is no point in talking about how things "seem." Let's use your own analogy. Suppose I have the thought you suggest I do, but then you have the opposite - you think that the feather will appear heavier. If I tell you the thought is irrational, I am saying that you ought not think that. But if materialism is true, it is meaningless to say that you ought to or ought not to do anything. I may as well say to a rock that it ought not fall. That just doesn't have any meaning.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "Davin"stuff

Davin, I misread you on the comment about things being thought out. Your problem seems to be with the philosophical method as a whole, and if that is the case, I don't really know what we can say to each other. If you don't think we can come to a knowledge of truth by deductive reason (If A and B, then necessarily C), then our problem is much deeper than the evidence or lack there of.

As far as my argument goes, I'm not assuming (1). I am arguing it. You can disagree with it. If so, please demonstrate where you think it is wrong. Talking about this or that study without explicitly showing the connection requires me to infer what connection you had in mind. If you think rational thought is impossible, then just say so. If you think that rational thought is possible, but you think that rational thought can be possible in a materialistic world, then say so, and tell me where you think my reasoning with respect to (1) is wrong. I've argued in favor of it almost exclusively throughout this thread.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "epepke"As with the other, it falls down rather quickly.

"Materialism" is one of those words, like "God," that is just a placeholder for goalpost-moving.  Nobody ever is able to pin down what it means or even tries; they just argue vehemently that it means thus-and-such.

Actually, I defined it pretty clearly. Let me quote myself: "The central idea [of materialism] is that everything that exists is strictly natural and obeys the laws of nature." Given this stated definition (before the proof, no less), you can restate (1) as follows:

If rational thought is possible, then everything that exists is not strictly natural and does not necessarily obey the laws of nature

I do appreciate you responding to the actual argument. But since we have be "able to pin down what it means," then your first objection fails. Let's move on to the rest of your post.

QuoteIn any event, there is a material device before me.  It can prove theorems and play a good game of chess, two things that most people associate with reason.  You could, of course, declare them as "not rational thought," simply because a computer can do them.  Many people do that.  Usually philosophers do so just as soon as a program to do something for the first time is written.  However, it reduces your entire argument to question-begging.  If rational thought is, by definition, something not material, then it can trivially be shown to contradict determinism.  Then the argument presents no new information and isn't an argument at all, just more words about the conclusion you have predefined.

A chess program isn't rational. We can demonstrate that in two ways:

1. From a programming perspective, the way the computer "decides" which move is best to make is to consider all the possible sequence of moves it can make (usually within a given time limitation). It then calculates the "value" of each position, and, depending on the user settings chosen, "moves" based on which value is appropriate. There is no "decision" being made. If there is no randomizing component (which any programmer will tell you is in the strictest sense not random), then you can predict exactly what the computer will do in response to your move--not because it is the rational thing to do, but because it is forced to make a particular move with reference to your particular position and its predefined value system.

2. Given the above, if the computer makes a "bad" move, you can't logically say it "ought" to have done this or that instead. The computer doesn't have the option to "make that choice." Given the same circumstances, the computer will make that same move an infinite number of times. In a very real way, playing chess with a computer isn't at all like playing with a person. It is more like reading a "choose your own ending" book--with just a lot more endings and a lot more starting points.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as HS and Davin's conversation about free will, the basic thing that makes a will free is what I have already point to: self-determination. Computers don't do anything on their own. They do exactly what they are told to do. No matter how complicated the instructions, they always boil down to an "If . . . then."

If you read the addendum to the first post, you'll see where I make this explicit. I said:

As a quick addendum, it's worth noting that this entire argument is built on the idea that rationality must be self-determined to be rational in the first place. This is because if I am forced to make a decision by nature, it isn't really a rational decision. It is just a description of what I had to do by nature. This idea though, can be extended a bit more generally to say that if materialism is true, then nothing is self-determined (because everything is determined by the laws of nature); but our thoughts, if not our actions, are self-determined, and therefore, materialism is false.

For me, self-determination is the key. If I don't have a say in what I say, think, or do, then my words, thoughts, and actions aren't rational. They aren't irrational. They are arational. The entire argument could be rephrased this way:

1. If self-determination is possible on any issue, then materialism is false;
2. Self determination is possible on some issues
3. Therefore, materialism is false.

We can look at this same reduction in another way:

1. If normative statements are meaningful, then materialism is false
2. Normative statements are meaningful
3. Therefore, materialism is false.

Normative statements are "ought" statements. They are prescriptive. If everything is descriptive, as materialism would have it, then nothing is prescriptive. But normative statements do seem to be meaningful. People really ought to do and believe certain things, and they really ought not do or believe other things. That requires them to have a level of self-determination. We're getting a bit Kantian here, but on this one point, he was exactly correct. If everything I think and do is completely externally determined, then it makes no sense to say I "ought" to do anything. There must be, then, a part of me that is not externally determined, which means there is a part of me that is not subject to the laws of nature, which is to say, there is something supernatural.

edit: Rephrased my post to Davin to be more direct - it came across to snarky and obscured the main point I was trying to make.

Jac3510,

Nice book  First, the mind body thing. The brain is part of the body.  I know how the brain connects to the rest of the body, more or less.  What I don't know is how the brain connects to free will, rational thought, and personal identity. I deduce that the brain is producing these things because all evidence of these things cease when the brain dies.  However, I can't give a physical account of how free will, rational thought, and personal identity come to be.  This lack of a physical account is what I call the mind body problem.   Sorry to confuse terms.  I never thought of how some spirit or soul connects to a body, never had any reason to think that spirits or souls existed.  

As for the proof.  The same problem remains for me.  If materialism entails no rational thought, then why does it appear that we are able to think rationally?  On the flip side, if rational thought entails non materialism, why does it appear that rational thought is created by material?  To me, it's an unsolved conundrum.  I know you have already answered this, but your answer was unsatisfactory for me.  Regardless, I am not a physicalist, I am an atheist.

Your characterization of atheism is just untrue.  Look it up in the dictionary.  There won't be a single mention of a physicalist, naturalist, materialist, existentialist, or humanist account of anything.  Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.  It is not a positive claim in any sense.  You can't disprove non-belief.  If evidence is provided, I will change my mind.  There is absolutely nothing that could happen to change yours.  Respectfully, that is not rational.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Reginus"@Jac
Imagine that you see a bowling ball and a feather.  You think to yourself "If I pick up the bowling ball, it will feel heavier than the feather, because I've held a bowling ball and a feather at some point in my life, and the bowling ball weighed a fair amount while the feather was very light."  It's a rational thought, correct?  Now, I see at least three options for what could really be going on:
1. Something not made of matter is doing the thinking.
2. Thought is purely materialistic, and there is some sort of chemical illusion going on.  Reality is not as it seems.
3. Thought is purely materialistic, but there actually is a ball and a feather, and you actually have held them at some point in time, and so on.  

So is number three exceedingly unlikely?  Impossible?  If number 3 is reality, then does it mean that the "rational thought" you had was actually not rational?

Under materialism, the thought is not rational.  Your second option is closer to correct than the other two. Take out the last sentence in that. There is no point in talking about how things "seem." Let's use your own analogy. Suppose I have the thought you suggest I do, but then you have the opposite - you think that the feather will appear heavier. If I tell you the thought is irrational, I am saying that you ought not think that. But if materialism is true, it is meaningless to say that you ought to or ought not to do anything. I may as well say to a rock that it ought not fall. That just doesn't have any meaning.

But we already defined "rational" as "based on reason."  I don't see how is the statement "If I pick up the bowling ball, it will feel heavier than the feather, because I've held a bowling ball and a feather at some point in my life, and the bowling ball weighed a fair amount while the feather was very light" suddenly becomes devoid of reason if thought is purely materialistic.

Edit: However your argument "from oughts" is interesting and I'll have to think about it.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Nice book ;)

As far as my characterization of atheism, I've already said that not all forms of atheism are built of materialism. Most versions of atheism, however--most views that keep people from professing belief in God--are rooted in naturalism, and often even more specifically in verificationism. I'm sure you agree that most atheists also deny the existence of souls, angels, and demons for precisely the same reason that they deny the existence of God (and yes, I know you don't technically "deny God's existence," you just "lack belief." Whatever. I'm using "plain English" here). Evidence for belief in the supernatural is what is at stake here. So you have two logical choices:

1. There is no supernatural and no such thing as logic;
2. There is the supernatural and such a thing as logic.

You can't maintain that there is logic and no supernatural without there being a self-contradiction (because then you are asserting that which is externally determined is also self-determined).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "Reginus"But we already defined "rational" as "based on reason."  I don't see how is the statement "If I pick up the bowling ball, it will feel heavier than the feather, because I've held a bowling ball and a feather at some point in my life, and the bowling ball weighed a fair amount while the feather was very light" suddenly becomes devoid of reason if thought is purely materialistic.

And we defined "reason" as "the intellectual faculty by which knowledge is gained." I've already tried to show why this definition of reason requires self-determination. I said, in my first reply to you:

QuoteWith reference to the definition, reason is that which allows us to gain knowledge, and it in that the knowledge requirement that we see the need for deliberation. Epistemologists have long debated the exact definition of the "knowledge," but most everyone agrees that in order for something to be classified as knowledge, we have to have good reasons for believing it (so the old definition, "a justified, true believe," Gettier's problem acknowledged). This justification implies deliberation. Having reasons (which is different from the general faculty of reason) that can be good or bad implies that some beliefs are rational and some are not based on what we accept and the thought process we employ. Thus, for one person, a fact can be knowledge and for another that same fact may not. For example, I may be holding an ace of spades in my hand and ask you to guess my card. You may say "Ace of Spades," but if it is a pure guess, then while I have knowledge of my card, it seems evident that what you have is not knowledge.

Now, if a person's thought process is necessarily determined by the physics in his brain, then there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad reason" for anything. You don't really believe anything because of this or that; you "believe" it because its just the way the physics works. In still different terms, to be rational is a normative statement; we ought to believe this or that, whereas if our believes are determined, they are not normative, but purely descriptive; we do believe this or that.

The bolded part is particularly important. That is why I said to you in my last reply,

"Under materialism, the thought [that bowling ball will feel heavier than the feather, because I've held a bowling ball and a feather at some point in my life] is not rational." Under materialism, there this statement is not consistent with reason because reason, reasons, and knowledge, do not exist. All that exists is the descriptive "this is what is happening." Description isn't rationality. We require prescription for that.

Quote from: "Jac3510"I've repeatedly talked about materialism, and most versions of atheism are built on materialism. Obviously, not all are. There are some SBNR people who are atheistic but think that the universe as a whole is conscious. Obviously, this argument wouldn't apply to them. But to those atheists--to those people who lack belief in God or gods--who deny the supernatural, then there is no way around this argument.

Materialism is false if rational thought is possible. If rational thought is possible, the supernatural exists. Needless to say, the supernatural is one piece of evidence (not proof in and of itself) that God exists.

That is almost a good enough explanation for me, however I still think it would be better if you just addressed the philosophies themselves instead of attaching atheism onto them. From a lot of atheists I talk to, they discarded the things that have no/insufficient evidence for them then built their philosophies about reality from there, which is far different than taking a philosophy and coming to the idea of atheism. Without any reasonable data (my personal experience is limited to a sample that can be very prone to sampling bias), even though most of the atheists I know accepted concepts the way I described, I think it would be very bad form for me to say that most atheists had done things that way.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Your general disagreement is with the philosophical method. I can't help you there, shy of starting another thread about it. The method I employ is simple: "If these two facts are true, then that must necessarily be true."

Which is the problem with stating an "if" as a strong position. I don't expect nor am I attempting to require that you to adjust your method for me, I'm just stating my objections.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Let's take this very thread. Look at the argument again:

1. If rational thought is possible, materialism is false;
2. Rational thought is possible;
3. Therefore, materialism is false.

(1) is demonstrably true. I've taken pains to show it. You can, of course, challenge me on where it is wrong, but I've presented a case that it is true. I'm not assuming it. The second is clearly an assumption. I've taken no time to defend it. I've simply stated that IF rational thought is possible, then materialism is false. If you want to concede that rational thought is impossible, then I've no argument with you of any kind other than to press you on to the recognition that if rational thought is impossible then you have basis on which to judge any thought process inferior.

It has yet to be demonstrated as true. Your example doesn't account for the possibility that rational thought could be developed through a naturalistic process. Until we can describe even close to how a decision is made, we're still left with it remaining unknown.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Consider it giving you the benefit of the doubt. I could take that in one of two ways. Either you could be implying that I was not aware of the research and that it somehow challenges my argument--which would be appropriate in a thread in which I am presenting an argument and you challenge or accept it--or you could be using this to argue that rational thought is impossible.

I see, but I have a third way to take it: that this evidence relates to the discussion and whether you had already considered or not you could then discuss its implications to your concept.

Quote from: "Jac3510"My assumption is that you weren't using it in the latter sense, because if you are, and if you believe that rational thought is impossible, then there is no reason at all to be having this conversation. Actually, there is no reason for anything, because there is no reason.

If all my actions are predetermined then the reason would be because that is what I've been determined to do, to act as though there were a reason to do so. And if everything is determined then we might as well act as we are determined to do.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Now, that is evident in the second paragraph below, which you have separated. In the next paragraph, I consider the possibility that you are challenging (2), which would just be absurd.

Not if I'm determined to do so, then it makes sense that I would.

Quote from: "Jac3510"So, like I said, consider it me giving you the benefit of the doubt. But I suppose I can just ask you plainly: are you arguing that rational thought is impossible, especially given your citation of this research?

I think you're missing another option, that I'm not accepting either position as there isn't enough for me to accept either position and I'm discussion what relates to the discussion in order to gain other perspectives and reasoning in order to see if I can accept either position... even if this still remains something I don't accept, at least I tried.

Quote from: "Jac3510"As I said, if the second premise is false, then there is no reason to be having this discussion, because reason doesn't exist, which is the point of the argument.

In any case, it has nothing to do with (1). The research says nothing about whether or not rational thought can exist within materialism. If anything, it challenges the possibility of rational thought. The only way to challenge (1) is to show that materialism allows something to be intelligently self-determined--that is, that it allows something to act with disregard to the laws of physics.

Without having any bias one way or the other, the evidence could very much relate to 1) because it had shown that people had what appeared to be a power of veto over the decisions that had already been made by the brain, which could show that we could actually make certain kinds of decisions.

Quote from: "Jac3510"If materialism is true, you can advocate for rationality all you like. It wouldn't be a rational or irrational position. It would be arational, just like belief in God, unicorns, and invisible spaghetti monsters would be. If the laws of nature determine what you think, then you aren't thinking. Nature is. "You" don't exist. "You" are just an illusion.

Aye, but I would be determined to advocate for it.

Quote from: "Jac3510"There's no middle ground on this. You can't be a rational materialist, because materalism doesn't allow for rationality.

That has yet to be found out.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Like I said, giving you the benefit of the doubt. Do bear in mind that I made a very specific argument. You bring up research and don't mention how it relates to my argument, yet you expect me to respond to what you said? Shy of you making the connection to the argument, I'm forced to assume your connection. I try to make the most generous assumptions possible rather than assuming you just don't know what you are talking about. If you would like, I can stop responding to your statements out of concern of misreading you are start asking you to restate everything you say with direct reference to one of the premises in my argument . . .

There is a connection to the argument, if you would just respond to what I say instead of your assumptions, we could have a much more efficient conversation.

Quote from: "Jac3510"That's what I've spent most of the thread doing, arguing in favor of (1). Would you like to actually respond to anything I've said on the matter?

I brought up the evidence for discussion, if you don't want to discuss how you find the evidence lacking as it relates to rational thought, then that's your deal, however the evidence does relate to what you've been saying.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteThis is a clear false dichotomy (false dilemma, the "either or" fallacy): just because no one can yet bring another option doesn't mean that I must accept either of those positions. If determinism is false, it doesn't mean that I should accept supernaturalism, or vice versa.

If (1) is true, then it is not a false dichotomy. The whole argument, as I stated in the opening post, hinges on the truth of (1). Would you like to examine it or continue to ignore it as a mere assumption despite my reasons for why I take it to be true?

There are other options: Rational thought is possible in a naturalistic universe, rational thought is not possible in a supernatural universe. To say that I must accept either of the positions if the other is proven false is a false dichotomy and at least an argument from ignorance. The only reason to accept something as true is if that something has enough reasonable evidence for it, not because no one can yet think of a better idea or that something else has been proven false.

So that I can get on the same page of what you're discussing, can you provide a somewhat brief explanation of the process of a rational thought? This is to make sure my own definition doesn't interfere with my assessment of your reasoning which appears to use a different concept of rational thought.

Not my work, but relevant:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/100 ... 3661v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.3661v1.pdf)

QuoteAgain, under materialism, which is the point in discussion, the universe is objective, and this universe would determine all interpretations. No interpretation would be more or less accurate than any other, any more than a rocks falling or not falling is accurate or not.

That is impossible. Determined for you or no there still must exist an interpretation capable of being accurate or off. If the objective truth of 2+a=5 is a=3, and one man comes to the conclusion of 3 while the other says 2, the first man is obviously more accurate. He's right regardless of whether or not he can fully know he is right. If there is an objective truth it can be still brushed up against regardless of whether or not we're all in the dark.
The univserse and everything within it determines all, but you are forgetting you yourself are an entity of the universe "We are a way for the universe to know itself." ~ Carl Sagan

QuoteLet's not personify reality. Under materialism, it doesn't care about anything.

I was merely countering what Christianity claims which is typically that we're so special the universe was made just for us. Everything which occurs in the universe is attributed to God, thus personified.

QuoteUnder materialism, there is no smart or dumb way to build a bridge. People build bridges the way the do because physics directed them to.

This doesn't make any kind of sense. In order for the end goal of a bridge to be met one must operate under the objective laws of physics.

QuoteWhat goes on in your brain is just another physical effect; no more.

Precisely, and that rests on the fact that the physics is objective. This argument seems desperate.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Not my work, but relevant:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/100 ... 3661v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.3661v1.pdf)

I don't know what he's trying to do with "logic" there but neuroscience is continuing to find that our brains are deterministic.

Another fact which supports the idea of consciousness as a epiphenomenon reliant on a material substrate is the localization of function in the brain.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Nice book ;)

As far as my characterization of atheism, I've already said that not all forms of atheism are built of materialism. Most versions of atheism, however--most views that keep people from professing belief in God--are rooted in naturalism, and often even more specifically in verificationism. I'm sure you agree that most atheists also deny the existence of souls, angels, and demons for precisely the same reason that they deny the existence of God (and yes, I know you don't technically "deny God's existence," you just "lack belief." Whatever. I'm using "plain English" here). Evidence for belief in the supernatural is what is at stake here. So you have two logical choices:

1. There is no supernatural and no such thing as logic;
2. There is the supernatural and such a thing as logic.

You can't maintain that there is logic and no supernatural without there being a self-contradiction (because then you are asserting that which is externally determined is also self-determined).

[/quote]

Chris, It is never, ever, fair to compare a naturalist account of something to a supernatural account of something.  Naturalism, I'm guessing, because I'm not a naturalist, entails an adherence to rules or the observation of consistent and predictable variables--you know, sciencey type stuff.  Supernaturalists can literally make up whatever they want and the lack of proof doesn't count against them.   You have not presented proof of the supernatural.  Proof of something effecting the material world involves some sort of empiricism.  How can you say you have proved anything about the material world, if you can't test it? How is that science? Respectfully, we can't just make stuff up when we bump up against something we don't like.  

Chris, why do you keep professing yourdefinition of atheism?  Just look it up.  After you look it up, come back and explain why you have chosen to change the definition of the word. You said that atheism is an irrational position.  If gods presented themselves to me, I would freely acknowledge that there are gods.  I have given the criteria for me to change my rational choice.  What's yours?  What would have to happen for you to admit that your belief in gods is just a belief and has no connection to the actual existence of them?   Your position is not logical because there is no condition under which your position could be falsified.  Maybe if the spaghetti god presented herself you could be persuaded to switch from Yahweh to a more delicious deity, but it appears that nothing will shake your belief in some sort of divine power.  I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, but you certainly aren't rational...at least not regarding this particular topic.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Not my work, but relevant:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/100 ... 3661v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.3661v1.pdf)

huh?  Does anybody here understand this?

Quote from: "Jac3510"1. From a programming perspective, the way the computer "decides" which move is best to make is to consider all the possible sequence of moves it can make (usually within a given time limitation). It then calculates the "value" of each position, and, depending on the user settings chosen, "moves" based on which value is appropriate. There is no "decision" being made.

In order to make a rational choice, one should consider all possible options they are aware of then make a value judgment for what they think is the best choice. I have only been able to effectively think four moves ahead while my father had proven that he could think at least ten moves ahead, but claims he can think more. The really good chess players can think a good amount more moves ahead than my father. Deep Blues opponent Kasparov, could play entire games of chess in his head and go through thousands of possibilities and then make a choice based on what he thought would be the most valuable move. So what is the difference between the decisions Deep Blue makes and the decisions Kasparov makes?

Quote from: "Jac3510"If there is no randomizing component (which any programmer will tell you is in the strictest sense not random), then you can predict exactly what the computer will do in response to your move--not because it is the rational thing to do, but because it is forced to make a particular move with reference to your particular position and its predefined value system.

This is only true for some programs, Deep Blue for instance made choices that no one could predict. The program was programmed to adjust the values it was giving based on learning gained from playing against humans.

Quote from: "Jac3510"2. Given the above, if the computer makes a "bad" move, you can't logically say it "ought" to have done this or that instead. The computer doesn't have the option to "make that choice." Given the same circumstances, the computer will make that same move an infinite number of times. In a very real way, playing chess with a computer isn't at all like playing with a person. It is more like reading a "choose your own ending" book--with just a lot more endings and a lot more starting points.

This is also not true of Deep Blue as can be seen by looking over the matches, Kasparov started out two games making the same moves assuming that the computer would continue act predictably (this was how the previous chess program was defeated), however the computer did not continue making the same moves, it changed, not due to randomness, but to what it "learned" (collected data, processed the data and used that to redefined its values), from the first match. Now I'm sure that if I attempted the same moves every time with Deep Blue it would continue to make the same moves, but that would be because I have hardly a chance at beating it, and there's no reason (for a computer or human), to change a strategy that works.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Not my work, but relevant:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/100 ... 3661v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.3661v1.pdf)

huh?  Does anybody here understand this?

The quick and dirty version: Randomness (on the Quantum Mechanics level) could be a reason for not being able to determine exactly what a person would do, a particle not being able to be determined is a particle acting "freely," so there is self-determination because some things appear to be random.

Honestly, I don't think that randomness is any different than predetermined because it doesn't explain the ability to be fully in control, just whether randomness and/or determined causes are in control.

Edit: Sorry, I used "free will" when self-determined was more accurate.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Actually, I defined it pretty clearly. Let me quote myself: "The central idea [of materialism] is that everything that exists is strictly natural and obeys the laws of nature.

Not really, except for some weak definitions of the word "pretty."  What you have done is simply describe it in terms of another term, "strictly natural."  I could easily define what is "strictly natural" as encompassing all of what happens in nature, including humans, which would make your conclusion trivially false.  However, that would simply be begging the question and therefore uninteresting.

Quote1. From a programming perspective, the way the computer "decides" which move is best to make is to consider all the possible sequence of moves it can make (usually within a given time limitation). It then calculates the "value" of each position, and, depending on the user settings chosen, "moves" based on which value is appropriate. There is no "decision" being made. If there is no randomizing component (which any programmer will tell you is in the strictest sense not random),

As I mentioned, I have built devices out of material that are in the strictest sense random, but this is still not very interesting.

Quotethen you can predict exactly what the computer will do in response to your move--not because it is the rational thing to do, but because it is forced to make a particular move with reference to your particular position and its predefined value system.

That is, in the general case, false.  It is considered desirable in many cases to produce programs the result of which are predictable.  For example, if you have a program that manages your bank account, you want it to be predictable.  This is, however, not the nature of computing.  Given a completely specified program and input, it is impossible to decide what the program will do.  Even for fairly small linear bounded automata, it would not be possible to predict the behavior in less than such time as dwarfs the age of the universe.

This is not an esoteric result.  Most of the development of the science, engineering, and even art of computing consists of efforts at helping people avoid these unpredictable programs, because that's what we want the overwhelming majority of programmers to do.  But at the upper echelons, which include chess programs that are not simply based on the kid-stuff 1960s game tree partial enumeration that is what you seem to have read about, this unpredictability is used in creative and productive ways.

Quote from: "Davin"That is almost a good enough explanation for me, however I still think it would be better if you just addressed the philosophies themselves instead of attaching atheism onto them. From a lot of atheists I talk to, they discarded the things that have no/insufficient evidence for them then built their philosophies about reality from there, which is far different than taking a philosophy and coming to the idea of atheism. Without any reasonable data (my personal experience is limited to a sample that can be very prone to sampling bias), even though most of the atheists I know accepted concepts the way I described, I think it would be very bad form for me to say that most atheists had done things that way.

That's fair. As argument itself points out, the issue is with materialism strictly. I would note, however, I've not addressed atheists in this thread; only atheism(s). There are several versions of atheism, as you have pointed out in your conversation with Chris. I'm sure you would agree, however, that there are more and less popular versions. The particular version that is promoted by militant camp has a tendency to be naturalistic.

In any case, feel free to leave atheism out of it entirely. I'd hate to further distract from my central premise. My objection is to materialism, not atheism per se (especially in the weak sense advocated by most on this board). Materialism defines God out of existence a priori; it also renders evidence for His existence impossible. Just getting past it is a major accomplishment.

QuoteWhich is the problem with stating an "if" as a strong position. I don't expect nor am I attempting to require that you to adjust your method for me, I'm just stating my objections.

I understand, but this is where discussion might prove futile. It seems to me you are just ignoring logically necessary truths. If a person is free to do that, then why talk about anything? There's no reason to even discuss the weather, because if it is raining, and you and I can both see it, and I say, "No it isn't," what is there to talk about? If I am free to ignore truth when I feel like it, then my construction of reality is absolutely arbitrary at worst and completely subjected to my feelings at best. I prefer a far more rigorous approach than that, personally.

QuoteIt has yet to be demonstrated as true. Your example doesn't account for the possibility that rational thought could be developed through a naturalistic process. Until we can describe even close to how a decision is made, we're still left with it remaining unknown.

On the contrary, it accounts for that exactly. I've already distinguished between four terms that frame the discussion: self-determination, external-determination, description, and prescription.

A naturalistic (read: materialistic) process excludes, by definition, self-determination. Demonstration:

In materialism:
1. All processes are directed by natural laws
2. Thought is a process
3. Therefore, thought is directed by natural laws.

Thoughts, then, are externally determined in naturalism. It doesn't matter how complicated the biology, chemistry, and physics get in all of this, just as it doesn't matter how complicated the programming gets with AI. Just as in the latter, the computer is ultimately responding to a set of data in a pre-determined (if not dynamic, but still pre-determined) way, so also the human mind, in materialism, is just responding to a set of data in a pre-determined way. It is determined by the data already in the mind as existing values computed against new data . . . but all of that is strictly and totally a naturalistic process, determined by the laws of physics. It is a completely descriptive process. There is no prescription, and where there is no prescription, there is no rationality.

QuoteI see, but I have a third way to take it: that this evidence relates to the discussion and whether you had already considered or not you could then discuss its implications to your concept.

I don't know if you caught my edit in my previous reply. I actually took out this entire reply that you replied to because I thought that this section rendered the whole tone too snarky. My apologies for that. I only ask, for the sake of clarity, that if you bring up point of fact or research, that you suggest its implications for discussion. If you says, "Well what about elephants?" perhaps you would have something in mind, but the chances of me seeing it are pretty slim.

Implications are facts or inferences drawn out from other facts or inferences, yet people draw them out. You may draw different implications than I would. So if we are going to discuss implications of such things, I would only ask that you draw the implications out so we can discuss them as you see it. I do take it, after all, that you raised the issue precisely because you do see some implications.

QuoteIf all my actions are predetermined then the reason would be because that is what I've been determined to do, to act as though there were a reason to do so. And if everything is determined then we might as well act as we are determined to do.

You are using "reason" in a different sense in the first part of your sentence from the second part. In the first, "reason" has the connotation of "cause." For example, the reason I woke up is that my alarm went off; the reason the rock fell is that its support was eroded by the river. In the second, "reason" implies a rational thought. For example, I set my alarm so that I wouldn't oversleep; the erosion was man-made to clear the path for a new structure. You do, of course, preface the second use with "as though," but in the interest of clarity, let me restate this sentence:

"If all my actions are predetermined then the [cause [of my actions]] would be . . . that is what I've been determined to do, to act as though there were [a rational process encouraging me to] to so."

Now, this is just trivial, in my own view. If nothing else, it is at least my point. We certainly do "act as though" there is a rational process, but just because we act that way doesn't justify us in declaring that there actually is a rational process going on. This is evident from your second sentence.

You say that if everything is determined, then we "might as well act" in our determined way. The problem with "might as well" is that it implies some sort of freedom or purpose ("might," in English, is a subjunctive, which is used, among other things, to indicate purpose; possibility is another usage). But that is just the point, isn't it? If my actions are predetermined, then there is no "might as well." There is only "therefore we do." There is no other option. Everything is externally determined. You "might as well" say "the rock might as well go ahead and fall." We don't talk that way about normal physics because it wouldn't make any sense. So why do we talk that way about thoughts and intentions? If materialism is true, it is nothing more than convention, which is fine by me. I'm not asking you to change your vocabulary. I am asking you, however, to recognize the truth behind it--under materialism, there is no such thing as "might as well." Rational thought doesn't exist.

QuoteNot if I'm determined to do so, then it makes sense that I would.

It wouldn't "make sense." That's the whole point. It would just be "what you do." To "make sense" presupposes rationality, which doesn't exist if everything is determined. On the flip side, if all this is determined, then I am externally determined to defend Christianity, Bush was externally determined to invade Iraq, and Muslim extremists are externally determined to blow themselves up. Under determinism, all of those actions "make sense," and it is useless to say anyone "ought not" do such things. They have no more freedom to do anything else than you have freedom to do other than what you are doing.

QuoteI think you're missing another option, that I'm not accepting either position as there isn't enough for me to accept either position and I'm discussion what relates to the discussion in order to gain other perspectives and reasoning in order to see if I can accept either position... even if this still remains something I don't accept, at least I tried.

Then the main point you need to address is the external vs. self-determination. Unless you can show how something can be both self- and externally-determined, then logic dictates we have an either/or. We have a dilemma out of which there is no escape. You can, of course, ignore it, but that doesn't make it go away. "I don't know how we can be rational and determined; we just can!" isn't a very good answer, anymore than if I were to say to you, "I don't know how morality can be objective and rooted in God; it just can!" would be a very good answer.

QuoteWithout having any bias one way or the other, the evidence could very much relate to 1) because it had shown that people had what appeared to be a power of veto over the decisions that had already been made by the brain, which could show that we could actually make certain kinds of decisions.

Which would imply that there is a part of a person that "stands outside" of the laws of nature, which, by definition, would be supernatural. On the other hand, if they aren't standing outside the laws of nature, then further research will just reveal where the chemistry/biology/physics allows them to make such vetos; in other words, the determination still stands. So this still doesn't relate to (1). It still relates to (2), whether or not self-determined thought is possible.

QuoteAye, but I would be determined to advocate for it.

Correct, just as those who advocate the existence of unicorns would be determined to advocate that. Your position would be no more rational than theirs.

QuoteThat has yet to be found out.

It's been found. You've yet to accept it. Maybe nature just won't let you.

QuoteThere is a connection to the argument, if you would just respond to what I say instead of your assumptions, we could have a much more efficient conversation.

Which is why I asked before to make the implications as you see them clear.

QuoteThere are other options: Rational thought is possible in a naturalistic universe, rational thought is not possible in a supernatural universe. To say that I must accept either of the positions if the other is proven false is a false dichotomy and at least an argument from ignorance. The only reason to accept something as true is if that something has enough reasonable evidence for it, not because no one can yet think of a better idea or that something else has been proven false.

Again, I've not assumed that rational thought is impossible in a naturalistic universe. That is the first premise of the argument, but I have gone on to defend it. If rational thought is not possible in a naturalistic universe, then we can't suggest the possibility that it is possible in a naturalistic universe (law of non-contradiction, and all that). Whether or not rationality is possible in a supernatural universe isn't under discussion, nor is it relevant.

If I am correct about (1), and I have repeatedly given my reason for stating as such, and you have yet to respond to it, then the entire question is simply whether or not rational thought is possible. If rational thought is possible, then materialism is false. There are only two ways to avoid this logically necessary conclusion:

1. Deny (1) and show where my argument for it is false;
2. Deny (2)

I can only assume you don't want to deny (2). If you do, then like I said, we may as well stop this conversation now. If, then, you want to maintain that my (3) is false, you must demonstrate a flaw in my reasoning for thinking (1) is true.

QuoteSo that I can get on the same page of what you're discussing, can you provide a somewhat brief explanation of the process of a rational thought? This is to make sure my own definition doesn't interfere with my assessment of your reasoning which appears to use a different concept of rational thought.

I'll not try to explain the process of thought itself. However, that which makes a thought "rational" is a thought that stands in accordance with what we ought to think given the constraints of logic, which is to say, it is what we ought to think following the normal intellectual process we call reason. Reason (not to be confused with reasons) is the intellectual faculty by which we gain knowledge. Whatever knowledge is in the particulars, it certainly requires at least the justification of a belief. Justification deals with what we ought to believe based, again, on the rules of logic, etc.

In sum, rational thought is the biological process by which our thoughts conform with reason, which is to say, our thoughts conform with what we ought to believe given certain data.

Chris, arguments aside.  I take exception to your use of the word "militant".  What "militant" atheist camps are you referring to? How do you define "militant"?  Are you a "militant" Christian?

Quote from: "Sophus"That is impossible. Determined for you or no there still must exist an interpretation capable of being accurate or off. If the objective truth of 2+a=5 is a=3, and one man comes to the conclusion of 3 while the other says 2, the first man is obviously more accurate. He's right regardless of whether or not he can fully know he is right. If there is an objective truth it can be still brushed up against regardless of whether or not we're all in the dark.
The univserse and everything within it determines all, but you are forgetting you yourself are an entity of the universe "We are a way for the universe to know itself." ~ Carl Sagan

You quote Sagan, I'll quote Darwin:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

Why should there be any interpretation? If universe is strictly materialistic, then all interpretation is merely illusory. Besides, should we get back into what can be known? You seem pretty certain that my statement is impossible. Are you going to abandon your epistemological nihilism? Sophus, I don't expect you to agree with me. I do, however, expect you to be consistent.

QuoteI was merely countering what Christianity claims which is typically that we're so special the universe was made just for us. Everything which occurs in the universe is attributed to God, thus personified.

If Christianity is true, God cares. If materialism is true, it sure doesn't "care" about anything. My argument is why materialism is not true; not why Christianity is. You are certainly aware of the fact that disproving materialism does not prove Christianity. So it does neither one of us any good to bring up what Christianity does or does not teach. Let's be proper (if such a thing is possible) and deal with the argument as it stands, shall we?

QuotePrecisely, and that rests on the fact that the physics is objective. This argument seems desperate.

Hardly desperate; just the logically necessary conclusion of materialism. There is no such thing as a correct or incorrect way to do anything, because nothing is correct or incorrect. Everything just is what it is. There is no rationality in materialism.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Chris, It is never, ever, fair to compare a naturalist account of something to a supernatural account of something.  Naturalism, I'm guessing, because I'm not a naturalist, entails an adherence to rules or the observation of consistent and predictable variables--you know, sciencey type stuff.  Supernaturalists can literally make up whatever they want and the lack of proof doesn't count against them.   You have not presented proof of the supernatural.  Proof of something effecting the material world involves some sort of empiricism.  How can you say you have proved anything about the material world, if you can't test it? How is that science? Respectfully, we can't just make stuff up when we bump up against something we don't like.

On the contrary, the very simple argument I've put forward is ample proof for the supernatural, which would be defined as that which operates without regard to natural laws (i.e., the laws of physics, etc.).

Rational thought can only be possible if there is a part of us that has, to use your word, free will. Free will necessitates that there is a part of us that does not work under the laws of nature (else our will would not be free). Thus, if rational thought exists, then so does the supernatural. That's a very simple proof. Not much technical language there, my friend.

