jump to last post 1-24 of 24 discussions (101 posts)

Does Logic exist without sentience? If sentience is gone will it stay?

  1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
    Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/5963430_f248.jpg
    Following a debate with AKA Winston on his forum "If you subtract mankind from existence, what is left?" http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/89816

    It is clear that the question is not as obvious as it may first appear.

    My argument is as follows:
    All sentience created logics will be gone alno with the sentience that went.

    Logic, true logic, is not predicated on man or sentience. Only variations of logics that was created by that sentience would leave.

    This is using this definition of logic:
    4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

    It would seem that all dictionaries have a variation of this usage of logic:

    7. the relationship and interdependence of a series of events, facts, etc.
    (Philosophy / Logic)
    Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged ©

    (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logic)

    The underlying question therefore, is do relationships exist?

    1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      AKA Winston's argument is that because logic is defined as relationships between all things, then by taking away a relationship between a sentient being and something that is left over, then the definition of logic no longer exists. And therefore, logic no longer exists.

      This is because "all" no longer constitutes what it used to, and therefore logic no longer exists.

    2. profile image78
      Jayesefposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Logic does not create sentience. Logic is what hold a situation together; the situation creates sentience. The logic behind a situation would exist as long as that situation exists. A tree falling in a forest is a situation, whether you are there or not. Sentience is not relevant, it is the situation that matters.

      1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
        Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you Jayesef, I agree smile

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Obviously the answer is "no".

      Logic is merely the rules that a mind creates to predict the future. This obviously requires a mind that can learn. Gradually, while the mind plays with its surroundings, and with constant reinforcement, "logic" develops in the mind.

      Thus, it becomes "logical" to assume that gravity always pulls down.

      But then, we continue to play, and we learn that gravity actually pulls mass together, not necessarily JUST down.

      But then we play more and more, and we realize that gravity actually changes the shapes of the universe's time and space.

      Then we play even more, and logic changes yet again, as we realize that the universe is not only expanding, but expanding ever faster and faster. Thus we find that gravity is not fully explained yet.

      Logic requires a mind, for, it is merely the rules the mind makes to understand the world and predict the future.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, "down" only exists because of gravity. The direction we recognize as "down" coincides with the strongest gravitational pull that we're consciously experiencing at the moment.

        For an Apollo astronaut, for a brief time, "down" was "toward the center of the moon" as opposed to "toward the center of the earth," as it is for the rest of us.

        But as for logic, what is it for, except to make correct (or at least, sound) conclusions based on available data? Given that, a nonsentient being can make logical decisions (like a computer can).

        Of course, if you feed the computer incorrect or incomplete data, you'll get what looks like an illogical answer. But that's not the fault of the computer's logic. It can only work with the data it's been given.

        Of course, a human being can work with data that it hasn't actually been given. A human being has imagination. A human being can invent data. A human being can make conclusions based on not what is, or even on what he has perceived, but on what he thinks he ought to have perceived. A human being can trick himself into thinking that he's made a logical conclusion when in fact he's made a completely irrational one.

        Hence, the war on terror. smile

        Heck, you might even have a better case for logic being nearly impossible with sentience.

  2. paradigmsearch profile image85
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    I'm going with:

    A falling tree makes a sound in the forest, even when there is no one to hear it.

    Logic exists, even when there is no one to use it.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm with you here.  The logic in survival of the fittest will exist and continue to exert itself even if no one is around to witness the origin of new species it produces. 

      If it were not so we would all be dinosaurs instead of their much changed descendents.

      1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
        Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's my kind of argument big_smile that's a good example too, thanks! big_smile

    2. DoubleScorpion profile image86
      DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Being a Sonar Tech in the US Navy, we have had this discussion a few times. It seems that for there to be "sound" three things are required.
      1. Source
      2. Medium for source to travel through
      3. A receiver

      Technically speaking, if any one of these three things are missing from the equation, then we cannot have sound.

      But, There is always some sort of receiver in the forest, even if it isn't a human one. And unless we lose our air, we have a medium, and of course a falling tree is the source. smile

      1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
        Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        sound/sound/
        Noun:   
        Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.

        The key word being "can", not to say that they will or must.

        In a hypothetical situation, if there is a receiver, the sound would be heard, and so I think that by definition, a receiver is not necessary in any given situation. Rather, the knowledge of whether or not the vibration could be heard by a hypothetical one.

        1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
          DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The vibrations of sound can be heard if there is a receiver and a medium for those vibrations to travel through, well depending on the frequency. Some frequencies can only be detected by certain receivers and not others.

          If we were in outerspace, there is no air and so sounds would not be able to travel from source to receiver.

          Vibrations might happen, but without the medium and receiver we wouldn't have actual sound.

          But as you say, if vibrations happen, then there is the possibilty for sound as long as we have the receiver and a medium.

          1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
            Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Well the scenario is in a forest so I guess a medium is presumed (trees make oxygen). You could argue that it's a forest that will die in a few seconds because there would be no air in this forest. But that's a stupid forest imho.

            And I think that the definition of sound doesn't demand that there has to be a receiver, only that if there was one, it would hear the vibrations:

            Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear

            1. profile image0
              AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              (And I think that the definition of sound doesn't demand that there has to be a receiver, only that if there was one, it would hear the vibrations)

              Philanthropy2012,

              What you are doing with this idea is reification - taking a concept and making it an object.  "Sound" is our explanation for an event that starts with moving air molecules and finally reaches a sentient ear to be deciphered by a sentitent brain in something we hear and name "sound".

              What part of the string of actions do you say is "sound".  "Sound" is not a thing - it is a result of actions - a relationship between or among objects, i.e., a concept.

              In scientific language, it is imperative to speak in specifics and without ambiguity.  The concept "sound" does not fit because we do not know which part of "sound" the speaker is referring to when he says sound.  Is it the air molecules, the ear, the brain? 

              The works for metaphysics, because metaphysics is a what if? game played in universities and colleges.  Fine if you want to get stoned but pretty much useless in understanding the real world and its functions.

              1. profile image59
                SciencePhilosophyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Sound is not a string of events, the definition is above these posts.

                Sound is the vibration.

                A vibration of a frequency that is hypothetically capable of reaching a sentients auditory acknowledgement is termed "sound"

                Nowhere in the definition does it state that it must be heard in order to be termed sound smile you made that up.

    3. recommend1 profile image71
      recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If I make a sound in the forest and a woman is not there to hear it - am I still wrong ?

  3. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    philanthropy2012,

    Thanks for doing this.  The question deserves its own space.  I will have to bow out, though, as this quest has used enough of my time for now.

    Carry on.

    1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's fine Winston, the forum, and this question, will probably be here for a while.

  4. AshtonFirefly profile image82
    AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago

    I have been following the discussion on another thread. I tend to agree with AKA Winston.
    I'm not sure the underlying question is merely, do relationships exist, but perhaps, what defines a relationship? What is it? And in what sense does it exist? Are relationships dependent upon an observer? etc.

    1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So you want an example?

      The relationship between two masses is that they attract each other (gravity).

      This relationship, I argue, exists without anyone seeing it, as that force of attraction will continue to happen when everyone is gone.

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
        AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I was actually saying that the question isn't quite as straightforward as you had presented it... I understood what you meant. I was meaning only to point out that perhaps the question was not merely, do relationships exist? But what is a relationship? What do we mean by they exist? Where do they exist? How? And that is exactly the thing this whole thread is devoted to...does this relationship (or logic) exist apart from the observer. In your explanation, you stated that their relationship is defined as "that they attract each other."

        I question not that fact, but the fact that without us there is any such thing as a perceived "relationship" for the action which we are "observing". The action WILL exist. My argument is not that there is nothing happening there (concerning the rocks), but that it cannot be described as relationship, due to the absence of the observer and the fact that "relationship" is a cognitive concept the human mind applies to what it sees. The action or happening is not the relationship. Yes these rocks may still attract to each other (or do whatever they do, because "attract to each other" still presumes an idea of relationship), but without the mind there to understand the action in terms of "relationship," it could not really be defined in terms of relationship. It will just be. And if logic is defined as this relationship, (as in your chosen definition it does) then that means the event or happening concerning the rocks could not be described as "logic." Whatever is, just is.
        That is what I'm pondering...

        1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
          Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ashton, I must commend you for that very clear explanation. You and Winston both share this opinion. Perhaps I could try once more to explain where I stand on this.

          1. The first difference of our opinion is "The action WILL exist." I would say that "being attracted to" is not an action, but a state. An action happens and has happened. A state is and always will be so long as the objects are there to be in that state. Therefore, I would say that "being attracted to" and all other relationships are a state and not an action of objects. Do you agree with this?

          2.  The second difference in our opinions is this: "the fact that "relationship" is a cognitive concept the human mind applies to what it sees." This is harder to explain, so bear with me:

          Humans describe what they observe that is in existence ->They give it a name -> humans observe a relationship -> they name it 'relationship'

          Because you can observe a relationship, it exists. Simples.

          The naming process has no weight upon the existence of the relationship being observed. Even if the observed relationship did not have a name at all, it would still exist.

          You highlight this by saying "Whatever is, just is."

          Now onto where I think you and Winston are both incorrect. When I say "relationships" will exist without human minds, I am saying, or at least I mean to say, that that "whatever is" that "just is" will exist without human minds.

          The point being, you are questioning the existence of the word "relationship" after humans leave.  Not the meaning of the word. Do you agree?

          By the same logic, I could argue that nothing that is capable of being named would exist after sentience. For instance, the word "tree" describes the object we call "tree" but without humans the word "tree" wouldn't exist, all that would exist is "whatever is, just is" that the object that we call "tree" is.

          But where you are actually wrong with that logic is that currently, we do exist, and so my using the words to refer to their meanings is perfectly acceptable! When I say "relationship" i mean the meaning of relationship, the thing that exists, not the word itself.

          1. profile image0
            AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Philanthropy,

            Had a little time to catch up.  If I remember correctly, your original definition was that logic is the relationship between an object and everything else.

            The key term here is not relationship but "everything else".   The question to be critically resolved is what is "everything else".  That concepts obviously require sentience to have a relationship is obvious because concepts describe relationships.  The only thing that can have a completely observer-independent state is another object. 

            This gets to the heart of existence.  Existence is a concept we use to describe a relationship between objects, and as such objective existence is based on a nonambiguous definiton that excludes concepts. 

            The only way to nonambiguously define a real object is that it is something that has shape and a location (sentience doesn't have to know the shape or the location).   

            In a totally objective format, objects exist by this definiton.  This method is the only way to describe a completely observer-independent state.   We can reason this relationship without having to or ever being able to observe it.

            1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
              Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "The only thing that can have a completely observer-independent state is another object."

              Nonsense, I personally do not see the confusion in existence. To me, the confusion is in knowing whether something really exists or not. That is to say, we know exactly what criteria something must have to exist or not, just not whether anything has them.

              First, against your argument:
              The constants of the universe would exist in an observer-independent state.
              To say they wouldn't, is to say that if we all close our eyes at the same time, gravity will stop being in effect. Do you agree?

              Which goes to say, limiting existence to the tangible is ludicrous.

              You are looking for a general way of deciding whether something is in existence or not. I would say that that the general definition of existence would be persisting in the world.

              As long as something persists in the world, it exists. What do you think of this?

              Just for your interest and for the sake of not having to write about this myself, you might be interesting in this:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_object

          2. AshtonFirefly profile image82
            AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I can see where you are coming from with this; but the disagreement is coming from the way in which we are approaching this idea of “relationship.”

            “The naming process has no weight upon the existence of the relationship being observed. Even if the observed relationship did not have a name at all, it would still exist.”


            That is to assume that relationship simply names the thing which you are observing. You are defining the term “relationship” as simply the word substitute we use to describe that which is observed. If that were the position I was coming from, then yes your logic is absolutely correct. That which we observed would not be nonexistent simply because the word was non-existent.

