Determinism

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Determinism

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:02 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:
For instance, and I may be wrong here, would the Japanese have bombed Pearl Harbor as it did if we had not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which in my book was also imfamous).
Do you mean retro-causation?

Like would Japan not have bombed Pearl Harbor if the US wouldn't have been going to Atom bomb Hiroshima and Nagosaki? The future event causing the past one?


I had never heard of retro-causation before. I googled it and it is more than kind of complicated reading for me. So, no, I did not really mean retro-causation.
I raised the question because I saw PH as the effect of the bombing of H and N though I may be wrong.
It boggles my mind to think that future event which have not yet occurred could influence and lead to events happening sometime in the past. I find that difficult to believe but I do wish to keep an open mind since it is a fascinating question albeit probably one which will never be answered. But it is sometimes the questions which really feed us....

The only place I believe that I have encountered such a thing is Star Trek, The Next Generation and that was quite fascinating.

Past events can cause future (present) events to occur but how does something which has not yet occurred send a ripple into the future? Can our intuitive/psychic minds stretch way into the future at times and determine and create it beforehand?

Fascinating but not much of an answer, right? 8-[
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15496
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:23 pm

"Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will"
Scientists think they can prove that free will is an illusion. Philosophers are urging them to think again.
Kerri Smith in Nature magazine.

The experiment helped to change John-Dylan Haynes's outlook on life. In 2007, Haynes, a neuroscientist at the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin, put people into a brain scanner in which a display screen flashed a succession of random letters. He told them to press a button with either their right or left index fingers whenever they felt the urge, and to remember the letter that was showing on the screen when they made the decision. The experiment used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to reveal brain activity in real time as the volunteers chose to use their right or left hands. The results were quite a surprise.


Forget the results for a moment.

What is of fundamental significance/importance to me here is that these folks are not just exploring/examining the determinism/free will debate in a world of words. Which is basically what you and I are engaged in here.

Instead, they are using sophisticated technology coupled with the scientific method to explore actual brains making actual choices.

And, I suspect, one day this sophisticated technology will be reduced down to a device that can be held in one's hand. That way decisions made in the course of actually interacting with others from day to day can be probed "in real time" to explore the extent to which the choices are more likely to be compelled than free.

Bottom line: Telling us here what you believe about the behaviors that you choose is not the same as demonstrating that what you believe proves that you either chose them of your own volition or were in fact not able to not choose them.

"The first thought we had was 'we have to check if this is real'," says Haynes. "We came up with more sanity checks than I've ever seen in any other study before."

The conscious decision to push the button was made about a second before the actual act, but the team discovered that a pattern of brain activity seemed to predict that decision by as many as seven seconds. Long before the subjects were even aware of making a choice, it seems, their brains had already decided.


Uh-oh?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31861
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:04 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:I raised the question because I saw PH as the effect of the bombing of H and N though I may be wrong.

Pearl Harbor: December 7, 1941

The United States detonated two nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively


That's why I asked you about retro-causation.

Pearl Harbor started the Pacific war between the Allies and Japan.
H and N ended it.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2191
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:15 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:I raised the question because I saw PH as the effect of the bombing of H and N though I may be wrong.

Pearl Harbor: December 7, 1941

The United States detonated two nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively


That's why I asked you about retro-causation.

Pearl Harbor started the Pacific war between the Allies and Japan.
H and N ended it.


Obviously, I do not need to say it but you are right of course. I have no idea what I was thinking unless I simply forgot the dates which I do know and realize that PH brought us into the war. Can I blame it on the extreme heat and humidity perhaps? :oops:
You were quick-minded to think of retro-causation but even then I didn't "get it". :oops:
Anyway, retro-causation is fascinating.
Last edited by Arcturus Descending on Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15496
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:16 pm

"Defending Free Will & The Self"
Frank S. Robinson in Philosophy Now magazine

The Selfish Illusion?

Dennett argued in his 1991 book Consciousness Explained that the common metaphor of your self as a captain at the helm of your mind is wrong: it’s really more like a gaggle of crewmen fighting over the wheel. In other words, there really isn’t a ‘self-contained’ self, but rather, a lot of neurons sparking all over the brain. They’re not acting with any intentions; but the effect of their interaction is that at any given moment one neuronal activity has shoved its way to the forefront of the neuronal processing. And that, says Dennett in Freedom Evolves, is how mental contents become conscious – “by winning the competitions against other mental contents for control of behavior.”