QuoteChris, why do you keep professing yourdefinition of atheism?  Just look it up.  After you look it up, come back and explain why you have chosen to change the definition of the word. You said that atheism is an irrational position.  If gods presented themselves to me, I would freely acknowledge that there are gods.  I have given the criteria for me to change my rational choice.  What's yours?  What would have to happen for you to admit that your belief in gods is just a belief and has no connection to the actual existence of them?   Your position is not logical because there is no condition under which your position could be falsified.  Maybe if the spaghetti god presented herself you could be persuaded to switch from Yahweh to a more delicious deity, but it appears that nothing will shake your belief in some sort of divine power.  I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, but you certainly aren't rational...at least not regarding this particular topic.

I did not say that atheism was irrational. I say that versions of atheism that are built on materialism are irrational if rational thought is possible.

That's quite a few qualifiers.

If a spaghetti monster presented himself to me, I'd likely believe in it (shy of being sure I wasn't hallucinating, etc.). That wouldn't change my belief that God exists, as God is a necessary being if we posit that things like morality and rational thought are possible, and if we posit that things really are what they are and really are not what they are not.

I'm fully aware of you atheists have redefined the meaning of the term in the past generation (thank you, Anthony Flew) to be merely a lack of belief. You are what used to be called an agnostic. Now, frankly, I don't care what you call it. It's just a word. The important thing is the idea. What is important is the strategy behind the definition. If you don't positively assert God's non-existence, you don't think you have to justify your non-belief, and that only Christians and other theists have the burden of proof. Now, I have reasons for thinking that is wrong, but even accepting it for the moment, your atheism, defined as it is today, is simply a lack of belief in God and does not necessarily entail a lack of belief in anything else (i.e., morality, rationality, or that things are what they are). In fact, and get this because it is important, a  lack of belief in one thing cannot logically entail a lack of belief in another. You can't say, "Because I don't have any beliefs on this, I can't have any beliefs on that." You can, of course, say, "Because I don't believe in this, I don't believe in that." And you can say, "Because I don't have any reason to believe in this, I don't have any reason to believe in that." But you cannot say, "Because I don't have any beliefs on this, I do not therefore have any beliefs on that."

Which brings us to this thread.

You may, for the sake of argument, be justified in arguing that theists have the burden of proof for asserting their belief in God. It is an absurdity, however, to argue that you have a mere "lack of belief" with respect to the existence of rational thought, and that, even if you do, that I have the burden of proof to demonstrate its existence. The evidence for the existence of rational thought is so overpoweringly obvious--it is the way in which we view the world, it literally cannot be denied without being used--that anyone who denies it or even denies belief in it is required to justify their stance. This is because, primarily, the burden of proof presumes rationality. If you deny a belief in rationality, you cannot assume it to argue that others have the burden of proof in demonstrating the case.

To say, then, that belief in God is irrational, devoid of evidence, is hypocrisy. Rational thought may not necessarily culminate in God's existence, but it does necessarily culminate in the supernatural, and the supernatural is direct evidence of God's existence. Proof, no. Evidence, yes.  My challenge, then, in this thread, is exceedingly narrow: to prove materialism false. I'm presenting you with a simple dilemma:

Either
1. Accept that the supernatural exists at least insofar as there is a part of humanity that exists outside the laws of nature, or
2. Accept that all thoughts, no matter how absurd, are equally "rational" because there is actually no such thing as the rational.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Jac3510"1. From a programming perspective, the way the computer "decides" which move is best to make is to consider all the possible sequence of moves it can make (usually within a given time limitation). It then calculates the "value" of each position, and, depending on the user settings chosen, "moves" based on which value is appropriate. There is no "decision" being made.

In order to make a rational choice, one should consider all possible options they are aware of then make a value judgment for what they think is the best choice. I have only been able to effectively think four moves ahead while my father had proven that he could think at least ten moves ahead, but claims he can think more. The really good chess players can think a good amount more moves ahead than my father. Deep Blues opponent Kasparov, could play entire games of chess in his head and go through thousands of possibilities and then make a choice based on what he thought would be the most valuable move. So what is the difference between the decisions Deep Blue makes and the decisions Kasparov makes?

Because Kasparov is free to see what the best move is after viewing those thousands of moves, knowing which is the best one, and intentionally making a bad one. Of course, he ought not do that, but that is what we mean by "ought." He "knew better." Deep Blue had no such capacity. It was able to determine the best move based on its value system, but then it, by nature, made the best move each time. There is no "ought." You cannot think of Deep Blue's moves in prescriptive terms; only descriptive.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"If there is no randomizing component (which any programmer will tell you is in the strictest sense not random), then you can predict exactly what the computer will do in response to your move--not because it is the rational thing to do, but because it is forced to make a particular move with reference to your particular position and its predefined value system.

This is only true for some programs, Deep Blue for instance made choices that no one could predict. The program was programmed to adjust the values it was giving based on learning gained from playing against humans.

Wrong. Deep Blue learned from its matches, and thus, given each game, it had a new dataset from which to work. The moves are always determined based on the dataset.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"2. Given the above, if the computer makes a "bad" move, you can't logically say it "ought" to have done this or that instead. The computer doesn't have the option to "make that choice." Given the same circumstances, the computer will make that same move an infinite number of times. In a very real way, playing chess with a computer isn't at all like playing with a person. It is more like reading a "choose your own ending" book--with just a lot more endings and a lot more starting points.

This is also not true of Deep Blue as can be seen by looking over the matches, Kasparov started out two games making the same moves assuming that the computer would continue act predictably (this was how the previous chess program was defeated), however the computer did not continue making the same moves, it changed, not due to randomness, but to what it "learned" (collected data, processed the data and used that to redefined its values), from the first match. Now I'm sure that if I attempted the same moves every time with Deep Blue it would continue to make the same moves, but that would be because I have hardly a chance at beating it, and there's no reason (for a computer or human), to change a strategy that works.

And again, given the above, we see that Deep Blue's moves were still determined. Had Kasparov been aware of the algorithms Deep Blue would employ, and had he been able to do all the same calculations Deep Blue would do (see the descriptive language; not ought to do, but would do), then Kasparov could have perfectly predicted what Deep Blue would do given its new dataset.

Deep Blue, then, is an outstanding example of this very debate. It did not make a single rational choice. It just was capable of very complex computations, and it always acted in accordance with what it was programmed to do. There is no ought. There is only "is." There is no prescription, only description. If we can speak of Kasparov being rational at all, then we must speak of his ability to act irrationally, a thing which we cannot speak of in terms of Deep Blue. One had free choice. The other didn't.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Chris, arguments aside.  I take exception to your use of the word "militant".  What "militant" atheist camps are you referring to? How do you define "militant"?  Are you a "militant" Christian?

Ah, and did you take exception to it when you said, "As for the militant atheists, they disagree about the burden of proof. Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett offer no proof that there is no God. They hold the position that the burden of proof lies with the theist. They do seem to have a problem with religion though"?

Let's not put "arguments aside" and play rhetorical games, Mike. The issue is where the facts take us. Nothing more.

Chris, first, you are the one diverting from your own argument.  Your beef is with materialism, something I had never heard of until now.  You were the one who mentioned atheism as equivalent to materialism.  You were the one who after being corrected about your general use of the word atheism, then used the qualifier "militant".  You then quote me from a thread in a Christian forum, seriously?  If I was able to engage anybody over there in a serious discussion, I would have shown them that their definition of militant was wrong.  I don't have to patronize you because you are better than that.  

Did you look up atheism?  I take the homework assignments you give me quite seriously.  All I asked you to do is look up one word.  Not on an atheist website.  A dictionary.  Any dictionary will do.  You didn't do that.  You can't just make up definitions of words for your own purposes.  You didn't define militant either.  You also stated that atheism, was an irrational position, but when I asked you what would falsify your "rational" position, you didn't give an answer.

If your argument is against materialism, then keep your arguments targeted towards materialism.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?r=75 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?r=75)  this is atheism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militant?r=75 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militant?r=75)  this is militant

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/materialism?r=75 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/materialism?r=75)  this is materialism

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Chris, first, you are the one diverting from your own argument.  Your beef is with materialism, something I had never heard of until now.  You were the one who mentioned atheism as equivalent to materialism.  You were the one who after being corrected about your general use of the word atheism, then used the qualifier "militant".  You then quote me from a thread in a Christian forum, seriously?  If I was able to engage anybody over there in a serious discussion, I would have shown them that their definition of militant was wrong.  I don't have to patronize you because you are better than that.  

Did you look up atheism?  I take the homework assignments you give me quite seriously.  All I asked you to do is look up one word.  Not on an atheist website.  A dictionary.  Any dictionary will do.  You didn't do that.  You can't just make up definitions of words for your own purposes.  You didn't define militant either.  You also stated that atheism, was an irrational position, but when I asked you what would falsify your "rational" position, you didn't give an answer.

If your argument is against materialism, then keep your arguments targeted towards materialism.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?r=75 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?r=75)  this is atheism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militant?r=75 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militant?r=75)  this is militant

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/materialism?r=75 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/materialism?r=75)  this is materialism

Yes, Mike, if you must know I did look up the word. I've looked up the word multiple times in the past in multiple dictionaries. I've looked it up in Greek, English, and philosophical dictionaries. Would you care for me to make a bibliography for you?

My argument in this thread the entire time has been against materialism. I have never equated materialism with atheism. I said very specifically that most versions of atheism (not atheism itself) are based on materialism. That which a thing is based on is not the thing itself.

The qualification on "militant" is to point specifically to the issue of materialism. How much Dawkins, Hitchens, Ayer, Dennet, Mackie, or Flew (pre-conversion) have you read? Again, would you like me to make you a bibliography of the studies I've done?

The important issue here is ideas, not semantics. My "beef" is with materialism--the idea that all that is is natural, obeying the laws of nature. Materialism cannot be rational. It is, at best, arational, because if it is true, all thought is only arational. Since materialism is an intellectual position, and since under materialism all intellectual positions are arational, then materialism, if true, is arational. If materialism is false, then it is actually irrational, because it denies rational thought. It turns out to be self-defeating, because it tries to use rational thought to disprove rational thought. That is irrational.

Any atheism that is based on materialism, then, which is not every version, is irrational if and only if materialism is false. Any atheism that is based on materialism is arational if and only if materialism is true. Those versions of atheism that are not materialistic are not under discussion.

Jac3510-........no atheist has the right to say that atheism is more rational than Christianity.

Note that the bold is yours, not something I added for emphasis.   You make your case against materialism, and then you make this statement....in bold type.  That's equating.  This bold type says nothing about a particular kind of atheist.  With this bold type you were challenging atheists, not just materialists.  I responded to this challenge with a simple question: what would make you change your rational choice to be Christian?   This has gone unanswered.  You can't challenge the rationality of my position and not be willing to show the rationality of yours.  If nothing could make you ever change your mind about Christ, then the position you hold isn't rational.  

You can't make an argument, throw in some unproven statements that have nothing to do with the argument, and then when somebody calls you on those unproven statements, then say "only address the the argument".  You state that materialism is the basis for most types of atheism.  Prove it.  Show me a poll that asks atheists what they think.  The reasons I keep seeing are the inconsistencies of the Bible, hypocrisy of the religious, conflicting gods, and lack of proof of the divine.  Materialism doesn't come up much.  You refer to some atheist camps as "militant". Prove it.  Show me militant action by atheist groups.  All I see is people writing and talking.

To answer your question, I've read Hitchens and Dawkins.  I've seen a few Dennet lectures.  If they are "militant", so are you.

Occam's Razor.

Excellent stuff Chris.  I love seeing new threads on philosophy and arguments.

I have never seen the word arational.  I can see its applicability in usage, of which applies to everyday normal objects.  After all, objects like pens don't think, right?

Anyway, there is one problem with the rationality, irrationality, and arationality approach.  Man up until the rise of logical deduction seldom if ever thought rationally.  We have little to no record showing pre-Hellenistic thinkers formulating rules of logic or schools of Philosophy.  Things that made no sense wasn't even considered as having to have to make sense to start with.  In other words, rationality was unknown.

If someone said that trees were born of wood nymphs and demon seeds everyone shrugged and said it was "a-okay with them."  It wasn't until the Grecian Hellenistic period when great thinkers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle started to develop deducing truth from logic.

In so much, saying that because there is rationality, something must have made man rational still falls well within the bounds of circular reasoning.  The problem is man invented rationality, logical reasoning, and ethics.  When it comes to proving a God by means of explaining that a powerful being imparted rationality to man runs every bit counter to why a concept of God was created in the first place.  Theism was created to give explanation to what could not be explained.

Why did crops fail?  Because you pissed God off and she didn't bring rain

But now it is raining, but crops are still failing, why?  Because you still pissed her off and we don't know... oh wait there's an adversary, called Satan, that's why crops failed.  Satan is pissed off that is why your crops failed.

Well now, it is dryer than a desert, but crops are thriving???  You pleased God with enough sacrifice, so shut up and celebrate your bounty after you give 10% of it to us.  (Every bit we never needed to life a finger for).

Look, all of this stems from theistic philosophers trying to reconcile their faith with the new and brilliant types of thinking they acquired.  They couldn't get it to work then, except on faith alone that is, and even until today you cannot get it to work.

Jac3510-........no atheist has the right to say that atheism is more rational than Christianity.

The vast majority of Christians haven't given thought one to their religious beliefs. They've just accepted them as true. There isn't any critical thought involved in believing that the Bible is the true word of God with a capital G and that Jesus came back to life three days after being executed and that believing in this Jesus gets you an express ticket to heaven.

People have the right to say whatever they want. I say that believing that the Bible is the true word of God with a capital G and that Jesus came back to life three days after being executed and that believing in this Jesus gets you an express ticket to heaven is irrational.

I can't quote any great scientists or philosophers to "back me up" here, I can't quote Socrates or Sarte, but I can quote Sinatra, who said: "When lip service to some mysterious diety permits bestiality on Wednesday and absolution on Sunday - cash me out."

What it comes down to is this: you believe that the Bible is the true word of God with a capital G and that Jesus came back to life three days after being executed and that believing in this Jesus gets you an express ticket to heaven. No matter how you try to dress it up with all this academic rhetoric it's still the same old dreary "God did it" assertion, the "greatest story ever told" gussied up to attend a Christian philosopher's conference.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteWhich is the problem with stating an "if" as a strong position. I don't expect nor am I attempting to require that you to adjust your method for me, I'm just stating my objections.

I understand, but this is where discussion might prove futile. It seems to me you are just ignoring logically necessary truths. If a person is free to do that, then why talk about anything? There's no reason to even discuss the weather, because if it is raining, and you and I can both see it, and I say, "No it isn't," what is there to talk about? If I am free to ignore truth when I feel like it, then my construction of reality is absolutely arbitrary at worst and completely subjected to my feelings at best. I prefer a far more rigorous approach than that, personally.

The problem is, that too many assumptions made on undetermined possibilities doesn't tend to be very trustworthy. You say logically necessary truths after I state my objection to you saying things like "It is a completely descriptive process." when the process has yet to be described. Or if you would, go ahead and describe what the process so that all these doctors and psychologists trying to figure out how the brain works can stop wasting their time.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteIt has yet to be demonstrated as true. Your example doesn't account for the possibility that rational thought could be developed through a naturalistic process. Until we can describe even close to how a decision is made, we're still left with it remaining unknown.

On the contrary, it accounts for that exactly. I've already distinguished between four terms that frame the discussion: self-determination, external-determination, description, and prescription.

A naturalistic (read: materialistic) process excludes, by definition, self-determination. Demonstration:

In materialism:
1. All processes are directed by natural laws
2. Thought is a process
3. Therefore, thought is directed by natural laws.

Thoughts, then, are externally determined in naturalism. It doesn't matter how complicated the biology, chemistry, and physics get in all of this, just as it doesn't matter how complicated the programming gets with AI. Just as in the latter, the computer is ultimately responding to a set of data in a pre-determined (if not dynamic, but still pre-determined) way, so also the human mind, in materialism, is just responding to a set of data in a pre-determined way. It is determined by the data already in the mind as existing values computed against new data . . . but all of that is strictly and totally a naturalistic process, determined by the laws of physics. It is a completely descriptive process. There is no prescription, and where there is no prescription, there is no rationality.

Until the process is completely (or at least mostly) described, we don't know. I think there is a naturalistic explanation for rational thought, maybe not your definition of rational thought. Like before, you're making assumptions that the entire process must be determined without understanding the entire or even most of the process (I make this assumption that you don't know the entire or most of the process because no one else does and if you do then you should probably submit that to some science journals). So do you know the entire scientific process of how a person makes rational thoughts or are you just extrapolating?

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteI see, but I have a third way to take it: that this evidence relates to the discussion and whether you had already considered or not you could then discuss its implications to your concept.

I don't know if you caught my edit in my previous reply. I actually took out this entire reply that you replied to because I thought that this section rendered the whole tone too snarky. My apologies for that. I only ask, for the sake of clarity, that if you bring up point of fact or research, that you suggest its implications for discussion. If you says, "Well what about elephants?" perhaps you would have something in mind, but the chances of me seeing it are pretty slim.

Something like, "Secondly, there is evidence done in scientific studies that show that the brain makes decisions before the people making the decisions are aware that they've made a choice." or "So right now the evidence is leaning towards the brain doing what it does and then making up the actual decision process as we become aware of the decision."?

Quote from: "Jac3510"Implications are facts or inferences drawn out from other facts or inferences, yet people draw them out. You may draw different implications than I would. So if we are going to discuss implications of such things, I would only ask that you draw the implications out so we can discuss them as you see it. I do take it, after all, that you raised the issue precisely because you do see some implications.

Because I saw some possible implications: you were talking about decisions, there's evidence that shows that people may not be making decisions... pieced them together as being related to decisions making. I thought after mentioning that there was evidence that people may not be making decisions, before I cited the experiments would've helped make the implications clear. It looks like I was wrong because instead of seeing the implications to your argument, you decided to assume something that I never even hinted to.

Quote from: "Jac3510"We certainly do "act as though" there is a rational process, but just because we act that way doesn't justify us in declaring that there actually is a rational process going on.

Now if only you'd apply this same standard of reasoning to everything: just because something to appears to be something, it doesn't mean that it is that something. Like: just because it appears that there can be no naturalistic explanation for "rational thought," doesn't mean there isn't.

Quote from: "Jac3510"You say that if everything is determined, then we "might as well act" in our determined way. The problem with "might as well" is that it implies some sort of freedom or purpose ("might," in English, is a subjunctive, which is used, among other things, to indicate purpose; possibility is another usage). But that is just the point, isn't it? If my actions are predetermined, then there is no "might as well." There is only "therefore we do." There is no other option. Everything is externally determined. You "might as well" say "the rock might as well go ahead and fall." We don't talk that way about normal physics because it wouldn't make any sense. So why do we talk that way about thoughts and intentions? If materialism is true, it is nothing more than convention, which is fine by me. I'm not asking you to change your vocabulary. I am asking you, however, to recognize the truth behind it--under materialism, there is no such thing as "might as well." Rational thought doesn't exist.

That still depends on your concept of rational thought, and your concept seems to include a bit more than just a rational thought.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteNot if I'm determined to do so, then it makes sense that I would.

It wouldn't "make sense." That's the whole point. It would just be "what you do." To "make sense" presupposes rationality, which doesn't exist if everything is determined. On the flip side, if all this is determined, then I am externally determined to defend Christianity, Bush was externally determined to invade Iraq, and Muslim extremists are externally determined to blow themselves up. Under determinism, all of those actions "make sense," and it is useless to say anyone "ought not" do such things. They have no more freedom to do anything else than you have freedom to do other than what you are doing.

And because we're part of that external environment for everyone else, we also affect how other people act (whether or not there is self-determinism there is still likely an effect even if it is small). Criticism of people's ideas is a socially beneficial mechanism, if it turns out that determinism is true, it wouldn't mean that we just stop doing what we've been doing; We should still act as though we have self-determined choices, because so far, that's been working pretty well.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteI think you're missing another option, that I'm not accepting either position as there isn't enough for me to accept either position and I'm discussion what relates to the discussion in order to gain other perspectives and reasoning in order to see if I can accept either position... even if this still remains something I don't accept, at least I tried.

Then the main point you need to address is the external vs. self-determination. Unless you can show how something can be both self- and externally-determined, then logic dictates we have an either/or. We have a dilemma out of which there is no escape. You can, of course, ignore it, but that doesn't make it go away. "I don't know how we can be rational and determined; we just can!" isn't a very good answer, anymore than if I were to say to you, "I don't know how morality can be objective and rooted in God; it just can!" would be a very good answer.

I've often had great difficulty explaining this very simple concept: I don't have to accept anything. Now that may sound like a bad thing... and well it is in itself, obviously having any kind of discussion with someone else while accepting nothing as true can get a little boring for the other guy. But for any position, starting from the default of not accepting it and not denying it, I think is the most honest approach. Right now I don't think there is enough evidence to say one way or the other. See previous when I was talking about we as humans haven't figured out how the brain works yet.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteWithout having any bias one way or the other, the evidence could very much relate to 1) because it had shown that people had what appeared to be a power of veto over the decisions that had already been made by the brain, which could show that we could actually make certain kinds of decisions.

Which would imply that there is a part of a person that "stands outside" of the laws of nature, which, by definition, would be supernatural. On the other hand, if they aren't standing outside the laws of nature, then further research will just reveal where the chemistry/biology/physics allows them to make such vetos; in other words, the determination still stands. So this still doesn't relate to (1). It still relates to (2), whether or not self-determined thought is possible.

If the ability to "veto" (basing this thought only on the evidence from the Libet experiments), has a naturalistic explanation, then it would invalidate 1). So it would, relate to 1).

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteThat has yet to be found out.

It's been found. You've yet to accept it. Maybe nature just won't let you.

So you know how the brain functions? Why have so many people been wasting their time on figuring out how the brain works and the psychology of humans when they could have just asked you?

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteThere are other options: Rational thought is possible in a naturalistic universe, rational thought is not possible in a supernatural universe. To say that I must accept either of the positions if the other is proven false is a false dichotomy and at least an argument from ignorance. The only reason to accept something as true is if that something has enough reasonable evidence for it, not because no one can yet think of a better idea or that something else has been proven false.

Again, I've not assumed that rational thought is impossible in a naturalistic universe. That is the first premise of the argument, but I have gone on to defend it.

Yes, to defend it with speculation and extrapolation, not with any evidence. Having only speculation then stating those speculations as reality has never turned out to be good. However basing things on verification, prediction and demonstration has turned out to work out very well for everyone. So which should I trust more: Some dude thinking he knows how things work or some dude who can show me how things work? So in the absence of the dude who can show me how things work, I'll not be accepting anything as true, because I can't trust the other dude who relies only on speculations. Because I don't have to fall for the argument from ignorance. If the only two options available to me were that the sun is affixed to some firm sphere that surrounds the earth or the the sun revolves around the Earth, I wouldn't have to accept either even if no one else could come up with a third option. I could remain not accepting either concepts, and remain perfectly rational.

Quote from: "Jac3510"If rational thought is not possible in a naturalistic universe, then we can't suggest the possibility that it is possible in a naturalistic universe (law of non-contradiction, and all that).

Aye, but to say that rational thought is not possible in a naturalistic universe requires more than just, "in a naturalistic universe everything follows the laws of nature, there can never be a natural explanation for rational thought, therefore rational thought is impossible in a naturalistic universe." How can you be so sure that there cannot be a naturalistic explanation of rational thought?

Quote from: "Jac3510"Whether or not rationality is possible in a supernatural universe isn't under discussion, nor is it relevant.

Why? Because you deemed it irrelevant? It is a valid alternate option to your false dichotomy and argument from ignorance.

Quote from: "Jac3510"If I am correct about (1), and I have repeatedly given my reason for stating as such, and you have yet to respond to it, then the entire question is simply whether or not rational thought is possible. If rational thought is possible, then materialism is false. There are only two ways to avoid this logically necessary conclusion:

1. Deny (1) and show where my argument for it is false;
2. Deny (2)

I can only assume you don't want to deny (2). If you do, then like I said, we may as well stop this conversation now. If, then, you want to maintain that my (3) is false, you must demonstrate a flaw in my reasoning for thinking (1) is true.

No, again there is at least a third option: To not accept your explanation due to not having enough knowledge of how the brain works. One does not have to accept or deny each every concept presented to them.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteSo that I can get on the same page of what you're discussing, can you provide a somewhat brief explanation of the process of a rational thought? This is to make sure my own definition doesn't interfere with my assessment of your reasoning which appears to use a different concept of rational thought.

I'll not try to explain the process of thought itself. However, that which makes a thought "rational" is a thought that stands in accordance with what we ought to think given the constraints of logic, which is to say, it is what we ought to think following the normal intellectual process we call reason. Reason (not to be confused with reasons) is the intellectual faculty by which we gain knowledge. Whatever knowledge is in the particulars, it certainly requires at least the justification of a belief. Justification deals with what we ought to believe based, again, on the rules of logic, etc.

In sum, rational thought is the biological process by which our thoughts conform with reason, which is to say, our thoughts conform with what we ought to believe given certain data.

Never before have I seen such a definition of rational thought. I have many issues with this, but it will be a lot of explaining to do that I don't have the time for (or interest in) right now.
I like this definition much more: rationality is the exercise of reason, a key method used to analyze the data gained through systematically conducted observations.
And this one: Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical".

I didn't have much time during work to reread my reply, so I'll just let errors land where they will and correct them later if they're an issue.

Quote from: "Jac3510"-........no atheist has the right to say that atheism is more rational than Christianity.

We don't have the right? Did something happen to the First Amendment?

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Jac3510"1. From a programming perspective, the way the computer "decides" which move is best to make is to consider all the possible sequence of moves it can make (usually within a given time limitation). It then calculates the "value" of each position, and, depending on the user settings chosen, "moves" based on which value is appropriate. There is no "decision" being made.

In order to make a rational choice, one should consider all possible options they are aware of then make a value judgment for what they think is the best choice. I have only been able to effectively think four moves ahead while my father had proven that he could think at least ten moves ahead, but claims he can think more. The really good chess players can think a good amount more moves ahead than my father. Deep Blues opponent Kasparov, could play entire games of chess in his head and go through thousands of possibilities and then make a choice based on what he thought would be the most valuable move. So what is the difference between the decisions Deep Blue makes and the decisions Kasparov makes?

Because Kasparov is free to see what the best move is after viewing those thousands of moves, knowing which is the best one, and intentionally making a bad one. Of course, he ought not do that, but that is what we mean by "ought." He "knew better." Deep Blue had no such capacity. It was able to determine the best move based on its value system, but then it, by nature, made the best move each time. There is no "ought." You cannot think of Deep Blue's moves in prescriptive terms; only descriptive.

So the only difference between the decisions made by Deep Blue and the decisions made by Kasparov, is that Kasparov could choose to make an irrational decision. Well, we could program that into Deep Blue, would that satisfy this new condition?

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"If there is no randomizing component (which any programmer will tell you is in the strictest sense not random), then you can predict exactly what the computer will do in response to your move--not because it is the rational thing to do, but because it is forced to make a particular move with reference to your particular position and its predefined value system.

This is only true for some programs, Deep Blue for instance made choices that no one could predict. The program was programmed to adjust the values it was giving based on learning gained from playing against humans.

Wrong. Deep Blue learned from its matches, and thus, given each game, it had a new dataset from which to work. The moves are always determined based on the dataset.

Wrong. Not just a dataset. Any way, how is this different than people basing their decisions on what they've learned?

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"2. Given the above, if the computer makes a "bad" move, you can't logically say it "ought" to have done this or that instead. The computer doesn't have the option to "make that choice." Given the same circumstances, the computer will make that same move an infinite number of times. In a very real way, playing chess with a computer isn't at all like playing with a person. It is more like reading a "choose your own ending" book--with just a lot more endings and a lot more starting points.

This is also not true of Deep Blue as can be seen by looking over the matches, Kasparov started out two games making the same moves assuming that the computer would continue act predictably (this was how the previous chess program was defeated), however the computer did not continue making the same moves, it changed, not due to randomness, but to what it "learned" (collected data, processed the data and used that to redefined its values), from the first match. Now I'm sure that if I attempted the same moves every time with Deep Blue it would continue to make the same moves, but that would be because I have hardly a chance at beating it, and there's no reason (for a computer or human), to change a strategy that works.

And again, given the above, we see that Deep Blue's moves were still determined. Had Kasparov been aware of the algorithms Deep Blue would employ, and had he been able to do all the same calculations Deep Blue would do (see the descriptive language; not ought to do, but would do), then Kasparov could have perfectly predicted what Deep Blue would do given its new dataset.

How is that different from, "if I knew what Kasparov knew, what he was thinking and how he thinks then I'd know what he would do"?

Quote from: "Jac3510"Deep Blue, then, is an outstanding example of this very debate. It did not make a single rational choice. It just was capable of very complex computations, and it always acted in accordance with what it was programmed to do. There is no ought. There is only "is." There is no prescription, only description. If we can speak of Kasparov being rational at all, then we must speak of his ability to act irrationally, a thing which we cannot speak of in terms of Deep Blue. One had free choice. The other didn't.

So, by your definition; in order to be rational, one must be able to act irrationally?

Quote from: "i_am_i"Jac3510-........no atheist has the right to say that atheism is more rational than Christianity.

Torquemada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada) would have supported that view quite strongly I would think. Be careful when you deny people the 'right' to speak freely lest you are denied the same freedom. Secular states would defend your right to say what you think free of the threat of punishment, torture, imprisonment or death. Muslims can say what they like in the US. You on the other hand would be imprisoned for attempting to set foot in some parts of the world simply because you hold the views you do.

Jac3510,

  I've already addressed your 3 part proof.  I was asking you to clarify statements that you made in this thread that have nothing to do with the proof.  You still haven't clarified them. You claimed that Christianity is more rational than atheism.  You've claimed that certain atheist camps are "militant".  You've claimed that materialism is the basis for most types of atheism.  None of these things are related to your proof. None of these things are true.   If you want to simply retract these statements, that's cool.  If you'd like me to start a separate thread to ask you to explain these statements, that's cool too.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Jac3510,

  I've already addressed your 3 part proof.  I was asking you to clarify statements that you made in this thread that have nothing to do with the proof.  You still haven't clarified them. You claimed that Christianity is more rational than atheism.  You've claimed that certain atheist camps are "militant".  You've claimed that materialism is the basis for most types of atheism.  None of these things are related to your proof. None of these things are true.   If you want to simply retract these statements, that's cool.  If you'd like me to start a separate thread to ask you to explain these statements, that's cool too.

No, you raised the mind-body problem, which asks how rational thought is possible given determinism on one hand or substance dualism on the other. This was finally boiled down to my saying:

Rational thought can only be possible if there is a part of us that has, to use your word, free will. Free will necessitates that there is a part of us that does not work under the laws of nature (else our will would not be free). Thus, if rational thought exists, then so does the supernatural. That's a very simple proof. Not much technical language there, my friend

Now, again, how rational thought works isn't related to the question of whether rational thought exists. (2) in my argument just assumes it does without answering the mind-body problem.

You can, of course, argue, "Well, rational thought is possible somehow in a deterministic universe, but we just don't know how," which would just be a flat denial of (1). Of course, now you are making an unfounded assertion for which there is absolutely no evidence and, in fact, much against it. If your position is based on blind faith, it isn't rational in the first place. That doesn't make it wrong. It just means your atheism (as you define it) isn't rational.

I have plenty of potential ways to solve the mind-body problem. My own solution is fairly technical and is rooted in Thomistic composite-dualism, but there are other answers as well, including epiphenomenalism, occasionalism, and a host of others. These only make sense with God in the picture. In any case, the point is that the theist has several logically consistent, internally coherent answers to the mind-body problem, even if we haven't settled on the right view yet. Materialists have no such answer because their basic assumptions forbid it.

So, again, the mind-body problem on which you reply says absolutely nothing about the proof. You can rely on it in mere blind faith if you like, of course. Or, you could disavow materialism and posit that there is, in fact, a supernatural aspect to the human being. It doesn't matter how you solve the mind-body problem from my perspective, because you have plenty of theoretical possibilities. You will, then, have accepted a supernatural entity, though, which is all I am trying to prove here.

Quote from: "Jac3510"I wish that people, Christians especially, were not so blind in their faith. The Bible demands otherwise (1 Pet. 3:15).

1 Peter 3:15 (King James Version)

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."

I don't see how that passage could be interpreted as demanding that Christians not be blind in their faith. All it says is to be ready to give an answer. It doesn't say what that answer would be or what, if any, critical thinking the answer is based upon.

"Meekness and fear?"

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Jac3510"I wish that people, Christians especially, were not so blind in their faith. The Bible demands otherwise (1 Pet. 3:15).

1 Peter 3:15 (King James Version)

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."

I don't see how that passage could be interpreted as demanding that Christians not be blind in their faith. All it says is to be ready to give an answer. It doesn't say what that answer would be or what, if any, critical thinking the answer is based upon.

"Meekness and fear?"

Especially when you consider it calls you a fool for not believing in god.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Jac3510"I wish that people, Christians especially, were not so blind in their faith. The Bible demands otherwise (1 Pet. 3:15).

1 Peter 3:15 (King James Version)

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."

I don't see how that passage could be interpreted as demanding that Christians not be blind in their faith. All it says is to be ready to give an answer. It doesn't say what that answer would be or what, if any, critical thinking the answer is based upon.

"Meekness and fear?"

Especially when you consider it calls you a fool for not believing in god.

Well at least we're finally getting down to the nitty-gritty, meaning that Jac has reached the point where he's citing scripture. I can only guess that his next opus will be "Arguments For Why Everything In The Bible is True."

Quote from: "i_am_i"Well at least we're finally getting down to the nitty-gritty, meaning that Jac has reached the point where he's citing scripture. I can only guess that his next opus will be "Arguments For Why Everything In The Bible is True."

Let me cover that entire thread right now.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcoasm.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F06%2Fbreak-the-cycle.jpg&hash=790938ce17726aaab36ba6c0abe98304b52b001d)

that was easy
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leapfile.com%2Ffiles%2Fresize%2Fuploads%2FThatWasEasy-200x152.jpg&hash=0cdc1b39a07c9e6e5a208d3d4fe8a695c27dddc5)

This argument's dead without even breaking a sweat:

Quote from: "Jac3510"1.   If rational thought is possible, materialism is false;

Why?

yet another ex recto blind assertion, and we need go no further. Further, this all rests on the assumption that the umbilicus is a source of information about the real world, and that navel-gazing has any utility in demonstrating an existence postulate.

Got any, you know... evidence?

Quote from: "i_am_i"Well at least we're finally getting down to the nitty-gritty, meaning that Jac has reached the point where he's citing scripture. I can only guess that his next opus will be "Arguments For Why Everything In The Bible is True."

The citation of Scripture is only for the Christian, as the statement itself made clear. Christians ought not have a blind faith because the Bible itself decries blind faith.

If you want to know how the passage decries blind faith:

The word for "answer" here is apologia, from which we have gotten our word "apologetics." The word is derived from two words, apo and logos, where the latter has the basic idea of reason or thought and the first means "out of." Etymologically, it means "[that which comes] out of reason." It is used in both secular and biblical Greek to talk about legal and rational defense. In short, your "apology" was why you believe what you do.

Sadly, most Christians can't offer this apology--this rational defense--when asked for it. We certainly have a hope--the future resurrection of glory with Jesus Christ. But when someone asks us why we believe it, most reply, "Because its in the Bible" or something related. We can talk about what is in the Bible with non-Christians, but you can't do so under the assumption of divine inspiration anymore than a Muslim should expect to get anywhere talking to a Christian assuming the Koran's inspiration. Historical discussions are one thing and require one set of ideas. Theological discussions are quite another.

Quote from: "hackenslash"This argument's dead without even breaking a sweat:

Quote from: "Jac3510"1.   If rational thought is possible, materialism is false;

Why?

yet another ex recto blind assertion, and we need go no further. Further, this all rests on the assumption that the umbilicus is a source of information about the real world, and that navel-gazing has any utility in demonstrating an existence postulate.

Got any, you know... evidence?

Yup. If you'd like to respond to the issues  we've been discussing throughout the thread relating to self-determination, external determination, prescription,and description, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts. If you are just going to offer more boring assertions, as most of your last attempt at refutation proved to be, I'll not waste any more of my time.

As always, I'm looking for discussion, not pontification.

edit:

Let me give you a hint on where to start so that you don't get as off track as you did in the first case. In the very first post in which I introduced the argument, I stated:

Why should we believe it? Very simply, because if materialism were true, then everything would be determined by the laws of nature. Everything. Rocks don’t stop to ponder whether or not they should fall. They do so because that’s just what happens. But that means that what goes on in your head is no exception. Your thoughts arise, in this scheme, from what your brain does. Yet the brain is just chemistry and biology. It may be very complicated chemistry and biology, but it is still just chemistry and biology. This atom is colliding with that one which causes that atom to do that. Ultimately, your thoughts are determined by the chemistry in your brain.

