Guide wrote:All things that are now once were "not yet". Everything "then" comes before everything as it "now" is. Ergo, it is pointless to assign causation, since that would be to pick a detail out of the whole of what came before.
That in physics one speaks of local causality shows a failure of physics in the light of this reasoned law. Ergo, its falling back on probabilities and accidents.
Causality is false, since there is no possibility of asking about it. All things, the whole past, become all things, the whole now. Nothing can be carved out and named other than "all things" as those things that, each one, belong to the whole of the past.
Guide wrote:All things that are now once were "not yet". Everything "then" comes before everything as it "now" is. Ergo, it is pointless to assign causation, since that would be to pick a detail out of the whole of what came before.
That in physics one speaks of local causality shows a failure of physics in the light of this reasoned law. Ergo, its falling back on probabilities and accidents.
Causality is false, since there is no possibility of asking about it. All things, the whole past, become all things, the whole now. Nothing can be carved out and named other than "all things" as those things that, each one, belong to the whole of the past.
Meno_ wrote:A classic ideolog as response: as trite it is: If You don't mind it don't matter. & , of it don't matter, 'I' don't mind.
Hume's old school pre-form was really in an age , where classical physics was still tied to ontology. - quite phenomenal. We are beginning to ramify ideas which are not consequential but indicate large shifts in apprehending varied possibilities.
Berkeley's argument against Hume's contention made a lot of sense then. but immaterialism is making the opposite claim ,from that everything consists of matter.
Guide wrote:It's like intertwining "I" in the most comprehensive understanding of Einstein's "space-time". Or in the manner in which [so far] science has come to understand the quantum world.
This takes place in the mind, unless applied. One hypostatizes the mathimatical rules and speaks as though they were external in the same way we call some wood chess pieces. If one has a detail of the application, say in the action of a quantum computer, then we come back to “folk” experience, or vague daily life.
Something did or did not bring into existence the existence of existence itself?
Guide wrote:This question assumes the conception of causality.
“And human interactions are no exception? Mind is just more matter?”
Guide wrote:The conclusions of reason don’t cause the things they infer. All books are made by humans, this is a book, therefore it is made by a human, doesn’t cause the book to be made by a human. So, one can say, reasons or judgments are a special kind of cause, cause as inference. They cause the inference machine to work. And yet, this all is founded in the conception of causality which is presupposed as meaningful in the ground of the inquiry.
connecting the dots here between the either/or world and the is/ought world.
Guide wrote:One can ask whether causality is beneficial (ignoring the genetic problem, set aside by Kant, who the logical positivists followed (ergo, in the specific sense of taking up the so-called genetic fallacy in defense of the conception of causality) in allowing causality to be founded in psychology and thereby logic), and if he affirms an ethic that says one ought to do what is beneficial. The “is” in Hume refers to opinion, or what in Plato is the result of pistis or the faculty of reliance (i.e., in the simplest sense: I see the ground, I rely on it being under foot when I step). Is and fact are not the same thing. Fact is established by the discussion between Hobbes and the Royal society, and refers to voluntary action of persons such as Boyle, who ran tests. The fact, properly, is a tested thing according to voluntary (i.e, rational) action of the trained observer.
One more pedantic contribution to the staggering vastness that must be now?
Guide wrote:So, you claim all philosophy is worthless… Your cheap goading doesn’t persuade me of that… however, let us attempt to decompose:
What’s the opposite of “pedantic”, loose and vague? Or, is it clear and obvious everyday gossip?
James Kroeger wrote:Guide wrote:All things that are now once were "not yet". Everything "then" comes before everything as it "now" is. Ergo, it is pointless to assign causation, since that would be to pick a detail out of the whole of what came before.
That in physics one speaks of local causality shows a failure of physics in the light of this reasoned law. Ergo, its falling back on probabilities and accidents.
Causality is false, since there is no possibility of asking about it. All things, the whole past, become all things, the whole now. Nothing can be carved out and named other than "all things" as those things that, each one, belong to the whole of the past.
David Hume sends his greetings from the past.
It may help to understand that causality is ultimately nothing more than a guess, but it happens to be a guess which we constantly get verification of in all of our present moments. So it seems to be a rather good guess thus far...
If our experience were to suddenly change, and we discovered we could no longer rely on the old assumption that worked so well for so long, we'd have to change our guesses.
Guesses are a good thing...
This ignores what was written in order to make inapplicable general comments of a breezy kind. a. Hume didn’t make the argument made above. b. Causality is not a good “guess”, a guess is something made, not found in the general stock of human thoughts one grows into. c. Local and particular testing is not confirmation of causality simpliciter. d. Causality as such is more often simply found wrong; most predictions are false.
“Guide wrote:
It's like intertwining "I" in the most comprehensive understanding of Einstein's "space-time". Or in the manner in which [so far] science has come to understand the quantum world.
This takes place in the mind, unless applied. One hypostatizes the mathimatical rules and speaks as though they were external in the same way we call some wood chess pieces. If one has a detail of the application, say in the action of a quantum computer, then we come back to “folk” experience, or vague daily life.
Also, this takes place in a mind existing in a brain existing in a body interacting with others out in a particular world that is somehow intertwined in whatever may or may not in fact be true about the very, very big and the very, very small.
Come on, does anyone here even come close to explaining fully either the essential or the existential parameters of "I" in the context of "all there is"?”
“But to what extent are the concepts of any one individual relating to the existence of existence itself within the reach of actually demonstrating that they are in fact true?”
“The conclusions of reason don’t cause the things they infer. All books are made by humans, this is a book, therefore it is made by a human, doesn’t cause the book to be made by a human. So, one can say, reasons or judgments are a special kind of cause, cause as inference. They cause the inference machine to work. And yet, this all is founded in the conception of causality which is presupposed as meaningful in the ground of the inquiry.
Okay, how close does this assessment bring us to grasping once and for all if this very exchange that we are having is only as it ever could have been?
How "special" are reasons and judgments [yours, mine, theirs] if mind is just more matter interacting mechanically with other mindful matter per the immutable laws of matter?”
“In other words, as I like to say, an ethical quagmire that we are all likely to be familiar with.
One can ask whether causality is beneficial (ignoring the genetic problem, set aside by Kant, who the logical positivists followed (ergo, in the specific sense of taking up the so-called genetic fallacy in defense of the conception of causality) in allowing causality to be founded in psychology and thereby logic), and if he affirms an ethic that says one ought to do what is beneficial. The “is” in Hume refers to opinion, or what in Plato is the result of pistis or the faculty of reliance (i.e., in the simplest sense: I see the ground, I rely on it being under foot when I step). Is and fact are not the same thing. Fact is established by the discussion between Hobbes and the Royal society, and refers to voluntary action of persons such as Boyle, who ran tests. The fact, properly, is a tested thing according to voluntary (i.e, rational) action of the trained observer.
What on earth does this mean? As it pertains to conflicting moral narratives generating conflicting human interactions. Let's bring Kant and Plato and Hume and all the rest out into the world that we actually live in and examine a specific context more...substantively.
In other words, as I like to say, an ethical quagmire that we are all likely to be familiar with.”
“On the contrary, technical philosophy is of fundamental importance if we wish to make more exact distinctions between what either can or cannot be concluded rationally. Or regarding the extent to which we are either able or not able to demonstrate what we claim to know is true is in fact true.”
“the either/or and the is/ought world of human interactions.”
“This seems to be less a statement re: the usefulness of the term "causation" than it is an exclamation at the efforts minds make to conceptualize the noumena of the external world. “
“Even if the 'rule' of causality is only reliable most of the time “
Guide wrote:Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the human
Guide wrote:All things that are now once were "not yet".
Guide wrote:Everything "then" comes before everything as it "now" is. Ergo, it is pointless to assign causation, since that would be to pick a detail out of the whole of what came before.
Guide wrote:That in physics one speaks of local causality shows a failure of physics in the light of this reasoned law. Ergo, its falling back on probabilities and accidents.
Guide wrote:Causality is false, since there is no possibility of asking about it. All things, the whole past, become all things, the whole now.
Guide wrote:Nothing can be carved out and named other than "all things" as those things that, each one, belong to the whole of the past.
Guide wrote:
Also, this takes place in a mind existing in a brain existing in a body interacting with others out in a particular world that is somehow intertwined in whatever may or may not in fact be true about the very, very big and the very, very small.
