Determinism

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

Re: Determinism

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:08 pm

I suggest that, before anyone waste any more time on this, they go to http://www.unco.edu/philosophy/current/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=610&whichpage=6 and see that, regardless of the 17,000 hits, the discussion there stranded for the same reason it stranded here in 2007.

Furthermore, I suggest Ms. Rafael be restrained to the Rant House (as Religion should be reserved for the philosophy of religion).
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Determinism

Postby anon » Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:11 pm

Only_Humean wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Mental illness is a product of the environment in which we live. For all intense and purposes, it is not genetic. When the triggers are eliminated, virtually ALL mental illness will be a thing of the past.


That's quite the statement. Is it backed up by empirical facts, or abstract reasoning?

It makes no sense. The first sentence is correct, the second is bizarre, as genes are obviously part of the environment, the third is correct though genes are one of the triggers. Sure, eliminate genes and you also eliminate mental illness. :-k
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:31 pm

Only_Humean wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Mental illness is a product of the environment in which we live. For all intense and purposes, it is not genetic. When the triggers are eliminated, virtually ALL mental illness will be a thing of the past.


That's quite the statement. Is it backed up by empirical facts, or abstract reasoning?


No, it is backed up by pure reason.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

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



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:46 pm

Oughtist wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Oughtist wrote:So, man's intervention is prerequisite, and it is not determined that Man's will will will conditions which ultimately are congruent with perpetual peace. So, man's will is ultimately free of the determination that peace is inevitable, no? (ya, I loved the triple will moment there, too :D )


That is incorrect. Philosophers have always equated the ability to choose between two or more things with having free will, but this is not the case. You are correct in that I am not talking about a world being determined by something external, without man's intentional input. This is not a contradiction in terms.


Oughtist wrote:I don't think anything I said above hangs on that, does it? I'm just saying that peace is not inevitable, insofar as Man's will is " " free " " of any predestined (e.g. teleological) terminus, even if an individual's will is for all practical purposes in fact "determined".


Yes it does. If man's will was free, peace would not be inevitable because man could choose what is worse for himself over what is better. But this is impossible, once you understand that we are compelled to choose what is better for ourselves under our particular circumstances. This does not stop anyone from choosing war over peace, it just frees up our options.

oughtist wrote:Can I guess that you argue there's a pleasure-based selection process that "determines" which of x-numbered "choices" gets chosen, such that we are "determined" by a pleasure principle, and peace is more pleasurable than violence?


To a certain degree you can use the pleasure principle, but it doesn't always work. Sometimes a person will sacrifice something that is pleasureable for something that gives less pleasure to help someone else, for example. But I get your point, and you are, once again, on the right track.

oughtist wrote:Also, would you be arguing that humans can transcend such issues as mental illness? Do you see mental illness as arising from any one particular source (genetic, environmental, person-relational, epistemic dysfunction not-otherwise-specified, etc.?), or that it has a multitude of origins? I suggest how one answers the problem of mental illness is central to any larger claim about human motivations.


I don't think humans can transcend the issue of mental illness given the same life circumstances that many have had to deal with. But we can eliminate the factors that lead to mental illness which, for the most part, are environmental (which encompass personal-relationships). The only way we will know how prevalent other causes are is when this knowledge is put into effect. If there is any mental illness that comes directly from genetics or some unrelated source, we will have more definitive knowledge at that time.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

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



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:57 pm

anon wrote:
Only_Humean wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Mental illness is a product of the environment in which we live. For all intense and purposes, it is not genetic. When the triggers are eliminated, virtually ALL mental illness will be a thing of the past.


That's quite the statement. Is it backed up by empirical facts, or abstract reasoning?

It makes no sense. The first sentence is correct, the second is bizarre, as genes are obviously part of the environment, the third is correct though genes are one of the triggers. Sure, eliminate genes and you also eliminate mental illness. :-k


I don't disagree that some people are genetically more predisposed to mental illness given the same environment than someone else. But if that trigger is never activated, the genes won't have an opportunity to express themselves in this way.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

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



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Oughtist » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:00 pm

Well, certainly some sub-groupings of Autism are exclusively genetic (there's no one thing "autism", of course).