The difficulty most have with an assessment like this is rather obvious: It's one thing to describe what is going on in the brain figuratively and another thing altogether to note how step by step the chemical and neurological interactions involved in making a choice translate into a literal understanding of how the brain "I" and the mind "I" become intertwined from moment to moment such that the choice being made is clearly shown to be either volitional or compelled.

After all, it's not like "I" am inside my brain with a baton conducting this tangle of biological interactions to insure that the choice that I really and true want prevails. Thus "I" itself here remains no less enigmatic.

So what still makes you feel that there’s a you in there? Dennett would reply that asking this question echoes Cartesian dualism, which conceives of the ‘you’ as something in addition to all the brain and body activity. On the contrary, what you are, he asserts, “just is this organization of all the competitive activity between a host of competences that your body has developed” – which you ‘automatically’ know about because it’s your body.


Of course it may well be that what makes you feel is no less compelled than what makes you think. Just as the brain is autonomically intertwined with the rest of the body organs such that "I" merely goes along for the ride. You may be having a heart attack but it's not like you actually chose to. The body does its thing in so many ways that are beyond your control.

But: Do you have some measure of control in choosing to eat healthy foods and exercise and practice stress reduction techniques aimed at reducing the possibility of a heart attack? Is that an actual autonomous contribution of "I"?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31861
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Thu Aug 22, 2019 6:23 pm

The construction of the "I" is not a point of contention here, as the nerveous system manifests various parts corresponding to various functions. I don't think Dennett's definition makes much difference in terms of describing the functional derivitive.
Meaning, that primary derives such as hunger.are not determined by a unified nerveous system, there are various systems within the brain which are autonomous. The nutrition is regulated by the enteric nervous system.

The enteric nerveous system can make decisions , as it used to be part of the autonomic system. And the reactions are based on what is in the bowels. That is why they call it the 2nd brain. The gut feelings we get when making decisions are related to this systemic structure.

As such , the depleted chemicals in the body can direct systemic choices of nutrients

However this stage of physiological development have minimal connection to memory and subsequent learning, leaving that.to higher brain centered functions. This partiality of brain centers can not derive absolutely the function that neurons play in determining freedom of choice.
So although a neurological process may be partially responsible for determening conscious choices, there is problems with the idea of.defining 'conansciousness- thus, especially with the Ayer type of behaviorist model that literal explanations tend to cover.

That I think is a weakness with Dennett. That is entirely credible with a positivist model of.denoting nihilistic meaning structures.

Iambigious, this is not to say that such are complete and vigorous results either way.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5188
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Aug 22, 2019 8:11 pm

Meno_ wrote:The construction of the "I" is not a point of contention here, as the nerveous system manifests various parts corresponding to various functions. I don't think Dennett's definition makes much difference in terms of describing the functional derivitive.
Meaning, that primary derives such as hunger.are not determined by a unified nerveous system, there are various systems within the brain which are autonomous. The nutrition is regulated by the enteric nervous system.


Anyway, for some reason, this reminds me of a link that Satyr posted over at KT:

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-how ... wAR2CXYkJc

Imagine an octopus's "I" here!

Also, do octopuses themselves have free will?

This is why free-will is so incomprehensible to the average modern.
This and the lag time between interaction and awareness. The individual's automatic reactions make its lucid self - ego - think the decision is compelled by an external force.


Actually, I suspect the reason "free will" or "no free will" is "incomprehensible" to the modern --- in fact to our species down through the ages -- is that no one has been able yet to pin down a precise understanding of the human brain here.

Well, aside from all those hopelessly contradictory objectivists out there who insist that they have. You know, if only in a world of words.

Though, once again, he provides no actual context in which to demonstrate, "the lag time between interaction and awareness" between someone who is "one of us" and someone who is "one of them".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31861
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:03 pm

No argument there, of sub stance either.
However it's worth noting that among others , Marx and Engels sought to find an extrinsic source to adaptation, without the need for primary binomial logic.

