Posted on 05/29/2003 4:35:41 PM PDT by StupidQuestions
Is my acceptance of the rules of logic "purely metaphysical in nature", as if that makes it vaporous or something? I'm not sure how you'd classify one's acceptance of the rules of logic. I call them axiomatic, because if you don't accept them you can't really get started with the act of thinking logically, can you?
The error involved in the composition fallacy is when you think that the qualities of the components must be distributed onto the larger entity as a matter of necessity. The fact is, sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. Oxygen & hydrogen are flammable, but their flammability is based on their bonding energies, the configuration of their electron clouds, etc. When they join up to form water, that configuration changes such that the larger entity's interaction with oxygen presents a wholly different energy signature, making it resolutely non-flammable. At the same time, the mass of a molecule of water is exactly equal to the mass of the two hydrogen components plus the mass of the oxygen component. So the mass quality is distributable from the components to the whole.
I suspect that the underlying principle that explains which types of qualities should distribute and which ones shouldn't is: the properties that can change when components join together to make a whole are the ones that depend on how the components interact with each other, and the properties that do not change from discrete components to integrated whole are the ones that don't depend on how they interact. And again, this is an empirical question.
Similarly you simply cannot say that your belief that lifeless atoms cannot combine to create a living entity is somehow logically axiomatic. It's up to you to show that the properties of the whole - life & self-consciousness, in this case - are of the type that they must distribute from components to the whole. Since a functioning brain is an integrated whole, it seems obvious to me that these qualities should not be the mere sum of the parts.
I do not accept your appeal to the authority of Ayn Rand as Ayn Rand is about as metaphysical as you can get. Since I have my own metaphysical philosophy, I don't need yours.
Actually that wasn't an appeal to authority. It was an illumination of the question under debate. In fact I later said that upon reflection I thought Dimensio had explained it better & more concisely than did Thomas or Peikoff: Both you & orthodox materialists make the composition fallacy.
If you don't accept logic axiomatically, then you do accept logic axiomatically.
QED
Another red herring. Please provide evidence for your unscientific statements. If you can't provide the evidence, then the statements are metaphysical by default. When you have evidence for your statements about consciousness, let me know. Saying they are axiomatic simply does not suffice since I and many others do not agree they are axiomatic (axioms are true only by definition not by logical reasoning).
Furthermore, it is materialistic naturalists who commit the fallacy of composition in their REDUCTIONIST philosophy. Claiming that all things are reduced to matter is clearly a violation of this fallacy.
The error involved in the composition fallacy is when you think that the qualities of the components must be distributed onto the larger entity as a matter of necessity.
I was arguing from the materialist's perspective, remember (arguing from the adverse)? It is their fallacy, not mine. Clearly, as a Christian, I believe that the self is non-material. I do not belie I appreciate the boost, but I think you should direct your objection to the materialists on this thread.
It's up to you to show that the properties of the whole - life & self-consciousness, in this case - are of the type that they must distribute from components to the whole. Since a functioning brain is an integrated whole, it seems obvious to me that these qualities should not be the mere sum of the parts.
Straw man since I believe no such thing. What you have done here is perhaps expose the materialist's fallacy, not mine. I believe that the self and the mind are independent of the brain and matter. It's like a hand in a glove. The hand controls the glove just as the mind controls the brain, not vice versa. Of course, that is a metaphysical belief on my part, and the fallacy of composition does not apply.
Similarly you simply cannot say that your belief that lifeless atoms cannot combine to create a living entity is somehow logically axiomatic.
Forget axioms, I want scientific evidence for your claim that this happens. You are not speaking of abstract truths here (the only proper application for axioms), but you are speaking of physical realities (atoms), which requires empirical scientific evidence to support your claim. If you cannot provide it, then your argument is purely metaphysical. That is the only logical conclusion.
Actually that wasn't an appeal to authority. It was an illumination of the question under debate. In fact I later said that upon reflection I thought Dimensio had explained it better & more concisely than did Thomas or Peikoff: Both you & orthodox materialists make the composition fallacy.
I understand that you are an objectivist, which is a metaphysical philosophy with severe inherent weaknesses. These weaknesses were ably exposed on other threads dealing directly with objectivism.
Please provide this "plain evidence" please...(for the 11th time).
How about the complete lack of evidence for the existence of an extra-natural "soul" thingy? The plain evidence is that we are made up of physical bodies.Please provide this "plain evidence" please...(for the 11th time).
OK, here's a photo of my body:
Looks rather physical to me. :-)
It's up to you to show that the properties of the whole - life & self-consciousness, in this case - are of the type that they must distribute from components to the whole. Since a functioning brain is an integrated whole, it seems obvious to me that these qualities should not be the mere sum of the parts.It's fascinating to see how blind you are to your own premises, exmarine. You are indeed making the same kind of fallacy that an orthodox materialist would make. You believe that non-living atoms cannot inherently combine to form a living body. You are the mirror image of the orthodox materialist, both stuck on opposite sides of the same coin.Straw man since I believe no such thing. What you have done here is perhaps expose the materialist's fallacy, not mine. I believe that the self and the mind are independent of the brain and matter. It's like a hand in a glove. The hand controls the glove just as the mind controls the brain, not vice versa. Of course, that is a metaphysical belief on my part, and the fallacy of composition does not apply.
It's been enjoyable trying to make you see why both of you camps are working from invalid assumptions. But I can't see anywhere to go from here. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.
But the evidence I was referring to was the evidence that the brain matter can somehow coalesce to make a consciousness. Where is the evidence for that? You see, you are in the metaphysical realm just as I am when I speak of Mind and Body as separate. There is no science here and there are no axioms, just metaphysical presuppositions based on our particular worldviews.
Anyway, I enjoyed our exchange and thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.