Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:So I don't think this is anything new.


There is also a more nuanced taxomomy of causality from Aristotle.

I wasn't trying to suggest that any of this is new. I was drawing the more general parallel between causation as it applies to both living and non-living systems, not trying to pursue an argument about what does or does not constitute purposeful behaviour in so-called "lesser" animals. I'm sure we can agree that as life on earth evolved into more and more informationally complex forms the behaviour of some of its species became more purposeful in proportion to their neurological complexity. We can also safely conclude that homo managed to clamber his way to the top of this tree of sentience but we may not conclude that he stands alone in terms of cultural evolution because there are are other organisms with the capacity for purposeful behaviour.

There's a lot more to cultural evolution than "purposeful behaviour", and so much of cultural evolution seem to be significantly purposeless.
Culture is basically a human phenomenon. early homonids such as erectus seemed to have very little of it. Their material culture remained unchanged for half a million years. Some chimps pass on tool use in a limited way, whilst other monkeys distinguish them selves by bathing is hot springs.
But I don't think you can find many examples where culture has a significant contribution to a species.

How this relates to the nature of determinism is the more general point I was making because only living organisms of a sufficiently advanced complexity are capable of deliberately bringing into existence such linearly determined physical systems. ALL "non-livng" physical systems are exclusively non-linearly determined and yet this is NOT how the models of physics have been designed to model the world.

That would imply that physics models the world as if it were designed for a purpose. There is no doubt that science tends to see things in terms of the utility the physical world can offer humans, but this does not amount using a linear model. There are examples, though.

Non-linear dynamic systems cannot be modelled in a Cartesian space and this is a completely uncontroversial fact well known to science. They can also not be modelled by using Newton's classical mathematics although these tools can be used to make probabilistic predictions in such systems. They can only be modelled in a topological space using fractal geometry but the tools of fractal geometry are not predictive tools.

This is crazy stuff. You've just introduced a new bunch of jargon. Is any of this relevant?

It is for this reason that I claim that the methodology of physics is one which conflates its map with its territory and the reason for this can be traced all the way back to its founder. Newton established his new science on the a priori assumption that the universe was an artefact of intelligent design.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: There's a lot more to cultural evolution than "purposeful behaviour",

I'm well aware of it. The reference to purposeful behaviour is relevant to the more significant point I was making about the nature of determinism. Linear determinism is purposeful whereas non-linear determinism is not. Both are entirely deterministic where effects are preceded by causes in an orderly fashion but the fact that there is a metaphysical distinction between the two is of great relevance to science. It means that the universe is self-causal and therefore that the so-called "laws of physics" are a Platonist myth. A non-linear dynamic system is beholden ONLY to the meta-law of cause and effect and such systems ALWAYS evolve from the simple to the complex solely on account of this law. The evolution of our terrestrial biosphere is a convenient example but this is an over-arching feature of non-linear determinism which is universally applicable to all matter and energy. It accounts for the fact that the overall entropy of the universe is decreasing rather then increasing, a self-evident fact which the laws of physics are wholly unable to account for. In a law-mandated reality the entropy flow should be going the other way, from the complex to the simple, but this just simply isn't what's happening and the fact that you and I are here having a chat about all this is a complete and adequate proof.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:That would imply that physics models the world as if it were designed for a purpose.

Physicists will vehemently deny this but this is EXACTLY what physics is doing. If we accept the validity of the notion of laws of physics then even in principle the origin of these laws is unknowable. They are based on the Platonist idea of a higher realm of reality which operates external to the physical universe itself, a realm which Newton assigned to his god. In a self-causal universe these so-called laws are nothing more than the epistemic constructs of minds seeking to model the world of their observation and make predictions about the future behaviour of matter and energy within it.The fact that these fictitious laws can only do this to a finite order of probability is itself complete evidence that they are in fact not laws at all but merely convenient heuristics.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:This is crazy stuff. You've just introduced a new bunch of jargon. Is any of this relevant?

YES. The OP asks us to speak of what we reckon is the most interesting thing in philosophy. I reckon the true nature of determinism is the most interesting thing in philosophy because the science of physics has got it WRONG. Furthermore it is this fact that they've got it wrong which explains why the models which physics uses are mutually exclusive and riddled with paradoxes and metaphysical absurdities. Collectively these models make no fucking sense and they never fucking will for as long as time is represented as a Cartesian dimension.

One of many interesting things I've heard in Philosophy is the idea that speaking a different language allows different thoughts. Or maybe a different way to express a thought but interesting nevertheless.

WAIT WAIT WAIT!

Attention everyone who subscribes to the idea that experience follows theory!

WTF about Recalcitrant Experiences?

Explain that, Bioootch! lol =P

Ps: I think the discovery that Jupiter has moons counts as an unexpected or theory-defying experience. All genuine anomolies are recalcitrant experiences, are they not?

Arising_uk wrote:One of many interesting things I've heard in Philosophy is the idea that speaking a different language allows different thoughts. Or maybe a different way to express a thought but interesting nevertheless.

I like this idea, Arising. Do you have any interesting examples?

Jaded Sage wrote:Ps: I think the discovery that Jupiter has moons counts as an unexpected or theory-defying experience.

Not exactly. The discovery of Jupiter's moons could have been accommodated within the Ptolemaic geocentric cosmology simply with some additional mathematical tinkering of the epicycles. The only reason why the heliocentric paradigm was ultimately preferred was because it made the arithmetic easier. This was done in perfect accordance with the ancient metaphysical principle that Simplicity is Truth, but in fact we commit a logical fallacy if we therefore conclude that heliocentricism is in any sense an "Absolute Truth". It's just a better model than the old one.

marjoram_blues wrote: Do you have any interesting examples?

I am an example, but whether or not I'm an interesting one must be for others to judge. Although English is the language I'm the most fluent in it is not my first language and when I think in Dutch, which is my first language, my thought processes are markedly different. Any bi-lingual or multi-lingual person will tell a similar story.

Obvious Leo wrote: Not exactly. The discovery of Jupiter's moons could have been accommodated within the Ptolemaic geocentric cosmology simply with some additional mathematical tinkering of the epicycles. The only reason why the heliocentric paradigm was ultimately preferred was because it made the arithmetic easier. This was done in perfect accordance with the ancient metaphysical principle that Simplicity is Truth, but in fact we commit a logical fallacy if we therefore conclude that heliocentricism is in any sense an "Absolute Truth". It's just a better model than the old one.

But a recalcitrant experience doesn't necessarily have to result in a paradigm shift, correct?

Or worst case, I just can't think of an example.

They still need to be explained/accounted for.

Betcha can't do it!

Unless you wanna say that it is always part of every theory to expect the unexpected, and that's bullshit. Unless, of course, it is understood that theories don't match reality. But that only counts for the non-alternative concept at best. Unless it's an inherent part of our genes to adapt, which would explain mutation.

Fuck! I'm wrong! lol


NOOOO because that doesn't account for specific recalcitrant experiences.

I'm still in this!

Jaded Sage wrote: Unless, of course, it is understood that theories don't match reality.

In the philosophy of science this is understood as a given. Theories can only model a particular narrative of reality which must first be specified by the observer of it.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote: Unless, of course, it is understood that theories don't match reality.

In the philosophy of science this is understood as a given. Theories can only model a particular narrative of reality which must first be specified by the observer of it.

And specific recalcitrant experiences? I bet that can't be accounted for! =P

Obvious Leo wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote: Do you have any interesting examples?

I am an example, but whether or not I'm an interesting one must be for others to judge. Although English is the language I'm the most fluent in it is not my first language and when I think in Dutch, which is my first language, my thought processes are markedly different. Any bi-lingual or multi-lingual person will tell a similar story.

You, dear Leo, sound like a most interesting person indeed. Arising said that: the idea that speaking a different language allows different thoughts. Or maybe a different way to express a thought but interesting nevertheless.

You are talking about your thought processes - the way you think. So, how come the way you think in a different language allows for different thoughts. How are your thoughts different? I can see that there would be a different way to express a thought - that's the nature of the lingo beast. But I can't see how the actual thoughts are different. I would love a specific example...or two. Thanks.

marjoram_blues wrote: But I can't see how the actual thoughts are different. I would love a specific example...or two. Thanks.

Let me have a think about this and get back to you on it. She who must be obeyed is fixing me with a steely gaze to perform a routine domestic task which I promised to do hours ago.

Obvious Leo wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote: But I can't see how the actual thoughts are different. I would love a specific example...or two. Thanks.

Let me have a think about this and get back to you on it. She who must be obeyed is fixing me with a steely gaze to perform a routine domestic task which I promised to do hours ago.

OK

*files nails*

marjoram_blues wrote:You are talking about your thought processes - the way you think. So, how come the way you think in a different language allows for different thoughts. How are your thoughts different? I can see that there would be a different way to express a thought - that's the nature of the lingo beast. But I can't see how the actual thoughts are different.

I may be over-reaching myself here and claiming something I can't explain, MB, but I'm not the only one to have noticed this. English is a finely nuanced language with an enormous vocabulary and this allows for a very finely nuanced structure to be applied to the way we express our thoughts. I'm probably not the best example to use to illustrate the significance of this because the only other language in which I am equally fluent is Dutch, and Dutch is not such a language. By comparison Dutch is a very simple language with a far narrower suite of words to choose from when it to comes to expressing a complex idea. It comes as no surprise to me that none of the great works of artistic literature have come from the pens of Dutch writers and yet this cannot be because the Dutch culture does not lend itself to high art. The Dutch have a tradition in the visual arts which is arguably second to none. Possibly the best way I can put this is to say that the simplicity of the rules of syntax in Dutch, along with its limited vocabulary, simply don't allow for the sort of richness of expression which is the wordsmith's stock in trade. This then raises the sort of chicken and egg dichotomy beloved of the philosophers of language. Do our words beget our ideas or do our ideas beget our words? As a writer I place myself firmly in the former camp. Writers continuously play with words as if they were toys to experiment with and very often it is in the way that words of very similar meaning are juxtaposed that the idea which the writer is trying to express is fully developed.

If you ask any writer how he does what he does he'll give you a similar answer. He just does it. He sits down with an embryonic germ of an idea and just starts constructing words around it with only the vaguest of notions as to what might come of it, if anything. You get better at this after 40 years of practice but essentially what happens is that the idea and the words used to express the idea evolve together from very humble origins. The idea and the words become inseparable and as many experts in the art of poetry will tell you many such co-evolutions are untranslatable into a different language. As an essayist in matters philosophical I've discovered that the same holds true for prose. Our thought processes are very much driven by the forms of language we devise in order to express them, which is really just a fancy way of saying that we make it up as we go along, but this is very much the way I would describe the evolution of our minds as we pursue our life's journey. We make it up as we go along and over time a rich tapestry of meaning emerges from all these juxtaposed processes of thought, rather like gradually assembling the pieces together in a jigsaw puzzle. It's mostly just a matter of trial and error which is occasionally rewarded with a minor epiphany.

I'm not suggesting that this can't be done in any language but merely suggesting that this can't be done in the same way in any language.