The main thread, the unresolved conflict between such protagonists as on the one hand Bohr and on the other Einstein is relevant to understanding where “postmodernism” has gotten us. The matter that was brought to a head is the false distinction between epistemology and ontology. Uncertainty and Relativity are both solutions to the conflation of units of knowledge with units of ‘real matter’. Both are the same; but man has used god to think they are discretely separated.
For example, as far as evidence supports, the Higgs Boson, rather than a physical particle of sorts, is merely a set of external circumstances that brings together other elements under the principle of logic. But I mean a logic that involves the thinker. This hasnt penetrated into science yet; that we do not only need to take into account the observer, but also the conceptualizer.
Kant tried to tackle this but didnt know enough yet. Science had allowed philosophy to take the throne now, needs it to, but people are stupid and not really worth it on the whole at this time; this is the conundrum. We could step up, but why would we? Life is good enough to anyone who understands this living logic; its too horrendous to work too seriously with those who suffer of its lack.
I misquoted? What are you talking about? I posted his words as written. My comments are mine, not “misquotes”.
He made statements, assertions? He did indeed. But look at his list and make some observations.
Anything that does not affect does not exist. Sooo… I can say that anything of which I am unaware does not exist. Existence = awareness, Awareness = existence. I cannot know if there are things that might be affectors if I am unaware of those possible things. They don’t exist.
2 & 3. I’ve already said that cause-effect can and does occur inside personal experience. That does not prove universal determinism.
Causation is determination… Who says? An affect may lead to any number of random effects - none of which proves over-riding determination. False equivalency anyone?
Existence is determination… The big jump predicated on metaphysical well wishing. I don’t live in that world.
Your final comments need clarification for us unschooled people.
The reason I don’t like determinism is because 1) it is counter-intuitive and 2) it is used by people to justify irresponsibility.
It’s pretty clear to me that I have power over my instincts. I am not controlled by my instincts. I am controlled by them only if I let myself be controlled by them.
When people say that everything is determined it appears that they are saying that everything is instinct and nothing beside instinct.
People who have no control over themselves (= their instincts) often use determinism to defend themselves.
In fact, whenever there was a discussion on free will vs. determinism those who were on the side of determinism were almost always those who were dominated by instinct.
It’s not possible to do anything you want, but it is possible to offer resistance to your instincts.
Deep-seated hatred of restraint is very popular nowadays. It is very popular among slaves in general. (That’s precisely what makes one a slave.)
Yes, everything that happened “must have” happened that way and everything that will happen “must happen” that way. That’s banal.
Irresponsible people do what they do because they are irresponsible people. Don’t you see how banal that is?
The question is: what makes an irresponsible person irresponsible? That’s the relevant question.
And the answer is: the fact that they do not offer resistance to their instincts.
Resistance is a choice, but it’s outcome is not (it is uncertain.) This is because the outcome of resistance depends not only on what you do but also on what the rest of the universe does.
Oh. No disrespect but that’s just balderdash. While you’re perusing the SEP, which is easily the best comprehensive source available online, look for some arguments that don’t rely on the PSR.
Now you have misquoted. FC was merely thinking a little ahead of you.
I said nothing of your mere lack of awareness, but rather: “absolutely no affect upon anything”. And repeated it several times.
Nor disprove it. And seemed an irrelevant concern.
False dichotomy strawman, anyone?
You choose to compare “an affect” to “over-riding determination”. I said nothing of a single cause proving the universe to be predetermined. How do you distinguish causality from determination? To whatever extent one applies, so does the other. They are the same thing.
And what specifically about PSR is “balderdash”? I assume you can explain your critique rather than merely stating that it exists.
Also, I replied in elaborate fashion to your other question, when you asked me to explain my reasoning for the idea of predetermination. Any comments on that?
Edit: what I find interesting is that for people who deny deterministic causality, I’ve never seen one of them be able to argue for non-determination, never seen them construct a rational defense of the idea of “uncausality”. Why would you need to construct such a defense? Because you are systematically rejecting the idea that everything has causes and that those causes determine the thing itself; if you reject that then the only option left, outside of the idea of causality, is the idea of “uncausality” that sometimes things just happen for literally no reason at all, things in Spinoza’s parlance for which it cannot be asked “what were its reasons?”.
If you believe that sometimes things happen without cause then you’re left to explain and defend this idea of uncausation, but… neither you or anyone else can do that. Why? Because to construct an argument, any argument at all, to even engage in philosophy at any level whatsoever requires you to form causal links between premises and conclusions, to establish causal relationships between and within ideas.
The reason you and no one else could ever form an argument for uncausality is because you would necessarily be required to employ causation in the very argument itself, thus refuting your own conclusion in your premises.
I suppose you could use Hume’s argument that “well we can think about a thing separately from thinking about its causes, therefore… causality isn’t necessarily connected to things!” … yeah, but that’s fucking moronic.
