Comments
-
Is there any argument against the experience machine?I’ve stopped feeling joy because of it, I think that if I do something I like it means I value joy and pleasure and would have to accept the experience machine and plug in. — Darkneos
I encourage you to seek out a professional therapist. Feeling a lack of joy may be indicative of a mental health need or signal depression. -
Is there any argument against the experience machine?I think your questions are apt. Indeed, if we are just chemical processes then there isn't a fundamental difference between us and the machine that is purportedly sending the experiences to us.
-
Is there any argument against the experience machine?Epistemic humility is certainly a virtue. On what basis do you think everything are chemicals? Are you 100% certain? Are you willing to subject your emotions to this belief? In fact a large number of people, probably the majority, will disagree with your claim that everything are chemicals. Do you know everything? Are you God? If the answer to these questions is no, then I don't see why you wouldn't be open to beliefs such as those involving souls, justice, God, love, and other such transcendentals. But don't take my word for it alone, you said the problem bugged you, that something doesn't seem quite right about it. Is there something transcendental about that itch? Can you explain it in chemical, biological, or evolutionary terms?
-
St. Anselm's Proof: A Problem of Reference, Intentional Identity and Mutual Understanding (G. Klima)Here is my first impression of the paper:
The proof relies on "thought objects" and an intentional theory of reference. Wherein the thought object referred to by the saint, in a locution of constitution reference, is God, the saint attributes to this "object" "that than which nothing greater can be thought." It is precisely that the thought object God, referred to constitutively by the saint, that is not referred to constitutively by the atheist. Rather, the atheist wants to deny that the thought object picked out by the intention towards God has the description "that than which nothing greater can be thought," and thereby refers to God only by parasitic reference to what the saint is proposing after reflection. -
A Thomistic Argument For God's Existence From Composition
:ok:What I am saying is that, supposing that there are simple things at the end of the composition, these simple things are explained in essence by the whole of which they are a part. That is to say that their essence or identity is conditioned by the whole of which they are a part. — JuanZu
Okay, I think I get it now. So it is not composition itself that is at issue. Rather, that a part should be responsible for composition when it itself is dependent on the whole at least for its mereological function as part; that's what is at issue.
Again, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be asserting that even if some composed being were grounded in simple parts, those parts could not have composed the whole because their function is determined by the whole of which they are parts. And if their function were to compose a whole, they would already have to be a part of the whole of which they acquire their function from, which would render composition impossible by that part.
That is an important qualification because without it, one might incorrectly suppose that a whole could be fully grounded in its parts, which you maintain (and I agree) does not work. -
A Thomistic Argument For God's Existence From CompositionCorrect me if I am wrong -- are you saying that there are no composites, composition is impossible?
-
A Thomistic Argument For God's Existence From Compositionmatter has the potential to be divided endlessly — Gregory
Perhaps.
Why must this prove that matter ends in a supernatural mind? — Gregory
Whether matter is infinitely composite (and similarly whether or not it is infinitely divisible) or not, anything composite requires a composer. Maybe something composite could be composed by something else composite. However, all composites have to be grounded in something simple or else nothing would ever be composed.
Why is this the only explanation? Can calculus offer some light? Can modern physics? — Gregory
If there is anything in the universe that everything else is composed by, I think we would all like to know about it, especially physicists.
Also, how familiar are you with Kant's second Antimony? — Gregory
Kant's second antinomy has perplexed me before. I am now quite sure that there is no reason to think the thesis of that antinomy is true. On the other hand, the antithesis seems to also lack any basis (unless the notion of a "simple part" is problematic). -
A Thomistic Argument For God's Existence From CompositionI further suggest that any mathematical question may well be ontological already so that the expression of a mathematical matter in ontological terms is not of itself problematic.
-
A Thomistic Argument For God's Existence From CompositionVery well Gregory, then I object to your objection on the grounds that the mathematical question that my argument is accused of misrepresenting has not yet been stated. I contend that the existence of said mathematical question ought to be considered dubious in lieu of its actually being stated or of a proof of the existence of that mathematical question in place of an explicit statement of the purported question.