              The difference is that  I do not see the term “relationship” as the term describing the action or happening we are observing, as you do.  I see the term as a word which does not  “name” that which we observe, but rather names a unique, descriptive, “concept” which the mind has created  to apply TO that which we are observing, and which the human mind therefore uses as a name substitute for that thing which we are observing. It therefore “names” that which we observe with the cognitive understanding that that which we are observing has particular qualities about it.

            The concept of “relationship” does not exist outside of the human mind. “Relationship” implies a certain meaning concerning that which we are observing and denotes far more than simply a name for it. The fact is that this “definition” or “name”   has within it an inherent cognitive understanding of whatever it is that we are observing. Therefore by calling something a “relationship” you are automatically applying your own assumptions to the supposed definition of its existence.

            Therefore I am not arguing that “that which we are observing” would exist without the human existing. It does. However, the concept of “relationship” which you applied towards what we are observing, would not.

            I am therefore arguing that your definition of that thing as a “relationship” would not exist, if you did not. And therefore the concept of logic would not exist, if it did not, because “relationship” is a mental concept.

              For example, you said that the word “tree” denotes the object we refer to as “tree.” But, I could just as easily say that that “tree” is a “plant.” That word also denotes that object. But then is not its name. It is the name I gave that object with the understanding that it fits certain criteria fitting to another of my definitions which would make it to be a plant. But this definition would carry with it the understanding that I had made particular judgements concerning that tree which would enable me to call it a “plant.”

               In the same way, that which we are observing concerning the rocks, would simply be called a “state” or “phenomenon.” But the use of the word “relationship” implies that we are assuming certain things regarding that state in order for it to be called a relationship. This definition would therefore carry with it the understanding that we made cognitive assumptions about that phenomenon which led to us calling it a relationship. It is not that that thing IS a relationship, it’s that we understand it to be a relationship and denote it as such.

              I am therefore arguing that relationship is a mental construct we apply to describe that which we are observing and and is not, in and of itself, be a name for any observable thing. It is a name, but it is a name for our own mental concept. “Relationship”  has meaning outside of observable thing which we are describing. But it is a meaning which we as humans created and apply towards what we observe.  The concept of “relationship” itself therefore assumes a meaning concerning that which we are observing and therefore requires use of the human mind to assume and apply that meaning.
            I therefore argue that idea of “relationship” is a mental construct and therefore does not exist if we do not.
            Therefore, in response to your statement: “The point being, you are questioning the existence of the word "relationship" after humans leave.  Not the meaning of the word. Do you agree?”
            Not at all, because I don’t agree that the meaning of the word “relationship” can be logically used to represent that observable thing, if we are not here. It is not relationship if we are not here. It is what it is, but it is not relationship.

            I hope I made sense. I can see how you took what I said to come to the conclusion you did, but I hope that clarified my position and what I meant.

            1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
              Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hey Ashton,

              Allow me to reduce your argument using your example.

              (" For example, you said that the word “tree” denotes the object we refer to as “tree.” But, I could just as easily say that that “tree” is a “plant.” That word also denotes that object. But then is not its name. It is the name I gave that object with the understanding that it fits certain criteria fitting to another of my definitions which would make it to be a plant. But this definition would carry with it the understanding that I had made particular judgements concerning that tree which would enable me to call it a “plant.” ")

              When observing the object that we call "tree":

              I see lot's of different masses of atoms.
              I see a mass of atoms.
              These atoms comprise different parts of the object I am seeing.
              I name each part of these parts "trunk" "leaves" "branches"
              Together, I call this mass of atoms which I observe "tree" because it is comprised of what I have called "trunk" "leaves" and "branches" a "tree"
              I call all masses of atoms with these particular combinations of atoms arising in these features "tree"
              I call all masses of atoms with some of these particular features "plant" like having "leaves"

              Your logic dictates : "I could just as easily say that that “tree” is a “plant.” That word also denotes that object. But then is not its name. It is the name I gave that object with the understanding that it fits certain criteria fitting to another of my definitions which would make it to be a plant."

              So I would like to state the following: "I could just as easily say that "the particular composition of matter I am observing" is a "tree" because those words denote that object. But then it's not the same. It is the name I gave that object with the understanding that it fits certain criteria fitting to another of my definitions which would make it to be a tree"

              Thus, any physical object can be reduced to a composition of matter. With the claim that because I gave criteria to those particular atoms, any following name is merely a human invention and so like I have previously stated: every physical thing that can be named, by yours and Winston's logic, will not exist without sentience.

              [b] Atoms->Tree->Plant is the same as your argument of Tree->Plant [b]

              1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
                AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hey Ashton,

                Allow me to reduce your argument using your example.

                (" For example, you said that the word “tree” denotes the object we refer to as “tree.” But, I could just as easily say that that “tree” is a “plant.” That word also denotes that object. But then is not its name. It is the name I gave that object with the understanding that it fits certain criteria fitting to another of my definitions which would make it to be a plant. But this definition would carry with it the understanding that I had made particular judgements concerning that tree which would enable me to call it a “plant.” ")

                When observing the object that we call "tree":

                I see lot's of different masses of atoms.
                I see a mass of atoms.
                These atoms comprise different parts of the object I am seeing.
                I name each part of these parts "trunk" "leaves" "branches"
                Together, I call this mass of atoms which I observe "tree" because it is comprised of what I have called "trunk" "leaves" and "branches" a "tree"
                I call all masses of atoms with these particular combinations of atoms arising in these features "tree"
                I call all masses of atoms with some of these particular features "plant" like having "leaves"

                Your logic dictates : "I could just as easily say that that “tree” is a “plant.” That word also denotes that object. But then is not its name. It is the name I gave that object with the understanding that it fits certain criteria fitting to another of my definitions which would make it to be a plant."

                So I would like to state the following: "I could just as easily say that "the particular composition of matter I am observing" is a "tree" because those words denote that object. But then it's not the same. It is the name I gave that object with the understanding that it fits certain criteria fitting to another of my definitions which would make it to be a tree"

                Thus, any physical object can be reduced to a composition of matter. With the claim that because I gave criteria to those particular atoms, any following name is merely a human invention and so like I have previously stated: every physical thing that can be named, by yours and Winston's logic, will not exist without sentience.

