Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang, Essays on Mind and Matter

[Huinesoron]

Well, the imaging and mapping is one thing -- does an orbital-based model result in crytal-like macroscopic behavior is what I was wondering. Is there a way that the mapping tells you: "yes, this bit of matter will now behave as a solid"

But actually the whole orbital point reminds one that 'particles' of the Standard Model aren't really even particles, they are distributions, i.e. patterns.

I mean... yes, in the sense the filled orbitals/high electron density between the atoms mean that the structure will behave 'rigidly', whereas the Van der Waals forces/weaker electron density between, say, methane molecules mean that they won't. A crystal can be viewed in some ways as a single molecule: there are significantly stronger interactions between the molecules in a crystal than between the molecules in a liquid.

Looking through the other solids... metals have a high electron density across the whole mass of the solid, so that's another yes. Long-chain polymers (eg, plastics, glass, wood) are physically tangled together; the molecules may only be weakly bonded to each other, but they're physically unable to break free. I'm not sure how well that fact holds up when you don't consider bonds as rigid rods; I'd have to look into that.

The question I think you're driving at is whether, in a case where a material is made up of large, non-polar, but compact molecules, an orbital model can predict whether it's a solid or a liquid. My answer is that right now, I can't think of one. ^_^ I think the answer would get into energy states more than particle physics; chemistry is weird.

hS

[T-hawk]

I wrote a long post in response to this, replying to every point you make in it. But I think it's unnecessary. You know your position invalidates itself, and you're refusing to face it. There's nothing more to be done in this respect.

I'm merely being as blunt and dismissive as you are.  You just don't like it when it's directed at you.

Your argument is as contradictory as you claim mine is - how are you simultaneously claiming my argument is meaningless while using it as meaning to disprove it?

The point isn't even relevant in the first place. Whether determinism/materialism is true has nothing to do with human perceptions of arguments about it.

[ipecac]

I'm merely being as blunt and dismissive as you are.  You just don't like it when it's directed at you.

Your argument is as contradictory as you claim mine is - how are you simultaneously claiming my argument is meaningless while using it as meaning to disprove it?

If you read carefully, I said that your argument declares itself to be meaningless, which makes it a self-destroying argument.

The point isn't even relevant in the first place. Whether determinism/materialism is true has nothing to do with human perceptions of arguments about it.

"Just so what if my argument just doesn't work?"

That is the main point of contention in this thread, whether your position as presented is right or wrong, how accurate and good it is, whether your argument works? The answer is, of course, that it's sophomoric and just bad.

When the discussion is about 'is T-Hawk's argument right?' and you go 'so what if it's wrong?' you're in way over your head.


I think we're just about done with the logical aspects of your argument. If you or anyone wants to get back to the 'torches and pitchfork' bits, just let me know.

[T-hawk]

What you're misreading is that I'm never claiming determinism/materialism is provably right by logic or anything like that. You're jumping to that thought and making up more than I'm saying in your zeal to have something to attack. I merely offer the arguments and the support for them. Determinism doesn't care what you think about the theory. I'm not being evangelical, but you're reacting like I am. Now you're disappointed that I'm not offering you an easy target. You're not here to think about the questions, you're here to attack me. So then yes, we're done.

[ipecac]

What you're misreading is that I'm never claiming determinism/materialism is provably right by logic or anything like that. You're jumping to that thought and making up more than I'm saying in your zeal to have something to attack. I merely offer the arguments and the support for them. Determinism doesn't care what you think about the theory. I'm not being evangelical, but you're reacting like I am. Now you're disappointed that I'm not offering you an easy target. You're not here to think about the questions, you're here to attack me. So then yes, we're done.

You wanted to talk about the logic of your argument and not the 'pitchfork and torches' part. It turns out that I have addressed how your argument is self-defeating, and I restated a point I made early on.

And you're unable to refute it, and now you say that I'm being personal and not thinking about the question or the arguments. One can only conclude that you're just in denial because your argument was blown to bits.

[T-hawk]

I refuted it entirely but you didn't even notice.  I'll try again.

If determinism is true, it remains true regardless of what arguments humans make against it.

Do you see the problem in your logic?  Your argument is "if determinism is true, then arguments against it are meaningless".  That logic only got to its conclusion by already assuming that determinism is true.  You concede the war in your zeal to win that battle.

[ipecac]

Do you see the problem in your logic? Your argument is "if determinism is true, then arguments against it are meaningless".

To be precise, my argument is "if T-Hawk's version of determinism is true..."

That logic only got to its conclusion by already assuming that determinism is true. You concede the war in your zeal to win that battle.

This doesn't even rise to the level of sophomoric. This is part of the process of proof by contradiction. In such a procedure, you prove something false by first tentatively assuming it. And since it leads to a contradiction, there is obviously a problem.

By this I concede nothing, this is basic logic. This is standard. This concedes nothing! To assume the opposing stance and show that it leads to an error, this is a millennia-old logical procedure. It's basic!

Wikipedia will do here:

If P is the proposition to be proved:

(In this case ipecac wants to prove that P = T-Hawk is wrong. So ~P is T-Hawk is right)

1. P is assumed to be false, that is ~P is true.
2. It is shown that ~ P implies two mutually contradictory assertions, Q and ~Q.
3. Since Q and ~Q cannot both be true, the assumption that P is false must be wrong, and P must be true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_c...#Principle

You don't understand basic logic but think you've refuted me, you're way way way over your head.

[Bacchus]

I think what T-Hawk is saying is that the entire mechanism of truth-evaluation of statements is irrelevant if determinism is true. The thing is, you have to truth-evaluate determinism as a statement, which would rely on the very mechanism you then are led to dismiss, which dismisses the grounds for such a dismissal. Note that I'm purposefully talking of truth-evaluation mechanisms in the broadest sense -- heuristics, hunches, axiomatic principles all fall in here.

Interestingly, what I found with arguments from self-defeat is that they are very persuasive to people who are already persuaded and completely ineffectual for people who aren't. I think it's because the acceptance of principles of proof is just what's at stake, the T-Hawkian determinist is happy to say that his position is groundless, because so is any other one, and the entire truth-talk is nothing but an illusion, which we just go along with on pragmatic grounds.

[ipecac]

I think what T-Hawk is saying is that the entire mechanism of truth-evaluation of statements are irrelevant if determinism is true.

I have to disagree here, I don't think he's saying that. Because I really don't think he's quite crossed the final threshold to saying:

'The evidence and science and logic and simplicity  has led me to this position of determinism...which also ultimately declares that evidence and science and logic and simplicity are illusions, meaningless'.

He might reach that point and jump off the cliff, but he hasn't yet. (He might in his next post, we'll see.)

The thing is, you have to truth-evaluate determinism as a statement, which would rely on the very mechanism you then are led to dismiss, which dismisses the grounds for such a dismissal. Note that I'm purposefully talking of truth-evaluation mechanisms in the broadest sense -- heuristics, hunches, axiomatic principles all fall in here.

Interestingly, what I found with arguments from self-defeat is that they are very persuasive to people who are already persuaded and completely ineffectual for people who aren't. I think it's because the acceptance of principles of proof is just what's at stake, the T-Hawkian determinist is happy to say that his position is groundless

This is very true. It's possible to convince some confused person out of it, who believes that scientific laws 'lock' everything tight so only such determinism is possible.

But someone who willingly chooses this madness, even there are paths possible: declaring the truth is meaningless, love is meaningless, logic is meaningless, justice is meaningless, science is meaningless, beauty is meaningless, mathematics is meaningless, good and evil are meaningless, that there is no value to anything:

They've knowingly made this choice for dark reasons of their own, and at that stage you can't convince them out of it -  convince someone out of madness that they've willingly chosen.

[Bacchus]

Here is a question for you T-Hawk -- say there is a neuroscientist, who studies visual perception and color. And she knows her stuff to a standard that 'objective knowledge' of your model demands -- she can tell you down to a particle what happens when someone 'sees' the color red in all its different hues. She herself however is blind, not just eye-blind, her brain just doesn't perform the visual function at all, for whatever reason. She herself has never seen red. Is there a bit of knowledge that she lacks about the world, or does she know everything there is to know about seeing red?

Also, thanks, Huinesoron. I have to mull over your post for a while.