Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the human

[Guide]

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.

[James Kroeger]

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...

[iambiguous]

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.

I'm never entirely certain the extent to which I actually understand the existential implications of arguments like this as they relate to the day to day things that I choose to do. Like, for example, responding here.

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.

Is this thread itself merely an inherent manifestation of a "now" linked immutably to a "before", heading mechanistically to a "later"?

Something did or did not bring into existence the existence of existence itself? And that did or did not set into motion a series of material interactions encompassing a cosmos unfolding only as it ever could have?

And human interactions are no exception? Mind is just more matter?

Something like that?

And then of course the part that most interest me: connecting the dots here between the either/or world and the is/ought world.

Whatever that even means in other words.

[Meno_]

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.

[iambiguous]

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.

One more pedantic contribution to the staggering vastness that must be now?

[Urwrongx1000]

Causality is not a 'Guess'.

Logic is based on causal observations.

[Guide]

―――

James Kroeger


“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.


-------------

iambiguous

“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? “

This question assumes the conception of causality.


“And human interactions are no exception? Mind is just more matter?”

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.”

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.



--------------
Meno_

“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.”

This may be possible, however, my life wasn’t meant for complacency and cheap formulas. I do mind. Since I don’t want to live in a stupor of traditional limitations on my mode of existence.


“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.”

I think this is only half right. What is really the case is that everything is judged by the standard of practical result. Rules, math or chess, are not taken up ontologically. What is missing in this statement is that logic, i.e., mere rules, is founded in psychology, ergo, an ontological problem. And, on the other side, the practical results become mere facts, i.e., voluntarily testable results which become set off against radical subjectivity concerning their benefit to humans. The question about what the practical is (i.e, what do facts have to do with human beings who have become mere folk subjects), is no longer asked.

“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.”

Yes, this leads to the problem just stated. “Immiteralialsm” seems a synonym for Positivism, i.e., fact value.


------------

iambiguous


“One more pedantic contribution to the staggering vastness that must be now? ”

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?

----


Urwrongx1000

Causality is not a 'Guess'.

Logic is based on causal observations.

I think you illicitly fuse (ergo, thereby you confuse) psychology and logic. Reasoning and observation both stem from our psychology, but they are differentiable. And logic is not the result of observation, but stems directly from our psychology. It doesn't become more internally coherent by virtue of working out in a application, even if that is what one aims at all the time. It’s a set of rules independently true; no observational data can make a logic false so far as logic names mathematical logic and not ancient Greek syllogistics or something else.

[iambiguous]

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"?

Something did or did not bring into existence the existence of existence itself?

This question assumes the conception of causality.

Hell, concepts are a dime a dozen here. 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?

“And human interactions are no exception? Mind is just more matter?”

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?

connecting the dots here between the either/or world and the is/ought world.

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.

One more pedantic contribution to the staggering vastness that must be now?

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?

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.

About, well, anything, right?

And I will be the first to acknowledge that, as a "serious philosopher" here, there are any number of deficiencies in my own thinking. So I tend to focus the beam more on that which those who do claim to be superbly proficient in grasping philosophy technically can tell us about the distinction that philosophers have made down through the ages between the either/or and the is/ought world of human interactions.

Taking into account such things as nature and nurture...genes and memes...the ego, id, and superego...mind as matter...theology...ontology...teleology.

As all of this pertains to the existential intersection of those things that most interest me: identity, values and political power.

The "serious philosophers" among us will either go there or they won't.

[James Kroeger]

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.

I'll admit to making general comments of a breezy kind in response to your statements as I have long thought Hume did a rather good job of settling the question of whether or not the 'law of causality' can ever be defended from skeptical doubts.

Re: your statement, "Ergo, it is pointless to assign causation, since that would be to pick a detail out of the whole of what came before."

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.

True, the mental effort to single out 'events'---one of them caused, the other causing---that were only a part of what one observed previously is indeed an example of minds attempting to simplify their understanding of what they previously witnessed, but these guesses are hardly devoid of usefulness.

Even if the 'rule' of causality is only reliable most of the time when we try to apply it (qualified because some experimental results we've observed seem to violate the rule) it has proven to be reliable enough for us to plan around the assumption and produce results that have been favorable to our overall interests...

