On 6/15/2013 12:40 AM, chris peck wrote:
As you have described them a materialist could not be a "combination of both"
rationalism and empiricism, because you have them as diametrically opposed. If "reason
alone" is the source of knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be combined to be.
Besides, Materialism is an ontological theory and doesn't give much of a hoot about how
knowledge is aquired.
More to the point neither rationalism nor empiricism are branches of intuitionism. The
moment of inspiration Penrose attributes to the mind connecting with a realm of ideas is
neither an act of reason nor sensory experience. Moreover, If logic is to be "deductive"
then, by definition, conclusions must never follow from unexplainable leaps of intuition.
Where does the persuasive power of logic come from? Why do you believe, "Either X or
not-X" is true? Is it not a matter of intuition? Isn't logic just an attempt to
formalize intuitive reasoning.
If they do they have not been logically deduced, have they? And infact that is Penrose's
point : leaps of intuition can not be modelled computationally. logic, ofcourse, can be.
since, allegedly, minds can grope for and master facts beyond the scope of deduction,
they must be qualitatively different from computer programs which can only deduce things
You really seem to have things back to front in this post.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.