Something Instead of Nothing

Okay, but unlike the matter in rocks and water, the matter in the human mind has somehow become aware that the brain is composed of all the elements that make up matter in turn. But put together in a way that appears to be qualitatively different than the matter in rocks and water.

How then to explain the difference?

Even if this is entirely true, it doesn’t explain why this set of rules and not another. Or demonstrate that the rules that exist either do or do not permit human minds to choose with some measure of autonomy.

And it doesn’t encompass the optimal or the only rational manner in which to grasp our “nature” going all the way back to the “nature” of existence itself.

Basically your argument [to me] is just another bunch of words defining and defending another bunch of worlds in “general desription” intellectual contraptions that resolve nothing relating to the conflicting points of view that inundate actual human interactions out in particular contexts.

You’re the one who brought it up.

And then this part:

[b]Let’s consider a hypothetical I raised with Gib…

Imagine that earth is in a part of the universe where everything – everything – is wholly determined by the laws of matter. Aliens from a part of the universe where autonomy prevails note the option that I chose. They are freely debating among themselves whether that was the right thing to do while pointing out that in making the choice myself, I was never really “metaphysically” able to choose other than what I did. But: my brain/mind has deluded me into thinking that “psychologically” I freely chose either 1 or 2.[/b]

Would they not note in turn that the question you posed to me and the manner in which I chose to answer was only ever as it could have been down on a planet existing in a part of the universe in which everything – everything – unfolds only as it ever could have.

Well, in a wholly determined universe, the minimum requirement would seem to the existence of matter able to delude itself that it is freely choosing among various options. Or matter having evolved into human brains actually able to precipitate a human consciousness that has somehow acquired the capacity to choose of it’s own volition.

Now, who among us here is able to demonstrate that it is unequivocally one rather than the other?

Given options from who or what? God? Nature? Our own minds?

Is this a characteristic I freely chose to embody, or is the entirety of my character a material, physical, phenomenal mechanism wholly in sync with the laws of matter?

I don’t know. But you seem to think that you do. But you have no way [beyond a world of words in my view] in which to demonstrate it.

Or, rather, nothing that has so far convinced me.

Some would choose to do so, most would not. Why? How do we determine the extent to which, in an autonomous world, such choices are not embedded [as I believe] in the existential contraption that is dasein? And how do I determine that the choice to bring this up was or was not the only choice that I was ever able to make?

Back to the autonomous aliens. What would they suggest?

Indeed, how are the philosophical tools that we call logic and knowledge applicable in discussions such as this?

Abstract. Scholastic. No practical value.

Nobody knows how or why it “exploded into existence”.

Why would I keep talking about it after I have made that statement? What could I possibly say that is meaningful?

Sure, I could say that “God did it” and that’s my model of the universe. I could say that “it just happened out of nothing” and that’s my model. Or “it always existed and it self-organized” and that’s my model.

That’s my answer. It’s as settled as it can be. What else?

Next.

But I don’t give a shit about demonstrating anything to anyone.

I’m not preaching anything.

Determinism and free will are irrelevant to me. Those labels are worthless. I have to make exactly the same decisions in exactly the same way whether I have free will or not.

Here we go again. As with Mr Reasonable, Jacob will pop up occasionally on a thread like this to warn others about me.

Of course he doesn’t actually respond substantively to the points that I raise. Instead the entirety of his point is clearly to make me the point.

Then he commenses to huff and puff about all the terrible things he has discovered about me. He offers no actual instances of this in the posts that I contribute here. He simply knows this to be true.

I can only speculate about his motive. All I know is that over the years any number of objectivists of his ilk have felt duty bound to thump me. Call it say the Satyr Syndrome.

But I suspect that even they are not fully aware of how this propensity is derived largely from the fact that bit by bit I am deconstructing their own precious [b]I[/b].

The more they imagine themselves as “I” instead, the less solid ground they have to stand on. They have invested so much in their own particular objective narrative that it truly disturbs them how the points I raise may well be applicable to them too.

Unless of course I’m wrong. But how on earth could I [or anyone] ever possibly know that beyond all doubt?

Then it’s back to this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Unless of course I’m wrong about that too.

