Does Materialism Destroy Rationality?

[Stoic]

But rational conclusions rely on inference, A therefore B. But that is not the case with determinism. Conclusions are dictated by physical laws that know nothing of inference.

If a computer can use inference, and a computer's conclusions are dictated by physical laws that know nothing of inference, then there is no reason that we can't use inference, even if our conclusions are dictated by physical laws that know nothing of inference.

[seer]

If a computer can use inference, and a computer's conclusions are dictated by physical laws that know nothing of inference, then there is no reason that we can't use inference, even if our conclusions are dictated by physical laws that know nothing of inference.

First, I'm not sure how a computer uses inference, what does that even mean? Second, the computer was programmed by an intelligence that did know about inference. Therefore could have programmed in that ability. So we are back to physical laws dictating logical inferences with no knowledge or understanding of such things. Why would we trust this state of affairs?

[Stoic]

First, I'm not sure how a computer uses inference, what does that even mean? Second, the computer was programmed by an intelligence that did know about inference. Therefore could have programmed in that ability. So we are back to physical laws dictating logical inferences with no knowledge or understanding of such things. Why would we trust this state of affairs?

Same reason as always. By making predictions, and seeing how they turn out.

[seer]

Same reason as always. By making predictions, and seeing how they turn out.

That is not the point. Yes, we are rational - but why? Because a rational intelligence that understands logical truths and inference endowed us with those abilities or because the physical process that does not understand such things was the driver?

[Stoic]

That is not the point. Yes, we are rational - but why? Because a rational intelligence that understands logical truths and inference endowed us with those abilities or because the physical process that does not understand such things was the driver?

I lean towards the latter, because it is actually explanatory, and because it is more parsimonious.

[seer]

I lean towards the latter, because it is actually explanatory, and because it is more parsimonious.

How can it be more parsimonious when it doesn't actually explain anything? How could forces that know nothing about logical inference programme us to know logical truths? Because of A you infer B. But the physical forces that determined that inference has no knowledge or either A or B or the logical connection.

[Starlight]

How can it be more parsimonious when it doesn't actually explain anything? How could forces that know nothing about logical inference programme us to know logical truths? Because of A you infer B. But the physical forces that determined that inference has no knowledge or either A or B or the logical connection.

If you think of evolution as a random physical force generating different alternative lifeforms with different levels of survival value, it's easy to see why a creature that happens to be randomly programmed to be a bit more logical than another creature might have superior survival value, as the conclusions it draws from its experiences will be more rational and hence more in line with reality, thus enabling it to respond to its environment better.

Once evolution has stumbled by chance into making rational life forms, there is going to be a strong survival advantage to them retaining and improving that rationality. Evolution provides a very elegant explanation of how intelligence can arise from non-intelligent forces.

[Stoic]

How can it be more parsimonious when it doesn't actually explain anything? How could forces that know nothing about logical inference programme us to know logical truths? Because of A you infer B. But the physical forces that determined that inference has no knowledge or either A or B or the logical connection.

If you want to explain rationality, assuming it has been here all along doesn't really explain anything.

[seer]

If you want to explain rationality, assuming it has been here all along doesn't really explain anything.

For the reasons I gave it doesn't seem that naturalism/determinism is an option. And of course an intelligent would explain our rationality better than non-rational deterministic forces. Since there is nothing rational about them.

[seer]

If you think of evolution as a random physical force generating different alternative lifeforms with different levels of survival value, it's easy to see why a creature that happens to be randomly programmed to be a bit more logical than another creature might have superior survival value, as the conclusions it draws from its experiences will be more rational and hence more in line with reality, thus enabling it to respond to its environment better.

Once evolution has stumbled by chance into making rational life forms, there is going to be a strong survival advantage to them retaining and improving that rationality. Evolution provides a very elegant explanation of how intelligence can arise from non-intelligent forces.

Again, this is begging the question. Most if not all creatures survive just fine with out using conceptual truisms or logical inferences. And there is nothing in that which shows why or how non-rational forces can programme our brain states to use or understand inference - said forces don't understand such things, yet they are the very forces that dictate all we think do or say. Do you really believe that brain chemicals know about or understand logical inference?

[Stoic]

For the reasons I gave it doesn't seem that naturalism/determinism is an option.

Well, for the reasons I gave it's a perfectly viable option.

And of course an intelligent would explain our rationality better than non-rational deterministic forces. Since there is nothing rational about them.

The problem with postulating an omniscient, omnipotent being to explain something is that it can explain absolutely any state of affairs, whether that state actually obtains in reality or not.

"A theory that explains everything, explains nothing." -- Karl Popper

[seer]

Well, for the reasons I gave it's a perfectly viable option.

Well no, you have not shown, even in principle, how forces blind to logical truths can create an understanding of logical inference.

"A theory that explains everything, explains nothing." -- Karl Popper

You mean like Naturalism?

[Stoic]

Well no, you have not shown, even in principle, how forces blind to logical truths can create an understanding of logical inference.

Actually I have, to the same extent that you have shown that naturalism/determinism is not an option.

But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

You mean like Naturalism?

Naturalism is not a theory. Evolution is a theory.

[seer]

Actually I have, to the same extent that you have shown that naturalism/determinism is not an option.

But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Were you determined to say that? How do natural forces know about such things?

Naturalism is not a theory. Evolution is a theory.

Then neither is God, but naturalism is a world view that encompasses everything, just as theism does...

[Sparko]

Were you determined to say that? How do natural forces know about such things?



Then neither is God, but naturalism is a world view that encompasses everything, just as theism does...

I am just enjoying watching Stoic argue (poorly) for materialism by using non-material rationalizing.