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 surreptitious75 » Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:09 pm

iambiguous wrote:
How over the course of actually living our lives do we come to acquire one rather than another moral and political narrative

There is no such thing as a universal truth for such a concept cannot be empirically demonstrated
Instead it is something entirely subjective based upon our life experience and acquired knowledge
As we change then our understanding or perception of what that truth is might also change as well
We choose from many narratives and select the one that most characterises who we are personally
We may have limited free will but within that constraint we are free to choose the narrative for us
But it is an eternal work in progress so is not set in stone even if the fundamentals remain the same
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:35 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Truth here from my frame of mind revolves around that which you are in fact able to demonstrate is applicable to all of us

That is not truth as such but a perception of what you think truth is or should be. The truth in question is philosophical not scientific or mathematical so the
notion of universality does not apply. To show this let me use your example of abortion : there is no way to demonstrate the moral right or wrong of it [ or in
deed any moral issue ] You do not arrive at a decision through logical deduction as it is not an issue that can be referenced from such a perspective. All moral
issues are a potential infinity of shades of grey sandwiched between the twin absolutes of black and white. Getting universality from that is next to impossible
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:33 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Sure, as a "general description" of human interactions it could any one of them.

So what you implied was the only possible truth given the existence of different objectivisms was not the case. You were wrong. Thank you.


The only possible truth about what? Right or wrong in what sense? Objective or subjective pertaining to what particular aspect of human interactions?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: And of course it was a general description, given that you made a general description and then drew a general conclusion. I am not sure you know what citation marks mean.


A description of what?

This part:

So, what we need then is a context in which to configure/reconfigure these abstract conjectures into a set of actual behaviors able to be or not to be defended against conflicting assessments of "the right thing to do".

Which particular problem do we wish to solve?


You can pick it.

And then the rest of our exchange:

Karpel Tunnel wrote:IOW perhaps humans are moving towards a set of guidelines that help with survival (and perhaps sense of well-being) through deciding on what 'one ought to do'. They confuse this with some objective good, but they are contributing to the survival of homo sapien genes, something that might necessitate greater well being.


Yes, and, for all practical purposes in a No God world, what else is there?

Then in contemplating this at the intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, some tumble down into the hole that I am in and others do not.

But ought one to tumble or not tumble down in it?

Can one come up with a solution to a problem like abortion that "pragmatically" enables us to intertwine the points raised by Trump in his SOTU speech last night and the points raised by those who either choose or perform abortions?

A way of thinking about it so that "I" is considerably less "fractured and fragmented"?

Yeah, it's done by some. It's just not able to be accomplished "here and now" by me.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But those are some of the possible things that could be true given what you have said about the diversity of people's opinions on how one should live.

There are likely other possibilities too.


True. But the distinction I keep coming back to is the one between those who insist that their truth is wholly in sync with objective reality and that if others don't share it they are necessarily wrong.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:When someone asks what it means, it can be a rhetorical question, as if the answer is obvious, and as if there is just one answer.

Which is why some people choose to question instead of making their own assumptions explicit. This can create the illusion that they bear no onus for their own beliefs.


Here I have no clear idea of the point being made. What question is being raised in regard to what context such that we can more reasonably assess and evaluate the answers that are given. And perhaps even come up with the must rational assessment and evaluation of them all.[/quote]
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: 28680
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:46 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
How over the course of actually living our lives do we come to acquire one rather than another moral and political narrative

There is no such thing as a universal truth for such a concept cannot be empirically demonstrated
Instead it is something entirely subjective based upon our life experience and acquired knowledge
As we change then our understanding or perception of what that truth is might also change as well
We choose from many narratives and select the one that most characterises who we are personally
We may have limited free will but within that constraint we are free to choose the narrative for us
But it is an eternal work in progress so is not set in stone even if the fundamentals remain the same


This seems basically reasonable to me. Here and now. But how do we determine if it reflects the most reasonable assessment of what is in fact true?