                [b] Atoms->Tree->Plant is the same as your argument of Tree->Plant [b]


                No. You have completely misunderstood the application and everything I said about the definition of "relationship." I see how you understood what I said but your understanding was incorrect.

                Okay. The term "tree" exists because we behold those atoms which we then find a name for: "tree." Without those atoms, there would be no reason to name the tree, "tree." The concept of "tree" is meaningless outside of those atoms.

                When I mentioned the term "plant" I did so with the understanding that the conept of "plant" is not a THING we can observe. It is a MENTAL CONSTRUCT. That is, a man-made mental CATEGORY under which we choose to arbitrarily group something. This is the main point which you missed hmm

                The term "tree" is much much different than "relationship."

                The term "relationship" exists before and outside of that which we are observing. Without that which we are observing, the term "Relationship" DOES have meaning because it is not a name for that which we are observing but is rather the name for the COGNITIVE IDEA which we then SUBSTITE towards that which we observe because we have decided that that which we observe fits the definition of the COGNITIVE IDEA.

                Therefore, the term "relationship" is more analogous to the term "plant" because both are words representing a cognitive idea, or process. "Plant" is the term for a mental category which we then apply towards that which we observe. "Relationship" is the term for a mental process, which we then apply towards that which we observe.

                Sorry for caps. Goodness why isn't there a way to italicize or something...I haven't figured this out yet. Anywho, by using CAPS I'm not yelling, just emphasizing hmm
                Please read my initial post carefully. You will see that you completely mistook the meaning. sad

                1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
                  Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Haha Ashton, funnily enough, I would see how you might think I misunderstood what you said, but I would like to clarify that I got it the first time smile It is you, who misunderstood me (I know, I'm likely to say that right wink )

                  Okay:

                  Tree -> Plant
                  You say that the term plant is "a man-made mental CATEGORY under which we choose to arbitrarily group something"

                  You say that "plant" is a category because we group things under it. Something that we know and observe. (Multicellular, Eukaryotic -membraned nucleus- and photosynthetic)

                  Atoms -> Tree
                  I say that the term tree is "a man-made mental CATEGORY under which we choose to arbitrarily group something"

                  I say that tree is a category because we group things under it. Something that we know and observe. Trees have a particular composition of atoms You must understand that this is not a visual observation as you suggest. Trees are defined by physical specifics just like plants smile

                  Alternatively, look: Birch Tree -> Tree -> Plant

                  or even

                  Cherry Birch -> Birch Tree -> Tree -> Plant.

                  At every stage, you make "mental categories" working your way up from atoms. In fact, before atoms.

                  1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
                    AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No...what you are saying is showing me that you really didn't understand what I was trying to say. I'll try to explain it in further later but for now, I'm braindead and need sleep..

                2. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
                  Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Also . if you click on "formatting" you'll find all sorts of cool tricks cool lol

                  1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
                    AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Ahhh!!!!!!!!! for real???? That's so cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                3. Quilligrapher profile image90
                  Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Below the dialog box in which you enter your reply, there is a "formatting" button that displays how to format text, quote another's post, and add links, images, and smilies.

                  1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
                    Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Quillgrapher, I've covered it (and with more colours   too big_smile

                    Perhaps though you could tell me how you are getting that funky Q/Smile doodar yikes?

  5. Insane Mundane profile image60
    Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago

    I thought logic had something to do with sound reasoning and rationale, sort of like Spock on the original series Star Trek...  Oops, I entered the wrong forum for that; excuse me, as I'm on the lookout for some logical humanoids that are also sentient beings WITH common sense; see ya......

    1. profile image69
      logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Seek and ye shall find! smile

  6. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    philanthropy2012,

    I am going to contribute this comment simply to clarify the positions as I understand them.  If I misrepresent your position, feel free to make corrections.  Basically, I'm simply taking this from the other thread.

    Philanthropy is saying that L=E when L is logic and E is everything. 
    My claim is that any change to the elements of this equation falsifies the conclusion.

    My contention is that although this is tautologically correct, the tautology does not automatically transition itself into reality, so that when E is reduced by 1, then L=E-1.  Even when we agree to the axiomatically derived claim that E is everything, (so that removing 1 does not alter the meaning of  E as everything) reality has changed so although the mathematical expression can still be L=E, reality is that now L-1=E-1. 

    This is not the same sum as L=E and thus the conclusion is false.

    1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you Winston,

      And my response to that is that "Philanthropy" doesn't say that but says:

      "Mathematically, it is like saying you have X where X is all values in the range of 1<x<5. Then you take away 3.6 from existence. All other values between 1<x<5 will still exist" and so X will still exist.

      All you are doing is reducing the value system.

      Where X before was1,2,3,3.6,4,5 etc.(and all other decimals) now you only have 1,2,3,4,5 (and all decimals but 3.6) because 3.6 is no longer in existence.

      Likewise, when you take away something out of existence, it is not a "-1" from the value, but taking an actual value that E can be from existence.

      Therefore, when taking away sentience and their associated relationships, all you do is reduce the values within the parameters (existence) set.

    2. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And even if you say "L" no longer means "E" then a new value for "L" would  have to be set (by definition -because not every value was ridden). L with "-1". And so there will be a new value for logic.

      So maybe the value for logic will have changed, but logic still exists.

      Another way of looking at it is as L=E, E-1, E-2, E-3... E-4.. ad infinitum

      At no point is it fair to assume that a set of values cannot deviate.

    3. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And as for the argument "reality may not work that way":

      I would have to say that that is exactly the hypothetical scenario that you have suggested.

      With "everything" you are saying that my assuming that the value is able to change may not be true to life.

      But the very definition of the word "everything" is all values within existence. If you take something out of it, then the number value of everything would change, so that IS how it happens in reality?

      Though you are arguing that this may not be what happens!

      Winston, I await your response in the hopefully near future.

      Everyone else, please chime in and give me your thoughts!

    4. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Those of us that know a little more about math and less about logic would argue if you begin with L=E and E is reduced by 1 then the result is either L=E+1 or L-1=E and not L=E-1 as you suggest.

