The Laws of Logic

[he_who_is_nobody]

As a side note, everyone here needs to know that you can ask me a loaded question anytime you want. I'm not afraid of truth, so I have no reason to fear a loaded question. Ask now!

I have asked you several questions and received no answer to them. Do they need to be loaded questions in order for you to answer them?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I appreciate the replies. As a side note, everyone here needs to know that you can ask me a loaded question anytime you want. I'm not afraid of truth, so I have no reason to fear a loaded question. Ask on!
The laws of logic are not physical in any way shape or form. My big picture belief is that a naturalist can, in no way, account for something like the laws of logic in their worldview. Scalyblue hinted that the laws of logic might exist on our brains, but that is absolutely false. We would have no reason to think that the laws of logic are true if they're simply chemical reactions. And if they were chemical reactions, then they're not laws and they are not universal; they wouldn't extend beyond our brains. We couldn't argue that the laws of logic apply on Mars, since no one's brain is on Mars. If the laws of logic are just electro-chemical reactions in the brain, then they would differ from person to person.

As to the idea that the laws of logic are simply a description, that's also not the case. They are conceptual in nature and don't describe aspects of the universe. They are conceptual in nature, as some have stated.

The laws of logic pose a serious problem for a materialistic atheist. They exist, but they're not made of matter. Everyone here seems to agree they are not physical, and realize it or not, you have admitted that a non-physical realm exists. And not only does a non-physical realm exist, it is an authority over the physical realm. The physical realm is subject to the non-physical laws of logic.

There are at least 3 preconditions of intelligibility, and the laws of logic are one of them. I don't believe the atheist can account for these things and that's a big reason I'm a theist.

Your logic is incoherent, you are conflating 2 different notions of "exist", and you didn't even realize that what you ended proposing a conclusion that things that do "not exist" "exist" within the same notion of "exist". And how you managed to accomplish that logical feat I can only describe as logical sloppiness.
So let's deconstruct this argument by first pointing to one of the most basic notions that they could teach you in a philosophy class. "The ideas of things are not the things themselves".
You do think physical objects like chairs, when you think of chairs there isn't a physical chair in your brain, what you rather have is the "idea" of a chair and you think that. In other words you create a model of the chair that emulates as properties what you perceive as the physical chair. I.e. the distinction between the "physical" and the "abstract".
Now we can have things like unicorns, I think no one contest that unicorns do not exist however the idea of unicorns do. When we say that "unicorns do not exist", what we mean is that "there is no entity for which the ideas of unicorn is an idea of". And what do we mean when we say that the ideas of unicorns exist? Do we mean that there is such a thing as free floating ideas of unicorns or that they exist in the same sense that chairs exist? No! What we mean is that people have ideas of unicorns, if nobody had an idea of unicorns then no idea of unicorns would exist.
So we have the first usage of exist, "strictly real world entities", and the second more vague usage of exist, "which includes ideas". Notice that we haven't said anything about the nature of the usage of "exist" number 2, either ideas have a physical component or not has never played a part.
For instance math exist in sense number 2 because people have ideas of what is math, but math doesn't exist in sense number 1 because there is no such thing as a physical number 3, perfect circles or lines that stretch away to infinity.
You as a theist are convinced that God is an example of the first, yet you try to argue using examples of the second. Nobody contests that the idea of God exist as well as the idea of unicorns, however we do not grant that actual God exists as well as we do not grant that actual unicorns exist.
The laws of logic are ideas. And with this in mind let's review your response.

The laws of logic are not physical in any way shape or form. My big picture belief is that a naturalist can, in no way, account for something like the laws of logic in their worldview. Scalyblue hinted that the laws of logic might exist on our brains, but that is absolutely false.

Your statement here is just false, and you have completely ignored the context of what Scalyblue said, and thus you didn't understood what he meant. Did Scalyblue meant to say the laws of logic strictly exist exactly as we perceive them to be? No, not at all. Did he meant to say that what we perceive as ideas of logic in our brain are in fact encoded in our brains by an arrangement of neurons and neurochemicals, and that if they ceased to exist so would the idea in the persons mind? Yes, this is the one.
What Scalyblue has pointed is to the practical aspects of the process of how we think, the way we physically think the "ideas" is by cascading processes in a biological computer that we call the brain and thus in this sense ideas are physical. But notice that we haven't actually said anything about the "ideas" in the sense of what we perceive those processes to encode. This isn't a confusion between the forms of existence; the existence used is strictly the first (physical existence), but he is using a different notion of "idea" one that is more acquaint to Syntax (the way it is formed, what it is) then to Semantics (what it means, what we perceive it to be). And to clarify things, when we refer to the laws of logic we are using the second (semantics) and not the first (syntax).
The difference is subtle, but it is there and you need to be careful.

We would have no reason to think that the laws of logic are true if they're simply chemical reactions. And if they were chemical reactions, then they're not laws and they are not universal; they wouldn't extend beyond our brains. We couldn't argue that the laws of logic apply on Mars, since no one's brain is on Mars. If the laws of logic are just electro-chemical reactions in the brain, then they would differ from person to person.

The fact that the laws of logic only exist as so far as they are encoded in our brains doesn't mean that you can not establish a truth value to the meaning we ascribe to them. As you well should remember a true statement is true no matter where it has originated.
I am by no means trying to justify the laws of logic by citing the laws of logic, we have already agreed upon the validity of the laws of logic, and I am just trying to explain how those objections to logic with a physical component are not logical objections at all (if you know what I mean).
Just as a side note, the objection that "they would differ from person to person" is no objection either, because different people actually think different things. This is a fact (and may I remind you that even you did not born knowing the laws of logic).
The fact that other people think different things does not invalidate the laws of logic as we know it, but that doesn't stop people from forming different concepts of what the laws of logic are.
Confused? Who said this would be simple? You better get used to complex ideas.
Now moving on.

The laws of logic pose a serious problem for a materialistic atheist. They exist, but they're not made of matter.

So basically they exist in the second sense but not in the first.

Everyone here seems to agree they are not physical,

I.e. do not exist in the first sense.

and realize it or not, you have admitted that a non-physical realm exists.

I.e. They exist in the first sense.
The brain just went "Fuck that!"

Moving on.

And not only does a non-physical realm exist, it is an authority over the physical realm. The physical realm is subject to the non-physical laws of logic.

Not only there is no such thing as a non-physical realm, it can not be an authority, in fact I have contested that strictly speaking logic and physical reality have absolutely nothing to do with each other. And that there is nothing about pure logic that could ever say anything what so ever about reality, that is an impossibility. To say that the world is logical is an abuse of language, the best you can say is that the models (the ideas) that we make to conceptually describe reality must ultimately be logical. "The ideas of things are not the things themselves", you do not apply logic to reality, you apply logic to the ideas about reality, you do not think things, you think the idea of things.
And you better not forget that.

There are at least 3 preconditions of intelligibility, and the laws of logic are one of them. I don't believe the atheist can account for these things and that's a big reason I'm a theist.

And you are just deluding yourself to think that religion can account for anything. Oh you forgot that part?

Let us milk this argument a bit more. Let us concede every absurd argument you just made. How does any of that prove God? Prove me the existence of God as you proposed! What was that it? God defined as a being in another version of reality can not account for the laws of logic no more than an invisible pink unicorn in an alternative version of reality can account for the laws of logic, or my personal favorite, no more than my cosmic green pudding in an super reality realm can account for the laws of logic. (To clarify, does this mean that they are incompatible? No.)
You can not prove the existence of anything whatsoever (let alone God) by logic, and you never will, either you realize it or not such is impossible. You can make the best sounding argument in the world and still that which you propose can simply just not exist, it is just a well sounding argument and soundness is neither sufficient or a necessary criteria for existence.
It is just an exercise in futility.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Well at least it only took you five posts of waffling to make your assertions.

I believe your position can be summed up as "Axioms are not tangible, therefore goddidit."

An axiom can be seen much like mathematics. It doesn't exist as a material thing, and indeed it is a concept invented by humans, a cognitive tool invented so that our head meat may perceive, explain, and make predictions based on observations.

Mankind did not invent the laws of logic. If the laws of logic did not exist from the origin of the universe, then we can't do science.

If every human were to be wiped out, so would mathematics, and so would the axioms of logical discourse. These concepts may come to exist again with the advent of intelligence that is alien to us, not necessarily in the same way or the same format, but the same conclusions would be reached given the same input criteria and the same cognitive perception.

The laws of mathematics and logic would still exist if every human were wiped out. After the big bang, did one planet plus another planet equal 2 planets?

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Your logic is incoherent, you are conflating 2 different notions of "exist", and you didn't even realize that what you ended proposing a conclusion that things that do "not exist" "exist" within the same notion of "exist". And how you managed to accomplish that logical feat I can only describe as logical sloppiness.
So let's deconstruct this argument by first pointing to one of the most basic notions that they could teach you in a philosophy class. "The ideas of things are not the things themselves".
You do think physical objects like chairs, when you think of chairs there isn't a physical chair in your brain, what you rather have is the "idea" of a chair and you think that. In other words you create a model of the chair that emulates as properties what you perceive as the physical chair. I.e. the distinction between the "physical" and the "abstract".
Now we can have things like unicorns, I think no one contest that unicorns do not exist however the idea of unicorns do. When we say that "unicorns do not exist", what we mean is that "there is no entity for which the ideas of unicorn is an idea of". And what do we mean when we say that the ideas of unicorns exist? Do we mean that there is such a thing as free floating ideas of unicorns or that they exist in the same sense that chairs exist? No! What we mean is that people have ideas of unicorns, if nobody had an idea of unicorns then no idea of unicorns would exist.
So we have the first usage of exist, "strictly real world entities", and the second more vague usage of exist, "which includes ideas". Notice that we haven't said anything about the nature of the usage of "exist" number 2, either ideas have a physical component or not has never played a part.
For instance math exist in sense number 2 because people have ideas of what is math, but math doesn't exist in sense number 1 because there is no such thing as a physical number 3, perfect circles or lines that stretch away to infinity.
You as a theist are convinced that God is an example of the first, yet you try to argue using examples of the second. Nobody contests that the idea of God exist as well as the idea of unicorns, however we do not grant that actual God exists as well as we do not grant that actual unicorns exist.
The laws of logic are ideas. And with this in mind let's review your response.

The laws of logic are not ideas. We need the laws of logic to correct our ideas. If the laws of logic did not exist in the past, we can't do science. Was the big bang subject to the laws of logic? Yes or no?

Your statement here is just false, and you have completely ignored the context of what Scalyblue said, and thus you didn't understood what he meant. Did Scalyblue meant to say the laws of logic strictly exist exactly as we perceive them to be? No, not at all. Did he meant to say that what we perceive as ideas of logic in our brain are in fact encoded in our brains by an arrangement of neurons and neurochemicals, and that if they ceased to exist so would the idea in the persons mind? Yes, this is the one.
What Scalyblue has pointed is to the practical aspects of the process of how we think, the way we physically think the "ideas" is by cascading processes in a biological computer that we call the brain and thus in this sense ideas are physical. But notice that we haven't actually said anything about the "ideas" in the sense of what we perceive those processes to encode. This isn't a confusion between the forms of existence; the existence used is strictly the first (physical existence), but he is using a different notion of "idea" one that is more acquaint to Syntax (the way it is formed, what it is) then to Semantics (what it means, what we perceive it to be). And to clarify things, when we refer to the laws of logic we are using the second (semantics) and not the first (syntax).
The difference is subtle, but it is there and you need to be careful.

Again, if the laws of logic did not exist before man, we can't do science.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The laws of logic are not ideas. We need the laws of logic to correct our ideas. If the laws of logic did not exist in the past, we can't do science. Was the big bang subject to the laws of logic? Yes or no?
(...)
Again, if the laws of logic did not exist before man, we can't do science.

You can chestpound as much as you like, that will not change the fact that the "laws of logic" are just ideas, grow up and deal with it.

 

[scalyblue]

Well at least it only took you five posts of waffling to make your assertions.

I believe your position can be summed up as "Axioms are not tangible, therefore goddidit."

An axiom can be seen much like mathematics. It doesn't exist as a material thing, and indeed it is a concept invented by humans, a cognitive tool invented so that our head meat may perceive, explain, and make predictions based on observations.

Mankind did not invent the laws of logic. If the laws of logic did not exist from the origin of the universe, then we can't do science.

You do know that's like saying "If colors did not exist from the origin of the universe, then we can't do art"

Until there were living things to ascribe ideas like color to varying frequencies of EM waves, the concept of color did not exist, even though the waves did. Were another species to conceive the idea of color, and were they to have a different range of EM sensitivity than humans do, their definition of color would be completely alien to us, while at the same time our perception of what would be color would be unchanged.

You may as well say "If hours and seconds did not exist from the origin of the universe, then we can't tell time."

A second is a concept invented by humans, as is an hour, as is logic and mathematics. They are concepts invented to describe reality, to clarify and quantify reality in our minds. Without our minds, the reality is still there, but it may be defined in a completely and utterly different manner, a manner alien to us even though it's describing the same reality.

If every human were to be wiped out, so would mathematics, and so would the axioms of logical discourse. These concepts may come to exist again with the advent of intelligence that is alien to us, not necessarily in the same way or the same format, but the same conclusions would be reached given the same input criteria and the same cognitive perception.

The laws of mathematics and logic would still exist if every human were wiped out. After the big bang, did one planet plus another planet equal 2 planets?

You do know that's like saying that "seconds" and "Minutes" would still exist if every human were wiped out.

One planet plus another planet typically equals 1 bigger planet, slightly crispy.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I appreciate the replies. As a side note, everyone here needs to know that you can ask me a loaded question anytime you want. I'm not afraid of truth, so I have no reason to fear a loaded question. Ask on!

One could argue that, in a debate/discussion, most questions are "loaded", to a greater or lesser degree...

The laws of logic are not physical in any way shape or form.

Agreed.

And your answer implies that your leading question was loaded.

My big picture belief is that a naturalist can, in no way, account for something like the laws of logic in their worldview.

Why not?

Your statement indicates that you believe/think that anything that is not physical/made of matter cannot occur in a naturalistic (or materialistic, as you use the term "naturalistic") cosmos, and/or cannot be explained by such.

Both of these beliefs are false.

Gravity, electricity and magnetism are not "physical" - made of matter - yet, they not only occur but are explainable in a naturalistic cosmos.

Gravity is not made of matter, it is caused by mass - a sufficient amount of matter.

Electricity is not made of matter, it is described as (the result of) a flow of electrons. (Not the electrons themselves.)

The lines of magnetic force are not made of matter, they are the result of the suitable internal alignment of magnetic substances.

All naturalistic explanations of "non-physical" phenomena.

Scalyblue hinted that the laws of logic might exist on our brains, but that is absolutely false.

That's not quite what he implied.

He indicated that what we call "thinking" is the result of electro-magnetic/biochemical reactions in our brains, and that the "(laws of) logic" are a subset or result of that process of "thinking".

We would have no reason to think that the laws of logic are true if they're simply chemical reactions. And if they were chemical reactions, then they're not laws and they are not universal; they wouldn't extend beyond our brains. We couldn't argue that the laws of logic apply on Mars, since no one's brain is on Mars. If the laws of logic are just electro-chemical reactions in the brain, then they would differ from person to person.

This is perhaps from where your misunderstanding stems.

Chemical reactions - though they are not "laws" unto themselves - are the subject of laws, those of nature.

The fact that chemical reactions in different environments - our brains and Mars - may differ is due to differences in the environment, not differing laws of nature.

The laws of nature impose order on what would otherwise be chaos.

Our brains are subject to those laws - as are (and because of) the possible chemical processes which occur in our brains. It is not surprising, then, that our "thinking" follows certain ordered patterns - indeed, our brains have been described as "self-patterning, information-processing systems".

Our brains have evolved due to the events in our environment - and the cosmos - being predictable; that's why we can make sense of the world around us.

Clearly, logic is a patterned-order process - hence causality; "if A, then B", is a clear example of order.

Logic - and its laws - originally stem from observed predictability in the real world.

What we call the laws of logic are inferred - using our chemically-ordered "thinking" - from our observations of our predictable environment and abstract thinking about these observations.

This does not mean that they were "created", in the metaphysical sense, in the manner in which you are implying.

A snowflake has an order, which is not the result of "design" - yet its structure follows the observed logic of the laws of chemistry in a particular environment according to the laws of nature.

As to the idea that the laws of logic are simply a description, that's also not the case. They are conceptual in nature and don't describe aspects of the universe. They are conceptual in nature, as some have stated.

If they did not describe aspects of the universe - or, rather, did not bear on aspects of our experience of the universe - then they would be useless.

Indeed, if that were the case, it's highly unlikely that they would have been invented.

The laws of logic pose a serious problem for a materialistic atheist.

No - see my earlier answer.

They exist, but they're not made of matter.

Yeeeeeessss...

Everyone here seems to agree they are not physical, and realize it or not, you have admitted that a non-physical realm exists.

Not in the sense of "non-physical" to which you are defaulting.

The "abstract" is "non-physical" but not metaphysical, in your sense of the concept.

And not only does a non-physical realm exist, it is an authority over the physical realm.

And here's the hare-like leap to the side.

The physical realm is subject to the non-physical laws of logic.

Non sequitur due to conflating various meanings of "non-physical".

There are at least 3 preconditions of intelligibility, and the laws of logic are one of them.

What would be the other two "preconditions of intelligibility", as you understand them to be?

I don't believe the atheist can account for these things and that's a big reason I'm a theist.

That is not the case - "the atheist", along with "a theist", can account for these in a purely naturalistic manner.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Squawk]

Anyone else see a presuppositionalist argument on the way? Calvinism mk2?

Lulz, I must be psychic.

I don't have to justify the ability to reason, or perceive, because in order to even postulate the notion that I can't perceive or reason I have already accepted that I can do so. Your entire argument here is self-refuting.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I have a question, YYNJ.

It is given that B =/= C due to contradictory natures.
However, you run an experiment and find the following:
A = B
To rule out any chance of failure, you run asecond test, and you find:
A = C

Now, you've ran these tests a million times, and the conclusion stands.

B =/= C

however it is demonstrable that
A = B;
A = C

==================

I'll let you boil over this with contemporary Aristolian Logic - and, remember, this is an actual result of an actual experiment. I'll even give you 12 hours.

 

[Nemesiah]

I appreciate the replies. As a side note, everyone here needs to know that you can ask me a loaded question anytime you want. I'm not afraid of truth, so I have no reason to fear a loaded question. Ask on!

The laws of logic are not physical in any way shape or form. My big picture belief is that a naturalist can, in no way, account for something like the laws of logic in their worldview. Scalyblue hinted that the laws of logic might exist on our brains, but that is absolutely false. We would have no reason to think that the laws of logic are true if they're simply chemical reactions. And if they were chemical reactions, then they're not laws and they are not universal; they wouldn't extend beyond our brains. We couldn't argue that the laws of logic apply on Mars, since no one's brain is on Mars. If the laws of logic are just electro-chemical reactions in the brain, then they would differ from person to person.

As to the idea that the laws of logic are simply a description, that's also not the case. They are conceptual in nature and don't describe aspects of the universe. They are conceptual in nature, as some have stated.

The laws of logic pose a serious problem for a materialistic atheist. They exist, but they're not made of matter. Everyone here seems to agree they are not physical, and realize it or not, you have admitted that a non-physical realm exists. And not only does a non-physical realm exist, it is an authority over the physical realm. The physical realm is subject to the non-physical laws of logic.

There are at least 3 preconditions of intelligibility, and the laws of logic are one of them. I don't believe the atheist can account for these things and that's a big reason I'm a theist.

The laws of logic pose a serious problem for a materialistic atheist. They exist, but they're not made of matter.

Have you ever heard of logic gates?

Well they are this nifty little things that using purely phisical proceses (no non-physical realms) behave logically, they allow computers to exist, we run electricity through them and they give us logical responses.

For example an "AND" gate.


INPUT OUTPUT
A B A AND B
0 0 0
0 1 0
1 0 0
1 1 1

In most computers (I believe) 0 is a voltage lower than .5v and a 1 means a voltage higher than .5v; there are however diodes (the non-non-phisical things gates are made from) who's cut limit is at .7 volts but i think those are used at higher end computers than normal ones (like military ones) but I'd have to check this part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode_logic

NOTE this is not necesarilly an AND gate, its just an image showing what logic gates look like when made on a protoboard using diodes and recistances

So yes, there are purely physical representations of the laws of logic.

 

[Sardonic Laconic]

Hi, Well I going try to think before Post, I think the laws of logic can be displayed in Nature

"The mathematical ideas the Fibonacci sequence leads to, such as the golden ratio, spirals and self- similar curves, have long been appreciated for their charm and beauty, but no one can really explain why they are echoed so clearly in the world of art and nature."

http://www.math.temple.edu/~reich/Fib/fibo.html

Certainly strong evidence I think

 

[CreativeCrook]

I read somewhere (not verbatim):

"atheists arguing with Christians is like chess vs a pigeon. You can play the perfect game but the pigeon will still knock over all the pieces and strut about the board triumphantly".

My point is, is anyone board of playing chess with pigeons? Does it really stretch our thinking?

 

[OnkelCannabia]

We observe patterns, we assign names and rules to them. It's all happening in our mind. We see patterns in how the world behaves and we name them. The moment you decided to call them rules of logic you have labelled them and that label is a feature of your physical brain. No rule of logic exists. Only your idea of these rules and the patterns that they describe.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I appreciate the replies. As a side note, everyone here needs to know that you can ask me a loaded question anytime you want. I'm not afraid of truth, so I have no reason to fear a loaded question. Ask on!

The laws of logic are not physical in any way shape or form. My big picture belief is that a naturalist can, in no way, account for something like the laws of logic in their worldview. Scalyblue hinted that the laws of logic might exist on our brains, but that is absolutely false. We would have no reason to think that the laws of logic are true if they're simply chemical reactions. And if they were chemical reactions, then they're not laws and they are not universal; they wouldn't extend beyond our brains. We couldn't argue that the laws of logic apply on Mars, since no one's brain is on Mars. If the laws of logic are just electro-chemical reactions in the brain, then they would differ from person to person.

As to the idea that the laws of logic are simply a description, that's also not the case. They are conceptual in nature and don't describe aspects of the universe. They are conceptual in nature, as some have stated.

The laws of logic pose a serious problem for a materialistic atheist. They exist, but they're not made of matter. Everyone here seems to agree they are not physical, and realize it or not, you have admitted that a non-physical realm exists. And not only does a non-physical realm exist, it is an authority over the physical realm. The physical realm is subject to the non-physical laws of logic.

There are at least 3 preconditions of intelligibility, and the laws of logic are one of them. I don't believe the atheist can account for these things and that's a big reason I'm a theist.

That post is so full of crap. I'd analyze each bit of bullshit one by one and explain how they're all retarded, but other people have done that already. So I'm just going to stay here and comment on how fucking ridiculous this is.

I know this is an old post, but FUCK. I come home tired as hell and I come to LoR expecting something to argue against/for, but this is impossible.

 

[Gila Guerilla]

. . .
Again, if the laws of logic did not exist before man, we can't do science.

Surely the laws of logic are derived by observing the real world, and writing down what we observe to be true, and logical. In any formalised sense, the laws of logic only exist inside brains. Sure, before mankind existed, one planet plus one planet meant two planets, but without any brains, there would be no expression of this truth anywhere. If we admit that there were laws which pre-existed mankind, does that mean that they were non-physical? Not necessarily.

Once brains existed, then the planets would have someone to observe them, and to make a few definitions; like: what is a planet? What is number? How will we represent numbers both verbally and symbolically? What is the result of having an entity, and then having more than one of that entity? In what ways can we combine entities, (eg. derive 1 + 1 =2 & 2 + 1 =3 basing this one the earlier observation/investigation/definition)? All this formalising of what is going on 'out there' in the universe as a whole, went on in human brains.

The brain is a logic seeking machine made of natural physical materials, and it can observe and identify properties, and impose rules and logic upon what is observed. Those rules and observations as they exist and act in the universe are based on material things. Planets are material. Our observation is material - brains seeing, recording, classifying (by the rules and nomenclature made up in human minds). Prior to brains there was nothing to do the seeing, recoding, classifying, (unless we admit "God" into the equation). But some thing which decided what the laws would be, and brought them to be as they are, is not necessary.

The rules of chemistry, for example, pre-existed mankind too. Water is H[sub]2[/sub]O - two hydrogen to one oxygen. This relationship is determined by physical interactions within and among atoms and their constituents. Our observation of this physically based truth is also a physical thing. It's description relies on brains, also physical things. The fact that the atoms behaved this way before mankind existed is evidently true, but the molecular structure of water is a physical relationship, observed, defined, and analysed by brains which too are natural physical things.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

@Gila Guerilla: Why would you make such a preposterous missquote?

 

[devilsadvocate]

Just wanted to pop in and show my appreciation for the posts made by Master_Ghost_Knight and now by Gila Guerilla in this thread. I'm too lazy and too dumb to hold these abstract notions in my head for long, so I'm glad you're doing the thinking and posting the results for me to read.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Just wanted to pop in and show my appreciation for the posts made by Master_Ghost_Knight and now by Gila Guerilla in this thread. I'm too lazy and too dumb to hold these abstract notions in my head for long, so I'm glad you're doing the thinking and posting the results for me to read.

Might I reject that concept? Yes, it's good to hear what MGK and Guerilla and everyone else have to say (specially when we're talking about people who actually know what they're talking about and have honestly thought it through), but I find that rather unsatisfactory. I'd rather devote some time thinking for myself for a moment, and compare my conclusions to other people's, hopefully leading to a good discussion/debate situation.

 

[CEbbesen]

Just wanted to pop in and show my appreciation for the posts made by Master_Ghost_Knight and now by Gila Guerilla in this thread. I'm too lazy and too dumb to hold these abstract notions in my head for long, so I'm glad you're doing the thinking and posting the results for me to read.

Might I reject that concept? Yes, it's good to hear what MGK and Guerilla and everyone else have to say (specially when we're talking about people who actually know what they're talking about and have honestly thought it through), but I find that rather unsatisfactory. I'd rather devote some time thinking for myself for a moment, and compare my conclusions to other people's, hopefully leading to a good discussion/debate situation.

Might I reject the concept of rejecting the concept?

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Might I reject the concept of rejecting the concept?

Whatever pleases your mind, dear sir!