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 iambiguous » Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:43 pm

phyllo wrote:
To admit that my argument is hypocritical would seem to suggest there is an argument that can be made by me about conflicting goods. An argument which I then refuse to honor.

To admit that my argument is fallacious would seem to suggest that I am aware of an optimal rational truth here --- yet continue to argue for something that is clearly out of sync with it.
Let's go with this.

The sequence should be :

You make an argument.


For example:

That our reactions to Communism are largely existential contraptions rooted subjectively and subjunctively in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

phyllo wrote: Someone points out an error with it. (He/she points out a rational truth. It need not be "optimal".)


Makes an argument like you do in order to "demonstrate" the errors in it.

phyllo wrote: You acknowledge that your argument was faulty and change it in future or you stop using it. (You become aware of the rational truth. You react appropriately.)


I acknowledge that my argument is just another existential contraption rooted in the components of my own moral philosophy: nihilism in a No God world. But that others are able to provide me with what they construe to be objective facts/truths that may or may not prompt me to change my mind.

phyllo wrote: Instead, this is what happens:

You make an argument.

Someone points out an error with it.

You dismiss it as an existential contraption.
or
You claim not to understand the post.

or
You claim the post does not address your points.
or
You claim that the post confirms what you have been saying.
or
You ask for a specific context. (Even when the post referred to a specific context.)
or
You post your personal timeline. (Yet again)
or
You post your interests. (Yet again.)


That may or may not happen. It depends on what they actually post about Communism. And the extent to which they are able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to think as they do about it.

phyllo wrote: Then you continue to use the same argument. Because there is never anything wrong with anything that you write. :-"


No, I point out that I was once a Communist myself. I once believed that "scientific socialism" was the most rational explanation for the evolution of political economy on planet earth. I measured other reactions to it ever and always from atop my objectivist perch.

Then all that began to crumble out from under me.

I came to embrace the components of moral nihilism. But I certainly do not argue that my "I" -- "here and now" -- offers arguments that never have anything wrong with them. That's your own existential rendition of me.

Meanwhile you sustain a considerably less fractured and fragmented sense of identity. And out in a world in which there is considerably more comfort and consolation to be had in believing in an objective morality that is more or less linked to one or another God.

No existential holes for you.

Or, rather, not yet. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27401
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:05 pm

Serendipper wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Again, my point is that the idea we think we have "in our head" about good or bad consequences is an existential contraption. But how on earth do mere mortals [in a No God world] demonstrate this?

I'm down in my hole, you [KT] take your "pragmatic" leap and the objectivists insist that any actual consequences are either inherently good or bad.

The concept of good and bad are foreign concepts to someone who doesn't see things in terms of good and bad like UV light is a foreign concept to nonavian beings who can't see the color ultra-orange.


Defending concepts of good and bad is one thing, demonstrating that actual behaviors are either good or bad another thing altogether.

Serendipper wrote: Debating whether good and bad exist is a nonsensical debate since good and bad have to be presupposed to be true before consideration could be given to the notion of whether good and bad exist. So good and bad must be axiomized, taken on faith, in order to have the debate, which is silly.


However nonsensical or silly the debate might be, there is no getting around rules of behavior in any particular human community.

And here others are either in the hole that "I" am in, or they are able to rationalize the choices that they make as in sync with the real me in sync with the right thing to do.

Then noting their particular font of choice.

Serendipper wrote: Good and bad are nothing more than desires in relation to arbitrary goals: if goals are attained, then that's good; if not, then that's bad.


But not entirely arbitrary. Instead, "I" is rooted for each individual in being "thrown" out into a particular world historically, culturally and experientially. Then being indoictrinated as a child to embody one particular sense of reality rather then another. And then accumulaing a particular set of experiences in a world awash in contingency, chance and change. All the way to the grave.

Serendipper wrote: The nonexistence of good and bad is not an existential contraption anymore than the nonexistence of visual receptors and neurological architecture to see UV light is a contraption. Things that do not exist are not contraptions.


Again, you would have to bring this down to earth. Biological architecture is one thing, the architecture of value judgments another thing altogether.

Or, rather, they are intertwined in a particular sequence of genes and memes understood from a particular point of view but able to be evaluated only subjectively and subjunctively.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27401
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby phyllo » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:05 pm

I acknowledge that my argument is just another existential contraption rooted in the components of my own moral philosophy: nihilism in a No God world.
That's not actually an acknowledgement of anything. It simply restates and reinforces your idea that you're right based on your assumptions and experiences and others are right based on their assumptions and experiences.

It can be summed up as : "I'm always right. I'm never wrong."

And it also means : "I don't care what you think or say. Nothing to do with me."
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby phyllo » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:33 pm

For example:

That our reactions to Communism are largely existential contraptions rooted subjectively and subjunctively in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
It's interesting that you don't say that our reactions are entirely existential contraptions.

That's probably because you recognize that biology determines some of our reactions. That would be the objective aspect of morality and ethics. Which is why similar morality and themes occur throughout the world.

One never actually gets around to discussing it.

It gets lost in "optimum", "obligations", "demonstrations", "dasein" and "existential contraptions".

Too bad.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:34 pm

phyllo wrote:
I acknowledge that my argument is just another existential contraption rooted in the components of my own moral philosophy: nihilism in a No God world.
That's not actually an acknowledgement of anything. It simply restates and reinforces your idea that you're right based on your assumptions and experiences and others are right based on their assumptions and experiences.

It can be summed up as : "I'm always right. I'm never wrong."

And it also means : "I don't care what you think or say. Nothing to do with me."


Right, keep on trying to convince yourself of this.

After all, what's the alternative?

You know, other than your own rendition of "the hole".

And that would mean saying bye-bye to your own rendition of the real me in sync with the right thing to do. And, who knows, maybe even to God as well.

And there is surely not much comfort and consolation in that frame of mind.

Trust me on this, okay? :evilfun:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27401
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby phyllo » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:45 pm

Okay buddy. Take care.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:46 pm

phyllo wrote:
For example:

That our reactions to Communism are largely existential contraptions rooted subjectively and subjunctively in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
It's interesting that you don't say that our reactions are entirely existential contraptions.


How could I? There is clearly a historical record containing any number of historical facts relating to historical events like the rise of Communism or fascism. My focus is always on how we react to those facts from within a particular set of assumptions attached to a particular set of moral and political prejudices.

Or, in your case, religious prejudices?

phyllo wrote: That's probably because you recognize that biology determines some of our reactions. That would be the objective aspect of morality and ethics. Which is why similar morality and themes occur throughout the world.

One never actually gets around to discussing it.


Or why stop there? One could argue that biological imperatives are rooted in a wholly determined universe.

Or one could argue as Satyr's clique/claque does over at KT, that they and only they have come to grasp the one true nature of these biological imperatives. As, for example, they relate to such things as gender and race and sexual orientation and being Jewish.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27401
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:37 pm

Serendipper wrote:
iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind, reactions to abortion and to fun are the same thing --- value judgments derived from daseins interacting in a world of conflicting goods. What in particular does someone think is fun? And fun in what context?