That puts the idea.of a central repository of knowledge away from an authoritarian central one, yet admits the idea that : (and I will paraphrase as soon as I cam find the source)


"But if the further question is raised what thought and consciousness really are and where they come from, it becomes apparent that they are products of the human brain and that man himself is a product of nature, which has developed in and along with its environment; hence it is self-evident that the products of the human brain, being in the last analysis also products of nature, do not contradict the rest of nature's interconnections but are in correspondence with them" ( Anti-Dühring, Progress Publishers, page 48)."


This is a contention that really there is no argument

Again to quote,

"Dennett's opposition to what he calls the "Cartesian Theater" is at the center of his notion of consciousness. By debunking a "central interpreter," Dennett clears the way to understand the various functions of the brain from an evolutionary perspective. He approaches the brain, not as unique organ, but as a product of nature and history."
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5188
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:27 pm

Then the argument between some -'thing' and no - 'thing' reduces to an argument to whether adaptation to and through this neural-operative structure defies the dialectical materialism inherent in Feuerbach , Engels, and Marx?; and how determinative they are in terms of parallelism ? Dennett is certainly reductive in his neural substancive explanation, whereas the former can not impress non materiality on neural processes.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5188
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Aug 22, 2019 10:05 pm

Meno_ wrote: He approaches the brain, not as unique organ, but as a product of nature and history."

Are those mutually exclusive? I can't see any biologist or neuroscientist not thinking it was both. How does he not see it as a unique organ? It's the most complicated thing every encountered.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2191
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Thu Aug 22, 2019 10:42 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Meno_ wrote: He approaches the brain, not as unique organ, but as a product of nature and history."

Are those mutually exclusive? I can't see any biologist or neuroscientist not thinking it was both. How does he not see it as a unique organ? It's the most complicated thing every encountered.



They are usually not now and not since modern philosophy ceased to understand it as such. The dialectical materialists did as such. But traditionally they were mutually exclusive,
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5188
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Aug 22, 2019 10:51 pm

Meno_ wrote:They are usually not now and not since modern philosophy ceased to understand it as such. The dialectical materialists did as such. But traditionally they were mutually exclusive,
So, Dennett is a tradionalist?

I wonder about the motives of people who want us to think we are nothing special.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2191
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby promethean75 » Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:19 am

Actually, I suspect the reason "free will" or "no free will" is "incomprehensible" to the modern --- in fact to our species down through the ages -- is that no one has been able yet to pin down a precise understanding of the human brain here.


we could never empirically prove freewill or determinism because we cannot experience causality (see hume), but we can arrive at either conclusion through the use of reason alone... such that each thesis would be known, if its known, a priori. but when you examine the lines of reason followed in each theory, you quickly find significant problems with the theory of freewill, and not so much with determinism.

what might be making the matter difficult for you (if it really is and you're not being ironic) is the stuff written by those who are trying to defend freewill... and you aren't able to spot the how the arguments are either incorrect or just plain nonsense. a good example would be what you're reading over at KT written by satyr. this obscure notion that because all is in 'flux', and/or there is some degree of 'randomness' in events - and this is only perceptual condition, not a logical problem... that things happen which we don't 'expect' and can't ascribe causes to - such that the experiencer becomes... what did he say... 'an actual participant in causality' or something.

there is no substance in any of this kind of talk. what you're seeing is the resolve to defend the theory of freewill because believing in freewill is needed in order for him to justify to himself a great deal of his distress and anger toward various things and people. he needs to find 'fault' in something, or else he can't argue it's 'wrong'. but i don't want to make this a lecture in psychology.

getting back to the problem with freewill. you can reduce the theoretical problem to consequences resulting from a distinction made between immanent causality and transuent causality, and what that means, metaphysically. as sil and i had said in so many words months ago, in order for freewill to exist, there has to be an ontologically dualistic system of properties that cannot affect each other, but correspond nonetheless. so supposing immanent causation ('agent' causation) is correct, you now have the problem of explaining how these two properties interact.

moreover - and this is a different kind of problem - you'd have to explain what compels this second property to choose what and how it does. let's grant that immanent causation exists for a moment. wouldn't there also be an order to this process? what i mean is, say the world consists of these two properties; substance and mind (as descartes had it). substance exists and behaves according to its natural laws and causes, and mind exists and behaves according to its natural laws and causes. now even though substance cannot cause the mind to be or do a certain thing, the mind must still be ordered by some kind of causality.

