Descartes Got it Wrong and that Leads to A-Mat Absurdity

_{Barry Arrington

January 17, 2018

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Over at ENV Michael Egnor explains how Descartes blew it and why that has consequences.

The foundation of epistemology is not self-awareness. This can be understood by considering Descartes’s maxim, “Cogito ergo sum.” Notice that we cannot conclude that we exist unless we can conclude. That is, we must first know the principle of non-contradiction — that being is not non-being — before we can conclude that “I think therefore I am.”

“Therefore,” not “I think” nor “I am,” is the crux of the most important thing we know. The principle of non-contradiction is prior to self-awareness.

Failure to give the LNC its due leads to A-Mat absurdity (as we have seen in these pages many times):

It’s worth noting that modern atheists and materialists have a particular problem with non-contradiction. Consider a number of atheist and materialist claims in this light.

Materialists and atheists claim that ID is scientifically wrong, and claim that ID is not scientifically testable. But of course, in order to be scientifically wrong, ID must be scientifically testable. . . . Again and again, materialists and atheists hold opinions that violate the law of non-contradiction. In this sense, atheism and materialism aren’t even really metaphysical theories. They’re just self-refuting nonsense.

The whole article is worth reading.

Comments

@Kairosfocus
kairosfocus: the LoI is at work so soon as we get to “one” and to awareness of a distinction between me and ~me.
Could it be argued that consciousness forms the LOI, instead of (somehow) the other way around? Like this: First there is consciousness and self-awareness: me. Next the realization that there is also ~me. And finally these concepts of me and ~me provide a foundation for the basic laws of reason; similar to your 'red ball, not-red ball' example.Origenes_{February 10, 2019
February
02
Feb
10
10
2019
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

To use StephenB's example, the child is looking for his toys. This is a problem to solve. The father is implying the child's toys are both someone are not somewhere. This is presenting what is supposedly both a solution and non-solution. Does it only solve the problem some of the time, but not others? If so, when does it solve the problem and when does it not, so the child can use it to access its toys? If not, then it's unclear how this actually represents a solution to the child's problem. IOW, from the context of a problem, it fails as a solution. As such it is discarded.critical rationalist_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

KF: … non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity are instant corollaries of distinct identity.
‘Distinct identity’ does that imply that there is an A ontologically distinct from B?
KF: As for a world to exist there has to be distinct identity (“a world . . .”) then necessarily, such must obtain.
Again, I would like you to clarify what you mean by ‘distinct identity’. Is the world ontologically distinct from God? Or is the world an aspect of God and not ontologically distinct? Suppose that my thoughts and feelings are not ontologically distinct from me, suppose that they are aspects of a larger unity (distinct identity!?) that is me, would it be correct to say that my thoughts have a ‘distinct identity’ from my feelings? If so, in what sense?Origenes_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

Origenes, non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity are instant corollaries of distinct identity. As for a world to exist there has to be distinct identity ("a world . . .") then necessarily, such must obtain. That is, we are dealing with the framework of reality here. No world can be save these conditions are met, and to describe that fact is to acknowledge a necessary and indeed self-evident truth of reality. Such laws would fail only were there utter non-being, as no world would exist. No reality. Which is manifestly not the case. KF PS: Similarly, once that obtains, two-ness obtains and in it one-ness also, thence the natural counting numbers.kairosfocus_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT}

SB: I think, therefore I am, is an *if/then* proposition.
It may be squeezed in that form, but I do not believe that it fits well. The following is an if/then proposition: If A does something then A exists. But in cogito ergo sum there is no *if*. “I do something” is a given — continually and undeniably. I do something, therefore I exist. It is not: If I do something, then I exist.Origenes_{January 22, 2018
January
01
Jan
22
22
2018
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

KF: It is a law in the sense that it cannot not be true.
So, it is an absolute law — no exceptions.
KF: It has no causal power we just use the word “law” to describe the reality.
So, something other than the LNC causes what the LNC merely describes?Origenes_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

