Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 4:54 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 4:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 4:27 pm So again: why are you arguing?

But first, answer the question.

Immanuel, your post is...

Just answer the question.

Arguments, persuasion, and even your indignation are causally determined phenomena.

That's the point. They don't change anything, according to Determinism. An "argument" is not a physical phenomenon, so by definition, it cannot be included in the causal explanation.

Yet you try to. This is what I mean by you illegitimately reimporting elements you've already banished by way of your Determinism.

If you’re so confident, point to a single physical interaction—just one—where causality fails or where volition magically overrides physical laws.

If I believe you, then argumentation is just such a case. One the one hand, you say it's "physical" and "determined." On the other, you want to claim it can change things...most notably, minds. But "mind" is not a physical entity, just as "argument" is not, and "logic" is not, and "rationality" is not.

You need an explanation that only uses the word "brain," and "chemicals," and "electricity," and such. But you can't invoke these non-physical realities in any Physicalist or Materialist explanation, without thereby denying your own theory.

So again: why are you arguing?

Immanuel, your desperate clinging to this "why are you arguing" refrain is as hollow as it is tiresome. Here's the harsh truth: you’re trying to smuggle mysticism into the discussion under the guise of "rationality," while ignoring that your entire worldview collapses when faced with actual causality.

You claim that argumentation, logic, and persuasion are not physical phenomena. This is absurd. Thoughts, arguments, and logic are emergent properties of physical brain activity—neural interactions driven by biochemistry and electrical signals. The fact that these emergent properties influence other physical systems (like your inability to follow simple reasoning) does not mean they’re outside causality. Emergence isn’t magic; it’s causality in action at higher levels of complexity. Your refusal to grasp this is not a refutation—it's an embarrassing admission of your ignorance.

You insist that arguments "don’t change anything" under determinism. Wrong again. Arguments cause changes—they’re deterministic tools designed to alter mental states by providing new inputs. Just because the process is determined doesn’t mean it’s futile. Does a dam not redirect water because it obeys the laws of physics? Your inability to see the utility of deterministic processes betrays a profound lack of understanding.

As for your demand to "answer the question," I already have, but let’s drive it home again since you seem determined to miss the point. I’m arguing because it is causally determined that I do so. My arguments—structured thoughts produced by deterministic brain activity—serve as inputs that can alter your deterministic mental state. Whether they succeed or not is also determined. The point isn’t whether free will exists (it doesn’t); the point is that causal processes can still influence outcomes.

Your "mind isn’t physical" claim is laughable. If minds and logic aren’t grounded in the physical world, then please explain how you’re typing this nonsense using a body controlled by a supposedly "non-physical" entity. Spoiler: you can’t. Until you can, stop trying to dodge physics with appeals to metaphysics. They’re as weak as your arguments, which, ironically, are perfect examples of deterministic failures.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 4:28 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:21 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 4:46 am...the question makes no difference, and no longer interests me.

Manny always “loses interest” when he knows we know he’s wrong.

No. Only when it becomes clear that the interlocutor is not going to change his mind, no matter what evidence one produces.

All your evidence is hearsay. The sum of your evidence is that some "Leftist" agrees with you, even though you don't think a "Leftist" can be a reliable source of information. Whereas, all of the following are factual claims supported by evidence:

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 12:16 pmAs I have pointed out several times, the truth is that the EU Commission is nominated by the democratically elected heads of state that constitute the European Council. It is those democratically elected heads of state of the European Council who decide the political objectives of the EU. The job of the EU Commission is to formulate and implement policies that will realise the political objectives set out by the European Council. Before they get to do that, the nominated candidates for the EU Commission are vetted by the democratically elected Members of the European Parliament. Once the democratically elected Members of the European Parliament have ratified the nominations of the democratically elected heads of state of the European Council, the EU Commissioners remain accountable to the democratically elected EU Parliament.

For you to show these factual claims are "rubbish", you need to provide some actual evidence. Take your pick. Which of the above is not true?