spinoza's neutral monism is the best attempt to fix this cartesian problem that i've seen. he proposes the obvious; if ideas of the mind are always about things in the world, the order and connection of ideas must be the same as the order and connection of ideas. this is also reflected in wittgenstein's claim that logic reflects the structure and form of the world, as well as in some of kant's categories of reason. these dudes are basically saying that even if causation has no connection with 'mind', there is still an ordering of reason and nothing can be truly spontaneous or random.

from this ordering we can make the inference that neither mind nor matter is indeterminate. we may not be able to catch causality in the act, but we can logically deduce that it must exist. and even if we maintain the cartesian dualism - that there are two ontologically distinct substance existing together - we'd still not be able to say the freewill was an act of freewill, if you follow me.

nothing that exists is unconditioned and isolated from the forces around it, and so it's activity cannot be truly spontaneous... nothing can pull itself up by its own boot-straps and set itself in motion. even reba knows this.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Exuberant Teleportation » Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:52 am

Free Will is something we find when we detach, let go, perceive something of the more luminous waters ferried far away from truth. Truth is ugly. Truth is just what's possible. But that's wrong. Mind Power is what's possible. When we retreat from known activities, and call up the alien vortices of the spectacular, that's when worlds reveal a journey with a rich and supreme route to the random "booster pack" of infinite prizes and adventures everywhere.
RaptorWizard ~ The Gale Force Tyranny Cosmos viewtopic.php?f=10&t=195061
Secret Garden viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194124
Buddha Unleashed viewtopic.php?f=25&t=195208
Nihilus Harnesses Yoda Wisdom viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195214
Kazaam viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195203
I'm Lugia Prototype XD001 in Pokemon XD Gale of Darkness (Ultimate Weapon, Final Annihilator), the Star Forge Lugia firing AeroBlasts, surging with SuperHolographic Propylon antechamber Polarities, and the SuperUnknown mysteries of the Ruins of Alph in Pokemon Crystal. Wartortle wisdom with age turns Me from fool Meganium, to wise Lugia. Banette ghost doll makes Me Red with Pikachu, Sabrina. Saddle shaped cosmos grows 4ever Infin Champion with Red (Raptors (Red/Eagun) + Warriors (Gold/Infin). Existence is entirely Imaginary, and will never stop expanding and improving!
User avatar
Exuberant Teleportation
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1921
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:34 pm
Location: Caterpie Clair Clarity Anakin

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Fri Aug 23, 2019 1:15 am

Maybe what we are witnessing is not the licence to turn aphorism into a philosophical sense, but opposite , to turn such sense from it's absurd indications into the lyrically expressed absurdity of.it all.
Might as well distribute leaflets in all university philosophy departments to get rid of.philosophy altogether , as a course of.study.
Merely study Zizek as a.viable source.


https://youtu.be/CiPHEHldgLA
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5188
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:04 pm

promethean75 wrote:
Actually, I suspect the reason "free will" or "no free will" is "incomprehensible" to the modern --- in fact to our species down through the ages -- is that no one has been able yet to pin down a precise understanding of the human brain here.


we could never empirically prove freewill or determinism because we cannot experience causality (see hume), but we can arrive at either conclusion through the use of reason alone... such that each thesis would be known, if its known, a priori. but when you examine the lines of reason followed in each theory, you quickly find significant problems with the theory of freewill, and not so much with determinism.


Another assessment that is basically reduced down to a world of words that define and defend another bunch of words. In other words, just like mine. My point is always that none of us here seem to possess the wherewithal -- the scientific background say -- to actually demonstrate [empirically, experimentally, phenomenologically] that what we believe is true about determinism is in fact true. And, in that respect, you and I and Satyr are interchangeable.