Contrary to cogito ergo sum, I cannot explain Egnor’s LNC to a three year old.
Once one reaches the age of reason, the LNC becomes self evident. 7 year old: Where are my toys? Father: They are in the closet. 7 year old: I just searched the closet, they are not there. Father: I know. I took them away. They are no longer there. 7 year old: What is wrong with you? They cannot both be there and not be there. Father: Why not? 7 year old: Because it is impossible.StephenB_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Origenes
That’s good to hear. Explain it to me first please. What does the law look like? How does it operate? By what kind of causative power?
It is a law in the sense that it cannot not be true. It has no causal power we just use the word "law" to describe the reality. Recall the discussion about the "if/then" proposition. Here is an example: Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, *therefore* Socrates is mortal. The foundation of this syllogism is the law of non contradiction. If it wasn't a law, we couldn't say, "then Socrates MUST be mortal. The syllogism works only because Socrates cannot exist and not exist at the same time, and a man cannot be mortal and not mortal at the same time. If that were not the case, then we could not use the process of deductive reasoning and be sure that our conclusions were true. However, that law didn't *cause* the conclusion to be true; it simply describes the reality that contradictions are not possible, and based on that reality, we can be confident in conclusions the follow the process of deductive reasoning (if no logical mistakes are made): If the premises are true, then the conclusion follows infallibly.StephenB_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Origenes, laws in this sense describe the way of the world accurately; they do not directly cause. We are distinct individuals aware of me vs not me. As in, stub your toe against a tree stump and you instantly know the difference. And that directly extends to nothing being and not being "me" in the same sense and circumstances. KFkairosfocus_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

KF: the LoI is at work so soon as we get to “one” and to awareness of a distinction between me and ~me.
Indeed, something is at work, since there is me and not me. But what is at work? Is it clear that it must be a law which rules that there is "me" and a "not me"? And is it necessarily a law that rules (causes) that me and not me are not the same? Why is this distinction between me and not me necessarily caused by a law? How do we know? And if it is caused by a law, how does that law operate? By what kind of causation does it force "me" and "not me" to be not the same? How does that work?
KF: I suspect we can explain LNC to a 3 year old ...
That's good to hear. Explain it to me first please. What does the law look like? How does it operate? By what kind of causative power?Origenes_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

PS: I suspect we can explain LNC to a 3 year old, e.g the bright red ball on the table cannot be the table or the floor etc also.kairosfocus_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

Origenes, the LoI is at work so soon as we get to "one" and to awareness of a distinction between me and ~me. Indeed, as any possible world has distinct identity, we may partition potential reality P: P = {A|~A} This summarises that A is itself and is distinct from ~A, where the two jointly yield potential reality. That seemingly trivial point then yields LoI: A is itself (Implications include core characteristics C = {c1, c2, . . . cn} that tie to the logic of A being, and to the issue that A may interact with the rest of P across the boundary allowing a flow of information I that is observable, though perhaps tainted by noise. This allows us to credibly though perhaps provisionally characterise A per a reasonable set of observations; i.e. we may inductively learn about and know about A and partially know C. For example, through scientific investigations.} LEM: any x in P is A x-or ~A (That is, the partition is clean and crisp.Any entity x in P is on one side or the other..) LNC: no distinct x in P is BOTH A and ~A (That is, the partition is crisp. No A has mutually exclusive and exhaustive characteristics of being A and ~A, i.e. A and ~A are distinct.) Of course the three are closely bound up in one another and to discuss them we are implicitly relying on them. Just so, any attempted proof will implicitly rely on them, it will beg the question. These are where proof must begin. But, the discussion helps us to achieve clearer understanding so it is worthwhile. We see also that the triple principles are self-evident. The attempt to deny will also implicitly rely on them. They are effectively undeniable. All of this is difficult to grasp in a world steeped in subjectivism, relativism, nominalism, post modernism . . . actually, ultra-modernism . . . and more, but such things are critical to progress. KFkairosfocus_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT}

StephenB: How does Descartes know that he and not someone else is doing the thinking unless he presupposes the law of identity?
How does this LOI work? How does it enforce its rule upon reality? Is one supposed to understand that before one can understand something much more available namely one’s own existence? I think that I can explain cogito ergo sum to a three year old, but not the law of identity. And how about the LNC? Egnor again:
… a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. It is the most fundamental thing we know, because if we do not know it, even Descartes’s first principle — cogito ergo sum — is not true. If being and not being could coexist, if contradiction were metaphysically possible, then it would be possible for me to think and at the same time not to exist.
Contrary to cogito ergo sum, I cannot explain Egnor’s LNC to a three year old. Moreover, I am not even sure if it make sense to say that there is a “law” which prevents being and not being to coexist. How does that law operate? Somewhat like the law of gravity? What does the law look like? I cannot envision it, so how can I be more sure about the LNC than my own existence, which is mysterious also, but is, and here lies the difference, immediately undeniably unignorably given.Origenes_{January 20, 2018
January
01
Jan
20
20
2018
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

