(August 13, 2009 at 7:53 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: That is not what I mean with conceptual. With conceptual, I mean simply that it is not material, spatial or temporal. You cannot weigh logic, measure it, photograph it. Logic means the rules and laws of reality that apply to matter and energy, and in time and space, but logic is not itself matter, energy or time and space; it is itself conceptual, because it is that which applies to matter, and energy, and in time and space, e.g. the rules and patterns of their behaviour, but is not it self any of them.
You can't measure if, because as I said - it doesn't exist other than as a concept that resides in the brain, or down or paper, in computers or whatever. There's no evidence to anything further, there's nothing to measure.
It's the way we measure and understand the universe. What you are speaking of, how you are definining it, it just doesn't exist. There's no reason to believe it somehow exists immaterially. If it exists at all then it's as a tool that we use, in the brain, down on paper, in computes, physical information, etc, etc, etc.
JP Wrote:Read the argument as I formulated it below[..............]
I've read it more than a few times now, and as I've said, your steps don't follow because these things you are saying are necessary, aren't actually necessary.
Logic doesn't have to exist other than a concept measurement. There's no reason for an 'objective mind to exist', or anything transcendent at all. A 'mind' at the beginning of the universe, yes indeed is more complex than if the universe just began with blind forces and there as no "God" at all.
And most importantly: You've still given no evidence for any of these complex things.
JP Wrote:All I meant was will; call it free will, call it unfree will.
Well I thought there was a difference between 'free' will and 'unfree' will, that's why I responded when you specifically said Free Will, bah.
If these two antonyms don't mean any difference to you, then no wonder i'm having problems with your semantics
EvF