[Guide]

“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"?”

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?”

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.

“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?”

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.

“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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

[Guide]

“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. “

This is ambiguous. Because “usefulness” is meaningless as question about fact. In the terms of physics such a expedient may be useful. That is the only place local causality is upheld as a conception. However, physics aims at producing facts, and facts are by definition devoid of usefulness. They are as such, without qualification: neither useful or not useful.

“Even if the 'rule' of causality is only reliable most of the time “

It’s reliable almost never. Most predictions, attempts to predict, are false. Otherwise you would be rich. Although, my prediction that you will not understand what is said, is surely correct!

[encode_decode]

Guide

I hear you - still I would like the opportunity to pick apart what you have written.

Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the human

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.

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.

Yes(Everything "then" comes before everything as it "now" is.). No it is not pointless to assign causation - there can be some usefulness to picking a detail out of the whole of what came before - it depends on what you are trying to achieve.

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. However "All things, the whole past, become all things, the whole now." is only intuitively correct unless you have something more substantial to offer.

Nothing can be carved out and named other than "all things" as those things that, each one, belong to the whole of the past.

Yet all things are carved out and named - how is this the case? It comes down to a matter of what is practical.

I see what you are saying though - it is an ideal. The work that I have been doing over the last year and a half is quite descriptive of what you are expressing.

[iambiguous]

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's our day to day lives and there's the ontological understanding of existence itself. And in closing the gap between them there is this:

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

Then we get to a more definitive reaction to "Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the human"

What "on earth" does that mean? Let alone in linking the relevance of the "human condition" down here to "all there is" up there.

And only then would it seem can we come to an understanding as to whether or not there is a teleological component embedded in "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?”

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.

Just like these words:

“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.

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.

Same with this exchange:

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?”

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?

Same with these words:

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.

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.

“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.”

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.

“the either/or and the is/ought world of human interactions.”

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]

“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.”

In the tightest sense one can’t say that something was caused by something. The second something is a part of what I mean by ramification. Legal practice distinguishes proximate cause from legal cause. A hand knocks a glass from a table edge. Yet, what were all the circumstance that led to that glass being there? “All the causes”, amounts to saying what happened “before now”. It is wholly meaningless in that form, it happens because this is now and that was then. Empty prattle.

Practical is not determined here, nor meaning. Maybe it is wildly impractical, since it leads to blaming people for things. And wholly meaningless, since one deceives oneself perpetually under this myth which rolls on in seeming innocuousness under laughing skys of supercilious idiocy.

“All things that are now once were "not yet".

I am not 100% certain what you mean by this.”

Looked at causally, what matters most about all things is that they are the same by virtue of being now. Ergo, the “already” is not the same. Such is the principle of the unity of the whole under the conception of causality.

“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?”

Since it doesn’t fit what is. The practical method assumes the merit of practicality under some conception (as mentioned already above). The question: Why does one seek to deceive oneself?, becomes more meaty with this detail.

“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. “

This presupposes the determination of true. It says, all is true. Since one can ask about all. However, that is not what is meant. What is meant is determined by the discussion concerning the good of, e.g., the conception of meaningfulness or practicality above.


"All things, the whole past, become all things, the whole now." is only intuitively correct unless you have something more substantial to offer.”

“I see what you are saying though - it is an ideal. “

No. The issue here is that the idea (what one lives in in daily life), not ideal (something one might hope for or sense in the mind like apodictically immediate parallel lines), is extended to human beings by being (true in the sense that one can ask about it) but is meaningless.

[Guide]

“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?”

This truth is seldom taken seriously, because one says with an air of supercilious knowing: for ordinary people it never mattered.

“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.”

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.”

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.

““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.
“

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?

“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.”

No because when one says apple tree, one means something one can come across. And this is true also of the genus, since we do think apple tree as a class or kind of thing. That is something one encounters. Both in the sense that any apple tree is externally a case of the kind of thing one calls an apple tree, and it is also the concept as a mental clarification. These words nominate or title what happens. So “The words don't lead us to anything other than more words.” is inadmissible, since it is false by the standard of describing what happens accurately.

