compatibilism

[Iwannaplato]

If tomorrow someone came and managed to prove to me without a doubt that the universe is like it is because of X and the correct ontology is Y, I know I would be stunned, whatever those variables are.

I think I feel the same

Which is, in part, why I asked Iambiguous....

So, when you say these things about it being mindboggling and that you can't wrap your head around it: is there something else you are trying to say. Or are you simply saying you can't understand these things?

It boggles the mind. It boggles his mind. Is there more to it than that?
Is determinism less or more mindboggling?
Is there a further conclusion, beyond this?
Are people wrong to be not mind boggled?

I get the sense there is some kind of message in all these 'we don't know' stuff, but I'm not sure what it is.

[phyllo]

How to wrap your head around it in a God world? I don't see any answer that isn't mindboggling.

And all those explanations...how does one wrap one's mind around them?

I consider that a pretty shallow explanation as well. "Why are you rich?" God wanted it. "Why did that child die of cancer?" God wanted it. "Why do we breathe o2 and drink h2o?" God wanted it.

It's as satisfying as saying A Witch Did It

It's no less mind boggling. If tomorrow someone came and managed to prove to me without a doubt that the universe is like it is because of X and the correct ontology is Y, I know I would be stunned, whatever those variables are. I have my belief system, though I shift through paradigms. But even if my guess turned out to be the case, I would be stunned. The supposedly banal, non-supernatural physicalist model...utterly amazing. How utterly odd and strange! All the others I have ever heard of...? I'd be gobsmacked.

It's just one of Iambiguous' diversions ... let's talk about how people created gods to comfort and console themselves. (Or rather, let me talk about it because I don't care what you think.)

[Flannel Jesus]

I get the sense there is some kind of message in all these 'we don't know' stuff, but I'm not sure what it is.

If you don't know what the message is in "we don't know", rest assured that you could never not not know.

[phyllo]

So, when you say these things about it being mindboggling and that you can't wrap your head around it: is there something else you are trying to say. Or are you simply saying you can't understand these things?

It boggles the mind. It boggles his mind. Is there more to it than that?
Is determinism less or more mindboggling?
Is there a further conclusion, beyond this?
Are people wrong to be not mind boggled?

I get the sense there is some kind of message in all these 'we don't know' stuff, but I'm not sure what it is.

Of course they are wrong to not be mind boggled.

The non-boggled are dangerous objectivists, a threat to everyone.

[Iwannaplato]

I get the sense there is some kind of message in all these 'we don't know' stuff, but I'm not sure what it is.

If you don't know what the message is in "we don't know", rest assured that you could never not not know.

I think one could perhaps get some serious knowledge about ontology or whatever, but yes, I think finished, complete no longer curious, got all the key stuff, seems unlikely, yeah.

[Iwannaplato]

So, when you say these things about it being mindboggling and that you can't wrap your head around it: is there something else you are trying to say. Or are you simply saying you can't understand these things?

It boggles the mind. It boggles his mind. Is there more to it than that?
Is determinism less or more mindboggling?
Is there a further conclusion, beyond this?
Are people wrong to be not mind boggled?

I get the sense there is some kind of message in all these 'we don't know' stuff, but I'm not sure what it is.

Of course they are wrong to not be mind boggled.

The non-boggled are dangerous objectivists, a threat to everyone.

But even objectivists can be mind-boggled. It's certainly acknowledge that awe and being overwhelmed is a part of nearly every religious tradition, if mainly experienced by a smaller number of the members. And that the mind cannot grasp certain things is also that. And then on the scientist end, the physicalists, for example, they also can acknowledge wonder and that there are mysteries - in the sense of things we simply do not understand and that the mind has a hard time keeping in focus.

You may well be right that this is Iamb's message or reaction. Objectivists bad or strange cause they aren't mindboggled. But really we are talking about beliefs on the one hand and attitudes on the other.

I'm sure most people don't go around mindboggled all the time.

Perhaps there is some statistical correlation between objectivism (most humans on earth being in this category) and being less mind boggled. But it's statistical. It does have to be the case in any individual objectivist.

And then there's the problem of: If one decides that objectivists are off, because they should also be confused and mindboggled THAT'S objectivism. It indicates that one knows about human nature and epistemology to be able to judge their reaction as wrong. Or as 'simply a way of soothing themselves.'

That's a (n implicit) claim which is objectivist.

I guess, that why I asked. To see if the implicit assertions can come to light and be assertions.
I think there's an objectivist, hiding in implication, and, well popping out on occasion also.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't think we should be humoring him about his abuse of the term "objectivist" lol. When he says it, it just means "people who believe things". Every person on this forum, himself included, is an objectivist by his metric.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't think we should be humoring him about his abuse of the term "objectivist" lol. When he says it, it just means "people who believe things". Every person on this forum, himself included, is an objectivist by his metric.

Bingo.

It's similar with the extreme skeptic. They're fine if they focus on the practical. The moment they start asserting or implying things, well, welcome to humanity.

Some people seek transcendence through a deity. Others through being outside objectivism.

I'm not involved in all that dirty stuff.

[Iwannaplato]

It's just one of Iambiguous' diversions ... let's talk about how people created gods to comfort and console themselves. (Or rather, let me talk about it because I don't care what you think.)

It is sometimes amazing how a response of his can seem like 'this is some stuff that floated through my mind after I read your post'.

[phyllo]

But even objectivists can be mind-boggled. It's certainly acknowledge that awe and being overwhelmed is a part of nearly every religious tradition, if mainly experienced by a smaller number of the members. And that the mind cannot grasp certain things is also that. And then on the scientist end, the physicalists, for example, they also can acknowledge wonder and that there are mysteries - in the sense of things we simply do not understand and that the mind has a hard time keeping in focus.

I think you are being non-binary.

You may well be right that this is Iamb's message or reaction. Objectivists bad or strange cause they aren't mindboggled. But really we are talking about beliefs on the one hand and attitudes on the other.

What's the difference between 'beliefs' and 'attitudes'?

I'm sure most people don't go around mindboggled all the time.

This is where he brings up his is/ought world distinction.

The part where there are real facts to be known about most things but none about identity and value judgements.

But wait, determinism/free-will can't be in the identity and value judgement area. And the gap and rummy rule and Peter Cottontail Syndrome has to apply to everything.

So his distinction makes no sense and we should always be boggled.

Perhaps there is some statistical correlation between objectivism (most humans on earth being in this category) and being less mind boggled. But it's statistical. It does have to be the case in any individual objectivist.

Let that individual come on this site and Iambiguous will set him straight.

And then there's the problem of: If one decides that objectivists are off, because they should also be confused and mindboggled THAT'S objectivism. It indicates that one knows about human nature and epistemology to be able to judge their reaction as wrong. Or as 'simply a way of soothing themselves.'

That's why he usually doesn't state his position directly and if he does he has all the disclaimers "Unless I'm wrong", "My opinion rooted in dasein", "I'm the first to admit ...".

That's a (n implicit) claim which is objectivist.

"According to some determinists ... "

Not him, of course.

I guess, that why I asked. To see if the implicit assertions can come to light and be assertions.
I think there's an objectivist, hiding in implication, and, well popping out on occasion also.

"Huh?"

He never said that.

[phyllo]

I don't think we should be humoring him about his abuse of the term "objectivist" lol. When he says it, it just means "people who believe things". Every person on this forum, himself included, is an objectivist by his metric.

Bingo.

It's similar with the extreme skeptic. They're fine if they focus on the practical. The moment they start asserting or implying things, well, welcome to humanity.

Some people seek transcendence through a deity. Others through being outside objectivism.

I'm not involved in all that dirty stuff.

But, but, but ...

He doesn't insist that he has the one and only optimal way of looking at things which every rational man and woman is obligated to accept.

So he is off the hook.

He can say anything he wants to and he's not an objectivist.

[Flannel Jesus]

It's just one of Iambiguous' diversions ... let's talk about how people created gods to comfort and console themselves. (Or rather, let me talk about it because I don't care what you think.)

It is sometimes amazing how a response of his can seem like 'this is some stuff that floated through my mind after I read your post'.

Which is incidentally also how he sounds when he's replying to the various writings he quotes. He reads their words and then promptly lets his mind wander onto vaguely related thoughts instead of thinking about what they said...

For example, viewtopic.php?p=683154#p683154

[Iwannaplato]

Which is incidentally also how he sounds when he's replying to the various writings he quotes. He reads their words and then promptly lets his mind wander onto vaguely related thoughts instead of thinking about what they said...