The PSR (aka “Causality”) is a fundamental ontological construct for rational thought. If causality is removed, if it is accepted that things happen by no cause at all, no thinking nor observation is useful. No perception can be trusted. No logic can be established. No thought is valid. And that includes the thought that there is no Causality.
James, you’re running in circles. It is true that you didn’t make a case for universal determinism. Uhhh… wait a minute.
" If something has absolutely no affect upon anything, it does not exist " (direct quote)
and then…
" Existence IS Causation " (direct quote)
followed by…
" Existence IS Determination. " (direct quote)
Since the universe exists, any assertion that existence is determination is a blanket statement. Whether stated directly or simply implied, there is no other logical conclusion - unless there are caveats and descriptions not posted here. You may be right, or you may be wrong. Only in a metaphysical world can such declarative statements be made.
The truth of the matter is that despite your assertions, you don’t know. Neither do I or anyone else. Sometimes, wisdom is acknowledging our ignorance and saying “I don’t know.”
And why did you leave out the connecting step, “Causation is Determination”?
The conclusion is that the universe/existence is determination itself. The initial premise that leads to that conclusion is that affect is required for anything to be considered existent (that is “affect upon anything”, not merely your awareness of it).
Isn’t that the point?
The “metaphysical world” is merely the world of thought. ANY truth is a metaphysical issue.
Isn’t it fair to equally say that You do not know that I do not know? I provided the reasoning for my assertions and conclusions. You are making a blatant assertion without evidence or logical support.
Shouldn’t you try to find an error in the logic and let the reasoning lead you to a conclusion rather than insist on something while disregarding the reasoning?
“Shouldn’t you try to find an error in the logic and let the reasoning lead you to a conclusion rather than insist on something while disregarding the reasoning?”
Why should I? It would be a waste of time. If all is pre-determined, then this thread, this website, the internet, indeed, everything that “exists” is happening according to plan - right back to first cause. If you’re right, then I just need to grab a beer, kick back, and let the determined world have it’s way. If you’re right, that’s what is happening even as I bang away on this keyboard. Determination relieves me, you, and everyone else from having to think about anything. It’s all been done for us. Determination isn’t the foundation of thinking. It is the death of thinking.
You evaluate a situation and select an available action. It is the same in a world of free will and a world of determinism. In neither world, do you stop thinking or stop choosing. (Unless you choose to stop thinking. You can never stop choosing. Like the song says … even when you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.)
Lol… you old guard are pussies. I gotta say, James still owns this segment of philosophy. Definitional Logic as he used to call it is absolutely pertinent to solving this epistemic mess weve been in since… Plato?
Wyld, James and I are at least aware that in order to determine whether or not a word applies to a context, we have to decide what we think the word means. Precisely and sufficiently.
The rest just stumbles around uttering the word “cause” as a cough, without any cognitive syntax managing to make itself evident.
There are many people who have argued for non-determination in the past. They just don’t call it non-determination. They call it indeterminism.
The idea is that causality only exists inside of our minds and that what exists in reality, outside of our minds, is causa sui (= self-caused events.)
Causality is quite simply biologically assimilated uncausality.
It is our Will Force, and not reality, that presents us with causes-and-effects.
Life is a biological phenomenon, not merely logical phenomenon (the way people such as James S. Saint think.)
You are arguing that this position is self-refuting, but it is not. That’s merely circular reasoning on your part.
Eastablishing causal relationships between and within ideas is not a refutation because this entire process takes place within our bodies and not outside of them.
The argument is that there is no causation OUTSIDE OF OUR BODIES. There is still causation, but only within our bodies.
This boils down to the question of what is the product of our own effort (internal reality) and what is not the product of our own effort (external reality.)
We create causality. What we do not create is uncausality.
Three-dimensional space with its physical laws is not external reality. It is internal. We created it through assimilation.
The only contact with the external is through our sense of dissonance.
Biology isn’t logic. When someone hits you in the head, you feel pain. That’s not logic. That’s just biology. When someone hurts your feelings, you feel pain. That’s not logic. That’s just part of biology we call psychology.
The universe is not determination. It’s the opposite. The universe actually resists determination.
Life is determination.
This is why it is correct to say that we are self-determined. But one must not confuse self-determination with what New Age gurus call self-determination. What they call self-determination is no self-determination at all.
Self-determination does not mean “closing your eyes and making a wish”.
You are not determining yourself when you surrender to instinct (what New Age gurus recommend.) Quite the opposite in fact. You become fragmented as you distract yourself from what you should be paying attention to by paying attention to something else.
“A” must be true. “B” is true only if James is widening the common understanding of “cause” as merely synonymous with “affect”. “C”, “D” & “E” strike me as unnecessarily poetic. They are unassessable statements. This is my problem with determinism - it is unassessable.
Well, I’d say there’s no such thing as existence, anyway. So surely there’s no such thing as any particular thing which is said to exist. But I guess you’ll just have to intuit what I mean by that!