CR@ 46, >So, a married bachelor wouldn’t “seem” to be a >contradiction if we could just express that idea using >language, such as the term “machelor”? If we express that idea fully enough, we see that the two sets are non-overlapping, and so know it was a contradiction. And it's two earthly classifications, so we can successfully see that. Perhaps other things, such as being man and God at the same time are not contradictions, which might be more apparent if we knew more about each. To be convinced that Jesus cannot be both God and man, I would have to know a lot more about what it meant to be God. Have you formulated an argument to the effect that Jesus couldn't be both God and man? >How could you know something isn’t an example of a >contradiction if you cannot comprehend it? You are right that I could not be sure. I don't expect contradictions to be real, but that's just an expectation, not something I can argue for.EDTA_{January 20, 2018
January
01
Jan
20
20
2018
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

@EDTA
I wouldn’t be surprised if our realm contained things beyond our ability to comprehend either.
if there are things we cannot compared, then it's unclear what It would mean to say it followed the law of non-contridction?
As for Jesus’ nature being a contradiction: ... A being having two natures, or some combination of natures? Doesn’t seem to be a contradiction per se, if we keep in mind that human language might not be able to fully express the actual idea to its fullest.
So, a married bachelor wouldn't "seem" to be a contradiction if we could just express that idea using language, such as the term "machelor"?
Not sure what to make of the idea of contradictions in our universe that we can’t comprehend. And of course, nobody can/could provide an example…so nowhere to go with that idea.
How could you know something isn't an example of a contradiction if you cannot comprehend it?critical rationalist_{January 20, 2018
January
01
Jan
20
20
2018
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Also, there is a prior consideration. How does Descartes know that he and not someone else is doing the thinking unless he presupposes the law of identity?StephenB_{January 20, 2018
January
01
Jan
20
20
2018
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Origenes, The problem with *I think, therefore I am," is that it begins with investigator rather than the object of investigation. It is a true statement, of course, but it offers no potential for any further knowledge. Don't think that Descartes ideas stopped with his "method." He also believed that all we can know are our own ideas, (idea of an apple) not the things that those ideas represent (the apple itself). If you begin with the mind, you remain in the mind--you never transcend it and make contact with the outside world. That is the problem. Epistemology has its place, but not as the definitive means of acquiring knowledge.StephenB_{January 20, 2018
January
01
Jan
20
20
2018
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

SB, Origenes & GUN: We are back at the ontology-epistemology interface again. Descartes was trying to ground knowledge and saw consciousness as a key point. In epistemology we start from basic or acquired ignorance and have to work out from something that bridges to warrant thence a base of knowledge. Reality grows into a world from its roots. Here I suggest, having doubted and found errors, the thinker is asking: how can I go forward on surer footing? Okay, I doubt even my own existence. But, who is this that is there to be doubting? In short, in recognising self-aware thought, one implies the prior fact of existence and the undeniability of consciousness as the first, self-evident fact of agency. Then too, one may explore, but in thinking, I must mark distinctions and use distinct identity. So too, I see the first principles of right reason: LOI, LNC, LEM. likewise, h'mm, I exist and do so in a world where I am aware of much else with other distinct identities. So, I cannot consistently live in the world and imagine it a grand delusion, though I may and do err. Next, when I ponder some entity, may I not freely ponder: why is it? And, in answering, may I not pursue the logic of being: impossible vs possible, contingent vs necessary with cause as a [near?-]corollary of contingency? Also, may I not explore moral government and the pervasiveness of duty in thought -- to truth, to sound reason etc? Thence, may I not ponder the IS-OUGHT gap and issues it raises at world-root level? And more? KFkairosfocus_{January 20, 2018
January
01
Jan
20
20
2018
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT}

Origenes,
StephenB: The proper formulation should be, “I exist, therefore I can think.” Thinking comes out of being; being does not come out of thinking.
“Thinking comes out of being” is exactly how I understand cogito ergo sum: the fact that “I think” can only be true if “I exist.” “I think” is an effect that can only be explained by an existent cause, namely, me. I have never understood Descartes to be arguing that being comes out of thinking.
Agreed. “I exist, therefore I can think” would be a strange formulation because it would imply that we first notice that we exist, and from that we conclude that we must be thinking. You don’t come to the conclusion that you’re thinking – you already knew you were thinking. You come to the conclusion that you exist based on the fact that you notice that you are thinking (since someone must be having the thoughts).goodusername_{January 19, 2018
January
01
Jan
19
19
2018
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

