Quick Question on Causation [Archive]

namepending

27th August 2006, 20:33

There is B

BEHOLD B!

B implies C by the nature of B...

B implies A by the nature of B...

B does not imply D, C implies D

But B only implies C

B does not imply Z, A implies Z

But B only implies A

This is also Compatibilism...

For instance, I flick a light switch,

from what I know of the ligh switch it will move,

it will move to "off",

however, it doesn't mean necessarily that the light will go dark,
that is implied by the switch being on "off,"

or look at a row of dominos, domino G, does not topple domino I, that is domino H's duty. domino G is moved by domino F and moves domino H, it has nothing to do except by abstraction with any other dominos.

The "past" exists only in the movement of the present, the "future" exists only in the movement of the present, both are merely abstractions of the present, which is all that exists. Your movement now is our only clue to the step you just took and the one that you will take. "Determinism" would have the Past and the Future existing already, when in fact they never exist ever except as abstractions, observations of the present.

Free Will is a abstraction which has no impact on life, it means "to be undetermined" which is impossible for the nature of things, as they cannot exist without being self-determined, you cannot be red without being red, you cannot be good without being good... etc. True free will works thusly:

It is my nature, (I am "determined") to want food. My will is to eat. If a wall of granite suddenly manifests itself in front of my wanted food, my will is now restricted, prevented, unfree. If there is no wall and I eat, my will is freely executed.
You cannot do things not in your determined nature to do. You don't say water falling from a faucet is "unfree" to flow upward, it simply can't. You don't say a criminal has freely chosen a life of crime, (or you shouldn't) you say he is a criminal, to be prosecuted for his will to crime, rather than his choice to have a will to crime- willing will- "free will."

Causation is not a law= it is a misnamed attribute of existing things as they are. Existing implies being caused to exist in your current form and continuing to exist in whatever form.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th August 2006, 21:48

'Name pending', if you check this thread out, you will see that you can only make 'determinism' work if you are prepared to 'anthropomorphise' nature, and make all that happens subject to a universal will:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...opic=51313&st=0 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51313&st=0)

[Same with indeterminism.]

rouchambeau

27th August 2006, 22:40

only things with minds can determine other things
Where did you get that idea from?

Determinism is based on an animistic view of the material world, which sees causes in nature as surrogate acts of will.

I'm curious about this one too.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th August 2006, 02:03

R: I think if you read the thread I linked to, and the books and articles I referenced (some of which are on-line), it will become a little clearer to you.

Bretty123

28th August 2006, 02:47

I agree with Rosa, determinism would suggest that the conditions determine the organisms choices in the matter, however I would say that although it provides certain apparent choices to take, one could always have the final say in what they choose to do in specific moments.

Although I am not advocating sartrean type philosophy wherein he states we are always more then our situation, as in a transcendence of our position in a situation and our "nothingness" that surrounds and divides our past, present, and future. This is far too close to Kantian non-consequentialism.

namepending

28th August 2006, 02:54

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27 2006, 02:49 PM
'Name pending', if you check this thread out, you will see that you can only make 'determinism' work if you are prepared to 'anthropomorphise' nature, and make all that happens subject to a universal will:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...opic=51313&st=0 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51313&st=0)

[Same with indeterminism.]
What are we talking about? I was going over causation and briefly explained the solution to the "free will problem." Are you talking about objectivity/subjectivity?
That would be very different from what I was talking about.

I was merely reflecting, that all phenomena considered together have their causes (reasons, origins, explications) within themselves rather than outside themselves, as is claimed in positing an independent past and future for all phenomenon (the universe) (which is what determinism does). The past which "has created" the present, is only an abstraction from the present, as is the future. Determinism wants to insist that rather than the present changing from within that it has already been changed in every possible way in the independent directions of future and past... that every change has already happened or is "preordained" and ignores the problem of experiencing the present. It is impossible for a situation to become a different situation without a changing which occurs in the first. To say the second situation was determined by the first would be to misunderstand the process. Rather the first situation is determinable as changing into the second and that which has changed in the second is determinable as the first situation. Because of this, nothing is determined besides the completion of the current situation and all of its inherent capacity to change into a very certain new situation. As for free will, this is a misunderstanding of what will is... free will advocates see it as what must be a will free of circumstance, whereas will is circumstance manifest as the circumstantial human mind willing for a circumstantial change to its circumstances... so that true free will is merely the changing of circumstance in a way which reflects the fulfillment of the circumstantial interests of a particular circumstantial phenomenon- I.E. the Human Being. Will is subjectivity reconciled through execution with objectivity.