Just as an aside, do you just post in your own threads, or do you join into others. Insofar as one has something to say, I think it's useful to spread oneself around and enter one's thoughts under the auspices of others' projects. This allows everyone to develop a social connection which is strengthened in a more diverse manner. It also allows one to refine one's own thoughts in a broader manner. :)

If you're interested, here's one of mine: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=169951
Things are apparent.
User avatar
Oughtist
Para-philosopher
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:42 am
Location: Epiphoneminal Max

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:59 pm

Oughtist wrote:Well, certainly some sub-groupings of Autism are exclusively genetic (there's no one thing "autism", of course).

Just as an aside, do you just post in your own threads, or do you join into others. Insofar as one has something to say, I think it's useful to spread oneself around and enter one's thoughts under the auspices of others' projects. This allows everyone to develop a social connection which is strengthened in a more diverse manner. It also allows one to refine one's own thoughts in a broader manner. :)

If you're interested, here's one of mine: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=169951


Sometimes I read other threads but I don't have the time to contribute as much as I'd like. I went to the link you gave me, and from what I read it seems like an interesting theory although I would need a lot more clarity to make any comments.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

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



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Oughtist » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:32 pm

peacegirl wrote:Sometimes I read other threads but I don't have the time to contribute as much as I'd like. I went to the link you gave me, and from what I read it seems like an interesting theory although I would need a lot more clarity to make any comments.


Fair enough, though that does leave the impression that you're only interested in your own thought, and not those of others, ...and that might be read as your not feeling others' thoughts are worth your time... just sayin'. :)

peacegirl wrote:
Only_Humean wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Mental illness is a product of the environment in which we live. For all intense and purposes, it is not genetic. When the triggers are eliminated, virtually ALL mental illness will be a thing of the past.


That's quite the statement. Is it backed up by empirical facts, or abstract reasoning?


No, it is backed up by pure reason.


Do you mean that in the Kantian sense? Is your project at all related to Kant's notion of perpetual peace?
Things are apparent.
User avatar
Oughtist
Para-philosopher
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:42 am
Location: Epiphoneminal Max

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:12 pm

Oughtist wrote:
Oughtist wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Sometimes I read other threads but I don't have the time to contribute as much as I'd like. I went to the link you gave me, and from what I read it seems like an interesting theory although I would need a lot more clarity to make any comments.


Fair enough, though that does leave the impression that you're only interested in your own thought, and not those of others, ...and that might be read as your not feeling others' thoughts are worth your time... just sayin'. :)


Not at all. I just don't want to offer my opinion about a subject I don't have a grasp of. That would be a waste of all of our time. I have not taken formal philosophy classes so some of the concepts take me a little more time to understand than someone who has had this training. That doesn't mean I'm not learning as I go. :)

Only_Humean wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Mental illness is a product of the environment in which we live. For all intense and purposes, it is not genetic. When the triggers are eliminated, virtually ALL mental illness will be a thing of the past.


That's quite the statement. Is it backed up by empirical facts, or abstract reasoning?


No, it is backed up by pure reason.

Only_Humean wrote:Do you mean that in the Kantian sense? Is your project at all related to Kant's notion of perpetual peace?


Only in the sense that the goal of both men is the attainment of a perpetual peace, but the means are different.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

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



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby oldschoolhero » Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:31 pm

Why cant we be like Socrates.

Tell people, "we know nothing therefore I own you.
Seriously, so much better than telling people "oh yeah well i can connect 5 dots!" Take that toddler bitches.

Socrates argued that the most intellectual position one might hold was confusion accompanied with a strong desire to learn, so he tried to share that discovery.

The discovery he made a long ass time ago, that people still don't get.
Keep stickin' their hands in the magic bag that is their imagination, reaching for something that would probably look about as good(shitty) and original(sriously wats the point) as contemporary American art so they can wave it like they suffered for it. (no offense artists, im one myself =P )

But really.

Maybe all the positions we take are too strong? And we are just eyes in a dark sea of consciousness. But we just don't accept enough, to understand? And I believe Socrates comes to more conclusions than he can really prove. Perhaps the most renowned philosopher is at flaw, because his words are crushed by his lack in ability to make them substantial. Relevant to anything other than ego/emotion or material. Just like us!
tolerance is the graveryard of defects.
User avatar
oldschoolhero
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:54 am
Location: I'm hungry. Can I have some shoes?