In other words, if there is no part of you that is capable of stepping “outside” the laws of nature and “thinking for itself,” then everything in your brainâ€"including your thoughtsâ€"is absolutely determined by the laws of nature. If that is true, then you aren’t thinking anymore than a rock is thinking when it falls. You are doing the exact same thing a rock is doingâ€"exactly what the laws of nature demand of you at this moment in this time given your particular physical composition.

Now, we don’t consider a rock’s falling “rational.” It isn’t irrational. It is arational, meaning it is just doing what it is doing without any thought, because that is what it does. Likewise, under materialism, your thoughts aren’t rational. They are arational. The idea that you are considering arguments for anything and coming to the “right conclusion” is just an illusion. You are thinking what you are thinking, as am I, because this is what nature has decided we will think at any given moment.

In short, there is no “intellectual faculty by which knowledge is obtained.” There is just chemistry going on in your brain.

Yes, you keep saying that, without having attempted to even address my objections. Shall I add this to your list of evasions? The question is straightforward and simple enough, and since it forms the beginning of your argument, it's a large stumbling block to get over. In your OP here, your dealing with the functioning of the brain was woefully inadequate. The simple fact that the workings of the brain are entirely electro-chemical in nature doesn't support your vacuous blind assertion that this means that all thought is deterministic. Once again, you are overlooking principles that are critical in elucidating thata which you are attempting to critique. Principle among them this time are the principles of emergence and stochasticity.

Frankly, this is still nothing more than weak apologetic excrement.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Yes, you keep saying that, without having attempted to even address my objections. Shall I add this to your list of evasions? The question is straightforward and simple enough, and since it forms the beginning of your argument, it's a large stumbling block to get over. In your OP here, your dealing with the functioning of the brain was woefully inadequate. The simple fact that the workings of the brain are entirely electro-chemical in nature doesn't support your vacuous blind assertion that this means that all thought is deterministic. Once again, you are overlooking principles that are critical in elucidating thata which you are attempting to critique. Principle among them this time are the principles of emergence and stochasticity.

Frankly, this is still nothing more than weak apologetic excrement.

Ah, yes, and the normal Hack comes right back out, substituting rhetoric and obscenity for actual thought. You raise a question as a defeater that I raised and answered in my first post, and rather than responding to the reasoning in the first post, you simply announce your triumph.

I've come to have a good deal of respect for the vast majority of members on this board. You, however, have earned the foe again. As I said before, I'm looking for reasoned debate. You clearly aren't capable of it, which is why I foe'd you from the beginning. You had your chance, and you decided your own entertainment was more important than real discussion. A pity, since some on this board are actually interested in your views. You've basically told them all to piss off, that you're more interested in vitriol. As for me, I'll not waste one more moment on your sad attempts at preaching. When I want a sermon, I'll go to church.

The good news in all this, anyway, is that I hardly think the board will lose the slightest value in this. There are plenty of people here who have more than adequately questioned my positions and have been able to come to their own conclusions. I only expect more in the future.

hack,

You've been foe'd by Jac, but could you explain your objection to me?  It seems to me that materialism entails determinism.  Determinism seems incompatible with rational choices as defined by Jac.  Jac explained that in the OP.  Davin and epepke gave terrific explanations of why computers could be said to be thinking rationally, but computers were still created by  humans making rational choices.  One could simply say that even if rational thought was being performed by a computer, that rational thought still entails a creator.  Materialism denies a creator of humans.  How is Jac's argument unsound?  How is his definition of rational thought unsound?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"hack,

You've been foe'd by Jac, but could you explain your objection to me?  It seems to me that materialism entails determinism.  Determinism seems incompatible with rational choices as defined by Jac.  Jac explained that in the OP.  Davin and epepke gave terrific explanations of why computers could be said to be thinking rationally, but computers were still created by  humans making rational choices.  One could simply say that even if rational thought was being performed by a computer, that rational thought still entails a creator.  Materialism denies a creator of humans.  How is Jac's argument unsound?  How is his definition of rational thought unsound?

It's unsound because it's rooted in the assumption implicit in his first premise. That the brain operates on a purely electrochemical basis in no way makes it deterministic. This is substantially supported in the simple fact that our brains are wired completely differently. Our synaptic connections are made through our experiences and what we learn. It isn't his definition of rational thought that is unsound (although it's less than completely rigorous), but that first premise, which is stated as if it's uncontroversial, but fails to take into account the principles of stochasticity and emergence. The brain and its functions are both emergent and stochastic. Moreover, the functions of the brain reside in the quantum realm, which absolutely rules out determinism, because all neural processes are subject to the uncertainty principle.

Just so that this doesn't go unanswered:

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "hackenslash"Yes, you keep saying that, without having attempted to even address my objections. Shall I add this to your list of evasions? The question is straightforward and simple enough, and since it forms the beginning of your argument, it's a large stumbling block to get over. In your OP here, your dealing with the functioning of the brain was woefully inadequate. The simple fact that the workings of the brain are entirely electro-chemical in nature doesn't support your vacuous blind assertion that this means that all thought is deterministic. Once again, you are overlooking principles that are critical in elucidating thata which you are attempting to critique. Principle among them this time are the principles of emergence and stochasticity.

Frankly, this is still nothing more than weak apologetic excrement.

Ah, yes, and the normal Hack comes right back out, substituting rhetoric and obscenity for actual thought.

What obscenity? I see no obscenity in the quoted post (which I include here only to reinforce the point.

QuoteYou raise a question as a defeater that I raised and answered in my first post, and rather than responding to the reasoning in the first post, you simply announce your triumph.

Already dealt with this horseshit. You didn't raise and answer it in the post, except to deliver a pathetically ignorant presentation of the operating principles of the brain. This was dealt with in the above post. I note you still have no responses to the valid rebuttals of your point. The question stands unanswered.

QuoteI've come to have a good deal of respect for the vast majority of members on this board.

Good, they deserve it.

QuoteYou, however, have earned the foe again.

Diddums. It amuses me to think that my comments were for your benefit. I have no interest in discussing this guff with an apologist. My comments are for the onlookers only, to see that that which you extract from your rectum doesn't go unchallenged. It also amuses me that anybody who claims to be rational will reach for the foe function at the drop of a hat, especially when he doesn't want to, or can't, answer the challenges put before him.

QuoteAs I said before, I'm looking for reasoned debate.

No you aren't. You're interested i the same thing that all apologists employing your line of argumentation are after, namely the obfuscation of reality so that you can bury your pathetic imaginary friend in your empty rhetoric. If you were remotely interested in reasoned debate, you'd actually rise to the challenges put to you. That's OK, many of your ilk simply run away when it gets too hot.

QuoteYou clearly aren't capable of it, which is why I foe'd you from the beginning. You had your chance, and you decided your own entertainment was more important than real discussion.

I'm not here for entertainment. I'm only here to see that ignorant guff doesn't go unchallenged. i can tell that others here see you as being very reasonable. I, however, have a great deal of experience in dealing with your obfuscatory, ignorant wibble, and I recognise it for precisely what it is, namely apologetic bullshit with precisely zero utility. All your arguments are circular, precisely because you aren't interested in enquiring about reality, only in supporting your prior assumptions. Another great source of amusement is anybody attempting to apply logic without once referring to the principle of parsimony.

QuoteA pity, since some on this board are actually interested in your views. You've basically told them all to piss off,

I've told them nothing of the kind. Indeed, I have presented my objections and arguments in a vastly toned-down manner, yet you want to behave like I shot you in the face, just because I refuse to genuflect before your peurile little masturbation fantasy.

Quotethat you're more interested in vitriol.

Not at all. I'm interested in the truth. You, on the other hand, are only interested in your tortuous attempted justifications for believing in that which is entirely illogical, unsupportable, and without merit in any way, shape or form.

QuoteAs for me, I'll not waste one more moment on your sad attempts at preaching. When I want a sermon, I'll go to church.

Lovely case of projection you have there.

QuoteThe good news in all this, anyway, is that I hardly think the board will lose the slightest value in this. There are plenty of people here who have more than adequately questioned my positions and have been able to come to their own conclusions. I only expect more in the future.

While I have nothing but respect for the arguments presented by others, my own objection has not been addressed. Your first premise here is nothing more than made-up nonsense, rooted in crass ignorance of how the brain operates.

Run away all you like. Another apologist will be along any moment, I'm sure.

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"hack,

You've been foe'd by Jac, but could you explain your objection to me?  It seems to me that materialism entails determinism.  Determinism seems incompatible with rational choices as defined by Jac.  Jac explained that in the OP.  Davin and epepke gave terrific explanations of why computers could be said to be thinking rationally, but computers were still created by  humans making rational choices.  One could simply say that even if rational thought was being performed by a computer, that rational thought still entails a creator.  Materialism denies a creator of humans.  How is Jac's argument unsound?  How is his definition of rational thought unsound?

It's unsound because it's rooted in the assumption implicit in his first premise. That the brain operates on a purely electrochemical basis in no way makes it deterministic. This is substantially supported in the simple fact that our brains are wired completely differently. Our synaptic connections are made through our experiences and what we learn. It isn't his definition of rational thought that is unsound (although it's less than completely rigorous), but that first premise, which is stated as if it's uncontroversial, but fails to take into account the principles of stochasticity and emergence. The brain and its functions are both emergent and stochastic. Moreover, the functions of the brain reside in the quantum realm, which absolutely rules out determinism, because all neural processes are subject to the uncertainty principle.

I figured you'd say something smarty arty like that.  Stochasticity?  Show off   Thanks hack.

Just for clarification, and for the edification of those without a google button, a stochastic system is one whose future state is dependent upon initial conditions plus one or more random variables (where random means 'statistically independent', not 'uncaused' or 'without mechanism'). A perfect example of a stochastic system is DNA, which acquires mutations through many mechanisms, but what the mutation might be or where it might occur in the genome are statistically independent, which basically means that any given mutation is precisely as likely as any other, based on initial conditions. The brain is another perfect example, because future brain states are dependent on initial conditions and random variables in the form of statistically independent new synaptic connections, based on unique learning or other neural input. To state categorically that the brain being material in nature necessarily renders it deterministic is crass in the extreme. On this point alone, this thread fails.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Davin, since you are so hung up on scientific description, let me just ask you a simple question:

Is gravity a prescriptive or descriptive process?

Never thought of it as a process, always thought of it as a force. It couldn't really be much of a process, only one step. Also gravity is neither prescriptive or descriptive. The theory of gravity however is very descriptive.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Davin"So the only difference between the decisions made by Deep Blue and the decisions made by Kasparov, is that Kasparov could choose to make an irrational decision. Well, we could program that into Deep Blue, would that satisfy this new condition?

You couldn't program that into DB. That's the whole point. DB will always make "choices" based on what its programming requires. If it finally identifies the best move and then it comes across a line, "IF X > 0 ActRationally(x) ELSE ActIrrationally(y);" then DB still is required to make a decision based on its dataset. DB doesn't have the choice to act irrationally, and thus, it doesn't the choice to act rationally. It's behavior is merely descriptive and not at all prescriptive.

That's not the only logical structure available for getting a program to make decisions. Another problem is that there aren't "lines" once the program is compiled, the only purpose for "lines" is to make it easier for the programmer to read and edit the program, but are just a waste for the machine. Despite all that, wouldn't that be the same thing Kasparov would do? Kasparov would think of the best answer, then just decide to make a bad move. It would be too late for Kasparov to act irrationally, because he'd already thought about it, has what he thinks is the best move, but decides not to make that move and make a bad move instead. He's already gone through the rational thought process, but decided that making a bad move was more important to him.

Your described process is also a waste of time, to be more efficient Deep Blue should first see if it is going to be rational, that way it wouldn't have to waste all that time looking for the best answer if it's not going to act rationally.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteWrong. Not just a dataset. Any way, how is this different than people basing their decisions on what they've learned?

Yes, just a dataset. It doesn't matter the source of that data. It could have been built in or learned.That dataset, of course, is acted upon by a library of functions, but the dataset is the determinative factor always. And it is different from what people learn exactly as I described above. We have the ability to choose. Computers don't.

No, still wrong. The dataset is a determining factor, but not the only one. That doesn't explain how humans basing decisions on what they learn is different than a program basing decisions on what it learns, obviously both have the ability choose... programs would be pretty useless if they couldn't decide on anything.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteHow is that different from, "if I knew what Kasparov knew, what he was thinking and how he thinks then I'd know what he would do"?

Because you can't know what Kasparov will do. You can know what he ought to do. But Kasparov, unlike DB, is not a machine. He has the ability to act both rationally and irrationally. DB does not. DB just responds to its dataset.

Well here is the comparison problem: You said we can determine what Deep Blue would do if we looked at it's dataset and it's programming, while we can't do that to Kasparov. That makes it an unfair comparison because we can't compare them like that. Until we know how the brain works that is. Who's to say that if we knew what Kasparov knew, what he was thinking and how brain works, that we wouldn't be able to determine what Kasparov would do?

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteSo, by your definition; in order to be rational, one must be able to act irrationally?

Yes, of course. By defining rational, you define irrational and vice versa. You may as well ask for a one sided coin as to ask for rationality without irrationality. It's the same issue as with good and evil. Giving someone the ability to choose the good, by definition, is to give them the ability to choose evil. Rationality presupposes choice, else it is not rational.

I guess that goes back to the definitions of rational thought.

With my definitions it's easy to determine whether one is thinking rationally or not: Examine the reasoning you went through to come to your conclusion for any fallacies, if no fallacy, then it's a rational thought.

Would you please explain the process for determining whether someone has a rational thought with your definition?

So.... is believing in Zeus more rational than atheism?

What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

By this argument it seems as long as I put faith in some sort of all powerful being I would be far more rational than any skeptic.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Jac3510"Davin, since you are so hung up on scientific description, let me just ask you a simple question:

Is gravity a prescriptive or descriptive process?

Never thought of it as a process, always thought of it as a force. It couldn't really be much of a process, only one step. Also gravity is neither prescriptive or descriptive. The theory of gravity however is very descriptive.

All qualifications aside, fine, I agree. The theory of gravity is descriptive. And why would you not call it prescriptive? Bear with me, because this should help me explain my basic point, and it should help us identify our difference of thought here.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Davin"So the only difference between the decisions made by Deep Blue and the decisions made by Kasparov, is that Kasparov could choose to make an irrational decision. Well, we could program that into Deep Blue, would that satisfy this new condition?

You couldn't program that into DB. That's the whole point. DB will always make "choices" based on what its programming requires. If it finally identifies the best move and then it comes across a line, "IF X > 0 ActRationally(x) ELSE ActIrrationally(y);" then DB still is required to make a decision based on its dataset. DB doesn't have the choice to act irrationally, and thus, it doesn't the choice to act rationally. It's behavior is merely descriptive and not at all prescriptive.

That's not the only logical structure available for getting a program to make decisions. Another problem is that there aren't "lines" once the program is compiled, the only purpose for "lines" is to make it easier for the programmer to read and edit the program, but are just a waste for the machine. Despite all that, wouldn't that be the same thing Kasparov would do? Kasparov would think of the best answer, then just decide to make a bad move. It would be too late for Kasparov to act irrationally, because he'd already thought about it, has what he thinks is the best move, but decides not to make that move and make a bad move instead. He's already gone through the rational thought process, but decided that making a bad move was more important to him.

Your described process is also a waste of time, to be more efficient Deep Blue should first see if it is going to be rational, that way it wouldn't have to waste all that time looking for the best answer if it's not going to act rationally.

Calculating the best move isn't rational. Nor is making the right move rational. "Rational" implies a certain context. For example, let's say Qh3 was the best move on the board possible. Kasparov and DB can both tell you that for reasons that neither you nor I could possibly think of. Now, suppose a brand new chess player just decides on a whim to make the same move. There is a difference in context. Kasparov and DB have made certain calculations. For the new player, it just strikes his fancy. For Kasparov, the move may be rational (we'll address DB next). For the new player, it isn't rational or irrational. It was just done "on a whim." Beginner's luck.

So why is it rational for Kasparov? For two reasons: first, he is capable of considering the move in the context of other moves. DB can certainly do that. However, what Kasparov can do that DB can't is, once he has discovered the best move, choose to act in a manner that is not in his best interest. If he decides to make another move, we can say that he made an irrational move. There was no reason for it. In fact, there were reasons not to do so. The same can't be said about the new player. Their bad moves aren't necessarily irrational. The best move they have under the circumstances may be a bad move that Kasparov can take advantage of, whereas had Kasparov himself made the move, it would have been irrational.

DB cannot fulfill this second aspect of the criteria for rationality, namely, free choice. DB is not free to make its own decisions. Its decisions are 100% determined by its programming. There is nothing "inside" of DB that can step outside of its dataset and decide whether or not it wants to execute the command. To colloquial terms, it doesn't have free will. It doesn't have a choice between being rational or irrational; ergo, it isn't being "rational" at all. It is just doing what DB does. To put it in the technical terms I've been using through this thread, it makes no sense to talk about DB's moves in prescriptive terms, i.e., "DB ought to move his queen to h3." You may as well tell a rock it "ought" to fall. If the program determines that to be most valuable move given its dataset, it will make that move. If not, it will make another. The entire process is strictly descriptive. Again, there is, then, no rationality.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteWrong. Not just a dataset. Any way, how is this different than people basing their decisions on what they've learned?

Yes, just a dataset. It doesn't matter the source of that data. It could have been built in or learned.That dataset, of course, is acted upon by a library of functions, but the dataset is the determinative factor always. And it is different from what people learn exactly as I described above. We have the ability to choose. Computers don't.

No, still wrong. The dataset is a determining factor, but not the only one. That doesn't explain how humans basing decisions on what they learn is different than a program basing decisions on what it learns, obviously both have the ability choose... programs would be pretty useless if they couldn't decide on anything.

Yes, still just a dataset. That dataset may be a part of the initial program. They may be learned by repeated use or by exposure to some environment. But the program always acts on data. Computer programs don't "choose." They calculate variables based on the program's architecture and execute based on that. In other words, a computer's actions are strictly deterministic.

Human thought doesn't seem to be that way. If it turns out that it is, then I argue that human thought isn't rational either. That's my whole point. A predetermined thought is not a rational thought. It's just a predetermined thought. It isn't rational because rationality presuppose prescriptive value: we ought to think this or that. If we do, we're rational; if we don't, we're irrational. That kind of language makes absolutely no sense when applied to software. The best you can say is, "It ought to do this or that [if I've understood the data correctly]." In fact, this is the entire reason we can troubleshoot programs. We expect certain output given certain input precisely because the output is determined by the input relative to the program's architecture. If the output is not what we expect, then the problem is either with the data or with the series of commands it is subject to. We look until we find the problem and we fix it.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteHow is that different from, "if I knew what Kasparov knew, what he was thinking and how he thinks then I'd know what he would do"?

Because you can't know what Kasparov will do. You can know what he ought to do. But Kasparov, unlike DB, is not a machine. He has the ability to act both rationally and irrationally. DB does not. DB just responds to its dataset.

Well here is the comparison problem: You said we can determine what Deep Blue would do if we looked at it's dataset and it's programming, while we can't do that to Kasparov. That makes it an unfair comparison because we can't compare them like that. Until we know how the brain works that is. Who's to say that if we knew what Kasparov knew, what he was thinking and how brain works, that we wouldn't be able to determine what Kasparov would do?

Again, if it turns out that the human brain is nothing but a complex, deterministic machine--which must be the case under materialism--then Kasparov would work exactly like DB. In that case, human thought is not rational, because it is strictly deterministic. But since our experience strongly suggests that we have the ability to choose to act freely in an irrational manner, then we have good reason, until proven otherwise, to take it for granted that we can, in fact, be rational or irrational, and that the way we think is fundamentally different from the way computer's think.

Let me repeat for emphasis, if future studies demonstrate that our brains work exactly like a highly complex DB, and that we, in fact, have no self-determination over our thoughts, then the conclusion is not that computers are rational, but that human thought is arational, which is the point of my entire argument. Externally determined thought is not rational. Only thought that has a self-determined component can be considered rational (or irrational) because of the prescriptive nature of rationality.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteSo, by your definition; in order to be rational, one must be able to act irrationally?

Yes, of course. By defining rational, you define irrational and vice versa. You may as well ask for a one sided coin as to ask for rationality without irrationality. It's the same issue as with good and evil. Giving someone the ability to choose the good, by definition, is to give them the ability to choose evil. Rationality presupposes choice, else it is not rational.

I guess that goes back to the definitions of rational thought.

With my definitions it's easy to determine whether one is thinking rationally or not: Examine the reasoning you went through to come to your conclusion for any fallacies, if no fallacy, then it's a rational thought.

Would you please explain the process for determining whether someone has a rational thought with your definition?

The process is just the same as yours. I want to make an A on my test. Logic and experience tells me I'd better study, not stay up all night talking on a discussion board. The rational thing to do is to study. The irrational thing to do is to stay up all night talking on the discussion board.

Notice the nature of the choice. By defining a rational thing, you are simultaneously defining the irrational thing. If the rational thing to do is turn right, then the irrational thing is to turn left. If the rational thing is to make save your money, the irrational thing is to spend it. It is meaningless to speak of a rational choice without an opposite irrational choice. Further, it is meaningless to talk about something being "rational" if there is no choice at all. Suppose you and I are playing chess (since that's the running analogy). Suppose you have forced me into one move from checkmate. The only move I can legally make is, say, a pawn up one space. Is that a "rational" choice? No. It is neither rational nor irrational. If I tried to move my knight, you would object that the move is illegal, not irrational. It is neither a good move nor a bad move. It is the only move the game allows. There is no rationality to it. It is mechanical--determined.

If, however, I have two moves--I can move my pawn or my knight, and if the knight will not only preserve me from checkmate, but put you in checkmate--and I make move the pawn rather than the knight, you can rightly accuse me of being irrational in my move.

So rationality as a whole only has meaning where there is choice--where there is prescription, or "ought." If, then, human thought is determined, there is no ought, there is only "is." Therefore, there is no rationality. No position is rational. All thoughts are arational, just as the falling of rock is arational. If materialism is true and my thoughts are determined not by me, but my physics, then I have no choice to think other than like I do, just as you have no choice but to think other than like you do. I don't think this way by any virtue of my intelligence anymore than you do. I think this way because nature so made me, just as it so made me a white, male human.

No program, DB or otherwise, can meet this criteria of self-determination. It seems that we can. If so, there must be some aspect of us outside of the laws of physics that allows for self-determination. Shy of that, we are completely externally determined and arational.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "Sophus"So.... is believing in Zeus more rational than atheism?

What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

By this argument it seems as long as I put faith in some sort of all powerful being I would be far more rational than any skeptic.

Belief in god or God or anything in between has no bearing on the discussion. Pantheism doesn't hold to a belief in God but it could explain the presence of rationality by appealing to the universal consciousness.

The argument simply proves that there is something that exists and operates beyond the laws of nature. If the only things that exist and operate are found within and governed by the laws of nature, then rational thought is impossible. If you believe that rational thought is possible, I argue that the only way to be logically consistent--indeed, to be rational--is to accept that there must be a supernatural aspect to the human, whatever that aspect may be.

Pardon my troll...

Quote from: "Jac3510"The argument simply proves that there is something that exists and operates beyond the laws of nature.

Your argument is just an argument and has proven nothing. I would like to say more about your understanding of nature in itself, but I think that reading and education is something one has to be interested in in the first place.

Quote from: "Jac3510"If the only things that exist and operate are found within and governed by the laws of nature, then rational thought is impossible.

Rational thought is thought with reason, and thus any time you have a reason for thinking something... it is rational, so I don't understand why you say this.

Quote from: "Jac3510"If you believe that rational thought is possible, I argue that the only way to be logically consistent--indeed, to be rational--is to accept that there must be a supernatural aspect to the human, whatever that aspect may be.

I would argue the opposite, I believe that rational thought is impossible when you believe in a higher power, because you either believe that God is in control and thus there is no free will, there's no such thing as right and wrong and everything happens for a reason...

Or you believe that God gave us free will and some how that means that God is waiting for us all to make good choices and somehow through hundreds of years of murderous and holy wars somehow through the generations some few found the right answer which is God...

If I have just created a fallacy, inform me of such please.

But I do believe that as long as religions exist rational thought of believers will be limited to circular reasoning.

Again, apologies for the troll.

Look forward to reading this post further.

Quote from: "Jac"The argument simply proves that there is something that exists and operates beyond the laws of nature. If the only things that exist and operate are found within and governed by the laws of nature, then rational thought is impossible. If you believe that rational thought is possible, I argue that the only way to be logically consistent--indeed, to be rational--is to accept that there must be a supernatural aspect to the human, whatever that aspect may be

This claim is still irrational. You're confusing epistemology with reason.

Do I believe rational thought is possible? Sure. Do I believe absolute knowledge can be obtained through it? Nope.

You will never prove anything that exists beyond nature or is supernatural. By its very definition you can't.

Quote from: "Jac3510"All qualifications aside, fine, I agree. The theory of gravity is descriptive. And why would you not call it prescriptive? Bear with me, because this should help me explain my basic point, and it should help us identify our difference of thought here.

Why don't we just skip the game and you tell me your idea?

Quote from: "Jac3510"Calculating the best move isn't rational. Nor is making the right move rational. "Rational" implies a certain context. For example, let's say Qh3 was the best move on the board possible. Kasparov and DB can both tell you that for reasons that neither you nor I could possibly think of. Now, suppose a brand new chess player just decides on a whim to make the same move. There is a difference in context. Kasparov and DB have made certain calculations. For the new player, it just strikes his fancy. For Kasparov, the move may be rational (we'll address DB next). For the new player, it isn't rational or irrational. It was just done "on a whim." Beginner's luck.

So why is it rational for Kasparov? For two reasons: first, he is capable of considering the move in the context of other moves. DB can certainly do that. However, what Kasparov can do that DB can't is, once he has discovered the best move, choose to act in a manner that is not in his best interest. If he decides to make another move, we can say that he made an irrational move. There was no reason for it. In fact, there were reasons not to do so. The same can't be said about the new player. Their bad moves aren't necessarily irrational. The best move they have under the circumstances may be a bad move that Kasparov can take advantage of, whereas had Kasparov himself made the move, it would have been irrational.

DB cannot fulfill this second aspect of the criteria for rationality, namely, free choice. DB is not free to make its own decisions. Its decisions are 100% determined by its programming. There is nothing "inside" of DB that can step outside of its dataset and decide whether or not it wants to execute the command. To colloquial terms, it doesn't have free will. It doesn't have a choice between being rational or irrational; ergo, it isn't being "rational" at all. It is just doing what DB does. To put it in the technical terms I've been using through this thread, it makes no sense to talk about DB's moves in prescriptive terms, i.e., "DB ought to move his queen to h3." You may as well tell a rock it "ought" to fall. If the program determines that to be most valuable move given its dataset, it will make that move. If not, it will make another. The entire process is strictly descriptive. Again, there is, then, no rationality.

Describe the "ought" because it seems as though there's no solid definition.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Yes, still just a dataset. That dataset may be a part of the initial program. They may be learned by repeated use or by exposure to some environment. But the program always acts on data. Computer programs don't "choose." They calculate variables based on the program's architecture and execute based on that. In other words, a computer's actions are strictly deterministic.

No, not just a dataset. In fact many programs run just fine without datasets. Programs can even run without any input data. They can even run without any output data. What this means is that programs are more complex and sometimes more basic than just something that processes data. I did notice however that you stopped using the term dataset and continued on with the term data as if you were talking about the same thing, very poor form.

We can say the same thing for outputs of humans, if it's not correct, we go back in and help them to be able come up with the correct answer. Again, I see no distinction between the rationality of a computer and the rationality of a person. The difference I see is how we correct the person against how we correct these kinds of basic programs.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Human thought doesn't seem to be that way. If it turns out that it is, then I argue that human thought isn't rational either. That's my whole point. A predetermined thought is not a rational thought. It's just a predetermined thought. It isn't rational because rationality presuppose prescriptive value: we ought to think this or that. If we do, we're rational; if we don't, we're irrational. That kind of language makes absolutely no sense when applied to software. The best you can say is, "It ought to do this or that [if I've understood the data correctly]." In fact, this is the entire reason we can troubleshoot programs. We expect certain output given certain input precisely because the output is determined by the input relative to the program's architecture. If the output is not what we expect, then the problem is either with the data or with the series of commands it is subject to. We look until we find the problem and we fix it.

There are many programs where the whole deal with using them is because we can't determine what they will do. If you go to a grocery store and use the club card thing, then you're participating in that. The reason computers are used is because the process is too complicated for a human and no one can determine what the results will be... because if some one could, then the companies that data mine wouldn't need to spend billions a year on computers that do it. The results however, have shown to be effective, which is why they do it.

Just as Kasparov couldn't determine the moves Deep Blue would make, and if the programmers that programmed deep blue could determine what moves Deep Blue would make, then they could beat Kasparov... which they couldn't. Some of the people that helped with Deep Blue played against Kasparov and lost, yet Deep Blue won. That is an example of Deep Blue performing in a way that could not be determined.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Again, if it turns out that the human brain is nothing but a complex, deterministic machine--which must be the case under materialism--then Kasparov would work exactly like DB. In that case, human thought is not rational, because it is strictly deterministic. But since our experience strongly suggests that we have the ability to choose to act freely in an irrational manner, then we have good reason, until proven otherwise, to take it for granted that we can, in fact, be rational or irrational, and that the way we think is fundamentally different from the way computer's think.

Let me repeat for emphasis, if future studies demonstrate that our brains work exactly like a highly complex DB, and that we, in fact, have no self-determination over our thoughts, then the conclusion is not that computers are rational, but that human thought is arational, which is the point of my entire argument. Externally determined thought is not rational. Only thought that has a self-determined component can be considered rational (or irrational) because of the prescriptive nature of rationality.

Any way, before this goal post moves any further, just state all your objections right now and then we can discuss those.

Quote from: "Jac3510"The process is just the same as yours. I want to make an A on my test. Logic and experience tells me I'd better study, not stay up all night talking on a discussion board. The rational thing to do is to study. The irrational thing to do is to stay up all night talking on the discussion board.

Not for me, I never studied for any test and still got A's, while also hardly ever sleeping more than four hours a night.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Notice the nature of the choice. By defining a rational thing, you are simultaneously defining the irrational thing. If the rational thing to do is turn right, then the irrational thing is to turn left. If the rational thing is to make save your money, the irrational thing is to spend it. It is meaningless to speak of a rational choice without an opposite irrational choice. Further, it is meaningless to talk about something being "rational" if there is no choice at all. Suppose you and I are playing chess (since that's the running analogy). Suppose you have forced me into one move from checkmate. The only move I can legally make is, say, a pawn up one space. Is that a "rational" choice? No. It is neither rational nor irrational. If I tried to move my knight, you would object that the move is illegal, not irrational. It is neither a good move nor a bad move. It is the only move the game allows. There is no rationality to it. It is mechanical--determined.

If, however, I have two moves--I can move my pawn or my knight, and if the knight will not only preserve me from checkmate, but put you in checkmate--and I make move the pawn rather than the knight, you can rightly accuse me of being irrational in my move.

So rationality as a whole only has meaning where there is choice--where there is prescription, or "ought." If, then, human thought is determined, there is no ought, there is only "is." Therefore, there is no rationality. No position is rational. All thoughts are arational, just as the falling of rock is arational. If materialism is true and my thoughts are determined not by me, but my physics, then I have no choice to think other than like I do, just as you have no choice but to think other than like you do. I don't think this way by any virtue of my intelligence anymore than you do. I think this way because nature so made me, just as it so made me a white, male human.

No program, DB or otherwise, can meet this criteria of self-determination. It seems that we can. If so, there must be some aspect of us outside of the laws of physics that allows for self-determination. Shy of that, we are completely externally determined and arational.

This doesn't make much sense, in order to make a rational choice one must define an irrational choice? I really don't think it's necessary to define every choice available in order to make a rational choice, otherwise no human could be rational because we can't possibly consider each and every choice when we make a decision, however we can make sure that each choice is rational just by making sure the choice we make is logical, objective and mechanical.

It seems like you're trying to make rational thought into something that it's not. Rationality is cold, determined and mechanical by every definition I've ever seen... until yours. Rationality entails taking the information and seeing where it leads, making sure that your logic is valid, leaving only one or no choice if you're being rational. All you have to do to be irrational, is to use fallacies in your logic.

Quote from: "Jac3510"The argument simply proves that there is something that exists and operates beyond the laws of nature. If the only things that exist and operate are found within and governed by the laws of nature, then rational thought is impossible. If you believe that rational thought is possible, I argue that the only way to be logically consistent--indeed, to be rational--is to accept that there must be a supernatural aspect to the human, whatever that aspect may be.

What your argument proves is that you want there to be something that exists and operates beyond the laws of nature. And, of course, that thing that you want to exist and operate beyond the laws of nature is God with a capital G.

That's what your argument proves.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Jac"The argument simply proves that there is something that exists and operates beyond the laws of nature. If the only things that exist and operate are found within and governed by the laws of nature, then rational thought is impossible. If you believe that rational thought is possible, I argue that the only way to be logically consistent--indeed, to be rational--is to accept that there must be a supernatural aspect to the human, whatever that aspect may be

This claim is still irrational. You're confusing epistemology with reason.

Do I believe rational thought is possible? Sure. Do I believe absolute knowledge can be obtained through it? Nope.

You will never prove anything that exists beyond nature or is supernatural. By its very definition you can't.

Actually, I'm talking about the ontology of reason, not the epistemology of reason.

I'm not talking about what we can know about the external world through reason. I am talking about what the very presence of reason necessarily assumes. For example, suppose you saw fire. You would know that there is oxygen in the room. Why? Because there can be no fire without oxygen. I'm arguing that the nature of rationality is that it requires a supernatural backing.

We know that is true because of the arguments I have made throughout this thread. Rationality depends on prescriptive language because the laws of logic are prescriptive in nature. Yet under determinism, there is no prescription, only description. Therefore, logic, and thus rationality, cannot exist under materialism. Logic and rationality presuppose prescriptive language, which presupposes self-determination, which negates materialism.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Jac3510"All qualifications aside, fine, I agree. The theory of gravity is descriptive. And why would you not call it prescriptive? Bear with me, because this should help me explain my basic point, and it should help us identify our difference of thought here.

Why don't we just skip the game and you tell me your idea?

Because you keep telling me that I am making too many assumptions. So rather than stretch this out any further, why don't you just tell me why you wouldn't refer to the theory of gravity as prescriptive?

QuoteDescribe the "ought" because it seems as though there's no solid definition.

Ought - that which refers to duty or obligation

QuoteNo, not just a dataset. In fact many programs run just fine without datasets. Programs can even run without any input data. They can even run without any output data. What this means is that programs are more complex and sometimes more basic than just something that processes data. I did notice however that you stopped using the term dataset and continued on with the term data as if you were talking about the same thing, very poor form.

We can say the same thing for outputs of humans, if it's not correct, we go back in and help them to be able come up with the correct answer. Again, I see no distinction between the rationality of a computer and the rationality of a person. The difference I see is how we correct the person against how we correct these kinds of basic programs.

I'm not going to quibble about the technical words of programing jargon. Even programs that run without input are operating on something. If I write a program that just prints "Hello, world!" to the screen, the program is still dealing with basic data--"hello, world."

There is a huge difference in correcting a human "output" and a computer's output. In the former, we say, "No, you made a mistake. You should have concluded this." In the latter, we say, "No. I made a mistake. I should have run this."

Programs execute the instructions we give them. The mistakes are our own, not the programs. When Windows crashes, it isn't being "irrational." The mistake lies ultimately with the imperfection of the programmer. We may say colloquially that the program "ought" not to have crashed, but we only mean in so saying that that was not our intention. We didn't intend on it to crash. Strictly speaking the program "ought" not do anything. It just did what it did. It is a purely descriptive process. In the case of a human, if I argue that 2+2=5, then you can well say that I am being irrational, because I "ought" to recognize that two and two make four.

In fact, this entire conversation is evidence of what I am talking about. If you are right, I "ought" to see my mistake and retract the argument once you have proven it fallacious. Even if you do, however, there is no guarantee I will, because I could well be a dishonest hack who doesn't care about being rational. But that, of course, is the rub. To be rational is to do what I ought to do, not to do what I just am doing. Under materialism, there is no such thing as ought. I am just doing what nature determines I will do. All of my, and your, arguments are merely arational.