I don't understand your position but I hope you understand I understand mine.

Note: please excuse the excess uses of the same words, I do that

EDITEXTRAEXTRA:

It is by its own definition impossible for movement to occur without something being moved, so that you have to say:

(ETC.)-I moved something that moved something else-I moved something-I moved-something moved me-something moved what moved me-something moved what moved what moved me-(ETC.)

the only "debate" should be on the dubious abstract problem of infinite or spontaneous movment.

eventually this line of thought becomes irrational if you abstract to infinity or to some inevitable spontaneity because you have to accept one of these two-- but that doesn't mean that it isn't any less true or rational in the actual rule:

where there is movement something is moved (for the opposite is a a-priori self-contradition: where there is movement nothing is moved)

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th August 2006, 03:07

NamePending; I think you are new to this board, so forgive me for sniping at you from behind that bush.

However, if you will forgive me for saying this, the sort of material you posted has been churned out now for 2500 years, and we are still no nearer an answer.

This is because these sorts of ideas are presented as dogmatic theses, as if they have come down from off the mountain.

Partly because of that, I claim they make no sense at all, and depend on twisting language, misusing it, or inventing incomprehensible jargon where ordinary words will not do.

So, my stance, if I have one, is that not a single philosophical idea, that has ever been propounded, makes the slightest bit of sense, and we should stop kidding ourselves. We do not need it, just more and better science.

In this case, the only way to make causation (of the sort you want to run past us) work is to anthropmorphise nature, and view it as the expression of a cosmic will. But since a disembodied will can do nothing (save we attribute it with predicates/properties that suggest it is embodied after all), the whole idea collapses into absurdity.

The thread I posted will catch you up on that debate (and alert you to the reasons I say what I say), as will others I have been involved in over the last six months at this forum.

[Or, indeed will my site; link below.]

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th August 2006, 03:14

Bretty, you need to read more Wittgenstein; it will reduce your propensity to say things like this:

Although I am not advocating sartrean type philosophy wherein he states we are always more then our situation, as in a transcendence of our position in a situation and our "nothingness" that surrounds and divides our past, present, and future. This is far too close to Kantian non-consequentialism.

My objection to using the word 'determine' here is that in ordinary life, when we use this term, we employ it in circumstances that imply the use of thought, deliberation, planning or fortitude.

So, you can determine when the next train is due to arrive from a timetable, determine when to get up the next day by your schedule, determine to press on in some arduous task becuase you are that sort of person (indeed, we would say you were a 'determined individual'), and so on.

Nature cannot do any of these things, unless it is Mind.

namepending

28th August 2006, 03:45

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27 2006, 08:15 PM
Bretty, you need to read more Wittgenstein; it will reduce your propensity to say things like this:

Although I am not advocating sartrean type philosophy wherein he states we are always more then our situation, as in a transcendence of our position in a situation and our "nothingness" that surrounds and divides our past, present, and future. This is far too close to Kantian non-consequentialism.

My objection to using the word 'determine' here is that in ordinary life, when we use this term, we employ it in circumstances that imply the use of thought, deliberation, planning or fotitude.

So, you can determine when the next train is due to arrive from a timetable, determine when to get up the next day by your schedule, determine to press on in some arduous task becuase you are that sort of person (indeed, we would say you were a 'determined individual'), and so on.

Nature cannot do any of these things, unless it is Mind.
prove that the mind is not a product of nature (or circumstance or past circumstance or material change or existing flux or time or interactions of phenomena or chemical reactions or sub-atomic physics), firstly,
secondly do so without involving your own "mind" but only in your observations of the physical purplish brain substance which itself only can be called human mind, of the "human being" phenomena you have encountered as what can only from your perspective be classified as an "independent experiencing subjective universe" or IESU.

It would be ridiculous as an experiencing/"conscious" entity to identify yourself as one of the "humans" you experience, and to equate your unique position with their brain matter. If you do, that is, if you posit each one with its own IESU, you would equally be saying that in an abstraction positing an objective universe (which emerges when you posit multiple IESUs) that you as a IESU would appear and act and exist as the "human" phenomena which you daily experience... So that in fact it would be well advised to reference the "human" phenomena and not the IESU phenomena in discussing whether "the mind" is as such.

I'm very wary of pre-establishing that every "human" phenomenon observed by the IESU is its own independent experiencing subjective universe ... I would even venture to say it is eternally unconfirmable... and I wouldn't want any fake consciousness-peddling to get in the way of the realization that humans, human actions and human minds are as much bound to circumstance and past circumstance as an ice-cube on the edge of an erupting volcano.

