Determinism

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

Re: Determinism

Postby encode_decode » Thu May 13, 2021 4:11 pm

Meno, perhaps your delusion is fuelled by misplaced optimism in your ability to judge me. You are making the assumption that I never take god into account.

To reiterate:

encode_decode wrote:I can not begin such a conversation without traversing some sort of thought spectrum that contains inconsistencies and contradictions - no perceived progress would be made without removing such inconveniences and following a more narrow field/spectrum of thought. This narrow pathway could lead off in the wrong direction. Then again all roads may lead to Rome - but who knows?

I have to remove some of the fluff that is less relevant to my position - not totally irrelevant.

I am not an expert on god - I make "real" things work without god - things that I can see and touch - I may be able to make things work better with god but the texts are mostly(emphasis) not useful.

Contempt? There is only so much time in a day Meno.

Did you get out of bed on the wrong side today?
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Thu May 13, 2021 4:28 pm

No, Decode, You can't mind my using a partially derived name Yours, beyond that the course is topological, I too mentioned that on passing via.allusion to the ancient practice of environmental arrangement.

But I am glad that that You cleared up something that I found paradoxical in the above, Your quote.

That there is contention otherwise, may be illusive.

Encode, I hope to bback on track to show , from this angle that we are mostly determined
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 13, 2021 7:53 pm

encode_decode wrote: There is a lot to be had through adding up every interaction you have ever had and thinking for five seconds what you may have missed without such interactions - but only worth five seconds of your time maybe a couple of times in each of our lives. Networks of people work stuff out at an astonishing rate for so many reasons that we have no time for now. This adds up to constant change with only some cycles appearing persistent. I can not begin such a conversation without traversing some sort of thought spectrum that contains inconsistencies and contradictions - no perceived progress would be made without removing such inconveniences and following a more narrow field/spectrum of thought. This narrow pathway could lead off in the wrong direction. Then again all roads may lead to Rome - but who knows?


Admittedly, I'm not at all sure what your point is here. As it relates to free weill and determinism.

Why don't you focus in on a particular context -- an experience that you had -- and explain what you mean above given the choices that you had made.

Here, of course, assuming some measure of free will. Otherwise, given determinism as I understand it, this entire exchange that we are having is inherently/necessarily embedded in the only possible reality.

Or, rather, given in turn the complete understanding of the laws of matter.

iambiguous wrote:With a No God nature, however, things would seem to become inherently more problematic. Nature "throws" us into existence, but only [to the best of my current knowledge] at the tail end of biological evolution on planet Earth. And how do we go about assessing nature's capacity here to reconfigure mindless matter into mindful matter? Is there a point, a thing, a place in the universe we can go too as the faithful go to God? Where is the argument backed up with evidence that pins down how this happened? Instead, as with those like Satyr, many will just be obliged to shrug and insist, "Free will? It just happened, that's why".


encode_decode wrote: I am going to be self-centered about this rather than humane.


In other words, assuming that you are free to opt for one rather than the other.

encode_decode wrote: Comparing God to Nature is not helpful.


Well, it's helpful perhaps to note that for most religious folks, God is not compared to nature so much as nature is understood to be the creation of God. Then the tricky part in which we wonder if God created the laws of matter as well or if the laws of matter created a God only able to create anything in accordance with the laws of matter themselves. For example, "each second there are about 100 billion ghostly solar neutrinos passing through the tip of your finger."

So, why do you suppose God felt the need to make this the case? Or is God himself constrained by the necessity that this be so?

encode_decode wrote: If there is a god then this should help explain nature. We know more about nature than god so I would be inclined to start with nature and work my way out from there.


Again, whatever that means going back to a definitive understanding of existence itself.

encode_decode wrote: This is of course following a scientific thinking bias.


Then the the part where we fit our understanding of science into our understanding of God into our understanding of the laws of matter that may or may not allow us to do so autonomously.

As for this...

encode_decode wrote: I follow this line of thought because a lot of god stories appear to be mostly that - stories. This does not mean there is not a god, just that the god people do not explain it well. I am not one for having any appreciation of fancy party tricks of logic, so this won't do for me either - only useful logic for me and how do we know what logic we need to use to solve such a conundrum. Mathematics also appears to be able to invent things that are not really there either. So if there are things that I am missing it is because my mind and others are not sufficient to be able to piece everything necessary for an adequate explanation. Ego-centric people who would get some self-satisfaction by jumping in and ripping my words to pieces do not have the goods to prove anything either - I know this right this minute because that has been my experience up until now - they are full of more hot air than proof.

Thinking bias is problematic and a lot of it can be removed but still not enough right now to make any satisfactory progress - neither you nor I would be happy with today's outcome even if bias is removed. Currently, there is not enough information or not enough acceptance for what information there is. It is easier to uncover flaws in thinking than it is to prove any of this God and Nature, or, God or Nature business. Perhaps our methods and languages have been flawed enough throughout our history to ever help us solve certain questions - not excluding mathematics. So close yet so far perhaps. We should not give up necessarily but we may have to accept certain things within our lifetimes. I am an expert with some things and otherwise comfort myself with childish notions for other things - then there is all the stuff in between. Right now, some things are still out of reach.


...I think I might grasp it, but I prefer to take "intellectual contraption" assessments of this sort out into the world of human interactions and explore the conclusions given actual back and forth behaviors between people in a particular set of circumstances. I am merely more interested in exploring this given conflicting moral or political value judgments. And given the assumption that we either do or do not have free will.

iambiguous wrote:Indeed, how is this possible without an existential leap to one or another conclusion that you or another "thought up" in your head/their head? Unless, of course, someone has in fact solved this vexing quandary going back to the pre-Socratics. And how are they any less than us embedded in that gap between what any particular individual thinks he or she knows about questions this big and the biggest question of them all: how do we explain the existence of existence itself.


encode_decode wrote: Leap of faith? Jumping out of the mind to look around seems like it will always be problematic to me. Plenty of things are going on according to my mind and I don't dismiss that everything I have come to "believe" is just some weird dream. The dream may only be analogous to what is actually happening - perhaps I am in some simulation - in which case my silly brain is all too ready to contemplate the reality of whoever is running that simulation and it may not even be a whoever. All this before I even get to determinism - determinism itself is reliant on some conditions that may, or may not, have been met. Sorry if you read this and think, what on earth is he talking about - but this, according to my mind(if there is such a thing).


Again, assuming a real deal free will experience for mere mortals here on planet Earth -- given the staggering vastness of "all there is" -- I am far more interested in distinguishing the times when we are not taking leaps of faith at all to subjective/subjunctive "personal opinions". Why? Because the thing we are discussing is rather easily confirmed to be the objective truth for all of us.

In other words, the distinction between the seeming objective fact that peacegirl created this thread as a way to get others to read the author's book, and the seeming subjective opinions regarding our reactions to the conclusions that the author comes to in regard to free will and evil.
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: 41573
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby encode_decode » Thu May 13, 2021 9:18 pm

I will attempt to read through the chapters, as peacgirl recommends...

...as soon as I get the time...

...assuming I even have a choice in the matter.

Then if I feel motivated(whatever this means at this point) to comment on any material in these chapters, I will.

Until the above conditions are met, I will freely/non-freely take my leave from this thread.

I can only hope that this post is more easily understood.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 13, 2021 9:56 pm

satyr wrote:I don't know how life emerges from lifeless matter... and none of the theories meet by stringent, absolutist, criteria....sooooo, I'm just going to believe anything that feels good.
Until a complete, final, absolute answer is provided I will continue believing whatever I want.

It's how I role.
Degeneracy is contagious.


Yeah, some here might suspect that I reduce objectivist minds of his ilk down to, well, whatever you want to call this.

But, based on my vast experience with them over the years, they don't need any contribution from me.

This is meant to be ironic of course. Only I'm not the one creating dungeons for those who refuse to think exactly like I do about, well, everything, right?

I recognize instead that in regard to 1] philosophical questions that are this fascinating and 2] moral and political value judgments, no one has access to the whole truth.

No one one grasps anywhere near a definitive understanding of where genes stop and memes begin, where nature reconfigures into nurture, where the brain becomes intertwined in mind intertwined in what may or may not be an autonomous self.

It's just that some like Satyr, for reasons rooted in dasein, can't bring themselves to recognize just how much their own hapless dogmas are rooted existentially instead in the OP here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

What I really don't get though is why he won't come here and discuss and debate this with me. Now that the new effort to impose moderation seems to have collapsed. Or, sure, as scathing polemicists in Rant.

Isn't it an opportunity to finally put me in my place? You know he's itching to, right?
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: 41573
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 13, 2021 9:58 pm

encode_decode wrote:I will attempt to read through the chapters, as peacgirl recommends...

...as soon as I get the time...

...assuming I even have a choice in the matter.

