As far as I can tell, there is no obligation to counter speculation. Speculation is generally held to bear the onus of showing it is not speculation - though this is an appeal to popularity on my part, the popularity in question is present also amongst the determinist crowd, he writes with a dash of irony.iambiguous wrote:My position is this: I think "I" have some measure of understanding and control [as dasein] in chossing among alternative explanations. But I don't have a convincing argument [even to myself] to counter volchok's speculation about mind being matter and matter, in being the same "stuff", being rooted in the laws of nature.
Matter is not a word with any limited content. It just means verified as real. And we are likely not finished with verifying things are real and stuffing them in that category regardless of their qualities.My argument is that mind is a kind of matter that has never existed.
Yes.And that, among its seeming properties, is this intuitive sense that "I" am able to choose among alternative explanations. And, finally, that science is in its infancy in understanding human consciousness.
yes, that irony seems to be one that is missed.What is ironic then for me are those determinists huffing and puffing to blow my house down when, like big bad wolf and the three little pigs, we are all up on the same stage, our strings being pulled by nature.
It seems like what you are missing here is that people don't necessarily 1) say what they really mean 2) connect to their emotions 3) make sense 4) stay consistent 5) avoid talking themselves into all sorts of stuff for reasons they don't want to notice.Well, Calvinism has always struck me as particularly absurd theatre. What we choose to do on earth is merely an embodiment of God. I think: Why do good when the fate of my soul has already long ago been decided. But then I do good or bad only in accourdance with an omniscient and omnipotent point of view anyway.
Huh?
Obviously: I'm missing something here.
I understand that I have effects. I understand that I choose what I do in order to generate these effects. But if I could not not have chosen these things how is that really different from the effects falling dominoes have on each other?
We're in a transitional phase - probably always have been - but one dealing with issues like this one. Science is moving to the center in a lot of lives. We are in a period of reaction against the monotheisms. The pagans and indigenous people were long ago dismissed by the combined might of the technocrats and the monotheisms. Now the monotheisms are being rejected in the West by a larger %. They see false dilemmas everywhere, and must close any door they see as leading to irrationalism or supernaturalism or loss of a certain kind of mental control. I have sympathy for both their anger and their generally denied fear. The monotheisms were pretty damaging. so they respond in hard cold ways to anything that reminds them of the monotheisms - and sometimes other ways of thinking, which can even mean, thinking like a woman, or what they think this is like.Still, determinist are [to me] no less dasein. They choose or don't choose cruelty over kindness because [as with non-determinists] the life they lived [and the manner in which they have come to understand it] predisposed them to one sort of thinking/feeling/doing rather than another. But, again, given contingency chance and change, their point of view can evolve. But: is our perception of "contingency, chance and change" itself rooted firmly in the laws of matter?
Moreno wrote:iambiguous wrote:My position is this: I think "I" have some measure of understanding and control [as dasein] in choosing among alternative explanations. But I don't have a convincing argument [even to myself] to counter volchok's speculation about mind being matter and matter, in being the same "stuff", being rooted in the laws of nature.
As far as I can tell, there is no obligation to counter speculation. Speculation is generally held to bear the onus of showing it is not speculation - though this is an appeal to popularity on my part, the popularity in question is present also amongst the determinist crowd, he writes with a dash of irony.
My argument is that mind is a kind of matter that has never existed.
Moreno wrote:Matter is not a word with any limited content. It just means verified as real. And we are likely not finished with verifying things are real and stuffing them in that category regardless of their qualities.
Moreno wrote:In another thread one determinist wrote how philosophy is about truth, not things that make us feel warm and fuzzy. As if there could be no emotional motivations for hating ideas of free will, or being drawn to determinism, or of having no self (let alone a soul) etc. The implicit idea is that the mentally brave can face the truth and have no tempermental reasons for their beliefs. (and hidden in there is something so close to a claim that they are really FREE while those they disagree with are determined by their emotions that I cannot see the difference. In fact despite the fact that I can laugh at the irony of this, I have to avoid this poster, mostly, because the size of the blind spot and the rage behind his posts is so unpleasant.)
...determinists are [to me] no less dasein. They choose or don't choose cruelty over kindness because [as with non-determinists] the life they lived [and the manner in which they have come to understand it] predisposed them to one sort of thinking/feeling/doing rather than another. But, again, given contingency chance and change, their point of view can evolve. But: is our perception of "contingency, chance and change" itself rooted firmly in the laws of matter?
Moreno wrote:They are like a cold, harsh, very angry light, that wants to be certain and express as certain, and do not realize how much they resemble what they hate.
There's a lot of marginilized stuff that indicates this is not all that is going on, at the least.iambiguous wrote:The determinists seem convincing by way of noting how all the scientific evidence points to mind as matter interacting with other minds as matter in accordance with the laws of physics. In other words, the "all the same stuff" premise.
I cannot imagine a more likely situation for hindsight bias than where one asserts that everything is caused by what came before it.All I can do then is note [as I did with volchok] this from wiki:
The...studies described below have only just begun to shed light on the role that consciousness plays in actions and it is too early to draw very strong conclusions about certain kinds of "free will". It is worth noting that such experiments - so far - have dealt only with free will decisions made in short time frames (seconds) and may not have direct bearing on free will decisions made ("thoughtfully") by the subject over the course of many seconds, minutes, hours or longer. Scientists have also only so far studied extremely simple behaviors (e.g. moving a finger).
And so have I. Note the rage this elicits. Either that what is being said is obvious or wrong because though they are utterly determined they somehow also know why they think the things they do.Again, we all have this deep-seated intuitive sense that somehow "I" have something to do autononously with the choices "I" make. But we don't know how to fully explain that. I agree that determinism seems to be a reasonable assumption. I just point out the implications of that.
I can't really get too upset at such a refined level of abstraction, given the problems I have to deal with.The more you watch science documentaries on matter qua energy in space qua time, the more you come to realize just how profoundly problematic "existence" really is. For example, it is estimated that, given the amount of "dark matter" in the universe, only a small fraction of all matter is actually able to be seen at all.
But any number of determinists keep huffing and puffing as though none of this were true at all. The science seems to be on their side but we have barely begun to understand what that means for "free will".
That's on potential emotional reason for liking determinism. another would be, if not rigid causation, then what, and the fear of that unknown.I've been over and over this with folks like volchok. There is considerable comfort to be had in reducing everything we think, feel and do down to necessities inherent in nature. Especially when we "fuck up". No one can really be blamed for anything.
Or if one truly believes in determinism, where does the urge to convince others it is the case come from? Clean up your own goddam house before going door to door like a Jehovah's witness. Glass houses and all that.I think this is true of most who embrace scientism. Science becomes the new God in that everything eventually gets reduced down to it. But if everything is subsumed in science then that includes everyone. And if that is true then nothing we think or feel or do is explicable by way of being able to choose freely what are the correct rather than the incorrect conclusions. It's all interchangable when it comes to huffing and puffing. If volchok is right it is as it must be. If I am wrong it is as it must be. How can I not not be wrong if my freedom is illusory---if I am just one more component of nature acting in accordance with what must unfold?
And then if they do not believe they even exist.......Fortunately, for them, they have no choice. Not even when choosing what they do.
Moreno wrote:iambiguous wrote:The determinists seem convincing by way of noting how all the scientific evidence points to mind as matter interacting with other minds as matter in accordance with the laws of physics. In other words, the "all the same stuff" premise.
There's a lot of marginilized stuff that indicates this is not all that is going on, at the least.
Moreno wrote: I cannot imagine a more likely situation for hindsight bias than where one asserts that everything is caused by what came before it.
Again, we all have this deep-seated intuitive sense that somehow "I" have something to do autononously with the choices "I" make. But we don't know how to fully explain that. I agree that determinism seems to be a reasonable assumption. I just point out the implications of that.
Moreno wrote: And so have I. Note the rage this elicits. Either that what is being said is obvious or wrong because though they are utterly determined they somehow also know why they think the things they do.
Well, from my little perspective that's silly. From any of a number of perspectives. Our limited knowledge, the lack of consensus, the various reasons one might not want to commit (especially in a not clear situation) and so on.iambiguous wrote:There is enough stuff here for both sides to claim victory. What perturbs some folks though is the refusal on my part to pick one side over the other. As though this were the equivalent of solving a simple arithmetic problem.
Just to press on all assumptions. We do not know where choice begins in the world. Up into the 60s it was controversial in science to consider animals experiencers or as having emotions, cognition, intentions, etc. Why should we assume that even more of nature is likewise being discriminated against and in fact makes choices, but in ways and perhaps over time periods longer or different than ours. So even if it is all the same, that doesn't rule out free will.But are the ocean tides ebbing and flowing interchangable with the ebb and flow of folks from Hitler's death camps...or from Pol Pot's killing fields? Is this really all just the same stuff obeying the same laws of nature?
It would seem to be different...but not in any way that would really matter come judgment day.
Well put. that irony is not missed and does not mitigate over time the rage.Yes, they can become quite incensed when you refuse to embrace what you had absolutely no real choice but to reject.
Perhaps only they are determined.And I don't get how they don't get that part.
And one was so angry that anyone took other ideas seriously it led to a rant condemning the forum. There are now a couple of guys in a mad tizzy that anyone could express ideas not supported by current science IN A PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION FORUM.Or, as you note, they come into venues like this one with the "urge to convince others" of their own point of view---as though they felt it was important to choose to do this. Like they chose this particular crusade when there are so many other things they could have chosen to do instead.
I seem to be missing it also.Isn't the irony here obvious?
Or, again, is it something that I am missing?
Moreno wrote:But are the ocean tides ebbing and flowing interchangable with the ebb and flow of folks from Hitler's death camps...or from Pol Pot's killing fields? Is this really all just the same stuff obeying the same laws of nature?
It would seem to be different...but not in any way that would really matter come judgment day.
Just to press on all assumptions. We do not know where choice begins in the world. Up into the 60s it was controversial in science to consider animals experiencers or as having emotions, cognition, intentions, etc. Why should we assume that even more of nature is likewise being discriminated against and in fact makes choices, but in ways and perhaps over time periods longer or different than ours. So even if it is all the same, that doesn't rule out free will.
Or, as you note, they come into venues like this one with the "urge to convince others" of their own point of view---as though they felt it was important to choose to do this. Like they chose this particular crusade when there are so many other things they could have chosen to do instead.
Moreno wrote:And one was so angry that anyone took other ideas seriously it led to a rant condemning the forum. There are now a couple of guys in a mad tizzy that anyone could express ideas not supported by current science IN A PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION FORUM.
many things cannot be determined rationally. We can look at an argument, see coherence, see logic, but not be sure what filters, semantic confusions, false dilemmas and other such mythologization may be in what seem like tough minded, science based reasoning. So these things peck at us. It is unpleasant, though i can't say I get that bothered by the idea of determinism so much anymore. I mean, if I was in the process of being convinced it was the case, I would find that unpleasant, but that isn't happening.iambiguous wrote:Still, I don't know how to eliminate the arguments of those who do not share my own. On the other hand, sometimes I don't share my own either.
I think a big factor is team identification. Once you decide you are the enemy of ____________, then you take on the team's philosophy on issues, here disidentifying with the irrational ones who have been terrible by ____________ and ______________. This does not mean other logical and rational factors were not involved in team choice and position belief, but I think this team identification is huge. I notice that irrationality produced by members of one's own team are generally not attacked. FJ's burden of proof thread OP a nice exception. This holds for all teams, though irrational may not be the enemy code word for other teams.I can only think it is necessity they are after. That feeling of being certain. Also, it is comforting to imagine we are released from all responsibility for our lives. Things happen because they must happen. We are all only pawns in nature's "game".
Often I have encountered 'if the natural laws break down then there is no point in science' and other similar statements that it seems to me indicate underlying fears of having to depend on intuition, openly.This is especially consoling when there is a big gap between the way our life is and the way we want it to be instead.
Moreno wrote: ....i can't say I get that bothered by the idea of determinism so much anymore. I mean, if I was in the process of being convinced it was the case, I would find that unpleasant, but that isn't happening.
Moreno wrote:Perhaps something else is really going on that allows us to get hooked and tortured by such arguments. I think this is the case for me. It was a kind of impossible worry. Nothing I could do about it, while there were many pressing down to earth issues I might possibly have been able to deal with and I really did not want to look at those for fear I couldn't.
Moreno wrote:I mean, if determinism turns out to be the case, YOU have not failed. You have not shamed yourself. A fact would now be clearly a fact as it was all along. But there are many issues that at the very least it feels like it would be shameful, guilt producing, ridiculous if we could not change, fix or deal with them, so we focus on something that is in this way, and perhap this way alone, safe. It's bad enough being damned, but being damned by what seems like one's own hand, that is really aweful.
Moreno wrote:You could see if, at the edges of your consciousness, there are things that you are afraid to look at and begin taking steps to deal with, likely things other people, at least some of them, seem to have an easy(er) time with.
Moreno wrote:I think a big factor is team identification. Once you decide you are the enemy of ____________, then you take on the team's philosophy on issues, here disidentifying with the irrational ones who have been terrible by ____________ and ______________. This does not mean other logical and rational factors were not involved in team choice and position belief, but I think this team identification is huge.
I didn't understand the second sentence.iambiguous wrote:Bianco Luno
Radio commentary: "Society only becomes aware of a fraction of the number of rapes of women by men."
And each woman will only become aware of a fraction of the number of times she is raped in the course of her life.
I was in my early 20s and talking with a woman friend. She lives in a nearby city, a small city. A town. On her way to the store, she told me, men regularly walked up to her and asked for blow jobs or the like. Not that it would justify their behavior, but she didn't dress provocatively. She dressed down, in general. She said this and I had to ask her to repeat it. Of course I knew about such things and I knew about rape statistics and quite a lot about sexual abuse. But this banal sexual attacking attention hadn't really gone past a vague mental abstraction. I realized that she and I lived in different worlds.There will always be a gap between imagination and reality here. Bigger in some, smaller in others.
Moreno wrote:I didn't understand the second sentence.iambiguous wrote:Bianco Luno
Radio commentary: "Society only becomes aware of a fraction of the number of rapes of women by men."
And each woman will only become aware of a fraction of the number of times she is raped in the course of her life.
He could mean a few things here, but I'll react as if I am guessing right. The first sentence seems to mean that one is not allowed to notice and point out problems unless one has a solution. I have always hated that. Oh, yeah, well if you think that system is bad, what would be better? If you can't improve it, don't critique it. As if everyone should have all the skills or be silent, when in fact they might have crucial but incomplete skills for getting away from something bad. But then the second sentence almost seems to contradict this. Here it seems to be that one must simply no longer see things as bleak in whatever the area is. But that's like telling a crying kid to be happy.iambiguous wrote:Bianco Luno
To William James:
I am not allowed to work out my bleak logic without suggesting some way to avert what it describes.
I don’t profess to be an example for you, but I offer this counsel: without turning your face away stop seeing it as bleak.
I think they also label the person negative, having no distinction, when it is convenient, between reacting negatively to negative things and adding negativeness to the universe where there was none.Most folks deal with bleak logic by insisting it is not really logical at all. And the way they generally avert it is make the messenger go away. One way or the other as it were.
Moreno wrote:He could mean a few things here, but I'll react as if I am guessing right.iambiguous wrote:Bianco Luno
To William James:
I am not allowed to work out my bleak logic without suggesting some way to avert what it describes.
I don’t profess to be an example for you, but I offer this counsel: without turning your face away stop seeing it as bleak.
Moreno wrote:The first sentence seems to mean that one is not allowed to notice and point out problems unless one has a solution. I have always hated that. Oh, yeah, well if you think that system is bad, what would be better? If you can't improve it, don't critique it. As if everyone should have all the skills or be silent, when in fact they might have crucial but incomplete skills for getting away from something bad. But then the second sentence almost seems to contradict this. Here it seems to be that one must simply no longer see things as bleak in whatever the area is. But that's like telling a crying kid to be happy.
Most folks deal with bleak logic by insisting it is not really logical at all. And the way they generally avert it is make the messenger go away. One way or the other as it were.
Moreno wrote:I think they also label the person negative, having no distinction, when it is convenient, between reacting negatively to negative things and adding negativeness to the universe where there was none.
Return to Non-Philosophical Chat
Users browsing this forum: No registered users