Philosophy Now Forum

The Inglorious One wrote:Based on what I've seen, then, I can only conclude that "the classical men in frocks" who taught you were either morons or theologically immature. Why else would Thomistic theologians find Bohm's ideas appealing?

The Jesuits are about as Thomistic as it gets, and although I can't comment on the specific opinions of the particular cross-dressers who did their best to brainwash me half a century ago I would be completely unsurprised to discover them in lockstep with this fringe and rather cultish ideology.

It's off topic, but Classical theism "is, historically, the mainstream view in philosophy and is associated with the tradition of writers like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, St. Anselm, Maimonides, Averroes and Thomas Aquinas." True, it emphasizes transcendence at the expense of immanence, but it hardly fits your conception of the "first cause," which is more like a magical "sky man" than anything resembling those ideas.

The Inglorious One wrote:It's off topic, but Classical theism "is, historically, the mainstream view in philosophy and is associated with the tradition of writers like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, St. Anselm, Maimonides, Averroes and Thomas Aquinas." True, it emphasizes transcendence at the expense of immanence, but it hardly fits your conception of the "first cause," which is more like a magical "sky man" than anything resembling those ideas.

I agree that classical theism is reflective of the writers mentioned and I've consistently emphasised that such philosophies are predicated on the notion of transcendent rather than immanent cause, which is the essential difference between linear and non-linear determinism. This is simply the point I was trying to get across to alpha but I think you've got me mixed up with somebody else when you speak of "my conception of first cause". I have no such conception because I regard the notion of first cause as a logical fallacy. I'm simply trying to figure out the reasons why others might not be able to see what seems so self-evident to me. If existence is eternal then an infinite regress of causes is simply part of the package because such is the nature of infinity. Shifting eternity from within the universe to outwith it solves nothing, no matter how you choose to specify such an outwith.

alpha wrote:1. how can a living entity not be determined by its initial genetic make-up?

It can learn to do otherwise and react to contingent situation presented by its political, social and natural environment. Actions that no genetics could possibly predict. Learning changes the structure of the brain, without regard to genes.

2. how can something "self-determining" be affected by external factors such as culture (if it's affected by external factors then it's not self-determining)? note that its being "self-determining" is your position, not mine.

Because in exactly the same way that the environment can effect the human, the human can effect the environment. If you don't believe me look around you. Each of us, ourselves represent causal agents. This is what the self is, like it or not.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:I don't know what you think about Bohm's ideas nor do I care. The point is, your belief that "first cause" points to something even remotely connected to the sequence of events or the first law of thermodynamics is what's invalidated.

According to Bohm, you should have added.

And classical theism (not to be confused with the popular theism you see on TV).

Poor theist has had to contend with much in the last 400 years. Their petty god has been continually squeezed to mean nothing at all. Right now they are clutching at straws.
I suppose the big question is what kind of god would allow such lies (the classical view) to be told, and used to oppressed and abuse the innocent for thousands of years? And since we seemed to have no use before, as little as 50 years ago, for this shiny new god what function does such a god have now? What is the point of such a tragically reduced god thing? And why won't the classical god go away?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:And why won't the classical god go away?

He's in full retreat, Hobbes, and fighting a desperate rearguard action. That's what the rise in fundamentalism in all the various branches of theism over the past couple of decades is all about. "Clutching at straws" says it all. I predict that god won't see the 21st century out but he won't go down without a fight and it's likely to be a messy one. Sadly I won't be around to see how good a seer I am.

alpha wrote: if i choose to drink/not drink water when i'm thirsty, was my "choice" caused (determined), or uncaused (random)?

Obvious Leo wrote:Your choice was caused. By you.

and was i caused to make that choice, or did i make that choice randomly? at some point you're gonna have to accept that our choices aren't truly ours, unless you think we somehow had an actual choice in our own conception and birth and so on.

alpha wrote:1. how can a living entity not be determined by its initial genetic make-up?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It can learn to do otherwise and react to contingent situation presented by its political, social and natural environment. Actions that no genetics could possibly predict. Learning changes the structure of the brain, without regard to genes.

alpha wrote:2. how can something "self-determining" be affected by external factors such as culture (if it's affected by external factors then it's not self-determining)? note that its being "self-determining" is your position, not mine.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Because in exactly the same way that the environment can effect the human, the human can effect the environment. If you don't believe me look around you. Each of us, ourselves represent causal agents. This is what the self is, like it or not.

hobbes, a rock too affects its environment, but no idiot calls it "self-determining". i also have issue with the phrase "can affect"; the environment "must affect" the human, and the human "must affect" the environment in exactly the same way the environment "must affect" a rock, and a rock "must affect its environment. again, just because a human is much much more complex than a rock, that doesn't change the absolutely strict causality inside and outside of the human. the human has no actual choice but to do (or not do) what he does (or doesn't do). so if you were to live your life (with exactly the same initial genes, exactly the same environment and circumstances, and so on) 999 trillion times, the outcome would be exactly the same to a tee every single time. if you dispute this, then you're nothing more than a libertarian who's a determinist wannabe.

alpha wrote:

alpha wrote: if i choose to drink/not drink water when i'm thirsty, was my "choice" caused (determined), or uncaused (random)?

Obvious Leo wrote:Your choice was caused. By you.

and was i caused to make that choice, or did i make that choice randomly? at some point you're gonna have to accept that our choices aren't truly ours, unless you think we somehow had an actual choice in our own conception and birth and so on.

