For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Because nobody can foretell the future and nobody can be 100% sure about the past.Instead of working with 'probabilities', why not just work with 'actualities' ONLY?
Alexis, your critique underscores the philosophical divide we’re navigating. You suggest that my position’s dominance stems from an ideological rigidity or narrow set of predicates. But if my framework is based on evidence and logical consistency, then its dominance isn’t a flaw—it’s a strength. The absence of metaphysical considerations in determinism isn’t a shortcoming; it’s a reflection of their lack of empirical support. Why include notions that fail to withstand scrutiny under the very principles guiding our understanding of causation and reality?
Wow. There's no limit to your ego or your delusions.Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 12:59 pmOF COURSE you ARE NOT, ESPECIALLY considering that I have SHOWN and PROVED just how Truly ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL your VIEWS and BELIEFS REALLY ARE, here.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 7:16 pmSorry...still not even remotely interested in you, "Age."
...are: it doesn't, and, she has none.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 1:17 amWhere, in your scheme, does justice enter? Where's her redress?
...is, as you say, the brutal truth, there can be no justice or redress.BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 6:06 pmyour brain is a deterministic machine, operating under the same unyielding physical laws as a rock rolling downhill. You don’t control your thoughts, your desires, or your decisions. You are driven by a cascade of external inputs, biological processes, and environmental stimuli—all of which you neither initiated nor directed.
...is the answer you were groping for, the one to the question about sacrificing one to save many. It's not about society, or an oath, or preserving trust.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 4:51 pmA person's life is his own. He's not a commodity. He ought not be treated as such, no matter the potential benefit to others.
...and you can't...henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2024 8:03 pmexplain how it is the mass of arranged particles in my head likes my steak rare instead of well-done.
...becuz I'm not just particles.walk me thru the interactions that allow particles to prefer.
...that glum old Marsh-wiggle had it right...
I agree with your preposition “underscores”.BigMike writes: “Alexis, your critique underscores the philosophical divide we’re navigating.”
I would rather describe your set of predicates as a particular tool-set which, as we know, came on the scene and totally revolutionized technology and a materially-based understanding of reality. There, it is certainly strong.But if my framework is based on evidence and logical consistency, then its dominance isn’t a flaw—it’s a strength.
However, it is another, competing metaphysics in the sense that your ideology is a metaphysics. Honestly. You build a type of construct from your predicates similar to that of those metaphysics easier to recognize as such.The absence of metaphysical considerations in determinism isn’t a shortcoming
Yet if “determinism” is false, and cannot be recognized as such (I would say it is partially true, which is different), then it certainly poses a risk on many different levels. So, definitely, the approach of examining ramifications (“ideas and their consequences)”) in relation to a distorted doctrine is proper intellectual prophylactic.But critiquing the implications of a system isn’t the same as addressing its validity. Even if determinism leads to troubling realizations about the human condition or societal organization, that doesn’t make it false.
Actually my issue with your ideology is really that meaning cannot survive in it. Meaning (and value) are tied to metaphysical ideas. But you have not accepted the logical consequences of the real reductionism that you propose. Thus you have not really examined consequences.Ultimately, you seem to be engaging in a broader struggle: Can we live meaningfully in a deterministic universe?
patch. Pay heed!It is right there where you need a Master Metaphysician to help you to see. May I call you Gloucester?On the latter, my argument holds more water unless you can present a more robust defense of the metaphysical concepts you want to preserve.
I have been working on this little ditty on my ukelele in the key of f-sharp, tell me what you think:“I stumbled when I saw”
Or is the Stratocaster the better tool?!?This life’s dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye.
Well that puts us back to square one. It's just a sign over the door saying "under new management" for a shop selling the same things again.BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 1:18 amFlashDangerpants, the core of your critique seems to hinge on a misunderstanding of what I’m asserting. The argument isn’t that belief in determinism is a prerequisite for technocracy or evidence-based policymaking to exist or function. These institutions already operate effectively, as you correctly point out. The point is that determinism offers a deeper explanatory framework for why evidence-based methods are superior—they align with the causal nature of reality, allowing for interventions that produce predictable and beneficial outcomes.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 1:06 am
Excellent. In that case we can now expect your necessary and sufficient argument that links technocracy and this recognition of determinism you insist upon. You must overcome the problem that technocratic institutions are available already in advance of it (rendering it unecessary).
