C.S. Lewis on materialistic thoughts

If don't ASSUME that adult human behaviour includes intent - I know that it does. And if it didn't then the whole argument would be pointless.And if by a "powerful" argument you mean a trick that works on some people I suppose it is. But it is not a good or even rational argument. It isn't what I'd call a powerful argument since it is clearly fallacious.The fallacy of composition is the assumption that if the parts do not display a particular property then the whole cannot. Thus the argument that if intent is NOT a feature of the basic physical entities involved in the operation of the brain (up to, say, atoms, or molecules at most) then no aspect of the brain's operation can be said to display intent. It is not valid reasoning hence it is a fallacy.It is also question-begging since if a typical materialist view of mind is accepted then it is the case that the mind IS the product of the interactions of mindless particles and DOES display behaviour not found at the level of the basic physical entities involved. And the argument simply assumes that this is impossible without giving any reasoning - thus begging the question.For a simple comparison the electrons in yourt computer don't have any intent. Their behaviour is organised by higher level structures which are not discernable so long as you look solely at individual atoms. And if you accept that evolution can produce machine-like structures then it can certainly organise things to a similar extent in brains. Granted this argument does not necessarily extend to consciousness but it does disarm any attempt to argue that the computer requires intent.

I never suggested that. What I did say is that a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the existence of "intent" must be provided in order to defeat Lewis's argument. Is that a true statement? ...you don't know. Therefore, your argument, while valid, is useless for anything but to stalemate the argument. You are trying to win a debate about a tiny hole in human knowledge by digging a hole big enough for all of human knowledge. What is the point of that? Furthermore, this is being inconsistent. Everytime a question comes up in science, we attempt to find a theory or rational explanation to answer it rather than say, "well, we really can't know anything, so what's the point?" Referring to consciousness I said that we know something exists that is indescribable in objective terms, and you said, "MAYBE, given solipsism I don't see how we can know that." See? You are saying that we cannot assert that people have consciousness.Obviously nothing is completely provable, but to have any kind of fruitful discussion we have to make some pressuppositions. If you don't want to argue about this, that's cool, but you don't have to go off destroying all pressuppositions using solipsism and force us off-track with it. What??? "I think therefore, I am." You refute that? Solipsism says that nothing can be certain except the fact that the one doing the thinking exists so it does not destroy that one presupposition. And it's a cop-out argument that doesn't prove anything (obviously). So, unless you want to retract that argument and let us lay down the presuppositions necessary for argument, this argument is stalemated.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 04-02-2005 05:51 PM

That's Lewis's argument, though. Why? "Intent" is just a name we apply to human behavior; and all human behavior is simply a consequence of the laws of physics. And as I keep explaining, over and over and over again, that's entirely consistent with solipcism. The proper response to solipcism is not "what's the point", the proper response is the scientific method. No, that's not what I said. What I said was that solipcism means that we can't know if something indescribable actually exists.That's it. That's not saying that humans aren't conscious, that's not saying that we can't say they're conscious. It's saying that we can't know that consciousness is a real thing that exists. That's it. Why would the observation that I have experiences necessitate my existence? We have all the suppositions we need; I already laid them out. I observe that I have experiences, I'll act as though you do, too.That's all we need. Anything else is just me letting you stack the deck in Lewis's favor, which I'm not inclined to do.

Thanks for your reply. Well, crashfrog would take issue with you here because of solipsism, but I take issue with you here because no attempt has been made at a rational argument supporting this, only a subjective opinion that you have intent has been given. Yes, it would. That's what C.S. Lewis said. That's what we are aruging about: to find out whether or not our arguing is pointless. Just because you can come up with fallacies to fit doesn't mean the conclusion of the argument is not true. You cited the fallacy of composition. I could argue that every cell in your body is alive therefore you are alive and you could call that a fallacious argument, but the conclusion would be true. We do not yet know whether or not the same is true of intent in actions therefore, citing fallacy of composition is not enough to soundly defeat the argument. You are right in saying the mind does display behaviour not found at the level of the basic physical entities involved; however, both Crashfrog, Loudmouth, myself, and surely you would also agree that the mind also displays random and predictable behavior such as is found in the basic physical entities involved.The argument does not assume that it is impossible for the mind to have properties not found at the basic level of its components. The argument implies that either intent must have existed from the beginning or must enter metaphysically. The argument could be defeated by showing how intent can get naturally into this physical process, but since this hasn't been done, the argument stands. I don't really think this can be done since objective scientific reasoning cannot have an argument that bridges the gap into subjective experience. I'm not quite sure what to make of this. You are saying your computer does not have intent? Does a bug have intent? I would say no. Does a dog have intent? I don't know. Aren't our minds merely a more complex version of the computer on your desktop? If they are not, then what makes them special that they have consciousness and intent? Perhaps intent is an illusion caused by some funky wiring in your head.In the next 30 or 40 years we will see the evolution of machine intelligence. Right now your computer has the intelligence of a bug, and in 30 or 40 years it might be smarter than you. At what point will it gain intent, or will it ever? Can we say that a shear number of mindless processes can produce genuine intent or free-will? It seems to me that if the appearance of free-will is a product of the circuit design and number of processes per second, then it must be an illusion, at least that must be the materalistic conclusion as far as I can see. Perhaps you have a different opinion?