      1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
        Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I like this because It seems to be in my favour, but I don't understand big_smile

        I only know the definition of "reduce" in maths as the same as "simplify"

        Could you please explain how that works mathematically if it's not too difficult for you?

        Otherwise, I may be reduced to tears sad

        1. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this


          Please do not cry. I hate to venture off topic again but I will if you insist.

          You began with the equation L=E representing the relationship between two values that are unknown but equal. When you reduce E by 1, the two unknown values are no longer equal because L now has a value that is 1 greater than E, i.e. L=E+1. Conversely, you can say E has a value that is 1 less than L, i.e. L-1=E.

          Hence, if L=E and you reduce E by 1 then…
          L=E+1 or L-1=E.

          Proof: L=20 and E=20  therefore L=E.
          If E is reduced by 1 then L=20 and E=19, therefore L=E+1 or L-1=E (20=19+1 or 20-1=19)

          I hope this helps. There will be quiz on Friday.

          1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
            Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Ah hah that's pretty clear now, thank you! Simples!

            Bring on the quiz!

  7. profile image0
    Muldaniaposted 5 years ago

    I would have thought that logic exists only as an  expression of human thought.  It is only one way that we make sense of the world, although the most objective and reasonable.  Logic cannot exist as a force in the universe, if mankind, or perhaps other similarly advanced beings which may exist on other planets do not exist.  The forces that drive existence and evolution are not based on logic.  There is no design or purpose behind the universe, so therefore no logic. Mind is necessary for logic, and there is no evidence that mind can exist without the physicality of the brain.

    1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Muldania, did you read the opening paragraph ^^? I admit that all logic made by man/sentience would go, but what about the other usages I noted?

      4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events

      This does not necessitate sentience? It IS all of the relationships that exist.

      That is to say, that these relationships exist, have existed before man, and do not necessitate man.

  8. profile image0
    Muldaniaposted 5 years ago

    I must admit to not understanding this question at all.  Logic is a system of reasoning.  It can be applied to philosophy, mathematics and even computer science.  To ask if logic could exist without humanity, to me makes as much sense as asking whether art, music, religion or methematics would exist without sentience.  I cannot see how a form of human reasoning can exist, without the human brain.  Logic is a creation of the human brain.  Perhaps it is just me, but I just don't understand the argument.

    1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ahh Muldania, well that is precisely the argument I am making. Yes, some logics are invented by the human.

      But I am arguing that there are definitions of the word that say there is a universal logic to the world, and that this logic exists without humanity.

      Nowhere in this definition:

      Logic
      "4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events"

      Does it suggest that humans or other sentience must make up what these relationships are.

      Rather, that logic is the relationships that exist.

      Any clearer? Sorry if not?

      The main point is that there is a universal logic which is the relationships between all elements, facts etc that is not dependent on the human mind.

      This is because rather than inventing or making these relationships up, humans simply discover and name them.

  9. secularist10 profile image89
    secularist10posted 5 years ago

    There are different definitions for "logic." Three big ones come to my mind:

    1. A unique case of thinking (i.e. "the logic of your argument is flawed" meaning "your thinking is flawed.")
    2. The analytical tool or intellectual tool used by all people--basically a standard of truth or fact. i.e. "Logic" with a capital L.
    3. The relationship stuff in nature aforementioned.

    Now, obviously #3 exists with or without sentient beings. Number 2 does not. Logic with a capital L is basically our way of understanding and analyzing our world. Logic #2 is the measuring stick, the standard that is being used when someone refers to #1 and says "the logic of your argument is flawed."

    The fact is that nature operates in certain consistent, predictable ways. This is the stuff that the "relationships" of #3 are made of. The actual behavior and tendencies of the particles in nature.

    It is these laws and tendencies and characteristics that produce the Logic (#2) in  our collective heads that we know and love. In other words, Logic #2 originates with nature, just as we humans ourselves have originated with nature.

    It is because our evolved brains come from nature that our "Logic" is consistent with the nature of nature.

    1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      My argument exactly smile

      Though I didn't know about number 2 having a capital L yikes Where did you find that out? (site please ^^)

      1. secularist10 profile image89
        secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I just meant it as a convention, as in, people think of logic as a kind of unique official standard. Basically a proper noun, if my grammar education doesn't fail me. wink

        1. Druid Dude profile image60
          Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If the is no sentience, logic has no point.

          1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
            Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We are not arguing about whether anything has a point Mr Druid!

            "having a point" has very little weight when concerning existence! What is the point of the masses of mass, light years away from us? None. But we don't say it doesn't exists?

        2. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
          Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh no no I believe you! I was just wondering whether it was a real word found in dictionaries or not. I thought maybe you took your three definitions from a dictionary and so could easily refer to it never mind smile

          Instead you split it into common, proper and... I don't know what number 3 would be, I suppose it's still a proper noun, just not one utilised by humans alone but standardised for everything. Making it just that much extra proper yikes

  10. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    Quilligrapher,

    I can't speak for Philanthropy, but it helped me and, of course, you are correct.  :-))

  11. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    (To say they wouldn't, is to say that if we all close our eyes at the same time, gravity will stop being in effect. Do you agree?)

    Philanthropy,

    Red Herring.  Gravity itself is a concept - it describes a relationship.  Where you are missing the boat is in assuming "gravity" is a thing.  Gravity must be mediated by a physical object.  That we do not know what that physical object is does not alter the fact that a physcial mediatory is a rational necessity. (e/m strands would be physical).

    So the physical mediator of the concept gravity exists by definiton irrespective of observance, but the concept of gravity cannot exist as it does not match the definition.  Remember, the point is to develope a completely objective definition of existence, i.e., a method to determine existence that requires no sentient input.

    (As long as something persists in the world, it exists. What do you think of this?)