Come on, does anyone here even come close to explaining fully either the essential or the existential parameters of "I" in the context of "all there is"?”
This is ambiguous. It might be taken to mean, it is too hard, therefore, let us speak simply of daily life. However, in daily life one is annoyed that it is too hard to think through.
“But to what extent are the concepts of any one individual relating to the existence of existence itself within the reach of actually demonstrating that they are in fact true?”
Guide wrote: This points to the conception of “fact”. Existence is more simple. It is where stuff happens, i.e., everything. “Fact” excludes. The extension of the powerful region to the human being is the being of existence.
Guide wrote: “The conclusions of reason don’t cause the things they infer. All books are made by humans, this is a book, therefore it is made by a human, doesn’t cause the book to be made by a human. So, one can say, reasons or judgments are a special kind of cause, cause as inference. They cause the inference machine to work. And yet, this all is founded in the conception of causality which is presupposed as meaningful in the ground of the inquiry.
Okay, how close does this assessment bring us to grasping once and for all if this very exchange that we are having is only as it ever could have been?
How "special" are reasons and judgments [yours, mine, theirs] if mind is just more matter interacting mechanically with other mindful matter per the immutable laws of matter?”
Guide wrote: Isn’t this question derivative on the conception of causality? I.e., it asks: Is causality necessary?
Necessary means here, not free. what does free mean. Possibly: at the disposal of the human.
Guide wrote: It’s not clear if ethical means “by choice”, rather than by “proof”. If there are provable facts, ethics has nothing to do with this. And yet, “fact” means the voluntary act of showing that a thing is repeatable in a test. Or, does it also mean, that plus choosing to believe that human psychology is sufficient grounding to establish facts as apodictic? The human being is like a pair of sunglasses, one would say, the darkness of all things is fact. However, through us all things for us. Ergo, the modern problem of a theory of reason and fundamental ontology.
“On the contrary, technical philosophy is of fundamental importance if we wish to make more exact distinctions between what either can or cannot be concluded rationally. Or regarding the extent to which we are either able or not able to demonstrate what we claim to know is true is in fact true.”
Guide wrote: I don’t know. Why would one accept the results of mere human reason giving? Or is “rationality” supposed to have some spivvy mystical meaning, other than: giving reasons? On the other hand, human beings don’t need reasons, they can be fun and not reason, which is also part of reality as such. Ergo, the doctrine of rationality = best is stupid.
“the either/or and the is/ought world of human interactions.”
Guide wrote: In my experience, this is not true. I witnessed you willy-nilly set aside such a determination of a precision without care. Confirming your lackadaisical higgledy piggledy oddity of predilection within the bright day of the visibility of all beings seen in their huge bulk and ugliness.
“I would say that Causality is a Ramification but that it is not necessarily meaningless - whether it is a lie would depend on whether you are trying to be practical about the usefulness of subdividing the whole or not. It is not always practical to view things as a whole - sometimes it is more practical to see what is apparent even if that leads to what is being viewed as being viewed falsely overall.”
“All things that are now once were "not yet".
I am not 100% certain what you mean by this.”
“That in physics one speaks of local causality shows a failure of physics in the light of this reasoned law. Ergo, its falling back on probabilities and accidents.
Does this really show a failure of physics entirely though? How do you connect probabilities and accidents to causality?”
“Causality is false, since there is no possibility of asking about it. All things, the whole past, become all things, the whole now.
“Causality is not false because it is partially true which means you can partially ask about it. “
“I see what you are saying though - it is an ideal. “
“Guide wrote:
Also, this takes place in a mind existing in a brain existing in a body interacting with others out in a particular world that is somehow intertwined in whatever may or may not in fact be true about the very, very big and the very, very small.
Come on, does anyone here even come close to explaining fully either the essential or the existential parameters of "I" in the context of "all there is"?”
This is ambiguous. It might be taken to mean, it is too hard, therefore, let us speak simply of daily life. However, in daily life one is annoyed that it is too hard to think through.”
How are speculations of this sort ever not ambiguous?”
“In my view, until the gap between what we speculate about these relationships in a "world of words" and the actual material reality of "all there is" is encompassed in a TOE that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace, it's all just basically an exchanges of WAGs.”
“ There are things we don't know we don't know.”
“What "on earth" does that mean? Let alone in linking the relevance of the "human condition" down here to "all there is" up there.”