All we can do is to note what seems true to us. In this or that context. Then it comes down to the extent to which we either are or are not able to demonstrate it to others. In any particular set of circumstances in which humans interact precipitating [at times] conflicts regarding what is thought to be true.

Taking or not taking a leap to the assumption that in doing so we have some meaure of autonomy.
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: 28680
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:02 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Truth here from my frame of mind revolves around that which you are in fact able to demonstrate is applicable to all of us

That is not truth as such but a perception of what you think truth is or should be. The truth in question is philosophical not scientific or mathematical so the
notion of universality does not apply. To show this let me use your example of abortion : there is no way to demonstrate the moral right or wrong of it [ or in
deed any moral issue ] You do not arrive at a decision through logical deduction as it is not an issue that can be referenced from such a perspective.


But how do you go about demonstrating in turn, that, beyond all doubt, there is no way in which to demonstrate whether abortion is moral or immoral? How can we know the limits of logic here until we can connect the dots between what "I" think I know about it here and now and all that can be known about it going back to all that can be known about the existence of existence itself.

To all that can be known about determinism and human autonomy as it is intertwined in all that can be known about existence itself.

surreptitious75 wrote: All moral issues are a potential infinity of shades of grey sandwiched between the twin absolutes of black and white. Getting universality from that is next to impossible


From my frame of mind assertions such as this become hopelessly entangled in all of the "unknown unknowns" that stand between what we think are shades of grey and all that needs to be grasped about existence such that everything can finally be rendered crystal clear.

Personally, I'm not there yet so I presume that much of what I construe to be black and white is more a reflection of human psychology than of my capacities as a philosopher.
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: 28680
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:16 pm

iambiguous wrote:
But how do you go about demonstrating in turn that beyond all doubt there is no way in which to demonstrate whether abortion is moral or immoral

Demonstrating beyond ALL doubt is not possible on any moral issue as you can never be absolutely certain you will never change your mind
I used to be anti abortion then pro abortion now am neither. I cannot guarantee this current position will remain with me till my final day
You also cannot be absolutely certain that you have thoroughly examined all of the different moral positions with a completely open mind
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:22 pm

iambiguous wrote:
From my frame of mind assertions such as this become hopelessly entangled in all of the unknown unknowns that stand between what
we think are shades of grey and all that needs to be grasped about existence such that everything can finally be rendered crystal clear

I can only deal with the known and unknown knowns so that is all I actually do
If something else exists I do not know it does so I cannot address it in any way
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:53 am

iambiguous wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
My point is that you cannot decide to prefer coke to pepsi because there is no you independent of you that could not be influenced by how you are put together.


My point is that whatever is behind [or explains] the existence of existence itself led to my birth in this particular world.

What is existence of existence itself? You have to define what you mean by that because when you use that lingo all I see is dhjksaljdskbasdvbcnxzncnvdsfhjarght.

But: What on earth does this point have to do with your point:

My point is that you cannot decide to prefer coke to pepsi because there is no you independent of you that could not be influenced by how you are put together.

This, in my view, is just an intellectual contraption that really tells us nothing at all.

In order for you to control whether you prefer pepsi to coke there would have to exist a you independent of you who could orchestrate all the matter that forms you in conformance to how you want to exist. If there is no you controlling how you are made, then you are a slave to whatever process is making you and you'll have no control over whether you prefer pepsi or coke or like them equally.

There are those who choose to be sadists, there are those who choose to be masochists.

Pleasure would seem to be that which we are [genetically] hard-wired to prefer. But for every man or woman who feels pleasure in eating meat, there are others who are pained by it.

These choices in my view are largely "existential contraptions".


Serendipper wrote:Your view is a contraption lol


Here my view is encompassed in a word contraption. But those words either can or cannot be connected to the world around us. Words used to describe or convey interactions in the either/or world seem to be applicable to all of us. Words used to describe or to defend moral narratives seem more in sync with subjective/subjunctive "personal opinions".

