Law of Logic

Confident Learner Joined: Nov 28, 2005 Posts: 82

Hey all,

I recently listened to the podcast with the guest and Reggie talking about the reality of the law of logic. The guests stated that the law of logic was real and immaterial and using this to claim that souls were real and immaterial. I think it was a recent podcast but I can't remember, I was playing WoW at the time too so my attention may not of been the best.

This guy annoyed the living crap out of me and Reggie not being a hardcore philosophy guy did not have the tools to deal with him adequately.

A position I have sometimes used in these cases is to suggest that Laws like logic, gravity, Thermodynamics etc. Are descriptions created by humans to understand how the universe around them work and they are frequently incomplete or innacurate in some degree. They describe what happens in the real world and you can use them to make predictions in some cases thereby gaining something of value - information. Outside of the fact that humanity generated these laws they have no reality or independance of thier own. Basically they exist in our minds as an idea I suppose if you had the equipment to detect it you could probably point to the neurons in your head where the reality of the idea exists. This then eradicates the need for the existance of immaterial things removing the gap in the doorway for souls and spirits to be slid through.

Just some thoughts I had, I know the philosophy pros will be able to disect it pretty fast but not meant to be ironclad, just some musings of a layman.

Dusty

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:11 am

Quote:

I was playing WoW at the time too so my attention may not of been the best.

hehe... I was doing the same thing. But to be honest, this guy's arguments weren't worth much more then my divided brain power Laughing

Quote:

A position I have sometimes used in these cases is to suggest that Laws like logic, gravity, Thermodynamics etc. Are descriptions created by humans to understand how the universe around them work and they are frequently incomplete or innacurate in some degree.

First, I'd prefer to call the "laws of logic" the "rules of logic". I’m not sure why this distinction is important to me, but the word law gives it a feeling of immutability, which really isn’t the case. Logic is simply a conceptual tool that allows for comparative analyses, much like math and language are tools which allow us humans to share and relate ideas. Logic isn’t this nebulous entity that exists beyond the human (or perhaps other brains/intellectual organisms) brain, even though the precepts to which we apply it may, and often do, exist independently.

Logic isn’t a thing; it is a concept, just like the Christian god is a concept. As such, it can not exist ( I use the word exist loosely here) without some mechanism, such as a human brain, to apply it.

Confident Learner Joined: Nov 28, 2005 Posts: 82

MockingGods wrote:

Quote:

I was playing WoW at the time too so my attention may not of been the best.

hehe... I was doing the same thing. But to be honest, this guy's arguments weren't worth much more then my divided brain power Laughing

Quote:

A position I have sometimes used in these cases is to suggest that Laws like logic, gravity, Thermodynamics etc. Are descriptions created by humans to understand how the universe around them work and they are frequently incomplete or innacurate in some degree.

First, I'd prefer to call the "laws of logic" the "rules of logic". I’m not sure why this distinction is important to me, but the word law gives it a feeling of immutability, which really isn’t the case. Logic is simply a conceptual tool that allows for comparative analyses, much like math and language are tools which allow us humans to share and relate ideas. Logic isn’t this nebulous entity that exists beyond the human (or perhaps other brains/intellectual organisms) brain, even though the precepts to which we apply it may, and often do, exist independently.

Logic isn’t a thing; it is a concept, just like the Christian god is a concept. As such, it can not exist ( I use the word exist loosely here) without some mechanism, such as a human brain, to apply it.

Thank you, very nice summation. I like "conceptual tools", good description. I'll definitely steal it..... I mean use it.

Dusty

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:17 am

That was a very hard epsiode to listen to. He sounded like a stoner trying to explain the universe christian-style. It all made since to him but you'd have to be smoking that shit to to even understand. And trying prove that laws of logic are thoughts and not something solid that you can touch doesn't in ANY way defend Jesus Christ OR debunk a reason to be atheist. Also, the generalizations he made about atheists made him sound very ignorant. I felt so bad for Regie having to try to untangle himself out of that verbal spider web.

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:49 am

Quote:

Thank you, very nice summation. I like "conceptual tools", good description. I'll definitely steal it..... I mean use it.

I often live in a fantasy world where all ideas are used freely, not bought and sold as intellectual property. At any rate, feel free to use it Very Happy

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:39 am

Dusty,

I personally agree - at least pretty much - with your position here.

The laws of gravity, logic, etc, can be said to be real in a sense, but not as in "existing as an entity."

All of the laws that we are talking about can only be called existent in the esnse that they are generalizaitons based on isolated observation, and they 'exist' as much as the 'law' that 2 + 2 = 4 does. These laws are not things. They do not exist like dogs, stars, or coffee cups exist, but rather, they exist in the same way as does credit and reputations.

When I talk about Newton's first three laws, the laws don't exist but in the sense that they are linguistic ways to sum up past observaitons and future predictions. When I talk about so-and-so's reputation, that reputation does not exist except as a linguistic representation of observations and predictions. When I talk about someone's credit, that does not exist except as a linguistic representation of past events (events dealing with that person's financial dealings and others' reactions to them.)

but when we talk of souls, we - or rather, supernaturalists - are talking about something they think actually exists as an existent, not simply as a linguistic representation of past events, but a linguistic representation of something that IS ACTUALLY in the air right here and now.

"Laws" exist in very different ways than do "souls," unless, by souls, we mean a metaphor.

Horrible analogy made by the poor, poor, man.

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:27 pm

I would like to point out that the 'laws of logic' are actually a different category from the 'law of gravity'.

I see the 'rules of logic' as a formal description of the minimum requirements for coherent discussion of issues, starting with the law of non-contradiction, ie it is not valid to assert some proposition simultaneously with its negation.

A law of physics, such as the law of gravity is a description of a consistently observed regularity in nature, eg that objects appear to experience a force drawing them mutually toward each other with a magnitude proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers of mass.

Logic is a tool of analysis independent of the particular laws of science that we might discover.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore