Philosophy Now Forum

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:26 pm Descartes famously said, "Cogito, ergo sum"—"I think, therefore I am." However, a more precise formulation, as you've hinted, might be: "I think, therefore I think that I am." This highlights that your sense of "self," your freedom, and your conscious awareness are products of thought

Why you gotta do Descartes like that?

I hope Jacobi retaliates with one of his massively inaccurate references to Plato

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:30 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 3:36 pm Physicalism is inherently non-dual, unless we interpret it through dualism which almost everyone does (philosophers, scientists, laymen, everyone). You can try any argument of Nagel on me or any materialist argument even and I'll show it wrong.

Oh God, Oh God!

Two possums stranded on a limiting conceptual branch flooded with moonlight

Physicalism is inherently non-dual

That’s plain enough. Whether in moonlight, starlight, bright sunlight or sheer darkness.

For the record, I'm not a nondualist because I particularly like it (although it has its upsides), but because it seems to be true. It's not always pleasant to unlearn 2500 years of conditioning.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:45 pm I hope Jacobi retaliates with one of his massively inaccurate references to Plato

I’ve weeded that garden. Now I just have the accurate references!

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:26 pm This highlights that your sense of "self," your freedom, and your conscious awareness are products of thought

I forgot — when I listed modes of ambulation — to include waddle.

It can only be that within the domain of thought (consciousness, awareness) that freedom, or free choice, conscious action, deliberated choice, et cetera, originate.

BigMike! You are making some exciting big boy strides! I for one am proud to be a witness.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 9:22 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 6:30 pmMy claim was that the Left is concerned about the undemocratic nature of the EU.

...you are overlooking the fact that the left is not an homogeneous bloc....

It actually pretty much is...at least, ideologically. But even were they not, it would not matter. All I had to show was that legitimate concerns are being expressed from both the Left and what you would call the "Right," and the point is made.

You will get no respect from anyone who knows what they are talking about...

Having seen how you form your "respect," and how you express it, I have to tell you that getting your respect very far from a concern to me now. I'm satisfied with the judgment of reasonable persons. I'll leave it there.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 2:37 pm I have never claimed to have the "true view."

I would never accuse you of idiocy, at least not directly directly. But you make here a really idiotic statement about what you are up to here, and have been for weeks.

You have totally concluded what is and what is not, through a series of concrete decisions that flow from your predicates and backed up by your will.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 10:22 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 2:37 pm I have never claimed to have the "true view."

I would never accuse you of idiocy, at least not directly directly. But you make here a really idiotic statement about what you are up to here, and have been for weeks.

You have totally concluded what is and what is not, through a series of concrete decisions that flow from your predicates and backed up by your will.

Ah, Alexis, your playful banter is endearing, if a bit transparent. I can't help but suspect that your refusal to present evidence rejecting the laws of physics—or even to admit that such evidence doesn’t exist—isn’t about the argument at all. Perhaps it’s your way of keeping the conversation alive, your way of flirting, even. I think you love me, Alexis. Deep down, you don’t want me to go.

And how could I blame you? After all, our exchanges are undeniably engaging, aren’t they? You waddle, sidle, or perhaps even pirouette around the actual points, but always with a certain flair. It’s charming, in its own way. So, I’ll play along a little longer, Alexis. But remember, love grows best in the light of truth—so if you’re holding onto evidence that could break the laws of physics, don’t keep it hidden out of coyness. Lay it bare, and let’s see where it takes us. Until then, I remain your ever-determined dance partner.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 10:33 pm I can't help but suspect that your refusal to present evidence rejecting the laws of physics …

Oh Good Lord! I sprinkle physics on my breakfast cereal every morning!

Until then, I remain your ever-determined dance partner.

::: said in a Buggs Bunny voice :::

“Hey, dat’s great. So invest in a less clunky pair of boots, will ya?”

Seems to me Mike is lookin' to replace the Romanian mail-order (R.I.P.) and switch teams in one move.

Damn, that efficient.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:19 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 3:11 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 2:37 pm...until you can provide evidence that falsifies determinism or the laws it rests upon...

Well, there's Bell's Theorum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Bell's Theorem doesn’t falsify determinism; it challenges local realism in quantum mechanics, showing that particles can be correlated in ways classical physics can't explain without invoking non-locality. Determinism at the quantum level is a different debate, and interpretations like Bohmian mechanics remain deterministic. The conservation laws and causal interactions I reference remain intact regardless.

