Intelligent Design

by Delta20 234 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  onacruse

  Pole:

  Kant was a mathematician as well, wasn't he?

  That's one of the things that especially fascinates (I've been using that word a lot lately, haven't I? )me about Kant. I first learned about him in college (God forbid that I'd ever have taken a course in philosophy, but those dang elective requirements! LOL)

  Anyway, Kant started off as a mathematician, then turned philosopher, then turned to mysticism.

  The "logical" course of his own thought processes literally drove him down this road; a road which, in his early years, would have seemed completely untraversible.

  Not to say that Kant is some kind of icon...but at least he had the courage to challenge himself in regards to previously held and long-cherished belief systems.
• 

  Narkissos

  Pole,

  I'd pick on a few words in your post, just for the sake of refining the concepts.

  I think we need to make clear what we mean by language. I was thinking of natural (human or "god-given" for believers) language and not artificial formal systems which were devised consciously and dliberately from scratch as was the case with algebra although it is largely intuitive as well. The difference may be huge, depending on the context. An African tribe may have a 10-conjugation verb system, but the average tribal doesn't have to consciously conceptualize it to be a proficient speaker of the language. This is no the case with formal algebra. You asked for examples of supra-linguistic formalisms. By "linguistic" I understood natural language.

  I understand, and from this point of view I would agree. However, rather than "natural / artificial" language I would choose something like "common / specialised" (language levels); the latter (specialised language) exists in most languages, both in a technical (e.g. hunt, medicine, magic vocabularies) and a theoretical way (e.g. mythology).

  All metaphors are out of keeping with ontology in one way or another. But they all have to be in keeping with cognition. Simply speaking, you can draw a line, you can see in 2D, and you can feel 3D objects. Now, how exactly do you conceptualize a 1500D hyperspace? I know you can give it empty labels, but they are dead metaphors. Just like the word "instant" is a dead metaphor. See my post above - if you can't conceptualize it metaphorically it has little or no meaning. But you can represent such a space in the consciously discovered/constructed language of algebra. It's the only way to make use of this concept.

  Are you sure you can draw a (mathematical) line ?

  I would distinguish between conceptualisation and representation...

  In "hyperspace" I can count two live metaphors from the 3D world...

  (Sorry I can't develop, I'm leaving... laters).
• 

  Pole

  onacruse,

  I'd have to face up to Kant again soon as I have to take one more exam in philosophy within the next year.

  Narkissos,

  I understand, and from this point of view I would agree. However, rather than "natural / artificial" language I would choose something like "common / specialised" (language levels); the latter (specialised language) exists in most languages, both in a technical (e.g. hunt, medicine, magic vocabularies) and a theoretical way (e.g. mythology).

  I guess it's a question of degree (like everything), but the notion of artificial language does seem to function in some cases. I mean there is a considerable qualitative difference between the jargon of literary criticism and some aspects of the symbolism of algebra which escape the standard linguistic mechanisms (like the metaphor).

  Are you sure you can draw a (mathematical) line ?

  I would distinguish between conceptualisation and representation...

  As I said - I agree with you as far as the ontology goes. A mathematical line is just as abstract as a 25 dimensional entity. However, I was speaking of the mechansim of cognition in understanding and using the concept of a line and the concept of a multidimensional hyperspace. BTW, do you believe all metaphors are experiential? (Do they have to be rooted in our interaction with the real world?)

  In "hyperspace" I can count two live metaphors from the 3D world...

  I'm not sure if I get it. Could you elaborate?

  (Sorry I can't develop, I'm leaving... laters).

  No problem. I'm going out to try to start my old car now. If I don't do it now it won't sart tomorrow. Winter....

  Pole
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Nark

  Ellderwho, If you care to answer AlanF's question, please make sure to explain how "logic" is supposed to transcend, or exceed, human language and its necessary, although partial, adaptation to its environment.

  I am no expert in language, but, what does human language have to do with the laws of logic?

  If I shoot a bear with my 308, the laws of logic say, it's will injure or kill him. In what language will this logic not work, or be true

  I believe there are many logical explainations, that mankind is not aware of yet. Are they any less true today?

  D Dog
• 

  ellderwho

  In regards to the question " how would you account for the laws of logic"

  Alan F: This is an extremely stupid question, akin to asking, 'How would you account for the laws of arithmetic, such as the fact that 1 + 1 makes 2?' Or, 'How would you account for the fact that God cannot make an object so heavy that he cannot lift it?'

  Is this supposed to prove theres something God cannot do, (logically) ? This might work, but this type of reasoning leaves out some vital information, which the atheist omits...... Gods omnipotence is not seperate from his nature. God can only do things that are consistent with his nature.

  So its true God cannot make a rock so big..... that doesnt mean hes not God. It would be a contradiction with God to do so.

  As far as arithmetic........1 + 1 = 2 how do you know this is true in all the world, or are you just trying to show me a "universal standard of rationality"

  Ive answered "extremely stupid questions" that you claim are "akin" to my question, at least you could answer mine.
• 

  Abaddon

  I've just read 'Job' by Heinlein...

  In it a 'second' Job is tested en-extremis and persists in his faith right up to the 'rapture'. He is then rather surprised to find he is a Saint in heaven... and rather distressed that his wife is not there because she was a femto-second or two too late in taking the Lord into her heart.