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 5:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 4:54 pm So again: why are you arguing?

Immanuel, your desperate clinging to this "why are you arguing" refrain is as hollow as it is tiresome.

It's actually the core of the issue: that you do not believe your own nonsense, and therefore, cannot expect us to. And multiple persons have pointed it out to you.

I also notice your absence of an answer. That's pretty much the answer I was expecting, and an eloquent testimony to your inability to recognize the problem you, yourself are creating with your own actions...but it's called "performative self-contradiction."

You claim that argumentation, logic, and persuasion are not physical phenomena. This is absurd.

Really? Well tell me: how much does a lump of "rationality" weigh? Send me a beaker full of "argumentation." Into how many pieces can a person carve up "logic"?

No physical properties in any of them. And yet, you claim they're "physical." What you really would have to say is that they are "non-existent, since NOT physical." But you won't even recognize the problem, of course.

Arguments cause changes—

By what mechanism? How does a non-physical concept like "argument" produce a physical change? It cannot, according to Determinism.

As for your demand to "answer the question," I already have,

That ruse isn't any better than your "science is my friend" ruse. No, you haven't even recognized the question, let alone answer it.

As for the mind-brain problem, your lack of comprehension of the difference between the two concepts, concepts recognized and debated throughout the philosophy of mind and recognized by practically every such philosopher, shows what I've said: not only are you not answering the question, you don't even understand the basic terms that make sense of the question.

Read "Mind and Cosmos," by Nagel. It's at a fairly introductory sort of level, but will give you the basic understanding that will at least let you grasp the problem in your theory.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 5:41 pm All your evidence is hearsay.

You don't know what "hearsay" means?

It's not "hearsay" when a Leftist organization says what it believes, and is quoted as such. It would only be "hearsay" if I "heard" it, then tried to "say" it into evidence, and that in some kind of "court."

The point was simply this: do the Left recognize the undemocratic nature of the EU? And by their own testimony, they do. QED

So no, my evidence is what's called "evidence." Or, to put it another way, "first-hand testimony, confirmable by source." And that's enough to get a man convicted of murder, actually. So it will do very well here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 6:25 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 5:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 4:54 pm So again: why are you arguing?

Immanuel, your desperate clinging to this "why are you arguing" refrain is as hollow as it is tiresome.

It's actually the core of the issue: that you do not believe your own nonsense, and therefore, cannot expect us to. And multiple persons have pointed it out to you.

I also notice your absence of an answer. That's pretty much the answer I was expecting, and an eloquent testimony to your inability to recognize the problem you, yourself are creating with your own actions...but it's called "performative self-contradiction."

You claim that argumentation, logic, and persuasion are not physical phenomena. This is absurd.

Really? Well tell me: how much does a lump of "rationality" weigh? Send me a beaker full of "argumentation." Into how many pieces can a person carve up "logic"?

No physical properties in any of them. And yet, you claim they're "physical." What you really would have to say is that they are "non-existent, since NOT physical." But you won't even recognize the problem, of course.

Arguments cause changes—

By what mechanism? How does a non-physical concept like "argument" produce a physical change? It cannot, according to Determinism.

As for your demand to "answer the question," I already have,

That ruse isn't any better than your "science is my friend" ruse. No, you haven't even recognized the question, let alone answer it.

As for the mind-brain problem, your lack of comprehension of the difference between the two concepts, concepts recognized and debated throughout the philosophy of mind and recognized by practically every such philosopher, shows what I've said: not only are you not answering the question, you don't even understand the basic terms that make sense of the question.

Read "Mind and Cosmos," by Nagel. It's at a fairly introductory sort of level, but will give you the basic understanding that will at least let you grasp the problem in your theory.

Immanuel, your persistence in misunderstanding basic concepts is almost admirable—if it weren’t so laughable. Let’s tear this apart, shall we?