-
A Thomistic Argument For God's Existence From CompositionA5-1. A composed being is contingent on its parts to exist.
A5-2. Therefore, a composed being cannot exist by itself or from itself.
A5-3. Therefore, a part which is a composed being cannot exist by itself or from itself.
A5-4. An infinite series of composition, let’s call it set C, of a composed being would be an infinite series of beings which cannot exist by themselves or from themselves.
A5-5. In order for a composed being to exist, it must be grounded in something capable of existing itself.
A5-6. C has no such member as described in A5-5.
A5-7. Therefore, the existence, ceteris paribus, of C is (actually) impossible — Bob Ross
Here is another way of arguing for premise 5 from the original argument:
1. A composite gets its composition from its parts.
2. If all the parts of a composite are themselves composite, then all the parts get their composition from their respective parts.
3. If all of the parts get their composition from their respective parts, then every member, or part, is lacking in terms of its composition and requires another (or others) that it gets its composition from.
4. If every member, or part, is lacking in terms of its composition and requires another for its composition, then no member has composition.
5. If none of the parts have composition, then none of the parts can give composition to another.
6. If none of the parts can give composition to another, then no parts can be parts of a greater composition.
7. Therefore, if all parts are composite, and a composition depends only on its parts, then there can be no composition.
A composition dependence cannot go to infinity of its own power. -
A Thomistic Argument For God's Existence From CompositionI absolutely agree with what you said in the counterargument conclusion, #3. God cannot be a mere part within the created order.
I think the original argument can be revised with some small adjustments so that the simple that the composed relies on is external to that composition and not a part of it. -
A Thomistic Argument For God's Existence From CompositionTo say more, the argument necessitates either A. a simple part, or B. something other than the parts that the composed composition is composed of that is itself simple. In that case, any composed composition having infinite parts would itself require something other than itself, or its parts, for its existence, namely God.
-
A Thomistic Argument For God's Existence From CompositionExcellent.
My only quibble is to discard premise 6. I don't think it is necessary and actually I think premise 7 depends on premises 3 and 5, not 3 and 6.
That is to say, physically, we may be constituted by an infinite series, but as you said, such a series cannot existon its own. -
Can the existence of God be proved?Here is an argument for the existence of God:
1. If anything exists, then there must be something that exists.
2. If something depends on another for its existence and the second thing exists, then so must the first.
3. If everything depended on another for its existence, then nothing would exist.
4. Therefore, if anything exists, and there exist things that depend on another for their existence, or not, there must exist something that does not depend on another for its existence.
5. Consequently, if anything exists, there must exist something that does not depend on another.
6. Something does exist.
7. So, there must exist something that does not depend on another.
Note: this argument is similar to the "argument from being" formulated by Norman Geisler. -
A -> not-AJust to be clear, your post makes it look like Leontiskos was making that assertion; that is not true as Leontiskos was not making that assertion; only I was making that assertion.
If I were to represent your first argument symbolically, the first one would be:
P→Q
~P
Therefore Q.
But that is clearly not a valid argument. So why is it that the way I've represented your argument does not align with the original non-symbolic argument? -
A -> not-Athe validity of the argument (which has to do with guarantees regarding the value of the conclusion). — Leontiskos
Yes, agree. :up:
every inference relies on the notion of "follows from." — Leontiskos
That inferences relies on -follows from- is surely true of deductive arguments; that inductive arguments rely on inference would seem to be true, but I do not know if I would characterize the inference in an inductive argument with -follows from-. -
The Cogito"My main point here isn't to suggest that Descartes made an intentional argument proving God by arguing that failure to accept God led to an incoherent solipsitic position. I just think that by working backwards and seeing what Descartes required to avoid solipsism you can come to the conclusion that God is necessary for Descartes to avoid that."
"It would just mean you can't know anything without God."
I think this is a good reading of Descartes.