Fun is not a thing, but the absence of a thing (purpose).

Fun is not value judgements, but absence of judgement.


Fun is what any particular individual in any particular context says that they feel while behaving in a particular manner or in experiencing something in a particular way.

Then there are the reactions of others to this.

They may or may not be able to imagine describing this behavior or experience as a "fun" thing to do. They may note that this person's idea of fun is at the expense of another person who is experiencing anything but fun.

Fun: "enjoyment, amusement, or lighthearted pleasure."

We come into the world hard-wired biologically to embody this mental, emotional, psychological and/or physical sensation in reacting to the world around us. Whether you want to call it a "thing" or "the absense of a thing." And whether it is embedded in a set of value judgments or not.

Serendipper wrote: Much like presupposing good and bad in order to debate good and bad, we cannot presuppose purpose in order to debate purpose.


A "purpose" too is always understood in a particular context that is understood in a particular way. What do we tell others when they ask us why we are doing what we do? When they ask for the reason or the purpose behind it? And here dasein is marbled through and through our answers. Just as "conflicting goods" are when my purpose for doing something results in a set of behaviors that others construe to be bad.

Are some purposes inherently/essentially/necessarily more rational than others? Are they in turn inherently/essentially/necessarily more virtuous than others?

Says who? Based on what set of assumption regarding human interactions?

Serendipper wrote: You're stuck on making a rule of no-rules, but that's only because you're considering the question from a top-down perspective, which is a presupposition of purpose. It's teleology like asking what is the purpose of a butterfly having an "eye" on it's wing, then saying because predators don't eat them, as if it were designed to do just that, but that's isn't what happened. What happened was nature just did whatever (fun), with no purpose in mind, and some butterflies happened to survive.


The purpose of things like the eye on the butterfly wing is embedded in the either/or world. Unless of course it can be demonstrated that God exists and intended it to be that way. It's all embedded in random mutations. And we have no way in which to determine if teleology plays a part in this or not. In Nature.

At least to the best of my knowledge.

But what of the reaction of those of our own species to others who go out and capture butterflies, kill them, and then mount them in a display case? And then when asked why they do this, they say, "it's fun".

Serendipper wrote: If the whole thing were designed and everything had a purpose to fulfill, then there would be no purpose to it. Why watch a show that you know how it ends? There is no purpose to that. So the lack of purpose gives everything a purpose.


There would appear to be no purpose in a No God world. Purpose [to me] implies a conscious mind aiming to do one thing rather than another for one reason rather than another. Imagine for example that the human species here on earth are the only species of animal in the entire universe able to think and to talk about purpose in this way. Then next month the really big one -- asteroid, comet, super nova, gamma ray burst etc -- takes out all human life on earth.

What then of "purpose" in a universe in which there are no conscious minds [self-conscious minds] around to discuss and debate it?

Can fun or purpose even exist in a mindless universe?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27401
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:38 pm

phyllo wrote:Okay buddy. Take care.


Thanks old friend. I'll see you in the next round. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27401
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:57 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:How could I not construe my own argument here as problematic given that I readily acknowledge it is but one more existential contraption being posted on this thread?
Yes, that is precisely my point. But if we look at your behavior, we see you treating his prioritization of fun as problematic AND YOU DO THIS BY SHOWING how it could be problematic. You use an argument which is a kind of appeal to the what most people would think are horrible consequences - in other words an appeal to what most people think is EVIL and this is ironic given you are a nihilist.


I can only repeat myself by noting that my own argument here is just another existential contraption.

And in acknowledging that I still don't grasp what you construe to be so important in your reaction to that.

I am a nihilist "here and now". Meaning that there and then [in the past] I was not a nihilist. I was an objectivist instead. Meaning that there and then [in the future] I may be something else altogether. Thus the manner in which fun is understood and prioritized by me is ever and always subject to change given new experiences etc.

Evil is believed to exist by some. Okay, let them demonstrate that what they construe to be Evil [or fun for that matter] does in fact exist objectively.

With you though, I struggle to grasp how your own "I" out in the is/ought world is less deconstructed than mine. Given that you reject Good and Evil yourself.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But more importantly, you never show precisely how YOUR POSITION and behavior might lead to bad or evil consequences.


My position here is going to be reacted to by those who either do or do not believe that objective morality does in fact exist amidst human interactions. In a God world, sure, that makes sense to me. But in a No God world?

Here, in my view, other people's priorities are no less existential contraptions than my own. And it is the gap between the manner in which I construe the implications of these existential fabrications/contraptions [re "I"] out in the is/ought world and the manner in which your own pragmatic contraptions are construed to work for you that most interest me.

After all, with the objectivists the implications embedded in moral certainty for "I" is obvious.

My own priorities regarding an issue like abortion revolve around a pro-choice point of view. But I recognize that as just a political prejudice rooted in the life that I have lived. And my position clearly leads to what others consture to be bad or evil consequences for the dead baby.

But somehow "pragmatism" enables you to fit "I" here into a slot that leaves you feeling considerably less ambivalent.

But then [alas] you seem compelled instead to go on and on and on up in the clouds of abstraction:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: So you (as a rule!) make a disclaimer about yours, but you get into specific demonstrations and arguments about ALL OTHER POSITIONS you encounter. IOW you treat other people's priorities differently, often using charged specific examples of the bad consequences they might or will lead to. You never show how your prioritization might lead to specific bad consequences. You treat your values very differently from other people's values. All the while claiming you have no idea are so conflicted and fragmented. And yet the same values, for example compromise, negotiation and moderation keep coming up. Not others, despite your fragmentation. And demonstrate what bad consequences they might lead to.


A pro forma abstract disclaimer is not the same as what you did with fun, and with other people's priorities. SAying: Of course I might be wrong. Of course my ideas are affected by Dasein. is not the same treatment you give to other ideas.

You have a sense of The Good, it's just, like many objectivists, consider it open to revision. A fragmented person does not keep repeating the same goods. A fragmented person would see the potential problems of negotiation and compromise also. And so on. A nihilist does not think there is a good, or something we ought to do. A nihilist does not have the 'I think this is good' contraption. But you do. A nihilist does not say, I think this is good, but it's a contraption. The nihilist does not think this is good and that is bad. The nihilist obviously will have preferences, unless he or she is extremely depressed. But not notions of the good with disclaimers. You never seem to notice this contradiction between your behavior and your philosophy, even when it is pointed out using different approaches by different posters.


What values expressed in what context from what moral vantage point? Why one set of priorities rather than another?

I'm down in my hole, you take your "pragmatic" leap and the objectivists insist that any actual consequences are either inherently good or bad.


Karpel Tunnel wrote:I don't take any fucking leap. I do not add on all the problematic tasks and self-relations you add on. As explained elsewhere.


Yes, as a matter of fact, you do. But only given the manner in which I construe a moral value embraced by someone who does not believe in objective morality. You just call it being "pragmatic" instead.

What you "add" to the discussion [in my view] are the reasons that you feel this way about abortion rather than that way. Which I then root in dasein in a manner in which you don't. But that still doesn't clear up [for me] how your pragmatism here is able to hold your own "I" together more firmly than moral nihilism does mine.