Then it comes down to choosing a particular context/set of behaviors and examining the extent to which the words that we choose are able to convey things able to be demonstrated as true for all of us.

Everything is a contraption. We cannot think in terms of anything other than contraptions. So pointing out that everything is a contraption doesn't change anything or convey any information.

Here is an apple
Yeah but an apple is merely a thing.
So what? Every thing is a thing.

I have a thought.
Yeah but a thought is a contraption.
So what? Every concept is a contraption.

If you want to get away from contraptions, then you'll have to explore what Dionysus said about agnosticism (nonconceptual knowledge). Of course, obviously, we won't be able to discuss it.

And it is one thing to know things about yourself able to be demonstrated as in fact true --- your gender, your place of birth, your height, the color of your eyes, the schools you attended, the sports you play etc.

Another thing altogether to demonstrate that what you think is right or wrong regarding any particular moral conflict is in fact true.

Serendipper wrote:Right.


Okay, then, for all practical purposes, what are the existential implications of this being right given human interactions in conflict?

Truth referenced to body parts is relational. Truth referenced to absolute morality is fictional.

Serendipper wrote:Surely you recognize that if you're going to insist that everything have a context that you cannot take in the whole of everything. The context of mind is matter. The context of matter is mind. Nominalism is the context for realism. You cannot verify your foundation of empiricism with empiricism.


Over and again I point out that the "whole of everything" embedded in all of the "unknown unknowns" we are not yet privy to seems to be a given for all of us. Still, in a particular context relating to particular human interactions what on earth does, "you cannot verify your foundation of empiricism with empiricism" mean?

It means you cannot use X to prove X is true. You cannot use logic to prove logic is true. You cannot use observation to prove what you're seeing is true.

Serendipper wrote: The gut feeling is generated by the same fundamental forces that make everything else go. That doesn't take away from consciousness as much as it adds to everything else.


But who is able to connect the dots between these "fundamental forces" and any particular things that they think, feel, say or do?


Serendipper wrote: There are no dots. The dots are abstractions.


The dots are a figure of speech. But the gap between what you describe as "fundamental forces" and the choices that you make from day to day don't go away unless you can connect them. And we don't even appear to have connected enough of them [yet] in order to determine if consciousness itself is not but another of nature's dominoes.

Connecting dots is a red herring and waste of time. It doesn't matter how the dots are connected, the fact remains that they are connected. Why get burdened down rehearsing how forces cause consciousness when we already know there cannot be discontinuities?

But where is the hardcore empirical proof of the claims they make?

Serendipper wrote: Where is the empirical proof that empirical proof is relevant?


Well, if by empirical evidence we mean "the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation" science seems to make use of it re the laws of nature. Engineers and the inventors of technology [like computers] seem to find it especially reliable.

What do you consider observation? Is 2+2=4 observed or deduced? What's the difference? Do you see what I mean? Do you observe what I mean? Do you deduce what I mean?

The distinctions between observation and deduction are irrelevant. We are a dimensionless center of perception and it doesn't matter through which sense that information comes.

It's just when we come to the is/ought world that it becomes considerably more problematic. The "problems I'm posing as questions" revolve around conflicting goods by and large. And the role played by dasein and political economy when individuals come to acquire sets of value judgments. And here Watts seems to be no less problematic than the rest of us. It's not a question of "refuting anything he says" so much as probing the extent to which anything he says is able to be either verified or falsified.

It's verified with deduction.

The max possible things in existence are 1. If you see that, then you've verified it. If you haven't, then you'll need to grow eyes.

Can it be falsified? Sure. Show me how two distinct things can interact without being one.

As for this...

Serendipper wrote:So then you're saying that you know there is [no] way of knowing which returns us to my other question which is why are you seeking what cannot be found?


Why? Because I have no way of knowing for certain that it cannot be found. I only think that "here and now". Thus all I can do is to come into places like this and seek out the narratives of others.

But your presupposition is that the answer cannot be found. You've appealed to it plenty before: why have so many before not found the answer? What questions will be asked in the future? Everyone here thinks he's found the answer. Yada yada. You're convinced no one can know.