Bretty123

28th August 2006, 04:02

Rosa, I never said I agreed with the things I stated, in fact I said I was not advocating them at all.

Also, if we are discussing a word in a particular way i.e. determined. I dont think it is fair to object to my use of it in that context. Even if you don't agree with it in general.

rouchambeau

28th August 2006, 04:57

For Rosa: Maybe we are talking about determinism in two different ways. I'm talking about determinism in the way that dropping an egg off of the top of a building causes it to break. Are you talking about a kind of "God chooses our fate" determinism?

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th August 2006, 05:06

NamePending:

prove that the mind is not a product of nature

Why do I need to do this if I neither admit nor deny it?

[I say this since your sentence contains at least one meaningless phrase, i.e., 'the mind'. When I used the single word, 'Mind', I purposely capitalised it, to indicate I was referring to a philosophical category. (And, as my other posts will show, I also use it to show that it too is an empty term -- as part of a sort of 'immanent critique').]

The rest of what you posted did not seem relevant, so I will not comment on it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th August 2006, 05:09

Bretty, you said this:

Although I am not advocating sartrean type philosophy wherein he states we are always more then our situation, as in a transcendence of our position in a situation and our "nothingness" that surrounds and divides our past, present, and future. This is far too close to Kantian non-consequentialism.

The last sentence suggests that you are, despite your earlier disclaimer, still mired in traditional ways of thinking.

Hence my comment.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th August 2006, 05:12

R:

For Rosa: Maybe we are talking about determinism in two different ways. I'm talking about determinism in the way that dropping an egg off of the top of a building causes it to break. Are you talking about a kind of "God chooses our fate" determinism?

No, I claim that if you spell out exactly what you mean by 'causation' here (unless you adopt, say, regularity as way of explaining away this obscure philosophical category), you will, at some point, have to use terms that imply things are controlled by a cosmic will of some sort.

[These days this is disarmingly called 'natural necessity', but no one is fooled by this, I hope.]

rouchambeau

28th August 2006, 06:31

I claim that if you spell out exactly what you mean by 'causation' here (unless you adopt, say, regularity as way of explaining away this obscure philosophical category), you will, at some point, have to use terms that imply things are controlled by a cosmic will of some sort.

Not at all. I don't belive that an egg breaking when it hits the ground is willed by any cosmic being. It simply happens.

The last sentence suggests that you are, despite your earlier disclaimer, still mired in traditional ways of thinking.

What is wrong with traditional thinking in itself? Not all traditional thought is wrong.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th August 2006, 06:56

R:

I don't belive that an egg breaking when it hits the ground is willed by any cosmic being. It simply happens.

Your last sentence then suggests that you merely accept the regularity thesis, which is of course merely a description not an explanation.

What is wrong with traditional thinking in itself?

This:

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an 'eternal law.' [The German Ideology.]

Plus, as I can show, none of it makes any sense (since it is Idealist, ruling-class clap trap).

You have come to this debate rather late; I established all this on earlier threads.

apathy maybe

28th August 2006, 11:25

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
Has anyone philosophically or scientifically proved the causation always occurs. Consequently, nothing is random. If something is random, we do not (or perhaps cannot) gain access to hidden variables that are the cause.
Have you heard of quantum physics? Most interpretations of quantum physics suggest that randomness exists and that indeterminism is the rule. There is one interpretation that I know of that includes hidden variables and consequently has a deterministic future, but I feel that it is simpler to just forget such crap.

See also plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/ and many of the topics linking of there.
See also the Wikipedia articles on Quantum Physics.

I know there are other posts, but I am not going to respond to them directly. On the topic of free will, see the thread I just started at http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55047

Bretty123

28th August 2006, 14:11

Rosa that's an unfair assumption, considering you use the term idealist in the same way that an idealist would use it. Hence, I use 'nothingness' in the same way as sartre not to advocate it but to discuss and criticise it. Your objecting to my language use and forgetting to check yourself at the same time.

namepending

28th August 2006, 17:10

If anyone noticed my point was that anyone observing humans will notice that they are completely the product of circumstance and cannot be otherwise... and that I am wary of consciousness as a phenomena being associated with observations which are recieved through it, as happens when someone says there is a gap between experience and action, which I know no one could claim of others they observe, but only of their experience of consciousness, which I myself do not find any evidence of being more than an illusion, and I've no need to have it to understand and credit human accomplishment.

There cannot be any such thing as something free of circumstance in the first place,
and in the second, when you look at someones actions, you can only find the justification of their actions in their cumulative experience, such as, if I kill myself, it is because I have been compelled to end my life by circumstances which pressure me in such a way, never because I do it sponteanously. the human mind is a bundle of nerves which are the products of past circumstance, E.G. gestation in a human womb E.G. the expression of the genes E.G. the experience and cirumstance of the body during its growth and its entire material existence as changing material... It is purely metaphysical to state that a human can sponeneously act, it turns them into God and makes them immaterial- an immaterial material- a self-contradiction.

In addition, Marx was a materialist, that is, he based his insights on what caused exploitation etc. rather than saying the Bourgeois are just evil or that they acquire wealth sponteanously or from God- and likewise with the Prole, he showed a causal system which by its advance from mover to moved to mover reveals the reasons why there is Bourgeois and Proletariat and what these reasons from causal necessity imply for the future- that is - revolution.

You cannot understand the world without understanding material- as I have pointed out, there is not a necessary connection between the past and future, causer and what the caused causes, but human understanding of the universe is impossible without causality- it is merely implied- what is material? It is that which is distinguished by difference from other material, (something immaterial cannot be realized) and to understand differences causes are necessary, so one comes understands the capacity to change in each material, that movement as a phenomena is something which changes material and distinguishes it.

Otherwise, nothing can be said about anything, you cannot say something is different than another, for there are no differences in a continuity.

I don't think that thought being "traditional," often better rendered as "the most obvious" has anything to do with its value.

rouchambeau

28th August 2006, 17:13

Your last sentence then suggests that you merely accept the regularity thesis, which is of course merely a description not an explanation.

Do you want me to point out where the egg hitting the ground and the egg breaking happens? That would be impossible.

If you want to create an argument for your claim that all traditional thought is wrong, then you had better come with more than one example.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th August 2006, 17:42

Bretty:

you use the term idealist in the same way that an idealist would use it.

That is not so; no idealist would ay, for example 'all idealist theories in some way express ruling-class interests'.

Hence, I use 'nothingness' in the same way as sartre not to advocate it but to discuss and criticise it.

Sartre was using this word as one might use, say, 'somethingness' -- i.e, as a bastradisation of a quantifier expression, except he did not realise it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th August 2006, 17:45

NamePending, forgive me but most of what you have posted seems to be directed at a figment of your own imagination -- not at anythinmg I said, or would say.

I don't think that thought being "traditional," often better rendered as "the most obvious" has anything to do with its value.

Well, if you are a Marxist, it has.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th August 2006, 18:02

R:

Do you want me to point out where the egg hitting the ground and the egg breaking happens? That would be impossible

How does this follow from anything I said? Why on earth would I want you to do that?

Please read what I said: if you think that things just happen, then it seems to me that you accept the regularity theory of causation, which is no explanation, just a re-description of the phenomena.

If you do not know what the regularity theory is (and so were unaware that your admission implied you accepted this theory unbeknown to yourself), I have posted links to articles published on-line that will explain it to you. If you want me to post those links again I will.

If you want to create an argument for your claim that all traditional thought is wrong, then you had better come with more than one example.

Well, it is a little more involved than this; it follows from the nature of the proposition, and the attempt made by traditional theorists to try to derive, or state, necessary truths (or falsehoods) about reality -- often these were based on an idiosyncratic use of ordinary words (like 'determine'), or were based on specially-invented and obscure jargon (like 'Nothingness', 'Being', 'Quiddity', and 'Substance'). All, in some way, reflected ruling-class forms-of-thought. Hence my hostility toward them.

Since, I have covered this topic in more detail (and given many more examples) in other threads at this forum, I do not propose to say any more here, nor do your research for you.

There is a summary of the argument here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm

[A much longer version, well in excess of 100,000 words, will appear at my site over the next year or so.]

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

28th August 2006, 18:16

Originally posted by apathy maybe+Aug 28 2006, 08:26 AM--> (apathy maybe @ Aug 28 2006, 08:26 AM)
Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
Has anyone philosophically or scientifically proved the causation always occurs. Consequently, nothing is random. If something is random, we do not (or perhaps cannot) gain access to hidden variables that are the cause.
Have you heard of quantum physics? Most interpretations of quantum physics suggest that randomness exists and that indeterminism is the rule. There is one interpretation that I know of that includes hidden variables and consequently has a deterministic future, but I feel that it is simpler to just forget such crap.

See also plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/ and many of the topics linking of there.
See also the Wikipedia articles on Quantum Physics.