But you also need to show that this belief in determinism is sufficient all by itself to have all these beneficial outcomes without a downside. Scroll up to see what accelafine draws from it and you will see that some other ingredient appears to be required. You are not accounting for this mysterious additional extra, you are simply trying to draw attention away from it. Do better please, and more honestly.
The problem is that I like those institutions, but I think your clockwork causation theory is inadequate and lacks sophistication. So it seems that we can like these notions without being believers in your civil religion. That is a problem for the quality of your argument. By now I am expecting you to show some understanding of this and to quit trying to hide the problem under layers of boring rhetoric.
You apopear to be assuming that you have some special grasp of evidence-based policy, but you have no mechanism to explain how it has this dependency on your belief system. Your argument is bad and lazy.
That is horribly disjointed,I already accounted for it with the sentence: "If we do use determinism to explain that, we don't need any belief in determinism to justify it". What are you failing to get here?
You can use determinism to explain how these institutions come to exist if you like, I don't care. You cannot predicate their effectiveness or existence on anybody's belief in determinism. Your argument is insufficient for as long as it cannot show that anything we need or want becomes available only when we share your belief in determinism.
Ho-hum. The thing that makes necessity and sufficiency desirable is that they help us to know which arguments people can just ignore and deny versus those which we would actually be mistaken to ignore or deny. You've been swinging it around like you are toting one of the good arguments, but you never stick the landing.BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 1:18 am You’re asking for necessity and sufficiency, so let’s clarify: belief in determinism isn’t necessary for technocratic success, nor is it sufficient on its own to guarantee it. The claim is that recognizing determinism refines our understanding of cause and effect, enhancing the development and operation of evidence-based institutions. Determinism isn’t the sole engine of technocracy—it’s the conceptual bedrock that explains why better inputs (data and evidence) lead to better outcomes.
The point of the belief in determinism is to be duly respectful to determinism, that's not up to much, it's just circular. Then you have your unsupported assertion that it is extra efficient at real world problem solving even though you don't have a necessary and sufficient argument for that, it's just an assumption you like so you can't let go of it.BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 1:18 am You also suggest that this "civil religion" of determinism has no special relevance here. But consider the alternative: when ideologies that deny causality—such as unfounded notions of free will—inform policy, the results are often disastrous. Determinism isn’t about demanding belief; it’s about structuring systems that inherently respect causality, improving their efficacy in addressing real-world problems.
It is just clockwork causation. The rest is just sales patter. You don't have an argument.BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 1:18 am So, the mechanism isn’t just clockwork causation as you frame it—it’s the application of this understanding to systems that optimize outcomes by working with, not against, the deterministic nature of reality. Whether or not you personally subscribe to determinism doesn’t invalidate its explanatory or practical value in shaping better governance.
I appreciate the poetic flair of your response—it adds a certain theatricality to what is, at its core, a philosophical debate. But let’s not lose sight of the essentials. You suggest that my reliance on science and determinism is a "tool-set" useful for understanding material reality but inadequate for grappling with deeper metaphysical or existential concerns. While colorful, this critique misrepresents the point of my argument. Determinism isn’t just one "tool" among many; it’s the framework that explains why all tools work as they do. It’s not a competing metaphysics—it’s the foundation upon which metaphysical constructs either stand or collapse.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 6:56 pmI agree with your preposition “underscores”.BigMike writes: “Alexis, your critique underscores the philosophical divide we’re navigating.”
And I also believe we recur to philosophical description — always built upon sets of perceptual predicates — in that process of determining what we are, and who we are, in this manifest world. You will surely note that my term “manifest world” certainly allows for far more mystery (the cloud of unknowing) as a sort of predicate, than your absolutist system will allow. I cannot blame you for your option here as it has a certain logical inevitability when the perceptual and analytical system you call “science” is the sole intermediary of our existence.