...how does one make that distinction until one is able to grasp the extent to which human autonomy is or is not essentially an illusion embedded in human psychology?


Serendipper wrote:Why does one need to grasp autonomy before accepting the most substantiated scientific fact in all of history?


Because in a wholly determined universe we are [presumably] only able to grasp that which we were always going to grasp.

It's not pre-determined or even pre-determinable, but probabilistic. You are determined by the outcome of a causeless event.

Serendipper wrote: I don't see the difference in the contraptions. I could use medical contraptions to pluck apples from a barrel.


Yes, but unlike the contraptions used by doctors to [as some insist] kill human babies, few will argue about the morality of how one plucks apples out of a barrel.


Serendipper wrote:Why do they argue the morality of one but not the other?


I can only assume that I am missing your point here. The distinction seems rather clear to me. A dead baby or an apple plucked out of a barrel. Which is more likely to generate discussion and debate among philosophers or ethicists?

Yes but why is a baby objectively more important than an apple? Why does the universe care more about babies than apples? An apple is a baby appletree. A baby human is just another among the billions of other baby animals. Because the baby human will grow up to be arrogant, it should be given more respect?

Back to Trump. Is it or is it not reasonable to say it can be demonstrated that Trump is "here and now" president of the United States?

Demonstrated to who? Rocks? Planets? Stars? The universe? Almost nothing in this universe recognizes Trump as president. Like me recognizing an ant queen in imminent peril while I'm mowing the lawn. The queen only has significance to other ants. Nothing else cares.

Is this or is this not as close as we are likely to come to an objective reality?

Objective reality can never be known and that's as close to knowing anything about it that we can go.

Serendipper wrote:No one can know what oxygen objectively is because what oxygen is depends on what kind of a you you are. There is no objective oxygen and it doesn't make sense to think that there could be.


And this explains what exactly? And not just in regard to oxygen.

It shows that what the object is depends just as much on what the subject is as it does the object. What exists depends on what you are.

And no one will argue that had the bishop not been made to move diagonally this would have been immoral.

Serendipper wrote:Why not? Is it not immoral that pawns are sacrificed? Why not make the king fight his own battles instead of conscripting the pawns into being the first line of defense? Well, if we did that, it would merely be another rule of the game and subject to the proclivities of the creator of the game.


Sure, one might live in a world where chess is deemed a religion. The moves are part of some sacred truth and anyone who dares to not move as one must move, is thought to be an infidel.

But that is not how the overwhelming preponderance of our species think of chess. It's a game. You make a wrong move and you lose. But few will insist that this makes you evil.

Why not? It's not about breaking the rules of the game, but choosing how to play by sending the pawns out first to absorb the attack. That's evil, right? The kings should get out in the middle and have a fist fight.



And how do we go about determining whether the rules created in chess are necessarily in sync with either human autonomy or the immutable laws of matter?


Serendipper wrote:There are no laws of matter.


There certainly appear to be forces at play -- gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces -- that seem to be applicable to all of us here on earth.

We just don't really know for sure what is behind them.

Cue those truly bizarre things like "dark energy".

They aren't laws, but observed regularities. Laws are decreed by authority and enforced (and sometimes broken). The concept of law in science is a holdover from theocracy.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:01 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
You seemed to have been implying that you could choose to believe any ole hippie nonsense and I was just pointing out that I don't think we have a choice in what we believe.

I think there is some swingroom. If you believe something that makes you suffer and find the desire not to believe it, you can look for counterevidence. You can check your own logic. You can seek experiences that might lead to different beliefs.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is one mode of doing this. You believe X about work, the opposite sex, your own abilities, what will likely happen, and the therapist challenges this belief with logic, counterexamples, questioning, assignments that will lead to experiences that counter the belief.