I know there are other posts, but I am not going to respond to them directly. On the topic of free will, see the thread I just started at http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55047 [/b]
Of course I know about quantum mechanics. Those are interpretations and not neccessarily true. If causation is a univeral princple randomness probably cannot exist. Furthermore, it is my understanding that quantum mechanics has the appearance of randomness. Only one of two variables can be known at a time, and, consequently, you can only perdict but not determine the outcome. This is how someone who knows more about the subject explained it to me. Additionally, string theory has the potential to bring us back to a deterministic view of science, which arguably still exists with the exception of some people in quantum mechanics.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th August 2006, 18:34

Dooga:

string theory has the potential to bring us back to a deterministic view of science

Presumably by anthropomorphising nature.

Seems like a step backwards to me.

Bretty123

28th August 2006, 19:20

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28 2006, 02:43 PM
Bretty:

you use the term idealist in the same way that an idealist would use it.

That is not so; no idealist would ay, for example 'all idealist theories in some way express ruling-class interests'.

Hence, I use 'nothingness' in the same way as sartre not to advocate it but to discuss and criticise it.

Sartre was using this word as one might use, say, 'somethingness' -- i.e, as a bastradisation of a quantifier expression, except he did not realise it.
You still have to use idealist as in the same frame of reference to critisize the theory. I.e. you state quantum physics is such and such yet you still regard it as a quantum physicist would regard it by definition. You might disagree but you still can't argue against something if you and the other party don't refer to the same definition of the term.

Therefore, when you refer to nothingness as being used by Sartre in the same way as somethingness, regardless of if you agree or disagree, you still refer to his usage to criticize it.

it is irrelevant how you view it, whether it is legitimate use of the term or a "bastardization of quantifier expressions".

namepending

28th August 2006, 23:08

Originally posted by Bretty123+Aug 28 2006, 12:21 PM--> (Bretty123 @ Aug 28 2006, 12:21 PM)
Rosa [email protected] 28 2006, 02:43 PM
Bretty:

you use the term idealist in the same way that an idealist would use it.

That is not so; no idealist would ay, for example 'all idealist theories in some way express ruling-class interests'.

Hence, I use 'nothingness' in the same way as sartre not to advocate it but to discuss and criticise it.

Sartre was using this word as one might use, say, 'somethingness' -- i.e, as a bastradisation of a quantifier expression, except he did not realise it.
You still have to use idealist as in the same frame of reference to critisize the theory. I.e. you state quantum physics is such and such yet you still regard it as a quantum physicist would regard it by definition. You might disagree but you still can't argue against something if you and the other party don't refer to the same definition of the term.

Therefore, when you refer to nothingness as being used by Sartre in the same way as somethingness, regardless of if you agree or disagree, you still refer to his usage to criticize it.

it is irrelevant how you view it, whether it is legitimate use of the term or a "bastardization of quantifier expressions". [/b]
I just made the golden realization that I am way out of my league here on this thread

I surrender, white flag, etc.

If things just happen completely sponteanously like if I switch on a light and venus explodes instead of the light turning on and my hand goes purple at random and I melt into my seat which ends up in Andromeda next to a pillar from the lost city of Atlantis- with peanut butter smeared all over it... and a keyhole which is made for a very small key smolted from sliver but infused with berry juice.......

then I am not intrested in things because they reek of nonsense

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th August 2006, 02:19

Bretty:

You still have to use idealist as in the same frame of reference to critisize the theory.

Not necessarily.

I.e. you state quantum physics is such and such yet you still regard it as a quantum physicist would regard it by definition.

Quantum physics makes sense; Idealism does not.

If I use the word "Jabberwocky", how could you tell whether or not I and Lewis Carroll meant the same by it if the word means nothing?

Therefore, when you refer to nothingness as being used by Sartre in the same way as somethingness, regardless of if you agree or disagree, you still refer to his usage to criticize it.

it is irrelevant how you view it, whether it is legitimate use of the term or a "bastardization of quantifier expressions".

Not so, as the above shows.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th August 2006, 02:22

NamePending:

If things just happen completely sponteanously like if I switch on a light and venus explodes instead of the light turning on and my hand goes purple at random and I melt into my seat which ends up in Andromeda next to a pillar from the lost city of Atlantis- with peanut butter smeared all over it... and a keyhole which is made for a very small key smolted from sliver but infused with berry juice.......

Well, I do not think anyone here thinks things just happen (but Rouchambeau might, he just refuses to say -- or, of course, random comments might just appear on his computer screen as he types....???).