Wrong wrong wrong. All our choices are by definition wholly ours. We are caused by a range of factors from genes, environment, social programming ad infinitem.
But your problem is you idea of 'self', 'we', 'us', 'ours'. What we are is what we have been determined to be. ANd the self is a caused and causal agent.

hobbes, a rock too affects its environment, but no idiot calls it "self-determining". i also have issue with the phrase "can affect"; the environment "must affect" the human, and the human "must affect" the environment in exactly the same way the environment "must affect" a rock, and a rock "must affect its environment. again, just because a human is much much more complex than a rock, that doesn't change the absolutely strict causality inside and outside of the human. the human has no actual choice but to do (or not do) what he does (or doesn't do). so if you were to live your life (with exactly the same initial genes, exactly the same environment and circumstances, and so on) 999 trillion times, the outcome would be exactly the same to a tee every single time. if you dispute this, then you're nothing more than a libertarian who's a wannabe determinist.

A rock is immobile. There is nothing else to say
A choice is a set of alternative that are offered for examination by "OUR" programming, and a selection based on a rational and emotional response concerning the possible outcome and consequences is made. This is determined by our ever changing experience. This is nothing like an automaton, which has no motivation.

The Inglorious One wrote:... transcendence at the expense of immanence,....

Blah,

alpha wrote:and was i caused to make that choice, or did i make that choice randomly? at some point you're gonna have to accept that our choices aren't truly ours, unless you think we somehow had an actual choice in our own conception and birth and so on.

This is a false dichotomy and thus a straw man.

alpha wrote:hobbes, a rock too affects its environment, but no idiot calls it "self-determining".

You are using the term self determining incorrectly. As Hobbes points out, the rock is both actor and acted upon in its wider environment and this is what defines the entire system as self-determining. Look up Ilya Prigogine's dissipative structures to see how this principle applies at the molecular scale and you'll see how self determining systems can give rise to living systems without the slightest teleological overtones. Life emerged in the universe because it couldn't possibly have done otherwise, because this is the way that self-organising systems work, not because it was determined by an external causal agent. You are confusing the intentional self-determinism of a sentient mind with the unintentional self-determinism of an entire system but in biology this distinction is easily maintained. The biosphere is self-determining but this doesn't mean it has a plan.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:And why won't the classical god go away?

Because it makes sense, and you're doing EXACTLY the same thing Krauss does when he made himself look like an ignorant ass by arguing for and endless series causes the same way an ignorant person might argue "it's turtles all the way down."

Inglorious. Forget Krauss. He wouldn't know his epistemological arse from his ontological elbow and no philosopher would pay his bullshit the slightest bit of heed. The notion of first cause has never been regarded as a legitimate philosophical question in any of the major philosophies of either the east or west. The notion of first cause is only a conceptual by-product of theology, which many theologians have attempted over the centuries to insert into mainstream philosophy. They've been reasonably successful at this because of the unwarranted influence which they were able to give to Plato in the evolution of western thought. This never happened in eastern philosophy and thus first cause has never been an issue there. Plato was a mystical fruitloop addicted to the notion of transcendent cause who held that the universe was the product of some imaginary "higher realm", although he wasn't strictly speaking a theist in the way in which we understand the term nowadays. First cause arguments are tautologous and circular by definition because to make the notion valid you first need to define reality as having had a transcendent cause. This means you are assuming that which you are seeking to prove.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:And why won't the classical god go away?

Because it makes sense, and you're doing EXACTLY the same thing Krauss does when he made himself look like an ignorant ass by arguing for and endless series causes the same way an ignorant person might argue "it's turtles all the way down."

Presumably you believe in the classical God then?

There's no one making more of an arse than anyone who believes in god. And as for turtles, they are about as convincing as the classical god.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Wrong wrong wrong. All our choices are by definition wholly ours. We are caused by a range of factors from genes, environment, social programming ad infinitem.
But your problem is you idea of 'self', 'we', 'us', 'ours'. What we are is what we have been determined to be. ANd the self is a caused and causal agent.

alpha wrote:hobbes, a rock too affects its environment, but no idiot calls it "self-determining". i also have issue with the phrase "can affect"; the environment "must affect" the human, and the human "must affect" the environment in exactly the same way the environment "must affect" a rock, and a rock "must affect its environment. again, just because a human is much much more complex than a rock, that doesn't change the absolutely strict causality inside and outside of the human. the human has no actual choice but to do (or not do) what he does (or doesn't do). so if you were to live your life (with exactly the same initial genes, exactly the same environment and circumstances, and so on) 999 trillion times, the outcome would be exactly the same to a tee every single time. if you dispute this, then you're nothing more than a libertarian who's a wannabe determinist.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:A rock is immobile. There is nothing else to say
A choice is a set of alternative that are offered for examination by "OUR" programming, and a selection based on a rational and emotional response concerning the possible outcome and consequences is made. This is determined by our ever changing experience. This is nothing like an automaton, which has no motivation.

hobbes, i really don't know how to make people like you and leo understand simple concepts. do you disagree with the underlined part of my statement above? if you do, then i'm speechless. if you don't, then we are automatons. so called choices are not made by reasoning etc.. the fact of the matter is that a human is subjected to countless forces, both internal and external, none of which are by choice, and the stronger force -in any given situation (the force that is stronger at the time)- always wins. the person simply experiences the struggle among the forces and thinks that he's actually making some sort of choice or decision. sorry, but i'm afraid it's all illusory.