“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.”

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.”

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!

“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? “

The word able would be meaningless (ruled out a priori). The whole sentence would be meaningless. Because you derive the “must be” of your necessity from the freedom of the human. As a removal. We think we are free, we continue to in the idea of necessity. You’re not up to confronting the whirlpool of anti-logic in supposing yourself to be saying something here.

“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.”

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.

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:
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.”

Not sure how this answers the question of what rationality means.

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?

This is comical and ridiculous, as is your obvious insincerity.

[Meno_]

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]

“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.”

Polemical clowning. Sad and despicable.

[iambiguous]

“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?

“ There are things we don't know we don't know.”

However, this is an imaginative stretching of the known unknowns into an formal category.

Well, from my frame of mind, it is just common sense. 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?

“What "on earth" does that mean? Let alone in linking the relevance of the "human condition" down here to "all there is" up there.”

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 if what we construe as practical is only ever that which we could -- or would -- have construed as practical? For instance, a particular individual's culpability -- like the crime itself, like point of view about the crime itself -- may well be wholly scripted into our interactions by "the immutable laws of matter".

In fact it may well be possible that arguing over what in fact is true here is in fact already embedded in whatever set into motion the fact of matter itself. We're all basically acting out nature's script --- one that just happens to include the kind of matter that human consciousness itself evolved into. Matter able to ponder itself as matter able to ponder itself. But only as matter was ever able to ponder itself.

And the maddening thing is that until we know for certain what is in fact true or not true here, we can only take one or another existential leap to believing that what we think we do know about it "here and now" is "for all practical purposes" what is thought to "work" for us.

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.

What facts? In what context? Understood in what particular way? As that relates to the argument in the OP.

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?

There are facts we can note in a causual chain that all are able to agree on because in fact they are able to be demonstrated as in fact true. What caused Joe to be executed? He did in fact murder someone, was in fact tried and convicted for it, did in fact live in a state that permits capital punishment.

Okay, but what caused Jane to believe that capital punishment is wrong?

You either grapple with that distinction as I do or you don't.

Instead, in making a distinction between creating a book and banning people from reading it, you prefer to go here:

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.

Now, in a wholly determined universe, there would not appear to be a distinction to be made. The book will be made, the book will be banned. Both are -- ontologically? teleologically? -- part and parcel of the immutable laws of matter.

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?

Then this part:

“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.”

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!

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?

And then when I return to this:

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.

...we get this from you:

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.

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. Correlation and/or cause and effect here are clearly demonstrable. But what caused Jane to believe it is the wrong thing to do? Are all the variables linked here in the same manner or is the human "mind" a whole new kind of matter?

Then [of course] this:

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.

Definitions. Those contraptions that many serious philosophers fall back on. Suckle on. With them we can stay up in the clouds of abstraction. Or, if we do bring them down to earth, it is only to discuss apple trees and fake flowers.

[Guide]

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?”

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 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?

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?”

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".

The group says. Sheer religious verbiage without object, the stuff of vacant logomachy.

----------

“the fact of matter itself”

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”

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.

---

Matter able to ponder itself as matter able to ponder itself. But only as matter was ever able to ponder itself.

Which collapses the distinction and shows the talk the group is involved with, “matter able to ponder”, is vacant prattle. What is the ostensive definition of consciousness? Point to the picturable thing. Wie?


--------

“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.”

The group says, this is a deep and large mystery, is it not? Remembering, that the conception of truth, too, is such a believed thing.

-------

“You either grapple with that distinction as I do or you don't.”

The distinction is a concept, just like the second part of the distinction. The group thinks this is group delusion.


--------

“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?”

The group, in what is written above, is stuck. Like someone in dark glasses who keeps saying, show me a brilliant color, oh!, you fucking can’t do it! To this, the group answers, drop the conception of cause. This is what the group is working at.

The group notices, conceptions are not so arid, or wordy, as the group thinks…


-----------

“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".”

Practicality is a conception. Mere words.

“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”

The group says, are you joking? Did the group never here of Herbert Spencer’s phrase, “survival of the fittest?” That answers the question about biological existential cause, as the biological conception. Such is one of the basic sciences, in its conception of all beings that are.


--------------

Fake flowers? Is that actually what you think my points can be reduced to?

The group says, “reduced” is not the point. Rather: Made clear through analogy. You presuppose the conception of the practical as a deep mythological motivation.

-----------

“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.”

The group says this is absurd. Does “he was executed at the mideweak” speak more exactly than, “He died by execution, under supervision of correctional personnel.” Infinite other similar true sayings could be brought out pertaining to anything.

--------

“With them we can stay up in the clouds of abstraction.”

The group says, what does abstraction mean. Does the group know by pointing? Is the group unaware that definitions are the means to getting the group together to investigate the subject matter? Or does the group remain ingenuously benighted as hell about what it is doing?

“discuss apple trees and fake flowers”

Does the group discuss the apple tree, or what comes to mind when one is named? Where is the limit of this? Can it be pointed to? Is it the same for any two group members? Does the group live on mars, or here, where shit is vague and strange as hell?

[iambiguous]

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?

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?

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.

Unless, of course, these interactions unfold in a wholly determined universe. In that case [it would seem] any and all of our demonstrations are merely that which were never not going to be demonstrated. Or, further, if our interactions are wholly a solipsistic contraption. Or unfolding in one or another Sim World in which we are all just characters interacting in the "games" of a species far, far more advanced than our own.

Bingo: Back again to whatever or whoever is behind the reality of Reality itself. Human or otherwise.

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?

And then this part:

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?

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.

I certainly don't exclude folks like Kant and Socrates from my conjecture that there almost certainly exist a gap between what they thought they knew about the relationship between "I" and the world around them, and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself. That's why mere mortals [like them] invent the Gods. To procure a point of view said to be omniscient.

So, do you exclude yourself from what is almost certainly an immense chasm here?

Or are you too engaging ironically in exposing the profound irrelevance that much of what passes for "serious philosophy" here seems to encompass with regard to exploring the question, "how ought one to live"? And what causes someone to think this instead of that.

"the immutable laws of matter".

The group says. Sheer religious verbiage without object, the stuff of vacant logomachy.

“the fact of matter itself”

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”

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.

Note to the group: HUH?!!

How are these reactions not what some might construe to be basically intellectual gibberish? How do any of you relate these points to your own interactions with others out in the world that we live in? To that which causes you to behave as you do in the either/or world, or causes you to react to the behaviors of others as you do in the is/ought world?

Let's focus on this before we get to all of the other things that "the group" is said to think or do.

[Guide]

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?

The group is not sure it understands this. What does concept first mean? If we seriously ask that, are we not already philosophizing? What does it mean for Plato (the first grand self-conscious philosopher and synthesizer of what had recently come to be called philosophizing) to philosophize? People are using a word, e.g., truth, and one notices it and inquiries into it. This is analogous to walking, and noticing one walks, and then considering the features of walking. One notices various things, and most of all, that something is being generally called walking. It is found here, and then there, and again—a pattern! The concept is the awakening awareness of what is already happening (or, what seems to have already been happening through the lense of the conception of the concept). Yet, the pattern of the pattern is the only perfect pattern. Its coming to be noticed is the mystery of raising the eyes which one has long been used to calling philosophy.

---------

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.

The group means, that demonstration is a thing at all. In other words, presumably, squirrels have no manner of discussing it. Of saying, it is demonstrated, ergo, bow down to reason. It is only possible to quibble about what counts as demonstration because the concept is in some way available and forcible to the human being. Perhaps it is a wrong force, a useless force, a harmful instinct.

This is not obviously a matter of necessity or human freedom. The question of necessity is derivative on what comes forward by way of mythological discussion possibilities, such as the concept of cause.

---------------

“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?”

Because of the issue in Dostoevsky's Devils. The freedom to interpret (the either / or) comes up against the stone, the man-god is not wholly sublime. Ergo, not wholly superior to the terrible and unpleasant forces which show him how little he is worth.

“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.

Paraphrase the point. The group doesn’t see what you want to say in the statement “..seemingly inherent gap..” if you don’t mean bounded rationality.
--------

“ To procure a point of view said to be omniscient. “

The group regards this as a Kaspar Hauser frame of mind. In other words, such a great fixation on the idea of omniscience an inability to see that knowledge meant nothing like that for philosophers. What they mean was simple knowing, e.g., such as how to pour a glass of water. Which is perfect knowledge of pouring a glass of water which requires nothing more.

------------

“are you engaging ironically”

Not in the least. The group regards this as an issue of presuppositions about what is in question. Especially in the form of a near-unconscious gross slander on philosophy, which misses its content and meaning entirely.

----------

“And what causes someone to think this instead of that.”

This part of the group is not largely concerned with causation. Rather, with being.

--------

How are these reactions not what some might construe to be basically intellectual gibberish?

Since the group can’t discuss anything without clarifying what we are speaking about so we know what we are talking about as a means to getting at the subject matter itself of those things. Otherwise the discussion is whu-whu, blah blah, and dog’s barking. I.e., it is sheer noise.

It is really amazingly sad that the group needs to be insesently fought in order to get it to philosophize rather than blather meaninglessly.

[Guide]

Note, this is added on, since the group is not sure what it has left unanswered. And so it apologizes for any oversight.

-------------

“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 conception of the fact was hardly known in Locke’s time. A very few individuals in the Royal Society started that. In the polemic between Hobbes and Boyle it began. Now it is everywhere taken for granted. The older meaning of fact was the legal meaning, as in “accessory after the fact’, it meant voluntary act. The carry over has to do with voluntary testing, and from that thinking of all human experience as testing things. We move with the train of world history in this respect, it is part of the reaction norm’s environment when thought evolutionarily.

--------------

“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? “

The group thinks you are fixated on the conception of necessity and freedom.

“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?”

The group regards this as mythical pitter-patter. The group's kneeling to worship its notion that the human being is “non-special” comes out in Freud, when he says: the masochist whips himself, and thereby remains the master. The thoughtless part of the group is whipping itself.


---------

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.

Well, for instance, these days, in a political connection, one often hears the claim “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. Is it not an “ethical quagmire”? One must determine the concept.

[Ecmandu]

Guide, I'm going to follow you a bit, since you called me a moron.

Let's understand the implications of your op.

Everything that came before us is exactly the same "everything" (which is a tricky equivocation) therefor, to establish causality to anything must include everything, and thus can't exist.

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.

The mere act of making your post, agrees that not all causes have the same effect, because you believe in yourself and other people.

So really, this thread is a scam.

[Serendipper]

“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.

Fact is consensus of opinion

[Guide]

----

“ "everything" (which is a tricky equivocation)”

Does the concept of causality refer to all things? In other words, are all things the same insofar as causality is concerned? It seems to me this “equivocation” as the group polemically put it, is part of the concept of causality. Or, how might the group avoid that? The group acts as though it were part of the group’s dishonest presentation (and, presumably, its natural and inborn practice).


---

“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.”

If there are an “infinite number” of something, that implies a universal. One can’t speak of singularities except as a universal conception. Aristotle says here, the thing one points at can never be the subject of a science. In this sense, causality, so far as it is a scientific concept, doesn’t apply.

The group says, what is a “singularity”? A member of the group sees, right now, before them, a keyboard. They have no ostensive access to a “singularity”. And never in their life did they see one. There are many keyboards, the word signals them, one can draw infinite numbers of them, in diverse styles. One thinks of them, remembers them. They are things in the sense of “all things”. All things, if the group allows, might also include the things that now might come to be, but aren't, unborn and unconceived children or keyboards for instance. Even things not yet thought of as patterns.

What is the singularity? There is pointing, one points, “this one”, and calls it singular, but it is derivative on the keyboard. Which is part of, I emphasize, a pattern or universal.

What is the singularity? There is a theory of dispersion of mass, heterogeneous stuff in unique patterns. That exists only in the mind of physicists. Since it is an ideal like parallel lines.

---

“So really, this thread is a scam.”

So says the religious part of the group, that kneels to its abstract ideal of the "singular". Yet, the thinking part of the group says, surely not.