    The point is not whether or not I like, agree, disagree, or stand on my head over a definition.  The point is this: how do we come to a completely objective definition of exist, i.e., a definition that is 100% free of the necessity of observer.  We cannot say that the affect of gravity persists as that requires an observer to note the relationship between locactions - motion.   Without the idea of motion, there is no affect of gravity to denote.  Nothing falls to the floor without a change of locations - a static picture is one of no motion.  To note the change of location requires memory.  Sentient memory.  No motion - no affect of gravity.

    The idea of motion (the gravity affect) requires sentience.   Therefore, gravity cannot exist by a truly objective definition of exist.  Only objects can exist without sentience.

    1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Okay so my entire argument was deleted when I accidentally followed a link >: (

      I'll have to paraphrase:

      I understand your arguments about gravity, that they require an observer to observe the motion that leads us to the creation of the concept of gravity.

      I reject this because I also reject your observer-independent definition of exist. There is no "point" of making another definition of that because one already exists.

      I would say it is akin to "something that can be observed and named and not simply imagined"

      This will probably be the basis of our argument from now on so allow me to clarify and point out some things.

      The use of the word "can" insists that given hypothetical sentience capable of observing, the thing in question will be observed. it does not state that there must actually be sentience in existence to observe it only that given a hypothetical one, it would be observed.

      You might also argue that concepts like gravity are "imagined" but of course they are not. The concept of gravity is true, it's real and it exists. Why? Because it's constant. It is taken as a fact of existence. The relationship between two masses is constant and remains so to the point that we are able to accurately predict results based on this constant.

      The word "gravity" is a human invention, but the relationship it means is not. That relationship is constant and unwavering with existence, and is the perfect example of what an existing observer-independent relationship is.

      To that point, gravity does not necessitate motion. We know that there is a relationship between our computer mouse and our computer keyboard because they both have mass even when the two remain static. Therefore gravity exists apart from motion too, and this relationship exists without us observing it or not. Again, please don't argue that "the relationship does exist" but "gravity is a human invented concept" because that hasn't got relevance, gravity, when I communicate it, should be taken as the relationship that we call gravity. (The same goes for all other words big_smile)

      For another example of a hypothetical sentience being required in order to verify the existence of something:

      sound/sound/
      Noun:   
      Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.

      The key word being "can", not to say that they will or must. So a tree falling in a forest would always make a sound, because given the hypothetical existence of sentience in that forest, the vibrations can always be heard when they receive it. I believe the distinction is made to distinguish sounds from frequencies not yet comprehendible to the living form.

      So just to clarify, we are simply arguing over the observer-independent definition of "exist" for which I have suggested:

      " "something that can be observed and named and not simply imagined"

  12. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    (I reject this because I also reject your observer-independent definition of exist. There is no "point" of making another definition of that because one already exists)

    Philanthropy2012,

    Of course there is a point - the point is to create a definition that is unambiguous and can be used to discuss existence in a scientific manner, i.e., without opinion, i.e., objectively, i.e., without observer.

    Ambiguity is the basis for all philsophical/relgiouis since argument began - that is why there has never been any resolution - how can there be when each side is simply stating an opinion?

    I am not interested in debating the opinions, but is finding explanations for reality.  This starts with eliminating the observer.

    1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes but this definition does not require an observer:

      "something that can be observed and named and not simply imagined"

      And as far as I remember, definitions similar to this already exist. That is why I find it fruitless to make yet another one.

      1. profile image0
        AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Philanthrophy,

        "Something" is a synonym for real object.  "Can be observed" means it has shape and location. 

        This is the definition of an object.  Only objects can exist pre-sentience.

        1. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
          Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "Something" is also a synonym for "anything" which includes objects, abstract objects, gravity, and God.

          You won't get very far with synonyms Mr Winston, no further than FatFist does anyway.

          1. profile image0
            AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Philanthropy2012,

            In order for anything to exist, there must first be a definition of exist, i.e., an explanation of exactly what makes one thing exist as compared to something that does not exist.

            Something is a directional word implying less than everything and less than anything.   But synonyms are not really relevant - only in the sense that they do not define.

            I have explained how if we want to speak about reality in unambiguous terms we use a specific definition that explains how something exists: it is a physical presence with shape and location.

            This definition automatically tells us also what does not exist - those things that do not have shape and location.

            The critical aspect of the definiton is that it defines what is not real, i.e., those things which do not exist, i.e., unreality.

            By your definitions, how do you determine what is not real, what does not exist?

        2. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
          Philanthropy2012posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And I've thought of something that should stump your argument.

          Movement is the relationship between locations. (the relationship is, occupying a different space means you are no longer occupying the previous space, mass cannot occupy the same space as other mass etc.)

          When an object changes location. We call this movement.

          When we observe an object move, we are not just observing the object.

          We also observe movement. A natural phenomenon like gravity .

          Movement is not physical.
          Movement has no shape or location.

          You can observe something that is not physical, has no location and no shape.

          Without sentience, observable movement exists.
          Without sentience, the relationship between location that allow movement  to exist, exist.
          If even one relationship exists, so does logic.
          Logic exists.

          1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
            AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "An object changes location. We call this movement."

            Um...you've simply substitued one similar concept with another. "relationship" for "movement."

            To me, "movement" has a definition identical to "relationship." It is strictly mental. The argument simply shifted from one set of conditions to another. The problem remains the same.

          2. profile image0
            AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            (Movement has no shape or location)

            Philanthropy,

            Movement, of course, is a concept.  It is a change of static locations.  Do we watch a movie or are we watching a string of static pictures projected fast?  Same with reality.

            Movement (motion) requires a memory of the previous location - memory only comes with sentient observance.

            1. profile image59
              SciencePhilosophyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Movement requires no such thing.

              Movement is the change of static locations as you say. If static location is changed by any given object, movement has occurred. Regardless of whether or not it is observed or has been duly noted to have moved from a position it was previously remembered to be.

              To that point, when an insane person's memory deludes them into thinking that something has moved because in their memory, the object was somewhere else previously, we do not say that the object moved (if it didn't change its static location in relation to the universe around it).

              1. profile image59
                SciencePhilosophyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Once again, the word would not exist without humans, which which we would call movement had we been there would.

                It's constantly going to come down to the fact that you two both seem to think that in order for something to exist it must have physical shape and location.

                Please address all natural phenomenon, laws and constants of the universe.

                Remember, to say "they do not exist" because the have "no shape" is to say gravity does not exist without humans. Which it does. Because the relationship between me and the earth is still that I will return to it when jumping up.

                Otherwise trampolining would not be nearly as fun :S

                The relationship between the Sun and the earth is that the earth rotates around it. This statement would not be false once humans are gone.

          3. AshtonFirefly profile image82
            AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            sorry philanthropy and a.k.a winston, when I was replying to this I was thinking it was in response to my post. I was viewing the posts through "chronological" and not "threaded" and for some reason my sleep-deprived eyes read that you were replying to a thread by AshtonFirefly, not A.K.A. Winston. My bad!

            1. profile image59
              SciencePhilosophyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              haha np

    2. AshtonFirefly profile image82
      AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you here Winston.

      The definition he offered  was not in the dictionary. It does not therefore mean necessarily  that is was incorrect. The Dictionary was not intended to answer the types of questions we are asking. Therefore it does not address them. Dictionaries were created by human beings to record the accepted usages of words. The accepted usages of words are not necessarily comprehensive of every single facet by which one is capable of defining or explaining the meaning of that word. Therefore, for the dictionary to define “sound” as “vibrations” is simply to describe it the way we best understand it. In our discussion we are attempting to better understand it. The dictionary is a guide. Not an infallible piece of work which we must ultimately rely on. Dictionaries were created by humans.  We are attempting to understand them better and more deeply than a dictionary.

  13. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    Ashton,
    Brilliantly stated.

    1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
      AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you..

  14. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Logic is a type of comprehension, thus it requires sentience.

    Nature is not orderly because of logic, nature is just orderly because that is how reality is--and logic is our ability to perceive that order.

    1. profile image78
      Jayesefposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hi,
      Nature and logic are not on the same plain. Logic expresses the equilibrium of Nature.

      1. psycheskinner profile image82
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Logical doesn't express anything, it is a form of comprehension of nature.

  15. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Does can be felt, like feels like a power spot, mean it has shape and location?

  16. Portamenteff profile image77
    Portamenteffposted 5 years ago

    If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

  17. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    I don't understand the issue.  The physical world is, at a fundamental level, made of objects and actions.  Neither of these need an observer to exist.

  18. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    (To that point, when an insane person's memory deludes them into thinking that something has moved because in their memory, the object was somewhere else previously, we do not say that the object moved)


    SciencePhilosophy,

    I am afraid you are missing my point or I did not explain it well enough - this is not about whether or not movement occured but whether or not movement (motion) is an object or a concept. 

    While it is obvious that we do not have to witness an event for the event to transpire, at the same time sentient observers would never know about movement or motion without the ability to remember a previous location.   

    The point being that movement, (or motion), is a comparitive description - a concept - that involves the description of the relationship between a minimum of two objects.   We cannot say logic moved away from the rock; however, we can say that two rocks in orbit moved away from each other.

    Only things that exist can move - that is the point.

    1. profile image59
      SciencePhilosophyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Winston,

      "While it is obvious that we do not have to witness an event for the event to transpire, at the same time sentient observers would never know about movement or motion without the ability to remember a previous location."

      I believe It would be almost a quote from you if I would say "I believe that existence doesn't give a hoot about what sentience thinks about it" when you were referring to the anthropic principle.

      Because we are currently in existence now (cogito ergo sum!), we know that events will occur without us.

      "Only things that exist can move" Oh Winston, what kind of a statement is that sad

      Here are some questions to you:

      Do forces exist? Or are they concepts?

      For any forces to be a concept you would have to say it has no causal effect.

      Otherwise if they didn't exist, the effect would not be there.
      Whilst you are at it, define the shape and location of any force.

  19. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    Force is a concept.  It has no shape or location.   By definition, it does not exist. 

    You would like to say the force of the wind in a hurricane tore the roof off the house.  While that may be fine for everyday discussion and in news articles, it doesn't cut it for a scientific explanation of what transpired. 

    There must be surface-to-surface contact for causal change of location - in the case of the hurricane, it is the molecules of the gasses that comprise our air that make surface-to-surface contact with the wood and nail and masonry and rips off roofs.

    We simply explain it by using a force rating - 100 mph winds or category 3 storm.   But it wasn't the "force" that blew off the roof - :"force" is a description of a relationship between objects.  The objects are real - the force is our idea, i.e., a concept.

    If you critically analyze what you are saying, there is absolutely no difference between claimg "the force did it" and saying "god's will did it".

    May the Force of God's Will be with you, Amen.

    1. profile image59
      SciencePhilosophyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Force is a concept.  It has no shape or location.   By definition, it does not exist." Oh Mr.Winston sad

      You cannot take one definition of exist and forget the rest, it just doesn't work like that sad
      Neither can you say "I'm making an objective definition of exist which includes the idea that without sentience, existence will still occur" because the definitions already do that :./

      Exist
      "4. To continue to be; persist"
      "5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur"
      To continue to be, like a state, like in the state of being related to an object.
      To persist, like a state, like the persisting state of being related to an object.
      OR in a specified place. Location is not necessary.
      "Circumstances" it says.
      "Occur" it says. Movement therefore "exists" because movement occurs?

      Note it says nothing of the necessity that a sentient being comprehends or observes the action. Thus, by standard"definition" existence is not restricted to that which has shape and location.

      "There must be surface-to-surface contact for causal change of location - in the case of the hurricane, it is the molecules of the gasses that comprise air that make surface-to-surface contact that ripped off the roof."

      Force also has more than one meaning! There is force in the sense of strength, and then force in the sense of force!

      Are you a different person today :S? What surface to surface collision occurs in the case of gravitational attraction!? Magnets !? MAGNETISM Winston!!? What has happened to you D:

      What physical surface to surface contact is made when electrons repulse other electrons!?

      This sounds like alcohol induced logic, Mr AKA.