As I noted, we just need more and better science -- but no Philosophy at all.

Bretty123

29th August 2006, 04:00

If I use the word "Jabberwocky", how could you tell whether or not I and Lewis Carroll meant the same by it if the word means nothing?

If one of you defines it then you can use that definition to discuss it and argue against/for it.

You haven't refuted any point I stated soundly, nor have given any evidence to suggest you do not need one persons definition to argue against or for it.

Your very hard to talk to if you say something like "not necessarily" and then do not give me a counterargument to mine.

We're arguing about something irrelevant to the original conversation as well. But I'd like for you to show me how you can argue against lets say Sartre's definition of "nothingness" without taking his definition into consideration? You cannot.

Also your vague in stating quantum physics as making sense. Is it not true that some theories of quantum physics state that the same particle can exist in two different places? is this not a nonsensical theory?

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th August 2006, 04:22

Bretty:

If one of you defines it then you can use that definition to discuss it and argue against/for it.

You mean, someone stipulates what the term should mean?

But, in that case, it will have a 'meaning' whereas the original term did not.

And then it would be legitimate to ask whether it was the same word in both cases. And how could you possibly decide that?

In short, you cannot settle questions of meaning (or even synonymity) by stipulation.

You haven't refuted any point I stated soundly, nor have given any evidence to suggest you do not need one persons definition to argue against or for it.

Well, forgive me, but it wasn't too clear what your points were, since they contained several words with inderterminate meanings (like 'nothingness').

Your very hard to talk to if you say something like "not necessarily" and then do not give me a counterargument to mine.

And likewise, it is not easy to do the same with you if you fail to notice that my 'Jabberwocky' argument was aimed at that very point.

But I'd like for you to show me how you can argue against lets say Sartre's definition of "nothingness" without taking his definition into consideration? You cannot.

I would not try to, anymore than if he had used 'BuBuBu' instead.

As soon as I see this sort of jargon these days (mostly paraded about by French philosophers) I switch off.

I had to study this sort of guff as an undergraduate. I no longer have to. So, these days, I prefer the London telephone directory; it contains far more truth.

In short, I would no more try to criticise the philosophical ideas of Sarte, than I would try to talk to his corpse.

I have better ways of wasting my time.

Also your vague in stating quantum physics as making sense. Is it not true that some theories of quantum physics state that the same particle can exist in two different places? is this not a nonsensical theory?

And well done for noticing; I had forgotten that you wanted a PhD thesis in response.

I was of course talking about the science, not the accompanying philosophical ideas that Bohr, Heisenberg or Bohm came out with to try to 'explain' their results.

As to one particle existing in two places, we can always say this it is in fact two, and hang the consequences. We do that sort of thing in other areas of science when we encounter 'paradoxes'; why not here?

It's only a convention after all.

You desperately need to read more Wittgenstein.

namepending

29th August 2006, 04:40

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28 2006, 09:23 PM
You desperately need to read more Wittgenstein.
not to interrupt this fasinating onslaught on the science of science (which some of us apparently think is unwarrented although everyone seems to love science) but...

isn't that the guy who a-book-in-the-philosophy-section-of-my-library said was just so obsessed with poker that he through his personal fortitude came to own it? (Wittgenstein's Poker?)

I'm sorry that seems so amusing to me though that is it is worthy of corrupting this discussion...

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th August 2006, 05:40

NamePendig:

isn't that the guy who a-book-in-the-philosophy-section-of-my-library said was just so obsessed with poker that he through his personal fortitude came to own it? (Wittgenstein's Poker?)

If you are referring to the encounter between Wittgenstein and Popper, just say so.

The rest of your comment is either another result of things 'just happening' on your type pad (i.e, you randomly pressed a few keys), or you have developed a new line in enigmatic prose.

I was fortunate enough to have been taught by one of the few remaining witnesses at that meeting, whose own lucid version the authors of that execrable book chose not to take into account.

Hence, I suggest you use that book to poke the fire with, for that is its only value.

Bretty123

29th August 2006, 06:05

Fair enough, I'll buy and read Wittgenstein's books and I'll keep my arguments against you to a minimum for now. I know when I'm outread. But I would not consider my arguments illegitimate.

(also how can I stipulate a meaning with him if Sartre is dead? Is it not easier to use the term define in this case? :P)

Further, I think our discussing although interesting and definitely worthwhile, was out on the biggest tangent possible. :lol:

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th August 2006, 11:55

Bretty:

also how can I stipulate a meaning with him if Sartre is dead?