““But to what extent are the concepts of any one individual relating to the existence of existence itself within the reach of actually demonstrating that they are in fact true?”
Guide wrote:
This points to the conception of “fact”. Existence is more simple. It is where stuff happens, i.e., everything. “Fact” excludes. The extension of the powerful region to the human being is the being of existence.
What facts? In what context? Understood in what particular way? As that relates to the argument in the OP.
“
“This sort of speculation is true or false only to the extent that everyone agrees on the definition and meaning given to words put in any one particular order. The words don't lead us to anything other than more words.Then around and around we go. The "truths" here are basically tautological.”
“It's one thing to grapple with causality in noting the relationship between the existence of a book and those who brought it into existence. But what if the discussion shifts to an assertion that the book ought to be banned? Now, in a wholly determined world the is/ought world is really just another manifestation of the either/or world. There is only the illusion that, autonomously, freely, we are deciding if it is right or wrong to ban the book. The book was always either going to be banned or not banned when whatever brought into existence the laws of matter themselves set them up as they immutably are.”
“The book was always either going to be banned or not banned when whatever brought into existence the laws of matter themselves set them up as they immutably are.”
“Isn’t this question derivative on the conception of causality? I.e., it asks: Is causality necessary?
Necessary means here, not free. what does free mean. Possibly: at the disposal of the human.
What does any of this mean if you were never able to not include it in this exchange? “
“Back again to everyone argeeing that this assessment must be true because the definition and the meaning that you give to the words that encompass it are understood to be the starting point for any discussion of these relationships.
Or so it certainly seems to me. It is a wholly scholastic assessment that goes nowhere near human interactions from day to day. Let alone interactions that come into conflict out in the is/ought world.”
“Guide wrote:
I don’t know. Why would one accept the results of mere human reason giving? Or is “rationality” supposed to have some spivvy mystical meaning, other than: giving reasons? On the other hand, human beings don’t need reasons, they can be fun and not reason, which is also part of reality as such. Ergo, the doctrine of rationality = best is stupid.
Until this "general description" is related to a particular context in which an attempt is made to distinguish between that which we seem able to establish as true objectively for all of us and that which is thought to be true by any one individual who may or may not be able to demonstrate its objectivity, we are stuck exchanging intellectual contraptions by and large.”
Guide wrote:In my experience, this is not true. I witnessed you willy-nilly set aside such a determination of a precision without care. Confirming your lackadaisical higgledy piggledy oddity of predilection within the bright day of the visibility of all beings seen in their huge bulk and ugliness.
Note to others:
What am I to make of this? What do you make of it? How is it relevant to the OP? And how in your view is it related to my own reaction to the OP?
“Guide not to be unfair but am authentic philosopher must interject on the basis of supporting Your thesis
It is a current controversy You are feeding in , as to what is a lie and what truth is. I think You're far too intelligent not to see the facade under which Your arguments that appear, prima facea unsupportable on a very basic level, which is incidentally Truml's problem that eventually people will catch on, unless You are easing into controversy, which sorry today is begging for some kind of synthesis.
I beg Your pardon not to appear as just another vainglory Bullitt pulpit
And I double down on that because You are new and I welcome You to ILP.”
Guide wrote:“In my view, until the gap between what we speculate about these relationships in a "world of words" and the actual material reality of "all there is" is encompassed in a TOE that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace, it's all just basically an exchanges of WAGs.”
This is obviously false, just spend one week reading high law court decisions. The general opinion of human beings on all matters under the sun is in a flux and determines all events on the earth, wars, revolutions, changes of laws and systems of governance. Not to mention revolutions in technology.
“ There are things we don't know we don't know.”
Guide wrote: However, this is an imaginative stretching of the known unknowns into an formal category.
“What "on earth" does that mean? Let alone in linking the relevance of the "human condition" down here to "all there is" up there.”
Guide wrote: One must measure it against such a question as: What is the practical? For example, if culpability for crime is meaningless, since there is no agent of the causation, one changes one’s view concerning incarceration and punishment.
What facts? In what context? Understood in what particular way? As that relates to the argument in the OP.
Guide wrote: It’s you who wrote “they are in fact true”. One must ask, what does fact mean here? Do you notice that if one called all things facts, it would mean all experience of all humans were a kind of scientific result. However, don’t we call those opinions?
Guide wrote: So far as the “ought” judgment is thought casually, as causing the view in the judge who bans the book, it is a cause like the making of the book by the master printer. However, this whole region of causation is meaningless. Though, the human being lives in this idea.
“The book was always either going to be banned or not banned when whatever brought into existence the laws of matter themselves set them up as they immutably are.”
Guide wrote: This seems derivative on the idea of causality. This “going to be” thinking implies the teleology of the idea of time. It evades what is!
Back again to everyone argeeing that this assessment must be true because the definition and the meaning that you give to the words that encompass it are understood to be the starting point for any discussion of these relationships.
Or so it certainly seems to me. It is a wholly scholastic assessment that goes nowhere near human interactions from day to day. Let alone interactions that come into conflict out in the is/ought world.
Guide wrote: This is fanciful nonsense posing as common sense in the style of persons who claim fake flowers are more practical than living ones, for they need less care. Words name what happens. One writes things as a means of getting to what is.
Guide wrote: If you refuse to respect the necessity of definitions, which make visible what is being said for all, you are not worth speaking to. One can explain nothing to fools.
Guide wrote:
“In my view, until the gap between what we speculate about these relationships in a "world of words" and the actual material reality of "all there is" is encompassed in a TOE that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace, it's all just basically an exchanges of WAGs.”
This is obviously false, just spend one week reading high law court decisions. The general opinion of human beings on all matters under the sun is in a flux and determines all events on the earth, wars, revolutions, changes of laws and systems of governance. Not to mention revolutions in technology.
“But: There are truths that can actually be determined. The "world of words" in a legal decision is either in sync with the demonstrable facts or it is not. This can either be shown or it cannot.
For example, there are laws on the book [words in a law book] that, in any particular political jurisdiction, prescribe and proscribe particular behaviors relating to, say, owning guns and rifles.
But how is it determined which set of laws that prescribe and proscribe particular behaviors here ought to be on the book?
What distinctions can we note here?”
“Is there or is there not a seemingly inherent gap between what we think we know about something [about anything] and all that would need to be known about everything?”
"the immutable laws of matter".
“the fact of matter itself”
“We're all basically acting out nature's script”
Matter able to ponder itself as matter able to ponder itself. But only as matter was ever able to ponder itself.
“What's weird about mindful matter is that sometimes all that's necessary is for it to believe that something is true. It doesn't necessarily have to actually be true at all.”
“You either grapple with that distinction as I do or you don't.”
“Unless of course I am completely misunderstanding your point here. But, if so, what caused me to? Did I have any capacity --autonomy, freedom -- to not misunderstand your point?”
“What on earth does this have to do -- for all practical purposes -- with causation embedded in either creating the book or in banning it? It srikes me instead as a purely "intellectual contraption".”
“What is "meaningful" to most of us is wanting to read a particular book when others want to ban the book and make it unavailable to read.
How is causation here to be understood from a particular point of view? Understood, say, biologically, epistemologically, ethically, ontologically, teleologically etc.? Given the manner in which this in and of itself is embedded in an explanation for why and how anything exists at all”
Fake flowers? Is that actually what you think my points can be reduced to?
“There are words used to describe the execution of Joe above. And they are either precisely in sync with the fact of the execution or they are not.”
“With them we can stay up in the clouds of abstraction.”
“discuss apple trees and fake flowers”
Guide wrote: Where does the conception “truth” get its meaning? Is it determined ostensibly, i.e., defined by pointing at something? The motivation for existing has to be dreamed up as a myth. I.e., the word motivation doesn’t mean anything, except that it gets somehow a meaning, in a non-demonstrable way.
Guide wrote: The group regards your view as a myth, since, how can one demonstrate that he must demonstrate, or that it is better to demonstrate, or what demonstration is?
Guide wrote: This being said, the group is perplexed that a man can not push a huge boulder over, through mythologizing it differently. And yet, he might insofar as this becomes the value of all humans, and they solve the problem how to move the boulder. And this re-valuing is demonstrable as a truth actually determinable.
Is there or is there not a seemingly inherent gap between what we think we know about something [about anything] and all that would need to be known about everything?
Guide wrote: It’s not obvious. When one knows how to pour water into a cup, that’s perfect knowledge. What more is wanting? The problem arises in a mysterious way.
In truth, I see no evidence anyone troubled themselves with such things prior to Kant. Perfect was never a mentally strange notion in former times, it was plain.
Practically, what is the equivalent in antiquity to the problem of so-called “bounded rationality”? Perhaps the “I know that I don’t know” of Socrates. this, however, was bounded by diotima, for she said, the gods don’t philosophize. Ergo, it may be our (modern) common sense…
"the immutable laws of matter".
Guide wrote: The group says. Sheer religious verbiage without object, the stuff of vacant logomachy.
“the fact of matter itself”
Guide wrote: The group says, sheer religious verbiage. What on earth is matter, answer: a conception made up with words.
“We're all basically acting out nature's script”
Guide wrote: The group says: what the hell is nature? Answer: sheer nonsense religious swaddling cloth talk. A transformed tradition out of the Greek notion of phusis, which is set off against psuke and means nothing outside the context of the tradition of faithful prattle.
Where does the conception “truth” get its meaning? Is it determined ostensibly, i.e., defined by pointing at something? The motivation for existing has to be dreamed up as a myth. I.e., the word motivation doesn’t mean anything, except that it gets somehow a meaning, in a non-demonstrable way.
The truth about what? In particular, in other words. Or, for some, is it always the truth about that which serious philosophers must mean when "conceptually" they discuss the truth about anything?
Again: Demonstrate what? If we discuss animal rights, for example, there are facts that can be demonstrated regarding the actual empirical realtionship between our own species and the species we call chickens or cows or dogs and horses.
“Guide wrote:This being said, the group is perplexed that a man can not push a huge boulder over, through mythologizing it differently. And yet, he might insofar as this becomes the value of all humans, and they solve the problem how to move the boulder. And this re-valuing is demonstrable as a truth actually determinable.
What on earth does this have to do with the points I raise regarding causation in the either/or world and causation in the is/ought world? And the distinction I make between them?”
“Is there or is there not a seemingly inherent gap between what we think we know about something [about anything] and all that would need to be known about everything?
Guide wrote:It’s not obvious. When one knows how to pour water into a cup, that’s perfect knowledge. What more is wanting? The problem arises in a mysterious way.
In truth, I see no evidence anyone troubled themselves with such things prior to Kant. Perfect was never a mentally strange notion in former times, it was plain.
Practically, what is the equivalent in antiquity to the problem of so-called “bounded rationality”? Perhaps the “I know that I don’t know” of Socrates. this, however, was bounded by diotima, for she said, the gods don’t philosophize. Ergo, it may be our (modern) common sense…”
Yes, "in your head" this point may well be deemed entirely relevant to the point I make. "In my head" though it doesn't even come close.
“ To procure a point of view said to be omniscient. “
“are you engaging ironically”
“And what causes someone to think this instead of that.”
How are these reactions not what some might construe to be basically intellectual gibberish?
“But to what extent are the concepts of any one individual relating to the existence of existence itself within the reach of actually demonstrating that they are in fact true?”
“Okay, how close does this assessment bring us to grasping once and for all if this very exchange that we are having is only as it ever could have been? “
“How "special" are reasons and judgments [yours, mine, theirs] if mind is just more matter interacting mechanically with other mindful matter per the immutable laws of matter?”
What on earth does this mean? As it pertains to conflicting moral narratives generating conflicting human interactions. Let's bring Kant and Plato and Hume and all the rest out into the world that we actually live in and examine a specific context more...substantively.
In other words, as I like to say, an ethical quagmire that we are all likely to be familiar with.
Guide wrote: “you can have your own opinions, not your own facts”. This phrase is confused, and therefore it confuses discussion. If one is unable to say what a fact is, and how it differs from an opinion, one is bound to have trouble.
“ "everything" (which is a tricky equivocation)”
“I'll give you a very simple refutation, in your analysis, there can never be singularities, such as you or I , yet, in the present we apprehend an infinite number of singularities. How then can a singularity exist without causation? I don't necessarily mean intelligent causation, simply something discerned from your amorphous all theory, you, proves that there are streaming points of singularity, which certainly makes the all not amorphous whatsoever.”
“So really, this thread is a scam.”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users