Proof that NotReady is wrong.

In the thread "MindBoggling" NotReady stated this:

[ QUOTE ]
Purpose implies mind. No purpose implies no mind. No mind means irrational. If chance is ultimate, since chance is irrational, the universe has no ultimate purpose or meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is his argument laid out minus all the fluff. This is his whole argument in its essence.

"Purpose implies mind. No purpose implies no mind" commits the fallacy of 'negating the antecedent.' This is one of the first fallacies you learn about in any logic class, as it is one of the most basic. As his argument is based on a fallacy, his conclusion has absolutely no foundation in logic. This is extraordinarily ironic, considering a number of his claims.

Oh yeah, he also tried to argue his way out of it being an actual fallacy. This either points to his intellectual dishonesty or a gigantic misunderstanding of logic. Read the thread to see how he talks his way out it. To anyone that has taken a number of logic classes (or even the first day of intro to logic) it's really intelligence-insulting.

[quinn]

[ QUOTE ]

"Purpose implies mind. No purpose implies no mind" commits the fallacy of 'negating the antecedent.' This is one of the first fallacies you learn about in any logic class, as it is one of the most basic.

[/ QUOTE ]
He didn't say that "no purpose implies no mind" follows from "purpose implies mind." I think they were both premises.

[hurlyburly]

Am I the only one who thinks we need to lay off Not Ready? He's stated his position clearly, and he handles himself well in discussions.

I object to the recent crop of Not Ready-bashing threads.

[BradyC]

Wow, this thread really sounds like someone spreading rumors in junior high.

[David Sklansky]

"He didn't say that "no purpose implies no mind" follows from "purpose implies mind." I think they were both premises."

That was his easy out. But for some reason he didn't take it.

[Jeff V]

Here. Here.

Yes, if he would've said the two form some kind of biconditional, then I would just argue with the truth of the premises. But the way the argument is laid out, and they way he responded to me pointing it out makes it obvious he takes it to mean the fallacy. He's trying to tie together purpose and rationality (or no purpose and no rationality (irrationality).

If there is purpose there is mind.
"No mind means irrational."
There is no purpose. (What we 'believe')
Therefore there is no mind (everything is irrational).
[The implicit premise is 'if something is based on chance it has no purpose' otherwise he can't logically make the jump from purpose to chance]
"If chance is ultimate, since chance is irrational, the universe has no ultimate purpose or meaning."

This quote means:
If something is based on chance, it is irrational.
The universe is based on chance. (What he's attributing to us)
[Implicit premise comes to work here:
If something is based on chance then it has no purpose.
The universe is based on chance.
Therefore the universe has no purpose.]
Therefore the universe is irrational (no purpose--> no mind [all is irrational])

He actually begs the question (assumes what he's trying to prove) here as well. He assumes (or he's saying we 'assume') no purpose as one of his premises. Then concludes "therefore no ultimate purpose or meaning."
Even if he didn't mean to commit negating the antecedent and wanted it as just a biconditional premise, he concludes with 'therefore no purpose.' Question begging logic.
His argument for why our belief is illogical is itself illogical.

Any philosophers/logicians here think I'm off the mark?
If I'm wrong I'll tuck my tail between my legs and scurry away...

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one who thinks we need to lay off Not Ready? He's stated his position clearly, and he handles himself well in discussions.

I object to the recent crop of Not Ready-bashing threads.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you and I concur to this point. (Although if we get into details, I am sure NotReady and I will disagree. Let’s get over the big hurdle first.)

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one who thinks we need to lay off Not Ready? He's stated his position clearly, and he handles himself well in discussions.

I object to the recent crop of Not Ready-bashing threads.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you and I concur to this point. (Although if we get into details, I am sure NotReady and I will disagree. Let’s get over the big hurdle first.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he expresses himself clearly - but he is clearly wrong. Most of the posters here tend to disagree with his conclusions but not his right to state them.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That was his easy out. But for some reason he didn't take it.


[/ QUOTE ]

In one of my posts I said this:

[ QUOTE ]

It's circular because it's definitional. It's not a syllogism. Purpose, reason, will are all inherent parts of mind and can't exist without mind


[/ QUOTE ]

Tim didn't respond but went on about syllogisms.

I've never had formal training in logic or read a book on it. I can't comprehend how someone can think there's no mind behind the universe but that the universe isn't irrational.

Many very smart philosophers make this connection. I've never seen them try to put it into a syllogism. It's virtually self-evident.

I think any syllogism I made would contain one or more premises that Tim would attack. So what's the point? He thinks a universe with no mind behind it can have purpose and be rational. That is the question, any premise would have to have something like that included or implied.

I also posted a thread using his analogy, cold, snow, etc., to which he didn't respond. Snow can't exist without cold. I'm saying snow is to purpose as cold is to mind. Snow requires cold, purpose requires mind. Purpose can't exist without mind. It's definitional. If he defines purpose in a way that it can exist without mind then we are disagreeing on basic assumptions, whether or not I made a formal, logical presentation.

[IronUnkind]

I haven't read your posts in much detail, but I would caution you to define precisely the terms Mind and Purpose, as your argument requires a very specific usage. You should also consider that the terms themselves repel a lot of people because they associate them with, in the first case, the Christian Science Movement and, in the second case, the Intelligent Design Movement. It is not clear to me whether or not you would want to distance yourself from these.

[IronUnkind]

What cold signifies in your analogy is clear to me (a heat energy of 335 kj/kg). Mind and purpose are murky, though, because you seem incapable of talking about one without reference to the other. This is not entirely your fault, as it is a problem with the nature of language.

I have a hunch, however, that I would not be able to disentangle the concepts of Mind and God in your metaphysics. If this be the case, then your critics would be right to point out the circularity of your argument because you would essentially be arguing that the existence of Mind proves the existence of God.

Keep in mind that I am only responding to what I've read in this thread; you may have addressed these issues elsewhere.