Abram, I would suggest you study cognitive processes and the evolution of both the human body and the human mind. We take reality and describe it in our minds and thus form it into abstract concepts which we can operate with. Or, for more fun, just read a few articles on camouflage. You'll see that you don't become invisible by looking exactly like your surroundings, but by simply not looking like anything at all to the observer's eye.

Originally Posted by Symbiote

Logical truths simply follow from the way in which concepts are defined.

1 + 1 = 2 is true and always true because of the meaning of (1), the + sign, and =. They are not dependent on matter, nor are they dependent on god.

It is true regardless of whether there is any matter which the number 1 can be used to describe, or regardless of whether any conscious being exists which can think it.

These are not concepts created by man, but discovered by him.

I'm still having a hard time with this.

If nothing exists, no matter, then how can "the number one" exist? On what basis is it defined?

If there is only nothing, then you can't add to it, like I said 0+0=0.

I know this is getting slightly off topic and philosophical, but it would seem to me that "concepts", and I'm not sure exactly how that's being defined, must have a basis in reality, and therefore in matter.

I am not sure what you mean here by derived. If you mean created, they are certainly not created by the physical universe, they are true regardless of whether any universe exists at all.

Yes this may contradict the view of some "strict" naturalists, who claim that the physical, material world is all that exists, but they simply deny that things like the "law of non-contradiction" exist at all. If you say it exists, they will ask you to point to its physical manifestation.

I agree in that they are not created. I disagree in that IMHO, they are a function of our physical universe.

IMHO, you don't have the concept without the universe to "define" it.

I don't know, it's too early in the AM, maybe someone can point out the errors in my thinking.

Waxy

Originally Posted by Abram DeWeese

carm.com explains it well. Your loss of respect towards carm does not change anything.

I just pointed out to you several problems with carm's explanation.

You don't care to comment on those?

Did they not have anything you could cut and paste so you simply avoided the questions?

Waxy

Originally Posted by Abram DeWeese

if the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily. If they are produced from human minds, and human minds are mutually contradictory, then how can the constructs be absolute? Therefore, the laws of logic are not human constructs.

If I search long enough, I can probably find someone who doesn't think 2+2=4.

Does that invalidate it as being correct?

Waxy

Originally Posted by Symbiote

Concepts do not "come from" somewhere, they are not physical entities and do not have physical properties such as locations, beginnings or ends.

They do not require a creator, physical (the universe) or imaginary (God).

This is my thinking exactly.

Waxy

Originally Posted by Waxy

If I search long enough, I can probably find someone who doesn't think 2+2=4.

Does that invalidate it as being correct?

Waxy

Well, I can tell you that 2+2=10, or indeed that 2+2=11, and be correct.

Originally Posted by Iuris

We take reality and describe it in our minds and thus form it into abstract concepts which we can operate with.

This is my understanding as well. Interestingly, concepts only approximate that which they intend to define. Confusion between concept and actuality is fertile ground for misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Symbiote

Thank you for repeating me.



Logical truths do not come from "somewhere", your question makes as much sense as "What time is a moose?".

You do not appear to have read my post at all, variously repeating what I have said and addressing things I did not say.







Concepts do not "come from" somewhere, they are not physical entities and do not have physical properties such as locations, beginnings or ends.

They do not require a creator, physical (the universe) or imaginary (God).

You said there are not physical entities. The atheists world in only physical

Originally Posted by Waxy

I'm still having a hard time with this.

If nothing exists, no matter, then how can "the number one" exist? On what basis is it defined?

If there is only nothing, then you can't add to it, like I said 0+0=0.

I know this is getting slightly off topic and philosophical, but it would seem to me that "concepts", and I'm not sure exactly how that's being defined, must have a basis in reality, and therefore in matter.

I agree in that they are not created. I disagree in that IMHO, they are a function of our physical universe.

IMHO, you don't have the concept without the universe to "define" it.

I don't know, it's too early in the AM, maybe someone can point out the errors in my thinking.

Waxy

addition works in the intangible as well. 1 minute + 1 minute = 2 minutes. 1 idea + 1 idea = 2 ideas. the concept of quantity is not limited to matter.

if there was just a vaccous void were absolutely nothing was happening, then there would be no application of logic. but even that in itself would be logical. nothing + nothing = nothing is logical. it would actually be logical if a void with nothing added to it result in something. so even in a void, logic still prevails

Originally Posted by doG

That the thinking of some men is flawed does not mean the constructs of others is in error.

Your right, logic does not change because mans thinking is flawed that because logic is not a human construct. If is was, logic would change at the whem of our thinking.

Yes, but then, concepts are also physical as patterns in neural networks, carbon layers on cellulose sheets and electric charges.

( the above is an answer to

You said there are not physical entities. The atheists world in only physical

, posting simultaneously can lead to trouble)

Originally Posted by Abram DeWeese

You said there are not physical entities. The atheists world in only physical

this is not true. the intangible, such as time, ideas and emotions, are just as real to atheists as anybody else. atheists dont subscribe to a spiritual realm, but that doesnt mean they dont agree on the existence of the non-physical. there is a difference

Originally Posted by sinjin

You mean like music?

The term "matter" means physical properties that can be observed through our senses. Matter, energy can change forms but can be observed. Music can be observed and tested because music is sound waves which are a form of energy in the category of physical properties. The Laws of Logic are not material and cannot be observed.

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

i didnt mention good anywhere in my post


this is totally false. the laws of logic being absolute does nothing to support a case for god. in fact, everything the bible tells us about god's nature indicates that god is illogical, unpredictable, unreliable and irreplicable. this is totally the opposite of logic

Your making a bunch of arbitrary statments.