I don't think that Crashfrog would be pleased at the idea that he is promoting solipsism.And no we aren't arguing over whether arguing is pointless. If it is then we won't find it out by arguing ! Any sensible argument has to accept that humans really can gain knowledge.Moroever you seem to be very confused about even HOW we validly arguments. If an argument is fallacious then it has no bearing on the truth of the conclusion, so it must be discarded. Thus by identifying the argument as relying on a fallacy of composition - and in a way that begs the question - we refute the argument. And I really have to ask why you asked for criticism of the argument if the only criterion you use for validity id the (possible) truth of the conclusion. You place yourself in the position of being unable to reject any argument unless the conclusion is already known - which renders argument useless altogether (e.g. you cannot reject even obviously silly arguments such as "2+2 = 4 therefore God does not exist").As to your inability to understand my argument I would suggest careful reading. Or is it that you do not recognise that intent - as we recognise it - is itself part of consciousness, which I specifically placed outsdsid the example ? I will repeat the main points. Firstly higher level organisation can cause basic physical entities like electrons to behave in ways which are (sufficiently) non-random for useful behaviour. Secondly evolution is known to be capable of producing organsiation of this sort - without any direct intent. This establishes that the argument truly is a fallacy of composition since we know that similar extrapolations ARE false.

Thanks for your reply. Uh herm... I guess you didn't read any of his posts. In a way we are... If you don't see what I mean here, then I guess you don't understand the argument C.S. Lewis made. True, but if it isn't pointless, then we could potentially find out by arguing. You say it's not pointless therefore we should be able to determine this. I AGREE! 'Splain that to Froggy. At least I can write good... haha... j/k By citing "fallacy of composition" you are really just ignoring the issue and calling it quits. The deeper issue hidden in his argument is one that no one really has a grasp on (how the objective realm can sort of give birth to the realm of subjective experience). The argument doesn't rely on this fallacy. It relies on the fact that no one can 'splain where intent came from. I did not do this. I stated at least once and probably more that the argument could be proven false when an objective scientific argument can explain consciousness and free-will. What??? ...nevermind. I would suggest you read your own arguments as well before you post them to remove some grammatical errors, spelling errors, and also to check that they are coherent. If you did this perhaps I would understand your argument the first time around. Yes, I recognize that you placed it outside the example, and that is why the example really has no bearing on the argument except to show me what fallacy of composition is, and that I already knew. So... I was trying to prod you to consider consciousness in your example so that we might actually do some useful thinking on the matter. That's okay, I actually did understand your example the first time around; I know what the fallacy of composition is!As usual, Paulk, our arguments are never fruitful, but fun. I'm done. have a good'un.

If you think I disagree then you still don't understand my argument.

Well it semes that you failed to understand the argument ans instad thought that it was a different invalid argument - an argument from ignorance.I must also remind you of the rquirement to debate in good faith. Accusing another participant of ignoring the issue - when in fact you are moving the goalposts is hardly that. You specifically asked for someone to address the argument (end of Message 16) and I did. You asked for clarification and I gave it. (And it is not my fault if you try to "prod" me into talking about areas where there is nothing useful to be said.)I am also sorry that you refuse to learn.

Apparently ya'll both think I'm dumb and don't understand your arguments, and I wouldn't want to leave it like that so I'll recap frog's and Paulk's main arguments and if I don't have it right, then ya'll can correct me and tell me I'm a moron.Crashfrog:
C.S. Lewis's argument leaves the question open as to whether or not we can find truth. His argument implies that if we can know truth and there is no objective argument to show how intent can get into the universe, then it must enter metaphysically.Crashfrog says that we (certainly?) cannot know if we can know truth making the argument moot. And he's right. This does end the argument.My response to this is that a logical philosophical argument is had in order to find truth and holds the presupposition that the truth can be found. Therefore, Crashfrog's argument based on solipsism makes all philosophy junk, and this makes me wonder why Frog even bothers to engage in a philosophical argument.... to show me that I'm wrong and he's right?....maybeCrashfrog's response to this is: so what? Philosophy is really a waste of time, and all that really matters is: can we get our VCRs to work? We rely on science, which is purely practical, for that.Paulk:
Paulk argues that it is a fallacy of composition to assume that because the processes that make up our thoughts have no intent, then we cannot have intent. I completely agree with this.My response is that we should not make this assumption, nor should we automatically assume as Paulk has done that we do have intent, but question it to see whether or not it is true rather than cite this fallacy that does not necessarily prove it false.Paulk also argues that this is an argument from ignorance since our knowledge of consciousness is incomplete and likely always will be. As long as our knowledge of something is incomplete people will say that it is metaphysical.I agree that this makes the argument weaker, but I would also add that there will never be any other kind of evidence of the metaphysical except that which we cannot explain; therefore, any attempt at making a logical argument for the metaphysical will be an argument from ignorance. If Jesus performed a miracle in front of your eyes, you would still only have an argument from ignorance for the metaphysical.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 04-04-2005 07:15 PM

But that's just pretend. It's pretend to assume that the truth can be known because we know that it cannot be.Why would we start our search for truth with an erroneous proposition? How is that at all coherent? Why would you bother with your "logical philosophical argument for the purpose of finding truth" when we know that what you'll wind up with won't have anything to do with the truth?I just don't get it. You seem to have this idea that you can dispose of the solipcistic condition by just assuming it doesn't apply to you. How does that make any sense? That's certainly concise, and its fairly accurate. Since we can't get to the truth, we have to settle for predicting what experiences we will have. (In other words making our VCR's work. Which is not to say that I reject theoretical or "basic" science, of course.)

Now that is a self-contradicting statement. You essentially just said: I know this to be true: I cannot know truth.Plus, that is not solipsism (BTW, I think you spell it with an 's'). Solipsism is a theory that says: the self is the only thing that can be known and verified. That's what all the definitions I can find say and if you break it down to it's roots it means "alone-self". And if it wasn't a tentative theory, it would be self-contradictory too.If you want to create a new definition for solipsism, that's cool I guess, but I don't think it will catch on since it's obviously self-contradictory and counter-intuitive. Yet another self-contradicting statement. Yet another self-contradicting statement. I do. I just don't get how you can say you know I'm wrong when you don't believe anyone can know what's really right or wrong. I don't assume the solipsistic condition doesn't apply to me. I know very well that I cannot verify anything. I also know that this does not mean that that which I seek to know is not true. To know anything you have to make unprovable assumptions the first of which is the assumption that you can know truth. You seem to think that because these assumptions are unverifiable that they must be false, which is yet another self-contradiction.You say that by making these assumptions I am "pretending". This implies another self-contradiction: that you know that what I believe to be true is really false.

"Truth" being shorthand for "knowledge about the real reality of the universe", not "all things that are true." I either wasn't quite clear, or you're being deliberately disingenuous. Solipsism (you're right about the spelling, thank you) is a statement about the gathering of knowledge, not necessarily the nature of knowledge. Right, exactly. That's what I'm talking about, here. I'm not saying we can't know anything at all; we just can't know anything about the physical reality of the universe. We can merely develop models that make accurate predictions and explain observations. Incorrect. Incorrect. Incorrect. If by "truth" you mean "things that are true", then obviously you can know some truths. If by "truth" you mean "the physical reality of the universe", then no, you can't know that truth. And you simply can't dispose of that limitation by assuming it doesn't apply to you, or pretending that you can know truths that you simply cannot know. If they're unverifiable, they're neither true nor false; its incoherent to say they are true or false because for an unverifiable statement, true and false are the same thing, by definition.

Well if you understnad the argument then you realise that the issue of intent arises as a secondary issue.So two issues arise1) Surely intent is a label applied to something we bserve in ourselves. If so it is clearly false to claim that it is simply assumed since it is directly experienced2) The argument asserts that without intent to find the truth we could not find it. Denying that we have intent either forces us into the fruitless alternative of assuming that we do not and cannot find truth or denying a premise of the argument. If "intent" is assumed it is also assumed by the argument itself. Therefore the fact that you raise the issue indicates a failure to understand the argument.As a final point it is false to claim that what you call "metaphysical" explanations must be entirely arguments from ignorance. Indeed you can only do so by insistign that we must stick to strict deductive logic. If we allow other forms of argument we can in principle do better - but that still leaves this particualr argument as an argument from ignorance. (e.g. it cannot be an inference to the best explanation since no better explanation is on offer).