Which I then suspect is but another manifestation of dasein.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Why don't you actually come down to earth, tell us about a specific situation in your life where you encountered conflicting goods. Not in the newspaper, not out of your head, not with Trump and his opponents, but with you actually involved. I can't remember you actually presenting a real life example, and yet you have the nerve to constantly accuse others of being abstract and not doing this. I know. I have and yet you keep asking me to do this as if I haven't.


Here I return time and time again to one of zinnat's "groots":

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.


This example because it marks that crucial turning point in my life when I came to abandon objective morality. And because this sequence became more and more the template for all of my subsequent encounters with conflicting goods.

This experience became the first shovel of dirt to be excavated from my "hole".

And "pragmatism" doesn't work for me as it works for you because my frame of mind when embodying "moderation, negotiation and compromise" is no less an existential contraption.

Invite us inside your head the next time you encounter someone who challenges one of your own value judgments. Or pick something from the news. Either way note for us how you engage challenges as a "pragmatist". Just how fractured and fragmented are you then? Just how comforted and consoled are you with the leap that you finally make? And how is this all less embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529


Karpel Tunnel wrote: I've done this. I wrote a specific case where I defended another man in a group. I described the conflicting values and how I coming from my preferences tried to affect change. It made absolutely no difference to you.


In other words, in reacting to this I didn't share your own assessment above. I did not confirm that your defense of this man is more reasonable than my own reaction to him. If it had made a difference to me then I would be in sync with your own point of view.

Yes, I get this all the time from the objectivists. I'm just unable to grasp it from someone who shares my own assumptions about objective morality. That in all likelihood it does not exist in a No God world.

But let's move on to another context. A conflicting good that generates headlines "in the news". One in which most here will have a point of view that is either objectivist, pragmatic or rooted in moral nihilism.

You choose it.

In the interim though it's back up into the clouds:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: You seem to think having wants and feeling things that lead to actions and choices requires leaps. Dogs manage without philosophies and leaps. Now, sure, I sometimes feel torn, sometimes I am confused, but it is only through abstract thinking that one, as a rule, cannot takes steps to make things more like one wants. To try at least. For you it is a leap, some mental contraption. But animals, lacking our vast array of mental gadgetry, manage to do this. Your hole is due to an excess of contraptions, not a lack of them. And just to repeat: of course, I get confused. Of course I can feel conflicted both about means and goals. But unlike you I do not think I must solve enormous epistemological and universal moral behavior issues to live my life. You have nearly killed the animal in you with all your contraptions.


Note an example of this pertaining to a set of conflicting goods likely to be familiar to most of us here. How are you confused? How are you conflicted? How do you come to embody a particular moral and political narrative such that you appear [to me] to be considerably less fractured and fragmented?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Without this strangely moral looking huge project, I handle things much more as you like handle your shopping. I try to achieve what I want for myself and those I care about and for what I care about.


This "project" that you imagine me undertaking is mostly in your head. I spend a few hours a day in philosophy forums. And even then a lot of my time revolves around my "signature" threads here at ILP. The rest of the day I am doing other things -- listening to music, watching movies, tuning in to the televsion programs I like, listening to the occasional NPR broadcast, following the news.

And to the extent that you approach conflicting goods as you would "going shopping" is admittedly the sort of pragmatism that is brand spanking new to me. I can't even imagine it myself. Given that the consequences embedded in conflicting goods is often horrific to any number of men and women.

As for objectivists "running from me", that too seems to be something that you have concocted in your head about me. Common sense tells us that in believing in objective morality, one must believe in turn that there is a "real me" able to be in sync with "the right thing to do". And it is from this frame of mind that [psychologically] one is able to feel comforted and consoled. And thus to the extent that my own frame of mind is able to deconstruct that frame of mind is the extent to which any number of objectivists are going to react to me has they often do here. Some even resorting to what I call "huffing and puffing", retorting, making me the issue.

Even in your own posts here the sarcasm is evident. And that's right around the corner from contempt. So, why do I bring this out in you? Or are you also a polemicist at heart?

Or, perhaps, you are just inclined to be "smug" in these exchanges "by nature"?

Smugness is certainly something that I can project in turn. But I am about as far removed from being truly smug as one can be from down in the hole that I am in. I am no longer able to feel any degree of certainty regarding my own value judgments. My "I" here really is "in pieces". And the abyss [nothingness] is right around the corner. I am only left with my "distractions" as I wait patiently [though sometimes impatiently] for godot.

Then back again to this part:

In any event, let's intertwine the discussion here in an actual existential context.

Cite some actual instances of this relating to things that I post here at ILP. I am honestly unsure about the point that you are making.


Karpel Tunnel wrote:I believe you. You cannot see what might be problematic even if Phyllo and I place specific concrete examples right in front of you. I did it again in this post. I have done this many times. Most of the time you are not willing to even look at your own behavior. I mention it and you repeat your general position on dasein conflicting values, without ever responding to the critique of specfiic instances of your behavior that are hypocritical int he context of your nihilism. Other times when a specific act is pointed out you say that you have also said your conclusions are existential contraptions. But when it is pointed out that you relate differently to the existential contraptions of others, you do not respond or repeat your general position. When you conclude that something is good, you cannot seem to notice that you are no longer a nihilist, since for you an objectivist is only someone who believes their values are 100% correct. But this is not the case. A nihilist cannot draw a conclusion about the good, even a tentative one. He does no believe the good exists. And this was pointed out as a specific instance, an act in your posting. A down to earth example, first pointed out by Phyllo, where you obviously and clearly think that comprimise and negotiation are good. When it is pointed out this is a contradiction, you say that it may be a contraption on your part. Fine, but you are no longer a nihilist if you draw conclusions about what is good. You just open to revision. Scientists are objectivists about scientific knowledge, but they consider ALL conclusions open to revision, it is part and parcel with scientific epistemology.


Note to others:

Link me to instances where he actually does bring this discussion out into the world of conflicting goods. Instead, in my view, he merely argues that he has done so repeatedly. Then he goes on and on and on in psycho-babble mode explaining me to myself and others. I become the issue.

I would really appreciate it if others here will link me to all of the many specific contexts in which he claims to have brought his "pragmatism" down to earth.

In particular those revolving around conflicting goods that pop up over and over and over again out in the world that we live in.

How does a "pragmatist" argue one way or the other about issues like abortion or gender roles or gun control or animal rights or homosexuality?

As a moral nihilist, I am always down in the hole that "I" have broached here. How then is that different from what KT professes here? That's the part that most intrigues me. He doesn't believe in objective morality but his own brand of relativism [situational ethics]leaves his own "I" considerably more intact.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27401
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby phyllo » Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:42 pm

Iambig wrote :
Invite us inside your head the next time you encounter someone who challenges one of your own value judgments. Or pick something from the news. Either way note for us how you engage challenges as a "pragmatist". Just how fractured and fragmented are you then? Just how comforted and consoled are you with the leap that you finally make? And how is this all less embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529



Karpel Tunnel wrote:
I've done this. I wrote a specific case where I defended another man in a group. I described the conflicting values and how I coming from my preferences tried to affect change. It made absolutely no difference to you.