      This hub on alcoholism might help you:
      http://min1180.hubpages.com/hub/Alcholism

      Teehee, I'm just pulling your inebriated leg. Though consider the above arguments smile

      Ciao

  20. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    If you think force/action doesn't physically and objectively exist, well--you're wrong. I don't know where you got that idea. Things moved, got hot, vibrate, and collided with each other long before humans and their puny little brains existed. They will continue to do so long after we are gone.

  21. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    Philanthropy,

    It is a shame that so many people get so wrapped up in their religious fervor that they lose their ability to read and comprehend and end up arguing against strawmen.

    Here is the key phrase: in order to speak specifically, precise definitions, without ambiguity, are necessary.

    If we want to scientifically discuss existence, we are compelled to use a definition of existence that allows everyone to know what we mean.  I can think of a horse (a concept) and I can observe a horse in a field - these are not both real objects.   If you want to argue that a definition is not needed that separates imaginary horses from real horses, then you are simply arguing for make believe to be accepted as reality.

    That is a religious argument.

    1. profile image59
      SciencePhilosophyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's all well and good Mr Winston (though not at all what I was saying),

      But would you care to address how "concepts" such as magnetism that have a causal effect do not exist?

      Gravitational attraction?

      Electric charge?

      1. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You must remember, this whole new wave of object/concept madness and/or what I like to call the "dead rock religion," always forgets about simple concepts such as: life, light, energy, thoughts, emotions, and all that other crazy stuff that involves sentiment and a sensory system that THEY seem to ignore while using it, apparently, in an unaware fashion....  In all honesty, I almost feel sorry for the poor chaps, as they most likely think they are bringing some type of advanced intellect to the scene; ha-ha-ha!   I shall ungratefully declare, not a one of y'all object/concept worshipers will ever understand or even realize what the "mystery of life" means, at least on this current plane of existence, unless you become at least somewhat conscious of what you even think - as of right now - being a conscious being, supposedly...or are you dead already?. 
        Poor darlings...  Ya just think you're too smart or maybe some of y'all just can't think?  Which is it?  I'm qualified, so please feel free to ask me questions...  LOL!  [Albeit I have to occasionally take a transitory hiatus from stupid subjects like this, as I still have money to make and a life to live, in a sporadic fashion, of course, and also during the events I get in trouble, banned, arrested, or whatever, for honesty seems to be a bad thing nowadays...  Oops!
        In short, when concerning the universe and the reason for existence, narrowing it down to "concepts and objects" say about as much for life in the universe as hunger and baloney does for WHY my dog eats nitrite-loaded meat when desperately hungry.

        1. profile image59
          SciencePhilosophyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry man, I'm not going to read even the first sentence because I've been informed by not only my own senses but others that you are a troll sad

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            How am I a troll?  Hold on...  Okay, just making sure I haven't morphed or anything.  Why is it, most others can make comments in the forums, whether they are asinine or not, but yet, I get called a troll if I contest "certain" individuals on here that are not used to having to prove their self.  Anyway, thanks for the kind words...  hmm
            By the way, at least my profile has a picture, as your little grey man figure looks more trollish than mine.  LOL!

  22. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Winston, the definition you offer is clearly incorrect. Speaking as a working scientist and atheist, your assumption that our disagreement relates to religion is equally fallacious. We just know that reality fundamentally includes forces including those prior to and outside the perception of humans. Your persistent inability to appreciate your error makes all your science threads basically a waste of time

    1. profile image59
      SciencePhilosophyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And there I was thinking I was the only one that agrees with me cool

      Thanks lol

  23. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    (What surface to surface collision occurs in the case of gravitational attraction!? )

    Philanthropy,

    At long last you have asked a sane question.  Congratulations.  What indeed is the physical mechanism of the affect called gravity?

    We don't know.  All we can do is hypothesize and then theorize.  It is never proven.

    That is a reasoned response.  However, your claim that "gravity" is a "force" that pulls things to the floor is a description of an event and has as much usefulness as saying a mysterious invisible spook named god wills things to fall to the floor.

    Again, congratulations.

    1. profile image59
      SciencePhilosophyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      But would you care to address how "concepts" such as magnetism that have a causal effect do not exist?

      Gravitational attraction?

      Electric charge?

      Magnetism?

      Without addressing how these do not exist, you can never state that only that which has shape and location can exist.

      Like psycheskinner has also suggested, you have just made up a definition of logic for yourself, and are relentlessly sticking to it despite all evidence that it is not at all valid.

      Your references to religious argument are also both unnecessary and an indication of a faltering argument.

      Let's stay civil, Mr Winston.

  24. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    My objective is not to create a hypothesis and theory that explains the affects of gravity and electromagnetism.  Others have done this.

    I have stated my case - to critically analyze reality requires a nonambiguous "working" definition of the word exist and all other key words in the hypothesis and theory.

    If you don't accept this, fine.  But unless you can explain rationally (not magically) how Mercury stays in orbit you have not explained gravity.   To explain gravity as a magical force that is caused by the warping of nothing (space) is a magical explanation, a faith-based approach that nothing (space) can have shape and location and thus be warped.

    I retire from this discussion as it is redundant at this point.

    1. profile image59
      SciencePhilosophyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So you admit to the fact that you have stated that concepts cannot exist, without actually being able to prove how that is true.

      More specifically to your case (and I do not dispute your case, I dispute that what you have resolved to is wrong, which you have not defended):

      "to critically analyze reality requires a nonambiguous "working" definition of the word exist and all other key words in the hypothesis and theory"

      You have admitted that you are not currently capable of doing so.

      More to the point, you have hypothesised that forces such as magnetism and electric charge can all be explained using that which has both shape and location. Though offer no such explanation. That is to say, you have used blind faith.

      That is to say, physical objects can have an effect on other physical objects using only physical objects.

      As psyche skinner has said, forces are taken to be in existence as not having physical shape. They can be predicted and used to our benefit with accuracy.

      I imagine you have realised what a ridiculous idea it is, to say that every force has a physical contact to contact collision and that is why you have opted out

      I'm glad we could get to the bottom of it.

      And Winston, you are a clever man, and though you were on the wrong side of the argument from the start, you made a good attempt at defending it.

 
working