when the red light is showing — Corvus

Clearly, you have no awareness of semiosis.

The blindness caused by the nominalism thought virus is prolific and ingrained in many people. I no longer debate with that affliction. It is futile. ... There is no reason to continue this discussion. It is a waste of the value in good and necessary dialogue.

..... My answer to your question? ... Yes. The causality of semiosis occurs and is present in the external world. — Mapping the Medium

The meaning of exist from English dictionary seem too wide and loose. Of course people use words in all sort of different contexts and meanings in ordinary life. You could use exist to mean even a lot more different things if you were writing poems.

But if you were to reason for logical arguments, then I think it would be better to narrow it down the meanings of words you use into concrete and solid definitions. That process is what philosophy and logic must do.

It is futile. ... There is no reason to continue this discussion. It is a waste of the value in good and necessary dialogue. — Mapping the Medium

Ok, fair enough. I declare the same. Please don't write poems in philosophical debates. That is my advice to you.

Not true.

If a person believes in Determinism, not only i) do they believe that their choices have been determined but also ii) it has been determined that they do make choices. — RussellA

You agreed with my argument which showed that having both of two contrary ideas in the mind, at the same time, is a requirement for making a choice between them. This is necessary to be able to compare and choose between them. Then you said, if determinism is true, choosing is not required: "3) This means that it is not necessary to choose between two contradictory ideas at 1pm."

Therefore you contradict yourself. You admitted that people do not choose if determinism is true, based on my explanation of the requirements for "making a choice". Now you claim a premise which contradicts this. You say "it has been determined that they do make choices". Clearly, it has been determined that if determinism is true people do not make choices, if we adhere to what has been agreed to, about what constitutes "making a choice".

Maybe your two-party dialectical failure to continue, relates to a proposed affliction resident in the “nominalism thought virus”.

Therefore you contradict yourself. You admitted that people do not choose if determinism is true, based on my explanation of the requirements for "making a choice". Now you claim a premise which contradicts this. You say "it has been determined that they do make choices". — Metaphysician Undercover

The particular meaning of a word having several possible meanings depends on its particular context.

According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, one meaning of "choice" is "the act of choosing", such as a person made the choice as to whether to stay or go. Another meaning of "choice" is "a person or thing chosen", such as a person chose the option to stay.

If Determinism is the case, in one sense people do make choices, such as do I stay or do I go, but in another sense cannot choose, as their choice to stay has already been determined.

The fact that a person makes a choice says nothing about whether it is a free choice or a choice that has been determined.

The context of a word is important for its intended meaning.

Maybe your two-party dialectical failure to continue, relates to a proposed affliction resident in the “nominalism thought virus”. — Mww

Everyone couldn't fail to notice that it was neither a wise nor intelligent choice of the words in philosophical debate.

Maybe your two-party dialectical failure to continue, relates to a proposed affliction resident in the “nominalism thought virus”. — Mww

When a person cannot see the actual and current cohesiveness of relations that bind existence and reality, and the inherent momentum that generates continued creation, it is extremely difficult to bridge or mend the nominalism fractures. .... There has to be sight and recognition before that work can even begin. ... I have learned this repeatedly. ... My work is valuable, and time demands that I manage that time wisely.

Thank you for your interest in seeing this discussion continue, but I cannot spend further time on it.

So be it.

One purportedly missed the opportunity to be awakened from “dogmatic slumbers”, the other personifies Sisyphus with a generally unrecognized metaphysical doctrine.

Same as it ever was……

Same as it ever was…… — Mww

Doesn't it sound too pessimistic and prejudging? :D

One purportedly missed the opportunity to be awakened from “dogmatic slumbers”, — Mww

According to Kant, you fall into dogmatic slumber when you accept groundless ideas and beliefs of others without critical reflection and reasoning.

Another meaning of "choice" is "a person or thing chosen", such as a person chose the option to stay.

If Determinism is the case, in one sense people do make choices, such as do I stay or do I go, but in another sense cannot choose, as their choice to stay has already been determined. — RussellA

So if determinism is true, then someone made the choice for the person? Who would that be, God?

So if determinism is true, then someone made the choice for the person? Who would that be, God? — Metaphysician Undercover

As the SEP article on Causal Determination writes

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

If someone happens to be in the middle of a city road and sees a truck directly approaching, they would sensibly choose to move to the pavement.

I agree that some people may believe that God directly told them to move, looking out for their best interests.

Some people may believe that someone else, such as a loved one, telepathically told them to move.

It could be that they move because of an innate instinct for self-preservation, without being consciously aware of what they are doing

It is unlikely that someone other than the person themselves made the choice to move to the pavement.

If Free Will is the case, then they themselves freely made the choice.