In other words, in reacting to this I didn't share your own assessment above. I did not confirm that your defense of this man is more reasonable than my own reaction to him. If it had made a difference to me then I would be in sync with your own point of view.
You missed KT's point. He did "invite you inside his head" when he was challenged. He did describe how he "engaged".

Your assessment of KT's position and your reaction to the man's point of view is not the issue. Being "in sync" with KT's point of view is not the issue.

The issue is how the conflict was approached and resolved. That's what you actually asked for in the first place.

Instead you turn it into a case of "taking sides".
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:11 pm

Iambig wrote :
Invite us inside your head the next time you encounter someone who challenges one of your own value judgments. Or pick something from the news. Either way note for us how you engage challenges as a "pragmatist". Just how fractured and fragmented are you then? Just how comforted and consoled are you with the leap that you finally make? And how is this all less embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529



Karpel Tunnel wrote:
I've done this. I wrote a specific case where I defended another man in a group. I described the conflicting values and how I coming from my preferences tried to affect change. It made absolutely no difference to you.




In other words, in reacting to this I didn't share your own assessment above. I did not confirm that your defense of this man is more reasonable than my own reaction to him. If it had made a difference to me then I would be in sync with your own point of view.
Absolutely not what I meant. Not in the slightest. Not at all, never said that, never expected that.

Really rude.

You kept asking. I showed you what I did in a concrete situation. Of course it did not resolve conflicting goods. Of course it did not convince everyone. I don't think such arguments exist. I don't think there are objective values. I don't think that even if there were and I knew them I would have the skill to convince everyone.

What I meant by saying nothing happened is, that you kept demanding that I do this, and so I did.

Then you kept asking me to do it, after I did, as if I hadn't. As if I was afraid or doing it would reveal something I couldn't deal with.

But the truth is I don't believe in objective values. I shared an example of how I handle conflicts. I handle them pragmatically, to the best of my abilities and energy and the priorities of the day. I know that I cannot eliminate all conflicts and have no magic wands. My giving a concrete example did not drive me down into a hole. My not being able to convince you or everyone does not drive me down into a hole. I do not expect to be able to do this. I do not hold myself responsible for doing that.

Of course like anyone I wish I could make it better for what I care about. Of course I would like it if more people agreed with me. But I have neither of your two extremely rigorous contraptions: that I must find the argument that convinces everyone, that I cannot act in the world and try to make things the way I prefer, unless I am sure I will never change.

You went on and on about how I should give an example. I did. I did it honestly as the non-objectivist I am.

It didn't even register on you that I had done it.

And now your interpretation of my reaction to your really rude disinterest in my carrying out a task you requested, is to say I expected you to be convinced that you should react the same way.

SEriously, do you read what I write?

I don't want to have another outburst of cursing.

You so, so desperately want my not suffering the way you are to be caused by some kind of objectivism or contraption that you project all sorts of things on me and my posts, and then also can't even remember when I have done things or what my beliefs which I have repeated are. Or so it seems. It seems like you want to have me in a box. For reasons: there, I don't have to worry about him not being in my hole, he's X, and that is not disturbing. Someone who is X and not in a hole is not disturbing.

But I am not X. So stop projecting it on me. There are more possibilities, it seems, then you consider. Maybe that makes you uneasy, so you have to have me in a box you feel comfortable about. Who knows?

You got anything new to say?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby phyllo » Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:57 pm

He never examines the conflict resolution process or any sort of problem solving methods.

He just points out that people have different ideas which results in conflict. And his solution is always "moderation, negotiation and compromise".

That's the only place the "discussion" goes.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:20 pm

phyllo wrote:You missed KT's point. He did "invite you inside his head" when he was challenged. He did describe how he "engaged".

Your assessment of KT's position and your reaction to the man's point of view is not the issue. Being "in sync" with KT's point of view is not the issue.

The issue is how the conflict was approached and resolved. That's what you actually asked for in the first place.

Instead you turn it into a case of "taking sides".


No, the issue for me is always this: How with respect to conflicting value judgments in a No God world construed to be lacking in objective morality, he is able to "resolve" such conflicting assessments and not feel fractured and fragmented as I -- "i" -- am.

I try to make this distinction clear over and over again with him. He offers an explanation and it does not resonate with me. So the problem [from his frame of mind] obviously becomes me. I'm not truly understanding the point that he is making. Why? Because I am not really trying too. Or my thinking is just not as sophisticated as his is.

Just as with you and Communism: if only I would make a more concerted effort to understand it as you do, the conflicting goods would melt away for me too.

Anyway, once he notes the manner in which his views on an issue like abortion are embedded in the sort of trajectory I provide above, we will have something more concrete to exchange moral philosophies regarding.

Of course with you there's also that part about God, isn't there?

The Christian God by any chance?

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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27401
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby phyllo » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:45 pm

No, the issue for me is always this: How with respect to conflicting value judgments in a No God world construed to be lacking in objective morality, he is able to "resolve" such conflicting assessments and not feel fractured and fragmented as I -- "i" -- am.
That's two separate issues - resolving conflicts and feeling fractured.
I try to make this distinction clear over and over again with him. He offers an explanation and it does not resonate with me. So the problem [from his frame of mind] obviously becomes me. I'm not truly understanding the point that he is making. Why? Because I am not really trying too. Or my thinking is just not as sophisticated as his is.

Just as with you and Communism: if only I would make a more concerted effort to understand it as you do, the conflicting goods would melt away for me too.
I don't see you compromising, negotiating or being moderate.

That is your preferred solution. Right?

So why are you not doing it? Why are you not leading by example?

What actual effort are you making?

ADDING ANOTHER QUESTION:
What does your solution to our conflict over Communism look like?
Last edited by phyllo on Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:49 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:But the truth is I don't believe in objective values. I shared an example of how I handle conflicts. I handle them pragmatically, to the best of my abilities and energy and the priorities of the day. I know that I cannot eliminate all conflicts and have no magic wands. My giving a concrete example did not drive me down into a hole. My not being able to convince you or everyone does not drive me down into a hole. I do not expect to be able to do this. I do not hold myself responsible for doing that.


My point is only that if you understood the components of my own moral philosophy in the manner which I have come to construe them as an adjunct of moral nihilism in a No God world, you might be persuaded to shift your point of view. Just as if I understood the manner in which pragmatism works for you, I might be the one to shift.

I have offered you an existential trajectory in regard to my views on abortion as a moral construct [combining both philosophy and experience] resulting in a "sense of self" that is fractured and fragmented.

How given the evolution of your own value judgments here do you imagine that you are not as deconstructed as I am?

All I can presume is that you are able to shrug off the manner in which I relate my own thinking here. I loved Mary and she wanted the abortion, I loved John and he wanted the baby to be born. There was no resolution once I had abandoned my objectivist frame of mind and came more and more to concur with William Barrett regarding "rival goods".