And this in my view is basically what makes the matter difficult for all of us.

promethean75 wrote: getting back to the problem with freewill. you can reduce the theoretical problem to consequences resulting from a distinction made between immanent causality and transuent causality, and what that means, metaphysically. as sil and i had said in so many words months ago, in order for freewill to exist, there has to be an ontologically dualistic system of properties that cannot affect each other, but correspond nonetheless. so supposing immanent causation ('agent' causation) is correct, you now have the problem of explaining how these two properties interact.

moreover - and this is a different kind of problem - you'd have to explain what compels this second property to choose what and how it does. let's grant that immanent causation exists for a moment. wouldn't there also be an order to this process? what i mean is, say the world consists of these two properties; substance and mind (as descartes had it). substance exists and behaves according to its natural laws and causes, and mind exists and behaves according to its natural laws and causes. now even though substance cannot cause the mind to be or do a certain thing, the mind must still be ordered by some kind of causality.

spinoza's neutral monism is the best attempt to fix this cartesian problem that i've seen. he proposes the obvious; if ideas of the mind are always about things in the world, the order and connection of ideas must be the same as the order and connection of ideas. this is also reflected in wittgenstein's claim that logic reflects the structure and form of the world, as well as in some of kant's categories of reason. these dudes are basically saying that even if causation has no connection with 'mind', there is still an ordering of reason and nothing can be truly spontaneous or random.

from this ordering we can make the inference that neither mind nor matter is indeterminate. we may not be able to catch causality in the act, but we can logically deduce that it must exist. and even if we maintain the cartesian dualism - that there are two ontologically distinct substance existing together - we'd still not be able to say the freewill was an act of freewill, if you follow me.

nothing that exists is unconditioned and isolated from the forces around it, and so it's activity cannot be truly spontaneous... nothing can pull itself up by its own boot-straps and set itself in motion. even reba knows this.


Sure, maybe. And, sure, maybe not. But the reason many folks become vexed with me is that I suggest their own frame of mind is perhaps more in sync with "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" then they are willing to acknowledge. It is the being certain that matters to them more so than whatever it is they feel certain about. Either in the is/ought world, or out on the metaphysical limb regarding questions like this.

With some philosophers, it is all about what they think they can lasso, and then hogtie, and then pin to the ground...with language itself. Wisdom corralled scholastically [even pedantically] and then put on display here in one or another "general description" that, when situated out in the world of actual human interactions, quickly becomes entangled in all of the countless variables that ceaselessly come at us from all directions.

Unless of course I'm wrong. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31861
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:12 pm

Exuberant Teleportation wrote:Free Will is something we find when we detach, let go, perceive something of the more luminous waters ferried far away from truth. Truth is ugly. Truth is just what's possible. But that's wrong. Mind Power is what's possible. When we retreat from known activities, and call up the alien vortices of the spectacular, that's when worlds reveal a journey with a rich and supreme route to the random "booster pack" of infinite prizes and adventures everywhere.


Here, see what I mean?

This part:

With some philosophers, it is all about what they think they can lasso, and then hogtie, and then pin to the ground...with language itself. Wisdom corralled scholastically [even pedantically] and then put on display here in one or another "general description" that, when situated out in the world of actual human interactions, quickly becomes entangled in all of the countless variables that ceaselessly come at us from all directions.

What particular truth, in what particular context? And how would we go about determining if this truth [like our individual perceptions of it] reflects our capacity to freely grasp it [and defend it] or is only subsumed [like everything else] in the laws of nature unfolding only as they ever do, can, must?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31861
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby promethean75 » Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:29 am

My point is always that none of us here seem to possess the wherewithal -- the scientific background say -- to actually demonstrate [empirically, experimentally, phenomenologically] that what we believe is true about determinism is in fact true.


what i'm trying to tell ya is that even if determinism is false, the alternative, what we call 'freewill', isn't 'free' either. and being that there is no third alternative here to consider, we have to concede some kind of determinism.

even if mind were free from physical causation, it's contents, its subject, is structured and ordered in the same way physical things in the world are... so that this ordering reflects and gives rise to the mental qualia we call 'thoughts' (inaudible language).

for a mental event such as this to be truly free, it would have to arise without having as its subject matter an idea which is of something in the world. but if this is the case, the mental event has no content. it is about nothing. see how that works?

and what i'm saying is nothing original, either. i'm explaining in a different way what spinoza has already said... which was essentially the end of the debate.

you and I and Satyr are interchangeable.


don't you dare insult yourself an satyr like that!