Then if I feel motivated(whatever this means at this point) to comment on any material in these chapters, I will.

Until the above conditions are met, I will freely/non-freely take my leave from this thread.

I can only hope that this post is more easily understood.


Not at all what I didn't expect. Or couldn't not expect. 8)
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: 41573
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby encode_decode » Fri May 14, 2021 9:59 am

You are more part of the furniture around here than me, iambiguous. I don't have anything to prove and for whatever reason, I just like the place(ILP). I am always happy to learn something, however.

I may have annoyed you for no good reason - my apologies if I have. I am done horsing around in this thread. My sense of humor will still remain - I will just take it elsewhere. Simple!

iambiguous wrote:Not at all what I didn't expect. Or couldn't not expect. 8)

Yeah? Nice.

iambiguous wrote:Why don't you focus in on a particular context -- an experience that you had -- and explain what you mean above given the choices that you had made.

It would be just as easy for you to do that but I don't think either of us really needs to at this point.

iambiguous wrote:Well, it's helpful perhaps to note that for most religious folks, God is not compared to nature so much as nature is understood to be the creation of God. Then the tricky part in which we wonder if God created the laws of matter as well or if the laws of matter created a God only able to create anything in accordance with the laws of matter themselves. For example, "each second there are about 100 billion ghostly solar neutrinos passing through the tip of your finger."

Don't get me wrong, this is interesting but I would sooner read a discussion between you and someone else that goes into further detail about it.

iambiguous wrote:I am merely more interested in exploring this given conflicting moral or political value judgments. And given the assumption that we either do or do not have free will.

I am not motivated to consider political value judgments of any type which would leave conflicting moral judgments and this:

iambiguous wrote:Again, assuming a real deal free will experience for mere mortals here on planet Earth -- given the staggering vastness of "all there is" -- I am far more interested in distinguishing the times when we are not taking leaps of faith at all to subjective/subjunctive "personal opinions". Why? Because the thing we are discussing is rather easily confirmed to be the objective truth for all of us.

In other words, the distinction between the seeming objective fact that peacegirl created this thread as a way to get others to read the author's book, and the seeming subjective opinions regarding our reactions to the conclusions that the author comes to in regard to free will and evil.

The vastness of "all there is"...is exactly one of the things that turn me off going down this path - I don't have enough free time to contribute to a discussion about any of this in a substantial way. I have my own ideas on the topic of free will and how much of it we actually have. Not knowing what is in the book makes it difficult to talk about what is in the book. I don't know what the discovery is that peacegirl is referring to and most discoveries can be summed up well enough in a paragraph to motivate someone to read more about them. I am aware of my own misbehavior in this thread and I am not ashamed to admit to it - there was a cause for it, however. I conclude that I don't have enough to enter a substantive discussion with you iambiguous...it would be great if I did - but I simply don't.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sat May 15, 2021 7:17 pm

encode_decode wrote: You are more part of the furniture around here than me, iambiguous. I don't have anything to prove and for whatever reason, I just like the place(ILP). I am always happy to learn something, however.

I may have annoyed you for no good reason - my apologies if I have. I am done horsing around in this thread. My sense of humor will still remain - I will just take it elsewhere. Simple!


More to the point [on this thread] are you "done" [given determinism], done [given free will] or "done" [given peacegirl's own rendition of compatibilism] horsing around?

iambiguous wrote:Why don't you focus in on a particular context -- an experience that you had -- and explain what you mean above given the choices that you had made.


encode_decode wrote: It would be just as easy for you to do that but I don't think either of us really needs to at this point.


Me? Okay, the experience I am having right now is in typing these words. But I do not seem to have access to an argument or to evidence that would pin down once and for all whether I could freely opt to do something else instead. So, given the gap between what I think I know here and know and all there is to be known about existence itself, I have taken an existential leap to determinism. Rooted in dasein. Rooted in the laws of matter.

iambiguous wrote:Well, it's helpful perhaps to note that for most religious folks, God is not compared to nature so much as nature is understood to be the creation of God. Then the tricky part in which we wonder if God created the laws of matter as well or if the laws of matter created a God only able to create anything in accordance with the laws of matter themselves. For example, "each second there are about 100 billion ghostly solar neutrinos passing through the tip of your finger."


encode_decode wrote: Don't get me wrong, this is interesting but I would sooner read a discussion between you and someone else that goes into further detail about it.