Exactly. Bell's theorem suggests that determinism goes beyond "local" Einsteinian spacetime actually. That the world is even more deterministic than we thought.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:04 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:19 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 3:11 pm Well, there's Bell's Theorum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Bell's Theorem doesn’t falsify determinism; it challenges local realism in quantum mechanics, showing that particles can be correlated in ways classical physics can't explain without invoking non-locality. Determinism at the quantum level is a different debate, and interpretations like Bohmian mechanics remain deterministic. The conservation laws and causal interactions I reference remain intact regardless.

Exactly. Bell's theorem suggests that determinism goes beyond "local" Einsteinian spacetime actually. That the world is even more deterministic than we thought.

I agree with Atla but I think Atla should if possible unpack, explain, illustrate ,or refer us to a comprehensible illustration of his concept of deterministic wholism. I daresay the concept of deterministic wholism may be descibed as 'One Big Law'.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:04 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:19 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 3:11 pm Well, there's Bell's Theorum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Bell's Theorem doesn’t falsify determinism; it challenges local realism in quantum mechanics, showing that particles can be correlated in ways classical physics can't explain without invoking non-locality. Determinism at the quantum level is a different debate, and interpretations like Bohmian mechanics remain deterministic. The conservation laws and causal interactions I reference remain intact regardless.

Exactly. Bell's theorem suggests that determinism goes beyond "local" Einsteinian spacetime actually. That the world is even more deterministic than we thought.

What is meant by "determinism"? Is the world truly "determined" or is there room for conscious beings to affect the world in worthwhile (or otherwise) ways through our own volitions? In a sense, to say the world is determined, can lead to fatalism depending upon circumstances, as easily as free will can lead to heavy burdens that have to do with responsibility. But ultimately, "determinism" is the notion that, on a fundamental level, we lack responsibility for our actions. Is that always a good thing?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 12:11 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:04 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:19 pm

Bell's Theorem doesn’t falsify determinism; it challenges local realism in quantum mechanics, showing that particles can be correlated in ways classical physics can't explain without invoking non-locality. Determinism at the quantum level is a different debate, and interpretations like Bohmian mechanics remain deterministic. The conservation laws and causal interactions I reference remain intact regardless.

Exactly. Bell's theorem suggests that determinism goes beyond "local" Einsteinian spacetime actually. That the world is even more deterministic than we thought.

What is meant by "determinism"? Is the world truly "determined" or is there room for conscious beings to affect the world in worthwhile (or otherwise) ways through our own volitions? In a sense, to say the world is determined, can lead to fatalism depending upon circumstances, as easily as free will can lead to heavy burdens that have to do with responsibility. But ultimately, "determinism" is the notion that, on a fundamental level, we lack responsibility for our actions. Is that always a good thing?

Determinism means that we can't deviate from the known laws of nature. For all practical purposes, someone can makes everyday choices, can change the world, can take responsibility for his/her actions and can be held responsible for them, but this can only happen in a way that's consistent with the known laws of nature and is consistent with the already "established" present and past.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 12:11 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:04 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:19 pm

Bell's Theorem doesn’t falsify determinism; it challenges local realism in quantum mechanics, showing that particles can be correlated in ways classical physics can't explain without invoking non-locality. Determinism at the quantum level is a different debate, and interpretations like Bohmian mechanics remain deterministic. The conservation laws and causal interactions I reference remain intact regardless.

Exactly. Bell's theorem suggests that determinism goes beyond "local" Einsteinian spacetime actually. That the world is even more deterministic than we thought.

What is meant by "determinism"? Is the world truly "determined" or is there room for conscious beings to affect the world in worthwhile (or otherwise) ways through our own volitions? In a sense, to say the world is determined, can lead to fatalism depending upon circumstances, as easily as free will can lead to heavy burdens that have to do with responsibility. But ultimately, "determinism" is the notion that, on a fundamental level, we lack responsibility for our actions. Is that always a good thing?

Gary, determinism doesn’t imply that our choices are meaningless or that we lack responsibility; it means that our choices are the result of countless interacting causes. These causes range from our personal experiences, genetics, and environment to the broader societal factors that shape us. Far from leading to fatalism, this understanding can actually foster compassion, insight, and better decision-making.

Our volitions—our conscious desires and decisions—are real and matter immensely. They arise through processes like learning and memory, which physically alter the brain in semi-permanent ways. For example, when we learn a new skill or confront a moral dilemma, neural pathways are reinforced or adjusted. This shows how change, growth, and agency are possible within a deterministic framework.

What’s liberating about determinism is that it shifts the focus from abstract blame to understanding the causes of behavior and finding solutions. Responsibility in a deterministic world is about recognizing the influences that shaped us and taking informed action to create positive change—not carrying an impossible burden of "free" choice divorced from causality. In this light, determinism enriches our understanding of ourselves and our ability to act meaningfully.