I would rather describe your set of predicates as a particular tool-set which, as we know, came on the scene and totally revolutionized technology and a materially-based understanding of reality. There, it is certainly strong.But if my framework is based on evidence and logical consistency, then its dominance isn’t a flaw—it’s a strength.
However, when it comes to a host other levels of perceptual apprehension it has no utility at all. It is not the right tool for the job. And in your case the tool that you are so involved with and committed to could very well, and I think does, cloud and limit your understanding. You reason as a mathematician and because that is your strength you place all emphasis there.
However, it is another, competing metaphysics in the sense that your ideology is a metaphysics. Honestly. You build a type of construct from your predicates similar to that of those metaphysics easier to recognize as such.The absence of metaphysical considerations in determinism isn’t a shortcoming
(The 25th chapter of my Magnum Opus would key you in to this. Please consider signing up!)
Yet if “determinism” is false, and cannot be recognized as such (I would say it is partially true, which is different), then it certainly poses a risk on many different levels. So, definitely, the approach of examining ramifications (“ideas and their consequences)”) in relation to a distorted doctrine is proper intellectual prophylactic.But critiquing the implications of a system isn’t the same as addressing its validity. Even if determinism leads to troubling realizations about the human condition or societal organization, that doesn’t make it false.
Actually my issue with your ideology is really that meaning cannot survive in it. Meaning (and value) are tied to metaphysical ideas. But you have not accepted the logical consequences of the real reductionism that you propose. Thus you have not really examined consequences.Ultimately, you seem to be engaging in a broader struggle: Can we live meaningfully in a deterministic universe?
You must fill out your education, son, and that’s why I am here: to help you over this desert
patch. Pay heed!
It is right there where you need a Master Metaphysician to help you to see. MaybI call you Gloucester?On the latter, my argument holds more water unless you can present a more robust defense of the metaphysical concepts you want to preserve.
I have been working out this little ditty on ny ukelele in the key of f-sharp, tell me what you think:
This life’s dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye.
What you really are saying is “Reality is Reality”. Whatever goes on in Reality is what goes on. But in your case — a specific reductionism — you reduce everything to physical tangibles.
Thank you for recognizing what really is wonderful and amazing about my Teachings. I don’t intend poetic flair, yet such genius appears alongside my Elevated Thought like doves & songbirds accompany a Saint …I appreciate the poetic flair of your response—it adds a certain theatricality to what is, at its core, a philosophical debate. But let’s not lose sight of the essentials.
No truer reductionism has even been stated by an absolutist!You propose that determinism might be "partially true," but truth doesn’t come in fractions.
An intelligent crow, dog or elephant definitely “thinks” and “understands” within (apparently) limited frames. So I see what you are getting at. I cannot deny the notion of emergent intelligence, and cannot therefore deny your framing. But I operate with the sense that there is more.You claim meaning and value are tied exclusively to metaphysical ideas. But isn’t it possible that meaning emerges from understanding, rather than mysticism?
Actually that is an imposition of your interpretation. I admit that there are empirical truths (facts more properly) but I discern you do not have a solid grasp on an infinite array of true things that are not empirical in your laboratory-bound sense.Instead, it’s an attempt to reframe the debate around emotional comfort rather than empirical rigor. If metaphysical constructs are to hold their ground, they need more than lyrical musings or metaphoric "dim windows of the soul." They require demonstrable coherence with reality—a coherence your arguments, however poetic, have yet to provide.
You mean of course in order to make sense to you. But I already get that you cannot accept any of what I say, or reduce it to lyricism because of the interposition of your rigid predicates.…they need more than lyrical musings or metaphoric "dim windows of the soul."
Alexis, let’s be absolutely clear: I have repeatedly stated that my commitment to determinism and the principles derived from it—like the conservation laws and the fundamental interactions—is not born of rigidity or dogma. It’s a framework grounded in evidence and logical consistency. And, crucially, it’s one I would willingly abandon or revise if new evidence emerged to contradict it.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 10:16 pmWhat you really are saying is “Reality is Reality”. Whatever goes on in Reality is what goes on. But in your case — a specific reductionism — you reduce everything to physical tangibles.