QuoteThere are many programs where the whole deal with using them is because we can't determine what they will do. If you go to a grocery store and use the club card thing, then you're participating in that. The reason computers are used is because the process is too complicated for a human and no one can determine what the results will be... because if some one could, then the companies that data mine wouldn't need to spend billions a year on computers that do it. The results however, have shown to be effective, which is why they do it.

Just as Kasparov couldn't determine the moves Deep Blue would make, and if the programmers that programmed deep blue could determine what moves Deep Blue would make, then they could beat Kasparov... which they couldn't. Some of the people that helped with Deep Blue played against Kasparov and lost, yet Deep Blue won. That is an example of Deep Blue performing in a way that could not be determined.

Notice the bolded part above. The reason we can't predict the outcome of such things is not because they are inherently unpredictable, but rather simply because we, as humans, are not capable of such predictions. So we build machines that can predict such things.

So I could build a computer that will predict what Kasparov ought to do. I can take it a step further and build a program that can analyze not only what he ought to do, but what would be the strongest response based on anything that he actually does do. None of this, however, will tell me what Kasparov will do. Even if I had full access to the world's most powerful supercomputer and could map every neuron in his brain and could fully map how every atom would necessarily respond to the others, there is still no reason to suppose that I could predict Kasparov's move unless determinism is true. If it is, then I could predict every move he will make because he doesn't really have any choice in the matter.

In the same way, I can, in principle, write a program that will predict exactly what DB will do. No human, including Kasparov, can do it, of course, because no human can perform those calculations. But if I am fully aware of how the DB programming works and know every piece of data it is operating on, then I can determine, using exactly the same process it uses, what it will choose on any given move. That's because, whatever is true about Kasparov, determinism is true about Deep Blue. And for that reason, we don't call DB "rational." There is no prescription whatsoever. DB "ought" not do anything; it simply does what it does. Kasparov, on the other hand, "ought" to do certain things, since he is a free agent capable of acting in accordance with what he calculates is the best possible move.

QuoteAny way, before this goal post moves any further, just state all your objections right now and then we can discuss those.

I'm arguing exactly the same thing I have been arguing the entire time.

If materialism is true, rational thought is impossible, because rational thought presupposes prescriptive language which is not possible under determinism. I said all of this in the very first post.

QuoteThis doesn't make much sense, in order to make a rational choice one must define an irrational choice? I really don't think it's necessary to define every choice available in order to make a rational choice, otherwise no human could be rational because we can't possibly consider each and every choice when we make a decision, however we can make sure that each choice is rational just by making sure the choice we make is logical, objective and mechanical.

It seems like you're trying to make rational thought into something that it's not. Rationality is cold, determined and mechanical by every definition I've ever seen... until yours. Rationality entails taking the information and seeing where it leads, making sure that your logic is valid, leaving only one or no choice if you're being rational. All you have to do to be irrational, is to use fallacies in your logic.

No, you misunderstood me. I did not say in order to make a rational choice one must first define the irrational choice. I am saying that in labeling a choice irrational you are simultaneously labeling its contraries irrational. In other words, it is logically impossible to have a rational statement without an irrational counterpart. This does not mean that we have to consider all of these irrational counterparts. It only means that we could if we so desired precisely because rational choices define irrational choices. For instance, if I flip a coin and it lands on heads, that doesn't mean that I have to look at tails to know what heads is.

I am not, then, talking about how you know what is rational. That is the same mistake Sophus made above. I am talking about the nature of rationality itself. What does it mean for something to be rational? It means to be in accordance with sound reason, which is a prescriptive definition. What DB does is not "rational." It's mere calculation and execution. It can't act rationally or irrationally. It just acts as it is determined to do so.

Just like you don't call a rock falling "rational," you don't call DB's moves "rational." Both are exactly the same. They are externally determined. The only way for something to be rational is if it conforms with reason; that is, if the person thinks as they ought to think based on what they know.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Because you keep telling me that I am making too many assumptions. So rather than stretch this out any further, why don't you just tell me why you wouldn't refer to the theory of gravity as prescriptive?

Because the theory of gravity, like all theories, is an explanatory framework dealing with a class of facts. All theories are, by their very nature, descriptive. Gravity is prescriptive. The theory of gravity is decsriptive.

Ignorant wibble.

Just want to help clarify some things for you here.

Quote from: "Jac3510"If materialism is true, rational thought is impossible, because rational thought presupposes prescriptive language which is not possible under determinism. I said all of this in the very first post.

If I have a reason to be materialistic (i.e. I chose to be this way), then I am both materialistic and rational.

Rational thought and materialism have no direct connection and cannot be canceled out by either one's existence.

You may need to qualify your idea of determinism however... (1. a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws. b : a belief in predestination. 2. the quality or state of being determined.)

Looks like you probably believe in one of those, so pick one so you're not arguing with yourself on that.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Just like you don't call a rock falling "rational," you don't call DB's moves "rational." Both are exactly the same. They are externally determined. The only way for something to be rational is if it conforms with reason; that is, if the person thinks as they ought to think based on what they know.

A falling rock is rational if it's falling for a reason (i.e. someone wants it to and dropped it).

A computers choices are rational either because they were created rationally (i.e. A Human told it to do something for a reason) or because they are determined rational by the computer (i.e. after analyzing gobs of data the computer decided a move was best for a reason (Either point based or strategy based, etc.)).

You keep using the term rational as if it can only be applied toward magics... this frightens me because if other people that believe in God believe that people cannot be rational without God there may yet be another Crusade so you can actually win this argument.

On either side, I worry that you actually believe what you're saying.

If you believe in Christ and the Christian God, then you believe in free will. If you believe in free will you have to believe that Humans are independently making choices, finding reasons and therefore being rational.

If you don't believe in the Christian God then perhaps you don't believe in free will, in which case I'm afraid you're just waiting for the world to end in a flaming ball of nuclear explosions...

That's really scary.

Quote from: "superfes"Just want to help clarify some things for you here.

Quote from: "Jac3510"If materialism is true, rational thought is impossible, because rational thought presupposes prescriptive language which is not possible under determinism. I said all of this in the very first post.

If I have a reason to be materialistic (i.e. I chose to be this way), then I am both materialistic and rational.

Did you? If everything in nature is strictly determined by the laws of nature, then what makes you think that everything except your thoughts are determined by nature? That would be a case of special pleading (which would be irrational). So, in fact, even your "choice" to be materialistic would be no choice at all.

QuoteRational thought and materialism have no direct connection and cannot be canceled out by either one's existence.

Have you read the thread? I've stated the connection many times. You can feel free to dispute the connection if you wish, but assertions to the contrary aren't of much value.

QuoteYou may need to qualify your idea of determinism however... (1. a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws. b : a belief in predestination. 2. the quality or state of being determined.)

Looks like you probably believe in one of those, so pick one so you're not arguing with yourself on that.

Or I could go with one of dictionary.com's defintions:

1. the doctrine that all facts and events exemplify natural laws.
2. the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes.

In which case, I am specifically referring to (1) as (2) does not specify the nature of the sufficient cause. Even someone who believes in free will could fall under the second of these.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"Just like you don't call a rock falling "rational," you don't call DB's moves "rational." Both are exactly the same. They are externally determined. The only way for something to be rational is if it conforms with reason; that is, if the person thinks as they ought to think based on what they know.

A falling rock is rational if it's falling for a reason (i.e. someone wants it to and dropped it).

In this example, the rock falling is rational only relative to the choice of the person who made it. The rock's fall, in and of itself, is neither rational nor irrational. The idea you are pressing for would better be stating," It would be rational to drop a rock if someone wanted it to fall for a reason."

Rationality is always tied to choice, because rationality is a term applied to actions that are in line with the laws of logic. Logic, however, is a prescriptive enterprise, and thus, under materialism, is impossible, since nothing is prescriptive under materialism.

QuoteA computers choices are rational either because they were created rationally (i.e. A Human told it to do something for a reason) or because they are determined rational by the computer (i.e. after analyzing gobs of data the computer decided a move was best for a reason (Either point based or strategy based, etc.)).

The first possibility assumes a rational person, not a rational computer. The second is not rational at all, as Davin and I have been discussing, because rationality implies ought, which cannot be legitimately applied to computer software.

QuoteYou keep using the term rational as if it can only be applied toward magics... this frightens me because if other people that believe in God believe that people cannot be rational without God there may yet be another Crusade so you can actually win this argument.

On either side, I worry that you actually believe what you're saying.

If you believe in Christ and the Christian God, then you believe in free will. If you believe in free will you have to believe that Humans are independently making choices, finding reasons and therefore being rational.

If you don't believe in the Christian God then perhaps you don't believe in free will, in which case I'm afraid you're just waiting for the world to end in a flaming ball of nuclear explosions...

That's really scary.

And this is just an attempt to poison the well. Let's stick to the arguments, my friend.

Jac, if I'm understanding all this then it appears to me that the condensed version of what you're saying is that if people are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural explanation for that. Is this right?

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Jac3510"All qualifications aside, fine, I agree. The theory of gravity is descriptive. And why would you not call it prescriptive? Bear with me, because this should help me explain my basic point, and it should help us identify our difference of thought here.

Why don't we just skip the game and you tell me your idea?

Because you keep telling me that I am making too many assumptions. So rather than stretch this out any further, why don't you just tell me why you wouldn't refer to the theory of gravity as prescriptive?

I'm not asking you make any assumptions... unless you're making assumptions about your "basic point". Otherwise just say what your basic point is and we can skip a boring game.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteDescribe the "ought" because it seems as though there's no solid definition.

Ought - that which refers to duty or obligation

So rationality now also depends on duty or obligation? What could possibly be the reason to attach such specific meanings onto rationality? You're only rational when performing your duty? This only further complicates the definition for no purpose except, possibly, to make the definition of rational thought as complicated as possible.

A guard decides that he'll take a bribe to let someone in, he could reason it out and be very rational, but not fulfilling his duty. What if a man's duty conflicts with his obligations to his family, then there's no way to make a rational decision with this kind of "rational thought".

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteNo, not just a dataset. In fact many programs run just fine without datasets. Programs can even run without any input data. They can even run without any output data. What this means is that programs are more complex and sometimes more basic than just something that processes data. I did notice however that you stopped using the term dataset and continued on with the term data as if you were talking about the same thing, very poor form.

We can say the same thing for outputs of humans, if it's not correct, we go back in and help them to be able come up with the correct answer. Again, I see no distinction between the rationality of a computer and the rationality of a person. The difference I see is how we correct the person against how we correct these kinds of basic programs.

I'm not going to quibble about the technical words of programing jargon. Even programs that run without input are operating on something. If I write a program that just prints "Hello, world!" to the screen, the program is still dealing with basic data--"hello, world."

Just the same as any thought in your head. They're just electrical signals, just like a computer... except computers still take a lot more power to run.

Quote from: "Jac3510"There is a huge difference in correcting a human "output" and a computer's output. In the former, we say, "No, you made a mistake. You should have concluded this." In the latter, we say, "No. I made a mistake. I should have run this."

However the method you described for correcting a person has been employed as a teaching method with "machine learning" where the person (doesn't have to be a programmer as all), tells the machine what it did wrong and what it should have done, and after a few times, the machine gets it right. So a computers output can be corrected in this way. But for basic programs, the best way is to just fix the code.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Programs execute the instructions we give them. The mistakes are our own, not the programs. When Windows crashes, it isn't being "irrational." The mistake lies ultimately with the imperfection of the programmer. We may say colloquially that the program "ought" not to have crashed, but we only mean in so saying that that was not our intention. We didn't intend on it to crash. Strictly speaking the program "ought" not do anything. It just did what it did. It is a purely descriptive process. In the case of a human, if I argue that 2+2=5, then you can well say that I am being irrational, because I "ought" to recognize that two and two make four.

They also can execute functions they made themselves. And if you say that 2+2=5, I would just that you're wrong and then demonstrate why 2+2=5, instead of just assuming that there was no rational thought behind your conclusion. Just because someone is wrong, doesn't mean they're being irrational, it could just mean they're dealing with bad data or have not fully understood the process.

Quote from: "Jac3510"In fact, this entire conversation is evidence of what I am talking about. If you are right, I "ought" to see my mistake and retract the argument once you have proven it fallacious. Even if you do, however, there is no guarantee I will, because I could well be a dishonest hack who doesn't care about being rational. But that, of course, is the rub. To be rational is to do what I ought to do, not to do what I just am doing. Under materialism, there is no such thing as ought. I am just doing what nature determines I will do. All of my, and your, arguments are merely arational.

By your sad definition of rational, not mine.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteThere are many programs where the whole deal with using them is because we can't determine what they will do. If you go to a grocery store and use the club card thing, then you're participating in that. The reason computers are used is because the process is too complicated for a human and no one can determine what the results will be... because if some one could, then the companies that data mine wouldn't need to spend billions a year on computers that do it. The results however, have shown to be effective, which is why they do it.

Just as Kasparov couldn't determine the moves Deep Blue would make, and if the programmers that programmed deep blue could determine what moves Deep Blue would make, then they could beat Kasparov... which they couldn't. Some of the people that helped with Deep Blue played against Kasparov and lost, yet Deep Blue won. That is an example of Deep Blue performing in a way that could not be determined.

Notice the bolded part above. The reason we can't predict the outcome of such things is not because they are inherently unpredictable, but rather simply because we, as humans, are not capable of such predictions. So we build machines that can predict such things.

So I could build a computer that will predict what Kasparov ought to do. I can take it a step further and build a program that can analyze not only what he ought to do, but what would be the strongest response based on anything that he actually does do. None of this, however, will tell me what Kasparov will do. Even if I had full access to the world's most powerful supercomputer and could map every neuron in his brain and could fully map how every atom would necessarily respond to the others, there is still no reason to suppose that I could predict Kasparov's move unless determinism is true. If it is, then I could predict every move he will make because he doesn't really have any choice in the matter.

In the same way, I can, in principle, write a program that will predict exactly what DB will do. No human, including Kasparov, can do it, of course, because no human can perform those calculations. But if I am fully aware of how the DB programming works and know every piece of data it is operating on, then I can determine, using exactly the same process it uses, what it will choose on any given move. That's because, whatever is true about Kasparov, determinism is true about Deep Blue. And for that reason, we don't call DB "rational." There is no prescription whatsoever. DB "ought" not do anything; it simply does what it does. Kasparov, on the other hand, "ought" to do certain things, since he is a free agent capable of acting in accordance with what he calculates is the best possible move.

That is quiet an assumption. Why can't we just leave it at that we do not currently know. If we had the same access to Kasparov as we did to Deep Blue that we don't know that we still wouldn't be able to determine Kasparov's moves. What I've brought up as evidence for my position are things that actually happened or currently happening, I don't know why you have to keep going off into mere speculations about what might or might not happen is x were the case... it can't be used as evidence, just mental practice.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteAny way, before this goal post moves any further, just state all your objections right now and then we can discuss those.

I'm arguing exactly the same thing I have been arguing the entire time.

If materialism is true, rational thought is impossible, because rational thought presupposes prescriptive language which is not possible under determinism. I said all of this in the very first post.

That's if anyone accepts your very odd definition of rational thought. I'm sure most people don't agree with your definition that it's not rational unless it's for duty or obligation and everything not for duty and obligation is irrational.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteThis doesn't make much sense, in order to make a rational choice one must define an irrational choice? I really don't think it's necessary to define every choice available in order to make a rational choice, otherwise no human could be rational because we can't possibly consider each and every choice when we make a decision, however we can make sure that each choice is rational just by making sure the choice we make is logical, objective and mechanical.

It seems like you're trying to make rational thought into something that it's not. Rationality is cold, determined and mechanical by every definition I've ever seen... until yours. Rationality entails taking the information and seeing where it leads, making sure that your logic is valid, leaving only one or no choice if you're being rational. All you have to do to be irrational, is to use fallacies in your logic.

No, you misunderstood me. I did not say in order to make a rational choice one must first define the irrational choice. I am saying that in labeling a choice irrational you are simultaneously labeling its contraries irrational. In other words, it is logically impossible to have a rational statement without an irrational counterpart. This does not mean that we have to consider all of these irrational counterparts. It only means that we could if we so desired precisely because rational choices define irrational choices. For instance, if I flip a coin and it lands on heads, that doesn't mean that I have to look at tails to know what heads is.

Aye, all we'd need to do is exchange valid logic for logic with at least one fallacy.

Quote from: "Jac3510"I am not, then, talking about how you know what is rational. That is the same mistake Sophus made above. I am talking about the nature of rationality itself. What does it mean for something to be rational? It means to be in accordance with sound reason, which is a prescriptive definition. What DB does is not "rational." It's mere calculation and execution. It can't act rationally or irrationally. It just acts as it is determined to do so.

Rational means it's without fallacy and/or assumptions. Deep Blue had been programmed to think rationally.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Just like you don't call a rock falling "rational," you don't call DB's moves "rational." Both are exactly the same. They are externally determined. The only way for something to be rational is if it conforms with reason; that is, if the person thinks as they ought to think based on what they know.

I also don't call a falling person "rational" just, "hey look at that falling person." This is exactly how programs function, they think as their duty is to think and the computer's obligation is to the person who requires the computer's work, and the program functions on what it knows.

Quote from: "Jac3510"The second is not rational at all, as Davin and I have been discussing, because rationality implies ought, which cannot be legitimately applied to computer software.

You keep saying requires an "ought," however "ought" is very subjective and counter to the idea of rational thought being objective. Duties and obligations are for individual people, my duties and obligations are different than your duties and obligations, which means that what I "ought" to do is different than what you "ought" to do, which is subjective... which is counter to the objective nature of rational thought.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Did you? If everything in nature is strictly determined by the laws of nature, then what makes you think that everything except your thoughts are determined by nature? That would be a case of special pleading (which would be irrational). So, in fact, even your "choice" to be materialistic would be no choice at all.

And what pray tell do the laws of nature have to say about rational thought, given that God and nature are defined by man, whether or not either existed before or after man is irrelevant. Rational thought therefore is also defined by man.

I could have chosen to be materialistic, but I chose otherwise, therefore in that aspect of my personality, I am rational.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Have you read the thread? I've stated the connection many times. You can feel free to dispute the connection if you wish, but assertions to the contrary aren't of much value.

Afraid I still have yet to actually find a link between the two, I have seen your stated arguments and beliefs, but I have yet to see an actual example of how one may cancel the other out, because they still have no connection as far as I'm aware.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Or I could go with one of dictionary.com's defintions...

I prefer not to use dictionary.com because it is too religiously oriented, which makes it biased. Which in turn I personally do not like.

Quote from: "Jac3510"In this example, the rock falling is rational only relative to the choice of the person who made it. The rock's fall, in and of itself, is neither rational nor irrational. The idea you are pressing for would better be stating," It would be rational to drop a rock if someone wanted it to fall for a reason."

Rationality is always tied to choice, because rationality is a term applied to actions that are in line with the laws of logic. Logic, however, is a prescriptive enterprise, and thus, under materialism, is impossible, since nothing is prescriptive under materialism.

I secede that both of our previous declarations of the rock falling example are poorly worded. However, the rock falling being rational is a bad example because one must talk about the rationale of the person making the choice and not the rock, because as far as we know, rocks are not sentient.

Quote from: "Jac3510"The first possibility assumes a rational person, not a rational computer. The second is not rational at all, as Davin and I have been discussing, because rationality implies ought, which cannot be legitimately applied to computer software.

I still don't agree on this point either, as something that is created with rational thought thus becomes rational, further something that is taught (or programmed if you prefer) to make choices rationally then exhibits the same ability to make thoughtful choices is behaving with rational thought.

The problem with this part of the debate is that we do in fact know how computers think and how the parts move around to make choices, whereas with Humans we do not yet know, this distinction does not make your assertion correct, it merely means we do not yet know.

Quote from: "Jac3510"And this is just an attempt to poison the well. Let's stick to the arguments, my friend.

Just placing a thought out there, it seems as if your argument is being produced to prove that there is sentience in the Universe that is supernatural, which I was trying to say neither creates nor removes the possibility of rational thought.

Just a final question, rational means: "having reason or understanding" or "relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason", thus rational thought is thought with reason.

Do you agree?

Quote from: "i_am_i"Jac, if I'm understanding all this then it appears to me that the condensed version of what you're saying is that if people are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural explanation for that. Is this right?

I'm glad that you asked this question, it was what I was trying to get at, but I think I may have pushed too hard.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Jac, if I'm understanding all this then it appears to me that the condensed version of what you're saying is that if people are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural explanation for that. Is this right?

 :hail: This is the best, by fricken' far, best summary of the entire fricken' post!

Quote from: "Jac3510"Actually, I'm talking about the ontology of reason, not the epistemology of reason.

I'm not talking about what we can know about the external world through reason. I am talking about what the very presence of reason necessarily assumes. For example, suppose you saw fire. You would know that there is oxygen in the room. Why? Because there can be no fire without oxygen. I'm arguing that the nature of rationality is that it requires a supernatural backing.

We know that is true because of the arguments I have made throughout this thread. Rationality depends on prescriptive language because the laws of logic are prescriptive in nature. Yet under determinism, there is no prescription, only description. Therefore, logic, and thus rationality, cannot exist under materialism. Logic and rationality presuppose prescriptive language, which presupposes self-determination, which negates materialism.

So instead of recognizing our brains are not blank slates and understanding that it inevitably presupposes certain things we are to recognize that a deity's supernatural brain has already presupposed certain things? And um... the relationship between oxygen and fire is a fully explainable through natural causes. Ocam's Razor wins again. If you understand why fire needs oxygen, your metaphysics really don't matter, or make your understanding of it superior in any more rational way.

Rationality, by the way, is not shackled to language. Language is our tool to serve us, we do not serve it. Someone can be rational or not regardless of their worldview. But science always operates under methodological naturalism (if the "supernatural" exists naturalism will prove it). You calling the very basis of science arational.  Needless to say, that's irrational.

I'm begging you, say naturalism instead. Every time I see materialism I think about what materialism really means.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Jac, if I'm understanding all this then it appears to me that the condensed version of what you're saying is that if people are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural explanation for that. Is this right?

I'm saying that rational thought is impossible in a naturalistic world, and therefore, rational thought requires a non-naturalistic (which is to say, "supernatural") explanation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "Davin"I'm not asking you make any assumptions... unless you're making assumptions about your "basic point". Otherwise just say what your basic point is and we can skip a boring game.

I've been telling you my idea throughout this thread, and you continue to tell me I'm making assumptions. I am trying to get to the root of our disagreement. Really, if you had just answered the question we would have been finished with this by now. Again, why would you call the theory of gravity descriptive and not prescriptive?

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteDescribe the "ought" because it seems as though there's no solid definition.

Ought - that which refers to duty or obligation

So rationality now also depends on duty or obligation? What could possibly be the reason to attach such specific meanings onto rationality? You're only rational when performing your duty? This only further complicates the definition for no purpose except, possibly, to make the definition of rational thought as complicated as possible.

A guard decides that he'll take a bribe to let someone in, he could reason it out and be very rational, but not fulfilling his duty. What if a man's duty conflicts with his obligations to his family, then there's no way to make a rational decision with this kind of "rational thought".

I've been explaining this the entire time. This is the point that no one has even interacted with, much less refuted. And this has been the central point I have made since my very first post.

Rational thought is only rational if it conforms with logic, and logic is prescriptive by nature. We can say logically that a rock will fall if it is dropped. That doesn't make the rock's falling rational. A falling rock is arational. Again, going back to your Deep Blue example, all of its moves, like the falling rock, are strictly determined and are thus are also arational.

The whole concept behind rationality and irrationality is that we have a duty to think rationally. That is what we mean by the word. When we say someone is acting irrationally, we are saying that they did something they reasonably should not have done. The whole reason it was irrational is that they should not have done it (or believed it, or whatever). When something just does what it does with no choice in the matter, that action is neither rational nor irrational. It is arational.

Again, this goes back to a very simple point: the laws of logic are prescriptive whereas the laws of physics are descriptive. Prescription necessarily implies duty, because that is what we mean by prescription. You are supposed to do this or that. If a person doesn't have the ability not to do this or that, then they aren't supposed to do anything. They are just doing what they are doing.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteNo, not just a dataset. In fact many programs run just fine without datasets. Programs can even run without any input data. They can even run without any output data. What this means is that programs are more complex and sometimes more basic than just something that processes data. I did notice however that you stopped using the term dataset and continued on with the term data as if you were talking about the same thing, very poor form.

We can say the same thing for outputs of humans, if it's not correct, we go back in and help them to be able come up with the correct answer. Again, I see no distinction between the rationality of a computer and the rationality of a person. The difference I see is how we correct the person against how we correct these kinds of basic programs.

I'm not going to quibble about the technical words of programing jargon. Even programs that run without input are operating on something. If I write a program that just prints "Hello, world!" to the screen, the program is still dealing with basic data--"hello, world."

Just the same as any thought in your head. They're just electrical signals, just like a computer... except computers still take a lot more power to run.

Yes, yes. We agree on this. And if all the thoughts in my head are determined by nature--by physics and chemistry--then my thoughts are not rational. They are arational in precisely the same way a falling rock is. I don't have a choice in what I am thinking anymore than you do. You aren't really thinking at all. You are just going through the motions that nature is requiring you to do.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"There is a huge difference in correcting a human "output" and a computer's output. In the former, we say, "No, you made a mistake. You should have concluded this." In the latter, we say, "No. I made a mistake. I should have run this."

However the method you described for correcting a person has been employed as a teaching method with "machine learning" where the person (doesn't have to be a programmer as all), tells the machine what it did wrong and what it should have done, and after a few times, the machine gets it right. So a computers output can be corrected in this way. But for basic programs, the best way is to just fix the code.

Even in your case, the output wasn't "wrong." It was exactly what it had to be given its admittedly limited data. Just because we go back and provide it more data to change the output doesn't mean it gets to make "smarter decisions." It just means that it is now acting on new data. It is no more or less rational than it ever was. It is still doing exactly what it is forced to do. Therefore, its actions are not rational. They are determined.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"Programs execute the instructions we give them. The mistakes are our own, not the programs. When Windows crashes, it isn't being "irrational." The mistake lies ultimately with the imperfection of the programmer. We may say colloquially that the program "ought" not to have crashed, but we only mean in so saying that that was not our intention. We didn't intend on it to crash. Strictly speaking the program "ought" not do anything. It just did what it did. It is a purely descriptive process. In the case of a human, if I argue that 2+2=5, then you can well say that I am being irrational, because I "ought" to recognize that two and two make four.

They also can execute functions they made themselves. And if you say that 2+2=5, I would just that you're wrong and then demonstrate why 2+2=5, instead of just assuming that there was no rational thought behind your conclusion. Just because someone is wrong, doesn't mean they're being irrational, it could just mean they're dealing with bad data or have not fully understood the process.

And the functions they create themselves have been created because the programming requires it.

Now, I completely agree that just because a person is wrong they aren't necessarily being irrational. I made that same point myself. Rationality is relative to what a person should or should not know and what calculations they have or have not made. For example, suppose I am driving down the road and notice that my gas needle is on empty. I am coming up to a gas station, and the next one is not for another fifty miles. The rational thing to do is stop for gas. Suppose, however, I decide not to stop for gas and drive on anyway. Now suppose I actually make it the next fifty miles because, unbeknownst to me, the needle was broken. I made an irrational decision even though it worked out for the good. Likewise, we could flip the details and have me run out of gas before I got there. My decision then to keep going would be rational because I had no reason to believe that I was out of gas. In that case, the rational worked out for the poor.

Rationality is not decided with reference to the consequences of an action. It is decided on the basis of what a person ought to do or think given a set of propositions. Again, this process is strictly normative. That is, it is prescriptive. Such normative, prescriptive statements however, have no meaning in a deterministic model (such as a computer program, or naturalism). Therefore, rational thought is impossible given determinism, and as materialism necessarily entails determinism, rationalism is impossible.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"In fact, this entire conversation is evidence of what I am talking about. If you are right, I "ought" to see my mistake and retract the argument once you have proven it fallacious. Even if you do, however, there is no guarantee I will, because I could well be a dishonest hack who doesn't care about being rational. But that, of course, is the rub. To be rational is to do what I ought to do, not to do what I just am doing. Under materialism, there is no such thing as ought. I am just doing what nature determines I will do. All of my, and your, arguments are merely arational.

By your sad definition of rational, not mine.

Use whatever adjectives you like. Mere assertions and characterizations don't discount arguments. It would be irrational to think that they do.

Here, however, is an admission on your part. You are admitting that under determinism, rationality--insofar as it requires self-determination--is impossible. That's the whole point I am making. If all of our thoughts are determined by nature, you are no more rational than the 9/11 nutjobs. They did exactly what nature forced them to do, just as you are doing. They didn't have any choice in the matter, and neither do you. Your thoughts are on exactly the same level as a rock falling. Just as the falling rock isn't rational, neither are your thoughts.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteThere are many programs where the whole deal with using them is because we can't determine what they will do. If you go to a grocery store and use the club card thing, then you're participating in that. The reason computers are used is because the process is too complicated for a human and no one can determine what the results will be... because if some one could, then the companies that data mine wouldn't need to spend billions a year on computers that do it. The results however, have shown to be effective, which is why they do it.

Just as Kasparov couldn't determine the moves Deep Blue would make, and if the programmers that programmed deep blue could determine what moves Deep Blue would make, then they could beat Kasparov... which they couldn't. Some of the people that helped with Deep Blue played against Kasparov and lost, yet Deep Blue won. That is an example of Deep Blue performing in a way that could not be determined.

Notice the bolded part above. The reason we can't predict the outcome of such things is not because they are inherently unpredictable, but rather simply because we, as humans, are not capable of such predictions. So we build machines that can predict such things.

So I could build a computer that will predict what Kasparov ought to do. I can take it a step further and build a program that can analyze not only what he ought to do, but what would be the strongest response based on anything that he actually does do. None of this, however, will tell me what Kasparov will do. Even if I had full access to the world's most powerful supercomputer and could map every neuron in his brain and could fully map how every atom would necessarily respond to the others, there is still no reason to suppose that I could predict Kasparov's move unless determinism is true. If it is, then I could predict every move he will make because he doesn't really have any choice in the matter.

In the same way, I can, in principle, write a program that will predict exactly what DB will do. No human, including Kasparov, can do it, of course, because no human can perform those calculations. But if I am fully aware of how the DB programming works and know every piece of data it is operating on, then I can determine, using exactly the same process it uses, what it will choose on any given move. That's because, whatever is true about Kasparov, determinism is true about Deep Blue. And for that reason, we don't call DB "rational." There is no prescription whatsoever. DB "ought" not do anything; it simply does what it does. Kasparov, on the other hand, "ought" to do certain things, since he is a free agent capable of acting in accordance with what he calculates is the best possible move.

That is quiet an assumption. Why can't we just leave it at that we do not currently know. If we had the same access to Kasparov as we did to Deep Blue that we don't know that we still wouldn't be able to determine Kasparov's moves. What I've brought up as evidence for my position are things that actually happened or currently happening, I don't know why you have to keep going off into mere speculations about what might or might not happen is x were the case... it can't be used as evidence, just mental practice.

It is a necessary consequences of determinism, not an assumption. The only reason we can't predict the future, under determinism, is because we don't fully understand all the variables involved and the laws which act on them. Predicting human thought and action, on determinism, is exactly the same as predicting how fast a rock will fall at any given point in its descent. It's just a matter of knowing the variables involved and the laws that are important. Our lack of knowledge doesn't make prediction impossible in principle. Just in practice.

If, however, there is a part of Kasparov that exists beyond the laws of nature that truly does determine its own thoughts, then it would be absolutely impossible to predict his moves. We could only say what he ought to do, and what he will do if he chooses to adhere to the laws of logic as prescribed. In other words, we can know what he would do if he were to be rational. Such language is absolutely meaningless under determinism.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteAny way, before this goal post moves any further, just state all your objections right now and then we can discuss those.

I'm arguing exactly the same thing I have been arguing the entire time.

If materialism is true, rational thought is impossible, because rational thought presupposes prescriptive language which is not possible under determinism. I said all of this in the very first post.

That's if anyone accepts your very odd definition of rational thought. I'm sure most people don't agree with your definition that it's not rational unless it's for duty or obligation and everything not for duty and obligation is irrational.

Then people ought to take the time to ask whether or not rationality is prescriptive by nature, which is the point I have been making the entire time.

So it seems now that we are in fundamental agreement. If rational thought is prescriptive by nature, it is impossible on materialism. If not, it may or may not be. That would need to be more fully discussed. So the question is whether or not rational thought is prescriptive by nature. I've offered arguments as to why it is. What say you?

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"I am not, then, talking about how you know what is rational. That is the same mistake Sophus made above. I am talking about the nature of rationality itself. What does it mean for something to be rational? It means to be in accordance with sound reason, which is a prescriptive definition. What DB does is not "rational." It's mere calculation and execution. It can't act rationally or irrationally. It just acts as it is determined to do so.

Rational means it's without fallacy and/or assumptions. Deep Blue had been programmed to think rationally.

No. Deep Blue was programmed to act in a particular way given particular circumstances. We may label it rational insofar as such actions are consistent with what we ought to do if we were in that situation, but the decisions themselves are neither rational or irrational. They are calculations produced by a mindless machine.

In short, any rationality in Deep Blue is borrowed from human rationality--not in terms of origin, but it terms of prescription. Taken in themselves, Deep Blue's actions aren't the least bit rational. They're just necessary effects.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"Just like you don't call a rock falling "rational," you don't call DB's moves "rational." Both are exactly the same. They are externally determined. The only way for something to be rational is if it conforms with reason; that is, if the person thinks as they ought to think based on what they know.

I also don't call a falling person "rational" just, "hey look at that falling person." This is exactly how programs function, they think as their duty is to think and the computer's obligation is to the person who requires the computer's work, and the program functions on what it knows.

Precisely. A falling person is not rational. But falling is not an obligation. It is something that just happens to bodies thanks to gravity. An obligation is something that you ought to do.

Under determinism, there is no such thing as obligation. Thus, under determinism, there is no such thing as rationality.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Jac3510"The second is not rational at all, as Davin and I have been discussing, because rationality implies ought, which cannot be legitimately applied to computer software.

You keep saying requires an "ought," however "ought" is very subjective and counter to the idea of rational thought being objective. Duties and obligations are for individual people, my duties and obligations are different than your duties and obligations, which means that what I "ought" to do is different than what you "ought" to do, which is subjective... which is counter to the objective nature of rational thought.

There are some things that are universal obligations. Rational thought is one of them. What I ought to think or believe is relative to my knowledge base. The subjective aspect, then, is what I am or am not aware of. Again, return to the gas example I gave above.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "superfes"

Quote from: "Jac3510"Did you? If everything in nature is strictly determined by the laws of nature, then what makes you think that everything except your thoughts are determined by nature? That would be a case of special pleading (which would be irrational). So, in fact, even your "choice" to be materialistic would be no choice at all.

And what pray tell do the laws of nature have to say about rational thought, given that God and nature are defined by man, whether or not either existed before or after man is irrelevant. Rational thought therefore is also defined by man.

I could have chosen to be materialistic, but I chose otherwise, therefore in that aspect of my personality, I am rational.

I would not give that nature is defined by man. Go step in the middle of an interstate and try to define cars and trucks out of existence. See what happens.

If naturalism is true, then everything--including what goes on inside your head--is determined by nature. You had nothing to do with anything, not even what you think or believe, and that includes the naturalism you do or don't hold to. It also includes the Islamism the 9/11 hijackers held to. It also includes the decision to invade Iraq that "Bush made." If naturalism is true, he made no such decision. Nature made all such decisions by necessity.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"Have you read the thread? I've stated the connection many times. You can feel free to dispute the connection if you wish, but assertions to the contrary aren't of much value.

Afraid I still have yet to actually find a link between the two, I have seen your stated arguments and beliefs, but I have yet to see an actual example of how one may cancel the other out, because they still have no connection as far as I'm aware.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"Or I could go with one of dictionary.com's defintions...

I prefer not to use dictionary.com because it is too religiously oriented, which makes it biased. Which in turn I personally do not like.

Ah, so you disagree with a definition because the source that produced it. Genetic fallacy.

Now, would you care to address the argument I am putting forward, or do you want to redefine terms by your own standards and interpret my argument by your definitions, rendering your rebuttal a mere straw man?

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"In this example, the rock falling is rational only relative to the choice of the person who made it. The rock's fall, in and of itself, is neither rational nor irrational. The idea you are pressing for would better be stating," It would be rational to drop a rock if someone wanted it to fall for a reason."

Rationality is always tied to choice, because rationality is a term applied to actions that are in line with the laws of logic. Logic, however, is a prescriptive enterprise, and thus, under materialism, is impossible, since nothing is prescriptive under materialism.

