Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the human

You can only be “maximally sure” of anything.

You guys would enjoy this debate as they cover what can be objectively known:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL8LREmbDi0[/youtube]

One guy says nothing can be objectively known without a belief in god and the other says nothing can be objectively known, period.

I was pointing out that one can choose to aim at evidence and experiences that lead to beliefs. IOW one can be active. Yes, evidence changes minds, but one can take the step of moving towards environments where evidence is possible or even evidence is likely to support a belief. You are dying of some cancer and do not trust alternative medicine. Well, you could decide to see if you can find evidence that a certain process actually does work. So you challenge your own belief - ask to see records at a specific clinic, check research about the alkaloids in a plant they use, talk to their clients, etc. You do not believe in God but decide to test it out. So you approach an expert from tradition X and ask them what practices might change that belief. Then you engage in these practices for a long time. There are all sorts of more mundane interpersonal beliefs that can be challenged: about the opposite sex, about the possibility of being honest and nto being punished, whateever.

If I look at your post, it can seem like we float through time and things appear in our perceptive fields and they change us or don’t. Since one can choose what appears, one can increase the liklihood of counterexamples of one’s own beliefs or simply aim for new experiences which increase the liklihood of changes. Etc.

And while it is evidence, in a sense, I would broaden that term out to ‘experience’.

I agree. But when those who embrace objectivism change their mind, it is rationalized. They convince themselves that the Real Me is still aiming to be wholly in sync with The Right Thing To Do – and has now really found it.

They just switch fonts.

Again, it is the psychological need to anchor “I” to a font that chiefly motivates them.

Or, rather, so it seems to me. But what it seems to me here and now is construed by me to be no less an existential contraption. Given new experiences, relationships and access to ideas “I” may very well change my mind again.

But only in sync with this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

The “hole” I’m in. The “fractured and fragmented” “I” in the is/ought world.

Well, in my own way, I am in the same boat. Only I can’t know for certain that there is not an objective truth here that one can be “absolutely certain” about. Why? Because there it is: that gap between what I think is true now and all there is to be known about the existence of existence itself.

I can’t even know for certain if I possess any measure of actual autonomy in making these claims.

Exactly, but: how is that not applicable to all of us? There either is an explanation available to us that allows us to connect the dots between “I” here and now and a complete understanding of existence itself or there’s not.

Or there is and only God is privy to it.

Or there is and one day in what one imagines to be the distant future mere mortals will actually have access to it sans God.

In the interim, all of our speculations here about the either/or world, the is/ought world, the debate over free will and determinism, the relationship between spacetime and something rather than nothing at all, and all the other Big Questions that remain embedded in the unknown unknowns, will surely go with each of us to the grave.

And I suspect that some react to me as they do because I keep bringing this up. They want to be convinced that there are at least some things that they just know are true. But everything that we think we know is clearly subsumed in all that we don’t.

And, in some of us, this precipitates a “spooky” sense of “unreality”. We don’t really know what to make of anything able to be anchored to one or another whole truth. So, psychologically, most are able to convince themselves that this is not the case at all. There is something akin to the Real Me and it is in sync with The Right Thing To Do in what they insist encompasses the Real World.

And then some being able to convince themselves that this Reality extends beyond the grave.

And this may well be true. But here and now all any of us can do is to be persuaded that some things are reasonable to believe and some things aren’t. And this would seem to revolve around those things that can in fact be demonstrated to be applicable to all rational people in a world in which there is in fact some measure of human autonomy.

How can the existence of existence itself be defined?! Only when it is determined definitively why something – why anything – exist at all [going all the way back to how and why that is the case] can it be pinned down with a definition.

Consider:

Definition: a statement of the exact meaning of a word

How on earth can we encompass the exact meaning of existence when existence itself is clearly embedded in this:

There are known knowns about existence. These are things we know that we know about it. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know about it. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know about it.

It’s not exactly the same as providing a definition for a bachelor, right?

Now this is the sort of mental masturbation that is embedded in intellectual contraptions to me. There is in fact an actual flesh and blood me. And over the course of my life [for whatever reasons existentially] I acquired a taste for both Coke and Pepsi. More specifically Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi. To the extent I had any control over this is rooted in the actual existential variables that predisposed my choice here. Or in a wholly determined universe in which I was never really free to not choose [autonomously] either one, neither one or both.

Depends on how broadly you want to define “contraption”.

There are nature’s contraptions embedded in the laws of physics. There are human contraptions [like watches or cigarette lighters] derived from the laws of nature.

And thoughts are contraptions originating in the brain. But: What thoughts can be demonstrated to reflect that which is deemed to be an objective reality and what thoughts are subsumed instead in subjective/subjunctive contraptions. The kind that pop up all the time in the is/ought world of value judgments and conflicting goods.

Defining and describing an apple is one thing. Reacting to the fact that John Doe poisoned an apple that Don Trump ate, killing him, another thing altogether.

Really? Okay, demonstrate this. Demonstrate that there is absolutely no possibility that an absolute morality exist in regard to an issue like abortion.

All some need do is to cite one or another God and Scripture here. Others embrace one or another rendition of Humanism and insist that, using Reason, we can derive – deduce – the whole truth here. The deontologists for example. Or the political ideologues. Or those who insist that their own understanding of nature provides them with a list of natural behaviors.

Okay, but again: In what particular context relating to what particular conflicting behaviors?

Then we understand the dots and connecting them in different ways. There are factors/variables that we can explore and probe relating to the choices that we make from moment to moment. And there is how you connect them to that which you construe to be “fundamental forces”. You seem to be insisting here that the fact that they are connected need be as far as we go. You see no need to bring this down to earth and note how this particular intellectual contraption is related existentially to the things that you do. That way [in my opinion] you can stay up in the clouds encompassed in your “general descriptions” of these relationships.

I don’t construe this as addressing the point I made. The either/or world is bursting at the seams with empirical relationships that science and inventors and engineers are able to reconfigure into buildings and airplanes and spaceships and smart phones. Both induction and deduction are utilized in accomplishing these transformations.

That’s your assumption about my “presupposition”. My own conjectures here revolve around two general assumptions:

1] the gap between what any of us think we know about these relationships here and now and all there is to be known about the existence of existence itself
2] the implications embedded in a wholly determined universe regarding anything we might think or feel or say or do

Come on, the gap here between my experiences, relationships, and access to information/knowledge and all there is to know about all there is to know is the equivalent of a teeny, tiny drop of water in the ocean. There is a staggering amount of experiences and ideas that I have had no contact with at all. The same with all the rest of us.

And even as I type these words, who knows how many folks are out there with points of view that I have never even really considered. Points of view far, far more sophisticated than mine. Again all I can do is to come into places like this and maybe, just maybe, I’ll bump into one.

I agree. In an essentially meaningless No God world the baby and the apple are interchangeable. Instead, what we need is a particular context construed from a particular point of view involving both an apple and a baby.

If you were minutes away from starving to death and had to choose between access to an apple tree or saving a baby’s life, which would you choose? It could only be one or the other. Is there a way to determine philosophically how one ought to choose – is morally obligated to choose here?

From my frame of mind this is rooted in dasein [“I” configured existentially], conflicting goods [the baby lives and I die] and political economy [the reaction of those in power able to reward or punish you for what you choose].

Well, there is being “maximally sure” about the safest and most effective medical procedure for aborting the unborn.

And there is being “maximally sure” about whether an unborn human zygote/embryo/fetus is an actual human being.

And there is being “maximally sure” about whether it is moral or immoral to abort whatever it is.

And there is being “maximally sure” about how this all fits into a complete understanding of existence itself.

And there is being “maximally sure” about whether we are even able autonomously to voice our own point of view about any of this.

Well, in regard to abortion, I would surmise that both of them are subject to the manner in which I break down the various things that one can be “maximally sure” about above.

After all, why would that not include the extent to which one can be “maximally sure” about God…or regarding what can be known objectively?

Wondering how maximally sure one can be about anything is self defeating as there is no way
of actually knowing such a thing and so it is therefore a question that can never be answered

That may be when you go far enough out on the limb metaphysically. In other words, that gap between what we think we are maximally sure about here and now and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order in fact be certain about it.

But: for all practical purposes in our interactions with others from day to day there are clearly things [in the either/or world] that being maximally sure about garners an overwhelming consensus.

Whereas other things that folks claim to be maximally sure about they are considerably less able to demonstrate that all others ought to think the same regarding.

That’s always where I go with this, right?

We can only make decisions based upon the knowledge that we actually have
Although better decisions can be made over time as our knowledge increases

Actually not in his world. Why? well, if you want your choices about how you ought to live to be objectively correct, then how can you choose goals? You cannot choose goals - what it would be good to do tomorrow - unless you have a way of calculating what every person should want to prioritize for tomorrow.

And you cannot calculate what every person should want for tomorrow, or today or next week and you cannot calculate what actions you ought to perform and which you ought not to…

by using your own values and desires as guide. Your own desires CANNOT INFORM YOUR CHOICES. Since your desires and wants are clearly not universal, let alone objective.

You can amass knowledge, sure. You can see that minimum wage seems to lead to X. You can see that being kind to people who are sad leads to Y. Not perfect knowledge, but some knowledge of these things. Perhaps moving closer to truth. But you cannot know if X and Y are good things.

So what is the only task left. Well, that’s trying to find out if there is a way to objectively determine how one ought to live. That is the only thing you can do…

But wait a fucking minute…why ought one do that?

Why follow that one desire and let that desire, to know the answer to that question, guide your actions?

There is no objective way of determining if that is a good desire or goal.

And yet that desire is allowed to guide all his social interactions…

Even though there is no objective justification for this.

One commandment.

Objectivists live a life of crime because they live from their morals as if they are objective.

He lives out his life according to one moral, which he does not think is objective, though he thinks it might be.

A Bunch of people living their lives out according to their morals, one of them not sure if it is objective.
A herd of elk with one elk not sure if what is doing is right will look like…a herd of elk.

I see an elk who wants to know how to be a god who does not believe in gods.

I suppose that’s a fair image of many people. It is certainly Romantic. In the sense of not-Classical.

But maximally sure of knowledge is of no use to him, because he needs to know what he ought to do. And since he rules out using his desires to guide his actions - except this one enormous exception - he has no reason to apply any knowledge, whether only possibly true, maximally likely to be true or any other degree of liklihood.

I am not interested in living my life according to any notions of objective truth or objective morality
I do not know what they are so instead focus on being pragmatic and doing as little harm as possible

Yes, but the knowledge that we actually have access to is always going to be situated out in a particular world [historically, culturally, experientially] understood from a particular point of view.

Then back again to this: What increased knowledge do we claim to have in regard to what particular context.

Is this knowledge something that we are able to demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are obligated to share?

Then back again to this crucial distinction:

1] the increased knowledge that the medical profession has accumulated in order to perform abortions more efficiently, more safely, more routinely.
2] the seeming lack of such progression [on the part of philosophers and ethicists] in regard to the morality of aborting the unborn.

So: With respect to the morality of abortion what knowledge must one acquire in order to make “better decisions”?

Instead, I suggest that here dasein, conflicting goods and political economy are the most crucial components when analyzing the decisions of any particular “I” out in the is/ought world.

Yeah, that’s basically another rendition of this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

But: If you choose to interact with others socially, politically and economically, you can find yourself [time and again] drawn and quartered in any particular context when others expect you to be either “one of us” or “one of them”.

And [invariably] they make this distinction based on the assumption that “we” are right objectively and “they” are wrong objectively.

Few will tolerate the manner in which “I” construe myself here as in a “hole”. Why? Because they may well come to the part where they are forced to think more seriously about whether they should be in it too.

That’s why the components of my own “I” here are so often shunned by the objectivists. Or, here, by the pragmatist. A pragmatist able to rationalize his own chosen behaviors in a considerably less “fractured and fragmented” manner.

And how “comforting and consoling” that must be.

Actually, my point here revolves more around the manner in which I construe these calculations as the embodiment of “I” embodied in the manner in which I construe one’s perceived “self” as an existential contraption.

And desire [the subjunctive “I”] is no less one of them. We are all hard-wired [given the evolution of life on earth] to feel desire. But what particular desire in what particular context?

Knowledge of the minimum wage? Are you a capitalist or a socialist? Do you own the MacDonalds or work behind the counter?

And I don’t argue that these things can’t be known, only that “here and now” I am not in possession of the knowledge that allows me to know this. Whereas the objectivists [from libertarians to communists] insist that they do.

Isn’t that why we are all here? We believe certain things. But others believe in conflicting things. Then back and forth we go.

I merely point out…

1] that gnawing gap between what we claim to know is true here and now and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence in order to know this
2] the many perplexities embedded in human interactions in or not in a wholly determined universe
3] the distinction between human knowledge in the either/or world and human knowledge in the is/ought world

Again, bring this down to earth. Choose a context, choose a set of behaviors, choose a moral narrative. Then configure these words into that discussion.

Something that a “herd of elk” are not likely to pursue.

On the contrary, like most of us here, I am quite comfortable with the “maximally sure” knowledge that we exchange everyday in our interactions out in the either/or world.

I just suspect that, re our interactions in the is/ought world, what we think and what we feel can be understood more reasonably given the components of my own frame of mind. Here and now.

But we’ll still need a context, a set of behaviors, and a set of assumptions regarding the behaviors that we do choose.

Okay, you’re not interested in this. But to the extent that you interact with others, you will bump into any number of folks [the objectivists] who are in fact very interested in this. As in you are “one of us” or “one of them”.

So, you tell them that you are a pragmatist. That your intent is to do as little harm as possible.

Fine, choose a context and a set of conflicting behaviors and note that which constitutes doing the least harm.

From my frame of mind, that revolves around “moderation, negotiation and compromise” — one or another rendition of democracy and the rule of law.

But: in the “real world”. A world in which economic power begets political power begets police and military power that allows those who own and operate the global economy to predominate in sustaining our most crucial human interactions. In other words, so as to benefit themselves. And many of these folks are basically moral nihilists. It’s all about sustaining their own wealth and power.

Also, the part about being a “pragmatist” given the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. How my own pragmatism begets a hole begets a fractured and fragmented “I” begets a frame of mind that is far removed from feeling “comforted and consoled”.

A suggestion: Why don’t you and KT choose a particular context and discuss your respective pragmatic agendas. Noting how are you able to avoid the hole that “I” am in?

My pragmatism is very simple : I only focus on what has to be done / what can be done. I do not worry about things such as the economic / political / military
power of those in charge. What they do may directly / indirectly affect me but if it is beyond my control then there is nothing I can do about it other than to
accept it and let it be. Anything else is just a waste of mental energy

Well, that’s potentially similar to how I live my life. Of course, that last part, about doing as little harm as possible, depends on both objective morality and objective truth. To determine what is harming, that is.

Yes, but to what extent have you examined the existential parameters of “I” here?

Why one set of behaviors and not another? Why does this have to be done but not that? To what extent can this be examined and understood rationally by philosophers? Or, instead, to what extent is it embedded existentially in this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Out in a world of conflicting goods. Out in a world where what ultimately counts is not what someone believes is right or wrong, but who has the actual power to enforce a particular set of behaviors in any particular context.

And, in a world of contingency, chance and change, what you believe above is ever and always subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge. To new ideas.

I merely probe the complex relationship between what we are able to think ourselves into believing and the extent to which this may well be more a function of human psychology than anything that the tools of philosophy can provide for us.

Pragmatism, sure. In a No God world awash in hundreds and hundreds of hopelessly conflicting moral and political agendas, we can only grapple with what, at any particular time, seems to be “the best of all possible worlds”.

We take our existential leaps and we deal with the consequences. Then it comes down to the extent to which “I” here is deemed to be more or less “fractured and fragmented”. And the extent to which this frame of mind allows us to feel more or less “comforted and consoled”.

What works for some however doesn’t work for others. And you know why I – “I” – think that is the case.

Unless of course you don’t.

Asking if the I actually exists is about as existential as it gets

If everything is a manifestation of Consciouness then there is no I or me
There is no life or death either for they are nothing more than illusions

An object that is being observed does not actually know this . The I or me that is being observed does not know this either for
it thinks it has self awareness . But it is Consciousness that is making it self aware rather than it itself even though the illusion
is very convincing for many [ including myself ] I am not actually convinced but I do find the concept very interesting however

True. And down through the ages various philosophers have taken a stab at it. The most notable probably being, “I think, therefore I am”.

But even here we seem to have no definitive capacity to demonstrate that thinking is not in itself encompassed in a sim world, or in a manufactured matrix, or in a dream world [think Inception]. Or wholly compelled in a determined universe.

Until all is understood about what we call “the human condition”, existential leaps will be a part of any assessments in places like this. Something in particular is assumed, and then something in particular follows from that assumption.

Indeed, that is why some [my ex-wife as I recall] insist that these “philosophical” pursuits are futile. Better instead to focus in on the here and now. Better to make this a better world in whatever manner you have come [politically] to construe that.

But then most here know where that takes me.

If. That is the classic assumption of course: if if if…

But: what on earth can something like that possibly mean other than what you think it means “in your head” here and now?

Still, most are able to live with that. They have settled in on the “real me” able to be in sync with “the right thing to do”. Either more or less objectively, or more or less pragmatically.

The point being that their own perceived “I” is considerably less fractured and fragmented than mine. And thus able to steer closer to one or another psychological rendition of comfort and consolation.

In my view, regarding observations of this sort, the only way we will ever be able to examine and then react to them more intelligibly is by focusing instead on this:

What object being observed by what consciousness in what context?