"So, given his arguments -- at face value -- he knows God exists, rather than it being faith-based"
Maybe Descartes can be interpreted to be making this argument:
If not for faith in God, I, Descartes, wouldn't know anything after methodological doubt. (Knowledge requires faith in God).
If I, Descartes, have knowledge, then God is real.
I, Descartes, have knowledge.
Therefore, God is real.
See how the argument guarantees knowledge of God, and yet that knowledge depends on faith in the first place? -
The Cogito"Descartes could reply that Sartre has no right to claim externalization on the basis of his methodological doubt."
We might ask: Why not? What's wrong with externalization, Descartes? But then we might add that externalization appears to be implicit in methodological "doubting." -
A -> not-A"So there is no permissible metalogical argument as follows:
(1 ^ ~1) → 2
∴ 2"
Agree, I think; correct me if I have this wrong: by metalogical I take you to mean a logical "move" (such as MP) that is not identical to its truth function.
Apparently, it is not just arguments with contradictions that are problematic.
If it is settled that any premise in an informal argument is demonstrably false, it is unclear whether such an argument's conclusion can be true and yet the argument still be valid, where a valid argument is signified only as an argument that operates with the material conditional. If all valid arguments use the material conditional, arguments with some false premises could seem to still have a true conclusion.
But this seems wrong, at least to me. If any premises are false, a valid argument will result in a conclusion that is necessarily false, according to my non-standard understanding of validity in an informal context.
You may agree. But if you do, then any argument that is valid will turn out to be, in the relation of premises to conclusion, either [true true], or [false, false]. But that is the truth function of equivalence. Indeed, were you to exclude [F, F] as a degenerate case, your resulting truth functionality for a valid argument [T, T] would be truth functionally equivalent to "conjunction." You may argue that either of those truth functionalities is the case, and yet that an argument is still structurally but metalogically MP, although what you meant by calling an argument structurally and metalogically MP would be unclear to me.
In any case, I am not sure I agree that an argument is MP in any formulation, as putting an argument in terms of MP would seem to lead to the result that every argument had an "infinite regress" of premises. What I mean is:
P
P→Q
Therefore Q
Is really..
(P^(P→Q))→Q
P→Q
P
Therefore Q
Is really...
((P^(P→Q)→Q)^(P→Q)^P)→Q
(P^(P→Q))→Q
P→Q
P
Therefore Q
Ad infinitum. -
A -> not-AThanks for the links. So then I think Gensler would say the argument I have is similar to the first of his two circular proofs for modus ponens. The circularity is, interestingly, a result of the structure of the argument, not because of any specific premise.
My version of the argument is missing the inductive element that would cause the argument to be justified, if still circular. It's like a track record argument for perceptual abilities.
Perhaps, in addition to an inductive argument for modus ponens, an argument from coherence can be made. For instance it seems that if modus ponens failed, then MT or RAA would also fail.
1. If MP could be false, then RAA could be false.
2. But RAA is not false.
Therefore neither is MP.
(MT isnt a premise, however the argument is structurally MT). That is to say if MT is veridical, and so is RAA, then that would guarantee the truth of MP. -
The Cogito
"So my question about the Cogito was, Which sort of "thought" is it?"
For Descartes it may only be the former, for Sartre it may be both. Though for Sartre I would say that the latter is "cogito" only in a way that is mediate; that is, present but only through phenomenal "glasses." Not to say that such glasses are not needed for the rendering of the phenomenal in terms of thought (it (the phenomenal realm) contains a kind of solution to the problem that it (the phenomenal) posed in the first place when consciousness encountered otherness (read: the other, opposition, negation of self) and the phenomenal became "a reality" to consciousness.
In other words, when thought discovers someone as-they-are through phenomenal encounter, the phenomenal collapses into noumenality. But this is the same as the noumenal encountering the noumenal. -
The Cogito"It's very plausible that the thought "2+2 = 4", understood as content or proposition, is timeless, or at least not to be identified with any particular time-based instantiation." :chin: Maybe the thought exists outside of time even though it is co-instantiated by a phenomenal event that is conditioned by time. Thought is noumenal? Thought is direct access linking being-as-it-is and being as-it-appears.