How was my reaction then [that Mary's frame of mind was more "just"] not an existential contraption rooted in a particular set of political prejudices? Why would I not feel drawn and quartered in dealing with a situation in which one way or the other one of best friends was going to truly pained and deeply troubled? It tore them apart.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to approach this as the equivalent of "going shopping".

Somehow apparently [if I understand you] you are.

The rest is just you "psycho-analyzing" me again. You get me but I don't get you. And that has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that your argument [like your intellect] is simply more sophisticated than mine.

And, if, as a result of this, you do feel less fractured and fragmented [and thus more comforted and consoled], well, that's just a bonus.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27401
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:03 pm

phyllo wrote:
No, the issue for me is always this: How with respect to conflicting value judgments in a No God world construed to be lacking in objective morality, he is able to "resolve" such conflicting assessments and not feel fractured and fragmented as I -- "i" -- am.
That's two separate issues - resolving conflicts and feeling fractured.


Not from my frame of mind. The two are -- ineffably, inextricably -- linked in a No God world in which value judgments are derived existentially from daseins clashing in a world awash in conflicting goods. I can't resolve these conflicts precisely because "I" am tugged and pulled in opposing directions. Ambiguity and ambivalence are everywhere for me.

Why? Because I don't have a God or an ideology to fall back on anymore.

I try to make this distinction clear over and over again with him. He offers an explanation and it does not resonate with me. So the problem [from his frame of mind] obviously becomes me. I'm not truly understanding the point that he is making. Why? Because I am not really trying too. Or my thinking is just not as sophisticated as his is.

Just as with you and Communism: if only I would make a more concerted effort to understand it as you do, the conflicting goods would melt away for me too.


phyllo wrote: I don't see you compromising, negotiating or being moderate.


But my point is precisely that even to the extent that I do these things, my reasoning can only be just another existential contraption. There are liberals and conservatives willing to moderate their views, negotiate and make compromises regarding things like abortion. But these revolve entirely around means -- democracy and the rule of law -- not ends. Most are still convinced that their moral narrative reflects a more rational and virtuous assessment of the issue.

Thus to the extent that I champion these things as the best of all possible worlds, the components of my argument don't go away. I don't feel any less fractured and fragmented.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27401
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby phyllo » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:25 pm

Not from my frame of mind. The two are -- ineffably, inextricably -- linked in a No God world in which value judgments are derived existentially from daseins clashing in a world awash in conflicting goods. I can't resolve these conflicts precisely because "I" am tugged and pulled in opposing directions. Ambiguity and ambivalence are everywhere for me.

Why? Because I don't have a God or an ideology to fall back on anymore.
Right. Because you don't have any method. You're treading water and you're exhausted but you're not getting anywhere. If you had a method then you would be swimming in some direction.

A pragmatist will pick a stroke and a direction and he/she will start moving.
But my point is precisely that even to the extent that I do these things, my reasoning can only be just another existential contraption.
Okay, you're reasoning will be an existential contraption but you will have a particular result which is not a contraption. The result will be in the real world. Assuming that you even go beyond talk and actually take some actions.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:51 am

phyllo wrote:Okay, you're reasoning will be an existential contraption but you will have a particular result which is not a contraption. The result will be in the real world. Assuming that you even go beyond talk and actually take some actions.
And as you point out above he does not display compromise, moderation and negotiation here. He is utterly uncompromising about what the focus is. His discussion partner may want to focus on his behavior, or an epistemological issue he is not interested in, etc. His response is to repeat his position, or say that that issue/topic/comment does not resolve confliciting goods, or label the other person or the person's position either explicitly or implicitly pejoratively.

It's a very abstract and restricted part of the real world here, but it is a part of it, and he does not exhibit the values he says are the only ones that make sense given we are sans God, etc.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:04 am

phyllo wrote:You missed KT's point. He did "invite you inside his head" when he was challenged. He did describe how he "engaged".

Your assessment of KT's position and your reaction to the man's point of view is not the issue. Being "in sync" with KT's point of view is not the issue.

The issue is how the conflict was approached and resolved. That's what you actually asked for in the first place.

Instead you turn it into a case of "taking sides".


Iamb: No, the issue for me is always this: How with respect to conflicting value judgments in a No God world construed to be lacking in objective morality, he is able to "resolve" such conflicting assessments and not feel fractured and fragmented as I -- "i" -- am.
I have presented a hypothesis. What is the hypothesis I have presented recently a few times about why I am not in a hole and you are? Hint: it related to contraptions not just giving comfort.

I try to make this distinction clear over and over again with him
I understand the distinction.
He offers an explanation and it does not resonate with me. So the problem [from his frame of mind] obviously becomes me. I'm not truly understanding the point that he is making. Why? Because I am not really trying too. Or my thinking is just not as sophisticated as his is.
Nope. I suppose it is possible you are not really trying to understand . but I NEVER THINK THIS IS A REALLY YOU DO NOT BECOME CONVINCED OF MY VALUES. I don't think like that, being a non-objectivist. More sophisticated? I have never said or implied that. You are projecting on me.

Anyway, once he notes the manner in which his views on an issue like abortion are embedded in the sort of trajectory I provide above, we will have something more concrete to exchange moral philosophies regarding.
[/quote]Why does it have to be abortion? I gave a description of how I handled a conflicting goods situation. I had partial success in getting others to do as I preffered. Other days I do not succeed. Sometimes I am afraid or too pessimistic to try. I am fairly skilled with words, but it only goes so far in the world. I accept that, though of course I am frustrated some times. Many things I wish were different in the world. I accept the fact that I cannot now present an argument that will convince everyone to do as I would wish. I do not believe there are objective values. I do not think the project of trying to find them is a good place to put my energy. I do not think it is wrong for me to participate in life and try to problem solve, despite my lacking knowledge of objective values. I do not judge myself for striving for what I prefer and strving to make it better for what I care about, even though it is possible I will change my mind some day.

Now the onus on you is to show that I should, really, be down in your hole.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:04 am

Holy crap I'm falling behind :shock:

I have to go back a whole page to find my last post lol
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:40 am

iambiguous wrote:
Serendipper wrote:We could say the goal of this discussion is ultimately to define what we ought to do, but what is the purpose of that? What is the purpose of knowing what we ought to do if what we ought to do isn't what we want to do? And if it is what we want to do, then what's the relevancy of knowing it is also what we ought to do? So knowing what we ought to do is irrelevant to what we will do because we always do what we want to do.


In any particular community of human beings, wants and needs come into conflict.

Yes, wants/needs, internal/external, subject/object. The discussion with you is the same as the discussion with KT, but the labels are different.

Can you control what you want? If not, then how is a want different from a need? Are you breathing because you want to or because you need to? Do you want to go on living or do you need to?

As a consequence, there are always going to be instances in which what you want to do becomes entangled in that which others insist you ought to do.

If you do what you ought to do, then you're still doing what you want to do. If I ought to do X, and I want to do what I ought to do, then I want to do X.

Why? Because if you do what you want to do [for "fun" or not] it can piss the others off.

So not wanting to piss people off is greater than wanting to do the thing that might piss people off, even though it's something you originally wanted to do before you realized that people could be pissed.