I have no idea what you mean by that. And how, even given a real deal free will world, could I go into further detail about it when I am not an astrophysicist myself? Nor a theologian. Only they would seem qualified to explore it further.

iambiguous wrote:Again, assuming a real deal free will experience for mere mortals here on planet Earth -- given the staggering vastness of "all there is" -- I am far more interested in distinguishing the times when we are not taking leaps of faith at all to subjective/subjunctive "personal opinions". Why? Because the thing we are discussing is rather easily confirmed to be the objective truth for all of us.

In other words, the distinction between the seeming objective fact that peacegirl created this thread as a way to get others to read the author's book, and the seeming subjective opinions regarding our reactions to the conclusions that the author comes to in regard to free will and evil.


encode_decode wrote: The vastness of "all there is"...is exactly one of the things that turn me off going down this path - I don't have enough free time to contribute to a discussion about any of this in a substantial way.


Turned off by it or not doesn't make it go away. And the whole point of this thread is to explore the meaning of such things as "substance" and "substantial". All the while acknowledging the surreal situation that we seem to be in given mindless matter somehow configuring into mindful matter given the biological evolution of lifeless matter into living matter on planet Earth. The staggering mystery of it all.

encode_decode wrote: I have my own ideas on the topic of free will and how much of it we actually have. Not knowing what is in the book makes it difficult to talk about what is in the book. I don't know what the discovery is that peacegirl is referring to and most discoveries can be summed up well enough in a paragraph to motivate someone to read more about them. I am aware of my own misbehavior in this thread and I am not ashamed to admit to it - there was a cause for it, however. I conclude that I don't have enough to enter a substantive discussion with you iambiguous...it would be great if I did - but I simply don't.


Okay, so read the first three chapters of the author's book and come back to the thread.

Compelled or otherwise.
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: 41573
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Dan~ » Sat May 15, 2021 9:29 pm

t's just that some like Satyr, for reasons rooted in dasein, can't bring themselves to recognize just how much their own hapless dogmas are rooted existentially instead in the OP here:

Satyr is not a dogmatist.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting my free game projects.
ImageImage
Truth is based in sensing, in vision. And we can only see when we are alive.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10670
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Canada Alberta

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sat May 15, 2021 9:32 pm

Dan~ wrote:
t's just that some like Satyr, for reasons rooted in dasein, can't bring themselves to recognize just how much their own hapless dogmas are rooted existentially instead in the OP here:

Satyr is not a dogmatist.


Note to nature:

Settle this, okay?
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: 41573
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 16, 2021 5:21 pm

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

The seventeenth century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) had similar metaphysical views. Spinoza understood the world as unitary, such that there is only one true thing or substance, which is both physically extended across space and at the same time involves a mental system of ideas. To Spinoza this substance is both God and nature. However, it is important to note that Spinoza’s God should not be understood as a superpowerful quasi-human being ruling over the world. Spinoza’s God is more the totality of everything there is. In this sense, different objects, including people like ourselves, are merely facets or modes of this one infinite, indivisible divine substance in which they all dwell.


Okay, so given his understanding here what are we to make of this:

"Baruch Spinoza, was a Jewish philosopher who, at age 23, was put in cherem (similar to excommunication) by Jewish religious authorities for heresies such as his controversial ideas regarding the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible (which would formed the foundations of modern biblical criticism) and his pantheistic views of the Divine. Prior to that, he had been attacked on the steps of the community synagogue by a knife-wielding assailant shouting "Heretic!", and later his books were added to the Catholic Church's Index of Forbidden Books."
wiki

Are all of the human interactions that unfolded here historically in turn but "merely facets or modes of this one infinite, indivisible divine substance in which they all dwell."

Spinoza comes to the conclusions that he did...but only because he was never able not to conclude anything other than that? In the only possible reality? Is this in sync with his conclusions?

In his Ethics (1677) Spinoza says that this substance’s essence explains its existence. In other words, it’s the nature of the ultimate substance of the world to exist; and all other things follow necessarily from this nature. Therefore all things are conditioned to act in a particular manner by God. Or, as Spinoza puts it, from God’s infinite power or nature “all things have necessarily flowed, or always followed, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles.”


Again, the irony. A book entitled Ethics in a universe where the moral and political value judgments of mere mortals are but another manifestation of “all things have necessarily flowed, or always followed, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles.”

Or, sure, I am missing something here that makes human ethics somehow qualitatively different from human biology and physics and chemistry.