You ask how a "non-physical concept" like an argument produces change. This is where you reveal either willful ignorance or a complete lack of grasp on emergent properties. Arguments—structured thoughts—are the result of physical brain processes: neurons firing, electrical signals, biochemical interactions. These are very much physical phenomena. When those physical processes produce words, spoken or written, they serve as stimuli to other physical systems—like your brain, which, in this case, appears resistant to input.

You sarcastically ask how much "rationality weighs" or if you can pour "logic" into a beaker. Clever, except no one claimed that abstract concepts have mass. By this logic, are we to conclude that your ideas, such as they are, don’t exist because they lack physical weight? Of course not. Abstract concepts exist as emergent properties of physical systems, just as colors emerge from wavelengths of light. Your straw man argument is tired and transparently weak.

You claim argumentation can’t cause change under determinism. Nonsense. Arguments provide inputs into a causal system—inputs that interact with existing physical states in your brain. If they align with or challenge your neural pathways, they can influence thought patterns. This is basic cause and effect. You might as well ask how rain causes rivers to flow if determinism is true.

As for your "performative self-contradiction" quip, it’s a cheap rhetorical ploy. I’m arguing because deterministic processes compel me to present inputs (arguments) that might influence your deterministic system (your brain). The fact that you're too caught up in sophistry to recognize this doesn’t invalidate the mechanism—it only underscores your inability to engage with it.

Your invocation of Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos is particularly rich. Nagel’s work has been widely critiqued for failing to offer substantive alternatives to physicalism, instead falling into vague appeals to intuition. If that’s your philosophical lifeboat, good luck—it’s riddled with holes.

So here’s the harsh truth, Immanuel: your refusal to understand determinism doesn’t refute it. It only highlights your determination—ironic, isn’t it?—to cling to ignorance while parading it as insight. Now, unless you have an actual argument instead of lazy rhetoric, I suggest you take your "why are you arguing?" refrain and file it under "ineffective distractions."

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 6:54 pm Let’s tear this apart, shall we?

What? We aren't going to "clarify" this time? Shouldn't we "untangle" it first?

Listen, Sport...what you really need to do is to go read Nagel. If you don't like him, read Kim. Read somebody, for heaven's sake. Until you do, you're just going to be circling the Determinist drain. And I'll let you go down it, because that's what you seem determined to do.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:11 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 6:54 pm Let’s tear this apart, shall we?

What? We aren't going to "clarify" this time? Shouldn't we "untangle" it first?

Listen, Sport...what you really need to do is to go read Nagel. If you don't like him, read Kim. Read somebody, for heaven's sake. Until you do, you're just going to be circling the Determinist drain. And I'll let you go down it, because that's what you seem determined to do.

Immanuel, your smugness is as unearned as it is insufferable. You puff yourself up with snide remarks and winks like some caricature of intellectual superiority, but let’s call it what it is: a pathetic facade masking a lack of substance.

You toss around names like Nagel and Kim as though that makes you a heavyweight in the conversation, but invoking philosophers without actually engaging with their arguments—or refuting mine—just makes you look desperate. Nagel’s critiques of physicalism are riddled with vagueness, and Kim himself acknowledges the explanatory power of physical processes, even as he wrestles with their philosophical implications. You clearly don't understand their work beyond using their names as a shield for your intellectual insecurity.

Circling the "determinist drain," am I? That’s rich, considering you’re drowning in your own contradictions. You laugh at "clarifying" and "untangling," yet you’ve spent this entire exchange dodging, deflecting, and failing to address even the most basic premises of determinism. Instead, you cling to your amateur-hour sophistry like a life raft. It’s pathetic.

If you want to prove you’re more than just a loud, empty vessel, address the argument: how does your magical "volition" override physical causality? How does your alleged rationality escape the very laws of nature that make all other processes predictable and causal? Until you can answer that, keep your winks and patronizing tone to yourself. You're not fooling anyone.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:11 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 6:54 pm Let’s tear this apart, shall we?

What? We aren't going to "clarify" this time? Shouldn't we "untangle" it first?