  He decides he'd rather be in Hell with her than in Heaven without, and takes the plunge into Hell find that all of the nasty bits of Hell have been greatly hyped. He continues his search for his beloved and enlists the help of Lucifer (quite an affable chap).

  It all ends up with Lucifer taking Jehovah (his brother) to a trial before the next layer of gods up, and Jehovah being fined for inconsistancy with his intelligent Creation, and Armagedon being cancelled.

  It's a wonderful example of destruct testing a belief structure, as the more you think about it the sillier most traditional conceptions of the Christo-Judaic god get.

  I mean, here we have people arguing for some kind of logic behind a creator, including an insistance we were created or designed in some way, and they will normally insist god has a plan for us, when they have zero proof and a source book that includes what we would now call war crimes carried out at the behest of god. Very few seem willing to really speculate about how god might be, most are just trying to assert that the beliefs they grew up with were more-or-less right.

  In a mostly Christian board this might seem to lead towards a consensus that lend credibility to the stance, but in a board where beliefs, or the lack of them, were represented proportionately, we would have Hindus, Muslims and Christians all insisting that they were more or less right

  Yes, very logical. Enjoy your camels.
• 

  AlanF

  ellderwho said:

  : I did? Logic was brought up on pg. 4 or 5.

  Yes, you certainly did bring up the subject. While funkyderek first mentioned "the laws of logic", you said in response:

  : Pole, Derek how would you account for the laws of logic?

  My question to you obviously was to define "the laws of logic" that you think need to be accounted for.

  : How about universal standards of rationality. Or do you have a problem with that?

  Again, define your terms. What do you think "universal standards of rationality" are? Give some examples.

  If you don't answer these simple questions, then I have no choice to conclude that you're not interested in a discussion, and I will cease talking to you.

  In a subsequent post you said:

  : In regards to the question " how would you account for the laws of logic"

  : Alan F: This is an extremely stupid question, akin to asking, 'How would you account for the laws of arithmetic, such as the fact that 1 + 1 makes 2?' Or, 'How would you account for the fact that God cannot make an object so heavy that he cannot lift it?'

  : Is this supposed to prove theres something God cannot do, (logically) ?

  Of course not. It's an illustration of the fact that you can put words together so as to make logical contradictions that have no relation to reality.

  : This might work, but this type of reasoning leaves out some vital information, which the atheist omits...... Gods omnipotence is not seperate from his nature. God can only do things that are consistent with his nature.

  : So its true God cannot make a rock so big..... that doesnt mean hes not God. It would be a contradiction with God to do so.

  Precisely my point.

  : As far as arithmetic........1 + 1 = 2 how do you know this is true in all the world, or are you just trying to show me a "universal standard of rationality"

  The latter, assuming that you and I agree on what I think you mean by such universal standards. In all our experience, 1 + 1 = 2. It's inconceivable that it could be any other way. If you disagree, then give an example.

  : Ive answered "extremely stupid questions" that you claim are "akin" to my question, at least you could answer mine.

  Done. Now answer mine, and quit making excuses.

  AlanF
• 

  onacruse

  Deputy Dog:

  what does human language have to do with the laws of logic?

  Someone earlier in this discussion mentioned the term "epistemology."

  The cognitive constructs (including language) that we must utilize in our evaluation of the world around us have everything to do with logic.

  One example might be: learning another language. There are historical and social dimensions to the perceptions of individual cultures, captured in particular words and perpetuated in certain thought processes, that other cultures typically have a hard time understanding. Thus the bewilderment at how the Nazis could have gotten away with what they did.
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Craig,

  There are historical and social dimensions to the perceptions of individual cultures, captured in particular words and perpetuated in certain thought processes, that other cultures typically have a hard time understanding. Thus the bewilderment at how the Nazis could have gotten away with what they did.

  Are you suggesting that something about the German language affected the thought processes that allowed Naziism to appear? I believe less and less that any specific language constrains or assists thought processes (although language in general is certainly a primary facilitative tool in the process). I believe that the evidence is more that the human mind desires expressive ability and creates the language constructs necessary, than the other way around. I have some evidence on this, but I don't have the time to write it up right now. You might be interested in considering a few articles related to this topic in my blog. (The articles recap points from The Language Instinct, by Steven Pinker.)

  The following is probably the most pertinent article:
  http://brianrak.blogspot.com/2005/01/whence-springeth-grammar.html

  The following also bears on the topic, although the focus is more on the mechanics of grammar:
  http://brianrak.blogspot.com/2005/01/lazy-speakers-and-reanalysis.html

  SNG
• 

  onacruse

  Hello there SNG! Been too long since we last crossed paths.

  From your first reference link:

  Indeed, where does grammar come from at all? Children supply it.

  I submit the opposite: Children are supplied with their grammar and language, dictated by the terms and conditions of their cultural environment (read especially parents), and are thus slaves to the thought processes imposed upon them from without, and without their awareness.

  My reference to the Nazis was, imo, an example of just that phenomenon: The culture (Protestant-deterministic-fatalistic) of central Europe virtually dictated the way parents would "see" their world, and in turn lead them to teach their own children, using very specific words, words loaded with tons of emotional power, on how they should "see" the world.

  There are many similarities between the Nazis and the WTS, eh?

  Beyond that, this yet again ties into our conceptions of "intelligent design." For, if we extrapolate the consequences of the human condition to the "divine" level, then we see the same pattern: God as the parent. As someone above used the term "anthropomorphizing," perhaps this is our only option?