StephenB: The proper formulation should be, “I exist, therefore I can think.” Thinking comes out of being; being does not come out of thinking.
"Thinking comes out of being" is exactly how I understand cogito ergo sum: the fact that "I think" can only be true if "I exist." "I think" is an effect that can only be explained by an existent cause, namely, me. I have never understood Descartes to be arguing that being comes out of thinking.Origenes_{January 19, 2018
January
01
Jan
19
19
2018
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT}

CR @ 39, I wouldn't be surprised if our realm contained things beyond our ability to comprehend either. As for Jesus' nature being a contradiction: I could be a father and husband at the same time. No contradiction there. (But those are roles.) A being having two natures, or some combination of natures? Doesn't seem to be a contradiction per se, if we keep in mind that human language might not be able to fully express the actual idea to its fullest. Not sure what to make of the idea of contradictions in our universe that we can't comprehend. And of course, nobody can/could provide an example...so nowhere to go with that idea.EDTA_{January 19, 2018
January
01
Jan
19
19
2018
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

@EDTA
I don’t expect contradictions in anything that is real. But if there is a realm beyond our material one, say that of our maker, then the existence of things beyond our ability to comprehend them shouldn’t surprise us.
But, as I pointed out in #28, our realm is supposedly dependent on this realm beyond our own. So, then the existence of things in our realm "beyond our ability to comprehend" shouldn't surprise us, here, either. At which point, it's unclear why we shouldn't expect the existence of contradictions here, which we cannot comprehend, as well. For example, didn't Jesus represent just such a contradiction? So, apparently, the law of non-contridction only applies, except when it doesn't, for reason we cannot comprehend?critical rationalist_{January 19, 2018
January
01
Jan
19
19
2018
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

@bornagain77 Again, quantum mechanics doesn't say anything about the observer being immune to the wave function. So, apparently, these advances are in quantum mechanics + some addition to the theory. So, how can they be said to be advances in quantum mechanics, per se?critical rationalist_{January 19, 2018
January
01
Jan
19
19
2018
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

CR @ 25, >So, there are some things that we simply cannot comprehend, which are actual contradictions? I don't expect contradictions in anything that is real. But if there is a realm beyond our material one, say that of our maker, then the existence of things beyond our ability to comprehend them shouldn't surprise us. Looking at it from the other direction, it is not possible to argue that everything that is, has to be comprehensible to us.EDTA_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

Seversky @36 "Once again, if reality does not exist if you are not looking at it, what is the “it” you are looking at to make reality come into existence?" Concepts, potentialities, or the realm of possibilities...J-Mac_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 19
of humorous note: Descartes’s Maxim: “I think therefore I am.” Atheistic Materialist’s maxim “I have thought about it and I do not exist”
Christian maxim: "God thinks therefore I am. So God is thinking about me thinking about Him. And I am thinking about Him thinking about me thinking about Him. I think. Or maybe I don't."Seversky_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 18
“It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
Once again, if reality does not exist if you are not looking at it, what is the "it" you are looking at to make reality come into existence? And if you have several observers looking at this object that can only be in one of two forms, why do they all see the same one? Why don't different observers see different outcomes of the same event?Seversky_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

Cogito ergo sum doesn’t get a fair treatment.
Once it was put on the table, it encouraged the investigator to intrude on the investigation and sent philosophy in the wrong direction. The proper formulation should be, "I exist, therefore I can think." Thinking comes out of being; being does not come out of thinking.StephenB_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Cogito ergo sum doesn't get a fair treatment. For a person to think: "I do something (e.g. I doubt my existence), therefor I exist" is a unique rational experience. Here, denying "I exist" immediately contradicts itself. Denying that one exists is confirming one's existence. "I deny my existence, therefore I exist." This is completely different from contemplating the non-existence of e.g. the universe, the laws of nature, matter, or even, yes, the law of non-contradiction. Even if one quickly realizes that the LNC must exist, because otherwise one cannot reason at all — I think therefore the law of non-contradiction exists?)— it does not have the kind of immediate impact as cogito ergo sum.Origenes_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

CR, the advance in the paper you quoted, which was right below what you quoted, was that it was done with atoms instead of photons. The Leggett's experiment, which I also cited, was an advance in the mathematics of inequalities over and above Bell's inequality, if you want to get technical about it. Other than that, it is obvious you are only trying to play games as you usually do. I have no time for that.bornagain77_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply