No, no it does not. No more than the procedure to gap a spark plug "becomes" the gap in the plug, or the road to the Kwik-E-Mart "becomes" the Kwik-E-Mart.


I really don't know- you didn't tell us anything about them other than that they did come to two different conclusions, and that by itself is completely meaningless. Even if that were not the case, even if we knew every aspect of their process and premises, the "fact" that they come to different conclusions is irrelevant to your third statement, that causality exists.

The thing is, how do we know anything except through the process of reason? I'm really not trying to make it any more complicated than that. So, once we reason something out and establish its meaning, whether we can all agree on it or not, then we've defined (in part at least) its reason for being here.

No it isn't. It's not meaningless at all. I'm merely suggesting meaning is in the eyes of the beholder. In which case it becomes more the matter of interpreting the causality which does exist ... whether we define it as God, evolution or whatever.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

But we cannot "know" anything through logic. Logic- used properly- can help us look in the right direction, but it is a tool, not the magic source of "truth". One can use logic to come to all sorts of wrong conclusions, especially if one's premises are flawed. Let's consider a hypothetical Third-World Dictator (I'm going to avoid Godwin's Law here ). Said TWD comes into power through a violent coup. What may be his premesis? That if he can come to power through violence, someone else could, that there are most likely persons in his country that still oppose his authority, that since TWD now has the apparatus of justice and the military under his control the opposing parties are going to be secretive, that they are unlikely to be converted due to the bad blood of the recent violence, and that if left to themselves the opposing forces will recruit and spread more violence. Using these premises, it is logical he try to root out and "eliminate" (murder) these subversives, right?

That is why the scientific method does not rely on logic alone- it requires evidence. Do you ever watch CSI (or any crime show, for that matter)? They usually start out with a logical suspect, but they collect evidence to determine the true culprit (which, to satisfy the dramatic needs of the story, is rarely the "logical" suspect )

Logic does not "establish meaning" either; it serves only to help us make sure we come to valid conclusions from our premises. This is the real meaning behind the phrase "garbage in:garbage out" you are fond of quoting- if you start with incorrect premesis you can reason out a perfectly valid, but incorrect conclusion. ("valid" does not mean the same thing as "proven", either- I've noticed you seem to think that it does. It means "well grounded" or "consistant")

Neither do conclusions "define its reason for being here" as you put it. Before Maxwell, leading scientists of the day thought that electricity moved as waves through an as-yet imperceptible "aether". This was a perfectly logical hypothesis, and it was consistant with physics. Maxwell showed that electricity and magnetism were related, could exist in vacuum and that they were "fields", not waves. This does not mean that electricity chaged its nature- that its fundamental being was "redefined" somehow- from a wave to a field. Electromagentism behaved the same as it did for the Pharohs as it did for Maxwell and as it does for us.

You are doing it again!

"No it isn't. It's not meaning(representing or symbolising)-less at all. I'm merely suggesting meaning(personal signifigance) is in the eyes of the beholder."

Put in algebraic form, your analogy of the "two rational guys" looks like this:

Guy 1: A+B=C
Guy 2: X+Y=Z
C ≠ Z

So without further explanation about A or B, X or Y, this assertion carries no usefull information.

As for if there is a "culprit" behind causality- well, we can come up with as many "logical" suspects as we want- what's wanted is evidence.

Yes, logic is the vehicle and truth is the (intended) destination.

Absolutely!

What are you implying that there is such a thing as right and wrong? Hey, I'm not saying there isn't, however, if he had actually won the war, do you think we might actually look at things a bit differently?

And, if somebody had actually planted the evidence? How would they go about determining that? It still doesn't guarantee 100 percent accuracy.

Did you know that the theory of evolution is still a theory?

However, there's still a reason for everything, whether we understand it, misconstrue it or, otherwise.



No, actually I was implying one was rational and the other one wasn't, at least from the standpoint of appearance. And yet at the same time how do we know who the rational one really is? I'm not sure it's possible?

In other words you would like concrete proof, right? Yes, but what does the word self-evident mean?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Whatever, just as long as it is clear that they are separate and wholly independant entities.

No, I'm saying that faulty premises can lead to valid but faulty conclusions. "Right" and "Wrong" are value judgements that belong to Ethics, not Logic.
If TWD's premesis were different, he would probably come to different conclusions, but that's not important here. He might have really outstanding premesis, but use badly flawed logic, or not use logic at all, and come to horrible conclusions, as well.

It's still more accurate than relying on witness testimony, or the police officer's "intuition", or cirucmstance.

Um, yeah... Who was talking about evolution?

This is close to being one of your famous equivocations. If you mean "...there's still a (cause) for everything"- that's fairly accurate, if debatable in the broadest sense. In practice, on our scale, I'd agree with that. But if you intend "...there's still a (purpose) for everything", no, there is not.

"Appearance" has nothing to do with whether either of the Guys 1 or 2 is rational or not (unless you are equivocating again- (Consistent with or based on reason) vs. (of sound mind; sane), it is a question of whether the argument is consistant with the rules and precepts of logic. If either Guy followed the rules, (whatever value judgements anyone else may attach to his premises or conclutions), his argument is rational. If he did not, then his argument is irrational.

Well sure. Wouldn't you? I think the only persons who would not want irrefutable proof one way or another are the ones being actively fraudulent (it would be bad for business), and those afraid of giving up their pet delusions.

Quote:

self-evident \Self`-ev"i*dent\, a. Evident without proof or reasoning; producing certainty or conviction upon a bare presentation to the mind; as, a self-evident proposition or truth.

Saying that, let me point out that there are very VERY few propositions that are "self-evident". I cannot think of even ONE assertion right now that couldn't be challenged in some way. Even our most dearly held American self-evident truth- "...that all men are created equal"- has been under attack within our own country thoughout most of our history. To paraphrase Arthur McBride Bloch: "'Self-evident' is the place where you got tired of thinking."

Yes, I believe I have a fairly good grasp on this.

Truth is truth. Logic is merely a means by which to obtain it. Actually I had to correct this to say that you were implying right and wrong did exist, as that's what I intended to say, albeit I don't think it really changes what I said that much.

Reality is what you make of it.

However, it does very little to determine one's motive which, in many cases is equally important. This is where you enter the realm of the mind.

Just trying to bring up the idea that nothing is certain, according to Science.

Yes, there is a cause for everything, and purpose too if, you believe in God.

Sure it does, especially when it's based strictly upon empirical evidence. Why? Because you're not taking into account motive. Do you believe that our existence here is strictly arbitrary? If so, then there's no need to take into account motive. However, this is why you and I are not communicating very well, because you are unable to fathom my motives.

So, you really believe you're qualified to assess what's on another person's mind? You can speak all you want about what goes on in the real world but, that does not mean you know what's going on inside my head.

Is it self-evident to you that you exist? Think about it. Because if it wasn't, you would have no basis by which to accept anything. I don't know about you, but I base everything upon the fact that I exist.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Cool, just wanted to be sure we're on the same page here- just a little while ago you said "Actually here reason becomes the effect which is derived through the process", as if they were somehow merged.

"Right" and "wrong" exist as value judgements, not as entities in and of themselves. The same can be said of "good", "evil", "nice", "naughty", "sexy" or "pretty" or... well, you get the idea.
Philip K. Dick:
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
Okay, you are missing the point. We are not discussing criminology, but Reason. I was trying to illustrate the fact that logic is a tool, not a source of knowledge in and of itself. And there is nowhere "motive" is relevant in the process of logic.
While this statement is technically correct in an extreme interpretation, many scientific concepts are pretty darn certain- If only because they have been challenged many, many times and have held up. Newtonian physics, for one- and even this has been refined and changed over the centuries.
That's all fine and good, if that's what you want to believe. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with logic.
Explain to me then why "motive" has anything to do with logic, and in what way motive and appearance are at all related.
I certainly cannot fathom what you are getting at with all this "motive" stuff all of a sudden, do please explain.
As for your overall motives, I have three or four operating hypotheses running right now. That's pared down from an initial ten or so...
Well, I did say I think, not I know- and I was making a general statement, not to be applied particularly.


Well, sure I believe I exist, but not because it was "self-evident"- I think I shared with you in the other thread some of the evidence I have for my individual existance. And it is certainly subject to further challenge. But just because a proposition is open to challenge does not mean it cannot be succesfully defended.

I would put to you the idea that those propositions which most seem "self-evident" are exactly those that most need to be challenged.

However, reason can be both the proccess and the result, depending on what context you're using it in. By the way, did you know that Aristotle understood there was a reason for everything and, that this was his means of establishing the existence of God? This was something I found out after I started this little thread elsewhere, so it would seem I'm in good company anyway.

Actually right and wrong has more to do with timing than anything else, and so reflect the words of King Solomon ... "To every thing there is a season ..." ~ Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Is this in reference to when you die? If so, how could you possibly know? Only those who are still alive would know or, would they? Not so, if it's just a matter of belief.

However, motive can determine the difference between manslaughter and first-degree murder. So yes, you have to establish a means by which to determine what a person's motives are.

Or, let's say you were going to start a business deal with someone. Don't you think it would be a good idea to understand who you were getting involved with? If so, then how would you determine this?

Yes, and what happens when you die, and you stop believing in reality?

And this would be your logical assessment then right?

Because without motive things would happen arbitrarily and there would be nothing to determine our actions ... or, the action of anything else for that matter.

Well, I can describe the taste of that cheesecake all I want but, unless you've actually tasted it for yourself? ...

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who think they know ...

However, if you don't exist, then there's no sense in trying to interpret anything now is there? Can't you see that the key to existence here is cognizance?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?