Yes they do. We perceive them, that perception is an illusion, that illusion is accurate and true. — BlueBanana
Ok. We are an illusion and all illusions are accurate reality. Reality are illusions. Illusions are reality. There are no particles bouncing iiffeach other and there are. You exist and you don't. I exist and I don't. I'm talking to you and I am not. As said, everything has become meaningless. No surprise. Quite Hindu.
Universal generalisations are not empirical facts, nor are they even empirical statements. Rather they are proposed rules for generating new hypotheses for pragmatic purposes. For example, accepting my previous universal statement means that I condone the invention of a testable hypothesis such as "the next ten swans observed will be white". — sime
I've studied quite a bit of philosophy, especially metaphysics, and I've come to realize that the same principles which make reality intelligible are also the principles which support the notion of free will. This starts with the fundamental difference between past and future which we all recognize in our daily existence. — Metaphysician Undercover
Ok. We are an illusion
and all illusions are accurate reality
Reality are illusions.
Illusions are reality.
There are no particles bouncing iiffeach other
You exist
and you don't.
I exist
and I don't.
I'm talking to you
and I am not.
everything has become meaningless.
Yes they are generalizations for generating new hypotheses for pragmatic purposes. However, as a determinist, if you are accepting those generalizations, then you are accepting that those generalizations also apply to the human. So for pragmatic reasons it would be rational to look at consciousness as though the generalizations that also apply to it. I don't see how you could interpret determinism in a way that gives you consciousness that also isn't dependent on the deterministic generalizations, unless you believe that consciousness isn't dependent on the brain (that it is some sort of soul). — SonJnana
I'm interested to hear this. So how do we go from our understandings of past and future to free will? — SonJnana
010101010
By definition this is currently all the information that the universe consists of. Now does it make sense to ask if this universe thus far is determined? — sime
Do you recognize that things of the past (whether or not they've been observed or recorded), have a fixed, determined existence, i.e., that they cannot be changed? And do you recognize that things of the future are not absolutely necessary, that they may or may not occur, depending on whether or not they are caused to occur, and this is why we say that the existence of temporal things is "contingent"? — Metaphysician Undercover
If you are a determinist and determinism is your way of interpreting the information/code of the universe..... — SonJnana
Not to argue for determinism, but it doesn't seem like that to me. It seems more that the things of the future are necessary because they are part of the causal chain of events or else they wouldn't be the future. But yes, I do experience the contingency. — SonJnana
The free willist experiences the capacity to interfere with that causal chain of events, to bring into existence what is desired, and to avoid what is unwanted in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover
Don't you mean to say that the very assumption that a code is representative of, or is generated by, a particular underlying function is what determinism means here?
To use our example, doesn't it mean that the determinist understands 010101010 as being generated by a particular function? Yet in my example, i explicitly defined that string to represent all of the current information that exists in that universe. So where is this ghostly 'particular' function that is proposed to exist over and above the string and control its existence supposed to live? — sime
Of course the string was generated by something transcendental of that universe, for it was me who determined it. And of course I literally exist in the same physical world as the string i wrote, hence an outsider could represent me with a binary hash number, say #Sime and crudely represent my creative act by concatenating me and the string together in some way — sime
But then the same problem arises as before. To what principle can the determinist now turn to, in order to interpret my act of creating the string as being representative of some transcendentally predetermined act of creation? Presumably the "laws" of physics. But then after we encode our understanding of those laws as binary information and add them to the picture, the determinist has nowhere else to turn to justify his metaphysical determinism unless he appeals to the invisible hand of god, or insists upon a hard distinction between mind and matter, thereby interpreting physics as being a principle transcendental of consciousness. — sime
If you define determinism as just acting on what you want to do as most compatiblist say, then that's fine. I have no disagreement. However it's just redefining the word free will. If people's choices is an effect of the cause of their desires and their desires are also part of cause and effect, then their choices are still part of the cause and effect chain. — SonJnana
The point with free will though, is that the particular choice is not caused by any desire, it is caused by the will, which is free from that chain of causation. — Metaphysician Undercover
The will is the cause of our free choices. It's free from the temporal existence which we know of as the chain of causation, because it is immaterial, like the soul. — Metaphysician Undercover
So now you are suggesting that you might not be determinist without a reason to believe in a transcendental function? — SonJnana
I do not think this is true in any sense. Whilst is it almost impossible to describe determinism, or simply to talk about cause and effect without using transcendental ideas, that is not the same as saying that determinists rely on something transcendental for necessity of cause and effect to be to the case. Determinism is true whether of not there are determinists, or compatibilists trying to describe the universe. Clearly determinism relies on inductive knowledge. but the claim of determinism can only be described by transcending the brute reality of cause and effect to conceptualise and vocalise the findings of indiuction.Determinists automatically assume the presence of something transcendental or external to any given custom or state of affairs, even when it makes no sense whatsoever to speak of something transcendental, such as when discussing the history of everything that is by definition said to exist. — sime
For example, when we were taught the 'law' of addition in mathematics, each of us was presented with only a small number of examples of addition. — sime
so they invent a myth, a god, in order to pretend to themselves that things really are determined in a simple way for themselves and everybody else. — sime
I do not think this is true in any sense. Whilst is it almost impossible to describe determinism, or simply to talk about cause and effect without using transcendental ideas, that is not the same as saying that determinists rely on something transcendental for necessity of cause and effect to be to the case. — charleton
Determinism is true whether of not there are determinists, or compatibilists trying to describe the universe. Clearly determinism relies on inductive knowledge. but the claim of determinism can only be described by transcending the brute reality of cause and effect to conceptualise and vocalise the findings of indiuction. — charleton
This example is not relevant. The numbering system we use is analytically true, and established a priori on matters of fact devised by human cognition. Numbers are not phenomena that relate to causality, but have their own idealistic meanings. — charleton
Are you saying that determinism requires something transcendental? and if so, what is this transcendental thing?
Or are you saying that determinism doesn’t require transcendental? And if not, then what allows the universe to be determined? It just is? — SonJnana
I'm saying that in ordinary language, physics and in mathematics, to determine something is to make a comparison. So it only makes sense to employ the concept when relating states of affairs or parts of the universe to each other. It doesn't make sense to describe the universe as a whole as being determined or undetermined. — sime
But causal necessity is neither empirically meaningful nor true by definition. There is no physical justification for causal necessity, and science has no need of the concept, for science is only concerned with describing regularity and predicting finitely ahead into the future. Indeed the history of science is nothing but a graveyard of falsified 'necessary' laws. — sime
What reason do you have for thinking that this will you speak of is immaterial and not dependent on the physical brain, or that there is some sort of immaterial soul? — SonJnana
Without determinism we could never have designed a car, build a computer or landed on the moon. — charleton
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.