Sure, evidence can change minds. I used to be theist and now I'm not. I can't swap back n forth, but can only believe what seems sensible to me, which is not anything I have control over. Show me enough evidence that santa claus exists and I might stat to believe it, uncontrollably. If some big dude gets in my face and threatens to kick my ass, I can't just force myself to think I can take him; I either believe him or I don't.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Serendipper » Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:12 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
But how do you go about demonstrating in turn that beyond all doubt there is no way in which to demonstrate whether abortion is moral or immoral

Demonstrating beyond ALL doubt is not possible on any moral issue as you can never be absolutely certain you will never change your mind
I used to be anti abortion then pro abortion now am neither. I cannot guarantee this current position will remain with me till my final day
You also cannot be absolutely certain that you have thoroughly examined all of the different moral positions with a completely open mind

You can only be "maximally sure" of anything.

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



One guy says nothing can be objectively known without a belief in god and the other says nothing can be objectively known, period.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:44 am

Serendipper wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
You seemed to have been implying that you could choose to believe any ole hippie nonsense and I was just pointing out that I don't think we have a choice in what we believe.

I think there is some swingroom. If you believe something that makes you suffer and find the desire not to believe it, you can look for counterevidence. You can check your own logic. You can seek experiences that might lead to different beliefs.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is one mode of doing this. You believe X about work, the opposite sex, your own abilities, what will likely happen, and the therapist challenges this belief with logic, counterexamples, questioning, assignments that will lead to experiences that counter the belief.

Sure, evidence can change minds. I used to be theist and now I'm not. I can't swap back n forth, but can only believe what seems sensible to me, which is not anything I have control over. Show me enough evidence that santa claus exists and I might stat to believe it, uncontrollably. If some big dude gets in my face and threatens to kick my ass, I can't just force myself to think I can take him; I either believe him or I don't.
I was pointing out that one can choose to aim at evidence and experiences that lead to beliefs. IOW one can be active. Yes, evidence changes minds, but one can take the step of moving towards environments where evidence is possible or even evidence is likely to support a belief. You are dying of some cancer and do not trust alternative medicine. Well, you could decide to see if you can find evidence that a certain process actually does work. So you challenge your own belief - ask to see records at a specific clinic, check research about the alkaloids in a plant they use, talk to their clients, etc. You do not believe in God but decide to test it out. So you approach an expert from tradition X and ask them what practices might change that belief. Then you engage in these practices for a long time. There are all sorts of more mundane interpersonal beliefs that can be challenged: about the opposite sex, about the possibility of being honest and nto being punished, whateever.

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

And while it is evidence, in a sense, I would broaden that term out to 'experience'.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:18 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
But how do you go about demonstrating in turn that beyond all doubt there is no way in which to demonstrate whether abortion is moral or immoral

Demonstrating beyond ALL doubt is not possible on any moral issue as you can never be absolutely certain you will never change your mind


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

They just switch fonts.

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

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

But only in sync with this:

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

The "hole" I'm in. The "fractured and fragmented" "I" in the is/ought world.

surreptitious75 wrote: I used to be anti abortion then pro abortion now am neither. I cannot guarantee this current position will remain with me till my final day
You also cannot be absolutely certain that you have thoroughly examined all of the different moral positions with a completely open mind


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

I can't even know for certain if I possess any measure of actual autonomy in making these claims.
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: 28680
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:58 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
From my frame of mind assertions such as this become hopelessly entangled in all of the unknown unknowns that stand between what
we think are shades of grey and all that needs to be grasped about existence such that everything can finally be rendered crystal clear

I can only deal with the known and unknown knowns so that is all I actually do
If something else exists I do not know it does so I cannot address it in any way


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

Or there is and only God is privy to it.

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

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

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

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

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

And this may well be true. But here and now all any of us can do is to be persuaded that some things are reasonable to believe and some things aren't. And this would seem to revolve around those things that can in fact be demonstrated to be applicable to all rational people in a world in which there is in fact some measure of human autonomy.
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: 28680
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:35 pm

Serendipper wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
My point is that whatever is behind [or explains] the existence of existence itself led to my birth in this particular world.

What is existence of existence itself? You have to define what you mean by that because when you use that lingo all I see is dhjksaljdskbasdvbcnxzncnvdsfhjarght.


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

Consider:

Definition: a statement of the exact meaning of a word

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

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

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

Serendipper wrote: In order for you to control whether you prefer pepsi to coke there would have to exist a you independent of you who could orchestrate all the matter that forms you in conformance to how you want to exist. If there is no you controlling how you are made, then you are a slave to whatever process is making you and you'll have no control over whether you prefer pepsi or coke or like them equally.


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

Serendipper wrote: Everything is a contraption. We cannot think in terms of anything other than contraptions. So pointing out that everything is a contraption doesn't change anything or convey any information.


Depends on how broadly you want to define "contraption".

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

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

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

Serendipper wrote: Truth referenced to body parts is relational. Truth referenced to absolute morality is fictional.


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

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

Over and again I point out that the "whole of everything" embedded in all of the "unknown unknowns" we are not yet privy to seems to be a given for all of us. Still, in a particular context relating to particular human interactions what on earth does, "you cannot verify your foundation of empiricism with empiricism" mean?


Serendipper wrote: It means you cannot use X to prove X is true. You cannot use logic to prove logic is true. You cannot use observation to prove what you're seeing is true.


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

Serendipper wrote: The gut feeling is generated by the same fundamental forces that make everything else go. That doesn't take away from consciousness as much as it adds to everything else.


But who is able to connect the dots between these "fundamental forces" and any particular things that they think, feel, say or do?


Serendipper wrote: There are no dots. The dots are abstractions.


The dots are a figure of speech. But the gap between what you describe as "fundamental forces" and the choices that you make from day to day don't go away unless you can connect them. And we don't even appear to have connected enough of them [yet] in order to determine if consciousness itself is not but another of nature's dominoes.


Serendipper wrote: Connecting dots is a red herring and waste of time. It doesn't matter how the dots are connected, the fact remains that they are connected. Why get burdened down rehearsing how forces cause consciousness when we already know there cannot be discontinuities?


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

Serendipper wrote: Where is the empirical proof that empirical proof is relevant?


Well, if by empirical evidence we mean "the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation" science seems to make use of it re the laws of nature. Engineers and the inventors of technology [like computers] seem to find it especially reliable.


Serendipper wrote: What do you consider observation? Is 2+2=4 observed or deduced? What's the difference? Do you see what I mean? Do you observe what I mean? Do you deduce what I mean?


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

Serendipper wrote:So then you're saying that you know there is [no] way of knowing which returns us to my other question which is why are you seeking what cannot be found?


Why? Because I have no way of knowing for certain that it cannot be found. I only think that "here and now". Thus all I can do is to come into places like this and seek out the narratives of others.


Serendipper wrote: But your presupposition is that the answer cannot be found. You've appealed to it plenty before: why have so many before not found the answer? What questions will be asked in the future? Everyone here thinks he's found the answer. Yada yada. You're convinced no one can know.


That's your assumption about my "presupposition". My own conjectures here revolve around two general assumptions:

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

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

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

I can only assume that I am missing your point here. The distinction seems rather clear to me. A dead baby or an apple plucked out of a barrel. Which is more likely to generate discussion and debate among philosophers or ethicists?


Serendipper wrote: Yes but why is a baby objectively more important than an apple? Why does the universe care more about babies than apples? An apple is a baby apple tree. A baby human is just another among the billions of other baby animals. Because the baby human will grow up to be arrogant, it should be given more respect?


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

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

From my frame of mind this is rooted in dasein ["I" configured existentially], conflicting goods [the baby lives and I die] and political economy [the reaction of those in power able to reward or punish you for what you choose].
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: 28680
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the huma

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:00 pm

Serendipper wrote:You can only be "maximally sure" of anything.


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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

After all, why would that not include the extent to which one can be "maximally sure" about God...or regarding what can be known objectively?
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: 28680
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users