Originally posted by Nemesio"Logical truths don't require a mind; they just don't have any meaning without one.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]This is akin to the 'tree falling in the forest' argument. The logic of whether or not the tree made a sound is the monopoly of the mind.
If a rock falls to the hard ground on a faraway planet with an atmosphere but no life forms,
it does make a sound. The sound goes unobserved, of course. The sound ...[text shortened]... ency
sounds). They still 'are' regardless of whether I acknowledge them.
Nemesio[/b]
That's like saying sound requires an ear. It doesn't. On a planet with deaf creatures, sound is
still being made,"
-----------by NEMESIO---------
KM- Response----------
The analogy is invalid because sound is based on a physical measurable reality (ie waves passing through air/ water created by energy) that can be measured as a physical phenomenon. Sound waves exist and are substantial in and of themselves whether of not anyone hears them. They are there. They exist in 3 dimensions. Logic does not "exist" as such and therefore does require a mind because without a mind it's just not there in the same way as sound waves are.
Try this one , do you think beauty exists and is there if no-one is there to witness it? If not , then on what basis does logic "exist"?
Originally posted by knightmeister1+1=2 is true independently or not of existing a mind to think so. Logic is the same thing. It exists by it self.
"Logical truths don't require a mind; they just don't have any meaning without one.
That's like saying sound requires an ear. It doesn't. On a planet with deaf creatures, sound is
still being made,"
-----------by NEMESIO---------
KM- Response----------
The analogy is invalid because sound is based on a physical measurable reality (ie wa ...[text shortened]... ere if no-one is there to witness it? If not , then on what basis does logic "exist"?
Waves require a medium because waves aren't really entities: they are perturbations propagating in a medium. So obviously the medium must exist! Your analogy is not valid.
Of course if there isn't anyone to use logic, it's useless. Nonetheless 1+1 would always be true.
Again, beauty is different. Beauty requires someone's opinion. So, beauty resides not on the things, but on the individual who thinks something is beautiful.
First, I agree with your assessment of sound. My point (using FreakyKBH's example) was that
in the absence of a mind, things can and do exist.
Originally posted by knightmeister
Logic does not "exist" as such and therefore does require a mind because without a mind it's just not there in the same way as sound waves are.
Recall that I was the first in this thread to express logic isn't a 'thing' (on page 8). I made an
analogy with numbers and arithmetic. The concept represented by the abstract term 'five' exists
whether or not there is a mind. The concept represented by a 'plus sign' exists whether or not
there is a mind.
The concept of logical identity (A=A) exists whether or not there is a mind.
Try this one , do you think beauty exists and is there if no-one is there to witness it? If not , then on what basis does logic "exist"?
But I don't think beauty exists without observers. How on earth does that impact logical identity (e.g.)?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioPlease explain how a concept (of logical identity or otherwise) can exist without a mind.
First, I agree with your assessment of sound. My point (using FreakyKBH's example) was that
in the absence of a mind, things can and do exist.
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]Logic does not "exist" as such and therefore does require a mind because without a mind it's just not there in the same way as sound waves are.
Recall that I ...[text shortened]... thout observers. How on earth does that impact logical identity (e.g.)?
Nemesio[/b]
Surely anything we call a concept is a mental affair and needs a mind to exist.
How is logical identity more substantial than beauty if they are both "concepts"?
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo, imagine a universe where no mind exists. Then a mind appears and thinks a=~a. Then the mind disappears for 2000 years. Then a new mind appears and thinks a=~a.
Logic does not "exist" as such and therefore does require a mind because without a mind it's just not there in the same way as sound waves are.
Clearly the logic is the same. Did it time travel? Or is it eternal (ie independent of the universe in question)? If it is eternal, how is it still somehow dependent on the minds? And is it dependent on the first mind or the second mind?
Or were they two totally seperate pieces of logic that just happened to look the same?
I think the problem here is a confusion of terms, in addition to incorrect assessments.
Facts are independent of perception or observation.
Observation which can yield interpretation of facts can only be accomplished by the mind.
Logic is dependent upon interpretation of facts.
Therefore, only the mind is capable of logic.
The sound analogy fails because, while we can hear sound, sound itself is a physical fact: waves. However, on another level, the particulars of that sound (rock hitting ground, for instance) are similar to logic, in that the mind is required for identification/classification.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH1. Observation can be accomplished by my digital camera.