Well, it was you, not me, who suggested this bogus term might be defined, so that is a question you need to ask yourself.

And, is there a word or two missing from this? I could not understand it.

Is it not easier to use the term define in this case?

Do you mean that it is easier to define this term than to stipulate a meaning for it?

Surely you know that stipulation is one form of definition -- used to explicate the meaning of terms not already in use, or of indeterminate meaning?

That is why I said that if you want to define this term you will be forced to stipulate a meaning for it, and then that will divorce your use of this notion from Sartre's, who, to my knowledge, did not define it. And as soon as you do that, all you say will be directed at your word, not his.

And:

Further, I think our discussing although interesting and definitely worthwhile, was out on the biggest tangent possible.

Again, you will need to explain yourself.

What 'tangent'?

Bretty123

29th August 2006, 14:32

I did not suggest that it be defined, I told you Sartre defined it as such. So don't say I started this objection to the use of a word when your the one who objected first.

And your incorrect, Sartre did define nothingness in his origin of nothingness in being and nothingness.

Please tell me how I can argue and criticize a work without using their definition to see the faults in it? You can't that is the whole point of definitions. How would a physics scientist argue against string theory if he did not use firstly someone elses definition of it? your objection on this point is nonsense.

Again, you will need to explain yourself.

What 'tangent'?

off on or at a tangent, digressing suddenly from one course of action or thought and turning to another: The speaker flew off on a tangent.

namepending

29th August 2006, 16:25

Rosa, all I see in formal logic and dialectics (which I am more unfamiliar with) is a description of how to approach the relations between things,

"As we will see, this readily collapses into incoherence. Oddly enough, even though Lenin had to think these very words (i.e., "motion without matter") to make the point that they were "unthinkable", that did not stop him from concluding that what he himself had just done (i.e., think these words) could not in fact be done by anyone -- which clearly must have included himself!"

Lenin says something is unthinkable
when lenin says something he has to think of it first?<<<<
therefore lenin is a metaphysician

1) that doesn't follow
2) the arrowed premise is completely wrong,

Man A tells Man B of experienced phenomenon Wobberjockey, Man B says the word back to himself in wonder and recounts the description given to him by Man A to Man C, THEREFORE SAYING IT WITHOUT EXPERIENCING IT, and because all thoughts are experiences, THINKING OF IT.

You could and probably will say but Man B isn't referencing the same phenomenon as Man A, because he hasn't experienced it and hasn't experienced it as Man A, however, he is completely entitled to reference to Man C the experience of which he has no experience himself in man A, because he knows that experience exists potentially by what he is told by Man A.

So, when Lenin says to me, "Namepending, you know, I see matter and I see motion, I see you do too, but given all I see is these two- it is impossible for me to experience (I.E. THINK OF) the absence of these two things, as I would the absence of a fire in my fireplace, or hair on my head, which I have experienced and can recall within my thoughts."

I see nothing metaphysical with Lenins speech there.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th August 2006, 18:00

Bretty now:

I did not suggest that it be defined, I told you Sartre defined it as such. So don't say I started this objection to the use of a word when your the one who objected first.

Bretty earlier:

If one of you defines it then you can use that definition to discuss it and argue against/for it.

Apologies if I misunderstood you, but you did not help by being obscure.

Please tell me how I can argue and criticize a work without using their definition to see the faults in it?

If the defintion contains obscure words itself (as Sartre's does), then it is not a definition.

So, if the word in question is already meaningless, the definiton might not work. This would be rather like me 'defining' 'Jabberwocky' as 'that than which nothing more obscure can be conceived'. This 'definition' contains at least one meaningless term (viz 'Jabberwocky'), the new meaning of which the definiens does not make clear.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/diction...a/d0004350.html (http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/difficultwords/data/d0004350.html)

There are other ways, but this should nuke Sartre's 'definition' I reckon.

off on or at a tangent, digressing suddenly from one course of action or thought and turning to another: The speaker flew off on a tangent.

Correct, but I did not ask what this term means, just 'what tangent'?

You have yet to say what tangent I went off on.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th August 2006, 18:11

NamePending:

Lenin says something is unthinkable
when lenin says something he has to think of it first?<<<<
therefore lenin is a metaphysician

Correct, but that is not my argument.

I point out what it is that delineates metaphysics eslewhere in that Essay (if you are quoting from it), and note that every metaphysical thesis collapses into incoherence at some point (some quicker that others) -- Lenin's being a case in point.

So, the one is a consequence, the other a delineating characteristic.

