Philosophy Now Forum

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:57 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:59 am No, because my premise is paradox which observes a medial synthetic terms as always present. I claim void as origin.

And I already pointed out that you are abusing the principle of explosion.

From a paradox/contradiction anything follows.

How can I abuse anything when you "insist on asymmetry".

You are not being relative enough.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:59 am 1. All rationality is the individuation of one irrational into another.

2. All irrationality the absence of individuation.

3. However all irrationals, are premised in rationals (irrational numbers as a continuum of rational numbers) as a continuum.

4. Rationality leads to irrationality, irrationality leads to rationality.

5. Rationality and Irrationality exist through eachother as 1 which is irrational; hence true because all unity is true.

6. Rationality and irrationality are separate as 2 which is rational; hence false because they are contradictory.

7. Points 1 through 7 are simultaneously true, false and neutral.

This is the problem with valuing symmetry. You miss the elephant in the room.

I am as biased as it gets when it comes to the "harm/no-harm" dualism.

I insist on asymmetry.

Of course the elephant in the room is missed, the room is the framework determining whether or not the elephant can be there at all.

There is no asymmetry because all "randomness" relative to "nothingness" is order.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:51 pm ...but, angry as I am at the failure of this old crapsack Ipad, I choose to simply set it aside instead of slam it down on the concrete.

I can do this (be angry but not act from anger) cuz I'm a free will.

More later (perhaps a replication of the lost post).

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:05 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:51 pm ...but, angry as I am at the failure of this old crapsack Ipad, I choose to simply set it aside instead of slam it down on the concrete.

I can do this (be angry but not act from anger) cuz I'm a free will.

More later (perhaps a replication of the lost post).

Your choice not to throw the ipad on the ground was not done by your free will. If you learned how to control your anger then obviously as angry as you might have been, you chose, in the direction of greater satisfaction, not to act on that impulse. That is called self-control. There's no conflict here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:59 am "Actually the nature of self interest has an inherent problem of definition relative to the fact all relations constitute a sense of self. Kindness to a stranger can be a completely selfish and morally justifiable act when viewing the stranger as an extension of oneself."

Yeah, that's not how my head works. I'm (minimally, sensibly) kind to the stranger cuz (most of the time) there's more profit in kindness than in aggression (that profit, most of the time, being the stranger goes about his business and leaves me to mine). Now, with loved ones you're nearly at bull's eye. I'm invested in those people, they matter to me (in some cases they matter to me as much as I matter to myself [and in the case of my kid he matters more]).

#

"Your premise lies in a problem of measurement."

More a matter of priority, I think, and not so much a problem.

Nope. My choices are based on me (my apprehending, assessing, concluding). 'circumstances, genetics, environment' are the context of my choices. My state of mind (my state of 'me') is 'me'.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:43 pm Yes. Your state of mind, of you, is caused too, by entirely natural causes.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:46 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:43 pm Yes. Your state of mind, of you, is caused too, by entirely natural causes.

And when I recognise that environmental noise negatively affects my state-of-mind and harms my ability to make good decisions - I buy a pair of noise-cancelling headphones. Minimising my future risk of distractions.

henry quirk wrote:When I recognise that negative emotions impair my judgment - I remove drama queens from my social circle. Minimising my future risk of negative emotions.

henry quirk wrote:When I recognise that future me might be upset by financial insecurity, present-me starts investing. That was 15 years ago.

Present-me is very very thoughtful when it comes to future-me.

My state of mind is absolutely caused by natural causes. Some of those natural causes are past-me.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:37 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:05 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:51 pm ...but, angry as I am at the failure of this old crapsack Ipad, I choose to simply set it aside instead of slam it down on the concrete.

I can do this (be angry but not act from anger) cuz I'm a free will.

More later (perhaps a replication of the lost post).

Your choice not to throw the ipad on the ground was not done by your free will. If you learned how to control your anger then obviously as angry as you might have been, you chose, in the direction of greater satisfaction, not to act on that impulse. That is called self-control. There's no conflict here.

The conflict comes from your hindsight.

If you say “it couldn’t have been any other way”

You are effectively saying that is the only choice you could have made.

If that was true yesterday why isn’t it true today?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:12 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:46 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:43 pm Yes. Your state of mind, of you, is caused too, by entirely natural causes.