I secede that both of our previous declarations of the rock falling example are poorly worded. However, the rock falling being rational is a bad example because one must talk about the rationale of the person making the choice and not the rock, because as far as we know, rocks are not sentient.

No, we don't have to talk about the rational[ity] of the person dropping the rock. I am talking about the ontology of the actual falling rock. The effect itself is not rational. It is a purely descriptive process necessarily brought about by the laws of nature. The nature of its cause doesn't change the fact that gravity isn't pondering whether or not to pull the rock down.

Now, if determinism is true, then every thought in your mind is of precisely the same type of effect. There is nothing in you pondering what to think. Everything in your mind is just an effect of physics and chemistry. There is no rational thought. Just the laws of nature.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"The first possibility assumes a rational person, not a rational computer. The second is not rational at all, as Davin and I have been discussing, because rationality implies ought, which cannot be legitimately applied to computer software.

I still don't agree on this point either, as something that is created with rational thought thus becomes rational, further something that is taught (or programmed if you prefer) to make choices rationally then exhibits the same ability to make thoughtful choices is behaving with rational thought.

The problem with this part of the debate is that we do in fact know how computers think and how the parts move around to make choices, whereas with Humans we do not yet know, this distinction does not make your assertion correct, it merely means we do not yet know.

You are begging the question. If rational thought were possible, I'd accuse you of being irrational right now, but since everything is determined by the laws of nature and you have no choice in how you think, I can't tell you that you are thinking wrong, can I, because you have no choice in the matter. I may as well tell a rock it is wrong for falling.

As far as our knowledge of how humans or computers work, you are totally missing the point. If there is no part of you that can step outside of the laws of nature and think for itself, then every thought you have is determined by nature. Thus, if everything is caused by the laws of nature, then nothing is caused by you. That is exactly the case in computers, and it is exactly the case in you.

Rational thought, in your worldview, is impossible. Thus, you are not a rational person. You are arational, as you have no choice in what to think or not to think.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"And this is just an attempt to poison the well. Let's stick to the arguments, my friend.

Just placing a thought out there, it seems as if your argument is being produced to prove that there is sentience in the Universe that is supernatural, which I was trying to say neither creates nor removes the possibility of rational thought.

Just a final question, rational means: "having reason or understanding" or "relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason", thus rational thought is thought with reason.

Do you agree?

Absolutely. I said so in my opening statement. If you would like to see why that is impossible in a deterministic world, see my responses to Reginus.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Jac3510"Actually, I'm talking about the ontology of reason, not the epistemology of reason.

I'm not talking about what we can know about the external world through reason. I am talking about what the very presence of reason necessarily assumes. For example, suppose you saw fire. You would know that there is oxygen in the room. Why? Because there can be no fire without oxygen. I'm arguing that the nature of rationality is that it requires a supernatural backing.

We know that is true because of the arguments I have made throughout this thread. Rationality depends on prescriptive language because the laws of logic are prescriptive in nature. Yet under determinism, there is no prescription, only description. Therefore, logic, and thus rationality, cannot exist under materialism. Logic and rationality presuppose prescriptive language, which presupposes self-determination, which negates materialism.

So instead of recognizing our brains are not blank slates and understanding that it inevitably presupposes certain things we are to recognize that a deity's supernatural brain has already presupposed certain things? And um... the relationship between oxygen and fire is a fully explainable through natural causes. Ocam's Razor wins again. If you understand why fire needs oxygen, your metaphysics really don't matter, or make your understanding of it superior in any more rational way.

Rationality, by the way, is not shackled to language. Language is our tool to serve us, we do not serve it. Someone can be rational or not regardless of their worldview. But science always operates under methodological naturalism (if the "supernatural" exists naturalism will prove it). You calling the very basis of science arational.  Needless to say, that's irrational.

I'm begging you, say naturalism instead. Every time I see materialism I think about what materialism really means.

I've not mentioned a deity in this thread. I have said merely that if rational thought cannot work in a deterministic context, and if rational thought is possible, then determinism must be wrong. We must be in some sense self-determined, which requires there to be a part of us that exists in some sense beyond the laws of nature. Such an existence would be supernatural by definition.

Whether or not we go on to connect that with God is another point entirely. It does, however, prove that if rational thought is possible that materialism is false. It also proves that if materialism is true, then materialism itself is not a rational position; it is arational, along with every other position out there, equally so.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Jac, if I'm understanding all this then it appears to me that the condensed version of what you're saying is that if people are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural explanation for that. Is this right?

I'm saying that rational thought is impossible in a naturalistic world, and therefore, rational thought requires a non-naturalistic (which is to say, "supernatural") explanation.

And what is the supernatural explanation for rational thought?

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Jac, if I'm understanding all this then it appears to me that the condensed version of what you're saying is that if people are capable of rational thought then there must be a supernatural explanation for that. Is this right?

I'm saying that rational thought is impossible in a naturalistic world, and therefore, rational thought requires a non-naturalistic (which is to say, "supernatural") explanation.

And what is the supernatural explanation for rational thought?

That's another discussion that has no bearing on this argument. There are a myriad of suggested answers. We can talk about them in another thread if you like. The point here, however, is simple enough. It is inescapable that if materialism is true, rational thought is impossible. Even if I couldn't explain how rational thought worked in another system, that doesn't do anything to challenge the simple fact that determinism and rationality are mutually exclusive.

Okay, I just read the entire thread, though I'll admit I skim-read some of the longer posts replying to individual posters on very very specific points.  So I apologise in advance if I say something that has already been covered.

The problem I see in this discussion is an equivocation of the concepts "rational" and "free will" - the original poster (and a few others) talk about "rational thought" in ways that I could replace "rational thought " with "free will" and the sentences would make more sense.

If the original poster had said: "FREE thought is possible, therefore materialism is false", then depending on the definition of "free", they would have been on their way to a reasonable argument.

But the original poster did not say that, they said (paraphrased): "RATIONAL thought is possible, therefore materialism is false", which makes me wonder - what is it about RATIONAL thought that contradicts materialism?  I see no such contradiction or incompatibility.

I DO see incompatibilities between classical understandings of free will and materialism, but we're discussing rationality, right?  Not free will?  One can exercise one's free will both rationally and irrationally, right? (if you accept free will of course)

What is it about thinking rationally (not thinking freely, just thinking rationally) that contradicts materialism?   I have read the whole thread and haven't seen this addressed (if I missed it, please copy and paste or point me to the right post).

Quote from: "Jac3510"I've been telling you my idea throughout this thread, and you continue to tell me I'm making assumptions. I am trying to get to the root of our disagreement. Really, if you had just answered the question we would have been finished with this by now. Again, why would you call the theory of gravity descriptive and not prescriptive?

We could have been done before you even attempted to play the silly game if you just said your "basic idea" to begin with, however you want to play a boring game that I do not want to participate in.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"Ought - that which refers to duty or obligation

So rationality now also depends on duty or obligation? What could possibly be the reason to attach such specific meanings onto rationality? You're only rational when performing your duty? This only further complicates the definition for no purpose except, possibly, to make the definition of rational thought as complicated as possible.

A guard decides that he'll take a bribe to let someone in, he could reason it out and be very rational, but not fulfilling his duty. What if a man's duty conflicts with his obligations to his family, then there's no way to make a rational decision with this kind of "rational thought".

I've been explaining this the entire time. This is the point that no one has even interacted with, much less refuted. And this has been the central point I have made since my very first post.

Rational thought is only rational if it conforms with logic, and logic is prescriptive by nature. We can say logically that a rock will fall if it is dropped. That doesn't make the rock's falling rational. A falling rock is arational. Again, going back to your Deep Blue example, all of its moves, like the falling rock, are strictly determined and are thus are also arational.

The whole concept behind rationality and irrationality is that we have a duty to think rationally. That is what we mean by the word. When we say someone is acting irrationally, we are saying that they did something they reasonably should not have done. The whole reason it was irrational is that they should not have done it (or believed it, or whatever). When something just does what it does with no choice in the matter, that action is neither rational nor irrational. It is arational.

Again, this goes back to a very simple point: the laws of logic are prescriptive whereas the laws of physics are descriptive. Prescription necessarily implies duty, because that is what we mean by prescription. You are supposed to do this or that. If a person doesn't have the ability not to do this or that, then they aren't supposed to do anything. They are just doing what they are doing.

Logic is not prescriptive, it's descriptive. It describes what makes sense, those who use it all follow the same rules just as we all follow the rules of math when we do math. Prescriptive statements are subjective, logic is not.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Yes, yes. We agree on this. And if all the thoughts in my head are determined by nature--by physics and chemistry--then my thoughts are not rational. They are arational in precisely the same way a falling rock is. I don't have a choice in what I am thinking anymore than you do. You aren't really thinking at all. You are just going through the motions that nature is requiring you to do.

No, then we don't agree on this. The thoughts are rational regardless of their cause.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Even in your case, the output wasn't "wrong." It was exactly what it had to be given its admittedly limited data. Just because we go back and provide it more data to change the output doesn't mean it gets to make "smarter decisions." It just means that it is now acting on new data. It is no more or less rational than it ever was. It is still doing exactly what it is forced to do. Therefore, its actions are not rational. They are determined.

How is that different than the person? Both are treated the same way and both have the same result and both are learning. The person being corrected isn't make a "wrong" decision either, it's the person correcting them that has a goal for the person's output, the same is true of the program.

Quote from: "Jac3510"And the functions they create themselves have been created because the programming requires it.

Now, I completely agree that just because a person is wrong they aren't necessarily being irrational. I made that same point myself. Rationality is relative to what a person should or should not know and what calculations they have or have not made. For example, suppose I am driving down the road and notice that my gas needle is on empty. I am coming up to a gas station, and the next one is not for another fifty miles. The rational thing to do is stop for gas. Suppose, however, I decide not to stop for gas and drive on anyway. Now suppose I actually make it the next fifty miles because, unbeknownst to me, the needle was broken. I made an irrational decision even though it worked out for the good. Likewise, we could flip the details and have me run out of gas before I got there. My decision then to keep going would be rational because I had no reason to believe that I was out of gas. In that case, the rational worked out for the poor.

Rationality is not decided with reference to the consequences of an action. It is decided on the basis of what a person ought to do or think given a set of propositions. Again, this process is strictly normative. That is, it is prescriptive. Such normative, prescriptive statements however, have no meaning in a deterministic model (such as a computer program, or naturalism). Therefore, rational thought is impossible given determinism, and as materialism necessarily entails determinism, rationalism is impossible.

This doesn't describe the difference between a person and the program. Rational thought is the opposite of prescriptive, the purpose of rational thinking is to come to the truth regardless of the preconceptions of people. It's not prescriptive, it's descriptive. I don't know why you keep trying to inject subjectivity into "rational thought" when that is the opposite of what rational thought is.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"In fact, this entire conversation is evidence of what I am talking about. If you are right, I "ought" to see my mistake and retract the argument once you have proven it fallacious. Even if you do, however, there is no guarantee I will, because I could well be a dishonest hack who doesn't care about being rational. But that, of course, is the rub. To be rational is to do what I ought to do, not to do what I just am doing. Under materialism, there is no such thing as ought. I am just doing what nature determines I will do. All of my, and your, arguments are merely arational.

By your sad definition of rational, not mine.

Use whatever adjectives you like. Mere assertions and characterizations don't discount arguments. It would be irrational to think that they do.

Here, however, is an admission on your part. You are admitting that under determinism, rationality--insofar as it requires self-determination--is impossible. That's the whole point I am making. If all of our thoughts are determined by nature, you are no more rational than the 9/11 nutjobs. They did exactly what nature forced them to do, just as you are doing. They didn't have any choice in the matter, and neither do you. Your thoughts are on exactly the same level as a rock falling. Just as the falling rock isn't rational, neither are your thoughts.

Read what I was responding to again, and what I responded with. Your definition of rational thought requires subjectivity, which is against the concept of rational thought. I do agree that mere assertions don't discount an argument, just like mere assertions don't support an argument, like that rational thought is not possible without a supernatural source.

Quote from: "Jac3510"It is a necessary consequences of determinism, not an assumption. The only reason we can't predict the future, under determinism, is because we don't fully understand all the variables involved and the laws which act on them. Predicting human thought and action, on determinism, is exactly the same as predicting how fast a rock will fall at any given point in its descent. It's just a matter of knowing the variables involved and the laws that are important. Our lack of knowledge doesn't make prediction impossible in principle. Just in practice.

If, however, there is a part of Kasparov that exists beyond the laws of nature that truly does determine its own thoughts, then it would be absolutely impossible to predict his moves. We could only say what he ought to do, and what he will do if he chooses to adhere to the laws of logic as prescribed. In other words, we can know what he would do if he were to be rational. Such language is absolutely meaningless under determinism.

You merely assert that someone could predict the moves of Deep Blue in spite of no one being able to, and you merely assert that no one could predict the moves of Kasparov if given the same access that people had to Deep Blue. The first assertion is counter to the evidence, while the second is just baseless.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteThat's if anyone accepts your very odd definition of rational thought. I'm sure most people don't agree with your definition that it's not rational unless it's for duty or obligation and everything not for duty and obligation is irrational.

Then people ought to take the time to ask whether or not rationality is prescriptive by nature, which is the point I have been making the entire time.

So it seems now that we are in fundamental agreement. If rational thought is prescriptive by nature, it is impossible on materialism. If not, it may or may not be. That would need to be more fully discussed. So the question is whether or not rational thought is prescriptive by nature. I've offered arguments as to why it is. What say you?

I still say the same thing: the process of rational thinking is descriptive, not prescriptive. Objective and not subjective. Rational thought by nature is objective, not this subjective stuff you keep trying to put into it.

Quote from: "Jac3510"No. Deep Blue was programmed to act in a particular way given particular circumstances. We may label it rational insofar as such actions are consistent with what we ought to do if we were in that situation, but the decisions themselves are neither rational or irrational. They are calculations produced by a mindless machine.

In short, any rationality in Deep Blue is borrowed from human rationality--not in terms of origin, but it terms of prescription. Taken in themselves, Deep Blue's actions aren't the least bit rational. They're just necessary effects.

If all you did was rational thinking, then you'd be just coming to the necessary conclusions. Rational thought is a process of thinking that ensures that the thinking remains objective. Given the same set of data, following the rules of logic, every person would necessarily come to the same conclusion. The same way a lot of programs work.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Precisely. A falling person is not rational. But falling is not an obligation. It is something that just happens to bodies thanks to gravity. An obligation is something that you ought to do.

Under determinism, there is no such thing as obligation. Thus, under determinism, there is no such thing as rationality.

Then why do you keep bringing up that example? And no matter how many times you state your conclusion, it doesn't make your logic follow. The universe doesn't bend to the definitions of people, the best we can do is define things in the universe as accurately as possible. That requires that we compare the definitions to reality, not just speculating.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Jac3510"The second is not rational at all, as Davin and I have been discussing, because rationality implies ought, which cannot be legitimately applied to computer software.

You keep saying requires an "ought," however "ought" is very subjective and counter to the idea of rational thought being objective. Duties and obligations are for individual people, my duties and obligations are different than your duties and obligations, which means that what I "ought" to do is different than what you "ought" to do, which is subjective... which is counter to the objective nature of rational thought.

There are some things that are universal obligations. Rational thought is one of them. What I ought to think or believe is relative to my knowledge base. The subjective aspect, then, is what I am or am not aware of. Again, return to the gas example I gave above.

You may think rational thought is a universal obligation, but not everyone does, and not every one should. Many people get around happy without being rational about most things in their life. I'd prefer people be rational about certain things, but it's far from me to be so arrogant to think that it's their obligation.

As for your gas example, in that example, neither choice can be considered rational or irrational because the rationale wasn't even discussed. And again it's subjective to the driver. The process for coming to a decision could be rational, but it may also require no rational thinking at all. It also does show that you're comparing the colloquial use of rational with the technical term. When ever some one does something that doesn't make sense to them, they tend to call that person irrational without even considering that there was a rational thought process behind it. However I'd like to avoid comparing colloquial definitions with technical definitions. What one ought to do is subjective, rational thought is objective. One can come to a conclusion and accept that that is what they ought to do, however they could also decide that they ought to act differently. When rational thought leads one to no certain decision, very often people must experiment to see what the best option actually is. That doesn't mean they're being irrational, just that rationality didn't lead them to a conclusion.

It might also be a good idea for you to drop the false dichotomy and argument from ignorance that it's either deterministic universe or a supernatural universe, because proving one false doesn't mean one should accept the other.

Quote from: "skevosmavros"I DO see incompatibilities between classical understandings of free will and materialism, but we're discussing rationality, right?  Not free will?  One can exercise one's free will both rationally and irrationally, right? (if you accept free will of course)

What is it about thinking rationally (not thinking freely, just thinking rationally) that contradicts materialism?   I have read the whole thread and haven't seen this addressed (if I missed it, please copy and paste or point me to the right post).

Exactly.

Quote from: "Jac"and if rational thought is possible, then determinism must be wrong. We must be in some sense self-determined, which requires there to be a part of us that exists in some sense beyond the laws of nature. Such an existence would be supernatural by definition.

There is nothing about being "self-determined" that would imply a supernatural source. What I am is an animal, an living entity whose brain is controlled by all the other cool stuff that makes it up. Everything that is self-determined by me comes from my brain. My brain exists within nature.... most of the time.  

It truly makes me sad that ideas cannot be discussed to come to an agreement.

I do not see this ending, as arguments go, they should continue forward until an agreement is reached. And unfortunately this is not something I see happening with this argument.

Jac3510, logic is a term invented by Humans, this means that it is subjective. Naturalism is a term invented by Humans, this means that it is subjective. Rational and rational thought are terms invented by Humans, this means they are also subjective.

And finally God was also invented by Humans, so the concept of God is also subjective.  This is why there are so many religions, so many definitions of God and so many belief structures that were created by primitive man to help define things that could not yet be defined.

Now that we know how things work (mostly).  God is no longer needed to help define why trees grow, why life began and how we evolved.

Reasoning and rational thought have evolved enough at this point in Human history to no longer need God, and this is what I have been arguing.

I believe that God is not required for rational thought because I believe it creates the opposite.  My reason for that is that the belief in God in an intelligent and modern society is irrational.

With this I'd just like to say, I have tried to argue my points as I have seen so many others, but you do not seem to be interested in reading nor comprehending anybody else's ideas, this makes it seem like you're not interested in the argument.

So I think I'll be leaving this argument to people more interested going around in circles with you.

I'm going to limit my specific reply to skevos, and then offer a general reply to davin, superfes, and sophus, just because of space limitations at this point:

Quote from: "skevosmavros"What is it about thinking rationally (not thinking freely, just thinking rationally) that contradicts materialism?   I have read the whole thread and haven't seen this addressed (if I missed it, please copy and paste or point me to the right post).

I would have to copy and paste from almost all of my responses to point you to the "right" post, including the first one. There, I said:

Now, for the argument itself, (2) is obviously true. The entire argument hinges on (1). Why should we believe it? Very simply, because if materialism were true, then everything would be determined by the laws of nature. Everything. Rocks don’t stop to ponder whether or not they should fall. They do so because that’s just what happens. But that means that what goes on in your head is no exception. Your thoughts arise, in this scheme, from what your brain does. Yet the brain is just chemistry and biology. It may be very complicated chemistry and biology, but it is still just chemistry and biology. This atom is colliding with that one which causes that atom to do that. Ultimately, your thoughts are determined by the chemistry in your brain.

In other words, if there is no part of you that is capable of stepping “outside” the laws of nature and “thinking for itself,” then everything in your brainâ€"including your thoughtsâ€"is absolutely determined by the laws of nature. If that is true, then you aren’t thinking anymore than a rock is thinking when it falls. You are doing the exact same thing a rock is doingâ€"exactly what the laws of nature demand of you at this moment in this time given your particular physical composition.

Now, we don’t consider a rock’s falling “rational.” It isn’t irrational. It is arational, meaning it is just doing what it is doing without any thought, because that is what it does. Likewise, under materialism, your thoughts aren’t rational. They are arational. The idea that you are considering arguments for anything and coming to the “right conclusion” is just an illusion. You are thinking what you are thinking, as am I, because this is what nature has decided we will think at any given moment.

In short, there is no “intellectual faculty by which knowledge is obtained.” There is just chemistry going on in your brain.

The only way to have rational thought is to posit some part of you that exists outside the laws of nature and works independently of them. This immaterial aspect of you would have to be able to actively influence the laws of natureâ€"to make this neuron fire in that way to generate this thoughtâ€"for rational thought to be possible. That, however, denies materialism.

Almost everything else has been an expansion on this rather simple point. If our thoughts are not determined by ourselves, then we don't have any basis of calling them rational or irrational. Our "clash of ideas" here is no more a clash of ideas than two rocks hitting each other are a clash of ideas. This is all just physics working itself out. You aren't thinking anything. You've had absolutely no choice in even a single thought that you have ever had or will ever have. You've never had the ability to think anything other than you do now. And not only you, but me, everyone one this board, all those wacky fundies most atheists I've met can't stand, Richard Dawkins, Albert Einstein, Osama bin Laden, and all the rest.

We call something rational strictly and totally because people ought to think rationally. If they have no ability to think other than they do, the word "rational" is meaningless. What makes one forced thought "rational" and another forced thought "irrational"? Your judgment that one is rational and the other irrational would itself be forced. You have no criteria for judgment. The determining factor in such a call--as in every thought--is strictly and totally the physics that force your brain to conclude what it does.

Thus, rationality is meaningless if you can't be self-determined. You can't be self-determined if there is not a part of you that exists outside the laws of nature.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the others, three issues need to be addressed, which I will address in order, as each builds one upon the other.

1. Is logic prescriptive or descriptive
2. Is logic merely a human invention
3. Supernaturalism as a requirement for self-determination

Concerning the first, description is merely a depiction of what has happened, of what is happening, of a process, etc. It takes an existing reality and represents it in language. Prescription, on the other hand, designates what ought to happen. It pictures a desired reality and provides the actions one is to take to make that an actual reality. So, if I say, "The man fell down," I am describing a process. If I say, "Push the man, and he will fall down," I am prescribing a process.

Scientific laws are descriptive by nature. When we talk about gravity, we don't have a desired reality in mind. We take our measurements of reality as it is and describe reality as it is. Often, we can even describe reality as it will be so long as certain other variables are constant (the rock, if dropped from this height, will hit the floor in this many seconds, provided no one catches it, etc.).

The laws of logic, however, are prescriptive by nature. They do not describe how people actually think. They describe how people ought to think. It is an unfortunately fact that a lot of people don't think logically. We call them irrational precisely because they ought to think logically, and they do not. They violate the prescription. The desired reality is for them to think a certain way; to be sure that they think a certain way, we lay out the laws of logic. When they abide by them, they are rational. When they do not, they are irrational. Therefore, rationality assumes a prescriptive reality.

Concerning the second, it has been argued that these laws of logic that we have developed are merely human inventions and thus are strictly subjective. This, however, is blatantly false. As people have argued on this very board, that thought process which has cured disease and landed us on the moon, that thought process that keeps us from stepping out into oncoming traffic, such a thought process is at least minimally representative of reality.We can argue that evolution produced these laws. At this point, it is very much like the moral argument. I absolutely could not care less where these laws came from. The point is that they aren't mere human inventions. In order to think up a "new logic" you would have to employ the "old logic."

In other words, the laws of logic were not invented. They were discovered. Now, again, perhaps the human brain simply evolved in such a way that we are not capable of thinking in any other fashion. Fine. But we didn't invent the way we think. We discovered the way we think. The law of non-contradiction is the starting point for all of this (along with the law of identity and the law of excluded middle). Logic, then, is part of the warp and woof of human nature at least, if not a part of reality as a whole.

Which leads to the third issue: if the laws of logic simply evolved and essentially made us what we are, then why is there a supernatural requirement for logic to exist? The reason is found in the first point above - because logic is prescriptive in nature. If philosophical materialism is true, then it turns out that what has evolved is not logic, but rather absolutely nothing more than a particular programming feature in the human brain that forces us to make this or that decision at any given time. This is of the utmost importance to understand. Logic does not exist in the naturalistic scheme. To prove this, take two people, John and Sarah. Suppose Sarah makes a decision you think is rational (she becomes an atheist), but John makes a decision you think is irrational (he becomes a suicide bomber). Now notice this very carefully: both of them used precisely the same evolutionarily evolved programming to make their decisions. In fact, neither Sarah nor John made their decisions at all. Their brain is so constructed that given a certain set of circumstances in their experiences, then they will necessarily come to certain conclusions. Why are these conclusions necessary? Quite simply, because everything is determined by the laws of nature. So the same mindless nature that makes one person and atheist makes another person a Jihadist. There is no prescription here. Only description. Upon inspection, in turns out that both used "logic" to come to their conclusions, because "logic" is nothing more than a descriptive process of the thought process people use to come to their decisions. That includes your own thought process by which you conclude that their thoughts are illogical! You have no more choice in what you think than Sarah or John did.

The only way, then, to say that Sarah or John are being rational is to say that there decisions are not determined by the laws of nature, and that, in fact, they have a choice whether or not they should act logically (wherever logic comes from, be it evolution or God or aliens or the flying spaghetti monster). If they have no choice,then there is no prescription, because there is no ought. But the only way to have a choice is to deny determinism, which is to say, the only way to say that they have a choice is to say that something within them exists beyond the laws of nature, that can operate beyond natural law. That which operates beyond natural law is called "supernatural."

Thus, the conclusion is firm and inescapable.

If there is no supernatural, then rational thought is impossible.
If there is no supernatural, then all thought is equally arational.
If there is no supernatural, then atheism is just as "rational" as religious fundamentalism.

Rationality can only exist if some part of us exists beyond the laws of nature.

Jac3510,

I appreciate the summary.  I kind of stopped paying attention after quantum physics and stochasticity were brought into the discussion.  Have you addressed the idea that what is known of quantum physics (no I don't understand it even a little bit) points towards determinism being false?  If materialism doesn't entail determinism, doesn't your argument fail at the start? Have you read Conway and Kochen?  What are your thoughts?

QuoteI would have to copy and paste from almost all of my responses to point you to the "right" post, including the first one. There, I said:

Now, for the argument itself, (2) is obviously true. The entire argument hinges on (1). Why should we believe it? Very simply, because if materialism were true, then everything would be determined by the laws of nature. Everything.

How does being "determined by the laws of nature" make anything (in this case human thought) irrational or arational?  Please take me through it step by step.

Perhaps it seems obvious to you, but it seems quite unintuitive to me, and it certainly hasn't been argued, merely asserted.  I'm not aware of any generally-accepted definition for "rational" that includes concepts of freedom or indeterminancy, are you?  On the contrary, if I build on this philosophical definition of "rationality" in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality:

QuoteIn philosophy, rationality is the exercise of reason, a key method used to analyze the data gained through systematically conducted observations.

Not only do I see no reference to rationality being free or non-determined in that (or any other) definition, but I see thinking rationally as reaching conclusions based on systematically conducted observations and reason - not much room for "freedom" at all.  One could almost say that by being rational, by using evidence and reason, one is constrained in one's possible conclusions.  But I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying that one can only be rational if one's thoughts are deterministic.

Quote(snip)
In other words, if there is no part of you that is capable of stepping “outside” the laws of nature and “thinking for itself,” then everything in your brainâ€"including your thoughtsâ€"is absolutely determined by the laws of nature. If that is true, then you aren’t thinking anymore than a rock is thinking when it falls. You are doing the exact same thing a rock is doingâ€"exactly what the laws of nature demand of you at this moment in this time given your particular physical composition.

You're not talking about rationality here, you're talking about free will.  Even if I accepted your description of a totally deterministic universe (I'm basically a compatibalist on free will, but for the sake of argument I will adopt the mantle of a determinist) - how does that make human thought irrational?  I happily accept that in a deterministic universe our thoughts would not be "free" in the classical sense, but how are they not rational?  What part of the definition of rational is violated by determinism?

Quote(snip)
The only way to have rational thought is to posit some part of you that exists outside the laws of nature and works independently of them.
(snip)
Thus, rationality is meaningless if you can't be self-determined. You can't be self-determined if there is not a part of you that exists outside the laws of nature.

I understand this claim, I just see no reason to believe it.  Nothing in my understanding of "to be rational" requires classical free will, requiring that "a part of you that exists outside the laws of nature".  Where are you getting this?  Can you argue for this without arbitrarily making up your own definition of rationality?

Thanks in advance for your patience,

Quote from: "Jac3510"Very simply, because if materialism were true, then everything would be determined by the laws of nature.

And the utter ignorance is exposed for precisely what it is with this phrase. Everything is not determined by the laws of nature. Everything is governed by the laws of nature. This does not entail determinism, and no amount of apologetic bum-custard will generate a model in which this pathetic bit of discoursive bait-and-switch holds any water whatsoever. Until this point is bridged, the OP, once again, has no argument.

You call this philosophy? I call it a failed attempt to support a puerile masturbation fantasy.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Jac3510,

I appreciate the summary.  I kind of stopped paying attention after quantum physics and stochasticity were brought into the discussion.  Have you addressed the idea that what is known of quantum physics (no I don't understand it even a little bit) points towards determinism being false?  If materialism doesn't entail determinism, doesn't your argument fail at the start? Have you read Conway and Kochen?  What are your thoughts?

I have not read Conway or Kochen. There is nothing in QM, however, that relieves the materialist from the necessity of determinism. All the talk of uncertainty is epistemological. The uncertainty is with respect to an observer (whether that observer is an intelligent being or, more commonly, something a simple as a photon), not the thing itself. Molecules don't sit around and ponder what they will do next, sometimes doing this, and other times choosing to do that. They just do what they do, and based on our observations of what they just do, we develop a description of their behaviors which we call the laws of nature.

Again, it is important to note that these laws are merely descriptive. No atom ought to do this or that. It simply does what it does, and our laws describe that behavior. If materialism is true, then every single effect is caused by something else necessarily, because there is nothing that sits around and ponders what to do next. Even the pondering in your brain would be merely illusory, because everything in your brain is, again, just physics. Complicated physics, yes, but still just physics. You still have nothing to do with your thoughts, in which case, we have no basis of calling them rational.

Quote from: "skevosmavros"

QuoteI would have to copy and paste from almost all of my responses to point you to the "right" post, including the first one. There, I said:

Now, for the argument itself, (2) is obviously true. The entire argument hinges on (1). Why should we believe it? Very simply, because if materialism were true, then everything would be determined by the laws of nature. Everything.

How does being "determined by the laws of nature" make anything (in this case human thought) irrational or arational?  Please take me through it step by step.

Perhaps it seems obvious to you, but it seems quite unintuitive to me, and it certainly hasn't been argued, merely asserted.  I'm not aware of any generally-accepted definition for "rational" that includes concepts of freedom or indeterminancy, are you?

You quoted the very first line of my paragraph and then ignored everything after it, and then stated I offered a mere assertion. Skev . . . in proper English composition, the topic sentence comes first and is followed by details. As such, I stated my topic up front and went on to explain it. All of the "step by step" that you are asking for is found in the very post you apparently ignored.

I'll be as patient as you like, but I do ask you to consider the words I have already written.

As for your question about the definition of rationality, we're talking about much more than definitions. A definition is merely a semantic issue. I'm talking about the ontology of rationality. For instance, the definition of "man" doesn't include the air in the room around him, but if there is no room around him, I can promise you there won't be any man--at least not one that can do anything.

I'm not arguing that the supernatural is found in the definition of 'rational.' I am arguing that the rational cannot exist in a deterministic universe, because the rational presupposes--by definition--a conforming to reason, that is, a conforming to the laws of logic, which is a prescriptive concept. Prescriptions, though, cannot exist in a deterministic model as determinism only allows for description. Therefore, rationality is impossible under determinism.

Edit: in other words, I'm arguing from the nature, not definition of rationality. See the title of the thread.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Even the pondering in your brain would be merely illusory, because everything in your brain is, again, just physics. Complicated physics, yes, but still just physics. You still have nothing to do with your thoughts, in which case, we have no basis of calling them rational.

Here's where I call bullshit, sorry, but this is bullshit, bullshit thought up by someone who sits around thinking up this bullshit, someone who's evidently living some kind of cloistered little life and has been doing so for way too long.













I hope you will excuse me for this outburst, forgive me according to what laws or rules or whatever apply to whatever the hell game it is that you're playing here.

Also, I apologize to the moderators and members of this forum for calling what Jac3510 is putting up here bullshit.

Would you care to back up your assertion, i_am_i, or is it just a mere assertion without evidence? If you get to make bald assertions and don't have to justify them, then I may as well, too: God exists. There. Bald assertion. I was under the impression that you, as an atheist, actually wanted evidence. If you don't, then ignore everything I've ever said and just take the bald assertion without evidence. God exists.

If, though, you are the least interested in intellectual honesty, then what evidence do you have that the statement of mine you quoted is incorrect? Do you think that what goes on in your brain is more than physics and chemistry? Is there some part of your brain that is exempt from the laws of nature, that gets to do what it wants to--think what it wants to, fire off this or that neuron when it wants too, just because it wants too--even if the laws of physics and chemistry demand otherwise?

If your thoughts come directly out of your brain, and your brain is just complicated chemistry and biology, what on earth makes you think that you have anything to do with your thoughts? Do molecules sit around and ponder whether or not they are going to react together? No, so what makes you think the molecules in your brain do?

You can complain that I've thought about this stuff too much if you'd like. I'm asking you to think about it. What on earth would possibly make you think that you have any control over your thoughts when you are nothing but a bunch of atoms interacting together? If your thoughts come out of your physical brain, why, pray tell, should your thoughts be somehow over and above the laws of nature that tell the atoms in your brain how to operate? Or do the laws of nature stop at your brain? You don't think that your brain has some supernatural power over nature, do you?

Quote from: "Jac3510"If your thoughts come directly out of your brain, and your brain is just complicated chemistry and biology, what on earth makes you think that you have anything to do with your thoughts? Do molecules sit around and ponder whether or not they are going to react together? No, so what makes you think the molecules in your brain do?

I don't know and you don't either.

Quote from: "Jac3510"You can complain that I've thought about this stuff too much if you'd like.

Not complaining, only observing.

Quote from: "Jac3510"I'm asking you to think about it. What on earth would possibly make you think that you have any control over your thoughts when you are nothing but a bunch of atoms interacting together?

But I don't think of myself as being nothing but a bunch of atoms interacting together.

Quote from: "Jac3510"If your thoughts come out of your physical brain, why, pray tell, should your thoughts be somehow over and above the laws of nature that tell the atoms in your brain how to operate? Or do the laws of nature stop at your brain? You don't think that your brain has some supernatural power over nature, do you?

Where else would my thoughts come from if not my physical brain? The supernatural?

If my thoughts come from the supernatural then they're not my thoughts, they're thoughts that are put in my brain by the supernatural something that is responsible for my thoughts. Either way, you see, according to what you're proposing here our thoughts cannot be our own, rational or not.

If the supernatural explanation for thought applies only to rational thought that simply doesn't make sense. It seems to me that you're asserting that irrational thought cannot have a supernatural explanation.

We are more than the sum of our parts.  Arguing the existence of a metaphysical part doesn't change that.

I think he's relying on the complexity of the brain to make it feel as though there's something going on beyond our comprehension. Yes, the brain is complex and difficult to understand. However, rolling up our sleeves and trying to figure out what makes it work is a lot more valuable than lazily concluding its thoughts ought to be credited to the supernatural. Also note, the difficulty of understanding and comprehending the functions of organs or any biological process can be a challenge, yet what is going on itself is very simple, merely obeying the natural laws. It's not as though any thought is required on the cells' part in order for them to do what they do.

I can see that.  The whole point, however, was that this thread has been a matter of arguing "more than the sum of our parts, therefore extra part".

1. Is logic prescriptive or descriptive
2. Is logic merely a human invention
3. Supernaturalism as a requirement for self-determination

1.)

Logic is descriptive. It describes things. In your example "So, if I say, 'The man fell down,' I am describing a process. If I say, 'Push the man, and he will fall down,' I am prescribing a process." The second is not just a prescriptive statement, it does prescribe one to push a man but then it describes what will happen when you push a man. A logical statement would be, "If you push the man, then he will fall down" including the common knowledge hidden premises (of course most of the time when one pushes me, they fall down).

Logic describes things, that's all it does, it doesn't prescribe anything. When we use logic properly, we don't have a desire in mind, because otherwise, our logic is likely to be subject to confirmation bias. Logic doesn't tell people how they ought to think, each person decides how they ought to think, logic is just a systematic process used to ensure a standard of reasoning that has shown to be accurate. We call people irrational when they use fallacies in their logic, not because they ought to not use fallacies, but because they do use fallacies. One could say people ought not to use fallacies, but that's not a logical statement, it's a prescription. We can say logically that if one wants to be rational, then they should avoid using fallacies. That is not a prescription, it's a description, because you can't be logical while using fallacies.

2.)

Logic is a human invention, just as math is. Logic is like math for statements, nothing more. If one wants an accurate view of the world, then logic is the way to go, because when one doesn't think logically, then they can't be sure that what conclusions they draw are accurate. The "laws" of logic are just as much an invention as the "laws" of gravity. The laws of gravity are not an accurate representation of gravity, as can be shown with complicated movements of very large and very small objects, however it's good enough for almost all purposes.

The comparison aside, logic is only the discovery of removing the margin of error from guesses and creating a way to be sure of what we're stating.

3.)

Well this came from nowhere. Why is there a supernatural requirement for logic to exist?

Thus the conclusion is ridiculous and squishy:

Three assumptions with no logic that follows.

And once again, no matter how many times you state your conclusion, it doesn't make your logic follow.



"I have not read Conway or Kochen. There is nothing in QM, however, that relieves the materialist from the necessity of determinism." This is a severe misunderstanding of QM. What follows those statements only shows your ignorance of QM and your reliance on mere assertions over testing if those assertions match reality.


Rationality is objective by nature, ought is subjective by nature, trying to assign "ought" to rationality goes against the nature of rationality.

If all people were given the same data, and used logic, then all people must necessarily come to the same conclusion. This goes against the subjectivity you keep trying to assert that rationality requires. The data that is known is subjective to each person, the rational thinking is not, logic is the same for everyone. In this way, rationality is objective, logical and mechanical. No need for using subjective terminology in an attempt to destroy the objective nature of rationality just so that it matches your baseless assertions. Also rational thinking does comply with the concept of determinism, so your first premise needs to be corrected to make the logic follow.



"Very simply, because if materialism were true, then everything would be determined by the laws of nature." This is a huge assumption because we haven't determined what the "laws" of nature are for how we make decisions. Until we are certain how we make decisions, everything stated about how we make decisions is mere speculation.

Quote from: "Jac3510"(Snip stuff aimed at others)
You quoted the very first line of my paragraph and then ignored everything after it,

Just because I didn't quote it doesn't mean I ignored it.  I was just trying to keep the quote scroll-factor low.  One can always scroll up to see the bits I snipped.

Quoteand then stated I offered a mere assertion. Skev . . . in proper English composition, the topic sentence comes first and is followed by details. As such, I stated my topic up front and went on to explain it. All of the "step by step" that you are asking for is found in the very post you apparently ignored.

I'll be as patient as you like, but I do ask you to consider the words I have already written.

Just to be sure I went back and reread the bits I snipped - I still see no compelling argument for free will being required as part of a definition for rationality (or if you prefer, "I still see no compelling argument for free will being an essential part of the nature of rationality" - better?).

All I see are repeated rephrasings and illustrations of your claim, nothing resembling an argument (that is, an argument that free will is inherently part of the nature of rationality).  For example:

QuoteIn other words, if there is no part of you that is capable of stepping “outside” the laws of nature and “thinking for itself,” then everything in your brainâ€"including your thoughtsâ€"is absolutely determined by the laws of nature. If that is true, then you aren’t thinking anymore than a rock is thinking when it falls.

This nicely outlines and illustrates your claim that rational thinking requires one to be "capable of stepping outside the laws of nature" so that one can engage in "thinking for itself", but it doesn't actually argue this.

You're asking me to equate two very different things - a rock falling and a brain thinking.  Even if I voluntarily put myself into a deterministic straight-jacket, and view the rock falling and the brain thinking as both totally deterministic events - they are still quite distinct from each other.  Even in a deterministic universe, I can comprehend the rock falling to be arational, and the brain thinking to be rational (or irrational!).

I understand that you disagree - I just don't agree that you have presented sufficient argument or demonstration that free will is an essential part of the nature of rationality.

------ SIDE POINTS ------
To be fair, I realise I'm essentially asking you to go off on a tangent, since you're actually arguing for something else in this thread (materialism is false/the supernatural exists).  The claim I'm asking you to defend (that free will is part of the nature of rationality) is merely one of your premises in that argument -- it's not what you're here to argue.  But for me it is the primary sticking point.

If you can convince me that determinism is incompatible with rationality, you'll be well on your way to making me a supernaturalist (not entirely there though, as I'm not actually a determinist but a compatibalist on the topic of free will, so you may just wind up making me rethink what rationality is, but even that would be a big deal for me).

In short, if you make me accept that premise, you're on your way.

Also - just for the record and very briefly, I'm already happy to agree that immaterial things can be said to "exist", just not in the way that material things exist.  The immaterial things that I believe exist are not the sorts of things typically labeled "supernatural" - and by immaterial existence, I don't just mean concepts either.  For example, I accept that democracy "exists", and not just as an abstract concept, but it doesn't exist the same way that a rock exists.  So I'm not strictly speaking a materialist, so not all of your work is ahead of you when it comes to making me accept that something immaterial is required for rationality.  I just don't see it being required.
------ END SIDE POINTS ------

QuoteAs for your question about the definition of rationality, we're talking about much more than definitions. A definition is merely a semantic issue. I'm talking about the ontology of rationality. For instance, the definition of "man" doesn't include the air in the room around him, but if there is no room around him, I can promise you there won't be any man--at least not one that can do anything.

Firstly, my concerns about "the definition of rationality" map just fine to concerns about the ontology, so please don't be distracted by my use of the term "definition" - I have expressed it differently above, I hope that suffices.

Secondly - your man and air metaphor again nicely illustrates your point - air is indeed typically required for men to exist.  Now all you have to demonstrate/argue is that free will is similarly vital for rationality to exist.  Can you do so without simply arguing from metaphor and illustration?  I'd genuinely like to see such an argument.  This is the closest you get:

QuoteI'm not arguing that the supernatural is found in the definition of 'rational.'

I didn't claim you were, I claimed that you seem to have "free will" (not the supernatural) built into your definition of rationality - but we're no longer discussing definitions, right?  ;-)

QuoteI am arguing that the rational cannot exist in a deterministic universe, because the rational presupposes--by definition--a conforming to reason, that is, a conforming to the laws of logic, which is a prescriptive concept. Prescriptions, though, cannot exist in a deterministic model as determinism only allows for description. Therefore, rationality is impossible under determinism.

Even if I accept that the "laws of logic" are "prescriptive concepts" (I'm not 100% sure I know what you mean by that, since the history of logic strongly suggests to me that the laws of logic (the "logical absolutes"?), like other natural laws discovered/elucidated by humans (laws of thermodynamics etc) are based at least partly on observation, but I'll let it slide for now), all you've done is shift your claim from "determinism is incompatible with rationality" to "determinism is incompatible with prescriptive concepts".  How so?  Why cannot one be predetermined to detect, perceive, understand, assert or be compelled by prescriptive concepts?

Also, moving forward a bit, even if I eventually accept that the universe DOES contain the supernatural, and even if I also accept that some supernatural element IS inherently part of rational thinking -- couldn't the supernatural realm be just as deterministic as the natural realm?  After all, if cause and effect does not operate within the supernatural realm, what does?  Randomness?  Chaos?  Some other alternative?  When I "step outside myself" to "think rationally", how are my thoughts going to be any more free from being the result of cause and effect?  More to the point, how would freeing my thoughts from cause and effect make them rational?

Adding the supernatural to the mix doesn't really solve the claimed problem of determinism being incompatible with rationality, does it?  How so?

QuoteEdit: in other words, I'm arguing from the nature, not definition of rationality. See the title of the thread. :-)

Thanks again,

Quote from: "Jac3510"There is nothing in QM, however, that relieves the materialist from the necessity of determinism. All the talk of uncertainty is epistemological. The uncertainty is with respect to an observer (whether that observer is an intelligent being or, more commonly, something a simple as a photon), not the thing itself.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. Here's what you could have won:

The uncertainty in quantum mechanics has precisely bugger all to do with an observer, so this is yet another topic in which you're holding forth in ignorance. The uncertainty in quantum mechanics is inherent in the system, which means that a particle doesn't actually have a position or a velocity until the collapse of the wavefunction, which is the only role of the observer.

As for the necessity of determinism, you have merely proclaimed this, with no support whatsoever. Most importantly, you still haven't demonstrated that the brain being governed by the principles elucidated in our physical laws entails determinism.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"I can see that.  The whole point, however, was that this thread has been a matter of arguing "more than the sum of our parts, therefore extra part".

Physically speaking, you're not more than the sum of your parts. The parts just work together in really nifty ways.

Quote from: "Sophus"The parts just work together in really nifty ways.

That would be the "more" of which I was speaking.  I guess the bare bones version of the point was that finding a really neato property that has emerged from various interactions doesn't mean that there has to be magic involved.

Except, of course, that to the credulous, emergence is itself magical. They really can't see how anything can be emergent. Really, the entirety of theistic argumentation is merely one massive argumentum ad ignorantiam, and nothing more than convoluted semantic fabrication such as we've seen from the resident apologist in this thread.

This reminds me of an article I have in the July '10 issue of Game Informer magazine.  It was about notable game glitches.  Many of them were unexpected emergent behaviors in the game that wasn't programmed in, yet happened anyway.

1 - The Elder Scroll IV: Oblivion - The game contains a quest wherein a prisoner needed to be spoken with.  The glitch was that he was periodically found dead.  An intensive investigation discovered that the guards were getting hungry and killing the prisoner for his food.  Remember, the guards were not programmed to do this, they chose to do so on their own based on an interaction of other programmed behaviors.

2 - Dead to Rights: Retribution - The main character's (Jack) pet dog was programmed to fetch ammunition.  One of the side effects to this was that he recognized live grenades as ammunition, which he would fetch and obediently drop at Jack's feet.  They didn't program the dog to fetch live grenades, indeed, they aren't even ammunition, yet they had ot add programming to tell the dog that ONLY inactive grenades were valid ammo.

3 - Terminus - In testing, missiles fired would simply blow up.  It turns out that the mechanics of the game were so detail oriented that the game was accounting for the missile's diameter and it was getting caught in the firing tube.  They didn't program the game to worry about the size of the missile, but by programming those two details, the game assumed that the missile would get stuck in the tube.

4 - The Maw - One of the achievements in this game was to feed every creature.  It was soon discovered, however that some of the creatures were disappearing.  The conundrum was solved when a tester noticed a hostile creature slamming the small creatures into mountains.  When one was slammed hard into a narrow crevice, the game didn't like that it was getting stuck, so it spewed the little guys out at near infinite velocity, rocketing them into space.  Again, the game wasn't programmed to do this, it did so on its own.

The above examples are nothing compared to some of the emergent properties found in nature, but then computer programs are simple compared to the detail in nature as well.  The first example to me is the most striking, as it involves the computer generated character making a decision it wasn't programmed to make.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"This reminds me of an article I have in the July '10 issue of Game Informer magazine.  It was about notable game glitches.  Many of them were unexpected emergent behaviors in the game that wasn't programmed in, yet happened anyway.

1 - The Elder Scroll IV: Oblivion - The game contains a quest wherein a prisoner needed to be spoken with.  The glitch was that he was periodically found dead.  An intensive investigation discovered that the guards were getting hungry and killing the prisoner for his food.  Remember, the guards were not programmed to do this, they chose to do so on their own based on an interaction of other programmed behaviors.

2 - Dead to Rights: Retribution - The main character's (Jack) pet dog was programmed to fetch ammunition.  One of the side effects to this was that he recognized live grenades as ammunition, which he would fetch and obediently drop at Jack's feet.  They didn't program the dog to fetch live grenades, indeed, they aren't even ammunition, yet they had ot add programming to tell the dog that ONLY inactive grenades were valid ammo.

3 - Terminus - In testing, missiles fired would simply blow up.  It turns out that the mechanics of the game were so detail oriented that the game was accounting for the missile's diameter and it was getting caught in the firing tube.  They didn't program the game to worry about the size of the missile, but by programming those two details, the game assumed that the missile would get stuck in the tube.

4 - The Maw - One of the achievements in this game was to feed every creature.  It was soon discovered, however that some of the creatures were disappearing.  The conundrum was solved when a tester noticed a hostile creature slamming the small creatures into mountains.  When one was slammed hard into a narrow crevice, the game didn't like that it was getting stuck, so it spewed the little guys out at near infinite velocity, rocketing them into space.  Again, the game wasn't programmed to do this, it did so on its own.

The above examples are nothing compared to some of the emergent properties found in nature, but then computer programs are simple compared to the detail in nature as well.  The first example to me is the most striking, as it involves the computer generated character making a decision it wasn't programmed to make.

Ha! That's fascinating. The more complex game programming gets the more, I suppose, we can expect the unexpected.

Quote from: "Sophus"The more complex game programming gets the more, I suppose, we can expect the unexpected.

At this point most video game bugs aren't so much emergent as they are a matter of oversight, such a flower that grows bigger by collecting pedals in the level with no programmed size-cap grew large enough to dwarf mountains in one game.  They merely capped the size and that fixed it.  That said, the fact that the complexity of games keeps growing has actually made beta-testing just as important as alpha testing in online games because there are glitches that don't become apparent until thousands of people get online and get dirty.  Also, as the complexity increases, the frequency of emergent glitches rises.

Quote from: "Davin"1. Is logic prescriptive or descriptive
2. Is logic merely a human invention
3. Supernaturalism as a requirement for self-determination

1.)

Logic is descriptive. It describes things. In your example "So, if I say, 'The man fell down,' I am describing a process. If I say, 'Push the man, and he will fall down,' I am prescribing a process." The second is not just a prescriptive statement, it does prescribe one to push a man but then it describes what will happen when you push a man. A logical statement would be, "If you push the man, then he will fall down" including the common knowledge hidden premises (of course most of the time when one pushes me, they fall down).

Logic describes things, that's all it does, it doesn't prescribe anything. When we use logic properly, we don't have a desire in mind, because otherwise, our logic is likely to be subject to confirmation bias. Logic doesn't tell people how they ought to think, each person decides how they ought to think, logic is just a systematic process used to ensure a standard of reasoning that has shown to be accurate. We call people irrational when they use fallacies in their logic, not because they ought to not use fallacies, but because they do use fallacies. One could say people ought not to use fallacies, but that's not a logical statement, it's a prescription. We can say logically that if one wants to be rational, then they should avoid using fallacies. That is not a prescription, it's a description, because you can't be logical while using fallacies.

Which makes logic prescriptive. Logic does not describe the way we think. It describes right thinking. Obviously, all prescriptions include a measure of description. Not all description, however, includes prescription. Prescription necessarily includes the ought, which is meaningless in a deterministic world.

Notice your use of "should." You say, "they should avoid using fallacies." That is a prescription any way you cut it. Your entire paragraph assumes prediction. If I want to be rational, then I shouldn't use fallacies. You assert this is not a prescription, but that is exactly what it is. You have prescribed the means by which we are to be rational.

I'll comment on the obligation to rationality more below.

Quote2.)

Logic is a human invention, just as math is. Logic is like math for statements, nothing more. If one wants an accurate view of the world, then logic is the way to go, because when one doesn't think logically, then they can't be sure that what conclusions they draw are accurate. The "laws" of logic are just as much an invention as the "laws" of gravity. The laws of gravity are not an accurate representation of gravity, as can be shown with complicated movements of very large and very small objects, however it's good enough for almost all purposes.

The comparison aside, logic is only the discovery of removing the margin of error from guesses and creating a way to be sure of what we're stating.

Math was not invented by humans. It was discovered by humans. Same with logic.

Quote3.)

Well this came from nowhere. Why is there a supernatural requirement for logic to exist?

Thus the conclusion is ridiculous and squishy:

Three assumptions with no logic that follows.

And once again, no matter how many times you state your conclusion, it doesn't make your logic follow.

Because rationality requires logic, logic is prescriptive, prescription implies ought, but ought is meaningless under determinism, and thus by extension rationality is meaningless under determinism. Prescription can only hold if self-determination is possible, and self-determination is impossible under materialism. Thus, rationality is impossible under materialism, which means rationality is only possible under supernaturalism.

Quote"I have not read Conway or Kochen. There is nothing in QM, however, that relieves the materialist from the necessity of determinism." This is a severe misunderstanding of QM. What follows those statements only shows your ignorance of QM and your reliance on mere assertions over testing if those assertions match reality.

Rationality is objective by nature, ought is subjective by nature, trying to assign "ought" to rationality goes against the nature of rationality.

If all people were given the same data, and used logic, then all people must necessarily come to the same conclusion. This goes against the subjectivity you keep trying to assert that rationality requires. The data that is known is subjective to each person, the rational thinking is not, logic is the same for everyone. In this way, rationality is objective, logical and mechanical. No need for using subjective terminology in an attempt to destroy the objective nature of rationality just so that it matches your baseless assertions. Also rational thinking does comply with the concept of determinism, so your first premise needs to be corrected to make the logic follow.

"Very simply, because if materialism were true, then everything would be determined by the laws of nature." This is a huge assumption because we haven't determined what the "laws" of nature are for how we make decisions. Until we are certain how we make decisions, everything stated about how we make decisions is mere speculation.

You consistently confuse conclusions with assumptions.

In any case, yes, if all people had precisely the same data (and givens), then following logic, all would reach the same conclusions. People, however, do not have the same data, nor the same givens. Logic, in and of itself, is not concerned with truth. It is concerned with the proper relationship of propositions. Consider the following:

1. Jac has met all women
2. All women Jac has met are blond
3. Therefore, all women are blond

This is a perfectly valid logical argument. It obviously isn't sound, because both premises are false. We only know that a posteriori, though. (We should here distinguish between formal logic and material logic . . . the argument is formally valid, but materially false.)

So when we are being rational, we ask two questions: 1. is the argument valid, and 2. is it sound? The first is merely mechanic. The second requires justification and gets into epistemological issues. In other words, it asks, what reason to have I have for thinking this might be true? Or, put differently, "Why ought I believe this?" Again, we see "ought" rearing its head again. It is impossible on this level to discuss what is logical or illogical without discussing what we ought or ought not accept. Yet if determinism is true, there is no "ought" to accept. There is no such thing as justification of truth, and therefore, there is no such thing as a "reason" to believe something is "true." As such, the test for soundness goes out the window, as with all logic, and thus, all rationality.

Rationality, logic, and prescription are all inseparable. You ought to be rational enough to accept that.

Which leads me back to the duty to be rational. The simple fact that we ought to be rational is sufficient to prove my entire argument. The entire argument rests on the idea that rationality presumes prescription. It is absolutely evident that it does (though I will try to demonstrate it more formally below, at skev's request). Yet more basically, the very notion that we ought to be rational in the first place in and of itself is prescriptive, and since prescription is meaningless under determinism, it is absurd to say we ought to do anything. If determinism is true, I can't say that you ought to be rational. Whether you make a rational or irrational "choice" isn't up to you. It's all just physics. You didn't have a choice at all in the matter on what to think, say, believe, or do. If you have no "choice" but to "choose" one thing, it is ridiculous to say that "choice" was the one you "ought" to have made, and that includes the choice to be rational.

But still more to the point, even if somehow you could make a choice (which would be impossible), it would be impossible for me to judge your choice as either rational or irrational, because no matter what conclusion I come to, it is the conclusion I must necessarily come to based on the laws of physics. If I say you commit this or that fallacy, I'm not really saying anything. I'm just doing what the chemicals in my brain tell me to do. And if I say instead that same statement is valid, I came to no such conclusion--again, I'm simply saying what the chemicals in my brain tell me to do. Still further, your evaluation of my claim that your statement is (ir)rational would be in precisely the same situation--completely determined.

The "ought" is completely meaningless. You ought not do anything, and I ought not do anything in response. Even if rationality were possible (and I contend it would not be), it would not matter, because no one ought to be rational. They would just be doing exactly what they would have to do! Therefore, the obligation to rationality presupposes some ability to act in a self-determined manner if it is to have any meaning, which is to say, that something supernatural exists.

Now, because of the length of this reply, on to Skev's in the next.

Ok, Skev -- your entire post was essentially you asking me for a formal argument that "free will" (your term, not mine) is "part" of rationality. That's fair. Let me restate the argument, then, with appropriate sub-arguments.

1. If rational thought is possible, materialism is false;
2. Rational thought is possible;
3. Therefore, materialism is false.

Sub argument for (1)

A. Rational thought requires self-determination
B. Self-determination is impossible in materialism
C. Therefore, if rational thought is possible, materialism is false.

Sub argument for (A)

a. Rational thought is prescriptive
b. That which is prescriptive requires self-determination
c. Therefore, rational thought requires self-determination

Briefly, let me defend (b) here before we provide a sub-argument for (a). Prescription describes what ought to be; description describes what is. Under determinism, things cannot be other than what they are, therefore, it is meaningless to say that they ought to be some other way, and therefore, prescription is meaningless (to illustrate, we may as well say a computer ought to do something it is not programmed to do).

Two more sub arguments. First, for (a)

i. Rational thought is that which conforms to the laws of logic
ii. The laws of logic are prescriptive
iii. Therefore, rational thought is prescriptive

(i) should be uncontroversial enough. This leaves us only with (ii):

* Prescription describes what ought to be
** The laws of logic describe how we ought to think (not necessarily how we do think)
*** Therefore, the laws of logic are prescriptive

Getting away from syllogistic defense on this last point, you can see more on this in detail in what I argued to Davin. In logic, we distinguish between valid and sound arguments. Things can be valid all day long, and we can create valid syllogisms a priori as long as we like. We will never know, however, if our argument is sound (supposing, at the very least, that it deals with the word), unless our propositions are true. This, of course, raises the thorny epistemological question: how do I know if something is true? Whatever answer you provide, you most certainly will talk in some way about justification. Indeed, in giving your criteria for truth (whether mathematical certainty, moral certainty, or mere probability is your guide), you will inevitably, by the very fact that you are giving criteria, be giving prescriptions. That is what a justification is--why I ought to think this or not think this. You say, "I am justified in thinking this because . . ." If there is no justification, you ought not think it. Therefore, the ought factor--that is, prescription--is totally inseparable from basic logic, which makes it inseparable from rationality.

A second point is the same one I made to Davin above. We can get far more basic and get away from the rationality argument proper and just look at prescription. The fact that prescription is impossible in determinism means that it can only exist in a world that contains a supernatural element. I contend that rationality is fundamentally prescriptive, but it's easy enough to see that we use prescriptions in pretty much every aspect of life. It would be counter-intuitive, to say the least, to tell me that prescription, in fact, is meaningless. That, however, seems to me to be the necessary result of philosophical materialism (or, if you prefer, naturalism; I don't much care to quibble over the particular word here).

I hope this is more to your satisfaction.

And still no support for the bald assertion that materialism=determinism.

Quote from: "hackenslash"And still no support for the bald assertion that materialism=determinism.

After following this discussion, I'm actually kinda curious as to what else materialism might lead to than determinism...  :pop:

And back to lurking for now! ====>

My understanding is that atomic decay of an atom is Random. That's random with a capital R. We can tell atomic decay is outside the realm of cause and effect -- and thus truly random -- by observing that there is no "extra" energy present in the debris of an atom that has decayed. Extra energy that would have to be present if anything "nudged" -- or caused -- the atom to decay.  

With such Random events happening all the time, I have to think determinism is dead.

I think the universe is stochastic. It is mechanical in its operation, but can accomodate random input such as atomic decay.

That means the universe operates according to strict physical law, but at the same time is not deterministic, and thus the future is not written in stone.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Which makes logic prescriptive. Logic does not describe the way we think. It describes right thinking. Obviously, all prescriptions include a measure of description. Not all description, however, includes prescription. Prescription necessarily includes the ought, which is meaningless in a deterministic world.

Notice your use of "should." You say, "they should avoid using fallacies." That is a prescription any way you cut it. Your entire paragraph assumes prediction. If I want to be rational, then I shouldn't use fallacies. You assert this is not a prescription, but that is exactly what it is. You have prescribed the means by which we are to be rational.

I'll comment on the obligation to rationality more below.

I never said logic describes the way we think, I said that it describes a way to think that allows us to be sure that what we're stating is accurate and standardized. If you want to call that "right" thinking, go ahead, no one has to agree with you just because you state something.

Nice, taking part of my sentence out of context, beautiful work, it almost brings a tear to my eye to see how many dishonest tactics you use to "prove" your argument. That cut portion of my sentence may be a prescription "any way you cut it," however for this to have been an honest point, you would have not cut it and kept it in context. Secondly, it's not a prescription, it's a description. Prescriptions prescribe things, my sentence prescribes nothing, just describes that one cannot be rational while using fallacies. I noticed that you italicized the "if" at the start of the sentence, because that is very important to the entire context of the sentence.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Math was not invented by humans. It was discovered by humans. Same with logic.

That's it? Well then here's my equally robust rebuttal: No, you're wrong.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Because rationality requires logic, logic is prescriptive, prescription implies ought, but ought is meaningless under determinism, and thus by extension rationality is meaningless under determinism. Prescription can only hold if self-determination is possible, and self-determination is impossible under materialism. Thus, rationality is impossible under materialism, which means rationality is only possible under supernaturalism.

Still, just stating things over and over again doesn't make your logic follow: logic is not prescriptive, prescription is subjective, logic is not. You can use logic for prescription, however that doesn't mean that that is what logic is.

Quote from: "Jac3510"You consistently confuse conclusions with assumptions.

You constantly confuse assumptions with conclusions.

And more than just making a bold statement and pretending like I proved my point, I'll explain: you stated that there can be no naturalistic explanation for rational thought, yet you don't know how people think (no one on this planet knows enough about how humans make decisions), you're asserting some thing without evidence... that is a baseless assertion. See how it works? Instead of just making statements, I make statements that make sense while showing my evidence.

Quote from: "Jac3510"In any case, yes, if all people had precisely the same data (and givens), then following logic, all would reach the same conclusions.

Good glad we agree on this (without the "givens" that is).

Quote from: "Jac3510"People, however, do not have the same data, nor the same givens.

Really? Like I said in the very same paragraph you're responding to? Thanks for clarifying something I had clearly stated.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Logic, in and of itself, is not concerned with truth.

Good job, baby steps, take your time as needed, we just need to get to removing your desire to inject subjective crap into something intended to to be objective.

Quote from: "Jac3510"It is concerned with the proper relationship of propositions. Consider the following:

1. Jac has met all women
2. All women Jac has met are blond
3. Therefore, all women are blond

So wait, what is this logic prescribing? After all it "is a perfectly valid logical argument" and you said that "logic is prescriptive," then how could this be "a perfectly valid logical argument" if it's not prescribing anything?

Quote from: "Jac3510"So when we are being rational, we ask two questions: 1. is the argument valid, and 2. is it sound? The first is merely mechanic. The second requires justification and gets into epistemological issues. In other words, it asks, what reason to have I have for thinking this might be true? Or, put differently, "Why ought I believe this?" Again, we see "ought" rearing its head again. It is impossible on this level to discuss what is logical or illogical without discussing what we ought or ought not accept. Yet if determinism is true, there is no "ought" to accept. There is no such thing as justification of truth, and therefore, there is no such thing as a "reason" to believe something is "true." As such, the test for soundness goes out the window, as with all logic, and thus, all rationality.

Rationality, logic, and prescription are all inseparable. You ought to be rational enough to accept that.

Which leads me back to the duty to be rational. The simple fact that we ought to be rational is sufficient to prove my entire argument. The entire argument rests on the idea that rationality presumes prescription. It is absolutely evident that it does (though I will try to demonstrate it more formally below, at skev's request). Yet more basically, the very notion that we ought to be rational in the first place in and of itself is prescriptive, and since prescription is meaningless under determinism, it is absurd to say we ought to do anything. If determinism is true, I can't say that you ought to be rational. Whether you make a rational or irrational "choice" isn't up to you. It's all just physics. You didn't have a choice at all in the matter on what to think, say, believe, or do. If you have no "choice" but to "choose" one thing, it is ridiculous to say that "choice" was the one you "ought" to have made, and that includes the choice to be rational.

But still more to the point, even if somehow you could make a choice (which would be impossible), it would be impossible for me to judge your choice as either rational or irrational, because no matter what conclusion I come to, it is the conclusion I must necessarily come to based on the laws of physics. If I say you commit this or that fallacy, I'm not really saying anything. I'm just doing what the chemicals in my brain tell me to do. And if I say instead that same statement is valid, I came to no such conclusion--again, I'm simply saying what the chemicals in my brain tell me to do. Still further, your evaluation of my claim that your statement is (ir)rational would be in precisely the same situation--completely determined.

The "ought" is completely meaningless. You ought not do anything, and I ought not do anything in response. Even if rationality were possible (and I contend it would not be), it would not matter, because no one ought to be rational. They would just be doing exactly what they would have to do! Therefore, the obligation to rationality presupposes some ability to act in a self-determined manner if it is to have any meaning, which is to say, that something supernatural exists.

Now, because of the length of this reply, on to Skev's in the next.

You do like to go on and on without saying very much. You can argue that people "ought" to be rational because of duty and obligation, however there is no reason why everyone must be rational, it's just your assertion.

You came to the table with very odd definitions of things like rationality, materialism, naturalism, logic... etc. that all depend on your view of the world, however make the words almost completely useless to use out of the context of this argument. Your definition of rational thinking is very different than the normal, common and even pedantic definitions of rational thinking, then act like your peculiar definition some how solidifies your position. It doesn't. Now you're arrogant enough to say that it's everybody's obligation and duty to be rational as if it's some kind of universal obligation that every one must fulfill? Sorry, but little babies that die after only a few months have no obligation to be rational, people with mental development disorders have no obligation to be rational, a man falling down a cliff to his death has no obligation to be rational, a person in the middle of the desert all alone has no obligation to be rational... etc. Obviously being rational isn't a universal obligation if there are several times and several people who do not fulfill that obligation without any bad effects on them or any one/thing else. In short, there is no universal requirement for anyone to be rational.

Now let's tackle your silly point about if the world were deterministic (I'm not saying that it is, this is just a thought experiment), that people aren't really making choices: When water boils, do we just say, "that's just the laws of physics?" When water freezes do we just say, "that's just the laws of physics?" When we describe how the sun works do we just say, "that's just the laws of physics, it doesn't mean anything?" No, some of us explain the processes of how those things happen. In the same way, even in a deterministic world, we'd describe thoughts and choices. In fact, if it turns out that the universe is pre-determined, then we'd all act exactly the same as we're determined to act. Maybe we'd refine the definitions, but to say that "it doesn't mean anything therefore stop defining things" just doesn't make any sense. We'd still define thoughts and decisions just as humans define everything. Why do you want to drop the definitions of things if the universe turns out not to be the way you want it to be? Also, why are all your odd definitions of things wrapped around your world view?

Now if you'd just have an honest conversation, that would be great, however I don't think that you have the ability to have an honest discussion as evidenced by several pages of text showing your use of disingenuous (at best) tactics. I know that you allow yourself to just make bold accusations without providing the evidence and reasoning for it, while you question everyone else as if they can be held to a different standard than you hold yourself to, so here's a short list:

Straw Man: in your first post, "The worldview on which most versions of atheism are built is called philosophical naturalism, materialism, or physicalism." Already covered that this statement is not just unfounded, but an attempt to put "most" atheists into one box. Then you went on to express a very bad understanding of materialism and determinism.

False Dichotomy and Argument from Ignorance: "If rational thought is possible, materialism is false" You have yet to construct a link to how this statement is true or even at least valid. Of course that may depend on your ever changing definition of rational thought covered next. However just because you can't think of other options, doesn't mean that other options don't exist.

Moving the Goal Post:
First Post: "so let’s define rational thought if it isn’t obvious to everyone. Rational thought is thought which is characterized by reason, and reason, of course, is the intellectual faculty by which knowledge is gained."

Later Definition: "However, that which makes a thought "rational" is a thought that stands in accordance with what we ought  to think given the constraints of logic, which is to say, it is what we ought to think following the normal intellectual process we call reason."

--Then later:

Davin: "So, by your definition; in order to be rational, one must be able to act irrationally?"

Jac3510: "Yes, of course."

So rationality went from one definition to another, then yet another addendum as the discussion went on.

Moving the Goal Post 2:

Jac3510: If there is no randomizing component [...], then you can predict exactly what the computer will do in response to your move--not because it is the rational thing to do, but because it is forced to make a particular move with reference to your particular position and its predefined value system.

So a computer isn't being rational because: you can predict what it will do and it has a predefined value system, got it.

Davin: This is only true for some programs, Deep Blue for instance made choices that no one could predict. The program was programmed to adjust the values it was giving based on learning gained from playing against humans.

See? Not all programs operate that way so this must be wrong and computers are making rational choices right? The program was learning and making decisions based on what was learned.  This matches your first definition of rational thought right?

Jac3510: Wrong. Deep Blue learned from its matches, and thus, given each game, it had a new dataset from which to work. The moves are always determined based on the dataset.

Oh wrong?, even though I refuted exactly what you said are the problems with a computer making rational decisions? Oh you're adding onto that, that because all decisions are based on a dataset then the computer can't be rational.

Davin: Wrong. Not just a dataset. Any way, how is this different than people basing their decisions on what they've learned?

If computers aren't being rational for making decisions based on what they know, then people making decisions on what they know are equally irrational.

Jac3510: Yes, just a dataset. It doesn't matter the source of that data. It could have been built in or learned.That dataset, of course, is acted upon by a library of functions, but the dataset is the determinative factor always. And it is different from what people learn exactly as I described above. We have the ability to choose. Computers don't.

Just a dataset really? Oh wait, not just a dataset because then you said "That dataset, of course, is acted upon by a library of functions" which means it's not just a dataset despite in your same paragraph you said it was. Nice job refuting yourself. But anyway, where has this goal post moved to now? Oh some vague and silly statement that humans can choose and computers can't. This is ridiculous because if computers couldn't make decisions, they wouldn't work. Any way the goal post keeps on moving for a few more posts after this. Later you said that humans can learn through being corrected, so I mentioned that programs do that as well to which you moved the goal post to that a person can be "wrong" while the program can't, to which I asked what the difference was... to which you dropped it. Notice that every time I showed that your statement was incorrect, that you added something on? I did.

Bare Assertions: "I have not read Conway or Kochen. There is nothing in QM, however, that relieves the materialist from the necessity of determinism." This a bare assertion as well as contrary to evidence. Not only does QM relieve "the materialist from the necessity of determinism" but it describes how it frees one from the necessity of determinism. It's a bad idea to ignore evidence, just because it conflicts with your beliefs.

Taking things out of context: Already one covered in this post.

And many more that I haven't covered in this post, including the hilarious hi-jinks of avoiding the points I'm making to instead respond to things I've never even said.

Truly, you must be a great hero championing the crest of arrogance on top the steed of assumption, wielding the sword fallacy, and protected by the armor of ignorance.

@ Davin
 :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:

While I will let Jac respond to your post's specific points if he so wishes,  I do want to point out the rather large hypocrisy laced in your post:  arrogantly calling someone arrogant.

First, I just found this one interesting.

Quote from: "Davin""Instead of just making statements, I make statements that make sense while showing my evidence."

-->  

Quote from: "Davin""That's it? Well then here's my equally robust rebuttal: No, you're wrong."

Next, on to the main point:

Quote from: "Davin""Nice, taking part of my sentence out of context, beautiful work, it almost brings a tear to my eye to see how many dishonest tactics you use to "prove" your argument."

While sarcasm in and of itself isn't exactly rude, or arrogant.. I'd say this sentence could quite easily be classified as both.

Quote from: "Davin""Good job, baby steps, take your time as needed, we just need to get to removing your desire to inject subjective crap into something intended to to be objective."

Hmm, rude... arrogant...? Yep yet again I'd say this sentence could quite easily be classified as both.

Quote from: "Davin""You do like to go on and on without saying very much."

What again?... rude... arrogant...? Yep yet again, again, I'd say this sentence could quite easily be classified as both.

Quote from: "Davin""Truly, you must be a great hero championing the crest of arrogance on top the steed of assumption, wielding the sword fallacy, and protected by the armor of ignorance."

And, yes, I am sure you were patting yourself on the back when you were penning (err... typing) this final metaphor, however I  do hope that you are able to see how ridiculously hypocritical it inherently is to arrogantly call someone arrogant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it pleases you, I want to end with a final question:

Quote from: "Davin""Now if you'd just have an honest conversation, that would be great, however I don't think that you have the ability to have an honest discussion as evidenced by several pages of text showing your use of disingenuous (at best) tactics."

Why, if you are so convinced that Jac is dishonest, do you continue to discuss with him?  And furthermore

Quote from: "Davin""Now you're arrogant enough to say that it's everybody's obligation and duty to be rational as if it's some kind of universal obligation that every one must fulfill? Sorry, but little babies that die after only a few months have no obligation to be rational, people with mental development disorders have no obligation to be rational, a man falling down a cliff to his death has no obligation to be rational, a person in the middle of the desert all alone has no obligation to be rational... etc. Obviously being rational isn't a universal obligation if there are several times and several people who do not fulfill that obligation without any bad effects on them or any one/thing else. In short, there is no universal requirement for anyone to be rational."

Why, according to this, do you even expect Jac's points to be rational(IE: not containing logical flaws)?  He has no obligation to be rational.  So aren't your points rebutting his irrationality somewhat... pointless?

-Ihateusernames

Jeeze, is everyone trying to be a mod now or what?

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Jeeze, is everyone trying to be a mod now or what?

That comment was out of line  

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Jeeze, is everyone trying to be a mod now or what?

That comment was out of line  :D

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Jeeze, is everyone trying to be a mod now or what?

Meh,  I wasn't trying to be a mod at all.  In fact, had his post not been ended with the hypocritically arrogant sentiment that being arrogant is 'bad'.. I wouldn't have said anything.  I really couldn't care less if he is rude, or arrogant, or anything of the sort--It's his choice, however when he attempts to condemn what he is spewing himself, it then becomes enjoyable to point out the hypocrisy.  That was the point of my previous post.

-Ihateusernames

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"While I will let Jac respond to your post's specific points if he so wishes,  I do want to point out the rather large hypocrisy laced in your post:  arrogantly calling someone arrogant.

First, I just found this one interesting.

Quote from: "Davin""Instead of just making statements, I make statements that make sense while showing my evidence."

-->  

Quote from: "Davin""That's it? Well then here's my equally robust rebuttal: No, you're wrong."

Maybe you didn't notice my two paragraphs to which he responded with a simple statement without refutation or explanation. Taking the time to try and explain my point of view only to get a short response that is equivalent to "I'm right and you're wrong" is a bit in bad form on Jac3510's part, so I made a joke that had two intentions: to point out that Jac3510 hadn't actually responded to what I said and that Jac3510 was obscenely brief in the response. If you had read the other threads and all of this one, then you you'd have seen several attempts to address this problem of Jac3510 not responding to what I say and responding to something else while looking as if Jac3510's responding to me or just merely asserting that I'm wrong and he/she's right. Now I don't know about you, but I usually start off with a friendly suggestion (as I did long ago), then if that doesn't work I try out lots of different methods instead of sticking with something that doesn't work. This is one of those different attempts, if you have another suggestion that I had not tried over the entire time I've been responding to Jac3510, I'm all ears (or eyes if you're going to be pedantic).

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"Next, on to the main point:

Quote from: "Davin""Nice, taking part of my sentence out of context, beautiful work, it almost brings a tear to my eye to see how many dishonest tactics you use to "prove" your argument."

While sarcasm in and of itself isn't exactly rude, or arrogant.. I'd say this sentence could quite easily be classified as both.

Maybe it appears rude, I thought it was funny, I really have no idea how it could be rude. No matter how rude it seems to be to you, I think you can't get any more rude than taking someone out of context. Also I provided my evidence to this claim of constant disingenuous argument tactics at the end of the post.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"

Quote from: "Davin""Good job, baby steps, take your time as needed, we just need to get to removing your desire to inject subjective crap into something intended to to be objective."

Hmm, rude... arrogant...? Yep yet again I'd say this sentence could quite easily be classified as both.

Yes, intentionally so. I responded with equal arrogance to amount of arrogance I found in his response.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"

Quote from: "Davin""You do like to go on and on without saying very much."

What again?... rude... arrogant...? Yep yet again, again, I'd say this sentence could quite easily be classified as both.

Not as rude as someone who tells you that you're wrong without actually saying why or only providing baseless assertions. Not saying this absolves me of any wrong doing, I just thought it would be time to act as Jac3510 was acting, because I had tried several other methods.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"

Quote from: "Davin""Truly, you must be a great hero championing the crest of arrogance on top the steed of assumption, wielding the sword fallacy, and protected by the armor of ignorance."

And, yes, I am sure you were patting yourself on the back when you were penning (err... typing) this final metaphor, however I  do hope that you are able to see how ridiculously hypocritical it inherently is to arrogantly call someone arrogant.

Patting myself on the back? Never, I don't even have any emotions toward any of this, however I thought it was an elegant summary to Jac3510's method of argument: Act like you're smarter than your opponent, charge in full speed with assumptions, swing around fallacies like you know what you're doing and protect yourself by being ignorant of anything that disproves your ideals.

As for arrogance, it seems to me that you have quite the paradox. How does one call another arrogant without becoming arrogant themselves? Maybe you have a problem with the vernacular, I don't. The meaning is the same and I could fit a lot more meaning into a short sentence with this kind of poetic symbolism than going over and explaining my position once again.

Another point is that I never said that arrogance was bad, if I had then I could see your point of hypocrisy. I did mention that when I have no right to tell other people what their obligations are, I will not be so arrogant to think that I do. Arrogance can be very useful, if you're correct about what you're being arrogant about, just never be so arrogant about anything to think that you're absolutely right and not let any one correct you. There is very little that I will be arrogant about, but pointing out fallacies is one of them and I see no problem with that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"If it pleases you, I want to end with a final question:

Quote from: "Davin""Now if you'd just have an honest conversation, that would be great, however I don't think that you have the ability to have an honest discussion as evidenced by several pages of text showing your use of disingenuous (at best) tactics."

Why, if you are so convinced that Jac is dishonest, do you continue to discuss with him?

Because if someone is saying something that doesn't make sense, I usually point it out, and if it's not very obvious then I will more likely point it out. Do I think he's intentionally dishonest? Not really, I don't have enough for me to assume either way; these tactics are used by those who are dishonest as well as those with good intentions but bad reasoning. The point of it isn't for the direct benefit of the my opponent or me, it's for the people looking on. They can see both people expressing themselves and they get to decide what if anything they will accept or at least listen enough to go and research it. Because you asked a question that has a similar answer, I'll respond more for the next question.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"And furthermore

Quote from: "Davin""Now you're arrogant enough to say that it's everybody's obligation and duty to be rational as if it's some kind of universal obligation that every one must fulfill? Sorry, but little babies that die after only a few months have no obligation to be rational, people with mental development disorders have no obligation to be rational, a man falling down a cliff to his death has no obligation to be rational, a person in the middle of the desert all alone has no obligation to be rational... etc. Obviously being rational isn't a universal obligation if there are several times and several people who do not fulfill that obligation without any bad effects on them or any one/thing else. In short, there is no universal requirement for anyone to be rational."

Why, according to this, do you even expect Jac's points to be rational(IE: not containing logical flaws)?  He has no obligation to be rational.  So aren't your points rebutting his irrationality somewhat... pointless?

-Ihateusernames

I have no obligation to be rational either, yet I strive to make sure my arguments are rational. I don't expect him to be rational, however it is very often that Jac3510 makes perfectly rational responses so I know that he is capable of it. Pointing to the flaws in someones argument is rarely pointless, the person with the flaws should enjoy as I do correcting those flaws, and those that are looking on can see the problems that need to be fixed with the argument. I do not intend to just sit by while people say things that don't make sense either intentionally or not. If you're familiar with the Asch Conformity experiments, then you will know why I don't just let things that don't make any sense go around unquestioned. Also you can look at my signature.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Jeeze, is everyone trying to be a mod now or what?

Meh,  I wasn't trying to be a mod at all.  In fact, had his post not been ended with the hypocritically arrogant sentiment that being arrogant is 'bad'.. I wouldn't have said anything.  I really couldn't care less if he is rude, or arrogant, or anything of the sort--It's his choice, however when he attempts to condemn what he is spewing himself, it then becomes enjoyable to point out the hypocrisy.  That was the point of my previous post.

-Ihateusernames

There was no hypocrisy, I never said that arrogance was bad.

My last sentence meant that the combination of all four of those things was bad. To point to arrogance and only arrogance as a point of hypocrisy very much like taking me out of context, I see nothing more rude than taking another person out of context.

Quote from: "dloubet"My understanding is that atomic decay of an atom is Random. That's random with a capital R. We can tell atomic decay is outside the realm of cause and effect -- and thus truly random -- by observing that there is no "extra" energy present in the debris of an atom that has decayed. Extra energy that would have to be present if anything "nudged" -- or caused -- the atom to decay.

With such Random events happening all the time, I have to think determinism is dead.

I think the universe is stochastic. It is mechanical in its operation, but can accomodate random input such as atomic decay.

That means the universe operates according to strict physical law, but at the same time is not deterministic, and thus the future is not written in stone.

That just means that there are no local variables (as far as we can tell right now) that can effect the decay. Non-local effect could be perfectly possible.

At best, you can say that we have no knowledge of what may be causing these events. To say that such events are genuinely both uncaused and temporal is, however, a contradiction in terms.

Beyond that, two more points are worth noting. First, as much as we know about QM, there’s still infinitely more we don’t know, and so as it has often been said, if you think you understand it, you don’t. As such, it is rather silly to say that QM has anything to say to any sort of philosophical argument, because we simply don’t know enough to draw any conclusions. In particular, you just don’t know enough to say that QM renders determinacy questionable, much less dead, since there are deterministic interpretations of QM (and, I’m sure, there will be others as the science develops). Second, none of this has any bearing on my basic argument anyway, because even if QM is genuinely random in a non-deterministic way, all behaviors still occur within highly predictable fields of probability. Perhaps this is a weaker determinism, but it doesn’t hurt my main argument one iota, since your thoughts are still being determined by mere physicsâ€"even if they are merely probabilistic to a small degree. There is still nothing inside of you that steps “outside” of those laws and decides what happens. By your own admission, if there is nothing causing those particular decay rates (or any other such non-determined quantum effect), then not even you are causing them, which means that your thoughts are still just as determined as they are under classical deterministic thinking.

Quote from: "Davin"Nice, taking part of my sentence out of context, beautiful work, it almost brings a tear to my eye to see how many dishonest tactics you use to "prove" your argument. That cut portion of my sentence may be a prescription "any way you cut it," however for this to have been an honest point, you would have not cut it and kept it in context. Secondly, it's not a prescription, it's a description. Prescriptions prescribe things, my sentence prescribes nothing, just describes that one cannot be rational while using fallacies. I noticed that you italicized the "if" at the start of the sentence, because that is very important to the entire context of the sentence.

You're ignoring my point, Davin. You can assert that your statement wasn't a prescription, as you did in the original paragraph. Such an assertion does not make it so. If a doctor says to me, "If you want to feel better, take this pill," that is a prescription, even though it has precisely the same form as your description. This is a necessary conclusion of the word "wants" in your own sentence. Remember the definition of a prescription -- we start with a desired reality and give steps on how to get there. Your assertion that your statement is a description is simply wrong. You've offered a prescription, which is necessary, because, as we have seen time and again, the laws of logic, unlike the laws of nature, are prescriptive.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"Math was not invented by humans. It was discovered by humans. Same with logic.

That's it? Well then here's my equally robust rebuttal: No, you're wrong.

Then you obviously don't understand math. If your entire argument against my position rests on the kind of thinking that has math being invented by humans rather than being discovered by it, then I can't really help you, and I suspect the readers here are more than capable of either seeing the error in your thinking or simply siding with you on it.

QuoteStill, just stating things over and over again doesn't make your logic follow: logic is not prescriptive, prescription is subjective, logic is not. You can use logic for prescription, however that doesn't mean that that is what logic is.

You are simply mistaken here.

When we tell someone they are being irrational, we are telling them that they are thinking in such a way that violates logic (material or formal). Consider the following dialogues:

Jac: I know God is real because the Bible says so and the Bible is never wrong because it is God's Word!
Davin: That is irrational. You are begging the question.

Response 1-
Jac: I couldn't care less about being rational!
Davin: Then there's no point in saying you know God is real because of anything -- because entails a rational argument. You mas well just say "I know God is real."

Response 2-
Jac: Well I wouldn't want to be rational. How am I begging the question?
Davin: Because the existence of God is implied in your premise that the Bible is God's Word. You are assuming what you set out to prove. That's invalid. You need to restructure your argument to make a rational case.

Now, in both of these cases, you are issuing a prescription. In the first, if I don't care about being rational, then you prescribe giving up on argument, because (ironically, perhaps) logically speaking, if you don't care about rationality, you don't care about argumentation. In the second, since I want to be rational, there is a certain way I ought to think (or in this case, ought not to think).

It is simply impossible to avoid the conclusion that logic is prescriptive. If it described the way we necessarily think, it would be purely descriptive. It does not. It describes the way we ought to think if we are going to get call ourselves "rational."

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"You consistently confuse conclusions with assumptions.

You constantly confuse assumptions with conclusions.

And more than just making a bold statement and pretending like I proved my point, I'll explain: you stated that there can be no naturalistic explanation for rational thought, yet you don't know how people think (no one on this planet knows enough about how humans make decisions), you're asserting some thing without evidence... that is a baseless assertion. See how it works? Instead of just making statements, I make statements that make sense while showing my evidence.

Wrong. Just because we don't know the mechanics of something doesn't mean we don't know the nature of what the mechanics will be. I don't know how a transmission works, but I can guarantee you that little green elves have nothing to do with it. I know that it has something to do with the transference of energy using various sized gears and classical mechanics.

In the case of human thought, part of the problem is that we don't even know what it is. But never fear, if materialism is true, we know what it is not, namely, something supernatural. Therefore, whatever thought is, it is subject to physical laws. Now, we know that every physical effect has a physical cause, especially on the macro scale (and we can argue about QM). It, then, is a rather simple deduction:

1. Every effect has a physical cause
2. My thoughts are effects
3. Therefore, my thoughts have physical causes.

I know (1) is true given materialism, because materialism, by its very definition, allows for nothing non-physical. Thus, all effects must be caused by something that is physical, which includes my thoughts: (2) and (3).

Now, this is precisely what I have been arguing the entire time. You keep saying I am making assumptions. I keep showing why you are confusing assumptions for confusions.

QuoteSo wait, what is this logic prescribing? After all it "is a perfectly valid logical argument" and you said that "logic is prescriptive," then how could this be "a perfectly valid logical argument" if it's not prescribing anything?

Because there is a difference in formal and material logic, as I go on to distinguish between (in non-technical terms) in my next section. You really should keep statements with their supporting arguments rather than separating them. I realize the separation makes it easier for you to advance your general theme that I am making bare assertions without evidence, but it is, to steal one from your playbook, a "dishonest" tactic, at best.

QuoteYou do like to go on and on without saying very much. You can argue that people "ought" to be rational because of duty and obligation, however there is no reason why everyone must be rational, it's just your assertion.

Then I would suggest, again, that you keep statements in their contexts. Feel free to go back and look at the section of mine you broke apart in little pieces. The entire last section is explaining how it is that you mistake assumptions with conclusions. Far from my assertion, that people ought to be rational is my conclusion. You can ignore the arguments in favor if you like, but that doesn't make them go away. You can obfuscate them by separating supporting statements from assertions and either ignoring or treating supporting statements in a separate context, but that doesn't mean I haven't thoroughly argued my position. It's just a matter of whether or not you are actually going to try to engage in my position itself, or whether you are more interested in rhetorical tactics.

QuoteYou came to the table with very odd definitions of things like rationality, materialism, naturalism, logic... etc. that all depend on your view of the world, however make the words almost completely useless to use out of the context of this argument. Your definition of rational thinking is very different than the normal, common and even pedantic definitions of rational thinking, then act like your peculiar definition some how solidifies your position. It doesn't. Now you're arrogant enough to say that it's everybody's obligation and duty to be rational as if it's some kind of universal obligation that every one must fulfill? Sorry, but little babies that die after only a few months have no obligation to be rational, people with mental development disorders have no obligation to be rational, a man falling down a cliff to his death has no obligation to be rational, a person in the middle of the desert all alone has no obligation to be rational... etc. Obviously being rational isn't a universal obligation if there are several times and several people who do not fulfill that obligation without any bad effects on them or any one/thing else. In short, there is no universal requirement for anyone to be rational.

Wrong. I come to the table with textbook definitions of these things and argue from there. If you look at the title of this thread, I'm not making an argument from the definition of rationality. I am arguing from the nature of rationality. My definition is absolutely universal. I've argued that it's nature necessarily requires it to be prescriptive, as it is essentially related to logic, which is prescriptive by nature.

Now, if you had days ago answered my simple question about why gravity isn't prescriptive, we could have avoided all of these stupid rhetorical games. We can do this as long as you like. As I said in my introductory post, I have no particular reason for being here other than for the sake of discussion and, where possible, clarity. One discussion is as good as the next. It would seem to me, however, that it would be in everyone's benefit if we could stop the games and get to the heart of what I am actually arguing and where we actually do disagree. Clarifying terms helps. You can call such requests for clarification boring games if you like, but I unfortunately fail to see how six pages (which was the length of your last post pasted into MS Word) of misunderstanding my basic point is in any way less boring. If you are as good at this as you seem to think, don't you think the board would benefit by responding to what I am actually arguing?

On to section two of your post -- the world being deterministic . . .

QuoteNow let's tackle your silly point about if the world were deterministic (I'm not saying that it is, this is just a thought experiment), that people aren't really making choices: When water boils, do we just say, "that's just the laws of physics?" When water freezes do we just say, "that's just the laws of physics?" When we describe how the sun works do we just say, "that's just the laws of physics, it doesn't mean anything?" No, some of us explain the processes of how those things happen. In the same way, even in a deterministic world, we'd describe thoughts and choices. In fact, if it turns out that the universe is pre-determined, then we'd all act exactly the same as we're determined to act. Maybe we'd refine the definitions, but to say that "it doesn't mean anything therefore stop defining things" just doesn't make any sense. We'd still define thoughts and decisions just as humans define everything. Why do you want to drop the definitions of things if the universe turns out not to be the way you want it to be? Also, why are all your odd definitions of things wrapped around your world view?

It is absurd to say that we have a choice if we are predetermined to act in a certain way. If the universe is deterministic, you've never chosen anything in your life, including what to think. It would be absurd to say a rock chose to fall. It would be just as absurd to say you chose to become a member of this board. We may use the word "chose" in some boringly conventional way, but there would be no real notion of choice in it whatsoever. Under determinism, absolutely everything--including everything about yourself--is beyond your control. And in that case, the entire notion of your "self" becomes questionable. A self is an agent. An agent is something that chooses. If there is no choice there is no agent, and if there is no agent, there is no self. In a very real sense, in a deterministic universe, you don't exist. Your thoughts and consciousness are merely illusory. There is no "you" doing anything. "You" are just a collection of atoms responding to one another in this or that mechanistic way.

QuoteNow if you'd just have an honest conversation, that would be great, however I don't think that you have the ability to have an honest discussion as evidenced by several pages of text showing your use of disingenuous (at best) tactics. I know that you allow yourself to just make bold accusations without providing the evidence and reasoning for it, while you question everyone else as if they can be held to a different standard than you hold yourself to, so here's a short list:

Do you think that personal attacks make your case any stronger? I hardly think questioning someone's "ability t have an honest discussion" qualifies itself as an honest discussion.

QuoteStraw Man: in your first post, "The worldview on which most versions of atheism are built is called philosophical naturalism, materialism, or physicalism." Already covered that this statement is not just unfounded, but an attempt to put "most" atheists into one box. Then you went on to express a very bad understanding of materialism and determinism.

Which has already been thoroughly addressed. It's not very honest of you refer to this as if it hadn't been responded to.

QuoteFalse Dichotomy and Argument from Ignorance: "If rational thought is possible, materialism is false" You have yet to construct a link to how this statement is true or even at least valid. Of course that may depend on your ever changing definition of rational thought covered next. However just because you can't think of other options, doesn't mean that other options don't exist.

I've constructed that link, both formally and informally, several times. Your bare assertion to the contrary is merely that: a bare assertion.

QuoteMoving the Goal Post:
First Post: "so let’s define rational thought if it isn’t obvious to everyone. Rational thought is thought which is characterized by reason, and reason, of course, is the intellectual faculty by which knowledge is gained."

Later Definition: "However, that which makes a thought "rational" is a thought that stands in accordance with what we ought  to think given the constraints of logic, which is to say, it is what we ought to think following the normal intellectual process we call reason."

--Then later:

Davin: "So, by your definition; in order to be rational, one must be able to act irrationally?"

Jac3510: "Yes, of course."

So rationality went from one definition to another, then yet another addendum as the discussion went on.

The second isn't a definition. That should be clear from "that which makes a thought . . ." Rational thought is, by definition, thought which is characterized by reason; and since reason is the faculty by which knowledge is gained, and since knowledge is concerned with the justification of statements, then reason is concerned with what we ought to think given the constraints of logic. Since ought implies choice, then where there is the ability to act rationality there is by definition the ability to act irrationally. So I have never once changed my argument. I have been perfectly consistent throughout.

This is the problem with your cut-and-paste approach to debate. You've never stopped and integrated my position into a whole. I'm arguing exactly the same thing now as I have argued the entire time. Later discussion is an expansion on previous discussion. It is hardly appropriate to use those later expansions as evidence that I have fundamentally changed the argument.

QuoteMoving the Goal Post 2:

Jac3510: If there is no randomizing component [...], then you can predict exactly what the computer will do in response to your move--not because it is the rational thing to do, but because it is forced to make a particular move with reference to your particular position and its predefined value system.

So a computer isn't being rational because: you can predict what it will do and it has a predefined value system, got it.
A computer isn't being rational because it's moves are externally determined--that is, determined by its programming. It makes no will to make choices.

Davin: This is only true for some programs, Deep Blue for instance made choices that no one could predict. The program was programmed to adjust the values it was giving based on learning gained from playing against humans.

See? Not all programs operate that way so this must be wrong and computers are making rational choices right? The program was learning and making decisions based on what was learned.  This matches your first definition of rational thought right?
No, because DB's moves were not unpredictable. Just because no one could predict them doesn't mean the moves could not be predicted without enough information. Why? Because the moves were all determined by the programming and data, which is exactly what I argued before.

Jac3510: Wrong. Deep Blue learned from its matches, and thus, given each game, it had a new dataset from which to work. The moves are always determined based on the dataset.

Oh wrong?, even though I refuted exactly what you said are the problems with a computer making rational decisions? Oh you're adding onto that, that because all decisions are based on a dataset then the computer can't be rational.

Davin: Wrong. Not just a dataset. Any way, how is this different than people basing their decisions on what they've learned?

If computers aren't being rational for making decisions based on what they know, then people making decisions on what they know are equally irrational.
Computers don't make decisions. They act out instructions. They have no will, which is what I have always argued.

Jac3510: Yes, just a dataset. It doesn't matter the source of that data. It could have been built in or learned.That dataset, of course, is acted upon by a library of functions, but the dataset is the determinative factor always. And it is different from what people learn exactly as I described above. We have the ability to choose. Computers don't.

Just a dataset really? Oh wait, not just a dataset because then you said "That dataset, of course, is acted upon by a library of functions" which means it's not just a dataset despite in your same paragraph you said it was. Nice job refuting yourself. But anyway, where has this goal post moved to now? Oh some vague and silly statement that humans can choose and computers can't. This is ridiculous because if computers couldn't make decisions, they wouldn't work. Any way the goal post keeps on moving for a few more posts after this. Later you said that humans can learn through being corrected, so I mentioned that programs do that as well to which you moved the goal post to that a person can be "wrong" while the program can't, to which I asked what the difference was... to which you dropped it. Notice that every time I showed that your statement was incorrect, that you added something on? I did.
And all of that has been thoroughly discussed. Computers don't choose. They execute instructions. You can run the program a million times, and if all the data is precisely the same, it will always make exactly the same moves that million times. That has been my argument from the first post, and it is my argument now. No movement. You can disagree with it, but you can't say that it has changed.

Wrong again. I left this in tact so that it would be easy to see where you misunderstood the basic argument. They are in red above.

QuoteBare Assertions: "I have not read Conway or Kochen. There is nothing in QM, however, that relieves the materialist from the necessity of determinism." This a bare assertion as well as contrary to evidence. Not only does QM relieve "the materialist from the necessity of determinism" but it describes how it frees one from the necessity of determinism. It's a bad idea to ignore evidence, just because it conflicts with your beliefs.

And this is patently ridiculous. There are interpretations of QM that are both deterministic and non-deterministic. Just because Conway or Kochen says QM is non-deterministic doesn't make it so (assuming they even make such an argument).

I have read, for instance, Steven Hawking, who does think the universe is deterministic. Has he not read Conway or Kochen? I don't know. Could he be wrong and Conway be right? Of course. Simply saying, "There are scientists who think QM makes the world non-deterministic" is merely an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. If you want to present any evidence from them, then feel free. Until then, there is nothing for me to ignore, and saying I'm ignoring your position is simply an attempt your part to color the debate.

QuoteTaking things out of context: Already one covered in this post.

And shown how it wasn't out of context.

QuoteAnd many more that I haven't covered in this post, including the hilarious hi-jinks of avoiding the points I'm making to instead respond to things I've never even said.

And a mere assertion and a veiled personal attack at that. If there are "many more" of such high fallacies, then the implications are obvious concerning my capacities in argument. Of course, you don't bother presenting those "many more," which says much more about your own argument. You are only one step from sarcasm, which is the last refuge of those with no real argument.

I happen to think in all of this that if you would put your efforts into discussing the actual argument I have been making, we could have quite the productive discussion. You are a very bright individual, and I daresay that if there is a flaw in my argument, someone like yourself could readily point it out. As it stands, you have focused yourself far more on tactics and obfuscation, specifically in separating primary statements from their supporting details, and in the process labeling conclusions as assumptions. Were you to actually address, for instance, my argument for the link between rationality and choice (rationality->reason->knowledge->justification->prescription) we could get somewhere. As it is, you simply deny the connection, ignore the argument, and label the whole thing an assumption. That's all rather shabby on your part.

QuoteTruly, you must be a great hero championing the crest of arrogance on top the steed of assumption, wielding the sword fallacy, and protected by the armor of ignorance.

Well, there is the sarcasm I warned about . . .

Davin, you spend too much time talking about me and not enough time talking about my argument. Can we please keep this civil and avoid making claims about the other person's intellectual capacities, motives, personality, etc.? Beyond the fact that personal attacks are completely disrespectful, they don't do anything to contribute toward a productive discussion. Quite the opposite, in fact.

QuoteThat just means that there are no local variables (as far as we can tell right now) that can effect the decay. Non-local effect could be perfectly possible.

No. You are suggesting that a non-local effect nudges the atom causing it to decay, and then carefully removes any trace of the nudge from the resulting debris.

Atomic particles do not engage in such conspiracy.

QuoteAt best, you can say that we have no knowledge of what may be causing these events. To say that such events are genuinely both uncaused and temporal is, however, a contradiction in terms.

Again, no. From the statistical evidence, indeed the very nature of a half-life, we can justifiably conclude that the decay is random. Any non-random process would show up as statistically skewed.

And temporal and uncaused are not contradictory.

QuoteBy your own admission, if there is nothing causing those particular decay rates (or any other such non-determined quantum effect), then not even you are causing them, which means that your thoughts are still just as determined as they are under classical deterministic thinking.

Again, no. My thoughts are certainly mechanically produced by the clockwork operation of my electrochemical brain, but my future thoughts are not determined. This is because of a constant influx of random input from the surrounding universe. For example, one event of atomic decay in just the wrong place at just the wrong time could have given Abraham Lincoln cancer and killed him as a boy. I think my thoughts in that hypothetical universe would be very different from my thoughts in this one, if I even existed at all. Small random events can have large consequences and steer circumstance in unexpected directions.

I am a meat robot, as are you, processing the information I get from a universe under heavy bombardment from random events.

Enjoy it for the short time you have.

And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with you (Bohm and Hawking are two that immediately come to mind).

Maybe you have a PhD in QM. Maybe you don't. I don't. What I know is that there are those who specialize in this field who disagree with you. Does that make you wrong? Of course not. But it certainly isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Is your conclusion possible? I don't think so, by the definition of possible. I think it is only a matter of time before we understand QM well enough that we can point to the cause of such decays.

In any case, this is far afield from my argument as a whole, because the determinism need not be absolute to make my basic point in the OP sound. If your thoughts are determined by the laws of physics, then rational thought is impossible. Rational thought is only possible if there is a part of you that can make a fundamental choice.If you are simply doing as nature demands, then there is no such thing as rationality. Your thoughts are on precisely the same level as a falling rock. The physics may be more complicated, but in the end, it is just physics. So just like a rock's fall isn't rational, neither are your thoughts. They are, at best, completely arational.

In short, rationality is strictly and totally the property of those who are willing to admit the supernatural.

Quote from: "Jac3510"And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with you (Bohm and Hawking are two that immediately come to mind).

Maybe you have a PhD in QM. Maybe you don't. I don't. What I know is that there are those who specialize in this field who disagree with you. Does that make you wrong? Of course not. But it certainly isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Is your conclusion possible? I don't think so, by the definition of possible. I think it is only a matter of time before we understand QM well enough that we can point to the cause of such decays.

In any case, this is far afield from my argument as a whole, because the determinism need not be absolute to make my basic point in the OP sound. If your thoughts are determined by the laws of physics, then rational thought is impossible. Rational thought is only possible if there is a part of you that can make a fundamental choice.If you are simply doing as nature demands, then there is no such thing as rationality. Your thoughts are on precisely the same level as a falling rock. The physics may be more complicated, but in the end, it is just physics. So just like a rock's fall isn't rational, neither are your thoughts. They are, at best, completely arational.

In short, rationality is strictly and totally the property of those who are willing to admit the supernatural.

What's up Chris.  I've been over on that Christian forum.    I thought I'd run into a few more folks like you.  Guess not.  I gotta say, I'm jealous that you get to be so free with your thought over here.  Back on point.

You gotta admit this is kind of weak.  Davin's points about computers and hack's points about stochasticity and emergence cast doubt on your line of thinking.  However, for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct.  Now what?  How do you determine the nature of this theoretical supernatural element?  Why do we have brains?  Why does it appear that the brain is causing this supernatural element when it clearly can't be?

I distrust anyone who only harps on the "tone" (you're reading words made up of pixels on a screen; there is no real tone). Unless it's an obvious troll, the issues should be addressed over the person.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Rational thought is only possible if there is a part of you that can make a fundamental choice.If you are simply doing as nature demands, then there is no such thing as rationality. Your thoughts are on precisely the same level as a falling rock. The physics may be more complicated, but in the end, it is just physics.

Finally we agree at least on one aspect, natural events are occurring and causing thoughts.

Quote from: "Jac3510"They are, at best, completely arational.

Except for this part, this is your opinion because your argument is based on God, which in my opinion is irrational. (It's this part of your argument that is flawed that people keep arguing with you about, you keep saying "This and this, therefore this" and then pointing to the supernatural as if that's some sort of answer people can all agree on. Deep down inside you have to believe that if God exists, and if it exists even in a supernatural sense, it can eventually be proven with Science, and if this is the case, you waste your time arguing with people who will eventually believe (That's what evidence is for), however since we believe that there is no such evidence and there will never be such evidence we cannot agree with your premise.)

Just because things are physically happening that define you, me and everybody, does not mean that they are irrational.

After-all, our thoughts are aligned with reason, thus becoming rational.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"What's up Chris.  I've been over on that Christian forum.    I thought I'd run into a few more folks like you.  Guess not.  I gotta say, I'm jealous that you get to be so free with your thought over here.  Back on point.

There's a reason I'm not there anymore. A few are willing to talk and are openminded, but some of the mods are . . . well, let me stop there. Maybe I'll stumble across a better forum in the future.

QuoteYou gotta admit this is kind of weak.  Davin's points about computers and hack's points about stochasticity and emergence cast doubt on your line of thinking.  However, for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct.  Now what?  How do you determine the nature of this theoretical supernatural element?  Why do we have brains?  Why does it appear that the brain is causing this supernatural element when it clearly can't be?

I've addressed Davin's point extensively. It comes down to the fact that I think that one must have a will for the word "choice" to have any real meaning. I say computers don't make choices because they are just executing commands as they are determined to do. Humans (apparently) do make choices and in some sense have a (relatively) free will.

If you want to expound on Hack's point about stochasticity and emergence, feel free. I've not read his comments. If someone finds something he says so very compelling, they can make the argument themselves.

As far as your questions:

How do you determine the nature of this theoretical supernatural element?

If it can be known at all, through metaphysical studies. We won't know unless we try. It won't be easy, but then again, understanding the brain itself is hardly easy. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

Why do we have brains?

At the risk of being silly, because if we didn't have them, we couldn't function. The brain is the organ that operates the body.

Why does it appear that the brain is causing this supernatural element when it clearly can't be?

Because it is clear that thought and the brain are definitely connected. It is easy, even if wrong (and I think it is wrong), to conclude then that the supernatural element is attached to the brain. A forgivable error.

Please note that the extent of my argument here is very, very narrow. I'm arguing strictly and totally for the supernatural and against materialism. Once we have concluded that the supernatural exists, we can move on to have other discussions, one of the most obvious being God. Because, strictly speaking, we ought to establish the supernatural exists before we try to establish that God exists! If the supernatural doesn't exist, it is rather difficult to posit God's existence. But if the supernatural does exist, it seems at least as likely that God exists as that He doesn't, and, intuitively I think, most would recognize His existence is more likely (whatever He turns out to be).

Quote from: "superfes"

Quote from: "Jac3510"Rational thought is only possible if there is a part of you that can make a fundamental choice.If you are simply doing as nature demands, then there is no such thing as rationality. Your thoughts are on precisely the same level as a falling rock. The physics may be more complicated, but in the end, it is just physics.

Finally we agree at least on one aspect, natural events are occurring and causing thoughts.

It is what I've been arguing the entire time.

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"They are, at best, completely arational.

Except for this part, this is your opinion because your argument is based on God, which in my opinion is irrational. (It's this part of your argument that is flawed that people keep arguing with you about, you keep saying "This and this, therefore this" and then pointing to the supernatural as if that's some sort of answer people can all agree on. Deep down inside you have to believe that if God exists, and if it exists even in a supernatural sense, it can eventually be proven with Science, and if this is the case, you waste your time arguing with people who will eventually believe (That's what evidence is for), however since we believe that there is no such evidence and there will never be such evidence we cannot agree with your premise.)

Just because things are physically happening that define you, me and everybody, does not mean that they are irrational.

After-all, our thoughts are aligned with reason, thus becoming rational.

My arguments aren't premised on God at all. If you are going to assert as much, you have to demonstrate it. As far as whether or not the supernatural can be proven with science, I most definitely do not believe that, not even deep down. Science is quantitative in its studies, meaning, it studies what can be measured. The supernatural, being non-physical, cannot be measured, and therefore, is totally outside the realm of science.

I have no problem with that, because there are plenty of things we believe that aren't in the purview of science. Every historical fact you and I hold is an example.

Further, I did not say that thoughts are irrational under materialism. Look at your own emphasis. I said they are arational. As you just agreed with me, unless there is a part of us that makes a choice, we cannot call the choice rational. If materialism is true, then determinism is true, and if determinism is true, then we make no choices, and thus, none of our "choices" can be rational. Arational, yes. Rational or irrational? Not in the least.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Davin"Nice, taking part of my sentence out of context, beautiful work, it almost brings a tear to my eye to see how many dishonest tactics you use to "prove" your argument. That cut portion of my sentence may be a prescription "any way you cut it," however for this to have been an honest point, you would have not cut it and kept it in context. Secondly, it's not a prescription, it's a description. Prescriptions prescribe things, my sentence prescribes nothing, just describes that one cannot be rational while using fallacies. I noticed that you italicized the "if" at the start of the sentence, because that is very important to the entire context of the sentence.

You're ignoring my point, Davin. You can assert that your statement wasn't a prescription, as you did in the original paragraph. Such an assertion does not make it so. If a doctor says to me, "If you want to feel better, take this pill," that is a prescription, even though it has precisely the same form as your description. This is a necessary conclusion of the word "wants" in your own sentence. Remember the definition of a prescription -- we start with a desired reality and give steps on how to get there. Your assertion that your statement is a description is simply wrong. You've offered a prescription, which is necessary, because, as we have seen time and again, the laws of logic, unlike the laws of nature, are prescriptive.

What was I prescribing in my statement? Because the statement was not prescribing that one ought to be rational, just that if they want to be rational then they shouldn't use fallacies.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"Math was not invented by humans. It was discovered by humans. Same with logic.