Re: Determinism

Postby Only_Humean » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:53 am

peacegirl wrote:
Only_Humean wrote:That's quite the statement. Is it backed up by empirical facts, or abstract reasoning?


No, it is backed up by pure reason.


When pure reason diverges that wildly from observations of reality, it's most usually a sign that the reasoning is wrong. Wouldn't you say?

As a wise woman once postulated, "Science is reason applied to empirical evidence" - http://www.unco.edu/philosophy/current/ ... hichpage=6

For those interested, the book is by Seymour Lessans and can be found here:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=ZgD2HW1gjXgC&dq=Decline+and+Fall+of+All+Evil&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=WrZ_I-JJyI&sig=tJ86yVJmo5EiZyo9nSyAX2ukI0w&hl=nl&ei=HLbeSuPPM8Oq4QaR0YUU&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

For what it's worth, having ploughed through part one, I'm afraid I don't find it particularly philosophically revolutionary, and the (limited) positions it argues against are not very well-presented. The writing style alone doesn't encourage me to read any further, but on top of that the standard of philosophical thought doesn't seem very high, the arguments are very basically presented and show no awareness of criticism, and the author seems to think that his conclusions are far more wonderful than seems justified. As an example, the logic that determinism means "free will doesn't exist" means "it's irrational to blame someone" shows a vastly oversimplified approach to the function of blame/censure/punishment and what we mean when we say "free will".

However, it seems from the other thread that you are utterly convinced of its truth and will only treat any criticism as a symptom of my failure to understand this wonderful work, so let's pass each other by and continue on our respective journeys.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:49 pm

Only_Humean wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Only_Humean wrote:That's quite the statement. Is it backed up by empirical facts, or abstract reasoning?


peacegirl wrote:No, it is backed up by pure reason.


Humean wrote:When pure reason diverges that wildly from observations of reality, it's most usually a sign that the reasoning is wrong. Wouldn't you say?


I would agree for the most part but sometimes an accurate observation is not obvious, consequently, it only appears that the observation diverges from reality when, in fact, it exposes a deeper truth.

Humean wrote:As a wise woman once postulated, "Science is reason applied to empirical evidence" - http://www.unco.edu/philosophy/current/ ... hichpage=6

For those interested, the book is by Seymour Lessans and can be found here:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=ZgD2HW1gjXgC&dq=Decline+and+Fall+of+All+Evil&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=WrZ_I-JJyI&sig=tJ86yVJmo5EiZyo9nSyAX2ukI0w&hl=nl&ei=HLbeSuPPM8Oq4QaR0YUU&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

For what it's worth, having ploughed through part one, I'm afraid I don't find it particularly philosophically revolutionary, and the (limited) positions it argues against are not very well-presented. The writing style alone doesn't encourage me to read any further, but on top of that the standard of philosophical thought doesn't seem very high, the arguments are very basically presented and show no awareness of criticism, and the author seems to think that his conclusions are far more wonderful than seems justified. As an example, the logic that determinism means "free will doesn't exist" means "it's irrational to blame someone" shows a vastly oversimplified approach to the function of blame/censure/punishment and what we mean when we say "free will".

However, it seems from the other thread that you are utterly convinced of its truth and will only treat any criticism as a symptom of my failure to understand this wonderful work, so let's pass each other by and continue on our respective journeys.


Just because I am convinced of the truth does not mean I'm wrong in this conviction. Putting aside his writing style, your synopsis of the discovery is lacking miserably. Obviously, you skimmed over portions of his work when he asked every reader to please refrain from this as the first two chapters must be carefully studied. Your saying he thinks his conclusions are more wonderful than is justified is unjusifiable. I am responding to you in this way not because of your criticism (if it was legitimate), but because you have not understood the discovery in anyway whatsoever, which is a fact. He never said that it is irrational to blame someone. In fact, he said we must blame as a natural reaction to someone hurting us. It is not oversimplified in its blueprint form. You obviously don't understand the very core of his discovery, or you wouldn't jump to these premature conclusions. You are no different than many people who don't take the time to truly understand the concept put forth, but think you are now an authority. I agree that you should go your merry way because this book is not meant for your ears.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

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



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Only_Humean » Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:20 pm

Just to clarify a couple of points:

peacegirl wrote:Just because I am convinced of the truth does not mean I'm wrong in this conviction.


No, but it implies strongly that you're not here to debate and discuss but proselytise. That's all I was saying.

Putting aside his writing style, your synopsis of the discovery is lacking miserably. Obviously, you skimmed over portions of his work when he asked every reader to please refrain from this as the first two chapters must be carefully studied. Your saying he thinks his conclusions are more wonderful than is justified is unjusifiable. I am responding to you in this way not because of your criticism (if it was legitimate), but because you have not understood the discovery in anyway whatsoever, which is a fact. He never said that it is irrational to blame someone. In fact, he said we must blame as a natural reaction to someone hurting us. It is not oversimplified in its blueprint form.


I don't agree with your counter-argument, as a natural reaction has nothing to do with what is rational. Top of page 70, "For God's mathematical law... ... to be broken" - it is apparently a mathematical fact available to anyone deeply analysing matters that man is not to blame for what he does. This is stated in capitals as a commandment on the next page. How is it rational to blame someone contra mathematical facts? What do you understand by "rational"?

Also, first half of page 76, "The very moment... ...positively prevents."

Regarding my thoughts on his writing style and his thoughts on his own work, it's merely my opinion. De gustibus non est disputandum, and all that.

You obviously don't understand the very core of his discovery, or you wouldn't jump to these premature conclusions. You are no different than many people who don't take the time to truly understand the concept put forth, but think you are now an authority. I agree that you should go your merry way because this book is not meant for your ears.


As predicted - this book doesn't have critics, just seas of people who Can't Grasp The Message. I don't claim any authority beyond having read the words presented. Perhaps I should have used my ears...
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:39 pm

Only_Humean wrote:Just to clarify a couple of points:

peacegirl wrote:Just because I am convinced of the truth does not mean I'm wrong in this conviction.


Only_Humean wrote:No, but it implies strongly that you're not here to debate and discuss but proselytise. That's all I was saying.


So just because I am sharing something new, the conclusion is I'm proselytising? Then that means anything discussed cannot be new, or else it is suspect. Do you see how unfair that is?

peacegirl wrote:Putting aside his writing style, your synopsis of the discovery is lacking miserably. Obviously, you skimmed over portions of his work when he asked every reader to please refrain from this as the first two chapters must be carefully studied. Your saying he thinks his conclusions are more wonderful than is justified is unjusifiable. I am responding to you in this way not because of your criticism (if it was legitimate), but because you have not understood the discovery in anyway whatsoever, which is a fact. He never said that it is irrational to blame someone. In fact, he said we must blame as a natural reaction to someone hurting us. It is not oversimplified in its blueprint form.


Humean wrote:I don't agree with your counter-argument, as a natural reaction has nothing to do with what is rational. Top of page 70, "For God's mathematical law... ... to be broken" - it is apparently a mathematical fact available to anyone deeply analysing matters that man is not to blame for what he does. This is stated in capitals as a commandment on the next page. How is it rational to blame someone contra mathematical facts? What do you understand by "rational"?


Please elaborate on what you disagree with? You are once again taking small pieces of what he has written and twisting it. In order for me to answer rationally, do you know what the discovery is? You did not read these chapters carefully or you would have answered your own questions. Where did he say it is rational not to blame except under certain conditions? It is rational TO BLAME when we don't understand how NOT BLAMING (only under certain conditions) will create the very environment (the way to rid ourselves of war and crime) the majority of mankind wants.

Humean wrote:Also, first half of page 76, "The very moment... ...positively prevents."

Regarding my thoughts on his writing style and his thoughts on his own work, it's merely my opinion. De gustibus non est disputandum, and all that.


With all due respect, I'm not interested in your opinion about his writing style. I am more interested in the content, not the form.

You obviously don't understand the very core of his discovery, or you wouldn't jump to these premature conclusions. You are no different than many people who don't take the time to truly understand the concept put forth, but think you are now an authority. I agree that you should go your merry way because this book is not meant for your ears.


Humean wrote:As predicted - this book doesn't have critics, just seas of people who Can't Grasp The Message. I don't claim any authority beyond having read the words presented. Perhaps I should have used my ears...


Who are the seas of people who don't grasp the message except for those people who have not taken the time to read the book carefully and without prejudgment? Of those who have read it the way it is supposed to be read, they are intrigued and are desiring to spread word of this knowledge.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

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



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Only_Humean » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:02 pm

peacegirl wrote:So just because I am sharing something new, the conclusion is I'm proselytising? Then that means anything discussed cannot be new, or else it is suspect. Do you see how unfair that is?


No, because you are (by your own words) convinced of the truth - not evidence of a balanced, open mind on the subject, given your criticism of academia on these grounds - and dismiss any argument with "you just don't understand". It's not as if you even try to address the criticism.

Observe from just a couple of replies, not counting the other threads here and on the other board:

peacegirl wrote:I am responding to you in this way not because of your criticism (if it was legitimate), but because you have not understood the discovery in anyway whatsoever, which is a fact.


In order for me to answer rationally, do you know what the discovery is? You did not read these chapters carefully or you would have answered your own questions.


You obviously don't understand the very core of his discovery, or you wouldn't jump to these premature conclusions. You are no different than many people who don't take the time to truly understand the concept put forth, but think you are now an authority.


Who are the seas of people who don't grasp the message except for those people who have not taken the time to read the book carefully and without prejudgment? Of those who have read it the way it is supposed to be read, they are intrigued and are desiring to spread word of this knowledge.


Thank you and good night.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Determinism

Postby Oughtist » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:19 pm

...hmm. Gotta admit, peacegirl, I haven't been given much to chew on...

As to your not participating in other threads because you don't feel you have a grasp of the material, how about just asking questions about things, or proposing paraphrases in terms of your own understanding (at the risk, of course, of being corrected).

If you want to sell an idea that's not selling itself, you gotta find a way to shmooze. Just a thought. :)
Things are apparent.
User avatar
Oughtist
Para-philosopher
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:42 am
Location: Epiphoneminal Max

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:11 pm

Only_Humean wrote:
peacegirl wrote:So just because I am sharing something new, the conclusion is I'm proselytising? Then that means anything discussed cannot be new, or else it is suspect. Do you see how unfair that is?


Humean wrote:No, because you are (by your own words) convinced of the truth - not evidence of a balanced, open mind on the subject, given your criticism of academia on these grounds - and dismiss any argument with "you just don't understand". It's not as if you even try to address the criticism.


How do you know whether my evidence of the truth is balanced or not, when you haven't even studied the book? I do not criticize academia unless they don't live up to their own standards which is not to judge anything prematurely. BTW, how can I address a criticism, when the question is so out of context, I can't even begin to answer in a way that would satisfy those who are in contempt from the start.

Humeon wrote:Observe from just a couple of replies, not counting the other threads here and on the other board:

peacegirl wrote:I am responding to you in this way not because of your criticism (if it was legitimate), but because you have not understood the discovery in anyway whatsoever, which is a fact.

In order for me to answer rationally, do you know what the discovery is? You did not read these chapters carefully or you would have answered your own questions.

You obviously don't understand the very core of his discovery, or you wouldn't jump to these premature conclusions. You are no different than many people who don't take the time to truly understand the concept put forth, but think you are now an authority.


Who are the seas of people who don't grasp the message except for those people who have not taken the time to read the book carefully and without prejudgment? Of those who have read it the way it is supposed to be read, they are intrigued and are desiring to spread word of this knowledge.


Humeon wrote:Thank you and good night.


You are way off track my friend. I must have touched a nerve and I'm sorry for that. Sleep well.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

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



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:16 pm

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

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



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:25 pm

Oughtist wrote:...hmm. Gotta admit, peacegirl, I haven't been given much to chew on...

As to your not participating in other threads because you don't feel you have a grasp of the material, how about just asking questions about things, or proposing paraphrases in terms of your own understanding (at the risk, of course, of being corrected).

If you want to sell an idea that's not selling itself, you gotta find a way to shmooze. Just a thought. :)


Thank you for the suggestion, but I can't be a liar in all honesty. If I don't understand something, I need to admit it. That does not mean that just because I don't understand one thing, that I don't have a grasp on another. It's amazing how false conclusions are drawn, and we're talking about people who should know better regarding premises and conclusions. I don't want to do the very thing I can't stand other people doing, which is to offer an opinion based on very little knowledge. If you think I'm being naiive, I'm really sorry. I just can't act like I know something when I don't. I put the entire book out there (I have the rights to this), in the hope of the internet gaining momentum. I think that is happening as we speak. Only time will tell whether this work is authentic or not. In the meantime, we all must go on with our lives. I'm just sorry that the people who have the capacity for understanding are the very ones who are quick to judge a book by its cover.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

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



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Amorphos » Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:16 pm

peacegirl, hi

to reiterate, the book deals with determinism as its main theme, but it leads into how a world of peace is not only possible, but inevitable, once we understand our true nature.


Perhaps part of the focus at least should be asking if determinism is right, if we all truly believed we were slaves to it I.e. biological robots, then law and morals become redundant, this idea I think could just as easily lead to chaos or even our complete destruction. ..but we'll come to that later on...

Before we can even go there firstly we have to show if there is something beyond the material which is ‘involved’ [!!!] in the processes of the brain, causality and decision making generally.

There are a few things we can begin with…

1. Information doesn’t exist [in material form]; thus all aspects of the mind which are info, are non material.

2. Colour cannot be found anywhere in the electromagnetic spectrum; hence all aspects of the mind that involve colour cannot be found in our physical makeup.

2b. Brightness/lightness/contrast, also cannot be found in the em spectrum; the intensity of light frequencies hitting the eye, tell the mind that something is bright or dark, they are not light/dark themselves.*

3. ‘Causality is undecided’; some things are uncertain, and if there is any kind of decision making then the causal chain is broken by both this and uncertainty. How exactly do we define ‘cause’, I would think it has much to do with information transferral if not completely so. As info has been placed along side all things non material, the causality is equally so.

*I would think that we could go through all the senses and arrive at similar findings. Indeed, it is very difficult to say exactly what is material in the universe e.g. the makeup of atoms and subatomic particles may be seen more as relationships between energy epicentres, some of which are semi-manifest/partly existent.


Btw, I was having this debate last night whilst nearly sleeping ~ which is rather fun. :)
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:31 pm

Next post...
Last edited by peacegirl on Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

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



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:36 pm

peacegirl wrote:
quetzalcoatl wrote:peacegirl, hi

to reiterate, the book deals with determinism as its main theme, but it leads into how a world of peace is not only possible, but inevitable, once we understand our true nature.


Perhaps part of the focus at least should be asking if determinism is right, if we all truly believed we were slaves to it I.e. biological robots, then law and morals become redundant, this idea I think could just as easily lead to chaos or even our complete destruction. ..but we'll come to that later on...

Before we can even go there firstly we have to show if there is something beyond the material which is ‘involved’ [!!!] in the processes of the brain, causality and decision making generally.

There are a few things we can begin with…

1. Information doesn’t exist [in material form]; thus all aspects of the mind which are info, are non material.

2. Colour cannot be found anywhere in the electromagnetic spectrum; hence all aspects of the mind that involve colour cannot be found in our physical makeup.

2b. Brightness/lightness/contrast, also cannot be found in the em spectrum; the intensity of light frequencies hitting the eye, tell the mind that something is bright or dark, they are not light/dark themselves.*

3. ‘Causality is undecided’; some things are uncertain, and if there is any kind of decision making then the causal chain is broken by both this and uncertainty. How exactly do we define ‘cause’, I would think it has much to do with information transferral if not completely so. As info has been placed along side all things non material, the causality is equally so.

*I would think that we could go through all the senses and arrive at similar findings. Indeed, it is very difficult to say exactly what is material in the universe e.g. the makeup of atoms and subatomic particles may be seen more as relationships between energy epicentres, some of which are semi-manifest/partly existent.


Btw, I was having this debate last night whilst nearly sleeping ~ which is rather fun. :)


Thank you for your ideas regarding determinism. The idea that everything is part of a causal chain (as if we are now robots) is not how determinism is defined in the book being referred to. In no way does it imply that because our will is not free, we can no longer make choices. That is why unless you read his definition of determinism, you will find the very thought of a deterministic world distasteful and unfathonable. The irony is that the knowledge of our true nature (that will is not free) only adds, not takes away, from our freedom.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

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



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Amorphos » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:26 pm

In no way does it imply that because our will is not free, we can no longer make choices.


Logical contradiction? If the will is not free there is nothing outside the set of made choices. Determinism is like a string whereby one thing determines the next without distraction, to make a choice you have to break the line. if it is not so, then the author should use a different term.

The irony is that the knowledge of our true nature (that will is not free) only adds, not takes away, from our freedom.


No it makes us complete slaves to the processes! How can one say; the will is not free, then in the next breath that this gives us freedom. With determinism there is no will at all and no self except as properties of the biological robot, it is no different to a machine or a brick.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Determinism

Postby Oughtist » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:19 pm

peacegirl wrote:Thank you for the suggestion, but I can't be a liar in all honesty. If I don't understand something, I need to admit it.


You wouldn't be a liar by entering a discussion and seeking to understand it through dialogue. You'd be free to admit your lack of understanding, and express that which you do understand. It is important for others to have the opportunity to explain to those who do not understand. For instance, in the present thread you might explain the position more to we who do not understand, rather than simply referring us to the primary source. First and foremost, we're interested in what you have to say, not yet another book.

That does not mean that just because I don't understand one thing, that I don't have a grasp on another.


Well, if you don't understand one thing, that may very well relate to how well you understand something else. It depends on whether the things are related.

It's amazing how false conclusions are drawn, and we're talking about people who should know better regarding premises and conclusions.


Yes, as a Teacher, you're no doubt aware that good pedagogy involves breaking things down and teaching them in a developmental manner, not just plopping down the whole thing in advance and saying, "Questions?"

I don't want to do the very thing I can't stand other people doing, which is to offer an opinion based on very little knowledge.


Is your opinion of the text in question informed through a critical awareness of related perspectives? If not, you may want to learn more about other persoectives in order to strengthen your own understanding of the text.

f you think I'm being naiive, I'm really sorry. I just can't act like I know something when I don't. I put the entire book out there (I have the rights to this), in the hope of the internet gaining momentum. I think that is happening as we speak. Only time will tell whether this work is authentic or not. In the meantime, we all must go on with our lives. I'm just sorry that the people who have the capacity for understanding are the very ones who are quick to judge a book by its cover.


Think of it this way: you are being cruel to yourself by the way you're setting things up. Philosophy has a deep and rich history of ceaseless critical inquiry. When someone simply shows up unannounced and says "Here it is", that someone sets themselves up to be thoroughly analysed, if you will. So, by not participating in the broader forum, or at least doling out the text's arguments in a structured way in your own words (as opposed to relying on others to guess the "truth", and repeatedly responding that they don't have it yet), you're doing a disservice both to yourself and the text.

If the message of the text is worth sharing, it should be shared in a critically informed mannner, otherwise you just become another target of derision attempting to prove that everyone is wrong (and this is by no means an uncommon plight, as anyone spending time on a forum such as this can attest)...

So relax, get comfortable, and let us get to know you... maybe even teach you something, if you'll allow us. :D
Things are apparent.
User avatar
Oughtist
Para-philosopher
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:42 am
Location: Epiphoneminal Max

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:17 pm

quetzalcoatl wrote:
In no way does it imply that because our will is not free, we can no longer make choices.


Logical contradiction? If the will is not free there is nothing outside the set of made choices. Determinism is like a string whereby one thing determines the next without distraction, to make a choice you have to break the line. if it is not so, then the author should use a different term.

peacegirl wrote:There is nothing outside the set of made choices, that is true. But the underlying implication is that once a person makes a choice; he is a free agent because this breaks the line. This author demonstrates that, although it appears as if this causes a break in the line of determinants, it actually does not.


peacegirl wrote:The irony is that the knowledge of our true nature (that will is not free) only adds, not takes away, from our freedom.


quetzalcoatl wrote:No it makes us complete slaves to the processes! How can one say; the will is not free, then in the next breath that this gives us freedom. With determinism there is no will at all and no self except as properties of the biological robot, it is no different to a machine or a brick.


That has been the argument since time immemorial, but there has been something misunderstood regarding the will, which has caused a lot of confusion.
Last edited by peacegirl on Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

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



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users