GENIUS FORUMS

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

I think the "causality" that David defends is meaningless. It's true by definition, and thus only true by virtue of his usage of language.

That is only half the story. Yes, it is true by definition, and yes, its truth is dependent upon the definitions I have chosen. But what you are missing is that the definitions I have chosen necessarily refer to all things in the Universe.

This is where your textbook logic falls down. It doesn't take into account that some definitional truths are able to refer meaningfully to what exists in the world. Things aren't always as simple and as clear-cut as your textbooks like to say. Some definitional truths are able to include the entire world in their loop.

Tell me honestly, do you think that it is possible for a thing to exist without its constituent parts, or without a larger Universe to exist in. Remember this is a definitional truth, so take care how you answer.

-

Shahrazad wrote:

Can you explain what is wrong with using math in the context that EI used it?

The error lies in trying to reduce my argument to pure form, and in the process ignoring the all-important content of the concepts I am using.

A standard teaching in modern philosophical textbooks is that form and content can be separated and judged separately. In reality, they can't. The content of the concepts used in an argument have their own logical implications and therefore are intertwined with the argument's form. You can't really separate them, excepted in a contrived academic sense.

The underlying intention behind this academic method is transparently clear. First, strip an argument of its content and reduce it to pure form, with the aid of mathematical symbols. Next, point out that the perfect logical execution of the argument is of the form of a truth by definition, or tautological reasoning. Next, refer to the textbooks which state that truths by definition are empty of content and therefore meaningless as far as the "real world" is concerned. Finally, conclude that the argument in question is empty of content and meaningless as far as the real world is concerned.

It is drivel of the highest order.

So that, in a nutshell, is the problem with using mathematic language in philosophy. It focuses exclusively on form and strips away all the content, which then leads to bizarre academic conclusions that have nothing to do with what is really happening.

-

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

DQ: At root, Pye considers you an "excellent thinker" not because of your ability to reason simply and directly, but because you have well-honed skills in disrupting the rational process, just as she does.

EI: You seem to consider any argument against your views to be "disrupting the rational process".

On the contrary, it is the lack of argument on your part which I have a problem with. At root, all you ever do is throw academic scripture at people. Thus, your disruption to the rational process is of the same kind as the fundamentalist Christian who thinks that quoting Bible scripture is a valid way of arguing.

DQ: There are no axioms here. They have been artificially created by your contrived filtering process.

You have no axioms because all you have is extreme skepticism towards all philosophical matters. You dismiss any notion that one cannot be "certain" about, while propping up a metaphysical view that is only certain by virtue of being empty of content. You need the terminology you use, and your own particular methods of expressing yourself, because they are the window dressing for an empty metaphysic.

There's that academic scripture shining through again. The terminology used in an argument is more than just window dressing draped over the "empty" form of a tautology. When wisely chosen, words and concepts can transform an empty tautology into an argument of great substance.

But don't bother looking at your textbooks to find out how to do this. It is something that an individual has to learn for himself, with the help of his own introspective reasoning.

I realize that any attempt to express your affirmative positions in logical terms misrepresents them, but only because such views don't have enough meat to qualify as an argument upon close examination.

You're not seeing the meat in my concepts because you're too busy trying to filter it out in your desire to focus exclusively on form.

DQ: Determinism, as a philosophic principle, is capable of predicting a number of things. For example, it predicts that at no time in the future will an event occur without cause. It also predicts that reality will continue on forever, that all future events will be without beginning and end, that it is impossible for any future event to possess inherent existence, and so on.

EI: The ancient Greeks discovered all that nonsense a long time ago. If you want to think that it's more then a meaningless artifact of language, you just go right on ahead with your Pythagorean outlook.

I have nothing in common with Pythagoras. The only Greeks I have an affinity with are Socrates and Diogenes. They used logic in a far more powerful way than Pythagoras or Aristotle ever did.

What is funny is that because you are a slave to whatever happens to be fashionable in academia, you would have been praising all those now-discredited philosophers, had you lived back then - just as, had you lived in medieval times, you would have been praising medieval Christian theology.

You can't be a slave to fashion in the present and then mock those who were slaves to fashions in the past. That would be inconsistent.

-

Elizabeth,

Fantastic argument. Lets say we call something causal when it can be expected to act in a predictable manner. Every time I throw a bouncy ball to the ground it leaps back up in the air (provided that certain conditions exist to facilitate this). I can then say that the bouncy ball acts in a causal manner. I'll call this my inductive proof for the existence of causality in the actions of the bouncy ball. It's important here that we keep in mind that causality refers to the behavior of the ball, whereas induction refers to the method by which we can logically infer such a property.

Now lets say that I find another bouncy ball that only bounces back up half the time. This shocks and disturbs me, so I run all sorts of tests on it to try to figure out what determines when it bounces and when it doesn't. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. After doing several thousand tests, discussing with scientists the possible flaws in my experimental methods, and otherwise doing whatever I can to bring some predictability to my ball; I find that there is simply no way to determine when it will bounce back up at me. I'll call this my inductive proof for an acausal bouncy ball. I don't have such a ball, of course, as my balls are quite causal, but I can point out some scientific research that finds similarly strange behavior in electrons.

Thus, I disagree with the premise:

The phenomenon of something acausal can not be proven.

David,

This is where your textbook logic falls down. It doesn't take into account that some definitional truths are able to refer meaningfully to what exists in the world.

Where you're making a mistake here is in your assumption of why these truths are true. Lets look at this:

do you think that it is possible for a thing to exist without its constituent parts

When I was a youngster I had a LEGO ship. It was pretty awesome. After time went by, and my LEGO pirates had many epic battles, the ship was no longer a ship anymore. I had various parts of a ship, but at the same time, I didn't have the ship itself. It seemed to me then that "ship" was only a name given to these parts when they were arranged in a particular way. In other words: if a sensible thing is composed of smaller sensible things, it can be reduced to those things. Where you might say that this is true because of it's coherence to a particular set of propositions, I would say it's true because I saw it well playing with a LEGO ship.

or without a larger Universe to exist in

Strangely enough, I do happen to think that a thing could theoretically exist without a larger universe around it (although this "thing" is going to be mighty peculiar as you'll soon see). Normally we imagine that if we follow a straight line we will just get further and further from the spot on the line we started from. This seems to be only reasonable. Whenever I follow a straight line this happens. Now imagine that you followed a straight line for an unimaginable distance, and ended right back where you started. This seems like a geometrical impossibility, and yet mathematicians have been able to demonstrate that there is no mathematical reason to suspect that this doesn't happen. We know that there is no evidence for such a thing in the observable universe, but the observable universe is just a tiny chunk of the whole of it. So, it could be that our very universe is a very pecuilar thing that has no space outside of it, and no "thing" outside of it.

The content of the concepts used in an argument have their own logical implications and therefore are intertwined with the argument's form. You can't really separate them, excepted in a contrived academic sense.

Whatever logic is involved in proving the "content" of any given proposition is referred to as the propositions "axioms". I find it odd that you should be pointing out the fact that any proposition depends upon axioms after insisting that you don't have any (except for A=A).

The underlying intention behind this academic method is transparently clear.

The intention is to be able to see that the logical structure of an argument is correct quickly and easily so that one can get straight on with the content or consequences.

David,

On the contrary, it is the lack of argument on your part which I have a problem with. At root, all you ever do is throw academic scripture at people.

There would be nothing wrong with quoting biblical scripture if the quote were logical and made a good point. One doesn't dismiss biblical scripture simply because it is biblical scripture. Well... I don't at least.

You're not seeing the meat in my concepts because you're too busy trying to filter it out in your desire to focus exclusively on form.

Last time I checked, you were the one saying that your views were true due to the fact they conformed with A=A. I'd focus on the content of your arguments, but you told me that they didn't have any. So now suddenly you've got all sorts of axioms we can discuss? Fantastic.

I have nothing in common with Pythagoras. The only Greeks I have an affinity with are Socrates and Diogenes. They used logic in a far more powerful way than Pythagoras or Aristotle ever did.

Don't get me wrong, Socrates (Plato's Socrates at least) was a heck of a guy. A great thinker in his own right. I just don't happen to agree with most of his views (or Plato's views as the case may be). Your a heck of a thinker yourself. I just don't agree with you.

David,

Your position on math is more clear to me know; thanks for explaining. Of course, I still think that math is a lot more useful than you are willing to accept.

First, strip an argument of its content and reduce it to pure form, with the aid of mathematical symbols.

The way you expressed this step here is clever, though as a math lover I would have expressed it differently. When I pose, or "translate" a problem from English into math symbols and equations, I am taking a very specific situation, and generalizing it by creating variables for the data.

Your explanation then is equivalent to mine, except that what I call data (or numbers) you are calling content, and what I call variables (or defined letters) and equations you call form. I can live with that.

I part company with you after that, as the "content" that I stripped out I will plug in later to get a specific answer to my problem, with the added benefit that my "form" can now be used to solve other problems with different content. My intention never was to be deceitful.

One more thing. You say you have nothing in common with Pythagoras. This shows how little respect you have for math, as I consider his theorem to be one of the most beautiful and yet simple truths of the universe. I mean, how can a person not jump up and down with glee when he is exposed to this truth for the very first time?

Sorry David, I know I'm really getting carried away here with my math worship. You don't have to reply.

Back to the philosophical discussion now.

.

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

Fantastic argument. Lets say we call something causal when it can be expected to act in a predictable manner. Every time I throw a bouncy ball to the ground it leaps back up in the air (provided that certain conditions exist to facilitate this). I can then say that the bouncy ball acts in a causal manner. I'll call this my inductive proof for the existence of causality in the actions of the bouncy ball. It's important here that we keep in mind that causality refers to the behavior of the ball, whereas induction refers to the method by which we can logically infer such a property.

Now lets say that I find another bouncy ball that only bounces back up half the time. This shocks and disturbs me, so I run all sorts of tests on it to try to figure out what determines when it bounces and when it doesn't. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. After doing several thousand tests, discussing with scientists the possible flaws in my experimental methods, and otherwise doing whatever I can to bring some predictability to my ball; I find that there is simply no way to determine when it will bounce back up at me. I'll call this my inductive proof for an acausal bouncy ball. I don't have such a ball, of course, as my balls are quite causal, but I can point out some scientific research that finds similarly strange behavior in electrons.

This is using a limited, anthropomorphic definition of cause, one that equates it with our own ability to make empirical predictions and models. It doesn't really deal with what is happening out there in the world, independently of our abilities.

Looking at the matter logically, a ball that bounces the same way every time could easily be uncaused and simply bouncing back the same way out of sheer coincidence.

Similarly, a ball that doesn't bounce the same way consistently could easily be caused, with the factors causing the inconsistency currently beyond our ability to perceive them.

This shows that as far as a deeper philosophical understanding is concerned empirical observation, testing, prediction, etc, cannot determine one way or the other whether a thing is caused.

Of course, if we confine ourselves to using the limited, anthropomorphic definition of cause, then we can indeed make a tentative determination through empirical means. But that is a trivial and uninteresting thing to do, philosophically speaking.

Looking at the matter more realistically, I should also point out the obvious truth that even a ball which bounces inconsistently necessarily has causes. For example, without the existence of a solid ground, the molecular structure of the ball which makes it bouncy, the space inbetween the ball and the ground, the person throwing it downwards, the existence of gravity, etc, the ball wouldn't be able to move and bounce at all, either consistently or inconsistently.

The same is true of electrons.

-

David,

This shows that as far as a deeper philosophical understanding is concerned empirical observation, testing, prediction, etc, cannot determine one way or the other whether a thing is caused.

Yep, the blasted problem of induction prevents us from being able to logically prove everything from the fact that "snow is white" to "toast is delicious". I still believe those things though.

But that is a trivial and uninteresting thing to do, philosophically speaking.

In itself? Sure. Scientists deal with that sort of stuff. Now the epistemology that supports these types of "tentative determinations" is another story altogether. I find that fascinating (it is, though, a matter of personal taste).

Looking at the matter more realistically, I should also point out the obvious truth that even a ball which bounces inconsistently necessarily has causes. For example, without the existence of a solid ground, the molecular structure of the ball which makes it bouncy, the space inbetween the ball and the ground, the person throwing it downwards, the existence of gravity, etc, the ball wouldn't be able to move and bounce at all, either consistently or inconsistently.

Sure. Your using the term "cause" in a different way then I was, but I can't really argue with your point here.

Now lets say that I find another bouncy ball that only bounces back up half the time. This shocks and disturbs me, so I run all sorts of tests on it to try to figure out what determines when it bounces and when it doesn't. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. After doing several thousand tests, discussing with scientists the possible flaws in my experimental methods, and otherwise doing whatever I can to bring some predictability to my ball; I find that there is simply no way to determine when it will bounce back up at me. I'll call this my inductive proof for an acausal bouncy ball. I don't have such a ball, of course, as my balls are quite causal, but I can point out some scientific research that finds similarly strange behavior in electrons.

Thus, I disagree with the premise:
Quote:
The phenomenon of something acausal can not be proven.

lol. this is almost exactly like the way Intelligent Design is argued. David is right, EI doesn't underastand the neccessity of a cause and thus only understands cause and effect superficially, just like the bulk of scientists.

James,

lol. this is almost exactly like the way Intelligent Design is argued.

The difference being that ID can't be falsified. My claim is falsified the second someone figures out a way to determine when my ball will bounce.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:James,

lol. this is almost exactly like the way Intelligent Design is argued.

The difference being that ID can't be falsified. My claim is falsified the second someone figures out a way to determine when my ball will bounce.

ID is falsified because it is in no way rational.

If there was an intelligent designer, what caused the intelligent designer? Evolution of the intelligent designer of course.

It really pisses me off that people don't understand that evolution is not something just attached to life, it occurs with everything, including elements. It occurs with everything as a result of FOR ITSELF balances naturally occurring due to conincidental circumstances.

My claim is falsified the second someone figures out a way to determine when my ball will bounce.

Have we not seen that all claims of the past relating to a concept that requires elemnts of non-causal action always end up being ridiculed because science proves them wrong.

James,

ID is falsified because it is in no way rational.

Still, you can't prove beyond all doubt that the claim ID makes is wrong. You can show why there's no good evidence for it, and you can demonstrate where the arguments made for it are flawed, but there still could be a God. There just happens to be no reason to think that there is. Regardless, I'm talking about falsification through empirical testing here. I can't dream up any sort of test that would demonstrate ID false. On the other hand I could test to see if the behavior of my acausal ball was determined by sunlight.

If there weas an intelligent designer, what caused the intelligent designer? Evolution of the intelligent designer of course.

Perhaps, or perhaps he/she/it just happens to exist. It's impossible to tell for sure. I don't believe in a God, but I've never been able to find a way to logically prove that he/she/it couldn't exist. Showing that the arguments made for such a thing are flawed only demonstrates that the arguments made for such a thing are flawed.

Have we not seen that all claims of the past relating to a concept that requires elemnts of non-causal action always end up being ridiculed because science proves them wrong.

Have we? Perhaps. We've also seen many notions with no explicitly posited acausal events demonstrated to be false.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:James,

ID is falsified because it is in no way rational.

Still, you can't prove beyond all doubt that the claim ID makes is wrong. You can show why there's no good evidence for it, and you can demonstrate where the arguments made for it are flawed, but there still could be a God. There just happens to be no reason to think that there is. Regardless, I'm talking about falsification through empirical testing here. I can't dream up any sort of test that would demonstrate ID false. On the other hand I could test to see if the behavior of my acausal ball was determined by sunlight.

If there weas an intelligent designer, what caused the intelligent designer? Evolution of the intelligent designer of course.

Perhaps, or perhaps he/she/it just happens to exist. It's impossible to tell for sure. I don't believe in a God, but I've never been able to find a way to logically prove that he/she/it couldn't exist. Showing that the arguments made for such a thing are flawed only demonstrates that the arguments made for such a thing are flawed.

Have we not seen that all claims of the past relating to a concept that requires elemnts of non-causal action always end up being ridiculed because science proves them wrong.

Have we? Perhaps. We've also seen many notions with no explicitly posited acausal events demonstrated to be false.

Those acasual events are only recent ones, which will be explained in the future.

Also EI, I'm thinking when you say about a "God" you mean a deist right? Like a supreme being that has all the knowledge and infinite capacity of the universe, but isin't 'benevolent' 'loving' 'sympathetic' etc etc like the abrahamic god, with a heaven and hell...

Perhaps, or perhaps he/she/it just happens to exist. It's impossible to tell for sure. I don't believe in a God, but I've never been able to find a way to logically prove that he/she/it couldn't exist. Showing that the arguments made for such a thing are flawed only demonstrates that the arguments made for such a thing are flawed.

Grow up.

It is completely obvious that a creator god could not be the cause of the totality. This is "beyond any shadow of doubt" (which is all one ever refers to with matters of truth).

How could any god develop anything unless that gods skills were developed by being caused to develop? How could a god exist in nothingness and then suddenly decide to create something? What powers would give a god the ability to create something out of nothing? On what plane would this god exist?

The whole concept of such a god is like pre-school stuff. Ohh the unexplainable mystery of it all!! What spew inducing rubbish.

If you cannot explain to me how god could exist in nothing then please tell me.

Now a less childish opinion is that God is everything. BUT if that is the case then god could not influence anything, so this as well is a pointless concept. Such a god could not put themselves outside of everything in order to influence something.

I'm sure godlike being can evolve, but no god can ever create something from nothing. So called intelligent design presumes that something can be created from nothing - thats its whole allure to those who desire a belief in a higher power.

A belief is a higher power is completely herd driven - things can only exist with some form of heirarchical structure, so for each of us humans or animals or any thing, there is always something (or a set of things) above us. Interestingly though even though believers in a higher power pretend to believe that power is higher, the subconscious reality is that they believe themsleves to be the equal of this power (free-will, heaven, eternal life and so on is all about equality with god achieved by earning it).

Beings assume that there must be a creationary power because they themsleves can create, so they infer that a higher power created them. If one understands cause and effect and evolution however, it is quite obvious that there is no higher, better, holistic power, that causes their existence, but only lesser powers. In the end it comes down to powers so limited that they can only do one thing. For the totality to be permanent then a circular flow must exist and this is only wehat we see. We see that all things are temporary. They evolve from a lower base, grow and expand, then die and becoem somtrhing else.

Faust,

Those acasual events are only recent ones, which will be explained in the future.

Perhaps. I wouldn't put money on it though.

Also EI, I'm thinking when you say about a "God" you mean a deist right? Like a supreme being that has all the knowledge and infinite capacity of the universe, but isin't 'benevolent' 'loving' 'sympathetic' etc etc like the abrahamic god, with a heaven and hell...

I'm talking about any sort of anthropomorphic deity. Or, really, just about anything, if not everything. There are very good arguments that one can use to demonstrate why such a deity doesn't exist (expecially in the case of the God of Abraham), and I find them quite convincing, but such doesn't constitute a logical proof (by the incredibly stringent standards I'm using here). I'll reiterate, that I don't think there's any reason to believe in a anthropomorphic deity of any sort, but a hard atheist position is impossible to support, and the attempt strikes me as counter-productive.


James,

Grow up.

Never!

It is completely obvious that a creator god could not be the cause of the totality. This is "beyond any shadow of doubt" (which is all one ever refers to with matters of truth).

I think just about every discussion on this board demonstrates that folks can't quite agree on what should constitute truth. I'll agree that it's true that an anthropomorphic deity doesn't exist, but I'll also admit it's true that an argument can't be formulated that will cut through strong skepticism on the matter.

If you cannot explain to me how god could exist in nothing then please tell me.

Easy. God doesn't obey your Euclidean geometry. Regardless, are you a recent non-believer? You seem pretty passionate about this God stuff. I've heard every argument that I imagine someone could possibly make concerning this matter, and am pretty stuck in my soft atheism. You don't have to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt to go about believing it. Holding standards like that will lead to frustration and nihilism faster then I can shake a stick.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Faust,

Those acasual events are only recent ones, which will be explained in the future.

Perhaps. I wouldn't put money on it though.

Also EI, I'm thinking when you say about a "God" you mean a deist right? Like a supreme being that has all the knowledge and infinite capacity of the universe, but isin't 'benevolent' 'loving' 'sympathetic' etc etc like the abrahamic god, with a heaven and hell...

I'm talking about any sort of anthropomorphic deity. Or, really, just about anything, if not everything. There are very good arguments that one can use to demonstrate why such a deity doesn't exist (expecially in the case of the God of Abraham), and I find them quite convincing, but such doesn't constitute a logical proof (by the incredibly stringent standards I'm using here). I'll reiterate, that I don't think there's any reason to believe in a anthropomorphic deity of any sort, but a hard atheist position is impossible to support, and the attempt strikes me as counter-productive.


James,

Grow up.

Never!

It is completely obvious that a creator god could not be the cause of the totality. This is "beyond any shadow of doubt" (which is all one ever refers to with matters of truth).

I think just about every discussion on this board demonstrates that folks can't quite agree on what should constitute truth. I'll agree that it's true that an anthropomorphic deity doesn't exist, but I'll also admit it's true that an argument can't be formulated that will cut through strong skepticism on the matter.

If you cannot explain to me how god could exist in nothing then please tell me.

Easy. God doesn't obey your Euclidean geometry. Regardless, are you a recent non-believer? You seem pretty passionate about this God stuff. I've heard every argument that I imagine someone could possibly make concerning this matter, and am pretty stuck in my soft atheism. You don't have to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt to go about believing it. Holding standards like that will lead to frustration and nihilism faster then I can shake a stick.

The abrahamic god can wholly be refuted by just mentioning the problem of evil. I can see no justification for abrahamic in allowing innocents suffer at the hands of evil simply to allow 'freewill' it seems pretty counter-intuitive now that you say it! even if he does exist, this would mean that he's not necessarily benevolent but benign. so therefore, it is absolutely proven to know the nonexistence of abrahamic god.

faust,

The abrahamic god can wholly be refuted by just mentioning the problem of evil.

I don't know what you're talking about. This is the best of all possible worlds. :)

faust,

Although seriously, the problem of evil does a fine job of doing what it's intended to. I'd consider it to be a refutation of a certain subset of ways we can conceive of the God of Abraham. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure you could dream up some sort of crazy scenario where you're wrong if you really tried (I don't have the energy at the moment). Such skeptisism isn't pragmatic in the least though, so I'm not going to push the matter.

Free will is one of those difficult things to understand because I think we're caught half-way between living in a cause-and-effect world and having some degree of freedom of choice. Defining free-will is doubly difficult because we can't even define thought. I'm not sure what thought is exactly, but it is energy/mass, the same constituent of everything else in the universe. Just because something is difficult to peg doesn't mean that it's not energy/mass, and subject to laws of cause and effect. If I have an itch in my scalp, I'll raise my arm to scratch it. I think all of these processes are physiological, including thought. Meaning they're all physical, and subject to physical laws. Thought is as assemblance of images, but images in your mind are still images, and not all that different to images on paper. All thoughts that I have are due to physical stimuli of some sort.

I have a range of options in whether or not I decide to scratch, depending on my own energy level, the level of aggravation etc. so my actual decision is based on external as well as internal phyiological factors, but there's a myriad of these. A lot of these factors have a lot of feed-back as well, as I think this is the most complicating factor of all. I think we're chaotic beings, so our final decision - or free-will - given any set of circumstances and considering the infinite stimuli we're subject to, will be impossible for anyone to predict for certain, not even God. But it is us who makes that final decision.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:faust,

Although seriously, the problem of evil does a fine job of doing what it's intended to. I'd consider it to be a refutation of a certain subset of ways we can conceive of the God of Abraham. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure you could dream up some sort of crazy scenario where you're wrong if you really tried (I don't have the energy at the moment). Such skeptisism isn't pragmatic in the least though, so I'm not going to push the matter.

There's only 1 original view of abraham's god: omnipotent, omniscient, BENEVOLENT. The problem of evil contradicts these traits. There's absolutely no scenario that you can conjure up with your bile to disprove or justify evil for the existence of abrahamic god. You don't actually have the energy at all nor the skill, and are running away to my refutation of this world being the best possible worlds. You're a childish academic and I hope you stay that way :)