Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the human

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Sep 02, 2018 12:15 pm

Guide wrote:All things that are now once were "not yet". Everything "then" comes before everything as it "now" is. Ergo, it is pointless to assign causation, since that would be to pick a detail out of the whole of what came before.

That in physics one speaks of local causality shows a failure of physics in the light of this reasoned law. Ergo, its falling back on probabilities and accidents.

Causality is false, since there is no possibility of asking about it. All things, the whole past, become all things, the whole now. Nothing can be carved out and named other than "all things" as those things that, each one, belong to the whole of the past.

"On my plate is a pile of food. It is illogical to take a bite unless I can stuff it all in my face at once."

I'll be waiting for your Nobel prize
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7777
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Guide » Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:16 pm

Almost everything some members of the group write has the form: I don't get it, therefore it must be nonsense. But, the "I don't get it" never occurs to them, they lack the self insight. Instead: what is conscience is only: it is nonsense.
Guide
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 09, 2018 4:03 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
...all I am basically interested in is the extent to which this point reflects some measure of human autonomy. And, if it does, what are the existential implications germane to that which is of most interest to me: how ought one to live in a world bursting at the seams with conflicting goods?

It's fun to discover how one ought to live because invariably it's discovered that one ought to live in a way that is fun, otherwise what is the purpose of living? "Fun" is just a placeholder for the purposeless.


Of course "fun" here [in an essentially meaningless No God world] is no less an existential contraption.

No, I don't think it's either existential nor a contraption, but the opposite of. It's the non-existence of a contraption. It's complete mindlessness and complete lack of purpose. It's not a tool to employ mindlessness, but the absence of tools.

What is construed to be "fun" for one particular "I", may well be anything but "fun" for another.

True, but the condition of purposelessness is the same for each unique activity.

So we are still faced with estsablishing rules of behavior in any particular human community such that these rules become the existential embodiment of one or another complex combination of 1] right makes might 2] might makes right and 3] moderation, negotiation and compromise.

I'm not sure the rule of "no rules" is itself a rule if no thought is ever given to the establishment of such a rule. One who lives without rules never considers whether there should be rules.

Which, from my frame of mind, are embedded historically and culturally in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

I've no idea what dasein is.

But then this part:

Now, if "human freedom" here is essentially a self-delusion rooted in a mind rooted in a brain rooted in laws immutably applicable to all matter, then nothing that any of us post here was ever going to be anything other than that which it could only ever have been: what in fact it is. Period.

I have a different comment this time around. I'm inclined to believe that free will exists to the extent that it's only restrained by probability of outcome instead of "set-in-stone" determination. The "will" is a desire that is manufactured of what exists "now" as a feedback in influencing (but not determining) the outcome of what will exist in the future.

I think there is a will and I think it has certain freedoms since nothing is 100% determined. The will is an illusion to the extent that it's a product of the stuff in this universe instead of being something abstractly and objectively real (objectively real is an oxymoron anyway).

Serendipper wrote:Laws? That's an objective thing, right? Laws require an authority to enforce, but what happens in nature just happens and if it happens regularly, we presuppose they are laws. If the universe is inherently random and we rewind it to the beginning, it would almost certainly unfold in some other way. It's the lack of purpose that gives the universe purpose. If everything had a purpose; a destiny; a determination, then what would the purpose be for having the show? It would be a fatuous waste of energy and much easier to have had nothing.


Yes, this is one way in which to think about it. But there are hundreds and hundreds of other ways in turn. And, to the best of my knowledge, none of us are able to demonstrate that 1] their own assessment reflects an optimal understanding of the "human condition" or that 2] their assessment here and now is in fact the embodiment of an autonomous freedom to choose this assessment over any other.

I think the fact that everything is probabilistic rather than deterministic precludes existence of laws. I'm not even sure duality itself, which is the foundation of everything, is even a law outside of this universe. Maybe there could be triality universes and that would be the law of the land, so to speak. What we call "laws" are really "consistently observed random outcomes".


Then we go from there to whatever brought into existence the existence of existence itself.

But [admittedly] part of my psychology [rooted in dasein] has predisposed [driven] me to pursue polemics. And part of this is "fun" in the sense that deconstructing objectivists is "entertainment" for me.

Some of these folks have spent literally years constructing these complex and convoluted "intellectual contraptions". Things like "value ontology". Then they bump into me and I start in on tinkering with them. Maybe even take them apart.

Serendipper wrote:But is that really fun or vanity? Or is vanity fun? Is playing the game fun or is winning fun because that's part of a larger game?


How on earth could I possibly discern with any degree of precision where one stops and the other begins? If I construe "I" here as a propoundly problematinc existential contraption, there seems to be no way in which I can get around this. No way in which to acquire an objective understanding of my own motivations and intentions. That would seem to be all scrambled up in the enormously complex interplay of all the variables from all the experiences I have ever had/known going back to my birth.

That's a darn good answer, but it still seems there is a difference between the purposeful and purposeless. Can we be purposeful for a purposeless reason? Why do we want to improve? No matter what mark you think you're leaving on the world, the world is going to end which makes everything kinda irrelevant. At the end of the game, the king and pawn go into the same box. Yet here we are: trying to improve ourselves with some overarching purpose in mind. Is that because the delusion of self-improvement is fun? I, for one, don't know what to do with myself if I'm not working towards some goal because I'm a product of my raising and my culture that insists I always be productive.

Serendipper wrote:If you truly feel there is no "right thing to do", then what you do cannot be predicated on what is "right". You just do what you do because that is what you do. Self reflection on the matter is taking an engineering view of the universe that everything must have a purpose.


And yet, over and again, I note that even this assumption is no less an existential contraption.


I think the existential contraption is in trying to understand anything: it's the gnosia instead of the agnosia (conceptual vs the nonconceptual (faith)). Do you beat your heart by existential contraption? You have no concept (gnosia) how you beat your heart, but you just do it (agnosia). Likewise in living.

There may well be the right thing to do.

What's right is relative to a goal, which is arbitrary.

There may well be a God.

If there is a god, it is continuous with this universe. Things that exist relative to us cannot exist outside this universe. Things outside this universe could not be things we could interact with or have knowledge of; if we could, those things would not be outside our universe.

There may well be a deontological philosophical assessment out there that I have just not come across yet. There may well be a way to determine if this exchange itself is only ever as it could have been.

I posit that if the universe were rewound and begun again, this conversation would have very little chance of being as it is.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun Sep 09, 2018 5:25 pm

"I think the fact that everything is probabilistic rather than deterministic precludes existence of laws."

Where did you come up with that law? I mean determination? I mean er :arrow:
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: pit of snakes

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:24 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:"I think the fact that everything is probabilistic rather than deterministic precludes existence of laws."

Where did you come up with that law? I mean determination? I mean er :arrow:

It just occurred to me as I was writing. It's not a law that there are no laws, as there certainly could be, but in order to have a law, something would have to enforce the law.

It would take me a while to explain why having a law would undermine having anything. The point is the pointlessness because how could an optimal solution be found if restrictions were placed upon the form the solution should take? So absolute lawlessness is a requirement for any truth to manifest.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:48 pm

Serendipper wrote:
barbarianhorde wrote:"I think the fact that everything is probabilistic rather than deterministic precludes existence of laws."

Where did you come up with that law? I mean determination? I mean er :arrow:

It just occurred to me as I was writing. It's not a law that there are no laws, as there certainly could be, but in order to have a law, something would have to enforce the law.

Unless it is a self enforcing law... something nature enforces upon itself?
It could have for a cause only that no other possibility is ever as likely to occur.
I agree that there can not be absolute laws that aren't touched by existence.

It would take me a while to explain why having a law would undermine having anything. The point is the pointlessness because how could an optimal solution be found if restrictions were placed upon the form the solution should take? So absolute lawlessness is a requirement for any truth to manifest.

Definitely truth can't come as an effect of law unless the law is true. But I wonder isn't truth a law?

Anyway explain it if you will because I am an anarchist.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: pit of snakes

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:47 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
barbarianhorde wrote:"I think the fact that everything is probabilistic rather than deterministic precludes existence of laws."

Where did you come up with that law? I mean determination? I mean er :arrow:

It just occurred to me as I was writing. It's not a law that there are no laws, as there certainly could be, but in order to have a law, something would have to enforce the law.

Unless it is a self enforcing law... something nature enforces upon itself?

Yes but I don't call that a law. I believe what happens, happens as a result of what happened prior. It's not a law, but a probabilistic outcome favored by prior conditions. For instance the first life probably could not reproduce. Probably, it popped into existence and died a bazillion times and probably that is happening today as well. Clearly reproduction is an advantage since the lifeform is not as reliant upon random chance to exist, but this advantage isn't a law, but the most probable outcome. There is nothing insisting reproduction be an advantage, but it just was.

There is also no law saying heat must flow from the hot object to the cold, but it's astronomically unlikely that heat would ever flow from the cold to the hot.

Video about that



It would take me a while to explain why having a law would undermine having anything. The point is the pointlessness because how could an optimal solution be found if restrictions were placed upon the form the solution should take? So absolute lawlessness is a requirement for any truth to manifest.

Definitely truth can't come as an effect of law unless the law is true. But I wonder isn't truth a law?

Anyway explain it if you will because I am an anarchist.


I don't think truth can be a law because a law would exist before the truth could be determined. Truth is an effect; a determination; a result and not a driving force insisting things be so. The sun doesn't rise because it's 6am, but it's often true that the sun does rise at that time. Truth is the result and not the cause.

Truth is a property of a concept, and truth itself is a concept rather than an actual thing, so truth is a concept of a concept, which is second-order fiction. We can only think in terms of concepts which aren't reality, but what is reality can't be conceptualized, but we allude to what is real with concepts. I forgot who it was in particular, but one of those fancy-pants chinese sages said "Those who know, don't say; those who say, don't know." It's just illustrative that what is real can't be conceptualized (cut into pieces, quantized, abstracted and still maintain relevancy). Whatever is, just is, and there is no underlying force determining it because if there were, the whole show would be pointless. And that's the point that would take me a long time to articulate.

An analogy is a news article with a comments section. Any news that doesn't have comments is liable to be fake news because it's the unrestricted comments that substantiate truth. As soon as censorship takes hold, we have no mechanism to guarantee truth. As soon as someone asserts a truth and therefore censors those who disagree, the truth that is asserted can never be substantiated. It is only when there are no laws (restrictions) that truth can manifest as truth.

Likewise with the universe: if we first start with a law presupposing how things should be, then truth can never be known. Truth will always be relative to that first condition, which was the law. And so what would be the point of having a law then? If having a law taints our data, then why have it? What if we have a law that all coin flips must land heads? What would be the point of flipping the coin? And if we do flip the coin, then why have the law? So if there were laws, there would be no point to anything since the point to everything is to discover what we don't already know.... not to presuppose and become a lifeless mechanism in a deterministic show which is completely pointless.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:30 pm

Serendipper wrote:Yes but I don't call that a law. I believe what happens, happens as a result of what happened prior. It's not a law, but a probabilistic outcome favored by prior conditions.

Okay, but isn't there still a kind of law in the fact that things don't tend to follow from things that are happening afterward, or at the same time? Also, what is the difference between a law and a rule? But as a rule a happens from b, but not because it is against the rules to do something else. I think Im with you.

For instance the first life probably could not reproduce. Probably, it popped into existence and died a bazillion times and probably that is happening today as well.

Well, that actually explains transgender. A lifeforms popped into life without the proclivity to reproduce, but with the proclivity to do something wildly different with its sex organs.

I don't think truth can be a law because a law would exist before the truth could be determine

It still seems truth would have to exist before a law can really apply, as a backbone of laws. But I agree that if you want to reasonably argue about truth you need to state some specific case and argue that it is a true case. On the other hand The Truth can maybe be accomplished in some way, like Jesus said I am the truth and the way and the life, I thought that was a badass statement for sure and then people took this for true and actually lived their lives because of it, every decision was based on it, even to horrific deaths like that dude who wanted to be crucified upside down because he wasn't worthy of undergoing the same punishment as Jesus. Thats totally insane but true. I am more "troubled" lets say by these questions than more theoretical truth value computations, I wonder why the hell things are true that don't seem very likely at all. Maybe truth is more of a how than a what or why. My uncle alway use to say the most fundamental truths are methods. Badass methods, thats what Id trust most, tried and true. Maybe trust and truth are actually the same. But then thats a law, yeah that was what Hume was about I guess but whats the point of thinking if you don't ever expect to arrive at a concrete rule or something, something you can use? But again then law is an accomplishment and not a condition. Someone also said that God is an accomplishment. It sounds like all order is admirable. Our solar system was totally lawlessly forged, and now it is the law that gives flow to the waters and changing sunlight. And in this cosmic constitution small lawless creatures can pop up that relate to the original lawless precondition.

Maybe the only way something can follow from lawlessness is by setting itself as the law. Like a straight line escaping a black hole. But how can that happen?
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: pit of snakes

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:11 pm

Maybe law is what happens when more than one beings are forced to occupy the same space. Not like, exactly the same space, but say the same room or the same pool of gravity where they need to be influencing the others without being destroyed. Or whenever that manages to happen, the law is what made it happen. So law is a balance.

That means law is time. Regular progression happens only inside a law. So economic growth only happens within a law and I guess crime doesn't pay because it has a cut up timeline unless the crime sets the law, then all the pay from time comes into the timeless crime's hands.

Its Sunday, if youre wondering.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: pit of snakes

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:44 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Yes but I don't call that a law. I believe what happens, happens as a result of what happened prior. It's not a law, but a probabilistic outcome favored by prior conditions.

Okay, but isn't there still a kind of law in the fact that things don't tend to follow from things that are happening afterward, or at the same time?

Oh you mean a law governing the direction of time? If time went backwards, how could you tell? If B comes from A, then the sequence of events is A then B, but if you experience it backwards, it would still be that B came from A. Think about it... if you went back in time, you'd have no knowledge of the fact that you went back in time. So at timeslice B you'd say "Ah, B happened!" then at timeslice A you'd say "I wonder what will result from A".

There is no causality because in order for there to be, you'd have to explain how one thing affects another thing. But if one thing can affect another thing, then they are not 2 things, but 1 thing. And if there are no things, then there is no causality. If there is no causality, then your question has no meaning.

What does "happening afterward" mean? After what? After a moment in time? Well how long is that? So we draw the line thinner and thinner until we find there is no time in which for anything to happen. Who was the guy (zeno or meno) who argued it was impossible for an arrow to ever hit a target because if the arrow is in motion, then it doesn't exist since there is no place in time where it is. Or something like that.

Also, what is the difference between a law and a rule?

Just the connotation or context. It depends how you use the words.

But both laws and rules are something enforced by authority. If there is no authority, then what we think are laws or rules are really just observed regularities.

For instance the first life probably could not reproduce. Probably, it popped into existence and died a bazillion times and probably that is happening today as well.

Well, that actually explains transgender. A lifeforms popped into life without the proclivity to reproduce, but with the proclivity to do something wildly different with its sex organs.

Life that pops into existence wouldn't have sex organs. That's what I'm saying... the organs would have to be selected for. Reproduction itself would have to be selected for because it competed better than life that didn't reproduce.

The latest hypothesis is that life formed from rocks and almost certainly still forms today in the same way. The clay particles that break off of rocks have the perfect structure for self-assembly of molecules... they provide a little tunnels for molecules to bounce around in and form chains. And plants eat rocks ya know. Then animals eat plants.

I don't think truth can be a law because a law would exist before the truth could be determine

It still seems truth would have to exist before a law can really apply, as a backbone of laws.

Oh I see what you're saying... there would have to exist something to make a law from. But existence itself is relative. Nothing exist on its own in the middle of nothing because it would have no context or contrast to give it meaning. Every truth must be relative to something and even that truth must be relative and so on forever. We're looking for the most fundamental thing and we're never going to find it because we can't use the thing we're looking for to find the thing we're looking for. That's what the chinese describe as searching for the ass you're riding or putting your glasses on so you can find your glasses.

But I agree that if you want to reasonably argue about truth you need to state some specific case and argue that it is a true case. On the other hand The Truth can maybe be accomplished in some way, like Jesus said I am the truth and the way and the life,

I think what Jesus was referring to was the names of the temples or something like that. Each were named "the way, the truth, the life". You have to be on guard for distortions in the bible.

I thought that was a badass statement for sure and then people took this for true and actually lived their lives because of it, every decision was based on it, even to horrific deaths like that dude who wanted to be crucified upside down because he wasn't worthy of undergoing the same punishment as Jesus. Thats totally insane but true. I am more "troubled" lets say by these questions than more theoretical truth value computations, I wonder why the hell things are true that don't seem very likely at all.

Truth is relative. 1+1 = 2, but 1 male + 1 female = 1 baby or maybe a whole litter, or 1 matter + 1 antimatter = zero. So truth depends on the context.

Maybe truth is more of a how than a what or why. My uncle alway use to say the most fundamental truths are methods.

I resonate with that since I can't remember the quadratic equation, but I remember how to derive it. The method is more important than the triviality. Once I learn the method, I don't need the facts since I can regenerate them.

Badass methods, thats what Id trust most, tried and true. Maybe trust and truth are actually the same.

Watch out that trust is not appeal to authority.

But then thats a law, yeah that was what Hume was about I guess but whats the point of thinking if you don't ever expect to arrive at a concrete rule or something, something you can use? But again then law is an accomplishment and not a condition. Someone also said that God is an accomplishment. It sounds like all order is admirable. Our solar system was totally lawlessly forged, and now it is the law that gives flow to the waters and changing sunlight. And in this cosmic constitution small lawless creatures can pop up that relate to the original lawless precondition.

You got it!

Maybe the only way something can follow from lawlessness is by setting itself as the law. Like a straight line escaping a black hole. But how can that happen?

Energy radiates from black holes as hawking radiation. Actually, it's very hard to enter a black hole since most things are accelerated, ripped apart, and flung across the universe. To actually enter inside, you'd have to be on a straight line trajectory with the center and have a lot of luck not to get knocked off course.

But yeah, laws exist because there are no laws saying otherwise. If we're in the jungle, the biggest guy makes the law. The solar system formed of no laws and now it's the law. It's the golden rule: the one with the gold makes the rules.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby barbarianhorde » Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:36 pm

Okay, but isn't there still a kind of law in the fact that things don't tend to follow from things that are happening afterward, or at the same time?

Oh you mean a law governing the direction of time? If time went backwards, how could you tell? If B comes from A, then the sequence of events is A then B, but if you experience it backwards, it would still be that B came from A. Think about it... if you went back in time, you'd have no knowledge of the fact that you went back in time. So at timeslice B you'd say "Ah, B happened!" then at timeslice A you'd say "I wonder what will result from A".

Yes but all this what you say is still in the form of this, therefore that. Apparently we can do that, conclude that if one thing A is the case, then another thing B is aso the case but yet another thing X is not.
For me it is hard to not see any laws, when we practice logic.
Like if a pocket the 8 ball, it is not because I afterwards collected 25 bucks, but because I was arranging my force in a certain way through the cue.

It is as if the words if, then, because (etc) can't be used in a sentence if I want to avoid relying on laws.

There is no causality because in order for there to be, you'd have to explain how one thing affects another thing. But if one thing can affect another thing, then they are not 2 things, but 1 thing. And if there are no things, then there is no causality. If there is no causality, then your question has no meaning.

But the same thing happens here, when you say because. You say that fact that there is no causality has a cause.

What does "happening afterward" mean? After what? After a moment in time? Well how long is that? So we draw the line thinner and thinner until we find there is no time in which for anything to happen. Who was the guy (zeno or meno) who argued it was impossible for an arrow to ever hit a target because if the arrow is in motion, then it doesn't exist since there is no place in time where it is. Or something like that.

It seems he was ahead of Heisenberg. But Heraclitus would say yeah well things change. Maybe shoot an arrow into into a target to prove it.

Also, what is the difference between a law and a rule?

Just the connotation or context. It depends how you use the words.

But both laws and rules are something enforced by authority. If there is no authority, then what we think are laws or rules are really just observed regularities.

Life that pops into existence wouldn't have sex organs. That's what I'm saying... the organs would have to be selected for. Reproduction itself would have to be selected for because it competed better than life that didn't reproduce.

What if authority comes into existence because of the way nature is everything so also aggression and will and law.
Authority always seems to opt up, like life.
Regularities are called laws in science, but in justice laws are not at all indicating regularities, only a will.

The latest hypothesis is that life formed from rocks and almost certainly still forms today in the same way. The clay particles that break off of rocks have the perfect structure for self-assembly of molecules... they provide a little tunnels for molecules to bounce around in and form chains. And plants eat rocks ya know. Then animals eat plants.

Thats very cool.
Where can I study this?

Oh I see what you're saying... there would have to exist something to make a law from. But existence itself is relative. Nothing exist on its own in the middle of nothing because it would have no context or contrast to give it meaning. Every truth must be relative to something and even that truth must be relative and so on forever. We're looking for the most fundamental thing and we're never going to find it because we can't use the thing we're looking for to find the thing we're looking for. That's what the chinese describe as searching for the ass you're riding or putting your glasses on so you can find your glasses.

Well but Relativity from Einstein is not really relative to other truths, or is it actually relative to some truth that says that things are not relative?

But I agree that if you want to reasonably argue about truth you need to state some specific case and argue that it is a true case. On the other hand The Truth can maybe be accomplished in some way, like Jesus said I am the truth and the way and the life,

I think what Jesus was referring to was the names of the temples or something like that. Each were named "the way, the truth, the life". You have to be on guard for distortions in the bible.

Well check this out.

John 14:6

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

think about it. He said I am the truth and did badass things, and because he was so badass, people thought "okay so this is true. Lets go!" (then this became truth raining down on people like hail)
Because they alway wanted to know the truth, because having truth is power. You can out smart people if you have truth, or get to to the important places before the others who don't know truth.

Truth is relative. 1+1 = 2, but 1 male + 1 female = 1 baby or maybe a whole litter, or 1 matter + 1 antimatter = zero. So truth depends on the context.

Yeah but tell that to power. People always come to power by denying what you say.
Why is lies so much more efficient than truth?
Why is the monotheistic god ruling over the fossil fuels? Dafucc is that?

Maybe truth is more of a how than a what or why. My uncle alway use to say the most fundamental truths are methods.

I resonate with that since I can't remember the quadratic equation, but I remember how to derive it. The method is more important than the triviality. Once I learn the method, I don't need the facts since I can regenerate them.

Yeah thats deep. Methods get things done. Always proud of my uncle. He works on trains. I mean not on the train, he is in engines. Must feel good to ride an engine you put together from sheer logic. He always aggravated my grandfather who didn't believe that things are better because of science, took cold baths and when he lost his hunting license he became vegetarian and cultivated beautiful garden. But thats also method.

I wonder, is the seasons, the way heat and moisture are distributed over time, also a method? Because it brings forth plants, and allows for all this complex lawless machinery.
Anyway lets fuck laws and hail method.

Badass methods, thats what Id trust most, tried and true. Maybe trust and truth are actually the same.

Watch out that trust is not appeal to authority.

Or let it be your own authority at least.
Trust can be an appeal to oneself. Okay I trust this is going to go well, so Ill just do the best Ill be able to and its going to be fine. Thats the only trust I ever really had that was proven true.
I dont "trust" that the Sun comes up. I just am not surprised when it does.

But then thats a law, yeah that was what Hume was about I guess but whats the point of thinking if you don't ever expect to arrive at a concrete rule or something, something you can use? But again then law is an accomplishment and not a condition. Someone also said that God is an accomplishment. It sounds like all order is admirable. Our solar system was totally lawlessly forged, and now it is the law that gives flow to the waters and changing sunlight. And in this cosmic constitution small lawless creatures can pop up that relate to the original lawless precondition.

You got it!

Its a good universe to live in.

Maybe the only way something can follow from lawlessness is by setting itself as the law. Like a straight line escaping a black hole. But how can that happen?

Energy radiates from black holes as hawking radiation. Actually, it's very hard to enter a black hole since most things are accelerated, ripped apart, and flung across the universe. To actually enter inside, you'd have to be on a straight line trajectory with the center and have a lot of luck not to get knocked off course.

Yeah I don't think straight lines exist inside of black holes. But also no laws.
By the way if blackholes get created by a lot of stellar mass collapsing, then they are really well balanced out through spacetime for not crashing into each other and sucking all mass into a giant hole.

But yeah, laws exist because there are no laws saying otherwise. If we're in the jungle, the biggest guy makes the law. The solar system formed of no laws and now it's the law. It's the golden rule: the one with the gold makes the rules.

:auto-checkeredflag:
Great discussion.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: pit of snakes

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:09 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:
Okay, but isn't there still a kind of law in the fact that things don't tend to follow from things that are happening afterward, or at the same time?

Oh you mean a law governing the direction of time? If time went backwards, how could you tell? If B comes from A, then the sequence of events is A then B, but if you experience it backwards, it would still be that B came from A. Think about it... if you went back in time, you'd have no knowledge of the fact that you went back in time. So at timeslice B you'd say "Ah, B happened!" then at timeslice A you'd say "I wonder what will result from A".

Yes but all this what you say is still in the form of this, therefore that. Apparently we can do that, conclude that if one thing A is the case, then another thing B is aso the case but yet another thing X is not.
For me it is hard to not see any laws, when we practice logic.
Like if a pocket the 8 ball, it is not because I afterwards collected 25 bucks, but because I was arranging my force in a certain way through the cue.

It is as if the words if, then, because (etc) can't be used in a sentence if I want to avoid relying on laws.

Communication functions within laws (restrictions, boundaries, rules). If I don't follow the rules of language (if, then, else), then I can't convey any concepts. It's not that the laws of language are being enforced by an authority, but if I didn't follow them, communication would break down. Actually, if the laws of communication were indeed laws, I wouldn't be able to break them. So grammar is more of a construct for attainment of a goal rather than a law. It's as if we woke up one day and realized that if we put restraints on things, such as a flowing stream, we can guide the water for a goal. It's an idea that happened to come about as an artifact of what had existed previously.

Reality is not necessarily logical though. Superposition isn't logical, quantum tunneling isn't logical, heat flowing the wrong way isn't logical, so logic itself is not really a law.

There is no causality because in order for there to be, you'd have to explain how one thing affects another thing. But if one thing can affect another thing, then they are not 2 things, but 1 thing. And if there are no things, then there is no causality. If there is no causality, then your question has no meaning.

But the same thing happens here, when you say because. You say that fact that there is no causality has a cause.

That's just an artifact of argumentation. There isn't a cause of no causality for the reason (because) that there is nothing that could be a cause. Unless you're saying a cause can be a lack of a cause, but the lack of a cause is a state of nonexistence, emptiness, nothingness and how can nothing be something? Are things that do not exist, existent as things that do not exist? Is the nonexistence of a unicorn an existent thing?

What does "happening afterward" mean? After what? After a moment in time? Well how long is that? So we draw the line thinner and thinner until we find there is no time in which for anything to happen. Who was the guy (zeno or meno) who argued it was impossible for an arrow to ever hit a target because if the arrow is in motion, then it doesn't exist since there is no place in time where it is. Or something like that.

It seems he was ahead of Heisenberg. But Heraclitus would say yeah well things change. Maybe shoot an arrow into into a target to prove it.

Here it is https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#Arr

An immediate concern is why Zeno is justified in assuming that the arrow is at rest during any instant. It follows immediately if one assumes that an instant lasts 0s: whatever speed the arrow has, it will get nowhere if it has no time at all. But what if one held that the smallest parts of time are finite—if tiny—so that a moving arrow might actually move some distance during an instant? One way of supporting the assumption—which requires reading quite a lot into the text—starts by assuming that instants are indivisible. Then suppose that an arrow actually moved during an instant. It would be at different locations at the start and end of the instant, which implies that the instant has a ‘start’ and an ‘end’, which in turn implies that it has at least two parts, and so is divisible, contrary to our assumption. (Note that this argument only establishes that nothing can move during an instant, not that instants cannot be finite.)

So then, nothing moves during any instant, but time is entirely composed of instants, so nothing ever moves. A first response is to point out that determining the velocity of the arrow means dividing the distance traveled in some time by the length of that time. But—assuming from now on that instants have zero duration—this formula makes no sense in the case of an instant: the arrow travels 0m in the 0s the instant lasts, but 0/0 m/s is not any number at all. Thus it is fallacious to conclude from the fact that the arrow doesn’t travel any distance in an instant that it is at rest; whether it is in motion at an instant or not depends on whether it travels any distance in a finite interval that includes the instant in question.


Life that pops into existence wouldn't have sex organs. That's what I'm saying... the organs would have to be selected for. Reproduction itself would have to be selected for because it competed better than life that didn't reproduce.

What if authority comes into existence because of the way nature is everything so also aggression and will and law.
Authority always seems to opt up, like life.
Regularities are called laws in science, but in justice laws are not at all indicating regularities, only a will.

I mean objective authority (god) and not authority that is a product of what existed prior. If you're positing a law of nature, a fundamental law that cannot be broken, then there would have to be a god to enforce it. If there is no god to enforce it, then the law is just a happening, consequence, artifact, "a whatever". It may seem like a law because of its consistency, but it just is and isn't something that is enforced.

The latest hypothesis is that life formed from rocks and almost certainly still forms today in the same way. The clay particles that break off of rocks have the perfect structure for self-assembly of molecules... they provide a little tunnels for molecules to bounce around in and form chains. And plants eat rocks ya know. Then animals eat plants.

Thats very cool.
Where can I study this?

That's cool that you think it's cool!

Start at about 27:30 or just watch the whole thing :)



Pay particular attention at 28:45. That's the bit I'm on about and why I think life must be popping into existence all time, but it can't reproduce, so it just lives and dies unnoticed. I'm a panvitalist who believes there is no distinction between life and nonlife. Life doesn't come from nonlife and if life exists, it's all alive, but with varying degrees of complexity. Whatever it is that makes us alive is native to this universe and isn't something conjured into existence like magic because some non-living junk happened to arrange itself just so; no the life property must be inherent to everything.

Complex life can emerge anywhere an energy source exists. Here is some bacteria that use radioactive uranium for energy deep inside earth https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 192814.htm

Oh I see what you're saying... there would have to exist something to make a law from. But existence itself is relative. Nothing exist on its own in the middle of nothing because it would have no context or contrast to give it meaning. Every truth must be relative to something and even that truth must be relative and so on forever. We're looking for the most fundamental thing and we're never going to find it because we can't use the thing we're looking for to find the thing we're looking for. That's what the chinese describe as searching for the ass you're riding or putting your glasses on so you can find your glasses.

Well but Relativity from Einstein is not really relative to other truths, or is it actually relative to some truth that says that things are not relative?

Existence has no meaning outside of relativity. It's not Einstein's relativity, but epistemological relativity. If you say something exists, what do you mean? If you think about it long enough, you'll discover that existence is always relational. Something only exists as part of, as a function of, inside of, outside of, or somehow in relation to something else. There is no such thing as exclusive and abstract existence. Eventually it will occur to you to ask what the universe exists in relation to and to that question I'll just say "I have no idea" lol. I suppose it can only be an infinite regression of some sort.

James used to say that something can only be considered existent if it affects something else, which is another way of saying the same thing. If something cannot affect this universe, then it doesn't exist in relation to this universe.

But I agree that if you want to reasonably argue about truth you need to state some specific case and argue that it is a true case. On the other hand The Truth can maybe be accomplished in some way, like Jesus said I am the truth and the way and the life,

I think what Jesus was referring to was the names of the temples or something like that. Each were named "the way, the truth, the life". You have to be on guard for distortions in the bible.

Well check this out.

John 14:6

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

think about it. He said I am the truth and did badass things, and because he was so badass, people thought "okay so this is true. Lets go!" (then this became truth raining down on people like hail)
Because they alway wanted to know the truth, because having truth is power. You can out smart people if you have truth, or get to to the important places before the others who don't know truth.

He said that because the Jews had temples or doorways or something that one had to pass through to get to the holy of holies.

I managed to dig this up:

The foundation for all of the work we will present on this subject is based upon the, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life,” statement made by Jesus. What we have discovered is that these names, (the way, the truth and the life), are the names used to identify the entry ways into the Tabernacle chambers. “The Way,” for example is the name of the gate that leads into the Tabernacle Courtyard. “The Truth” is the name of the door into the Holy Place, and in like manner, “the Life,” is the passage into the Most Holy place of God. https://possessthevision.wordpress.com/ ... abernacle/

So when Jesus said that, everyone knew what he meant (and it probably pissed them off). He is the only doorway through which one can enter into the holy of holies.

Truth is relative. 1+1 = 2, but 1 male + 1 female = 1 baby or maybe a whole litter, or 1 matter + 1 antimatter = zero. So truth depends on the context.

Yeah but tell that to power. People always come to power by denying what you say.
Why is lies so much more efficient than truth?

Lies have incentive to propagate. Mark Twain said a lie can travel the earth while the truth is still putting on its shoes.

Why is the monotheistic god ruling over the fossil fuels? Dafucc is that?

Not sure what you mean.

Maybe truth is more of a how than a what or why. My uncle alway use to say the most fundamental truths are methods.

I resonate with that since I can't remember the quadratic equation, but I remember how to derive it. The method is more important than the triviality. Once I learn the method, I don't need the facts since I can regenerate them.

Yeah thats deep. Methods get things done. Always proud of my uncle. He works on trains. I mean not on the train, he is in engines. Must feel good to ride an engine you put together from sheer logic. He always aggravated my grandfather who didn't believe that things are better because of science, took cold baths and when he lost his hunting license he became vegetarian and cultivated beautiful garden. But thats also method.

I wonder, is the seasons, the way heat and moisture are distributed over time, also a method? Because it brings forth plants, and allows for all this complex lawless machinery.
Anyway lets fuck laws and hail method.

Bruce Lee was a helluva philosopher (actually he wanted to be recognized for his mind more than his body) and he said "let what works be testament for what's right." Of course, he was referring to fighting style, but it's applicable anywhere.

Badass methods, thats what Id trust most, tried and true. Maybe trust and truth are actually the same.

Watch out that trust is not appeal to authority.

Or let it be your own authority at least.
Trust can be an appeal to oneself. Okay I trust this is going to go well, so Ill just do the best Ill be able to and its going to be fine. Thats the only trust I ever really had that was proven true.
I dont "trust" that the Sun comes up. I just am not surprised when it does.

You have to trust yourself because if you don't, then you can't even trust your mistrust of yourself.

Maybe the only way something can follow from lawlessness is by setting itself as the law. Like a straight line escaping a black hole. But how can that happen?

Energy radiates from black holes as hawking radiation. Actually, it's very hard to enter a black hole since most things are accelerated, ripped apart, and flung across the universe. To actually enter inside, you'd have to be on a straight line trajectory with the center and have a lot of luck not to get knocked off course.

Yeah I don't think straight lines exist inside of black holes. But also no laws.

What's a straight line? It's the shortest direct between two points, but since an airplane can't fly through the earth, the shortest distance is a curved line on the surface of a sphere. I don't think straight lines exist. I'm not referring to segments, but lines with infinite lengths. Those types of lines are really circles with very large diameters. Afterall, a circle with infinite radius is a straight line (curvature of zero).

By the way if blackholes get created by a lot of stellar mass collapsing, then they are really well balanced out through spacetime for not crashing into each other and sucking all mass into a giant hole.

The distances are so vast that when 2 galaxies collide, no stars are expected to impact each other. That's what the astronomers on the youtube videos say. It's mindblowing!

But yeah, laws exist because there are no laws saying otherwise. If we're in the jungle, the biggest guy makes the law. The solar system formed of no laws and now it's the law. It's the golden rule: the one with the gold makes the rules.

:auto-checkeredflag:
Great discussion.

Yup, it's a lot of fun. Now I need to go do some chores because I sat here too long lol
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue Sep 11, 2018 6:35 pm

Thanks man, I will be checking these evidences, and Ill get back to you on the subject.
For me Ive got a satisfied feeling about the whole business with laws and rules, I figure we figured it out, by maybe what James calls Definitional Logic.
Trying to find definitions that work both ways.
So this definition of law is very good where it both explains law and un-law.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: pit of snakes

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:25 pm

Serendipper wrote:

It's fun to discover how one ought to live because invariably it's discovered that one ought to live in a way that is fun, otherwise what is the purpose of living? "Fun" is just a placeholder for the purposeless.


iambiguous wrote:Of course "fun" here [in an essentially meaningless No God world] is no less an existential contraption.


Serendipper wrote: No, I don't think it's either existential nor a contraption, but the opposite of. It's the non-existence of a contraption. It's complete mindlessness and complete lack of purpose. It's not a tool to employ mindlessness, but the absence of tools.


But: Only when we bring these obtuse "general descriptions" out into a world in which flesh and blood human beings use the word "fun" in particular contexts for particular reasons can we explore the limitations of the tools that philosophers use in discussing it way, way up in what I deem to be the clouds of scholastic abstraction.

Thus:

What is construed to be "fun" for one particular "I", may well be anything but "fun" for another.

Serendipper wrote: True, but the condition of purposelessness is the same for each unique activity.


Suppose Jack has "fun" torturing animals. His purpose could be to exorcise the pain inflicted on him by others, or it might be just to entertain himself.

How then do philosophers/ethicists pin this behavior down morally?

Again, I may well not be understanding your point. Let's illustrate it using this example.

So we are still faced with estsablishing rules of behavior in any particular human community such that these rules become the existential embodiment of one or another complex combination of 1] right makes might 2] might makes right and 3] moderation, negotiation and compromise.


Serendipper wrote: I'm not sure the rule of "no rules" is itself a rule if no thought is ever given to the establishment of such a rule. One who lives without rules never considers whether there should be rules.


The point is that human interactions precipitate conflicts when wants and needs themselves come into conflict. How then is the thought put into the rules of behavior not an existential contraption rooted in particular historical, cultural and interpersonal contexts? Or the thought put into the choice not to have any rules at all?

All the time making the assumption that with regard to causality here, some measure of human autonomy exists?

Which, from my frame of mind, are embedded historically and culturally in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.


Serendipper wrote: I've no idea what dasein is.


My own understanding of it [in the is/ought world] revolves around this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

How then is this not applicable to you when in the course of living your life a conflict erupts around the understanding what is "fun"?

But then this part:

Now, if "human freedom" here is essentially a self-delusion rooted in a mind rooted in a brain rooted in laws immutably applicable to all matter, then nothing that any of us post here was ever going to be anything other than that which it could only ever have been: what in fact it is. Period.


Serendipper wrote: I have a different comment this time around. I'm inclined to believe that free will exists to the extent that it's only restrained by probability of outcome instead of "set-in-stone" determination. The "will" is a desire that is manufactured of what exists "now" as a feedback in influencing (but not determining) the outcome of what will exist in the future.

I think there is a will and I think it has certain freedoms since nothing is 100% determined. The will is an illusion to the extent that it's a product of the stuff in this universe instead of being something abstractly and objectively real (objectively real is an oxymoron anyway).


Which justs takes me back to the gap between what you are inclined to believe about it here and now and your capacity to demonstrate that all other rational men and women are obligated to believe it in turn.

And while it is certainly "fun" to speculate about it, what is actually at stake here is the extent to which anything that we think, feel and do will ever be other than that which we were always going to think, feel and do.

And all we can do is to take our own "existential leap" to a frame of mind "here and now" rooted at least in part in dasein.

Or so it seems to me.

In other words, if you google "free will scholarly articles" you get this: https://www.google.com/search?ei=T6CeW6 ... CtGOIbf6DY

And what does this reflect but the gap between what you think you know about it here and now and what just some of the thinking that others have put into it is. So, what are the odds that your assumptions/assessments about it above and below come closest to the "whole truth" about it?

What we deem to be "purposeful" reasons for doing what we do may well be but the illusion of purpose ontologically rooted in the purposelessness of matter unfolding only as it ever could have going back to...to what exactly?

Well, to, among other things, those "unknown unknowns" embedded in Rumsfeld's Law.

Then [from my frame of mind] it's back up into the stratosphere of abstraction:

Serendipper wrote: If you truly feel there is no "right thing to do", then what you do cannot be predicated on what is "right". You just do what you do because that is what you do. Self reflection on the matter is taking an engineering view of the universe that everything must have a purpose.


And yet, over and again, I note that even this assumption is no less an existential contraption.


Serendipper wrote: I think the existential contraption is in trying to understand anything: it's the gnosia instead of the agnosia (conceptual vs the nonconceptual (faith)). Do you beat your heart by existential contraption? You have no concept (gnosia) how you beat your heart, but you just do it (agnosia). Likewise in living.


What on earth does this mean? Let's focus in on a particular purpose that a particular individual might have in a particular context.

For example, my own purpose here at ILP is to find an argument that might persuade me that with respect to the existential relationship between identity, conflicting goods and political power it can be demonstrated that being down in the hole that I am in is not a reasonable frame of mind. That there is a way up out of it. Now, in a wholly determined universe my purpose here is in itself no different from that beating heart. I think that I am acting with some degree of autonomy here but that may well be -- essentially, mechanistically, materially, phenomenologically, ontologically etc. -- an illusion.

But how can I then attempt to know this for sure when this attempt in and of itself may be no less determined by the immutable laws of matter.

How can I examine a reality here that "I" am inherently a part of? Just one more domino here and now toppling over onto you toppling over onto me.

With "purpose" only possible if teleologically there is a God.

There may well be the right thing to do.


Serendipper wrote: What's right is relative to a goal, which is arbitrary.


What goal in what context construed from what point of view? And "arbitrary" in what sense? Let's flesh this out.

Instead [in my view] you continue to just assert things. Things like this:

Serendipper wrote: If there is a god, it is continuous with this universe. Things that exist relative to us cannot exist outside this universe. Things outside this universe could not be things we could interact with or have knowledge of; if we could, those things would not be outside our universe.


A world of words. Truth revolving tautologically, circularly around the meaning that you give to words that make contact with nothing other than more words. You "posit" things:

Serendipper wrote: I posit that if the universe were rewound and begun again, this conversation would have very little chance of being as it is.


Posit: assume as a fact; put forward as a basis of argument.

[my emphasis]
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26552
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:28 pm

Serendipper prioritizes fun.
Iambiguous prioritizes trying to find out if there is a solution to conflicting goods.

This leads them to interact with people in certain ways.

Iambiguous thinks he, currently, has no way to know if either of these prioritizations is damaging or good, etc.

Yet his dialogue with Serendippier looks just like any conflicting goods dialogue.
You think you know something and I think that's bad but can't prove it. It might be just another contraption on my part. But then I'll keep conflicting with your position.

for some reason.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:54 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Serendipper prioritizes fun.
Iambiguous prioritizes trying to find out if there is a solution to conflicting goods.


Well, if someone's idea of having fun results in a set of priorities aimed at making your own life a miserable fucking hell, does that or does that not generally revolve around conflicting goods?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Iambiguous thinks he, currently, has no way to know if either of these prioritizations is damaging or good, etc.


No, he speculates that the priorities subscribed to by the guy who makes your life a miserable fucking hell are deemed good precisely because they result in making your life a miserable fucking hell.

So, cue the philosophers/ethicists to straighten it all out?

Or maybe the "pragmatists"? :wink:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Yet his dialogue with Serendippier looks just like any conflicting goods dialogue.
You think you know something and I think that's bad but can't prove it. It might be just another contraption on my part. But then I'll keep conflicting with your position.

for some reason.


Or bringing this down to earth:

"You think you know something about abortion and I think that's bad but can't prove it. It might be just another contraption on my part. But then I'll keep conflicting with your position."

No, I don't keep conflicting with what he thinks he knows about abortion just for the sake of sustaining the conflict. I conflict with it because what he thinks he knows about abortion [the morality of it] is not at all what others think.

Their idea of priorities here might revolve entirely around bringing the fetus out of the womb and into the world with the rest of us. While the priorities of others revolve entirely around allowing women to choose to abort it instead.

So, I ponder, how are these conflicting priorities not embedded existentially in dasein out in a world of conflicting goods ultimately resolved by who has the actual power to enforce one set of behaviors over another.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26552
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:20 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote: Serendipper prioritizes fun.
Iambiguous prioritizes trying to find out if there is a solution to conflicting goods.


Well, if someone's idea of having fun results in a set of priorities aimed at making your own life a miserable fucking hell, does that or does that not generally revolve around conflicting goods?
Sigh, not relevent. Neither you nor Seredipper can demonstrate objectively that what you prioritize is not evil. Yet, you seem to think his prioritization is problematic, but yours is not.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Iambiguous thinks he, currently, has no way to know if either of these prioritizations is damaging or good, etc.


No, he speculates that the priorities subscribed to by the guy who makes your life a miserable fucking hell are deemed good precisely because they result in making your life a miserable fucking hell.
You said no, but then said something that seems irrelevent. It also seems like an appeal to what you think are obvious bad consequences. But you have no idea if they are.

So, cue the philosophers/ethicists to straighten it all out?

Or maybe the "pragmatists"? :wink:
You seem to be a hammer seeing nails. Try to respond to what I post.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Yet his dialogue with Serendippier looks just like any conflicting goods dialogue.
You think you know something and I think that's bad but can't prove it. It might be just another contraption on my part. But then I'll keep conflicting with your position.

for some reason.


Or bringing this down to earth:
Bringing this down to earth? what are you talking about. I responded to a specific interaction between two humans, you and Serendipper. You judged his prioritization of fun as bad, though not in those words, and 'demonstrated' this by pointing out that somebody's idea of fun could be sadistic. My post was as down to earth as possible, a direct reference to a concrete interaction between two people where you judged the other, not seeming to realize the beam in your own eye, nor that you were appealing to moral judgments about the bad possiblities of having fun, which a nihilist cannot do and not be a hypocrite.
"You think you know something about abortion and I think that's bad but can't prove it. It might be just another contraption on my part. But then I'll keep conflicting with your position."

No, I don't keep conflicting with what he thinks he knows about abortion just for the sake of sustaining the conflict. I conflict with it because what he thinks he knows about abortion [the morality of it] is not at all what others think.
You are bringing in abortion. I responded to your judgment of his prioritization of fun.

This may seem obvious to you, but when people have discussions like this, in philosophy forums, just because they challenge one thread of your argument, it does not mean that your entire position is the focus and relevent in your response. The specific point being responded to is the issue.


So, I ponder, how are these conflicting priorities not embedded existentially in dasein out in a world of conflicting goods ultimately resolved by who has the actual power to enforce one set of behaviors over another.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the act of judgment on your part that I specifically and clearly responded to. Everyone's posts remind you of your main thesis and it is as if the entire structure must be proven wrong if one criticizes a portion of your arguments or your interactions.

You are a living person in interaction with other people, saying specific things, making specific arguments. Your acts and statements and judgements can be looked at in relation to your nihilism, for example, and be found wanting. You react to these criticisms, often, as if they are failures to demonstrate objective morals. That is confused. You can have been hypocritical, made poor arguments, judged in ways that are not consistent with your nihilism, not responded to points made etc.

Despite all your talk about your potential to be wrong, how your judgments are affected by dasein, how you may have existential contraptions

not once have I seen you admit that an argument you made was hypocritical or fallacious.

Not once.

So you are willing to admit that you might be wrong about anything, but you never manage to notice that you yourself can see you made a logical error or a hypocritical statement or responded not to the point being made.

That seems very odd.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]