And this in my view is basically what makes the matter difficult for all of us.


wuddint difficult for me. easy peasy, man. much easier than rocket science (thank goodness. i have trouble launching my own browser... much less a rocket)

But the reason many folks become vexed with me is that I suggest their own frame of mind is perhaps more in sync with "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" then they are willing to acknowledge. It is the being certain that matters to them more so than whatever it is they feel certain about. Either in the is/ought world, or out on the metaphysical limb regarding questions like this.


that's because as moralists their heads are filled with spooks. they aren't only concerned with what is effective, advantageous, beneficial and useful, but also with what is 'right'. this is a struggle i don't contend with, fortunately, so i can't relate to such difficulty.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Exuberant Teleportation » Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:35 am

iambiguous wrote:
Exuberant Teleportation wrote:Free Will is something we find when we detach, let go, perceive something of the more luminous waters ferried far away from truth. Truth is ugly. Truth is just what's possible. But that's wrong. Mind Power is what's possible. When we retreat from known activities, and call up the alien vortices of the spectacular, that's when worlds reveal a journey with a rich and supreme route to the random "booster pack" of infinite prizes and adventures everywhere.


Here, see what I mean?

This part:

With some philosophers, it is all about what they think they can lasso, and then hogtie, and then pin to the ground...with language itself. Wisdom corralled scholastically [even pedantically] and then put on display here in one or another "general description" that, when situated out in the world of actual human interactions, quickly becomes entangled in all of the countless variables that ceaselessly come at us from all directions.

What particular truth, in what particular context? And how would we go about determining if this truth [like our individual perceptions of it] reflects our capacity to freely grasp it [and defend it] or is only subsumed [like everything else] in the laws of nature unfolding only as they ever do, can, must?


With all of the causes, triggers, mechanisms, and random portals that open up everywhere on the battlefield, it must appear to be frenzied, seeing how far wide sweeping and overdriving the potentialities become. And language gives us the blueprint for laying down the battle plans for ideas, to take shape, skyrocket, reinvent, and radically redefine reality.

The truth is in the observable terrain that we live in, the so called empirical view of open endedness everywhere. But I dare say that looking too much for observation for the answers may neglect the powers of our introspection to find more of this Free Will. Spinoza thought that Reason is the rule, that by being determined into action by a knowledge of our virtues, the effects, and with Reason determining us into action rather than external stimuli, that we become more free, that we are a self willed cause, and closer to the Ultimate Free Will that is God's Free Will.

I developed a little box before about these Spinozist "Virtues". Here they are:

Exuberant Teleportation wrote:What are the Highest Virtues?
Perception, Focus, Valor, Strength, Drama, Farfetched, Shattering the Mountaintop, Order, Extremity, Free Will, Imagination, Power of Forever, Prophecy, Omnipotence, Frenzy, Purity, Vision, Moving Mountains, Faith, Hope, Polarity, Transformation, Force, Love, Tempest, Shooting Arrows at Stars, Exuberance, Wisdom, Heart, Soul, Harmony, Beauty, Higher Mysteries, Spellbinding Secrets, Wish, Questions, Cosmic Consciousness
RaptorWizard ~ The Gale Force Tyranny Cosmos viewtopic.php?f=10&t=195061
Secret Garden viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194124
Buddha Unleashed viewtopic.php?f=25&t=195208
Nihilus Harnesses Yoda Wisdom viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195214
Kazaam viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195203
I'm Lugia Prototype XD001 in Pokemon XD Gale of Darkness (Ultimate Weapon, Final Annihilator), the Star Forge Lugia firing AeroBlasts, surging with SuperHolographic Propylon antechamber Polarities, and the SuperUnknown mysteries of the Ruins of Alph in Pokemon Crystal. Wartortle wisdom with age turns Me from fool Meganium, to wise Lugia. Banette ghost doll makes Me Red with Pikachu, Sabrina. Saddle shaped cosmos grows 4ever Infin Champion with Red (Raptors (Red/Eagun) + Warriors (Gold/Infin). Existence is entirely Imaginary, and will never stop expanding and improving!
User avatar
Exuberant Teleportation
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1921
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:34 pm
Location: Caterpie Clair Clarity Anakin

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:11 pm

promethean75 wrote:
My point is always that none of us here seem to possess the wherewithal -- the scientific background say -- to actually demonstrate [empirically, experimentally, phenomenologically] that what we believe is true about determinism is in fact true.


what i'm trying to tell ya is that even if determinism is false, the alternative, what we call 'freewill', isn't 'free' either. and being that there is no third alternative here to consider, we have to concede some kind of determinism.