Well, in regard to grappling with that which brought into existence the existence of existence itself, how can we not be but abstract or scholastic? I mean, it’s not like we can go to youtube and watch videos of existence coming into existence while scientists, philosophers and theologians discuss and debate the meaning of it.

Yeah, that’s kind of my point. But: If nobody knows why or how existence itself came to be, what are the odds that they understand the nature of our own existence here and now?

Aren’t we all in the same boat here? We continue to discuss and debate the meaning of things that appear to be beyond our reach. But, then, what else is there? We are among the few inhabitants on planet earth who frequent venues such as this. We can’t get these “big questions” out of our head and then, somehow, existentially, we become more and more drawn to them. Doing the best that we can to “think them through”.

Then it’s back to André Gide: "Trust those who seek the truth but doubt those who say they have found it.”

That’s where we are always stuck with questions this big.

But the focus of late on this thread is the extent to which, in regard to the model that we do choose here, was it ever really within our capaicty not to choose it?

Here even my own “existential contraption” – “I” – is merely another cluster of dominoes toppling over only as they ever could have.

That’s not the point of course. Instead, the point [mine] revolves around whether you do have to make exactly the same decisions in exactly the same way.

And if you have no interest in demonstrating what you think you know and believe, you may well have never been able to acquire that interest. But if it is is within your capacity to have or not have an interest in particular things, if you don’t give a shit about demonstrating what you believe or know is true then you are basically arguing that what anyone thinks they believe or know is as far as it need go.

Instead, I am more in sync with the idea that given human autonomy all we have is our capacity to demonstrate that what we think we know or believe in our head all rational men and women are obligated to believe and know in turn.

Then I segue here from the either/or world to the is/ought world.

What?
You’re constantly telling people to bring abstractions “down to earth”. You just did it in the last post: "Which is why I always suggest that we bring these abstractions “down to earth”.

So what were you asking for if it can’t be done, by your own admission? #-o

You don’t need to understand “how existence came to be”. You can understand lots of things about your own existence and the existence of other people, animals, plants and objects without that particular knowledge. It’s not essential for living.

You continue to repeat the same stuff. Calling it “discussion” is a stretch.

Round and round you go …never getting anywhere.
If people want to do that with you, it’s up to them.

But notice how many of your discussion partners turn away with frustration and disgust.

You ask the same question over and over.

Show of hands … how many posters here are interested in this point or bothered by it?

I think that’s true … I can’t make anyone believe what he doesn’t want to believe. I can’t make him want to know more. He has to be motivated. He has to have an interest. He has to want more knowledge. He has to want to change.

I can’t teach someone who does not want to learn.

Yeah. So you say. (It doesn’t make any sense for a nihilist to talk about “obligations”. But whatever.)

Note to God:

Smite him!!! :banana-linedance:

If the universe ends in a big freeze, there may as well be nothing.

https://www.universetoday.com/36917/big-freeze/

Why do you ask a question to which the answer is located in the next paragraph of my post?

Well evolution attempts to explain why these systems and not other systems came into being… as for your concept of autonomy, as you have presented it, seems to be logically impossible outside of solipsism…

You see, we need to define our terms and stick with those definitions in order to have a productive conversation… I need to understand what it is you are saying to me and you need to understand what I am saying to you.
If you say 2+2=3 the first thing I’d ask you is how you define those terms.
if you say “…” I count 3 periods in the quoted section then I can see how you got your results, but you and I seem to have a different understanding of what that symbol means.

When you say “there can be no choice/autonomy in a deterministic universe” I have to check to see if those words means something different to you before we can argue about whether you added things up wrong or not.

No one can demonstrate anything unequivocally… so that’s a silly question to hinge this on.

We could however examine the logical consistency of such perspectives as well as the practical value of said definitions.

You, for example, seem to have defined autonomy in such a way that it is made LOGICALLY impossible outside of solipsism…
what value is there in such a definition? what use does that have?

I am not attempting to convince you… I’m attempting to make sense.
If you refuse to be reasonable or refuse to apply a charitable interpretation to what I say by ignoring the context in which it was said, for example, I’m perfectly happy to leave you unconvinced.