Listen, Sport...what you really need to do is to go read Nagel. If you don't like him, read Kim. Read somebody, for heaven's sake. Until you do, you're just going to be circling the Determinist drain. And I'll let you go down it, because that's what you seem determined to do.

Immanuel, your smugness is as unearned as it is insufferable.

And yet, good news -- your ignorance is curable. Read a book.

I've given you some names. Want some websites, too? Just look up "mind-brain problem," and you'll soon know something -- and one of the first things you'll find discussed is why physicalist attempts to explain cognitive phenomena all fail.

A little reading will do you so much good. Try it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 8:10 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:11 pm
What? We aren't going to "clarify" this time? Shouldn't we "untangle" it first?

Listen, Sport...what you really need to do is to go read Nagel. If you don't like him, read Kim. Read somebody, for heaven's sake. Until you do, you're just going to be circling the Determinist drain. And I'll let you go down it, because that's what you seem determined to do.

Immanuel, your smugness is as unearned as it is insufferable.

And yet, good news -- your ignorance is curable. Read a book.

I've given you some names. Want some websites, too? Just look up "mind-brain problem," and you'll soon know something -- and one of the first things you'll find discussed is why physicalist attempts to explain cognitive phenomena all fail.

A little reading will do you so much good. Try it.

Oh, Immanuel, sweetie, let’s try this again, nice and slow, like we’re explaining gravity to a toddler who thinks balloons disprove it. You see, when grown-ups debate, they engage with the actual arguments presented, rather than waving around names like “Nagel” and “Kim” as if that magically settles anything. Just saying, “Read a book!” isn’t an argument—it’s the intellectual equivalent of stomping your foot and yelling, “I’m right because I said so!”

Now, let’s talk about your “mind-brain problem,” since you seem so proud of tossing that term around. The “problem” is only a problem for those clinging to dualistic fairy tales. For the rest of us, it’s clear: cognition is an emergent property of physical processes. It’s not magic, Immanuel. Neurons firing, chemicals flowing, and electricity sparking—these things work together to create thoughts. It’s a bit like how crayons and paper make your favorite pictures, except infinitely more complex.

You say physicalist explanations fail, but you’ve yet to explain how. Waving your hands and pointing to “books” isn’t an answer, darling. It’s what we call deflection. If you really want to prove your point, maybe stop giggling in the corner and tell us exactly how your “volition” sidesteps the laws of physics. Until then, go play with your “mind-brain” puzzle—it’s clear the adults are talking over your head.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 8:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 8:10 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:46 pm
Immanuel, your smugness is as unearned as it is insufferable.

And yet, good news -- your ignorance is curable. Read a book.

I've given you some names. Want some websites, too? Just look up "mind-brain problem," and you'll soon know something -- and one of the first things you'll find discussed is why physicalist attempts to explain cognitive phenomena all fail.

A little reading will do you so much good. Try it.

Oh, Immanuel, sweetie, let’s try this again, nice and slow...

No, no...go and read. We'll talk later.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:27 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 8:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 8:10 pm
And yet, good news -- your ignorance is curable. Read a book.

I've given you some names. Want some websites, too? Just look up "mind-brain problem," and you'll soon know something -- and one of the first things you'll find discussed is why physicalist attempts to explain cognitive phenomena all fail.

A little reading will do you so much good. Try it.

Oh, Immanuel, sweetie, let’s try this again, nice and slow...

No, no...go and read. We'll talk later.

Oh, Immanuel, that’s adorable. You want me to read your favorite bedtime stories—Nagel and Kim—before we "talk later"? Tell you what: when their theories win a Nobel Prize in physics for overturning the fundamental laws of nature, I’ll give them a read. Until then, sweetie, you keep practicing with your crayons and coloring books, okay? Maybe one day, you’ll understand that grown-up ideas need evidence, not just big words you found on the internet. Run along now!

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:27 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 8:48 pm
Oh, Immanuel, sweetie, let’s try this again, nice and slow...

No, no...go and read. We'll talk later.