Okay, but what I always aim to do is to reconfigure intellectual contraptions of this sort into more specific descriptions of the actual choices that we make. Here it's me typing these words and you reading them. How would your point above be applicable to this?

And [of course] in regard to human interactions in the is/ought world, even assuming some measure of free will, "I" [to me] is always constrained [shaped and molded] by the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

promethean75 wrote: even if mind were free from physical causation, it's contents, its subject, is structured and ordered in the same way physical things in the world are... so that this ordering reflects and gives rise to the mental qualia we call 'thoughts' (inaudible language).


Or what I call "existential contraptions" in regard to particular aspects of particular sets of circumstances.

promethean75 wrote: for a mental event such as this to be truly free, it would have to arise without having as its subject matter an idea which is of something in the world. but if this is the case, the mental event has no content. it is about nothing. see how that works?


Nope. Cite an example of now "for all practical purposes" this is applicable to a choice/"choice" that you made today.



you and I and Satyr are interchangeable.


promethean75 wrote: don't you dare insult yourself an satyr like that!


I'm sorry but in regard to the point I raised above, we all are. Just as when the Godfather's opine about "birth, school, work, death" they are including all of us in turn. No getting around the things that "the human all too human condition" dump on all of us. If only from the cradle to the grave.

But the reason many folks become vexed with me is that I suggest their own frame of mind is perhaps more in sync with "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" then they are willing to acknowledge. It is the being certain that matters to them more so than whatever it is they feel certain about. Either in the is/ought world, or out on the metaphysical limb regarding questions like this.


promethean75 wrote: that's because as moralists their heads are filled with spooks. they aren't only concerned with what is effective, advantageous, beneficial and useful, but also with what is 'right'. this is a struggle i don't contend with, fortunately, so i can't relate to such difficulty.


On the other hand, if my own thinking about determinism "here and now" comes closer to what is actually true, it's not like they could ever have done otherwise.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31861
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:24 pm

I ask for this:

iambiguous wrote:What particular truth, in what particular context? And how would we go about determining if this truth [like our individual perceptions of it] reflects our capacity to freely grasp it [and defend it] or is only subsumed [like everything else] in the laws of nature unfolding only as they ever do, can, must?


And you give me yet another one of these:

Exuberant Teleportation wrote:With all of the causes, triggers, mechanisms, and random portals that open up everywhere on the battlefield, it must appear to be frenzied, seeing how far wide sweeping and overdriving the potentialities become. And language gives us the blueprint for laying down the battle plans for ideas, to take shape, skyrocket, reinvent, and radically redefine reality.

The truth is in the observable terrain that we live in, the so called empirical view of open endedness everywhere. But I dare say that looking too much for observation for the answers may neglect the powers of our introspection to find more of this Free Will. Spinoza thought that Reason is the rule, that by being determined into action by a knowledge of our virtues, the effects, and with Reason determining us into action rather than external stimuli, that we become more free, that we are a self willed cause, and closer to the Ultimate Free Will that is God's Free Will.


Of course, in my view, this is where you are most comfortable: up in the clouds of abstraction.

Again: you are reading these words.

How would you reconfigure your own [and Spinoza's] "general description" analysis above into an actual empirical demonstration that you are reading them of your own free will rather than being compelled by the laws of nature to think, feel, say and do only that which your brain [as matter] is in turn compelled to sustain from day to day.

You know, like in your dreams.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31861
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby promethean75 » Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:50 am

Okay, but what I always aim to do is to reconfigure intellectual contraptions of this sort into more specific descriptions of the actual choices that we make. How would your point above be applicable to this?


oh i can't do that. you're shit out of luck in that respect. a brief metaphysical argument against the existence of freewill neither changes the experience of choice or the choice itself, and it sure as shit doesn't provide any guidance or advice. that's a subject for ethics, not metaphysics. all this does is state for the record that there is no freewill. philosophers do different things with that fact, but whatever they do, they still experience every choice as if it were free... and everything that comes with that, i.e., culpability, responsibility, what have you.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Exuberant Teleportation » Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:31 am

iambiguous wrote:I ask for this:

iambiguous wrote:What particular truth, in what particular context? And how would we go about determining if this truth [like our individual perceptions of it] reflects our capacity to freely grasp it [and defend it] or is only subsumed [like everything else] in the laws of nature unfolding only as they ever do, can, must?