If they cannot be brought to bear, that marks the end of our conversation…

Edit:
It occurs to me that I did not provide an explanation as to why I say your definition is only logically possible given solipsism.

It’s quite simply this:
If autonomy means to choose your own character, then there is no character to the thing that chooses, which means it cannot be defined, if it cannot be defined it has no borders, if it has no borders it is “reality”… whatever reality we take ourselves to be in, whether entirely materialistic, dualistic, supernatural, deterministic or utterly random it is all of that reality. It cannot be merely a “part” of that reality because then we could define “the part” that it was but the moment it has a character, it is no longer autonomous… I imagine you would say it is enslaved to it’s own character.

Well, if there is a difference, I can’t tell. Must mean I don’t have it.

You are literally incapable of having a human conversation.

Then what’s all this talk about a grim outlook that provides you no comfort. You keep engaging others as if to ask for their help in “liberating” you. Are you troubled by your grim outlook in any way?

Remind me not to feel sorry for you again.

:laughing-rolling:

This just never gets old.

Because it’s Cantor’s Paradox over again. Is there an absolute set that includes all sets within it’self.

The universal absolute and the relative singular does has a down to earth example.

The circle is always imperfect to a degree that’s commensurate with the number of fractions pie is carried to exact that accuracy.

Therefore use of pie makes the ideal circle demonstrative of the lack of utility requirement on demonstrating that absolute.

The same goes for morality and ethical standards. Which determines which is not a propositional requirement, since it uses singular logic to prove propositional requirements. That can not be done, but that In itself does not do away with the proposition : that circles do not in it’s self contain anything but approximations, in fact such demonstrations are not required, and hence don’t disprove themselves as either within a bounded requirement without which their utility becomes negated for lack of.

Its philosophical repetition which can not in situ demonstrate its absolute inclusion.

The excuded requirement posits an automatic absolute negation. Which in trying to identify some measure of rational model, fails, because of limiting the idea of absolute self-containment.

The down to earth answer becomes a relative doubt for this schema to identify a standard,which is not an absolute set.

Nihilism consists in an absolutic ontological set requirement over a relative ontic existence, and they are inscribed as:
emanating in aesthetic sources, such as Kierkegaard had it.

For references , the historical changes can be assessed, as preferential, rather then referential and determined.

It is a choice made toward a useful model, but not necessarily a perfect, or a rational model.

It has to involve intentionality, not as a requirement, but also a choice.

Philosophy can be discarded as well in the defining this movement , but if it is, then sophistry remains as the only modus operans.

A sophist becomes someone who needs to get out of the boundedness of nihilism, but there is no bound, identified reason, because such is the power that a leap would require, where doubt can not generate the sufficient will to overcome it.

The power required to exercise the will is muted by doubt. Historically, this has ample evidence, and not to recognize it, has caused misfortune and tragedy true and thorough.

Parting shot: please excise on being hard on sophistry, and it has come down through the ages as a separate school, but the Birth of Tragedy was perfectly right on with Nietzschen accuracy.

Evolution [on earth] starts with figuring out how [presumably] mindless matter configured into living matter. And we don’t even know for certain if life originated on earth or came from some object crashing into us eons ago. And then how living matter configured into human brains. And then how brains configured into minds. Minds on the level of human consciousness. Minds that, in my view, only a fool would insist they completely understand in relationship to the evolution of life in relationship to the existence of the universe in relationship to an understanding of existence itself.

As for my conception of autonomy…isn’t that in turn embedded in a complete understanding of Reality itself? Not unlike, for example, yours?

How do we grapple with human logic beyond that which we are able demonstrate it is in fact logical to believe? And for that we would need an actual existential context. So, pick one.

Then folks like Gib come along and suggest that mind itself somehow set it all into motion.

I agree, but: How on earth could we possibly come up with a set of definitions applicable to grappling definitively with human autonomy when we do not appear to have the capacity even to determine [and then to demonstrate] that accomplishing something like this is in and of itself within our capacity autononously?

Think of all the definitions that we can acquire in relationship to understanding the sport of baseball and the sport of basketball. But if we shift the discussion to whether baseball is a better sport than basketball, what set of definitions could we come up with in order to understand logically the meaning of “better”?

