tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post113934015826370540..comments2024-02-28T23:35:13.583-08:00Comments on Kill The Afterlife: Manata: If it Doesn't Burn, it Isn't MaterialAaron Kinneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1139416801319036832006-02-08T08:40:00.000-08:002006-02-08T08:40:00.000-08:00Paul-Why is your post addressed to Issac? Talk abo...Paul-<BR/><BR/>Why is your post addressed to Issac? Talk about out of context.<BR/><BR/>I think Aaron's thesis of meta-data is a much more elegant way of communicating what I'm trying to explain about the laws of logic.<BR/><BR/>Let's take just one of them: The Law of Identity. A=A. When I observe an apple, it shows me that law. That apple is that apple, and not a banana. Neither is it any other apple. Anything that I observe, by virtue of its identity, is an instance of the Law of Identity. Similarly, the Law of Gravity is shown to me when I observe an apple falling. Each apple that falls does so not because each uses a different Law of Gravity- they are all subject to the same Law. Each time an apple falls, it is a separate instance of the Law of Gravity, just as each individual apple is a separate instance of the Law of Identity. Both Laws are properties of the Universe. In this Universe, apples are attracted to objects of greater mass, and apples are not able to be bananas. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.<BR/><BR/>Your argument that Logic is immaterial seems to me to be irrational. How does an immaterial entity interact with a material entity? Conceptually, that makes no sense.Zachary Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16991061670470673718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1139381606717053002006-02-07T22:53:00.000-08:002006-02-07T22:53:00.000-08:00Here is the "context:"Paul: LoL are not observable...Here is the "context:"<BR/><BR/>Paul: LoL are not observable.<BR/><BR/>Now, note that I said the laws of logic were not observable. I did not say that the instantiations were not observable, but the laws qua entities. This is a very important point. Now, Zachary responds,<BR/><BR/>Zachary: "Of course they are. I can observe them any time I want in my logic book at home."<BR/><BR/>And so we can see that I said nothing about their instances but the laws themselves. Zachary responded by saying that "they" are observable and that he observes "them" in his logic book. The best interpretation that Moore can receive, therefore, is that he switched subjects and equivocated. So, even on the best interpretation, Moore's still a hack.<BR/><BR/>Then, check out what transpired, Isaac. Remember, I said that he could not observe the laws qua laws. he said he observed them in a book. Then, I go on to say,<BR/><BR/>Paul: "You're not observing the laws qua laws."<BR/><BR/><BR/>and, what does Zach say?<BR/><BR/>Zachary: "Sure I am. Every piece of matter contains the laws of logic implicitly."<BR/><BR/>So, in the context of Zachary observing them in a book he wants to (now) say that he didn't mean that he observed *them* but only instantiations. But, notice that I said, in response to his book thing, that he wasn't observing laws qua laws. (Obviously this implied that I meant he was only observing instantiations of those laws. This would have been a perfect time for him to say, "I know I'm not, that's not what I meant." But(!) what does he say? He says, "sure I am!" Sure he is what? Well, keeping in context, he means sure he's observing the laws qua laws (as entities).<BR/><BR/>Then, to his comment about them existing in matter (which is ridiculous!), I said,<BR/><BR/>Paul: "All the laws of logic? How do they fit? How big is one? Why implicitly? How do you know? have you empirically verified this?"<BR/><BR/><BR/>Then Zachary says,<BR/><BR/>Zachary: "Absolutely. They're as big as the Universe and as small as an atom (maybe smaller). You find them wherever you find matter."<BR/><BR/>You see, Isaac, Moore thinks the laws of logic are located in mater, and are material themselves. But(!) it gets worse. Moore says that there are only three laws of logic!!! <BR/><BR/>Paul: So, there are many laws of logic?<BR/><BR/>Zachary: No, there's just the three.<BR/><BR/>Now, obviously I meant that if they all exist in pieces of matter, then there are many laws. Moore still blunders, though. He can't escape because there are not just three but many. That is, the law of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction are in each piece of matter. Therefore, there are lawS of excluded middle, etc. Maybe Moore thinks that there are only thre numerically. If so, then how can they be in more than one place at once? That is, if one piece of matter has the three laws, and another piec e has THE SAME laws, then he's not escaped the problem of universals as Kinney says he has. Furthermore, he has just dismembered his materialism.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, this is some of the lunacy we see from the guys as Goose the antithesis.<BR/><BR/>~PaulErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1139357923628178842006-02-07T16:18:00.000-08:002006-02-07T16:18:00.000-08:00http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/02/out...http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2006/02/out-of-courtesy.htmlErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1139344076834487302006-02-07T12:27:00.000-08:002006-02-07T12:27:00.000-08:00Sweet! LOL you commented before I got a chance to ...Sweet! LOL you commented before I got a chance to send you an email.<BR/><BR/>Yes, light is another good route to take for argumentation of materialism. <BR/><BR/>I also like using computers as an example, especially since computers can "conceptualize" and utilize meta-data much in the same way humans can.Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1139341795219987062006-02-07T11:49:00.000-08:002006-02-07T11:49:00.000-08:00I'm glad my humble comments can inspire such great...I'm glad my humble comments can inspire such great posts.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, I followed up with Paul by talking about light, but sound is just as valid an example.Zachary Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16991061670470673718noreply@blogger.com