Similarly, the resolution of an appearance by thought is thought contending with the contradictions inherent in its own systematic approach where understanding is the return of thought to itself, self-sameness, being-as-it-is. -
A -> not-AGraham --"logic is a normative subject: it is supposed to provide an account of correct reasoning."
Agree.
This is tangential (in that it is about logic but doesnt really relate to the original post), but what would you say about this argument? Is it viciously circular? --
if modus ponens is logical then any argument of the form [P, P->Q] implies Q.
modus ponens is logical.
therefore, "any argument..." -
The CogitoHere are some of your quotes that I think are consistent and apropos to my remarks.
One thing I can infer from thinking "I think" is that I think. — Moliere
because I think "I think" that it does not follow that "I am" in some kind of logically deductive fashion. It's just something that makes sense: in order for me to do I must be. — Moliere
Sartre does not rely upon ourselves as a thinking thing: If we remove ourselves as a substance which thinks (and is not extended) then there is nothing for the "I think" to refer to -- though "I am" remains true, it's not through the indubitability of the cogito that we come to this. — Moliere
Whereas Sartre is trying to explicate the metaphysical structures of a being which can lie to itself, or find itself in bad faith. — Moliere -
The CogitoThe cogito may be thought of as pre-ontological insofar as it is not a study of being-as-such and so lacks ontological dimensionality. Cogito is undetached thinking; it is thinking that has not yet thought itself; it is thought qua thought. It is un-transcendent. This is the mode of being called being-in-itself.
Cogito is still temporal but not understood as temporal; it merely resides within the architecture of temporality; only the process of doubt, a process of negation of cogito (ego) discloses the cogito by standing apart from itself; in other words, from the hill of certainty that has been climbed by “doubt” the cogito sees itself in a separate moment, and from that vantage point has a grasp of itself in time. Similarly, the “doubting” which is again temporal and is the negative mirror of cogito is engrained in this process.
Meanwhile, what is the conclusion of methodological doubt? It is being itself; “therefore, I am.” The assertion is contentless and that being the case it is also pre-reflective; unmediated awareness. And yet, it is an ontological claim; and in that regard it is full of content though perhaps it is undescriptive (being, but what is being?). The “I am” claim is the voice given to being by being itself; self consciousness.
And, the being there posited is instrumental. Not only is being in a sense externalized from itself, but it is instrumentalized as a means for acquiring knowledge; it is foundational. So, being is no longer just being-in-itself, but has become being-for-itself. Both in the sense of self-consciousness and in the sense of it’s use for itself. That’s what I mean by saying that “I think therefore I am” is not the culmination of cogito qua cogito but of the transcendence of itself viz. the externalization of being through the process of “doubting.” Thinking that thinks itself.
Sartre’s critique of Descartes is critique-as-exposition. That is, Satre critiques Descartes not by contradicting what Descartes said, but by saying what Descartes left unsaid. -
A -> not-AWaiter: yes sir, of course, here it is.
NotAristotle: Was that so hard? ... thank yo-- what the hell is this?
Waiter: it's the ribeye sir, rare, with extra salt.
TonesinDeepFreeze: it's what you ordered NotAristotle, just eat it.
NotAristotle: I don't even like steak, why would I order it?
Tones: don't ask me.
Michael: stop making a scene NotAristotle, you do this every time!
NotAristotle: Leontiskos, do you want the ribeye?
Leontiskos: Not really, no.
Banno: check please. -
A -> not-A"(2) As to validity, I said that the standard definition of 'valid argument' implies that any argument with an inconsistent set of premises is valid. That it is correct: The standard definition implies that any argument with an inconsistent of premises is valid."