Lastly, Spinoza tells us there is no free will. Even God, according to Spinoza, does not act through free will, but from its very nature or infinite power in such a way that all things are conditioned to exist and operate in a particular manner by necessity. Put differently, things could not have been brought into being by God in any manner or order different from the way they have been brought into being.


So, Spinoza went about living his life from day to day convinced that everything he thought, felt, said and did was destined, fated, rendered inevitable in the only possible reality?

Is that what he proposed?

And did he also recognize that his conclusions were really little more than one of nature's "thought experiment" insofar as he was never able to establish his own assumptions as those that all rational men and women were obligated to embrace.

How, here, was he not in the same boat that all the rest of are in given "the gap" above?

Including this part:

Given this strict position on predetermination and its rejection of free choice, these defenders of determinism claim that moral responsibility is not compatible with it. After all, how could moral responsibility be justifiable in a world where everything is determined by the first cause, and agents have no power of causation themselves?


You tell me.
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: 41573
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Sun May 16, 2021 9:30 pm

Pantheistic I really not arguable, as it contains equivalance between God and Nature. That is why the problem is offensive and heretical to the clergy.

However the arguability and the demonsgratibility is based on formal neo-Platonism. su h as Augustine was won't to confesd, but for so my 'mystical reason, was compelled.

It comes down to argument for it's own sake, sheteas It's Own Sake could illustrate. the two modes of Dasein. So close to 'design.phonetically, it's strange.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 16, 2021 9:35 pm

Meno_ wrote:Pantheistic I really not arguable, as it contains equivalance between God and Nature. That is why the problem is offensive and heretical to the clergy.

However the arguability and the demonsgratibility is based on formal neo-Platonism. su h as Augustine was won't to confesd, but for so my 'mystical reason, was compelled.

It comes down to argument for it's own sake, sheteas It's Own Sake could illustrate. the two modes of Dasein. So close to 'design.phonetically, it's strange.


Note to nature:

Compel me to actually understand this.
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: 41573
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Sun May 16, 2021 9:49 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Pantheistic I really not arguable, as it contains equivalance between God and Nature. That is why the problem is offensive and heretical to the clergy.

However the arguability and the demonsgratibility is based on formal neo-Platonism. su h as Augustine was won't to confesd, but for so my 'mystical reason, was compelled.

It comes down to argument for it's own sake, sheteas It's Own Sake could illustrate. the two modes of Dasein. So close to 'design.phonetically, it's strange.


Note to nature:

Compel me to actually understand this.




Try this:





https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... o_Thinking


im trying to decode this as it relates:



"Up until recently, designers had a hard task ahead of them if they wanted to investigate Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and beyond. My struggle through Being and Time and Being and Nothingness back in 2008 was made considerably easier (if still time-consuming, and likely to risk bias from only one interpretation) thanks to finding the audio recordings of Stanford professor Hubert Dreyfus online. (Sadly the Merleau-Ponty ones have disappeared). Paul Dourish’s Where the Action Is is a useful but dense review of embodied interaction and its relationship to phenomenology. There is also well received 2010 film on phenemonology made by former Dreyfus student Tao Rouspoli—though it is hard to get hold of so I haven’t as of yet seen it. The hunger for easy to understand information for designers about phenomenology means that I was surprised to find that a brief article I wrote on the topic for Johnny Holland (and in hindsight has some rather clunky grammar amongst other things) was referenced in two research textbooks!

So, I was ecstatic that there was a talk at the Interaction14 conference on phenomenology for designers. And even more impressed (if a little put out after my own struggles with the key texts) that the presentation on the topic was not only relatively easy to understand and relevant from a designer’s perspective, but also included discussions right up to current understandings of the field.

The latter point is something that as a design researcher I’m often concerned about. Design is generally very good at lifting concepts from other disciplines (Picasso and Jobs would be proud), but without an awareness of what discussion has happened la

Phenomenology, like its more literary friend semiotics, is one of those things that is generally known of than known about. Heck, even spelling it is hard. (My trick: ‘no men’ make phe-no-men-ology.)

In fact, two well known 90s films use it as a shorthand for the impenetreble intelligensia. In You’ve Got Mail, Tom Hank’s editor girlfriend mentions how Meg Ryan’s boyfriend (an original hipster, he was well ahead of the game in proclaiming the virtues of the typewriter) is the type of person who

“…you think he’s going to be so obscure and abstruse. He’s always talking about Heidegger and Foucault. And I have no idea what it’s about, really.”

And Ethan Hawke’s character in Reality Bites is reading Heidegger’s Being and Time. Go figure.





I actually own this exact edition of Being and Time. Which is incredibly weird. Does that make me cosmicly connected to Ethan Hawke?

The initial impenetrability of phenomenology is a concern, as its key concepts are of utmost important to today’s iDevice designers. As technology moves away from the screen and towards the body, we’re having to understand what it means to have a body to interact with it. While psychologists have been testing this from a cognitive perspective, philosophers have been thinking about this from the perspective of how we make sense of this lived-world for almost a century. (And said philosophers would probably recoil at the concept of “natural user interfaces” which became concernedly popular in the last few years.)

Up until recently, designers had a hard task ahead of them if they wanted to investigate Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and beyond. My struggle through Being and Time and Being and Nothingness back in 2008 was made considerably easier (if still time-consuming, and likely to risk bias from only one interpretation) thanks to finding the audio recordings of Stanford professor Hubert Dreyfus online. (Sadly the Merleau-Ponty ones have disappeared). Paul Dourish’s Where the Action Is is a useful but dense review of embodied interaction and its relationship to phenomenology. There is also well received 2010 film on phenemonology made by former Dreyfus student Tao Rouspoli—though it is hard to get hold of so I haven’t as of yet seen it. The hunger for easy to understand information for designers about phenomenology means that I was surprised to find that a brief article I wrote on the topic for Johnny Holland (and in hindsight has some rather clunky grammar amongst other things) was referenced in two research textbooks!

So, I was ecstatic that there was a talk at the Interaction14 conference on phenomenology for designers. And even more impressed (if a little put out after my own struggles with the key texts) that the presentation on the topic was not only relatively easy to understand and relevant from a designer’s perspective, but also included discussions right up to current understandings of the field.

The latter point is something that as a design researcher I’m often concerned about. Design is generally very good at lifting concepts from other disciplines (Picasso and Jobs would be proud), but without an awareness of what discussion has happened later, we can be missing important developments. It would be like stealing tips from Mad Men without realising that advertising now often uses far more collaborative messages these days.

As it turned out, Thomas Wendt has expanded on this topic into his newly released book Design for Dasein.

The book tackles a number of angles of phenomenology and design, including the expected introduction to phenomenology and its relationship to design, but also how design thinking can be reframed using phenomenology, embodied interaction, designing and problem framing, and post-phenomenology and object studies.





Sadly since I have a Kindle version I can’t get a nice book picture.

The different chapters will appeal to different audiences: as a design researcher I found the chapters on post-phenomenology the most exciting as it tied together theories from people I hadn’t heard of or had but didn’t entirely have a grip on the theories yet.

I was personally really happy to learn about how modern technology is something that according to Don Ihde we “act with” and read into (such as a thermometer), something that can’t be derived from the work of the pre-digital original phenomenologists. A lot of researchers’ ears will probably pick up at the post-phenomenology concept of “multistability”:

“Multistability accounts for the difference between what designers want to occur and what actually occurs… [is because] technology takes shape not according to what it is but rather what it can do… [including] possibilities that were not yet considered”.

I suspect for the newcomer this chapter could be a bit overwhelming and need to be read lightly, or at least without worrying too much over the names.

The chapters more relating to phenomenology will be invaluable for those wanting a primer on the topics as they serve as a ‘greatest hits’ of key theorists (including those I’ve mentioned above) and an easy read and reminder for those that are more familiar with the topics.

Similarly, the design sections are often territory that design school grads should know about, though there are also some nice inclusions such the lesser-known-than-he-should-be Klaus Krippendorf (who I was excited to see talk at the same conference as Wendt yet was surprised that few in the audience had heard of).

While the book does require some attention to read—particularly for those not familiar with a lot of the names mentioned—it is to date the clearest and most widereaching account of philosophy in a way that can seem relevant to designers (even if that last point may vary from chapter to chapter depending on the person). For those that want to think about technology and designing in a meaningful way, this is a must own and potentially a jumping off point for further reading into all aspects of design and research."
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 16, 2021 10:02 pm

Meno_ wrote: Pantheistic I really not arguable, as it contains equivalance between God and Nature. That is why the problem is offensive and heretical to the clergy.

However the arguability and the demonsgratibility is based on formal neo-Platonism. su h as Augustine was won't to confesd, but for so my 'mystical reason, was compelled.

It comes down to argument for it's own sake, sheteas It's Own Sake could illustrate. the two modes of Dasein. So close to 'design.phonetically, it's strange.


iambiguous wrote: Note to nature:

Compel me to actually understand this.




Note to others:

You tell me.

You know, if, in the real deal free will world, your life depended on it.
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: 41573
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Sun May 16, 2021 10:26 pm

Course when You note to others, You are excluding me from that set
( the others)


And how does anyone know if my life depends on it or not?
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 17, 2021 1:42 am

Meno_ wrote:Course when You note to others, You are excluding me from that set
( the others)


And how does anyone know if my life depends on it or not?


Nature to iambiguous:

I compel you not to push him too far. After all, the last thing you need here is another "condition".
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: 41573
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Mon May 17, 2021 5:03 am

God to Iambigious :

Conditions are effects of conditionals of earthly approximated values , usually generated by appearent contradictions.

Although Nature and God are not synanomous, they are not Necessarily antogonistic.

One can equally argue for God"s Existance or it's nullity, even it's contradiction.

Even contradictory powers can be viewed on a higher level as merely circular within variable degrees. They may amount to less then 90 degrees of separation.

The ultra large sphere. of cosmic image of that less then 90 degrees , there separation on any cyclically formed gap may amount to anywhere between zero plusany increment to minus ziillionths of degrees.

Nature may mirror god or disperse it, without destroying it, and vicars versa.
Nature is mirrored by God, it may also be called Cosmic Counsciousness.
Without it, there is no life . It is Atman.
Last edited by Meno_ on Mon May 17, 2021 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby encode_decode » Mon May 17, 2021 2:24 pm

Meno_ wrote:Course when You note to others, You are excluding me from that set
( the others)


And how does anyone know if my life depends on it or not?

Don't worry, he is excluded from this set too. But not completely for either of you.

:wink:
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Mon May 17, 2021 2:25 pm

Meno_ wrote:God to Iambigious :

Conditions are effects of conditionals of earthly approximated values , usually generated by appearent contradictions.

Although Nature and God are not synanomous, they are not Necessarily antogonistic.

One can equally argue for God, or it's nullity, even ot's contradiction.

Even contradictory powers can be viewed on a higher level as merely circular within variable degrees. They may amount to less then 90 degrees of separation.

On the ultra large sphere that less then 90 degrees , tje separation on any cyclically formed gap may amount to anywhere between o plus minus ziillions of degrees.


This thread has gone off the rails. This has turned into a dumping ground for everybody’s ideas. My purpose here has gotten lost. So sad!
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1777
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby encode_decode » Mon May 17, 2021 2:39 pm

peacegirl wrote:This thread has gone off the rails. This has turned into a dumping ground for everybody’s ideas. My purpose here has gotten lost. So sad!

Is your purpose to get others to read the book and discuss only what is in the book? Not allowing others to bring their own thoughts from all their experience in their existence...when presenting their opposition or agreement to the contents of the book...Or otherwise? The first conversation would probably still reflect the current mood in the current conversation as with the second conversation(of otherwise).

For anyone to prove or disprove scientifically what is in the book they can not just use the contents of the book.

The OP:

peacegirl wrote:I was here many moons ago, but my thread was deleted. Doesn't anyone remember the book, Decline and Fall of All Evil? I just want you all to know that in another forum (a very well respected university forum), it has reached 17,000 hits without my involvement. IlovePhilosophy forum did teach me a lot. It taught me that in spite of all our knowledge, people can still judge a book by its cover without understanding the true nature of the content. At the time I was here, there was another thread going on which gained a lot of popularity. It had reached almost 100,000 hits and had to do with the philospher Nietzsche regarding feminism. This was what took center stage and what left this thread out entirely, which is no one's fault. I do understand the problem in that it is not only due to other threads, but more to do with the question: Why would new knowledge be posted on a relatively small website? According to those reading this, if it was anything that important, why wouldn't it already be known to the world? To put it more bluntly, why would a discovery of this magnitude land on one small philosophy website, which is a legitimate question? Unfortunately, the reasoning here is faulty. What makes me heartbroken in all of this is that all of the people who would have loved this book would never have a chance to read it. I put it online for free except for Chapter Ten, his discovery on death, Our Posterity. I felt it was too much knowledge coming at one time. If anyone wants to read the book online, please go to: northern colorado philosophy forum. Click on the link which says go to the discussion. Then to: The Agora. Go the page 2 and click on New Discovery. I hope I have piqued your interest. I have no desire to get anyone frustrated. Maybe we all can actually carry on a conversation based on the book without any premature judgment. That would be very refreshing indeed. Peacegirl

Picking your purpose out of this is actually kind of difficult.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 17, 2021 4:14 pm

Meno_ wrote:God to Iambigious :

Conditions are effects of conditionals of earthly approximated values , usually generated by appearent contradictions.

Although Nature and God are not synanomous, they are not Necessarily antogonistic.

One can equally argue for God"s Existance or it's nullity, even it's contradiction.

Even contradictory powers can be viewed on a higher level as merely circular within variable degrees. They may amount to less then 90 degrees of separation.

The ultra large sphere. of cosmic image of that less then 90 degrees , there separation on any cyclically formed gap may amount to anywhere between zero plusany increment to minus ziillionths of degrees.

Nature may mirror god or disperse it, without destroying it, and vicars versa.
Nature is mirrored by God, it may also be called Cosmic Counsciousness.
Without it, there is no life . It is Atman.


iambiguous to nature:

A "condition" it is then.
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: 41573
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 17, 2021 4:37 pm

peacegirl wrote:This thread has gone off the rails. This has turned into a dumping ground for everybody’s ideas. My purpose here has gotten lost. So sad!


Note to nature:

Just to let you know, I'm flcking the switch "here and now" to the real deal free will world.

Pick one:

1] the thread was never able not to have gone off the rails because the rails themselves are but an inherent/necessary manifestation of the only possible reality

2] peacegirl "created" both the thread and the rail in such a way that, in combining free will and no free will, it remains a mind-boggling "intellectual contraption" that [up to now] makes sense only to her

In other words, not unlike my own. Only I acknowledge right from the start that given "the gap" above, no one seems able to actually grasp the whole truth here.

It's just that with nature, in configuring lifeless matter into the biological evolution of the stuff here on planet Earth, the result was minds needing merely to believe that something is true in order to make it true.
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: 41573
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Mon May 17, 2021 5:57 pm

At the same time let's give Peace girl and her father a huge amount of credit for wanting to introduce a unique way of dealing with the evil which exists in the world.I

It would be unfair to avoid that complement. Any which way that tends to travel toward the light. rather then away from it is commendable.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Mon May 17, 2021 7:05 pm

encode_decode wrote:
peacegirl wrote:This thread has gone off the rails. This has turned into a dumping ground for everybody’s ideas. My purpose here has gotten lost. So sad!

Is your purpose to get others to read the book and discuss only what is in the book? Not allowing others to bring their own thoughts from all their experience in their existence...when presenting their opposition or agreement to the contents of the book...Or otherwise? The first conversation would probably still reflect the current mood in the current conversation as with the second conversation(of otherwise).

For anyone to prove or disprove scientifically what is in the book they can not just use the contents of the book.

The OP:

peacegirl wrote:I was here many moons ago, but my thread was deleted. Doesn't anyone remember the book, Decline and Fall of All Evil? I just want you all to know that in another forum (a very well respected university forum), it has reached 17,000 hits without my involvement. IlovePhilosophy forum did teach me a lot. It taught me that in spite of all our knowledge, people can still judge a book by its cover without understanding the true nature of the content. At the time I was here, there was another thread going on which gained a lot of popularity. It had reached almost 100,000 hits and had to do with the philospher Nietzsche regarding feminism. This was what took center stage and what left this thread out entirely, which is no one's fault. I do understand the problem in that it is not only due to other threads, but more to do with the question: Why would new knowledge be posted on a relatively small website? According to those reading this, if it was anything that important, why wouldn't it already be known to the world? To put it more bluntly, why would a discovery of this magnitude land on one small philosophy website, which is a legitimate question? Unfortunately, the reasoning here is faulty. What makes me heartbroken in all of this is that all of the people who would have loved this book would never have a chance to read it. I put it online for free except for Chapter Ten, his discovery on death, Our Posterity. I felt it was too much knowledge coming at one time. If anyone wants to read the book online, please go to: northern colorado philosophy forum. Click on the link which says go to the discussion. Then to: The Agora. Go the page 2 and click on New Discovery. I hope I have piqued your interest. I have no desire to get anyone frustrated. Maybe we all can actually carry on a conversation based on the book without any premature judgment. That would be very refreshing indeed. Peacegirl

Picking your purpose out of this is actually kind of difficult.


Why do people make this so difficult? Just read the preface. It’s as simple as that. And you don’t have to download.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... APTERS.pdf
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1777
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users