For you, what is (in my schema) metaphysical is in yours epiphenomenal. Ideas, ideals, concepts and interpretations can only arise in brain-matter. Brain-matter “invents” all of this. And when and if brains cease to exist, what is epiphenomenal definitely collapses (as if it did not exist). In my view, what is metaphysical has an existence, a realness, that preceded our manifestation, and will continue to exist when there is no brain left.
In your system, brains “invent” everything, including the most seemingly metaphysical “things” like concepts, values and also meanings. And when the brain is no longer there, all of “that” goes :::poof::: as if it never existed.
In my view, that whole “world” of meaning & concepts existed prior to manifestation and will exist still when entire worlds collapse or are pulled into black holes.
Thank you for recognizing what really is wonderful and amazing about my Teachings. I don’t intend poetic flair, yet such genius appears alongside my Elevated Thought like doves & songbirds accompany a Saint …I appreciate the poetic flair of your response—it adds a certain theatricality to what is, at its core, a philosophical debate. But let’s not lose sight of the essentials.
Philosophical debate, you say? No, in fact it is deeper. Its about what we feel Reality to be even if it is not or cannot be expressed to another or even to our self. In a significant sense you believe that your interpretation of Reality is no interpretation at all. As perhaps in some maths the formula you hold to cannot be further reduced. It is “final” and inarguably absolute. But Master gently whispers: “All this is interpretation and as such a metaphysics”.
No truer reductionism has even been stated by an absolutist!You propose that determinism might be "partially true," but truth doesn’t come in fractions.
Your doctrinal system, wee one, is definitely “partially true” but I will agree with your dolled-up circularity that, yes, Reality is Reality. Your “doctrines held as absolute, irreducible facts” are certainly partially accurate. But “true”? That is another arena.
An intelligent crow, dog or elephant definitely “thinks” and “understands” within (apparently) limited frames. So I see what you are getting at. I cannot deny the notion of emergent intelligence, and cannot therefore deny your framing. But I operate with the sense that there is more.You claim meaning and value are tied exclusively to metaphysical ideas. But isn’t it possible that meaning emerges from understanding, rather than mysticism?
And what “proofs” I have (of say the intervention or the operation of metaphysical or supernatural potency) are personal and subjective, and I am aware of being incapable of communicating “that” to you in either crass prose — or lofty, supernal, glorifying poetic utterances (though as I say, these escape no matter what and present themselves).
Actually that is an imposition of your interpretation. I admit that there are empirical truths (facts more properly) but I discern you do not have a solid grasp on an infinite array of true things that are not empirical in your laboratory-bound sense.Instead, it’s an attempt to reframe the debate around emotional comfort rather than empirical rigor. If metaphysical constructs are to hold their ground, they need more than lyrical musings or metaphoric "dim windows of the soul." They require demonstrable coherence with reality—a coherence your arguments, however poetic, have yet to provide.
One knows what one knows in that domain. Everyone writing here has such a field.
You mean of course in order to make sense to you. But I already get that you cannot accept any of what I say, or reduce it to lyricism because of the interposition of your rigid predicates.…they need more than lyrical musings or metaphoric "dim windows of the soul."
None of which would have been possible were it not for the "pre-existence" of this unthinkably stable system and setting,...BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 10:40 am ...This deterministic framework extends seamlessly into the biological realm. Life itself is the result of physical processes: chemical reactions that led to the first replicating molecules, driven by specific environmental conditions and interactions. Evolution by natural selection is an inherently deterministic process, where traits that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction persist and proliferate over generations. Random mutations introduce variation, but even these arise from deterministic biochemical processes. The environment, in turn, deterministically selects for or against these variations, shaping the path of evolution.
Come on now, BigMike, you're an articulate and eloquent apologist for your materialistic view of reality,...
