12 Feb 08
Originally posted by Nemesioa tree falling in the woods makes a sound without a mind.---nemesio---
Stop introducing unrelated concepts. Morality requires a mind because morality is contingent
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 w ...[text shortened]... ; 2+2=4 without a
mind; a tree falling in the woods makes a sound without a mind.
Nemesio
Maybe , maybe not. All we do know is that a tree falling will disturb the air around it and send energy waves of air molecules radiating out from it. Beyond this we do not know if it makes a sound or not. The sound bit comes about via mental process after our ears receive the air waves.
12 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioLogical identity is basically the idea that a tree is a tree and not a rock. The concept is different from the reality. Reality is what it is plain and simple.
The identification of the concept requires a mind.
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
The reality is trees and rocks not A=A. No trees and rocks no A=A. No air waves - no sound.
Neither A=A NOR A= not A can exist without a mind. Trees exist . Rocks exist. "A"s do not exist. Have you ever dropped an A on your foot? Nope , you haven't. That's because A=A is a concept and isn't made of anything.Trees are made of something , sound waves are made of something - logic , beauty , reality are not made of anything so by default they have to be concepts and if they are concepts then they are there to help us make sense of the world or to identify a subjective truth we see in nature.
I happen to believe that there is more to life than just physical and mental *(ie spiritual) but this may not be something your belief system affords , therefore you are left with only two catagories 1) things that exist 2) concepts derived from minds to make sense of what exists.
I cannot see how logic can possibly fall into the 1) catagory , therefore by default it has to be in 2).
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadCurious , Tell me about this non temporal eternal logic. How does it sustain itself independently of time?
Not particularly. I've always known that.
[b]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.[/b]
12 Feb 08
I'm tired of this debate
Of course logic requires a mind to be communicated and thought about. Without a mind to think about it, logic doesn't make sense.
By the other hand logic's veracity is independent of the mind. Logic is a tool mind can use. Mind didn't create logic, because we can reach the same logic always. Logic is inherent to reality.
1+1=2 even if there's no one to think about it.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterNow you are just being silly. If you want to redefine sound as the interpretation of disturbances
Maybe , maybe not. All we do know is that a tree falling will disturb the air around it and send energy waves of air molecules radiating out from it. Beyond this we do not know if it makes a sound or not. The sound bit comes about via mental process after our ears receive the air waves.
in the air forming waves, then fine, be silly. If you want to use the standard definition that sound
is the disturbance itself, then we can talk.
Nemesio
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by knightmeister
Logical identity is basically the idea that a tree is a tree and not a rock. The concept is different from the reality. Reality is what it is plain and simple.
I can't tell if you're being intentionally difficult or you really don't get it.
Tree=tree is a logical expression of identity. It exists whether or not a mind recognizes it. I was
using the term 'A' simply because you can replace anything for it and the statement remains true.
So, rock=rock or dirt=dirt or grass=grass and so on until you've run out of things to demonstrate.
Nowhere in the universe does A=~A where A is anything you want.
You persist in calling logic a 'thing,' something that I've outright rejected a number of times.
It's not a 'thing,' it is a relationship. Gravity is not a thing, time is not a thing, math is not a
thing. And they all exist regardless of whether a mind observes them.
Nemesio
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by NemesioI' m not being difficult , I'm trying to illustrate a point you might not grasp. You are being woolly in your description of "things".
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]Logical identity is basically the idea that a tree is a tree and not a rock. The concept is different from the reality. Reality is what it is plain and simple.
I can't tell if you're being intentionally difficult or you really don't get it.
Tree=tree is a logical expression of identity. It exists whet ...[text shortened]...
thing. And they all exist regardless of whether a mind observes them.
Nemesio[/b]
For example , you say gravity is not a thing like math is not a thing but gravity is a force that can be measured and observed. Math is not , so immediately there is a distinction between a force like gravity and math which is not a force nor is it substantial (made of something).
It's all to do with catagories.
Catagory a) = things which exist either substantially or measurably in the physical universe
Catagory b) = subjective concepts or man made systems of thought which help us make sense of the world
Catagory c) = Spiritual realities (controversial and optional)
Logic has to be placed in one of these catagories , agreed?
Now the tree is the tree and that's it . That's the physical reality (ie that the tree is a tree)
From this comes the CONCEPT of logical identity that if a tree is a tree then it can't be a rock. But notice. Already the concept is subtly one step removed from the reality. So although it expresses and represents the fact that the tree is a tree , the logical concept is not the same. It's expressing an idea, a way of looking at the world.
A holy man might disagree based on the idea that the universe is all one and comes from one source that I am the tree and the tree is me. A=B . Thus another concept of reality.
Logic has to go in catagory B because however strongly one believes it a concept is always a perception of the world not neccessarily the world itself.
My philosophy is that reality just is what it is. The moment we have formed a concept about it we have introduced a perception of reality.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by NemesioOh come on. Bats use waves of air bouncing off objects to "see" rather than "hear" . Who knows , maybe they don't hear sound with their ears but see pictures made from waves of energy?
Now you are just being silly. If you want to redefine sound as the interpretation of disturbances
in the air forming waves, then fine, be silly. If you want to use the standard definition that sound
is the disturbance itself, then we can talk.
Nemesio
Don't you realise that if your definition of sound was so standard , unquestioned and widely accepted then the whole "tree falling in a forest" question would not exist.
Existentially , all that is happening in what we call "sound" is that a wave of air is being disturbed and moving along in a wave pattern. That's all that there is --energy and matter (air molecules) when it hits the ear then brain it is sensed as "sound".
Air can be meaured , waves can be measured , energy can be measured. Sound cannot be measured without measuring these things , BUT these things CAN be measured without calling them sound or even knowing what they sound like. This means that sound can be broken down into it's deeper components which exist.
Here's a thought. Are wave frequencies that no biological life form can detect sound? (I don't know if there is such a thing but think about it anyway)
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterWave is the disturbance itself. In air, it translates is pressure differences, in light it's the EM field.
Oh come on. Bats use waves of air bouncing off objects to "see" rather than "hear" . Who knows , maybe they don't hear sound with their ears but see pictures made from waves of energy?
Don't you realise that if your definition of sound was so standard , unquestioned and widely accepted then the whole "tree falling in a forest" question would not ex ...[text shortened]... etect sound? (I don't know if there is such a thing but think about it anyway)
There are frequencies no biological life can detect.
Logic exists more then a conceptually. Logic is not relative or language dependent. Nor mathematics.
Do you agree that if there had never been a mind, logic and mathematics would exist? (Although it wouldn't be used). That 1+1=2 doesn't require a mind to be true.
Mathematics exists all by itself. We can conceptualize the number one, two, the sign "plus", but independently of conceptualization, the relation is true.
God can't change the laws of mathematics.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by serigadoDo you agree that if there had never been a mind, logic and mathematics would exist? -----
Wave is the disturbance itself. In air, it translates is pressure differences, in light it's the EM field.
There are frequencies no biological life can detect.
Logic exists more then a conceptually. Logic is not relative or language dependent. Nor mathematics.
Do you agree that if there had never been a mind, logic and mathematics would exist? (Altho ...[text shortened]... tly of conceptualization, the relation is true.
God can't change the laws of mathematics.
NO
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by serigadoCloser , I would say maths changes through the years . Maths at a higher level can be a kind of art form . Logic not so sure.
Well... I guess we found the divergence here.
But you agree mathematics and logic are always the same, independent of mind or god?
The issue is not one of consistency but indepedence of the physical universe. Logic can only exist (as a concept) because the universe behaves consistently.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterMaths never changed.
Closer , I would say maths changes through the years . Maths at a higher level can be a kind of art form . Logic not so sure.
The issue is not one of consistency but indepedence of the physical universe. Logic can only exist (as a concept) because the universe behaves consistently.
What happened was people have changed the way they saw maths.
Logic is a branch of mathematics.
There's the concept of logic, but logic isn't conceptual. Try to see it as mathematics. That's what it is.
13 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe root logic in maths never changes. It is not uncommon for a mathematician to proof a theorem and then discover that somebody else proved it in the past, either in the exact same way or in another way. The validity of the theorem was alway a fact whether or not someone had proved it, thought of it, etc. There are even theorems which have not been proved and their truth value may never be known, but their truth value is still a fact whether we know it or not.
Closer , I would say maths changes through the years . Maths at a higher level can be a kind of art form . Logic not so sure.
What is an art form, is how we study or express the mathematics not the mathematics and logic itself.]
I + I = II was true for the romans too 🙂