Same with a discussion revolving around this discussion itself. What entirely rational definition of “auntonmy” could be pinned down to determine whether that discussion was or was not only as it ever could have been?

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that technically my arguments here may well be flawed. But what else is there? Others are either able [freely or mechanically] to make me understand this or they are not. And if they can’t they can always [freely or mechanically] give up on me and move on to others.

But I suspect that none of us are likely to grasp these relationships wholly. And [it seems] the only way this will be decided is if they succeed in convincing the world at large that their narrative here is either the optimal or the only rational/logical/epistemologically sound explanation in sync with a complete understanding of existence itself.

Again, we need a context. Two apples plus two apples equals four apples. Given the extent to which we can all agree on what those words mean. Or you can say that two apples plus two apples equals one jar of applesauce.

Or you can note that two doctors performing two abortions equals four doctors performing four abortions.

But if we shift to the morality of abortion and some argue that freedom equals the natural right of the fetus to be born while others insist that freedom equals the political right of pregnant women to kill them, which definition of freedom here is the most [or the only] rational, logical, epistemoligically sound definition?

And then when we shift gears again in examining our capacity to sustain this very exchange autonomously, which set of definitions is able to be demonstrated to be the most [or the only] rational, logical and epistemologically sound one around?

Then I’m back to the autonomous aliens. The part that once again you have not yet commented on. This part:

[b]Let’s consider a hypothetical I raised with Gib…

Imagine that earth is in a part of the universe where everything – everything – is wholly determined by the laws of matter. Aliens from a part of the universe where autonomy prevails note the option that I chose. They are freely debating among themselves whether that was the right thing to do while pointing out that in making the choice myself, I was never really “metaphysically” able to choose other than what I did. But: my brain/mind has deluded me into thinking that “psychologically” I freely chose either 1 or 2.

Would they not note in turn that the question you posed to me and the manner in which I chose to answer was only ever as it could have been down on a planet existing in a part of the universe in which everything – everything – unfolds only as it ever could have.[/b]

On the contrary. Having to acknowledge that gap between what we think we know here and now about these things and all that there is to be known about the existence of existence itself could not possibly be of more importance.

It is just so exasperating to admit that, isn’t it? Then we are stuck with figuring out a way to narrow that gap. Knowing that this may well not even be within the capacity of the human mind here and now. Yet there are those among us will go to the grave convinced that their own “philosophy of life” or their own understanding of “existence itself”, was the right one.

But, again, that speaks more to the existential parameters of human psychology to me. And even here that may well only be as it ever could have been

Okay, choose a context. Note a set of circumstances where human beings interact and come up with a set of definitions that will allow us to fully understand them, describe them, pass judgment on them.

Its value either lies in the manner in which I have concluded autonomously that it is valuable to me or that conclusion itself is the only one that I was ever able to come to.

Then it comes down to the extent to which you are able to demonstrate that the sense you do make of all this, is that which all rational men and women are obligated to make. Or to demonstrate that the obligation itself is either in sync with human autonomy or in sync with a wholly determined universe.

Folks like Gib here [if I understand him] seem to argue that “metaphysically” we are not free. But that the evolution of matter is such that “psychologically” the human “I” is at least able to note that they made a choice. Even if that was the only choice they ever could have made.

Again, making me the issue – the problem – here. If we assume human autonomy then I am freely making the wrong assumptions because you are making the right ones. The sensible ones. And if human interactions are wholly determined given the actual existence of the immutable laws of matter, my failure to grasp “choices” here as you and others do, was never going to not be the case.

But how do we determine the extent to which any of us do bring them to bear was within our capacity not to?

Utterly, utterly abstract. So, again:

Choose a context. Note a set of circumstances where human beings interact and come up with a set of definitions that will allow us to fully understand them, describe them, pass judgment on them.

That will allow us to make an attempt to determine and to demonstrate that one’s “character” is not just another aggregation of dominoes intertwined with all the other aggregation of dominoes going back to a complete understanding of existence itself.

Et tu, Gib?

What kind of post is this? A series of retorts?

Look, if you no longer respect my intelligence, okay, fine. But if this is actually what I have reduced you to in responding to me, then once again it is time for you to move on to others. Those more worthy of your time.

Posts in which the points I raise are abandoned and replaced with snide comments that make me the point, are of less and less of interest to me.

So, decide.

Assuming of course that this is within your capacity as metaphysically determined but psychologically free human being to decide. :wink:

A retort to a retort!!!

It’s always sad when someone with a mind of your caliber sinks this low.

Of course you do still have your ambiguous God and your ambiguous objective morality and your ambiguous autonomy. So let’s just chalk it all up to my inabilty to define “ambiguous” correctly.

Also, you do still manage to sustain a hell of a lot more “comfort and consolation” than “I” do.

So, as ecmandu might put it, you win! :wink:

Yeah, it seems about that time. I’m very selective in what I respond to. Anything I don’t respond to isn’t being ignored, it’s just that there’s nothing more to say about it. I try to avoid these vicious cycles.

No, I don’t disrespect your intelligence. You are highly intelligent… just a little frustrating to converse with sometimes. But frustration is ephemeral.

We’ll get into this again some other time. Chow!

Here’s a word I invented “gurlabada”
I don’t know if we have gurlabada… I don’t know if we even could have gurlabada in a world with fish… How do you recommend we proceed in a conversation about gurlabada?

Are these aliens free to think however? if so neither I, nor they could know how they would think before they thought it. It would be random and chaotic… they could think one thing one second and contrary thing the next.
If however their thinking had a method (one might say “a system” or “character”) to them, then they would not be so different from us… the only notable difference would be that the rules that governed their thinking could not be found in the material world.

Exactly my point…

Hmm… you do see the irony of misinterpreting the sentence that warned about misinterpreting and started with an “if”

If my conversation partner cannot or will not make an effort to understand what I say… what would you recommend I do?

Thus far, you have not addressed any of my points nor questions… until you do, I cannot see a path forward.

Gib’s comment was not a retort. It was an honest expression of the confusion and frustration that your posting produces in people. Karpal Tunnel and I have said essentially the same thing.

It goes like this :
You post as if “your hole” is a big problem for you. People respond and try to “help” you with it. After dozens (or hundreds) of posts, you finally reveal that you easily deal with your problem. People feel that you have misrepresented your problem and that they have been jerked around.

Apparently you don’t see that or you don’t care.

I expect that Gib is not going to be the last poster who goes through this same process with you.

I’m not sure if that is true. You seem oddly comfortable with what you are doing. You don’t take anybody’s advice or change your position based on their arguments.

One would think that an “uncomfortable” person would shift around to try to get into a more comfortable position. That seems like an obvious and natural way to act.

Maybe you have “comfort and consolation” and maybe you don’t. I don’t know you (aside from what you have posted and that’s contradictory).

Similarly, you don’t know whether I have “comfort and consolation”.

I always find it weird when life is viewed in terms of winning and losing.

I sometimes wonder of all of us overlook something. That the deeper question, for there may be one lurking on the very edge of conscious awareness, overlooks the position that the mediating , rational nexus between the microcosmic feeling(sophistry) harbored by Imbigious and that held by philosophical discourse.

If The matter is looked objectively, then it becomes evident, at least to me, that Iambig’s position is shared by the larger philosophical background in which we all participate.

I think of looked at this way, the conclusion may not be avoided that his position is one that many modern men participate in, who try to get put from under the almost impossible center that has modern man been inscribed between the traditional and the post modern world.

Between policy, politics of tradition and ones of experience. It may be futile not to avoid reducing politics to experience , because we members of an internet sight do not really known each other, then merely from reading each other. I don’t know but it seems like we are all missong something that could be important and useful in more in-depth analysis.

It’s not that Iambig’s position has no truth in it. It does.

But it’s impossible to discuss it with him.

I get that , but maybe its because he is spoken to referentially and he speaking preferentially, where he is trying to express his preference for a largely determined conditionality, (intentionality) , whereas he probably thinks that he is spoken to as of his freedom to choose overrides those conditions.

Does he ? Can he? Is he able to generate the will to do so? These questions as of yet remain undetermined, and until then, no clear picture arises to be able to sort it out.