For example, viewtopic.php?p=683154#p683154

And this analysis will likely be classified as Stooge behavior. But what is actually going on.
We three right now, and many others on other occasions, are reaction to a behavioral pattern and what happens when this is pointed out.
We could go to Philosophy Forum, where moderation is tighter.
But here we are in an environment with personalities and a lot of swing room.
For me one of the main things one can learn here is what is happening in certain interpersonal dynamics. This, in addition to philosophical ideas.
The pattern we encounter with Iambiguous happens in pieces and wholes with people IRL.
What is going on with a person with these patterns?
Can they actually come to notice when large numbers of people have the same or similar reactions?
If not, why not?
What responses to this pattern seem better than others?
What happens to me when encountering such a personality and these behavior patterns?

I think all of that is valuable.
What get called Stooge posts and then Iambiguous' own posts would likely be moderated and eventually quite hard in a more tighly moderated forum.

But here we are, with the swingroom.

[Iwannaplato]

But, but, but ...

He doesn't insist that he has the one and only optimal way of looking at things which every rational man and woman is obligated to accept.

Ah, but he does this implicitly all the time. And openly with regularity.
Shameless. Dismissals of good points and serious responses. Appeals to incredulity. Calling people names that he considers perjorative.

So he is off the hook.

In his own mind.

He can say anything he wants to and he's not an objectivist.

Yup.

A man who hates women can easily manage to avoid saying 'Women are __________' while indicating his opinion in a wide variety of way and behaving from the position. In fact a misogynist could show his position in a much subtler way that Iamb does and still be misogynist.

But I didn't clearly lay it out as a thesis!!!!????

It's the shallowest view of human communication I can imagine.

[iambiguous]

But how to wrap your head around the human condition in a No God world?

How to wrap your head around it in a God world? I don't see any answer that isn't mindboggling.

I certainly agree here. Back to the profound mystery of it all explored by, among others, Bryan Magee:

Time:

For a period of two to three years between the ages of nine and twelve I was in thrall to puzzlement about time. I would lie awake in bed at night in the dark thinking something along the following lines. I know there was a day before yesterday, and a day before that and a day before that and so on...Before everyday there must have been a day before. So it must be possible to go back like that for ever and ever and ever...Yet is it? The idea of going back for ever and ever was something I could not get hold of: it seemed impossible. So perhaps, after all, there must have been a beginning somewhere. But if there was a beginning, what had been going on before that? Well, obviously, nothing---nothing at all---otherwise it could not be the beginning. But if there was nothing, how could anything have got started? What could it have come from? Time wouldn't just pop into existence---bingo!--out of nothing, and start going, all by itself. Nothing is nothing, not anything. So the idea of a beginning was unimaginable, which somehow made it seem impossible too. The upshot was that it seemed to be impossible for time to have had a beginning and impossible not for it to have had a beginning.

I must be missing something here, I came to think. There are only these two alternatives so one of them must be right. They can't both be impossible. So I would switch my concentration from one to the other, and then when it had exhausted itself, back again, trying to figure out where I had gone wrong; but I never discovered.

Space:

I realized a similar problem existed with regard to space. I remember myself as a London evacuee in Market Harborough---I must have been ten or eleven at the time---lying on my back in the grass in a park and trying to penetrate a cloudless blue sky with my eyes and thinking something like this: "If I went straight up into the sky, and kept on going in a straight line, why wouldn't I be able to just keep on going for ever and ever and ever? But that's impossible. Why isn't it possible? Surely, eventually, I'd have to come to some sort of end. But why? If I bumped up against something eventually, wouldn't that have to be something in space? And if it was in space wouldn't there have to be something on the other side of it if only more space? On the other hand, if there was no limit, endless space couldn't just be, anymore than endless time could.

So, is there a God embedded in all of this with the ultimate explanation?

To wit...

At least with God, one has an ontological and teleological font to explain everything.

And all those explanations...how does one wrap one's mind around them?

I suspect that's not the point among the preponderance of the faithful. If you genuinely believe the Bible provides you with all of the moral Commandments you will ever need to acquire immortality and salvation, how deep down are you going to dig?

Then those like IC who "philosophically" up in the spiritual clouds define and deduce all manner of "truths" into existence.

So, when you say these things about it being mindboggling and that you can't wrap your head around it: is there something else you are trying to say. Or are you simply saying you can't understand these things?

Well, this thread concerns itself more with whether or not what we think and feel and say and do about any of this, we were actually free to opt to think and feel and say and do otherwise.