And when I recognise that environmental noise negatively affects my state-of-mind and harms my ability to make good decisions - I buy a pair of noise-cancelling headphones. Minimising my future risk of distractions.

Belinda is right, everything you do, including your state of mind, is based on entirely natural causes. The knowledge that noise negatively affects your state-of-mind pushes you in a direction that is the most satisfactory (i.e., getting headphones) to help you solve your problem. Where is free will any part of this process?

henry quirk wrote:When I recognise that negative emotions impair my judgment - I remove drama queens from my social circle. Minimising my future risk of negative emotions.

Once again, you recognize that negative emotions aren't good for you (this is part of your growing knowledge base) therefore you have decided (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to remove drama queens from your social circle. This does not negate the fact that man's will is not free based on the greater satisfaction principle.

henry quirk wrote:When I recognise that future me might be upset by financial insecurity, present-me starts investing. That was 15 years ago.

Present-me is very very thoughtful when it comes to future-me.

My state of mind is absolutely caused by natural causes. Some of those natural causes are past-me.

Past-me only means that the choices you made have already been written. It does not mean you cannot make better choices when similar situations appear. As you gain experience, your present choices will become more thoughtful leading to better outcomes. Everything you said is in keeping with determinism, as is defined in this book.

Once again, you recognize that negative emotions aren't good for you (this is part of your growing knowledge base) therefore you have decided (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to remove drama queens from your social circle. This does not negate the fact that man's will is not free based on the greater satisfaction principle.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:16 pm Logik you asked Peacegirl what "greater satisfaction " predicts. Here is the rest of what Peacegirl wrote about greater satisfaction:

Once again, you recognize that negative emotions aren't good for you (this is part of your growing knowledge base) therefore you have decided (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to remove drama queens from your social circle. This does not negate the fact that man's will is not free based on the greater satisfaction principle.

The decision involving drama queens I believe was Henry Quirk's .
The reasoning man may defer satisfaction so that there will be greater satisfaction at a later time or place. It's difficult to predict what an individual man will do even when one is aware of his predispositions. The direction of greater satisfaction is easier to predict when the individual is emotionally reactive than when the individual is reflective.

It's impossible to predict what large groups of people will do in the long term because of the chaos of possibilities. It's comparatively easy for a naturalist to predict what large groups of other animals will do because other animals especially wild animals behave mostly instinctively, and any cultural transmission from mother to offspring will be a lot slower than the sometimes lightning-fast cultural shifts of men.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:19 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:16 pm Logik you asked Peacegirl what "greater satisfaction " predicts. Here is the rest of what Peacegirl wrote about greater satisfaction:

Once again, you recognize that negative emotions aren't good for you (this is part of your growing knowledge base) therefore you have decided (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to remove drama queens from your social circle. This does not negate the fact that man's will is not free based on the greater satisfaction principle.

The decision involving drama queens I believe was Henry Quirk's .
The reasoning man may defer satisfaction so that there will be greater satisfaction at a later time or place. It's difficult to predict what an individual man will do even when one is aware of his predispositions. The direction of greater satisfaction is easier to predict when the individual is emotionally reactive than when the individual is reflective.

It's impossible to predict what large groups of people will do in the long term because of the chaos of possibilities. It's comparatively easy for a naturalist to predict what large groups of other animals will do because other animals especially wild animals behave mostly instinctively, and any cultural transmission from mother to offspring will be a lot slower than the sometimes lightning-fast cultural shifts of men.

So predict SOMETHING.Anything!

Currently all that is being said is that "people will choose that which brings upon maximum satisfaction".
What is THE satisfaction that majority of people desire? You would expect that to maximise through the system.

That is nothing more than a re-wording of the selection principle. That which is being selected FOR will maximise through the system.
Natural selection selects for survival. Therefore there are more surviving species and less extinct species to be observed (DUH!)

This is (literally) survivorship bias.

That is how positive feedback loops work.

But you can't tell me WHICH species will survive and which will be extinct 1000 years from now.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:29 pm Why don't you predict something and prove prediction works without relying on probabalism.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:29 pm Why don't you predict something and prove prediction works without relying on probabalism.

You know so much about prediction, so define it.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:31 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:29 pm Why don't you predict something and prove prediction works without relying on probabalism.

Why don't you breathe without relying on oxygen?