If Free Will is the case, and a person's thoughts and thoughts to act come into existence at one moment in time, not having any prior cause, then this is an example of spontaneous self-causation, a metaphysical problem difficult to justify.

If Determinism is the case, their choice had been determined, not by themselves, not by someone else, but by the physical temporal nature of the Universe. A Universe of fundamental particles and forces existing in space and time over which no person has control.

If Determinism is the case, a person has no choice in what they choose. One advantage of Determinism is that it avoids the metaphysical problem of spontaneous self-causation whilst still explaining a person's choices.

“dogmatic slumbers”, — Mww

Speaking of "dogmatic slumbers", are you familiar with Charles Sanders Peirce's essay titled 'The Fixation of Belief'? ... I mentioned in another post here recently about how nominalism might be a human survival cognition tool, assisting us in rapid discernment. But we also need to be aware of 'fixations' that develop via autopoiesis, personally and culturally. ... In the essay, Peirce explores the idea that beliefs settle our doubts because doubts make us uncomfortable. ... Perhaps this is behind the idea of 'concretizing'? But what becomes haphazard hypostatic abstraction is when nominalism attempts to concretize that which is inherently dynamic. .... One of my favorite Goethe quotes is this. ... “How difficult it is… to refrain from replacing the thing with its sign, to keep the object alive before us instead of killing it with the word."

According to Kant…. — Corvus

Close enough, I suppose. I rather think accepting ideas and/or beliefs of others is dogmatism, which occurs when a subject presumes to advance in his own metaphysical thought without determining the validity of its ground as opposed to the habitual neglect of it, hence the proverbial “slumber”.

It follows that to awaken from a slumber is to begin what the slumbering prevented, in this case, determining the warrant for acceptance of any belief or idea, his own or someone else’s. So it isn’t what a subject falls into at all, but instead, what he comes out of.

So to awaken from dogmatic slumbers is to begin the critique of one’s own pure cognitions, for the origin, the warrant, hence the validity, of the principles upon which they necessarily rest, thereby promising that we “….must not be supposed to lend any countenance to that loquacious shallowness which arrogates to itself the name of popularity, nor yet to scepticism, which makes short work with the whole science of metaphysics...”

Now what was offered as opinion with respect to one purportedly missing the opportunity to be awakened, just indicates he chose not to examine, or, as I mentioned, gave no evidence that he did examine, the validity of the ground the pure cognitions of his dialectical opponent presented to him, but merely designated the words representing them as neither wise nor intelligent, the epitome of sceptical appraisal.
————-

And the dogmatic slumber to awaken from? To critique the grounding principles for? That to which I wished to direct your attention, but apparently failed miserably?

Why, the “nominalism thought virus”, of course. Maybe it’s just me, but the subtlety in that phrase, that concept…..(sigh)

If Determinism is the case, their choice had been determined, not by themselves, not by someone else, but by the physical temporal nature of the Universe. A Universe of fundamental particles and forces existing in space and time over which no person has control. — RussellA

As we discussed, and you agreed, choice is impossible if determinism is true. Simply put, "choice" is not an appropriate word in this context, otherwise we'd be saying that water makes choices, rocks make choices, etc.. But we don't say that, because we recognize the difference between the moves which these inanimate things make, and the moves that a human being makes.

And the dogmatic slumber to awaken from? To critique the grounding principles for? That to which I wished to direct your attention, but apparently failed miserably? — Mww

When you were talking about the missed opportunity for waking up from Dogmatic Slumber, it reminded me of Kant's position when he rejected Wolff and Leibniz's ideas, having read Hume. That was all. :)

Familiar, yes; studied….not so much.

From that essay, though, comes one of my more seriously held cognitive inclinations, re: to believe is no more than to think, from which follows one says nothing more when he says he believes, than what he has already thought. And insofar as no belief is possible without the arrangement of conceptions, which just is to think, to speak from belief alone, holds no power at all.

Peirce explores the idea that beliefs settle our doubts because doubts make us uncomfortable. — Mapping the Medium

I rather think doubt is merely a negative belief, both of which are cognitions, discursive judgements of relative truth, whereas comfort is a feeling. I don’t associate one with the other, myself. Smacks of psychology….the red-headed stepchild of proper metaphysics.

Also from the essay, “…. imbued with that bad logical quality to which the epithet metaphysical is commonly applied…”, which implies metaphysical cognitions possess bad logical quality, precisely the opposite of my personal opinion.
————-

Nominalism. Denial of the reality of abstract objects? Or, denial of the reality of universals and/or general ideas? Something else?

Yes, understood. I was just carrying over what he did for himself he meant for all rational subjects to do for themselves.

:up: :cool:

Simply put, "choice" is not an appropriate word in this context, otherwise we'd be saying that water makes choices, rocks make choices, etc.. — Metaphysician Undercover

I disagree.

If Determinism is the case, a person has no choice in what they choose.

In language, the word "choose" is used in certain ways. Inanimate things such as rocks that don't possess life cannot choose, but animate things such as people that do possess life can choose.

A person may choose between two courses of action, such as whether to stay or to go, regardless of whether they live in a world that is Deterministic or in a world where people have Free Will.

A larger question is, how does Free Will explain the spontaneous self-causation of thoughts and thoughts to act?

If Free Will is the case, and a person's thoughts and thoughts to act come into existence at one moment in time, not having any prior cause, then this is an example of spontaneous self-causation, a metaphysical problem difficult to justify.

I am not sure if this is a helpful way to think about free action. If something is uncaused then it occurs for "no reason at all." However, are we free when we act according to what is uncaused and random?

When we act freely, we tend to think we act not only for reasons, but due to reasons we understand. If a German soldier in WWII refuses to execute civilians because it is "the right thing to do," then clearly this act must involve what lies prior to their choice: their understanding of the situation they are in, the consequences of disobedience, all that has shaped their notions of right and wrong, what they think about the innocence of the civilians, etc.

Yet their perception of the innocence of the civilians is prior to their refusal to execute them.

What is self-determining is not undetermined.

If Determinism is the case, a person has no choice in what they choose. — RussellA

OK, I'll accept this as what you are trying to say then. By "determinism" you mean that a person chooses but they have no choice in what they choose, i.e. something is chosen without a choice having been made.

And I'll present this as very good evidence of what I said before:

"This is why any rational person will reject determinism."

But suppose we run an experiment! We offer people two choices: they can have their favorite entree from their favorite restaurant, or they can eat a plate of dog feces. People choose option A 100% of the time. Clearly, the dog feces has made their choice for them, ergo one cannot ever freely choose not to eat dog feces. QED. :cool:

whereas comfort is a feeling — Mww

I agree. I admit that I used the word 'uncomfortable' when that is not what Peirce actually said in the essay. I was not writing that comment for academic scrutinization. :wink: I shall be more careful in the future. This is what I get for not being fully awake when expressing my thought.

Substitute 'irritation' for 'uncomfortable', and please forgive my faux pas.

This is what he actually wrote.....

"Thus, both doubt and belief have positive effects upon us, though very different ones. Belief does not make us act at once, but puts us into such a condition that we shall behave in some certain way, when the occasion arises. Doubt has not the least such active effect, but stimulates us to inquiry until it is destroyed. This reminds us of the irritation of a nerve and the reflex action produced thereby; while for the analogue of belief, in the nervous system, we must look to what are called nervous associations -- for example, to that habit of the nerves in consequence of which the smell of a peach will make the mouth water.
IV
The irritation of doubt causes a struggle to attain a state of belief. I shall term this struggle inquiry, though it must be admitted that this is sometimes not a very apt designation.

The irritation of doubt is the only immediate motive for the struggle to attain belief. It is certainly best for us that our beliefs should be such as may truly guide our actions so as to satisfy our desires; and this reflection will make us reject every belief which does not seem to have been so formed as to insure this result. But it will only do so by creating a doubt in the place of that belief. With the doubt, therefore, the struggle begins, and with the cessation of doubt it ends. Hence, the sole object of inquiry is the settlement of opinion. We may fancy that this is not enough for us, and that we seek, not merely an opinion, but a true opinion. But put this fancy to the test, and it proves groundless; for as soon as a firm belief is reached we are entirely satisfied, whether the belief be true or false. And it is clear that nothing out of the sphere of our knowledge can be our object, for nothing which does not affect the mind can be the motive for mental effort. The most that can be maintained is, that we seek for a belief that we shall think to be true. But we think each one of our beliefs to be true, and, indeed, it is mere tautology to say so.

"

Also from the essay, “…. imbued with that bad logical quality to which the epithet metaphysical is commonly applied…”, which implies metaphysical cognitions possess bad logical quality, precisely the opposite of my personal opinion. — Mww

I understand. This is where the 'reflections' of Kant appear in Peirce's work. ... It would probably be prudent of me to explain that I do not think of any of my favorite philosophers as the 'end all be all'. After all, if I did my framework wouldn't be so unique. :sparkle:

Also from the essay, “…. imbued with that bad logical quality to which the epithet metaphysical is commonly applied…”, which implies metaphysical cognitions possess bad logical quality, precisely the opposite of my personal opinion. — Mww

I want to expand on this a bit. ....

As I mentioned in another thread, in order to get a more encompassing picture of Peirce's writings, it's important to consider the philosophical environment of his time and community. I suspect that he was expressing this statement due to the constraints and pressures he was under at the time. He had married a woman who would actually conduct Tarot card readings for their Episcopal church community, and he became involved with this woman prior to his divorce being final, which was instrumental in ostracizing him from the academic community. ... All I am saying is that after years of studying Peirce, I get his speech and inflections, which can be challenging when first starting to read him. ... Note that he said "to which the epithet metaphysical is commonly applied." ...In this specific statement, he was not speaking of metaphysics as a philosophical discipline.

I think I might actually push back against that, if you'll bear with my reasoning. I think it's possible to say that ideas do, in a sense, exist in the physical world, just not in the way we normally think of it. Rather than the idea being a solid "thing" in the mind, I believe the physical manifestation of thoughts can be seen in the specific electrical/chemical reactions happening in a persons brain when they think that thing. So ideas are physically real, but exist as more as an ongoing natural process rather than a concrete object. Imagining an object and looking at an object light up similar parts of the brain in scans, which I think is the closest we can currently get to "seeing" thoughts from the outside.

On a similarly related note, I think if you look at the way thoughts and memetics move from mind to mind, mutating, growing and changing as they do... I think it's possible to interpret ideas as having, if not a kind of life, then at least something similar enough to one that it warrants further investigation.

If something is uncaused then it occurs for "no reason at all." — Count Timothy von Icarus

True. For both Free Will and Determinism, there is a reason why at 1pm I choose not to fire my gun.
===============================================================================

What is self-determining is not undetermined. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree
===============================================================================
At 1pm, when I choose not to fire my gun, I have several thoughts, including the innocence of civilians and the orders I have been given by my superiors.

If Free Will is the case, at t seconds before 1pm, where t can be any number, it has not been determined whether I do or do not have the thought at 1pm to fire my gun.

If Determinism is the case, at t seconds before 1pm, where t can be any number, it has been determined that I have the thought at 1pm not to fire my gun.

My question is, if Free Will is the case, is this not an example of spontaneous self-causation.

Spontaneous in the sense that my thought not to fire could not have existed at t seconds prior to 1pm, otherwise my thought would have been determined.

Self-caused in the sense that the thought at 1pm not to fire caused its own existence.

How can a thought spontaneously cause its own existence?

"This is why any rational person will reject determinism." — Metaphysician Undercover

Not many people in history have said that Einstein was not a rational person.

From Einstein’s Mystical Views & Quotations on Free Will or Determinism

Thus, in 1932 Einstein told the Spinoza society:

“Human beings in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but are as causally bound as the stars in their motions.”

Einstein’s belief in causal determinism seemed to him both scientifically and philosophically incompatible with the concept of human free will. In a 1932 speech entitled ‘My Credo’, Einstein briefly explained his deterministic ideology:

“I do not believe in freedom of the will. Schopenhauer’s words: ‘Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills’ accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of freedom of will preserves me from taking too seriously myself and my fellow men as acting and deciding individuals and from losing my temper.”

I was not writing that comment for academic scrutinization. — Mapping the Medium

Awww damn. I’m all warm and fuzzy inside. (Grin)

….he was not speaking of metaphysics as a philosophical discipline. — Mapping the Medium

Agreed; he was commenting on the inacuteness of common sense, and that they are not proper metaphysical cognitions, re: Hume and assorted and sundry British empiricists, I’m guessing. My problem was that he implied bad logical quality to metaphysical cognitions, irrespective of their connection to common sense thinking. With the caveat, again, in that I may not have given Charles his just due.

Rather than the idea being a solid "thing" in the mind, I believe the physical manifestation of thoughts can be seen in the specific electrical/chemical reactions happening in a persons brain when they think that thing. So ideas are physically real, but exist as more as an ongoing natural process rather than a concrete object. Imagining an object and looking at an object light up similar parts of the brain in scans, which I think is the closest we can currently get to "seeing" thoughts from the outside. — MrLiminal

Good point. But electrical / chemical reactions in the brain are not ideas themselves. Electrons and chemical particles exist everywhere in the universe, even inside the brain. They react to each other with every possible minuscule physical stimuli and in most times, they react with no particular causes or reasons whatsoever too.

Seeing the electrical / chemical reactions in the brain via some measuring instruments and saying that must be ideas sounds not quite convincing.

It is like those folks who think the red light from the traffic lights are identical entity with the instruction to stop, and the green legal contract to "Go". They are just legal contracts between the government and the drivers. They could easily have made pink to stop, and orange to go.

The physical objects and events in the external world are not the ideas, knowledge, information or concepts themselves. Of course, they can be linked, but they are not the same in ontological sense.