phyllo wrote:I guess that we have reached the end of the road.
And just when things were going so well for you!

phyllo wrote:I guess that we have reached the end of the road.
Gee, I don't know what you mean.And just when things were going so well for you!
iambiguous wrote:Mad Man P wrote: Let's examine this for a spell... let's assume nature/god/our parents have programmed us in a similar way to the computer.
Let's bring this down to earth as you often request...
What difference would it make in our daily interactions?
How would this change anything in our daily lives or even our experience of life?
If all I am is a machine... well then that is what I am... so what?
So what? Well, you can ask that now because we still have no real capacity [that I am aware of] to know if it is in fact true.
And that seems to be where we are all stuck. Nature or God has provided us with a brain able to ask the question but [so far] not with a brain able to know the answer [one way or the other] for sure.
Mad Man P wrote:iambiguous wrote:Mad Man P wrote: Let's examine this for a spell... let's assume nature/god/our parents have programmed us in a similar way to the computer.
Let's bring this down to earth as you often request...
What difference would it make in our daily interactions?
How would this change anything in our daily lives or even our experience of life?
If all I am is a machine... well then that is what I am... so what?
So what? Well, you can ask that now because we still have no real capacity [that I am aware of] to know if it is in fact true.
And that seems to be where we are all stuck. Nature or God has provided us with a brain able to ask the question but [so far] not with a brain able to know the answer [one way or the other] for sure.
Meno_ wrote:But the clincher is that matter in the old nomenclature does exist, in the new , matter is reducible to unseen particles of energy, that probably will mimic a unified field. So you're doing the same thing, you are mixing two types of languages.
Mad Man P wrote:Meno_ wrote:But the clincher is that matter in the old nomenclature does exist, in the new , matter is reducible to unseen particles of energy, that probably will mimic a unified field. So you're doing the same thing, you are mixing two types of languages.
What same thing am I doing?
If we were to entertain a new conception of matter where there were no particles at all... we would not be questioning the existence of matter, only our understanding of matter.
phyllo wrote:Gee, I don't know what you mean.And just when things were going so well for you!
Meno_ wrote:But the new language does entertain such an idea, and the old archaic one was at least tangential to it( the atomists) , there is some foreseeability in keeping a nominal unified field of knowledge, where substantially the understanding should be expected to develop with this trend.
And what You are saying parallels this idea, because it excluded all known possibilities other then the hypothetical presented, and the fact is the hypothetical of all exclusions, has not occurred, but the inclusive identifiable content of current knowledge has.
This doesent appear as a proven possibility, as of yet, based on a set standard.
If, for instance such were to occur, as has been postulated in some way out future possibility in another world, then there would still be a necessity for connecting it with the past known. and that would still involve identifying the known with the not yet known, hence utilizing the inclusion and the exclusion of the substance of the idea into a singular bounded relatedness.
But since Your objection is almost totally similar to the basic con-cept, at some point it is identifiable at that point as universally relevant.
Mad Man P wrote:iambiguous wrote:
So what? Well, you can ask that now because we still have no real capacity [that I am aware of] to know if it is in fact true.
And that seems to be where we are all stuck. Nature or God has provided us with a brain able to ask the question but [so far] not with a brain able to know the answer [one way or the other] for sure.
Here's what we DO know.. we invented the word "autonomous" to describe something we found in the world.
Mad Man P wrote: The things we used that word to describe are real, even if we don't yet or can't ever know how they work.
Mad Man P wrote: If your understanding of the word is NOT in reference to something we find in the world... then and ONLY then does it make sense to question whether or not it CAN be found in the world.
Mad Man P wrote: A unicorn for example, is an imaginary magical animal... we can meaningfully ask whether or not unicorns can be found in the world.
But a horse is NOT, with a horse we point to the damn thing and say THAT is a horse... It's then pointless to ponder whether THAT really is a horse or not.
Mad Man P wrote: What I believe you are asking, and no one here can provide an answer to, is whether or not we are made of more than matter... I don't know the answer any more than you do.
Mad Man P wrote: I have good reason to believe matter exists, but I can't say the same for any spirit dimension nor do I have good reason to suppose anything supernatural or magical is going on...
and in the absence of compelling reasons to believe I do the only reasonable thing to do, which is to not believe they exist... which leaves me only matter to work with, pending further information.
phyllo wrote:![]()
Mad Man P wrote:Meno_ wrote:But the new language does entertain such an idea, and the old archaic one was at least tangential to it( the atomists) , there is some foreseeability in keeping a nominal unified field of knowledge, where substantially the understanding should be expected to develop with this trend.
And what You are saying parallels this idea, because it excluded all known possibilities other then the hypothetical presented, and the fact is the hypothetical of all exclusions, has not occurred, but the inclusive identifiable content of current knowledge has.
This doesent appear as a proven possibility, as of yet, based on a set standard.
If, for instance such were to occur, as has been postulated in some way out future possibility in another world, then there would still be a necessity for connecting it with the past known. and that would still involve identifying the known with the not yet known, hence utilizing the inclusion and the exclusion of the substance of the idea into a singular bounded relatedness.
But since Your objection is almost totally similar to the basic con-cept, at some point it is identifiable at that point as universally relevant.
The word "possible" is one of the richest most opportune targets for equivocation... because we use the word to mean "known option" as well as "conceivable option"
Let's say we chase a person into an empty hallway with 2 doors and no other exits... by the time we get there he's nowhere to be seen.
It's possible that he went through one of the doors...
but it's also "possible" that he turned insubstantial and went through the wall, was teleported onto a starship in orbit, dragged to hell by a demon, was never there in the first place... and so on until we've exhausted our imaginations.
Yet if you were to ask me to lay down odds on where he went... I'd say it's 50/50 between the doors.
Yes, I could conceivably be wrong, as the epistemic nihilists keep reminding us, but I have no good reason to suppose I am.
Being able to imagine a world is not a very good reason to suppose we live there...
Meno_ wrote:Merely pointing to an apparent difference does not guarantee that there is one
iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, you may well be pointing out something here that is in fact more reasonable than the manner in which I try to think it through. But I can't quite wrap my mind around the idea that, in a wholly determined universe, I can only wrap my mind around it as the laws of matter dictate.
Mad Man P wrote: What I believe you are asking, and no one here can provide an answer to, is whether or not we are made of more than matter... I don't know the answer any more than you do.
Exactly. Is mind "matter plus"? How do we account for mindless matter evolving into mindful matter that may or may not be autonomous?
Mad Man P wrote:iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, you may well be pointing out something here that is in fact more reasonable than the manner in which I try to think it through. But I can't quite wrap my mind around the idea that, in a wholly determined universe, I can only wrap my mind around it as the laws of matter dictate.
It seems to me you're approaching it ontologically...
I recommend starting with epistemology.
Mad Man P wrote: Whatever universe we're in HAS to explain the things we KNOW...
For example, we know we're capable of reason, learning, growth, self-improvement... we can't logically live in a universe in which we can't do the things we CAN.
Mad Man P wrote: We're trying to find a way to conceptualize our universe so that it fits what we know about it... Not trying to figure out what we CAN know based on our conception of the universe
That would beg the question of how we know we've got the right conception... leading to epistemic nihilism.
Which seems to be the trap you keep falling into... "I was never able to NOT know, what I was compelled to believe I know"
Mad Man P wrote: All that being said, let me ask you this: Do you see some contradiction in both believing everything happens for a reason and believing our thoughts can be reasonable?
I personally fail to see any contradiction...
Mad Man P wrote: So if indeed we're in a kind of deterministic universe, we're clearly in the kind where we're determined to think reasonably... and even when we don't, there's a reason for it.
That all seems very congruent with the human experience to me...
We rarely ever think of ourselves as doing or thinking things for no reason...
Mad Man P wrote: What I believe you are asking, and no one here can provide an answer to, is whether or not we are made of more than matter... I don't know the answer any more than you do.
Exactly. Is mind "matter plus"? How do we account for mindless matter evolving into mindful matter that may or may not be autonomous?
Mad Man P wrote: I don't know that we can account for it fully... it's mostly speculation at this point, it seems to me.
iambiguous wrote:But here I am back to my own mind swirling and whirling about -- unable to anchor itself to anything definitive.
Mad Man P wrote:iambiguous wrote:But here I am back to my own mind swirling and whirling about -- unable to anchor itself to anything definitive.
Yup... that's your problem, looking for something definitive.
I recommend instead you look for something practical...
Jakob wrote:All that is definitive is the ring of power.
Either you own it or you don't.
This ring is the connection of ones self awareness to ones actual existence.
I previously called it self valuing logic, or VO.
Meno_ wrote:Or described in another basic form:
The relation between causa sui and sui generis.
Or extended to Sartre, the relationship between for itself and in itself
: Being-in-itself is concrete, lacks the ability to change, and is unaware of itself. Being-for-itself is conscious of its own consciousness but is also incomplete. For Sartre, this undefined, nondetermined nature is what defines man.
From ' Being and Nothingness' , Sartre
Users browsing this forum: No registered users