I think the problem here is a confusion of terms, in addition to incorrect assessments.
Facts are independent of perception or observation.
Observation which can yield interpretation of facts can only be accomplished by the mind.
Logic is dependent upon interpretation of facts.
Therefore, only the mind is capable of logic.
2. Logic is not dependent on the interpretation of facts.
Do you consider 1+1=2 to be a fact? Can you observe it?
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you think logic is eternal then that's very interesting (for you).
So, imagine a universe where no mind exists. Then a mind appears and thinks a=~a. Then the mind disappears for 2000 years. Then a new mind appears and thinks a=~a.
Clearly the logic is the same. Did it time travel? Or is it eternal (ie independent of the universe in question)? If it is eternal, how is it still somehow dependent on the minds? And is it de ...[text shortened]... nd mind?
Or were they two totally seperate pieces of logic that just happened to look the same?
You challenged my disputing of the sound wave analogy so maybe you can say what logic is made of?
Originally posted by twhitehead1+1=2 is a concept or representation of a physical reality . A sound wave is not a representation it is substantial.
1. Observation can be accomplished by my digital camera.
2. Logic is not dependent on the interpretation of facts.
Do you consider 1+1=2 to be a fact? Can you observe it?
Originally posted by knightmeisterNot particularly. I've always known that.
If you think logic is eternal then that's very interesting (for you).
You challenged my disputing of the sound wave analogy so maybe you can say what logic is made of?
It isn't 'made of' anything. It doesn't have a physical existence.
I didn't challenge your disputing of the soundwave analogy. I challenged a subclaim of your dispute: that logic requires a mind.
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, it is not a representation of a physical reality. It may be used as such, but that is not its essence (- see my football shoes response to freaky on previous page). It it not dependent on physical reality.
1+1=2 is a concept or representation of a physical reality.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAny concept such as beauty , morality , grand unification theory etc etc has to be dependent on the physical reality of the brain/mind to exist (unless one takes a supernatural world view where morality is an actual spiritual property of God).
No, it is not a representation of a physical reality. It may be used as such, but that is not its essence (- see my football shoes response to freaky on previous page). It it not dependent on physical reality.
That's why we call it a concept and not a thing. The universe is divided into two catagories (excluding the spiritual). Physical reality and subjective concepts. If logic is not a physical reality then it has to be a concept by default and all concepts are products of brains which makes them dependent on the physical reality of the brain.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Facts are independent of perception or observation.
Observation which can yield interpretation of facts can only be accomplished by the mind.
Logic is dependent upon interpretation of facts.
Therefore, only the mind is capable of logic.
Logic is not dependent upon the interpretation of facts. This assertion is totally bogus.
The simplest logical assertion A=A and A ~= ~A requires no interpretation, no mind.
Logic is not about interpretation; logic is about relationships. Those relationships exist without
minds.
The sound analogy fails because, while we can hear sound, sound itself is a physical fact: waves. However, on another level, the particulars of that sound (rock hitting ground, for instance) are similar to logic, in that the mind is required for identification/classification.
The particulars of sound identified by the mind are contingent upon the physical facts. A hard
object hitting another hard object makes a different sound than hitting a soft one, a saxophone
sounds different than a sousaphone, &c. In fact, two similar sounds which are indistinguishable
to the human ear may be clearly different using the correct sound analyzing equipment.
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe identification of the concept requires a mind.
Please explain how a concept (of logical identity or otherwise) can exist without a mind.
Surely anything we call a concept is a mental affair and needs a mind to exist.
How is logical identity more substantial than beauty if they are both "concepts"?
That A=A (logical identity) does not.
How hard could this be to understand? Are you saying that A=~A if there are no minds?
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeisterStop introducing unrelated concepts. Morality requires a mind because morality is contingent
Any concept such as beauty , morality , grand unification theory etc etc has to be dependent on the physical reality of the brain/mind to exist (unless one takes a supernatural world view where morality is an actual spiritual property of God).
That's why we call it a concept and not a thing. The universe is divided into two catagories (excluding the ...[text shortened]... oncepts are products of brains which makes them dependent on the physical reality of the brain.
upon minds. A rock cannot be moral or immoral because a rock neither has interests nor has
the capacity to respond to another one's interests. In order to have interests, one must have a
mind.
Logic, arithmetic, or physical facts don't require them. A=A without a mind; 2+2=4 without a
mind; a tree falling in the woods makes a sound without a mind.
Nemesio