And you give me yet another one of these:

Exuberant Teleportation wrote:With all of the causes, triggers, mechanisms, and random portals that open up everywhere on the battlefield, it must appear to be frenzied, seeing how far wide sweeping and overdriving the potentialities become. And language gives us the blueprint for laying down the battle plans for ideas, to take shape, skyrocket, reinvent, and radically redefine reality.

The truth is in the observable terrain that we live in, the so called empirical view of open endedness everywhere. But I dare say that looking too much for observation for the answers may neglect the powers of our introspection to find more of this Free Will. Spinoza thought that Reason is the rule, that by being determined into action by a knowledge of our virtues, the effects, and with Reason determining us into action rather than external stimuli, that we become more free, that we are a self willed cause, and closer to the Ultimate Free Will that is God's Free Will.


Of course, in my view, this is where you are most comfortable: up in the clouds of abstraction.

Again: you are reading these words.

How would you reconfigure your own [and Spinoza's] "general description" analysis above into an actual empirical demonstration that you are reading them of your own free will rather than being compelled by the laws of nature to think, feel, say and do only that which your brain [as matter] is in turn compelled to sustain from day to day.

You know, like in your dreams.


Matter transforms into energy, and we are evanescent, outstanding, beautiful creatures, of marvelous construction and design.

There's something out there called "dark matter-energy". We can feel its presence, but it can't be directly penetrated. Who's to say that there really isn't a God consciousness system floating over our heads that can point and direct us to make miracles happen?

As logical and scientific you get about the forces moving us around, a small act of courage can move mountains.

You know, like when I was dreaming I could fly in Fairytopia.
RaptorWizard ~ The Gale Force Tyranny Cosmos viewtopic.php?f=10&t=195061
Secret Garden viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194124
Buddha Unleashed viewtopic.php?f=25&t=195208
Nihilus Harnesses Yoda Wisdom viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195214
Kazaam viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195203
I'm Lugia Prototype XD001 in Pokemon XD Gale of Darkness (Ultimate Weapon, Final Annihilator), the Star Forge Lugia firing AeroBlasts, surging with SuperHolographic Propylon antechamber Polarities, and the SuperUnknown mysteries of the Ruins of Alph in Pokemon Crystal. Wartortle wisdom with age turns Me from fool Meganium, to wise Lugia. Banette ghost doll makes Me Red with Pikachu, Sabrina. Saddle shaped cosmos grows 4ever Infin Champion with Red (Raptors (Red/Eagun) + Warriors (Gold/Infin). Existence is entirely Imaginary, and will never stop expanding and improving!
User avatar
Exuberant Teleportation
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1921
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:34 pm
Location: Caterpie Clair Clarity Anakin

Re: Determinism

Postby promethean75 » Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:26 pm

i think biggs is asking for an example in real life, not a video game.

unless, of course, i'm wrong.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:32 pm

promethean75 wrote:
Okay, but what I always aim to do is to reconfigure intellectual contraptions of this sort into more specific descriptions of the actual choices that we make. How would your point above be applicable to this?


oh i can't do that. you're shit out of luck in that respect. a brief metaphysical argument against the existence of freewill neither changes the experience of choice or the choice itself, and it sure as shit doesn't provide any guidance or advice. that's a subject for ethics, not metaphysics. all this does is state for the record that there is no freewill. philosophers do different things with that fact, but whatever they do, they still experience every choice as if it were free... and everything that comes with that, i.e., culpability, responsibility, what have you.


Okay, that works for you. It doesn't work for me. Human interactions unfolded on planet earth long before philosophers came along. And they are still unfolding apace long after. And while some philosophers might think it advisable to break the discipline down into such components as logic and epistemology and philology and ethics and metaphysics, etc., it doesn't change the fact that one way or another everything gets intertwined in the actual choices that we make in interacting with others from day to day.

So, my kind of philosopher never forgets that. And, however clearly futile that is given the yawning gap between "I" and "all there is" , he or she at least makes the attempt to somehow intertwine the essential and the existential.

This thread merely offers speculations regarding whether or not these attempts themselves "are beyond our control". Naturally as it were.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31861
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Meno_, Peter Kropotkin