"(2) Then we want to show that, for any argument g, if there is no interpretation in which all the premises of g are true, then g is valid:
Ag((g is an argument
&
~Ei(Di & Ap(Rpg -> Tpi))) -> Vg)"
This might not make too much of a difference, but it seems to me that (if we use the definition of validity you stated)... that there being no interpretation s.t. all premises are true does imply an argument is "valid."
But that the definition of validity implies that there being no interpretation with all true premises implies that the argument is valid - that I am not so sure about, because I do not see how a definition can imply anything. -
The CogitoTo say that in a briefer manner: I think -> I doubt -> I am.
Bad faith. Hidden fullness. Sense-certainty. Ego. The other. Contradiction. Doubt. Clarity. Certainty. Thinghood is thought, thought is thinghood; being-in-itself; "I am." Being-for-another. Implication. Enlightenment. Reason. Authenticity. Absolute knowledge. The unfolding of the Absolute. Return to the beginning. Faith. -
The Cogito(I'm not sure if I'm right to equate pre-reflexion with being-as-such).
An instantaneous cogito implies the structure of doubt, that is, suspension of judgment. But the cogito is committed to more than mere suspension of judgement; it is by necessity interwoven within a time "architecture."
The architecture of doubt is directly mirroring the architecture of the cogito itself, in time, but as a negation.
This architecture is pre-ontological in the sense of not yet truly ontological. That is, it is prior to the formulation of an ontology. The movement from pre-ontological knowing, the cogito, to a pre-reflexive ontology of being-as-such (that is to actually study being), requires transcendence of the cogito, where "doubt" is understood as just the negation of the cogito, ego.
It may be strange for pre-reflective awareness to be after the cogito's pre-ontological mode, but this is just the path of consciousness. Whereas pre-reflection is wholly prior to the cogito, in consciousness it comes after, as it is from the perspective of the negation of the ego that pre-reflection is attainable in a self-conscious way. This is why the saying "I think, therefore I am" is concluded after Descartes' "doubt" meditation. The saying is not the culmination of cogito but its transcendence. -
A -> not-AYou said "(2) As to validity, I said that the standard definition of 'valid argument' implies that any argument with an inconsistent set of premises is valid. That it is correct: The standard definition implies that any argument with an inconsistent of premises is valid."
I was trying to understand how the definition implies that in terms of symbolic logic. I think I understand how the definition could imply that an argument with inconsistent premises must be valid according to the definition you stated, and I think you will agree with me that if the conclusion is necessarily true, then the argument must be valid, according to the definition you stated. And, if the premises are inconsistent and the conclusion is necessarily true, then such an argument must again be valid according to the definition you stated. -
A -> not-AIf someone were asked to "explain the reasoning" for a conclusion, then the inferential steps definitely matter.
Although, I would say there's a "logical floor" where no further arguments or definitions can settle whether an inferential rule is "necessary;" that is why I refer to "logical intuition" - so I would say that while modus poenens fits into a set of rules, I am skeptical that the move itself can be justified using argument. That it really is logical is basically a matter of faith that the way we're thinking is "correct."
Maybe there's an evolutionary argument to support "correct thinking" although that would assume that passing on genes correlates with correct thinking or something like that, which would still leave an open question of whether the thinking is "normatively" right. Maybe we might be able to conclude that it's "logical enough." or something along those lines. But it would be interesting if logical thinking could somehow be proven scientifically, and yet that would seem to also be a very circular argument. -
A -> not-A
I said "principle of explosion" not "disjunctive syllogism"
"Not playing your idiotic game"
Then I accept your unconditional surrender. -
A -> not-AI thought not. Wierd that such an important principle would be neglected from a foundational book.
-
A -> not-A
Are there any introductory textbooks that talk about the principle of explosion? -
A -> not-AWhat textbook says that. If you can cite that statement I'll sell the farm.
-
A -> not-AI think that is right, it is arbitrary. Although I would say that an argument can have inconsistent premises and still be valid as long as those premises do not do any "work" in the argument, but I acknowledge that my definition of validity may be atypical. At least, I would guess that Tones regards it as unconventional.
NotAristotle
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum