Author Topic: If materialism is true then logic cannot be objective.  (Read 968 times)

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1531
  • Total likes: 1716
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
If materialism is true then logic cannot be objective.
« on: October 01, 2017, 03:20:51 am »
The most basic axiom of logic is the law of identity, that A is A. It is a name we assign the principle, letters made up by us, but what it describes is objectively true. However, logic is not something that we can define as material in nature. We can see examples of logic in use like with the law of identity, but those are simply examples and not logic itself. Basically if logic exists objectively, rather than being a creation of the human mind, it would be proof of something immaterial.

But if only matter exists, the only logic that can exist would be a totally made up system created by conscious beings. This would be the equivalent of believing that science doesn't tell us anything objective, we just make it up as we go along. If logic bends to the will of conscious beings, then all that has been built on it is basically a phantasm, including science.

1. If material monism is true only material things can objectively exist. (Objectively true)

2. Logic objectively exists. (the central debate)

3. Logic is immaterial. (Objectively true)

4. Therefore material monism cannot be true. (Valid, plausible, likely sound)

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460

Onyx

Re: If materialism is true then logic cannot be objective.
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2017, 01:25:41 pm »
To put what you wrote into my own words, two mistakes people make in my opinion are:

A. The assumption that all phenomena in the universe must be physical in nature to exist. As the phenomena of self-awareness and consciousness are immeasurable, this is clearly not the case.

B. The assumption that all logic is invented, rather than discovered. This is also incorrect, because our understanding of logic is largely based on testing the validity of theories against that which is observable.



crossfire

Re: If materialism is true then logic cannot be objective.
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2017, 02:34:09 pm »
The most basic axiom of logic is the law of identity, that A is A. It is a name we assign the principle, letters made up by us, but what it describes is objectively true. However, logic is not something that we can define as material in nature. We can see examples of logic in use like with the law of identity, but those are simply examples and not logic itself. Basically if logic exists objectively, rather than being a creation of the human mind, it would be proof of something immaterial.

But if only matter exists, the only logic that can exist would be a totally made up system created by conscious beings. This would be the equivalent of believing that science doesn't tell us anything objective, we just make it up as we go along. If logic bends to the will of conscious beings, then all that has been built on it is basically a phantasm, including science.

1. If material monism is true only material things can objectively exist. (Objectively true)
This is faulty in that Materialism states the primacy of the material--all things, including consciousness, thoughts, and even logic arose from the material.

Quote
2. Logic objectively exists. (the central debate)

3. Logic is immaterial. (Objectively true)

4. Therefore material monism cannot be true. (Valid, plausible, likely sound)

Again, this is based upon misrepresenting material monism, so could be pointed out as a straw-man fallacy.
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you."
~Carl Jung

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1531
  • Total likes: 1716
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: If materialism is true then logic cannot be objective.
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2017, 03:02:18 pm »
But even if material monism is true, and logic is material in that it was created by the brain, logic still doesn't objectively exist. Unless I'm missing something, crossfire? How are you defining material monism?

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460

crossfire

Re: If materialism is true then logic cannot be objective.
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2017, 12:56:49 am »
But even if material monism is true, and logic is material in that it was created by the brain, logic still doesn't objectively exist. Unless I'm missing something, crossfire? How are you defining material monism?
Information exists objectively.  It may be abstract, but it objectively exists.  Likewise, cause-and-effect objectively exists, which arose from material monism.  Logic arose from describing cause and effect.  So you have got this chain of development:
Material>>>cause & effect>>>consciousness and communication>>>logic as a means of describing cause & effect.

Thoughts and information can be classified as sensory objects in that the sensory base for detecting thoughts and information is the mind.  (Just as visual consciousness detects light, auditory consciousness detects sounds, tactile consciousness detects form, heat, texture and other physical properties, olfactory detects odors, etc, the mind detects patterns and ideas.)
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you."
~Carl Jung

Frater Sisyphus

  • Guest
Re: If materialism is true then logic cannot be objective.
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2018, 07:54:33 am »
Simply put; it is a matter of language.

It's quite blatantly clear that nothing means anything other then what is prescribed to it (through history and culture), meaning the same with Scientific and religious terms.

I do see the disconnect between language and the physical world. This is not something people are often consciously aware of - unless they are challenged about it.

But psychedelic drug trips and 'near-death experiences', are both two of the ultimate things that challenge this in a human. When they are back in consciousness, there is no way they can possibly explain anything they have seen - so they have to try to explain it in basic human language.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 07:58:16 am by Frater Sisyphus »

Frater Sisyphus

  • Guest
Re: If materialism is true then logic cannot be objective.
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2018, 08:08:02 am »
I do find the notion of "logic" itself much of an intriguing think to explore, seeing as the term in-and-of-itself is based on the assumption that it is correct.

A thorough exploration of delusion, insanity, chaos, hysteria and psychosis would be things needed to be examined very closely to be able to come up with a hypothesis on what it's implied 'opposite' is (logic and illogic)

I guess it comes down to psychology?


Then on a more day-to-day basis, believing in something that you don't "know" for sure is true/real would be a form of illogic (which comes to people who just accept simplified science without actually studying it). In this sense, logic and illogic don't equate to true and falsehood.



THEN, to come full circle again, even this is seeing it through language. Counting myself, as my linguistic choice of words are based around certain patterns based on what my mind would choose colloquially to explain things.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 08:10:17 am by Frater Sisyphus »

Mindmaster

Re: If materialism is true then logic cannot be objective.
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2018, 11:03:05 am »
The common mistake that becomes abundantly clear is:

If you have no consciousness then there is no logic nor materialism. :D

Ergo, consciousness supersedes them all as the "primal" base of existence.

Similarly to prove, if you are not aware of something it doesn't exist. You can chose to ignore logic or disregard materialism, but still be aware of something. Thus, it exists independently of these fictions of the mind or presumed ways of ordering the universe. Consciousness is therein the only real measure of any thing, in whatever capacity it is realized in. Thus you are "aware" or "not aware" of something, whether it makes sense to others is largely irrelevant.

Thoughts? :D
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 11:08:23 am by Mindmaster »

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1531
  • Total likes: 1716
  • Eternally Grateful to Our Forum Members; HAIL YOU!
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: If materialism is true then logic cannot be objective.
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2018, 02:29:12 pm »
That's a genius observation MindMaster! It has become clear to me as well that consciousness must be more fundamental than these things in some way. For several years I have been a substance dualist, but now I am moving more towards Idealism.

"The Dragon became as a many-headed Serpent,
It's fiery tongues bearing forth speech
Into all the kingoms of the Earth."


My book, "Behold: the Prince of Darkness!": https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1726037460/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_1726037460

pi_rameses

Re: If materialism is true then logic cannot be objective.
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2018, 02:14:21 am »
The ideas that I am currently vibing with: idealism, whether Setian or otherwise, and monism.
Pro omnis dominos viae sinistra, sic itur ad astra

Olive

Re: If materialism is true then logic cannot be objective.
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2018, 05:46:19 pm »
The common mistake that becomes abundantly clear is:

If you have no consciousness then there is no logic nor materialism. :D

Ergo, consciousness supersedes them all as the "primal" base of existence.


Similarly, if there was no object of consciousness, no experience whatsoever - there would be no reason to say "I am", or to call it being. Consciousness and Phenomena (mental/physical) seem to sort of lean on each other.


The ideas that I am currently vibing with: idealism, whether Setian or otherwise, and monism.

Materialism and Idealism don't actually seem to be mutually exclusive... the more I contemplate both. But Monism has been speaking to me lately too. I've been calling my recent thought-stream Material Monism, but that's a little misleading. At the depths of the physical realm of existence, there isn't really anything "Material" about it. And I don't ignore the wealth of subjective phenomena (in fact I consider them to be more important) - I just assert the primacy of the "Material" Substratum.
    Art thou pale for weariness
Of climbing heaven, and gazing on the earth,
     Wandering companionless
Among the stars that have a different birth, -
And ever-changing, like a joyless eye
That finds no object worth its constancy?

-Percy Bysshe Shelley

pi_rameses

Re: If materialism is true then logic cannot be objective.
« Reply #11 on: February 11, 2018, 11:41:05 pm »
@Olive I follow what you are saying.  :thumbsup:
Pro omnis dominos viae sinistra, sic itur ad astra

Mindmaster

Re: If materialism is true then logic cannot be objective.
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2018, 06:13:02 am »
Similarly, if there was no object of consciousness, no experience whatsoever - there would be no reason to say "I am", or to call it being. Consciousness and Phenomena (mental/physical) seem to sort of lean on each other.

Well, to explain this sensibly I'd merely be quoting Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi directly, so I might as well:

"It's only when you wake up from the dream, that you realize the dream was unreal."

Now, in the context he used that in a much longer passage it wasn't to imply that such phenomena do not exist, but rather that the maya prevades them until we realize ourselves fully. Until we wake up from the "waking dream" we are bound to it and know no other reality. You probably have experienced this yourself in dream state - the parameters of that reality prohibit you from challenging them whilst in a dream. Thus what you experience in that state is "objectively real to you" in the same way that it is in waking consciousness. You will experience fear, or any other calamity and not immediately think, "This is not real." It as just as real to you then as the "reality" is to your waking state. Thus, the only truth is that your consciousness exists since it is the only thing neither created or destroyed in the alternation of states. When this "waking dream" ends, again all you will have is the Self. The manifestations are merely props or anchor points in a sea of infinite consciousness.

Similarly, at this is the point where logic and materialism fails - you cannot undo or dissect the reality whilst being subject to it, but you can train your mind to get out of your way and realize your pure consciousness nature and then possibly determine how much of that nature exists in everything else. Until that point, any of us are just guessing really at the truth... That, however, isn't the natural state of our externally focused selves in modern times. It also isn't a "left hand path" friendly path, as for a time such a seeker would have to commit to destroying their logic, reasoning, and other presumptions for them to get out of the way; giving them no time or consideration and rebuking them. You can, however, experience the true Self nature readily - it is simply the silence between your thoughts. It is also the state of consciousness that is existing in "dreamless deep sleep", so that isn't some spooky thing that is an unknown or some nebulous religious concept. We take these experiences as "matter of fact" and typically ignore them - the only difference is a jnani (someone who has cleared their mind) is in a constant state of being in connection with the root Self consciousness. If the mind can be "cleared" it isn't real, thus anything founded within it is similarly unreal. So to further sum it up, there is "thinking" and "knowing" they are not the same. Knowing only requires awareness and thinking needs rules and those rules need to not offend the mind that thinks them. :D

This is sort of where it all goes to pot in that since the mind arbitrates what it thinks by what it likes, it rarely grasps the real truth (which would be the same awareness would yield), but the truth it can "make sense of" or "sounds good".
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 06:19:53 am by Mindmaster »

Olive

Re: If materialism is true then logic cannot be objective.
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2018, 06:23:56 pm »
@Mindmaster  Maharshi was a wise man. And you're right, mind and reason are not enough to realize truth. Such is why we don't often see thinkers approach what might be called enlightenment.

You see, I'm not just philosophizing about this - I am also a cultivator. I do look beyond the veil in waking life, and in dreams when I can manage it. I agree that it isn't a path easily taken in our modern age of decadence, but I don't think it is entirely out of the way for a LHP practitioner. It is not necessary to destroy all thought and rationality forever to see true nature. If it was so Shakyamuni would have had nothing to teach or say. Someone who is skilled with constructed perspectives must know not only know how to build a paradigm but how to set it aside.

She who wears logic and reason like a cloak, can leave it at the door when she comes home to rest. It will still be there should she need it to face the weather.

You mentioned that the true nature is "the state of consciousness existing in dreamless deep sleep."  I can agree with that. And what is that state like? It is consciousness of void - no space, no time, no experience. You can call it Self, but notice it does not call itself that. It just is (not), eternally.

Therefore at the root of the human experience, consciousness and phenomena lean on each other. Without consciousness, phenomena are not noticed. Without phenomena, consciousness is void.
    Art thou pale for weariness
Of climbing heaven, and gazing on the earth,
     Wandering companionless
Among the stars that have a different birth, -
And ever-changing, like a joyless eye
That finds no object worth its constancy?

-Percy Bysshe Shelley