Seeds, let’s dive into the heart of your critique. You seem to conflate determinism with a sort of mystical, intentional "preparation" of the universe—a misunderstanding that warrants some clarification. Determinism, as a framework, isn’t about "creating" or "equipping" anything with purpose or intention. It’s about the consistent operation of natural laws that govern the interactions of matter and energy. These laws, as far as we can tell, are universal and unchanging, not teleological or goal-oriented.seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:15 pmNone of which would have been possible were it not for the "pre-existence" of this unthinkably stable system and setting,...BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 10:40 am ...This deterministic framework extends seamlessly into the biological realm. Life itself is the result of physical processes: chemical reactions that led to the first replicating molecules, driven by specific environmental conditions and interactions. Evolution by natural selection is an inherently deterministic process, where traits that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction persist and proliferate over generations. Random mutations introduce variation, but even these arise from deterministic biochemical processes. The environment, in turn, deterministically selects for or against these variations, shaping the path of evolution.
...which, apparently, the nebulous phenomenon (or process) called "Determinism," not only created initially, but was also able to meticulously equip the setting with absolutely every possible ingredient the pre-created setting and system would need for evolution to do its thing.
Nothing remarkable about that, right?
To repeat the proposal I presented to you in this post - viewtopic.php?p=746273#p746273 (the post you ignored)...
Come on now, BigMike, you're an articulate and eloquent apologist for your materialistic view of reality,...
...however, you need to take the blinders off and stop avoiding the tougher philosophical questions that accompany a concept that has the mindless processes of chance as its foundational premise.
_______
LOOK AT this one. This is ALL it can say and CLAIM, here.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 4:44 pmWow. There's no limit to your ego or your delusions.Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 12:59 pmOF COURSE you ARE NOT, ESPECIALLY considering that I have SHOWN and PROVED just how Truly ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL your VIEWS and BELIEFS REALLY ARE, here.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 7:16 pm
Sorry...still not even remotely interested in you, "Age."
Yet you KEEP writing TO me.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 4:44 pm I'm still convinced you're either mentally ill or a 15 year-old trying to punch above his weight. Either way, you're uninteresting.
I keep writing you off.Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:58 pmYet you KEEP writing TO me.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 4:44 pm I'm still convinced you're either mentally ill or a 15 year-old trying to punch above his weight. Either way, you're uninteresting.
That's quite different.LOL So, ONCE MORE you write, AGAIN.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 3:50 amI keep writing you off.Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:58 pmYet you KEEP writing TO me.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 4:44 pm I'm still convinced you're either mentally ill or a 15 year-old trying to punch above his weight. Either way, you're uninteresting.
LOL you have SAID and WRITTEN this before.
If I may interrupt please let me explain that God is system and is not concerned with any "process of chance". Jesus himself is the Cosmic Christ and as the Cosmic Christ he is embedded in the system . Cosmos is system, which is sometimes inaccurately named "the universe" .seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:15 pmNone of which would have been possible were it not for the "pre-existence" of this unthinkably stable system and setting,...BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 10:40 am ...This deterministic framework extends seamlessly into the biological realm. Life itself is the result of physical processes: chemical reactions that led to the first replicating molecules, driven by specific environmental conditions and interactions. Evolution by natural selection is an inherently deterministic process, where traits that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction persist and proliferate over generations. Random mutations introduce variation, but even these arise from deterministic biochemical processes. The environment, in turn, deterministically selects for or against these variations, shaping the path of evolution.
...which, apparently, the nebulous phenomenon (or process) called "Determinism," not only created initially, but was also able to meticulously equip the setting with absolutely every possible ingredient the pre-created setting and system would need for evolution to do its thing.
Nothing remarkable about that, right?
To repeat the proposal I presented to you in this post - viewtopic.php?p=746273#p746273 (the post you ignored)...
Come on now, BigMike, you're an articulate and eloquent apologist for your materialistic view of reality,...
...however, you need to take the blinders off and stop avoiding the tougher philosophical questions that accompany a concept that has the mindless processes of chance as its foundational premise.
_______