Isn't all this the Cartesian evil genius question of your namesake?

I don't see why A → B ∨ C entails spontaneity but A → B doesn't. In the predetermined world, B happens because of A. In the random world, either B happens because of A or C happens because of A. There's no spontaneity. Whatever happens is caused by something prior. — Michael

For any specific set of causes, if there can be an infinite set of events that follow (as there's no reason to limit things to just 2 possible choices), how do you conclude causation and not spontaneity? My point being that an inherent condition of causation is determinism, and any indeterminate system is necessarily non-causative and therefore spontaneous.

If you say that A must yield B or C but the option yielded is yielded without a specific cause, then I'd say you're referencing spontaneity on that level. That is, why did is "choose" B and not C? Was it because of D, E, or F, or for no reason at all? On the other hand, if you say that A must yield B in every case, I don't see an element of spontaneity.

I was watching my dear little chicken
As he clucked down below in the kitchen
His beak opened wide
As I stood there and sighed
___________________________? — Sapientia

3 choices:

1. While she ate my fetus still twitchin.

2. As I raped Baden with a dead pigeon.

3. And buried your mom in her vomit.

#3 invokes the Baden rule requiring typing without thought.

So you might ask of 2 "what makes it sometimes B and sometimes C?" but then I'll just ask of 1 "what makes it always B?" — Michael

I understand the two questions:

1. In an undetermined world, what makes it sometimes B and sometimes C?
2. In a predetermined world, what makes it always B?

Epistemological answers:

Answer to #1: I don't know (it is incoherent to ask how a spontaneous event occurred).
Answer to #2: I don't know (that goes beyond the limit of my knowledge)

Ontological answers:

Answer to #1: Nothing (spontaneous events have no causes).
Answer to #2: Something (all events have causes, even if I don't happen to know what it is).

It is for this reason that your retort (question #2) does not establish that both the determined world and undetermined world are on equal footing in terms of coherence. The fact that both test the limits of our knowledge is irrelevant (epistemological answers #1 and #2). What is relevant is that indeterminism asserts the ontological impossibility of spontaneity (ontological answer #2 in contrast to #1).

Then why can't I say that in a random world A can cause either B or C because of something? — Michael

And you'd have to also say that the cause of it being B and not C was nothing, which means that something was caused by nothing, meaning that there is something ontologically different from a determined world than an an indetermined world, which again responds to your prior post asking what the difference was between our inability to explain how A caused B in a determined world and how B randomly came about in an indetermined world.

I'd also reiterate that something coming from nothing is the definition of spontaneous occurrence, something you said didn't occur in a random world.

My objection is that the QM description of truly random events is incoherent. It's not that my little mind can't fathom it. It's that it defies foundational principles of understanding. To understand the world, one must ask why things are as they are, which implicitly requires offering the underlying cause of the event. If there is no such cause, then there is per se no explanation for why something happened, meaning reason (and thus understanding) is being defied.

Send one my way.

Perhaps, but then the same can be asked when the causation isn't random. What causes A to (always) cause B rather than C? — Michael

I don't see this as responsive to the ontological problem. In a determined world, A always causes B because of something. In an undetermined world, A sometimes causes B and sometimes causes C because of nothing. The arising of B or C in the undetermined world is an incoherent spontaneous event, but such things don't happen in the determined world. Thus the two are ontologically different.

To the extent I do not know what that ''something" is that causes A to always cause B, I have only an epistemological problem. There is nothing incoherent about a world where it is admitted there are certain things we simply do not know.

Does this not avoid the question of what caused A to cause B at T1 but it caused C at T2 despite T1 and T2 being exact states? If the answer is nothing, than wouldn't it be accurate to define a state that is affected in a meaningful way when nothing happens as a spontaneously occuring event?

That QM indeterminacy is incomprehensible to me is obvious, but I really believe it's beyond that as being entirely incoherent.

Can you route some calls to me? That AIDS hotline sounds crazy fun until you have to say "yep, that right there, now that'll get you AIDS." Then the laughter sort of stops.

That's not a limerick at all. You fail.

I think along these lines that a lot of drug use is self medicating. Depression, anxiety, watching your friends get blown up and stuff like that cause people to treat themselves until they're feeling better. On the other hand, if you're taking drugs but not sure why, maybe step back and figure out why you're medicating.

Haha. Wow, look at you, getting in on the deviancy.

Joyously tearing her pelt from her spine.

Deviance x 1000. BAM!

That one actually made me want to check myself in somewhere.

As Baden indicated, you are to type it out quick. Evidencing of editing shows unacceptable temperance.

I particularly like the misuse of "they" instead of "then," adding a purely random element and also the fact that "rhyme" almost rhymes with feline, but doesn't, adding a complex irony, which is important. While not particularly good, I feel you have contributed to the art.

Lol. Very very nice. Bestiality and necrophilia all wrapped into one.

What counts as sexual deviancy? — Michael

Having sex with a reindeer only to have a bloody beaver emerge from the reindeer's vagina and then that beaver bracing himself for additional sexual assault. That counts as sexual deviancy. I can arrive at more examples and then we can see if we can locate an underlying principle that distinguishes the deviant from the norm. In the search for essence, I think it's best to use sexual deviance as your object, as opposed to ordinary cups.

To my sporting Irish colleagues, I offer you this contest. Fill in the last line of this limerick. The winner is awarded random deviant of the day:

I was petting my sweet little feline
As she purred in my lap near my zip line
Her paws kneeded in
So I pushed down her chin
__________________________?

This limerick holds special meaning to me because it conveys an actual childhood memory while I was visiting my grandparents in northern Greenland:

While pleasuring myself with a reindeer
In the tundra all frozen and austere
Then out popped a beaver
All bloodied but eager
Grinning while tightening his head gear

There ought to be a thread dedicated to the random and sexually deviant.

I don't drink a whole lot unless challenged.

I don't do drugs. Unless the benefits outweigh the negatives, you shouldn't do drugs. There might be some subjectivity in weighing the pros and the cons, but assuming there's not a real legitimate purpose, it's probably a better idea to live within a normal state of consciousness.

That being said, I'm not advocating enforcing drug abstinence on anyone, mostly because the negatives of the enforcement tend to be more negative than just suffering the natural consequences of the drug, but all things considered, it's probably best in most cases to voluntarily abstain.

Speaking only for myself, if someone contacted me in my professional capacity (and I'm not a philosopher), I'd likely respond to something very specific that for some reason I knew that others might not, and I'd be far more likely to respond to another member of my profession than just someone who were curious. That is, I wouldn't be likely to start offering general conversation just to tutor someone. If the person were an enrolled student (anywhere) and had a specific assignment he was trying to complete, I would be likely to help him out. I'd also be receptive to mentoring someone new in the profession.

The point of all this is that if someone started providing me his various theories and ideas just for general feedback, I'd lose patience quickly and cite to him a few articles to get him started and then start ignoring him. I understand that might only describe me, but I am the poster child of reasonableness, so I would expect all reasonable people to do as I would. The truth is that if you have all sorts of philosophical questions, you'll probably be encouraged by the philosopher to sign up for a class. That will give you much greater access to philosophers of all sorts.

I wrote this one, which was consistent with the theme of this thread, but I wasn't entirely happy with it:

There once was a young mod named Baden
Who never an argument he could win
He would cry and would shout
Would carry on all and about
That we all ever thought him a maiden.

I then wrote this one, which is consistent with the theme that is Hanover, so I'm more happy with it:

There once was a young lad name Baden
Who fought as he might to deny sin
But try as he may
He was simply born that way
So he wished Hanover were a maiden

Regardless of the end result, I'm pretty happy with the Baden/Maiden rhyme I discovered during this mid-afternoon time waste.

180 Proof, Landru Guide Us, and @Paul are members but not active. — Baden

Landru was very active here for a while. I think he got tired of saying "conservative meme," so he left.

Yes; but, we are insatiable creatures. Nothing seems to satisfy us. I might be taking things to the extreme; but, I deny myself any wants and desires that are contrary to reason. — Question

A personal question I suppose, but it does bear some relevance, which is whether you are intentionally and rationally denying yourself opportunity or whether the complexities of initiating a relationship have simply been too great for you to overcome, so you've rationalized your disengagement as being a decision of a higher order, as opposed to admitting to and attempting to correct social ineptitude. It's relevant simply because it goes to whether your Stocism is a choice directed to higher happiness, as opposed to it being the path of least resistance. I can say that it's far from certain (and candidly doubtful) whether abandoning desire will lead to happiness as opposed to robbing you of those things that really do matter. That is, have there been available women in your life that you pushed away to both of your dismay, or has it never come quite close to that?

Whether this smacks of personal advice as opposed to philosophical inquiry, I don't know. It's certainly not analytical philosophy, but more of the type of philosophy practiced by the various ancient Greek schools, where philosophy was more about trying to figure out how to live one's life than in whatever we do now. But, regardless, when one tells me that they've consciously denied themselves of the rock star life, the obvious follow up question to ask is whether you had a rock star life available to you that you could deny yourself of.

Just my thoughts.

I will read it. What are you wearing?

I actually creeped myself out with that one. That's a keeper.

Spelldid, as in I done spelldid it damnit. It's Appalachian, coming from the overuse of the to do verb of the Celtic settlers I think. I done heard it plenty round here. It's also precious 3 year old speak. Any linguists here that can comment on this?

My reference to Kant was as to the synthetic apriori status of causation, but not as to the true nature of reality, as that would be nuemonal. Asserting that QM is the neumona would misunderstand Kant because the neumona is definitionally unknowable.

The problem with indeterminism as currently defined (exact sets of causes can have variable effects) is incoherent to me. It seems to violate basic causation, a fundamental concept for our comprehension of the world (ala Kant). So, my inclination is to accept any expert's rejection of QM indeterminism just because all else is incomprehensible.

SPOILER ALERT: He marries his father and artificially inseminates his sister as a prank.

I've set you to ignore. If it helps your ego to think it's because you're too wise and irrefutable do that.

Why would you have drawn a distinction between need and desire had I said desire and not need? This response makes no sense.

How does this distinction make a difference in the context of my post? Suppose I said "desire" and not "need," how'd you've had responded? I get there's a critical difference between want and need, but in this context, your objection seems pedantic.

Wow. That got stupid faster than expected.

Because the priest is living a lie and offering in part a piece of that lie to all who come to him, all at the price of needlessly sacrificing having a family and sacrificing the other relationships one has that are elevated by sexual contact.

A priest who has abandoned his sexuality under the false doctrine of the church and who has given up a family and the meaningful relationships that flow from embracing that sexuality is a lesser person than a person actually engaging in the world and occasionally (gasp) having casual sex.

Suppose you're terribly wrong here and that the need for sex and the satisfaction of that need is a more mature response than a person who has successfully repressed that need. Suppose your premise is utter nonsense, that elimination of or simply lacking sexual urge is unrelated entirely to virtue, morality, maturity or any superior power? That does seem to be your underlying unsupportable premise.

It strikes me that those who go without are either (1) misled religiously, (2) asexually constructed, or (3) socially incapable. Advocating chastity therefore arises because you either (1) wish to convert others to your religion, (2) are incapable of understanding sexuality due to your own asexuality, or (3) are trying to justify your own social limitations.

It strikes me that a culture that drapes their women in heavy clothes to hide their sexuality and that enforces gender specific roles suffers from far greater sexual obsession than mine.

The rest of what you say is unpersuasive pseudo-wisdom, reciting the terms under which you've found meaning in your life, like anyone finds it important. Tiring evangelism of sorts really. Has your prosthelsyzing brought you any converts?

If our paper and the markings on it had no depth and were truly only 2 dimensional (as in a theoretical plane), we, as 3 dimensional creatures couldn't see it. Hold your paper sideways and you'll see what I mean. It's real thin, sure, but it's still 3 dimensions.

Your examples don't change the fact that it is logically incorrect. In the case of Manson, it shouldn't follow logically from the fact that he's untrustworthy but because we have statements from witnesses that better match the facts. If his statement would match the facts and not contradict other statements, then regardless of his trustworthiness, we would have to acquit him due to reasonable doubt. If the statements of witnesses cannot be corroborated by facts, they should not be used no matter the presumed trustworthiness of the witnesses as opposed to those of Manson. — Benkei

If you assert an epistemological standard as high as "beyond a reasonable doubt," then I suppose we'll be forced to deny the existence of all sorts of generally accepted facts. For example: What time will Benkei be in today? Well, for the past 10 years, he's shown up at 8:30 to 9:00, so I'd say 8:30 to 9:00. Fair enough, although I can't say that beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is to say, you've inserted a non-common sense legalistic principle in here. I will say pretty unequivocally, though, that if you asked me whether I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the waters will rise in the Netherlands in the next 100 years to the point of making it uninhabitable, I'd say no. I'd also say that I couldn't assert the opposite either to that level of proof: that the waters won't rise to that point.

To be sure, though, if Manson told me anything that seemed at all incredible, I'd be justifiably less likely to believe him than if a close friend told me the same thing. Why? Well, because Manson is a known psychopath who values truth and his reputation very little. That tidbit does matter.

A juror will be struck for legal cause if he or she indicates a financial interest or a leaning or bias for or against either party. I seriously doubt you'd find it ok to have your wife preside over your divorce proceedings (not that it shall ever to come to that), for example. Per your reasoning, we should not object to any holding by the biased judge or juror because credibility of the decision maker (whether it be a judge, juror, scientist, witness, or whoever) is an irrational criterion to consider when evaluating the decision.