4 ms·

> To a materialist, mind is simply what the brain does. You're adorable. If Charlie holds to different laws of logic than Bill...whose brain is right? Your v

> To a materialist, mind is simply what the brain does. You're adorable. If Charlie holds to different laws of logic than Bill...whose brain is right? Your view is that laws are just conventions of thought. Those aren't laws, then. I again assert: rationality is impossible without laws of logic. With conventions of logic, you just have strong opinions.

gnaritas 11y ago
> You're adorable. And you're bad at this. > If Charlie holds to different laws of logic than Bill...whose brain is right? If they're using different forms of logic, then they're both right according to the form they're using, but they can't be compared to each other unless they're using the same kind of logic. > Your view is that laws are just conventions of thought. Those aren't laws, then. It's not my view, it's simply the way it is. Different rules of logic exist [1]; such systems are axiomatic and obey their own rules. There is no one "correct" system of logic, there are many competing systems. The term law is meaningless, logic isn't a law in the sense you seem to think, it is merely a system of formalized thinking according to rules. > I again assert: rationality is impossible without laws of logic. With conventions of logic, you just have strong opinions. Logic is merely a branch of philosophy concerned with valid reasoning. Reasoning is not in opposition to materialism. Materialists do not argue that thoughts don't exist and logic is merely a formal method of thinking. You're objecting to materialism when it's quite clear you don't understand what it is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Types_of_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Types_of_logic
- c0achmcguirk 11y ago
  > If they're using different forms of logic, then they're both right according to the form they're using, Absurd. Knowledge is impossible if both are right. You're bad at this. > but they can't be compared to each other unless they're using the same kind of logic. Says who? Your conventions? What if my "conventions" of logic say the can be compared if they're different systems of logic? You're imposing a "law" of "you can't compare when I say so." Silly reasoning is silly.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    You're denying that different forms of logic exist, so we're done.
    - c0achmcguirk 11y ago
      Ummm, no. I don't deny different forms of logic. I'm telling you that you can't know anything or say something is rational or irrational with conventions of logic. I'm also pointing out your treating laws of logic like laws (yay! I commend you for treating them like laws), but you are coming from a worldview that doesn't allow for laws (boo! inconsistency!). This is where materialists bow out because they don't want to dig too deeply into their presuppositions.
      - gnaritas 11y ago
        > I'm telling you that you can't know anything or say something is rational or irrational with conventions of logic. Stawman, that point is not in dispute. > but you are coming from a worldview that doesn't allow for laws (boo! inconsistency!). No I'm not. Your notion that materialism doesn't allow logic is simply wrong. You don't know what materialism is and I'm tired of repeating myself on that point why you continue to skirt the issue and ignore that. > This is where materialists bow out because they don't want to dig too deeply into their presuppositions. No, they bow out because you're clearly irrational and unable to engage in meaningful conversation because you don't address points being made to you. You just ignore them and keep saying the same non-sense that's being challenged.

gnaritas 11y ago

> You're adorable. And you're bad at this. > If Charlie holds to different laws of logic than Bill...whose brain is right? If they're using different forms of logic, then they're both right according to the form they're using, but they can't be compared to each other unless they're using the same kind of logic. > Your view is that laws are just conventions of thought. Those aren't laws, then. It's not my view, it's simply the way it is. Different rules of logic exist [1]; such systems are axiomatic and obey their own rules. There is no one "correct" system of logic, there are many competing systems. The term law is meaningless, logic isn't a law in the sense you seem to think, it is merely a system of formalized thinking according to rules. > I again assert: rationality is impossible without laws of logic. With conventions of logic, you just have strong opinions. Logic is merely a branch of philosophy concerned with valid reasoning. Reasoning is not in opposition to materialism. Materialists do not argue that thoughts don't exist and logic is merely a formal method of thinking. You're objecting to materialism when it's quite clear you don't understand what it is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Types_of_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Types_of_logic

c0achmcguirk 11y ago
> If they're using different forms of logic, then they're both right according to the form they're using, Absurd. Knowledge is impossible if both are right. You're bad at this. > but they can't be compared to each other unless they're using the same kind of logic. Says who? Your conventions? What if my "conventions" of logic say the can be compared if they're different systems of logic? You're imposing a "law" of "you can't compare when I say so." Silly reasoning is silly.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  You're denying that different forms of logic exist, so we're done.
  - c0achmcguirk 11y ago
    Ummm, no. I don't deny different forms of logic. I'm telling you that you can't know anything or say something is rational or irrational with conventions of logic. I'm also pointing out your treating laws of logic like laws (yay! I commend you for treating them like laws), but you are coming from a worldview that doesn't allow for laws (boo! inconsistency!). This is where materialists bow out because they don't want to dig too deeply into their presuppositions.
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      > I'm telling you that you can't know anything or say something is rational or irrational with conventions of logic. Stawman, that point is not in dispute. > but you are coming from a worldview that doesn't allow for laws (boo! inconsistency!). No I'm not. Your notion that materialism doesn't allow logic is simply wrong. You don't know what materialism is and I'm tired of repeating myself on that point why you continue to skirt the issue and ignore that. > This is where materialists bow out because they don't want to dig too deeply into their presuppositions. No, they bow out because you're clearly irrational and unable to engage in meaningful conversation because you don't address points being made to you. You just ignore them and keep saying the same non-sense that's being challenged.