Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:41:23 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D7FF0C3.910E1F70@mindspring.com> References: <20020911155742.D45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > On a naturalist worldview, human beings are just machines, and > > > as such reasoning is just an illusion. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > You keep pulling this one out of your rear. I don't see why > > you keep claiming this, when it doesn't logically follow. If > > human beings are just machines, there no reason at all that > > their reasoning would have to be illusionary, rather than real. > > You have simply made an unsupported statement, as if it were > > fact, and expected us to be stupid enough to just accept it > > with no evidence. > > When you say, "logically follow", are you saying that you are > attempting to conform your reasoning processes to some objective > standard? *What* objective standard? The mathematical formalism of symbolic logic. > Moreover, *where* does the intentionality come from that allows > you to conform your reasoning to those objective standards? I borrowed it. 8-). It's irrelevant where it comes from, so long as it *is*. > Automatons do not reason, they do not make choices, they do not > commit intentional acts, they only do what they do, without > regard to any external standards of logic or ethics. Automatons which man has built so far. Your argument is that because rainbow trout are trout, carp must also be trout. The failure to this point is no guarantee of future failure. > > "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". > > Yes it is. But it is *your* premises that preclude the possibility > that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. No it doesn't. Look up the word "emergent", and tell me that again, without being disingenuous. > I'm not arguing that the whole is less than the sum of its parts. > I'm arguing that *your* premises lead to that conclusion. Well, you are wrong. My premises lead to emergent properties and self-organization and the Anthropic Principle and Mach's Hypothesis. > > > Reductions are supposed to be absurd! That's why they are called > > > "reductio ad ABSURDUM" arguments. They are employed to reduce an > > > opponent's argument to ABSURDITY. Get it? > > > > No, that's not how the symbolic logic works. > > Since I wasn't showing how the symbolic logic works, your comment > seems to be irrelevent. The entire argument can be reduced to symbolic form, and the result computed. That's why it's so easy for all of us to pick out your weakest arguments and points, and choose them to refute. Your attempts to deflect the argument into the phenomenological realm are transparent to all of us. > > A "reductio ad absurdum" is a "reduction to absurdity" argument. > > It works by taking a general argument, and arguing its application > > to a specific case where it is false, thus demonstrating that the > > generalization itself is false. > > I know what they are, thanks anyways. Then do us the favor of not insulting our intelligence by using rhetorical techniques which you know to be deceitful. > > It's possible to perform a reduction that does not result in an > > absurdity. This is how it works if the generalization is true. > > > > E.g. the argument "all fish are trout" is not proven absurd, if > > your specific case that you argue to is a rainbow trout instead > > of a brown trout, but it works if your specific case is a carp. > > Interesting, but irrelevent. Not irrelevant. Allegory. A symbolic analog of your previous argument. > > The reason the reduction he called absurd *is* absurd is that > > you drew a conclusion unrelated to the specific case which you > > were reducing. > > You've just contradicted your own explanation of a reductio ad > absurdum. No, I haven't. Not all reductions are reductio ad absurdum; only reductions which are done properly, according to the rules of logic. Since yours failed to comply with the rules of logic, yours is, itself, absurd. > Do they reduce a general argument or a specific case? > Make up your mind. If what you meant was "unrelated to the general > argument you were reducing" then it seems to me that you need to > show that this is the case, not just dismiss it out of hand. No, actually *you* must show the relationship exists as part of your argument, for your argument to be valid. It is not up to us, unless the ground rules you are attempting to establish require that we catch you in intentional deceptions, as well as catching you in errors, or chastising you for failure to show your work. > If you think that human reason can be accounted for by the action of > the laws of physics on matter, you need to show how human reason > does not reduce to determinism. No, I do not. I merely need to show that human reason can be accounted for by the action of the laws of physics on matter. I don't have to show a thing about determinism. Determinism is irrelvant. It's only you who holds free will to be sacrosanct, and thus part and parcel with human reason: not me. If you want to drag determinism into this, then you need to prove that it's even relevant to the discussion. The reason it's relevent to *you* is because you subscribe to the doctrine of "free will", but you haven't proven that it should be relevent to *me*. You *assume* that the laws of physics are a clockwork, and that therefore if human reason *can* be accounted for by the action of the laws of physics on matter, that this contradicts *your* doctrine. All this means is that you only have a cursory understanding of the laws of physics, limited to Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics are only a useful approximation, whose results are predictive in the context of intertial reference frames, only at non-relatavistic speeds, and only at the higher scales of matter. > Given your premises, there is no way you can know whether *your* > reason is correct and that other people's reasoning is fallacious. I can. I can test whether or not one or the other is more predictive. > It may be fallacious according to the internal laws of logic that > are pre-programmed in *your* head, but that wouldn't prove anything, > since you don't know that what is in your head is what is in anybody > else's. Yes, actually, I do know. I rather expect that the mathematics necessary to prove this is beyond you, however. > Moreover, since you think this is a random chance universe, there > is no way you can ever know if by some random fluke that there is > not a defect in the programming, causing you to commit logical > fallacies without your knowledge. You don't know whether I believe this is "a random chance universe" or not. You only know that I have argued for evolution, and certain aspects of the universe which you have taken, inaappropriately, to mean that I believe the universe is a clockwork, which is not a conclusion you can legitimately draw from my statements. > Moreover, if you arbitrarily insist that everybody reasons the > same way, you need to give an account of why people make logical > mistakes. Mostly, I've been writing it off to willful ignorance, lately... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D7FF0C3.910E1F70>