That's it? Well then here's my equally robust rebuttal: No, you're wrong.

Then you obviously don't understand math. If your entire argument against my position rests on the kind of thinking that has math being invented by humans rather than being discovered by it, then I can't really help you, and I suspect the readers here are more than capable of either seeing the error in your thinking or simply siding with you on it.

Then point out my error in thinking by using something other than just asserting that I'm wrong.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteStill, just stating things over and over again doesn't make your logic follow: logic is not prescriptive, prescription is subjective, logic is not. You can use logic for prescription, however that doesn't mean that that is what logic is.

You are simply mistaken here.

When we tell someone they are being irrational, we are telling them that they are thinking in such a way that violates logic (material or formal). Consider the following dialogues:

Jac: I know God is real because the Bible says so and the Bible is never wrong because it is God's Word!
Davin: That is irrational. You are begging the question.

Response 1-
Jac: I couldn't care less about being rational!
Davin: Then there's no point in saying you know God is real because of anything -- because entails a rational argument. You mas well just say "I know God is real."

Response 2-
Jac: Well I wouldn't want to be rational. How am I begging the question?
Davin: Because the existence of God is implied in your premise that the Bible is God's Word. You are assuming what you set out to prove. That's invalid. You need to restructure your argument to make a rational case.

Now, in both of these cases, you are issuing a prescription. In the first, if I don't care about being rational, then you prescribe giving up on argument, because (ironically, perhaps) logically speaking, if you don't care about rationality, you don't care about argumentation. In the second, since I want to be rational, there is a certain way I ought to think (or in this case, ought not to think).

It is simply impossible to avoid the conclusion that logic is prescriptive. If it described the way we necessarily think, it would be purely descriptive. It does not. It describes the way we ought to think if we are going to get call ourselves "rational."

Interesting speculation.
Response 1: I don't care if you want to be rational or not, I only care that I want to be rational, so I will not prescribe you to be rational... because I don't really care. The point is that if you want to convince me of something, then the use of fallacy is the wrong way to go. If you want to persuade me of something, then you would need to restructure your argument... you don't have to, and you have every right to not do it. I don't care if you don't, I would only care if you did, because being rational about what I accept is important to me.

Response 2: If the person asks how to fix their argument, then I will prescribe a solution, that is different than just a logical statement.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote

Quote from: "Jac3510"You consistently confuse conclusions with assumptions.

You constantly confuse assumptions with conclusions.

And more than just making a bold statement and pretending like I proved my point, I'll explain: you stated that there can be no naturalistic explanation for rational thought, yet you don't know how people think (no one on this planet knows enough about how humans make decisions), you're asserting some thing without evidence... that is a baseless assertion. See how it works? Instead of just making statements, I make statements that make sense while showing my evidence.

Wrong. Just because we don't know the mechanics of something doesn't mean we don't know the nature of what the mechanics will be. I don't know how a transmission works, but I can guarantee you that little green elves have nothing to do with it. I know that it has something to do with the transference of energy using various sized gears and classical mechanics.

In the case of human thought, part of the problem is that we don't even know what it is. But never fear, if materialism is true, we know what it is not, namely, something supernatural. Therefore, whatever thought is, it is subject to physical laws. Now, we know that every physical effect has a physical cause, especially on the macro scale (and we can argue about QM). It, then, is a rather simple deduction:

1. Every effect has a physical cause
2. My thoughts are effects
3. Therefore, my thoughts have physical causes.

I know (1) is true given materialism, because materialism, by its very definition, allows for nothing non-physical. Thus, all effects must be caused by something that is physical, which includes my thoughts: (2) and (3).

Now, this is precisely what I have been arguing the entire time. You keep saying I am making assumptions. I keep showing why you are confusing assumptions for confusions.

That is fine, but you're making assumptions about the the effects that are causing the thoughts, when no one knows how thoughts work. At least there are people that know now a transmission works, but there is no one who knows how thoughts work. If you wanted to be sure how a transmission works, you can easily find out by reading about it and testing it yourself, there is no such path available for finding out how thoughts work.

BTW, your transmission example is exactly my point: if you don't know, don't assert. Of course speculation is just fine as long as mere speculation is understood as mere speculation. I don't know how thoughts work either, which is why I'm not assuming how they work. I could not possibly care less if you want to continue with your baseless assertions that thoughts are either predetermined or supernatural, I could not even care less if you continue to not correct your argument due to your ignorance of how thoughts works, that doesn't mean I won't continue to point out that you're still merely asserting something without evidence.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteSo wait, what is this logic prescribing? After all it "is a perfectly valid logical argument" and you said that "logic is prescriptive," then how could this be "a perfectly valid logical argument" if it's not prescribing anything?

Because there is a difference in formal and material logic, as I go on to distinguish between (in non-technical terms) in my next section. You really should keep statements with their supporting arguments rather than separating them. I realize the separation makes it easier for you to advance your general theme that I am making bare assertions without evidence, but it is, to steal one from your playbook, a "dishonest" tactic, at best.

You stated that the nature of logic is prescriptive, that would mean that any perfectly logical statement would by nature prescribe something, the "perfectly valid logical argument" you provided prescribed nothing. Unless you can point out what it was prescribing.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteYou do like to go on and on without saying very much. You can argue that people "ought" to be rational because of duty and obligation, however there is no reason why everyone must be rational, it's just your assertion.

Then I would suggest, again, that you keep statements in their contexts. Feel free to go back and look at the section of mine you broke apart in little pieces. The entire last section is explaining how it is that you mistake assumptions with conclusions. Far from my assertion, that people ought to be rational is my conclusion. You can ignore the arguments in favor if you like, but that doesn't make them go away. You can obfuscate them by separating supporting statements from assertions and either ignoring or treating supporting statements in a separate context, but that doesn't mean I haven't thoroughly argued my position. It's just a matter of whether or not you are actually going to try to engage in my position itself, or whether you are more interested in rhetorical tactics.

Then point to how I took your statements out of context. I kept them as their whole sentences and responded to them in their whole sentences. Far different than you cutting a part of a sentence out and trying to act as though you were keeping it in context. I explained how you took me out of context, please return the favour.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteYou came to the table with very odd definitions of things like rationality, materialism, naturalism, logic... etc. that all depend on your view of the world, however make the words almost completely useless to use out of the context of this argument. Your definition of rational thinking is very different than the normal, common and even pedantic definitions of rational thinking, then act like your peculiar definition some how solidifies your position. It doesn't. Now you're arrogant enough to say that it's everybody's obligation and duty to be rational as if it's some kind of universal obligation that every one must fulfill? Sorry, but little babies that die after only a few months have no obligation to be rational, people with mental development disorders have no obligation to be rational, a man falling down a cliff to his death has no obligation to be rational, a person in the middle of the desert all alone has no obligation to be rational... etc. Obviously being rational isn't a universal obligation if there are several times and several people who do not fulfill that obligation without any bad effects on them or any one/thing else. In short, there is no universal requirement for anyone to be rational.

Wrong. I come to the table with textbook definitions of these things and argue from there. If you look at the title of this thread, I'm not making an argument from the definition of rationality. I am arguing from the nature of rationality. My definition is absolutely universal. I've argued that it's nature necessarily requires it to be prescriptive, as it is essentially related to logic, which is prescriptive by nature.

I think it's nature is objective and descriptive, not prescriptive or subjective. If you're going to continue with this definition, then tell me what technical term you use that means: a way of thinking that is objective and descriptive by nature and not prescriptive or subjective by nature? Because as far as I've ever seen by every one other than you, that is what rational thought is.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Now, if you had days ago answered my simple question about why gravity isn't prescriptive, we could have avoided all of these stupid rhetorical games. We can do this as long as you like. As I said in my introductory post, I have no particular reason for being here other than for the sake of discussion and, where possible, clarity. One discussion is as good as the next. It would seem to me, however, that it would be in everyone's benefit if we could stop the games and get to the heart of what I am actually arguing and where we actually do disagree. Clarifying terms helps. You can call such requests for clarification boring games if you like, but I unfortunately fail to see how six pages (which was the length of your last post pasted into MS Word) of misunderstanding my basic point is in any way less boring. If you are as good at this as you seem to think, don't you think the board would benefit by responding to what I am actually arguing?

You said "Now, if you had days ago answered my simple question about why gravity isn't prescriptive, we could have avoided all of these stupid rhetorical games" then "it would be in everyone's benefit if we could stop the games and get to the heart of what I am actually arguing[.]" The problem I have with this is that I asked you to just state your idea (getting to the heart of the matter) to avoid a silly game (avoiding all of these stupid rhetorical games), in the first place.

Quote from: "Jac3510"On to section two of your post -- the world being deterministic . . .

QuoteNow let's tackle your silly point about if the world were deterministic (I'm not saying that it is, this is just a thought experiment), that people aren't really making choices: When water boils, do we just say, "that's just the laws of physics?" When water freezes do we just say, "that's just the laws of physics?" When we describe how the sun works do we just say, "that's just the laws of physics, it doesn't mean anything?" No, some of us explain the processes of how those things happen. In the same way, even in a deterministic world, we'd describe thoughts and choices. In fact, if it turns out that the universe is pre-determined, then we'd all act exactly the same as we're determined to act. Maybe we'd refine the definitions, but to say that "it doesn't mean anything therefore stop defining things" just doesn't make any sense. We'd still define thoughts and decisions just as humans define everything. Why do you want to drop the definitions of things if the universe turns out not to be the way you want it to be? Also, why are all your odd definitions of things wrapped around your world view?

It is absurd to say that we have a choice if we are predetermined to act in a certain way. If the universe is deterministic, you've never chosen anything in your life, including what to think. It would be absurd to say a rock chose to fall. It would be just as absurd to say you chose to become a member of this board. We may use the word "chose" in some boringly conventional way, but there would be no real notion of choice in it whatsoever. Under determinism, absolutely everything--including everything about yourself--is beyond your control. And in that case, the entire notion of your "self" becomes questionable. A self is an agent. An agent is something that chooses. If there is no choice there is no agent, and if there is no agent, there is no self. In a very real sense, in a deterministic universe, you don't exist. Your thoughts and consciousness are merely illusory. There is no "you" doing anything. "You" are just a collection of atoms responding to one another in this or that mechanistic way.

Ok, then let us come up with some terminology that fits in all world views  for "choices," "decisions" and "thoughts" so that we can discuss implications instead of restricting common understandable terms in what appears to be an attempt to avoid those discussions. Or we could just understand that the terms used are very close to what we mean and continue to use them in order to have a discussion. Since I'm perfectly willing to use the existing terminology across the board, I think the onus is on the one attempting to restrict the terminology to provide replacement terminology.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteNow if you'd just have an honest conversation, that would be great, however I don't think that you have the ability to have an honest discussion as evidenced by several pages of text showing your use of disingenuous (at best) tactics. I know that you allow yourself to just make bold accusations without providing the evidence and reasoning for it, while you question everyone else as if they can be held to a different standard than you hold yourself to, so here's a short list:

Do you think that personal attacks make your case any stronger? I hardly think questioning someone's "ability t have an honest discussion" qualifies itself as an honest discussion.

Think what you want, I've made several attempts to correct your fallacies that you've mostly ignored.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteStraw Man: in your first post, "The worldview on which most versions of atheism are built is called philosophical naturalism, materialism, or physicalism." Already covered that this statement is not just unfounded, but an attempt to put "most" atheists into one box. Then you went on to express a very bad understanding of materialism and determinism.

Which has already been thoroughly addressed. It's not very honest of you refer to this as if it hadn't been responded to.

Here's a little quote from the sentence you're responding to, "Already covered that this statement[...]" implying that it was already covered and not me "refer[ing] to this as if it hadn't been responded to."

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteFalse Dichotomy and Argument from Ignorance: "If rational thought is possible, materialism is false" You have yet to construct a link to how this statement is true or even at least valid. Of course that may depend on your ever changing definition of rational thought covered next. However just because you can't think of other options, doesn't mean that other options don't exist.

I've constructed that link, both formally and informally, several times. Your bare assertion to the contrary is merely that: a bare assertion.

You've constructed weak links based on assertions about things no one on the planet understands, like human thoughts. You even clearly described exactly that it was a "False Dichotomy and Argument from Ignorance" with this little quote: "Unless, then, you can present me with a third choice, the dilemma for the materialist is this: is materialism on the one hand arational and perfectly on par with every other belief system or is it irrational and inferior to supernaturalism?" That is clearly a false dichotomy and argument from ignorance: "Unless, then, you can present me with a third choice[...]" shows that you think that until a third option is brought up that one must logically accept one or the other of the options you provided. Just because no one can yet think of a different option, does not meant that I should accept something.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteMoving the Goal Post:
First Post: "so let’s define rational thought if it isn’t obvious to everyone. Rational thought is thought which is characterized by reason, and reason, of course, is the intellectual faculty by which knowledge is gained."

Later Definition: "However, that which makes a thought "rational" is a thought that stands in accordance with what we ought  to think given the constraints of logic, which is to say, it is what we ought to think following the normal intellectual process we call reason."

--Then later:

Davin: "So, by your definition; in order to be rational, one must be able to act irrationally?"

Jac3510: "Yes, of course."

So rationality went from one definition to another, then yet another addendum as the discussion went on.

The second isn't a definition. That should be clear from "that which makes a thought . . ." Rational thought is, by definition, thought which is characterized by reason; and since reason is the faculty by which knowledge is gained, and since knowledge is concerned with the justification of statements, then reason is concerned with what we ought to think given the constraints of logic. Since ought implies choice, then where there is the ability to act rationality there is by definition the ability to act irrationally. So I have never once changed my argument. I have been perfectly consistent throughout.

This is the problem with your cut-and-paste approach to debate. You've never stopped and integrated my position into a whole. I'm arguing exactly the same thing now as I have argued the entire time. Later discussion is an expansion on previous discussion. It is hardly appropriate to use those later expansions as evidence that I have fundamentally changed the argument.

You change the definition from "Rational thought is thought which is characterized by reason, and reason, of course, is the intellectual faculty by which knowledge is gained." to "a thought that stands in accordance with what we ought  to think given the constraints of logic, which is to say, it is what we ought to think following the normal intellectual process we call reason." That is a drastic change in definition, it went from something people can understand as objective thinking and went into something that can only be taken as subjective. That is a huge change, one could even argue the complete opposite.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteMoving the Goal Post 2:

Jac3510: If there is no randomizing component [...], then you can predict exactly what the computer will do in response to your move--not because it is the rational thing to do, but because it is forced to make a particular move with reference to your particular position and its predefined value system.

So a computer isn't being rational because: you can predict what it will do and it has a predefined value system, got it.
A computer isn't being rational because it's moves are externally determined--that is, determined by its programming. It makes no will to make choices.

This isn't part of any of your definitions of rational, you made no mention that anything had to not be external in order to something to be rational. Is this yet another addendum to the requirements for rationality? I'll remember this if you ever try to say that a god created us to be this way while still trying to say that we're rational.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteDavin: This is only true for some programs, Deep Blue for instance made choices that no one could predict. The program was programmed to adjust the values it was giving based on learning gained from playing against humans.

See? Not all programs operate that way so this must be wrong and computers are making rational choices right? The program was learning and making decisions based on what was learned.  This matches your first definition of rational thought right?
No, because DB's moves were not unpredictable. Just because no one could predict them doesn't mean the moves could not be predicted without enough information. Why? Because the moves were all determined by the programming and data, which is exactly what I argued before.

You argued it, but provided no evidence of any kind. The evidence I had provided was that the best chess player in the world, who could predict the moves of his human opponents, could not predict the moves of Deep Blue, making Deep Blue less predictable than humans.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteJac3510: Wrong. Deep Blue learned from its matches, and thus, given each game, it had a new dataset from which to work. The moves are always determined based on the dataset.

Oh wrong?, even though I refuted exactly what you said are the problems with a computer making rational decisions? Oh you're adding onto that, that because all decisions are based on a dataset then the computer can't be rational.

Davin: Wrong. Not just a dataset. Any way, how is this different than people basing their decisions on what they've learned?

If computers aren't being rational for making decisions based on what they know, then people making decisions on what they know are equally irrational.
Computers don't make decisions. They act out instructions. They have no will, which is what I have always argued.

Then what do you call the points where the computer must determine an action to take? I'm perfectly willing to use any other definition that you want to provide, however it seems to me that "choice" and "decision" are perfectly adequate to describe the things I mean. However if you want be to use "instructions" for every single thing a computer does, then I'm afraid we can't get into discussing anything that a computer does, because it's more than just "instructions" and requires much more detail.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteJac3510: Yes, just a dataset. It doesn't matter the source of that data. It could have been built in or learned.That dataset, of course, is acted upon by a library of functions, but the dataset is the determinative factor always. And it is different from what people learn exactly as I described above. We have the ability to choose. Computers don't.

Just a dataset really? Oh wait, not just a dataset because then you said "That dataset, of course, is acted upon by a library of functions" which means it's not just a dataset despite in your same paragraph you said it was. Nice job refuting yourself. But anyway, where has this goal post moved to now? Oh some vague and silly statement that humans can choose and computers can't. This is ridiculous because if computers couldn't make decisions, they wouldn't work. Any way the goal post keeps on moving for a few more posts after this. Later you said that humans can learn through being corrected, so I mentioned that programs do that as well to which you moved the goal post to that a person can be "wrong" while the program can't, to which I asked what the difference was... to which you dropped it. Notice that every time I showed that your statement was incorrect, that you added something on? I did.
And all of that has been thoroughly discussed. Computers don't choose. They execute instructions. You can run the program a million times, and if all the data is precisely the same, it will always make exactly the same moves that million times. That has been my argument from the first post, and it is my argument now. No movement. You can disagree with it, but you can't say that it has changed.

This is wrong, there are programs that don't run the same way every time even given the same exact data every time.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Wrong again. I left this in tact so that it would be easy to see where you misunderstood the basic argument. They are in red above.

So wrong, I responded with things that aren't just mere assertions but things that are real and working in the real world that shows that the things in red are wrong according to things that are testable, verifiable and demonstrable. Look up machine learning to check out the things that don't work the same way every time when given the same exact data.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteBare Assertions: "I have not read Conway or Kochen. There is nothing in QM, however, that relieves the materialist from the necessity of determinism." This a bare assertion as well as contrary to evidence. Not only does QM relieve "the materialist from the necessity of determinism" but it describes how it frees one from the necessity of determinism. It's a bad idea to ignore evidence, just because it conflicts with your beliefs.

And this is patently ridiculous. There are interpretations of QM that are both deterministic and non-deterministic. Just because Conway or Kochen says QM is non-deterministic doesn't make it so (assuming they even make such an argument).

I have read, for instance, Steven Hawking, who does think the universe is deterministic. Has he not read Conway or Kochen? I don't know. Could he be wrong and Conway be right? Of course. Simply saying, "There are scientists who think QM makes the world non-deterministic" is merely an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. If you want to present any evidence from them, then feel free. Until then, there is nothing for me to ignore, and saying I'm ignoring your position is simply an attempt your part to color the debate.

I could understand if I made an appeal to authority that you could say that I did, however what I stated was that you had shown a severe misunderstanding of QM, not that "some dude said this so you're wrong." I invoked evidence, not scientists. Please understand fallacies before you start throwing them around. If you look at how one determines the direction of particle alone, you can see that there is no historical function that can be applied (nothing from before the particle determines the direction of the particle). Which means that there is no determined cause of the particle.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteTaking things out of context: Already one covered in this post.

And shown how it wasn't out of context.

As shown, cutting a piece of a sentence to make it appear to mean something completely different than it meant inside the sentence it was taken from, is taking things out of context. If you could show me the intended meaning of the things I took out of context and how I responded to them was wrong, please do, how just the blanket statements you made just don't make any sense, as I think I had captured the meaning of the sentences, and responded to them in kind.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteAnd many more that I haven't covered in this post, including the hilarious hi-jinks of avoiding the points I'm making to instead respond to things I've never even said.

And a mere assertion and a veiled personal attack at that. If there are "many more" of such high fallacies, then the implications are obvious concerning my capacities in argument. Of course, you don't bother presenting those "many more," which says much more about your own argument. You are only one step from sarcasm, which is the last refuge of those with no real argument.

I happen to think in all of this that if you would put your efforts into discussing the actual argument I have been making, we could have quite the productive discussion. You are a very bright individual, and I daresay that if there is a flaw in my argument, someone like yourself could readily point it out. As it stands, you have focused yourself far more on tactics and obfuscation, specifically in separating primary statements from their supporting details, and in the process labeling conclusions as assumptions. Were you to actually address, for instance, my argument for the link between rationality and choice (rationality->reason->knowledge->justification->prescription) we could get somewhere. As it is, you simply deny the connection, ignore the argument, and label the whole thing an assumption. That's all rather shabby on your part.

Yes, if you had discussed only what I said (or at least attempt to understand what I said), instead of your admitted assumptions ("My assumption is that you weren't using it in the latter sense[...]"), we could have had a much better discussion.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

QuoteTruly, you must be a great hero championing the crest of arrogance on top the steed of assumption, wielding the sword fallacy, and protected by the armor of ignorance.

Well, there is the sarcasm I warned about . . .

Davin, you spend too much time talking about me and not enough time talking about my argument. Can we please keep this civil and avoid making claims about the other person's intellectual capacities, motives, personality, etc.? Beyond the fact that personal attacks are completely disrespectful, they don't do anything to contribute toward a productive discussion. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Because I had made several attempts to correct the issues of you responding to things I never even said, and am unwilling to have much of a discussion until you agree to only argue against what I say and to admit to when you're merely asserting things, when you're extrapolating and when you're using fallacies.

Case in point:

I said "Secondly, there is evidence done in scientific studies that show that the brain makes decisions before the people making the decisions are aware that they've made a choice. Now after reading up in the Libet experiments one could say that they're making the decision before they're aware of it, however this does little to show that people are making conscious decisions because their awareness of the decision occurs after the decision was made. Another point against the Libet evidence is that maybe people still make conscious decisions in other areas, however until we can test for this, it remains an unknown. So while I do agree that the Libet experiments and other scientific studies done on decision making aren't enough for me to accept them as truth, that is the way I'm leaning due to people attempting to disprove the studies without success. So right now the evidence is leaning towards the brain doing what it does and then making up the actual decision process as we become aware of the decision."

Because you had brought up decisions and something resembling a point around free will, now did you discuss this thing that had implications (that I pointed out) to your argument? No, you responded with:

Jac3510: "What makes you think I'm not aware of this research? That's rather presumptive on your part. The most this does is challenge (2) in my argument above. I've spent my time defending (1) precisely because atheists spend so much of their time talking about how important it is to be rational. If you agree that rational thought is actually impossible, then we can have a different conversation.

Now, if you would like to actually engage the argument, I'd be happy to have the discussion. I always am. This one is very simple. Without self-determination, "rational" is a meaningless word. In the deterministic world of materialism, self-determination is impossible, ergo, rational thought is impossible. The logical and necessary conclusion is that materialism is arational at best and irrational at worst. If it is arational, then so is belief in God and unicorns and evolution and gravity and everything else. There are no intellectually superior positions the moment we posit materialism. If rational thought is possible, then materialism is irrational and thus intellectually inferior to any kind of supernaturalism.

Unless, then, you can present me with a third choice, the dilemma for the materialist is this: is materialism on the one hand arational and perfectly on par with every other belief system or is it irrational and inferior to supernaturalism?"

Instead of inviting the discussion by talking about 2) of your argument when you had admittedly not focused on it, you said "Now, if you would like to actually engage the argument, I'd be happy to have the discussion." Hardly an inviting sentiment for open discussion when I had brought up something that you even admitted to relate to 2) of your argument (which you hadn't discussed very much).

Edit: Bad quoting half way through.

Jac,

I've only been at this a short time, but it seems my idea that Christians and atheists can find some sort of workable middle ground may be silly.  This is an atheist board.  While your ideas will certainly have more of a chance to breath here than mine would on a Christian board, ultimately the results are the same.  What was settled with the first proof?  We did touch on the idea of cognitional existence, but that died away (I'd like to discuss that further by the way).  I don't think you came to any common ground with anybody else either.  

My point is that at some point, somebody has to concede that the other party might be right so that progress can be made.  You are so far from Yahweh with the two proofs you offered I'll be dead before you get around to the word of the Bible.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Please note that the extent of my argument here is very, very narrow. I'm arguing strictly and totally for the supernatural and against materialism. Once we have concluded that the supernatural exists, we can move on to have other discussions, one of the most obvious being God. Because, strictly speaking, we ought to establish the supernatural exists before we try to establish that God exists! If the supernatural doesn't exist, it is rather difficult to posit God's existence. But if the supernatural does exist, it seems at least as likely that God exists as that He doesn't, and, intuitively I think, most would recognize His existence is more likely (whatever He turns out to be).

Now this is more like it, Chris. This distills it all right down to its essence, what it is that you're postulating here, that the supernatural might exist, and that if it can be proved that it does exist then it's only reasonable to assume that it might be what we currently call God with a capital G or whatever He male with a capital H turns out to be.

Correct?

Davin, I have to smile every time I see one of your responses. I assume you type very fast. I've always been the one to offer long replies, and it is at the very least entertaining when people offer the kind of replies I've always given. I may not agree, and I may think many of your arguments are misdirected, but I do take responses seriously. I'll get to your post later.

--------------------------------------------

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I've only been at this a short time, but it seems my idea that Christians and atheists can find some sort of workable middle ground may be silly. This is an atheist board. While your ideas will certainly have more of a chance to breath here than mine would on a Christian board, ultimately the results are the same. What was settled with the first proof? We did touch on the idea of cognitional existence, but that died away (I'd like to discuss that further by the way). I don't think you came to any common ground with anybody else either.

My point is that at some point, somebody has to concede that the other party might be right so that progress can be made. You are so far from Yahweh with the two proofs you offered I'll be dead before you get around to the word of the Bible.

Alas, some of what you say is true. It would go much faster in person, of course. A board environment is difficult for many reasons, the biggest of which being that you can't have a live discussion. We spent a couple of weeks on the first argument, which could have been covered in an hour face to face. I have spent time with atheists, some of which after months of extended conversation have actually put their faith in Christ. I'm quick to add, of course, that I've never argued anyone into the faith, and I really mean that. People change their own mind.

As far as what we can accomplish, I said early on no minds will probably be changed, but that's not the goal. We can still make a great deal of progress. I think we came to a very important middle ground in our first discussion, namely, an important clarification about starting points. If you believe that things are what they are in and of themselves, the argument stands. You don't believe that things are what they are in and of themselves. That's fair. But that is a clarification you likely had not considered before.

This argument, for all of its difficulties, has come to a similar common ground. Free will, at least, seems impossible without a supernatural element, and, at least, on determinism, we agree that all thoughts are determined. I go on to argue that determined thoughts aren't rational. You can agree or not. But the worldviews I stark enough that we can each decide what we think is more rational . . . do we have the ability to freely choose, in any sense, what we think? If so, that is very strong evidence of the supernatural, whatever that may be. A second common ground, I think, is that prescriptive language only has real meaning if we have this free will.

If nothing else, we have three very basic ideas then you can agree or disagree with:

1. Are things are what they are in and of themselves?
2. Do humans have the capacity to think (relatively) freely?
3. Does prescriptive language have meaning?

Each of these, of course, can be further debated. Anything can, but it seems clear enough that theism would answer the the affirmative to all of these, whereas philosophical naturalism would answer in the negative to these.

Next week I'm going to open a third argument. I'm going to go to the other extreme. Here, I've argued very, very narrowly strictly against materialism. Next, I'll put forward an argument that stands only holds true in the version of Christianity I support. Will it change minds? Absolutely not. But I think it will produce an interesting discussion nonetheless.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Now this is more like it, Chris. This distills it all right down to its essence, what it is that you're postulating here, that the supernatural might exist, and that if it can be proved that it does exist then it's only reasonable to assume that it might be what we currently call God with a capital G or whatever He male with a capital H turns out to be.

Correct?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Now this is more like it, Chris. This distills it all right down to its essence, what it is that you're postulating here, that the supernatural might exist, and that if it can be proved that it does exist then it's only reasonable to assume that it might be what we currently call God with a capital G or whatever He male with a capital H turns out to be.

Correct?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Great, thank you.

By the way, why do you spell God with a capital G?

Quote from: "i_am_i"Great, thank you.

By the way, why do you spell God with a capital G?

No great reason. Convention.

Jac,

The problem is that you set up the rules.  However logical they may seem on the surface there simply is no incontrovertible physical evidence for God.  You keep stating things are what they are.  What you mean is things are what we call them.  You keep talking about what the brain can and can't do.  With all due respect, you aren't qualified to make those claims.  Your argument is well taken. However, randomness if a far cry from predetermined.  I know free will and rational thought are a long way from randomness as well.    Your assumption that materialism entails fatalism is controversial.   There are proofs that reconcile materialism and free will.  Those proofs appear to be based on established axioms and reasonable assumptions.  I think I posted one on this thread.  Again, respectfully, I am not capable of adequately presenting the argument, and I suspect you aren't qualified to refute it, not being a physicist and all.

I know I am repeating myself here, but this doesn't seem to be an argument for philosophers and theologians.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Great, thank you.

By the way, why do you spell God with a capital G?

No great reason. Convention.

But why spell God at all? It seems to me that using the word God in so much that you've written here indicates a preconceived notion that everyone who reads your argument will know what you're talking about.

You want to prove the existence of the supernatural, and you hope that in doing so your argument will logically lead to the possible existence of the source of all things in the universe, the source of it all. But first you need to define what that is, this force or whatever you care to call it, and refering to it as God with a capital G reveals a preconception that sort of taints everything you have to say, in my opinion.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

Let me put it another way. Couldn't I be forgiven for reading that you've said here and thinking, "Here's yet another person putting forward yet another argument that the Christian god exists?"

QuoteIf your thoughts are determined by the laws of physics,

Which they are.

Quotethen rational thought is impossible.

Which is nonsense.

QuoteRational thought is only possible if there is a part of you that can make a fundamental choice.

Nonsense. Why do you say that? What choice are you talking about?

QuoteIf you are simply doing as nature demands, then there is no such thing as rationality.

You give me no reason to agree with this absurd statement.

QuoteYour thoughts are on precisely the same level as a falling rock.

That's irrelevant. If the brain is performing the task of deterministically processing information and spitting out a result, and during that process the manipulation of the symbols fit the definition of rational, then the brain was performing its task rationally. It was being rational.

QuoteThe physics may be more complicated, but in the end, it is just physics.

Yes, so is a computer. Are you suggesting that a computer cannot perform calculations because it's operating according to physical law just like a rock, and everyone knows a rock can't calculate? This seems to be your whole argument, and I completely disagree. As far as I can tell, rationality is just a manner of mental calculation that certain complex objects can do.

QuoteSo just like a rock's fall isn't rational, neither are your thoughts.

The rock is not equipped to satisfy the definition of rational, but the brain is. Just like the rock is not equipped to satisfy the definition of calculation, like the computer is.

You're just wrong.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Jac,

The problem is that you set up the rules.  However logical they may seem on the surface there simply is no incontrovertible physical evidence for God.  You keep stating things are what they are.  What you mean is things are what we call them.  You keep talking about what the brain can and can't do.  With all due respect, you aren't qualified to make those claims.  Your argument is well taken. However, randomness if a far cry from predetermined.  I know free will and rational thought are a long way from randomness as well.    Your assumption that materialism entails fatalism is controversial.   There are proofs that reconcile materialism and free will.  Those proofs appear to be based on established axioms and reasonable assumptions.  I think I posted one on this thread.  Again, respectfully, I am not capable of adequately presenting the argument, and I suspect you aren't qualified to refute it, not being a physicist and all.

I know I am repeating myself here, but this doesn't seem to be an argument for philosophers and theologians.

You did, I also admittedly dismissed it without properly reviewing it. I would also like to add this to the document you presented as it helped me understand the concept of QM leading to free will:

Probing free will: A video lecture guide (http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2009/07/15/pages/6596/index.xml)

It doesn't reasonably prove the case for free will, but does a great deal in falsifying the idea that materialism/naturalism must result in determinism.

Well I looked at that probing free will article, and the idiot lost me right at the beginning with:

QuoteIf you answered yes, yes, and no to these three questions, then you believe that gluons have free will.  

He doesn't get to tell me what I believe. I answered yes, yes, and no, and I don't believe gluons have free will.

I don't believe anything has free will.

I think his leading question does not establish what he wants it to. He seems to think that if you agree with:

Quote•Do you believe that a justice system designed to impartially establish the facts of the case and punish the guilty is fair?

Then you think we have free will. I agree with it, and I don't think we have free will.

Will such a system punish people who are ultimately not responsible for their actions? Of course. Will that punishment modify subsequent behavior of those individuals to behaviors more suited to society? In many cases yes.

Mission accomplished.

The justice system is a way to modify the programming of those meat machines that engage in destructive behaviors. No free will necessary.

That first question seems to be both a joke and a demonstration. It plays off of the 1,0,1, rule (yes, yes, no), as well as appearing that the intent was to get you thinking about free will.

The videos are about an hour a piece, the article doesn't provide much while the videos provide a great amount of information.

I haven't been following this thread much; mostly just your replies to mine.  I apologize if you need to rehash out something that you've already said.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Now, if a person's thought process is necessarily determined by the physics in his brain, then there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad reason" for anything. You don't really believe anything because of this or that; you "believe" it because its just the way the physics works. In still different terms, to be rational is a normative statement; we ought to believe this or that, whereas if our believes are determined, they are not normative, but purely descriptive; we do believe this or that.

What if the brain's chemical reactions work to cause the substance of thoughts to be (at least often) coincidentally in accordance with the universe's laws of logic (non-contradiction, for example)?
Sure, you believe something because it's the way physics works, but isn't it possible that the brain has evolved to gain an understanding of logic, and thereby have the capability to think according to those laws?  Isn't it possible that complex chemistry can interpret and consider arguments?

So how do we know that our brain structures truly have the capability to understand logic, and how do we know that everything is not just a chemically imposed illusion?  For one, I find it very difficult to imagine how we could be even be talking about logic and rationality if this was true.

So, as for the question of whether or not knowledge exists in a materialistic framework...  You said that for something to be knowledge, we must have a good reason for believing it.  If materialism is true, than even though are thoughts are purely determined by chemistry, it is still possible for us to have a "good reason" if in actuality are brain structures are rational, and can apply the laws of logic.  Again, the reasons for the probability that this is true if materialism is true are similar in concept to "I think, therefore I am."

QuoteThe videos are about an hour a piece, the article doesn't provide much while the videos provide a great amount of information.

Humph! I'll take your word for it.  ;-)

Actually, I just resented the impression that I was being treated like a lab rat when all I wanted to do was read the article. I'm sure it's informative, and my knee-jerk reaction was, well, knee-jerk.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Now, if a person's thought process is necessarily determined by the physics in his brain, then there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad reason" for anything. You don't really believe anything because of this or that; you "believe" it because its just the way the physics works. In still different terms, to be rational is a normative statement; we ought to believe this or that, whereas if our believes are determined, they are not normative, but purely descriptive; we do believe this or that.

There are good and bad reasons for things. Results are the good and bad reasons. For instance, repeating an action and getting the same positive result means you've gained knowledge of some small part of the universe to your benefit. You are rewarded with a cocktail of pleasing brain chemicals, and a strengthening of neuron pathways favoring that action. No free will necessary, just trial and error and a hardwired reward system and voila, you're rational.

And you do believe because of "this or that" because the perception of this or that mechanically set up neural pathways in the brain that mechanically result in you believing them. This or that can even be arguments. It's just the way the physics works.

And so the brain can wire itself to be biased towards that mode of thinking called rational if the results of that kind of thinking are positive.

No free will necessary, just mechanical calculation.

Just spotted this:

Quote from: "Jac"I have read, for instance, Steven Hawking, who does think the universe is deterministic.

Bzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. Hawking thinks no such thing. What Hawking actually says is that, while the uncertainty principle shoots full-on Laplacian determinism in the foot, a semi-deterministic universe is still possible because quantum events, when averaged out over macroscopic scales, behave very predictably. Indeed, this is why radiometric dating is a rigorous science, because while the decay of an individual atom is completely random, decay in a macroscopic sample follows probability distributions very predictably.

That aside, you have completely misrepresented Hawking here, who never said that he thinks the universe is deterministic, but that determinism is not ruled out QM, or at least that a form of determinism isn't. Laplacian determinism is most definitely ruled out, though.

This amounts to little more than a quote mine, and it is dishonest. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and sim ply assume that it stems from ignorance or a failure to understand what Hawking was talking about, because I'm nice like that.