So, folkways, mores, laws -- rules of behavior -- are established to sustain the least dsyfunctional set of interactions. Or [perhaps] to sustain what some insist are the must "just" interactions.

Right so we create some arbitrary rules to facilitate cohabitation. We don't need to follow them, but if we want peace and friendship, we may want to follow them.

My point then is only to suggest that these rules of behavior are largely social constructs rooted in history, culture, and individual experiences. Rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Yes I agree, but I'm still not sure what "rooted in dasein" means.

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.

Serendipper wrote:If we ask Jack why he is torturing animals his answer could only be "I don't know" because all fun activities have that answer, and if they didn't have that answer, then the activity would be purposeful instead of purposeless.


Maybe, but Jack's answer is still embedded in dasein out in a world where some are able to rationalize torturing animals while others insist that it is necessarily immoral to do so.

But rationalization implies purpose. If he is rationalizing, then he wouldn't be torturing animals for fun (no purpose), but possibly to please the gods who will bless the crops or send rain. Rationalization is trying to find a purpose to justify the action.

Okay, Mr. Philosopher, settle this for us.

I'll take a swing at it like a blindfolded kid groping for a pinata lol

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?


Serendipper wrote:I suspect that you're presupposing that there must be a rule to live by even if that rule is not to have rules. You're looking at it from the state of already having the knowledge of this dilemma and working backwards, but this isn't so from the point of view of a stupid animal that never gives thought to whether anything ought to be and yet coexists harmoniously with nature. The answer is to not consider the question.


On the other hand, what does this really have to do with the point that I'm making?

You said "Or the thought put into the choice not to have any rules at all?"

So there are 3 possible outcomes:

1) Put thought into whether we should have rules and determine: yes, we should have rules.
2) Put thought into whether we should have rules and determine: no, we shouldn't have rules.
3) Realize the futility in answering the question and stop thinking about it.



This bit from the Pirates of the Caribbean illustrates:

Will : My father was not a pirate. [takes out his sword]

Jack : Put it away, son. It’s not worth you getting beat again.

Will : You didn’t beat me. you ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I’d killed you.

Jack : Then that's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it? [moves one of the sails so that the yard catches Will and swings him out over the sea] Now, as long as you’re just hanging there, pay attention. The only rules that really matter are these – what a man can do and what a man can’t do. For instance, you can accept that your father was a pirate and a good man or you can’t. But pirate is in your blood, boy, so you’ll have to square with that someday. Now, me, for example, I can let you drown but I can’t bring this ship into Tortuga all by me onesy, savvy? So… [swings him back on board and offers him his sword] can you sail under the command of a pirate? Or can you not?


Rules of behavior are either existential contraptions [more rather than less] or are derived from one or another assessment of moral obligation derived from one or another philosophical argument. Kant et al.

You're right. Rules of behavior are contraptions. Assessment of moral obligation is a contraption. Thoughtful derivatives of those are also contraptions. The only way to escape the contraptions is to stop thinking and that can only come by realization of futility and I suppose you're right once again if futility is implemented as a contraption to attain the goal of freedom from contraptions.

This bit by Alan Watts who was (I think) quoting krishnamurti:

If you stay here and listen to me, you're fooling yourself.
If you leave, you're fooling yourself too because you still think that's going to help.


So we can try by "trying" and we can try by "not-trying", but as long as a goal exists, which is nothing more than a desire, then contraptions will abound. So how do we get rid of desire without desiring to get rid of desire? Realization of futility is the only way, but we can't implement futility as a contraption either, as if to say "I'm going to do the foolish thing until I finally realize it's foolish" because that won't work since you already have knowledge of the plan and now you have a goal and desire once again.

This is why (evidently) the buddhist gurus set their students on a rigorous training discipline until they realize it's futile without first letting them know that's what he's up to. The students think "Oh boy! Now we're at serious business here. We're on the road to some serious enlightenment!" All the while they are wasting their time, but the point is to finally see it was a waste of time. Oops... I guess I let the cat out of the bag lol.

We can't have the religion of no religion
We can't have the rule of no rules.

We can just have no religion and not be religious about it.

As for "fun" here, something in particular is deemed to be fun by a particular individual in a particular context. She tells us why this is fun to her and we react. And this in my view revolves more around "I" as an existential contraption; rather than the "real me" said to be in sync with the "right way" to have fun.

"Fun" is just a placeholder for "purposeless". No one could tell you why something is fun for them because there is no "why". If there were a "why", it wouldn't be purposeless.

Why am I going for a walk? I have no idea; it just seemed fun. Why does a buddha sit like that? No reason; it's just comfy. Why meditate? If you meditate for a reason, you're not meditating.

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.


Serendipper wrote:That's false from many perspectives: 1) I can't prove it, but the first thing that comes to mind is the impossibility of a feeling of dasein if the universe is a series of mechanistic dominoes determining outcomes.


You can't prove it. Exactly. We simply do not know where the idea of human autonomy fits [wholly] into whatever it is that is "behind" the existence of existence itself.

The wholly determined mechanistic dominoes or switches in a computer could never yield any sort of sentient being because there is no mechanism to even generate an illusion of freedom of will since hard-determinism applies and there can be no variation whatsoever. Failing to be able to prove it is more an inability to put thoughts into words sufficient for certain conclusion, but I still hold that its truth is more or less self-evident, depending how evident things are to each person. To me it seems obvious that a mechanistic process could never be sentient, but it's not obvious to everyone and I do tend to get pushback.

But if human consciouness is but more matter inherently in sync with the mechanistic rules of matter, who is to say what is possible or impossible here?

What I mean by "mechanistic" is like cogs in a machine: if one cog turns, the other cog won't do anything randomly, but it will respond with 100% certainty. The universe is not like that. The universe functions on randomness rather than 100% certainty.

I have these absolutely extraordinary dreams in which whole worlds play out in my head. All manufactured by my brain even though "in the dream" I seem as real as I do during the hours that I am awake.

Serendipper wrote:2) That's inconsistent with QM experiements, which underpin the most substantiated theory in all of science.


QM is a world that we have just barely begun to explore. Or are you speculating that a 1,000 years from know we will understand it in the same way?


Quantum mechanics is the most successful quantitative theory ever produced. Not a
single one of the untold thousands of experiments done to test it has ever found the basic
principles to be in error, and the agreement can sometimes go to ten significant figures
(as in some predictions of quantum electrodynamics). Quantum mechanics also underlies
vast realms of science, from physics to chemistry to some aspects of biology (probably).
All that we have studied so far in this course is, to some extent, an approximation to the
fundamental quantum physics. https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teach ... ture21.pdf


QM is THE most tested because it is so strange, but because of that, it is also THE most substantiated.

It took a while, but hidden variable theory was eventually disproved by John Bell, who showed that there are lots of experiments that cannot have unmeasured results. Thus the results cannot be determined ahead of time, so there are no hidden variables, and the results are truly random. That is, if it is physically and mathematically impossible to predict the results, then the results are truly, fundamentally random. http://www.askamathematician.com/2009/1 ... andomness/

So it's not a matter of not being able to locate the hidden variables that determine our universe, but it's that the variables have been proven not to exist. It's not that we can't predict results because we're too stupid, and, say, in 1000 years we'll be smarter, but the results cannot be predicted because prediction is simply not possible. (And my reasoning for that is the universe cannot know what it will decide until it has decided.)

Serendipper wrote:3) What would be the purpose to this if everything were able to be known from the start?


What's that got to do with the illusion of purpose in a wholly determined universe? The mystery is still the nature of human consciousness itself. Surely, the most extraordinary matter so far. Then the part about God and sim worlds and solipsism and the multiverse.

Assuming that it's easier to have nothing and assuming that easy things are favored by "whatever there is" because if wastefulness we're favored, then a mechanistic process would exhaust itself and cease to exist, then we have to assume that there is some overarching purpose for the existence of the universe since its existence neither conforms to efficiency (having nothing) nor wastefulness. IOW, the expenditure of energy must have some reason, goal, desire, purpose and that purpose would be subverted if purpose existed within the universe itself.

An analogy:

1) You go on vacation. You scratch your head and decide where on this earth you want to go. The whole world is open to you.
2) You go on vacation. The whole thing is planned in advance and you'll be required to follow the itinerary without deviation.

The purpose of #1 is not to have a purpose because the point is to get away from work (that which is purposeful). There is no purpose to #2.

Serendipper wrote:4) There is just the one thing (universe) and so any self-inspection of the universe upon the universe will always yield randomness since the subject cannot be object to itself.


What always boggles my mind here is how folks can actually say -- believe -- things like this: as though they did have access to all that would need to be known about the universe in order to fully explain it.

There is no other conclusion. If there are 2 things, you'd need to explain how one thing could relate to the other thing, and if you did that, you'd join the things together into one thing by their relation. So there can only be one thing (the universe is the only atom - atmos = the indivisible). If there can only be one thing, then that one thing cannot look at itself and any effort of self-examination will result in randomness (causeless). It's just logic man :)

Yours [like mine] is still largely a "world of words". As you noted above, you can't "prove" any of it. So, lets just stick to the part about how, ontologically and teleologically, it is still largely all a "mystery" to us.

It will always be a mystery. Sure, we may learn more minutiae, but we'll never arrive at the point of self-inspection.

Though, by all means, we can have "fun" speculating about it. After all, it is all inherently fascinating. Or, sure, we can assign a purpose to it. Like mine: connecting the dots between what the universe is and how we ought to behave in it.

Your purpose is to connect the dots, but why do you want to connect the dots? (Because it's fun ;) )

Assumming this is something that we can do "freely".

I think we can freely do it, but not freely want to do it. Whether or not this is fun to me is totally out of my control.

And as Rush noted above even not to choose is a choice.

Only if you choose not to choose.

Only Rush was construed by many to be advocates of Ayn Rand. And with her each individual was free to think about everything in exactly the same manner that she did. The objective individual as it were.

I don't think Rand went into it deeply enough. Objectivity isn't something that can be said to exist because existence is relational and contextual, but objectivity is not and it stands alone in nothingness with no context. I've struggled and struggled to refute James' claim that things with no affect cannot exist, but I've got nothing. I even came up with an idea that the universe could exhaust some particles to places that could never be seen and we could never know about the exhausting process itself, but then realized I may as well be speculating about pink unicorns and teapots floating around in places that could never be seen. What's the sense in that? Things whose existence could never be realized and could have no affect, are not things we could say exist because existence is relational.

Objectivity is abstract existence and abstract is the opposite of relational existence.

Abstract:

adjective
1) thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
2) expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed.
3) theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.


The abstract is off on its own, disconnected from everything, and doesn't exist. Likewise, objectivity doesn't exist, or can't be said to exist.

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.

Serendipper wrote: I don't know what you mean by "rooted in dasein".


Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Then ask yourself: which part of my life is this most applicable to?

As for flipping coins and Monty Hall and PHDs and Marilyn vos Savant, all of these interactions either unfolded with some measure of human autonomy, or "free will" here is merely an illusion embedded in the mechanical fact that all of it was only ever going to or able to unfold exactly as it did.

But it's not mechanical. The universe isn't a machine, it's more like a plant. It doesn't function like Newtonian balls, but it grows and sends random branches into barren places to die while branches that just happened to find sun will bear fruit. The whole thing is completely pointless random happenings that are going on.

I think the "rooted in dasein" concept is something I will have to learn over time because it doesn't seem like anything that I can be succinctly told lol

...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.


Serendipper wrote: Chance favors the prepared mind. You can arrange things to favor an outcome, but you cannot control which outcome you favor because the you that you think you are, does not exist (as evidenced by the lack of control over what you want). There is no hole because there is no one to be in a hole. There is no determinism because there is no one being determined.


But I have no way of knowing if this exchange itself is not just more dominos toppling over onto each other.

If you have no way of knowing, then you are ignoring dasein, right? How could dominoes toppling over give you an impression of dasein? If it were true, then everything would have dasein.

Dominos set up by God?

If there is a god, he is part of the universe per the proof of the existence of only one thing. God could be dreaming all this, but if he were, then it would be random and not having every minutiae planned and predetermined. Who plans their dreams? The one thing there is not is the old man on the throne barking orders to everything as if that would have any purpose. Who goes to a play with a script in their hand for the actors to follow it? Would you really want to watch a movie that YOU made?

Nothing. But my point is still the same: the extent to which what one posits is able to be demonstrated as that which all rational men and women are obligated to posit in turn.

My basis for believing the universe would replay differently is the existence of randomness. Having the existence of randomness fairly well established, it seems rather hard to believe the universe would playout the same way time after time.

And then the extent to which positing itself is or is not autonomous. Or, instead, autonomic. Like the beating heart.

The breathing exercises in buddhism are meant to aid in realization of the futility of deciding whether breathing is something you do or something that happens to you. Eventually you're supposed to realize that it's all you. Alan says "If I am foot, I am the sun." It just a matter of where you draw the line between what is you and not you, or finally realizing there is no line.



Serendipper wrote: Claim: If there is a god, it is continuous with this universe.

Proof: There is only one thing because if there were two things, then we'd have to propose a mechanism by which the one thing could exist relative to the other thing, and by doing so, we will have joined the two things back into one thing and we're back to square one. So there can only be one thing and if there is a god, he is part of the one thing.


More words defining and defending more words. What God? In what particular universe? Impacting the things that I do in what particular way?

What god? What do you mean? Any god will suffice.

There are no separate things; just the one thing. There is no god and not-god.

The claim and the proof going around and around in circles. Like the dog chasing its tail.

I'm not sure how you're seeing it that way. I claimed: If G exists, then G is part of U. Then I proved the maximum possible tally of things, which is one. So if the max number of things is one, and if U exists, and if G exists, then G and U can only be one. What part is circular?

Same with all the other claims. Worlds consisting entirely of words yanked out of your head.

I'd describe it more like: popped into my head and birthed out.

And here they revolve basically around relationships in the either/or world. Whereas from my frame of mind things like dasein and conflicting goods are relevant more in the is/ought world.

Well the is/ought world is a subset of the either/or world, right? Things only exist in context. Words are only words because of the contrasting background, so we can only conceive of dualities. If dualities vanish, then so does any concept of existence.

But: In a wholly determined universe this distinction in and of itself is just another illusion.

Yep.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:02 am

iambiguous wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Again, my point is that the idea we think we have "in our head" about good or bad consequences is an existential contraption. But how on earth do mere mortals [in a No God world] demonstrate this?

I'm down in my hole, you [KT] take your "pragmatic" leap and the objectivists insist that any actual consequences are either inherently good or bad.

The concept of good and bad are foreign concepts to someone who doesn't see things in terms of good and bad like UV light is a foreign concept to nonavian beings who can't see the color ultra-orange.


Defending concepts of good and bad is one thing, demonstrating that actual behaviors are either good or bad another thing altogether.


One is legislative and the other is judicial, but in order to demonstrate good or bad, one would have to have concept of them.

Serendipper wrote: Debating whether good and bad exist is a nonsensical debate since good and bad have to be presupposed to be true before consideration could be given to the notion of whether good and bad exist. So good and bad must be axiomized, taken on faith, in order to have the debate, which is silly.


However nonsensical or silly the debate might be, there is no getting around rules of behavior in any particular human community.

What do you mean? Rules are made to be broken! ;) The news of late is filled with reports of those who ignored the rules and went on shooting rampages within communities.

And here others are either in the hole that "I" am in, or they are able to rationalize the choices that they make as in sync with the real me in sync with the right thing to do.

You're trying to systemize the infinite, which is to say you're trying to get to the root of yourself and it can't be done.

Serendipper wrote: Good and bad are nothing more than desires in relation to arbitrary goals: if goals are attained, then that's good; if not, then that's bad.


But not entirely arbitrary. Instead, "I" is rooted for each individual in being "thrown" out into a particular world historically, culturally and experientially. Then being indoictrinated as a child to embody one particular sense of reality rather then another. And then accumulaing a particular set of experiences in a world awash in contingency, chance and change. All the way to the grave.

I see what you're saying.

Serendipper wrote: The nonexistence of good and bad is not an existential contraption anymore than the nonexistence of visual receptors and neurological architecture to see UV light is a contraption. Things that do not exist are not contraptions.


Again, you would have to bring this down to earth. Biological architecture is one thing, the architecture of value judgments another thing altogether.


What's the difference between biological architecture and that of value judgements? Is your mind in your head or is your head in your mind?

Or, rather, they are intertwined in a particular sequence of genes and memes understood from a particular point of view but able to be evaluated only subjectively and subjunctively.

Right, there is no organism and environment, but there is the organism-environment.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:55 am

iambiguous wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind, reactions to abortion and to fun are the same thing --- value judgments derived from daseins interacting in a world of conflicting goods. What in particular does someone think is fun? And fun in what context?

Fun is not a thing, but the absence of a thing (purpose).

Fun is not value judgements, but absence of judgement.


Fun is what any particular individual in any particular context says that they feel while behaving in a particular manner or in experiencing something in a particular way.

Then there are the reactions of others to this.

They may or may not be able to imagine describing this behavior or experience as a "fun" thing to do. They may note that this person's idea of fun is at the expense of another person who is experiencing anything but fun.

Fun: "enjoyment, amusement, or lighthearted pleasure."

We come into the world hard-wired biologically to embody this mental, emotional, psychological and/or physical sensation in reacting to the world around us. Whether you want to call it a "thing" or "the absense of a thing." And whether it is embedded in a set of value judgments or not.


Fun activities may not be the same for everybody, but nobody could tell you why something is fun because the "why" doesn't exist.

Serendipper wrote: Much like presupposing good and bad in order to debate good and bad, we cannot presuppose purpose in order to debate purpose.


A "purpose" too is always understood in a particular context that is understood in a particular way. What do we tell others when they ask us why we are doing what we do? When they ask for the reason or the purpose behind it? And here dasein is marbled through and through our answers. Just as "conflicting goods" are when my purpose for doing something results in a set of behaviors that others construe to be bad.

Are some purposes inherently/essentially/necessarily more rational than others? Are they in turn inherently/essentially/necessarily more virtuous than others?

Says who? Based on what set of assumption regarding human interactions?

Every motivation can have an explanation except that which is simply regarded as fun. I'm doing __________ so that I can do ___________ so that I can do __________, which is fun, and I don't know why I'm wanting to have fun.

I want to go to college so I can get a degree so I can get a good job so I can get money so I can buy things which I can have fun with and I don't have anymore information about it. There is no purpose to the things I want to buy with the money except to have fun with.

Serendipper wrote: You're stuck on making a rule of no-rules, but that's only because you're considering the question from a top-down perspective, which is a presupposition of purpose. It's teleology like asking what is the purpose of a butterfly having an "eye" on it's wing, then saying because predators don't eat them, as if it were designed to do just that, but that's isn't what happened. What happened was nature just did whatever (fun), with no purpose in mind, and some butterflies happened to survive.


The purpose of things like the eye on the butterfly wing is embedded in the either/or world. Unless of course it can be demonstrated that God exists and intended it to be that way. It's all embedded in random mutations. And we have no way in which to determine if teleology plays a part in this or not. In Nature.

At least to the best of my knowledge.

But what of the reaction of those of our own species to others who go out and capture butterflies, kill them, and then mount them in a display case? And then when asked why they do this, they say, "it's fun".

I don't resonate with teleology at all and feel I've made some good arguments against it. I think there are two motivations: self-improvement and fun. One is innocent and the other is arrogant.

Serendipper wrote: If the whole thing were designed and everything had a purpose to fulfill, then there would be no purpose to it. Why watch a show that you know how it ends? There is no purpose to that. So the lack of purpose gives everything a purpose.


There would appear to be no purpose in a No God world. Purpose [to me] implies a conscious mind aiming to do one thing rather than another for one reason rather than another. Imagine for example that the human species here on earth are the only species of animal in the entire universe able to think and to talk about purpose in this way. Then next month the really big one -- asteroid, comet, super nova, gamma ray burst etc -- takes out all human life on earth.

What then of "purpose" in a universe in which there are no conscious minds [self-conscious minds] around to discuss and debate it?

The dictionary defines purpose as

noun
1) the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2) an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.
3) determination; resoluteness.


#1 describes it as simply a reason for a happening while #2 adds the intention. So at the least, purpose means "the reason for this or that" and the reason may or may not be intended. If the reason is intended, then I think that means teleology.

I think you're right that in a no god world there would be no purpose. There would be an explanation of the series of events leading up to a happening, but no underlying purpose behind it.

Can fun or purpose even exist in a mindless universe?

I don't see how.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:23 am

muse

verb (used without object)
to think or meditate in silence, as on some subject.

So amuse means to not think or meditate in silence.

Muse is purposeful and amuse is not.

Amusement parks are places to go in order to not think. I never thought about the word like that: Not-thinking-parks :banana-jumprope:
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users