Oh, Immanuel, that’s adorable. You want me to read your favorite bedtime stories—Nagel and Kim—before we "talk later"?

If you think that's what they are, well...you're not informed at all, are you? You don't know who the famous names in the field are. That's why you continue to believe in simplistic Determinism and Physicalism. That would explain a lot.

It seems you don't know the field at all. So...what are you doing on a philosophy site?

Anyway, read them if you want to know. Don't if you don't. No skin off my nose. What you don't know will remain your problem, not any of mine.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:21 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:27 pm
No, no...go and read. We'll talk later.

Oh, Immanuel, that’s adorable. You want me to read your favorite bedtime stories—Nagel and Kim—before we "talk later"?

If you think that's what they are, well...you're not informed at all, are you? You don't know who the famous names in the field are. That's why you continue to believe in simplistic Determinism and Physicalism. That would explain a lot.

It seems you don't know the field at all. So...what are you doing on a philosophy site?

Anyway, read them if you want to know. Don't if you don't. No skin off my nose. What you don't know will remain your problem, not any of mine.

Oh, Immanuel, honey, are you saying that truth and facts don’t belong "on a philosophy site"? That’s so silly! Philosophy is where big thinkers go to explore truth and facts, not just to throw tantrums about things they don’t understand.

Now, sweetie, I know you’re excited about all these "famous names" you’ve heard, but just because you’ve learned to repeat them doesn’t mean you understand them. It’s like when little ones pretend to know big words but don’t really know what they mean—it’s very cute!

So, here’s the deal: when those "famous names" of yours bring actual evidence that overturns the conservation laws of physics or causality, then we can have a grown-up chat. Until then, Immanuel, maybe stick to learning how facts work before asking why others are here. You’re still figuring that part out, aren’t you? Bless your heart!

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:21 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:46 pm

Oh, Immanuel, that’s adorable. You want me to read your favorite bedtime stories—Nagel and Kim—before we "talk later"?

If you think that's what they are, well...you're not informed at all, are you? You don't know who the famous names in the field are. That's why you continue to believe in simplistic Determinism and Physicalism. That would explain a lot.

It seems you don't know the field at all. So...what are you doing on a philosophy site?

Anyway, read them if you want to know. Don't if you don't. No skin off my nose. What you don't know will remain your problem, not any of mine.

Oh, Immanuel, honey, are you saying that truth and facts don’t belong "on a philosophy site"?

I'm not trying to infantalize you, so you can calm down: I'm pointing out where your knowledge is significantly lacking. You can fix that, and you probably should.

Just read Nagel. He's easy, he's profound, and he's on point. And we can talk about his argument after.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:18 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:21 pm
If you think that's what they are, well...you're not informed at all, are you? You don't know who the famous names in the field are. That's why you continue to believe in simplistic Determinism and Physicalism. That would explain a lot.

It seems you don't know the field at all. So...what are you doing on a philosophy site?

Anyway, read them if you want to know. Don't if you don't. No skin off my nose. What you don't know will remain your problem, not any of mine.

Oh, Immanuel, honey, are you saying that truth and facts don’t belong "on a philosophy site"?

I'm not trying to infantalize you, so you can calm down: I'm pointing out where your knowledge is significantly lacking. You can fix that, and you probably should.

Just read Nagel. He's easy, he's profound, and he's on point. And we can talk about his argument after.

Oh, Immanuel, sweetie, what’s the matter? Can’t you explain Nagel’s argument yourself? If it’s so "easy" and "profound," why do you keep waving his name around instead of articulating his ideas? Maybe you should ask your mom to help you read through it—she might be better at explaining it to you than you are to us.

It’s okay, little one, sometimes big ideas are hard to grasp, and it can feel frustrating when you don’t quite understand them yourself. But throwing out names without explaining them just makes you look like you’re trying to sound smart without doing the homework. So, why don’t you give it a try? Tell us what Nagel says—in your own words, not just the ones you copied from the back of the book. I promise, we’ll be very patient while you figure it out!