But you have other problems with what I said:

Man A tells Man B of experienced phenomenon Wobberjockey, Man B says the word back to himself in wonder and recounts the description given to him by Man A to Man C, THEREFORE SAYING IT WITHOUT EXPERIENCING IT, and because all thoughts are experiences, THINKING OF IT.

I am not sure if you mean this seriously, but this in no way even approaches the topic in hand.

Lenin says mattter without motion is unthinkable, so unless you want to argue that Lenin did not understand his own speech, he had to think those words to say he could not think them.

I see nothing metaphysical with Lenins speech there.

Your 'argument' only 'works' because you had elided the meanings of 'thinking' and 'experiencing', which you do not justify.

And, recall, my claim that Lenin is talking metaphysically is a semantic point, and not dependent on his words imploding; as I noted earlier, the first is a criterion, the second a sympton.

Bretty123

29th August 2006, 19:25

If the defintion contains obscure words itself (as Sartre's does), then it is not a definition.

So, if the word in question is already meaningless, the definiton might not work. This would be rather like me 'defining' 'Jabberwocky' as 'that than which nothing more obscure can be conceived'. This 'definition' contains at least one meaningless term (viz 'Jabberwocky'), the new meaning of which the definiens does not make clear.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/diction...a/d0004350.html

There are other ways, but this should nuke Sartre's 'definition' I reckon.

Sorry but I disagree, your assuming that obscurity immediately is equally meaningless. Just because you don't agree with someone's definition of it, and consider it obscure does not mean his defined word is meaningless.

And if I want to argue against your definition of jabberwocky, then do I not take your definition into consideration? Of course I do.

Further, you state that the definition MIGHT not work, so it is your assumption that the definition might not be employable.

You would have to prove his definition wrong, incorrect, and/or falsified to show that it does not work as a definition he employs in his work.

OUR tangent, as i said it was OURS not just yours, was that we started with one persons definition of a perhaps meaningless or obscure definition and we are now talking about nothingness and Sartre. This was not meant as anything besides a friendly comment.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th August 2006, 20:03

Bretty:

Sorry but I disagree, your assuming that obscurity immediately is equally meaningless.

I am in fact assuming 'obscure' means that such notions are guilty until proven innocent.

And further, that if you want to waste your time trying to make these obscure words clear that it up to you. Good luck, it will be a first in human history.

Count me out, though; I had enough of that pointless task when I had to do it as an undergraduate.

Now, I'd rather watch my toenails grow. Much more useful.

And if I want to argue against your definition of jabberwocky, then do I not take your definition into consideration? Of course I do.

The only problem is, I haven't got one, and there isn't one.

However, I'd like to see you trying to take this 'definition' into consideration:

"Jabberwocky" means "if you wimsy in the borogroves, your toves will get slithy".

A slightly clearer 'definition' than most you will find in Sartre/Hegel/Heidgegger/St Bonaventure/Suarez/Plotinus....

Do you want to waste your time on it?

I suspect not.

Same with me and traditional philosophy.

Now, you have to study this pile of ordure; I do not.

Further, you state that the definition MIGHT not work, so it is your assumption that the definition might not be employable.

Sorry, you lost me here.

namepending

31st August 2006, 00:02

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 11:12 AM

Lenin says mattter without motion is unthinkable, so unless you want to argue that Lenin did not understand his own speech, he had to think those words to say he could not think them.

Your 'argument' only 'works' because you had elided the meanings of 'thinking' and 'experiencing', which you do not justify.

You yourself have said Lenin was trying to explain that a situation was incapable of experience, which you "without justification" claimed is impossible, and therefore contrived your apparent supposition that he is purposely contradicting himself to entertain you.

"Lenin...make (made) the point that they were 'unthinkable',"

end quote

It's very petty to claim you have immunity from me because I didn't "justify" my claim* when you make your accusations by saying in a few spaces:

As we will see, (claim) this readily collapses into incoherence (claim). Oddly enough, even though Lenin had to think these very words (i.e., "motion without matter") to make the point that they were "unthinkable" ([ignorant] claim), that did not stop him from concluding that what he himself had just done (monstrous metaphysical claim) (i.e., think these words) could not in fact be done by anyone (claim)-- which clearly must have included himself! (claim)"

Excuse me, but your philosophy while it may be overwrought with smug confidence, is simply devoid of justification, and consists of the most religious profusion of claims and claiming, while failing to even make up for it in the metaphysician's friend, appeal.

================================

*That just as you may successfully and with good mannered logic reference an abstraction of thoughts/experiences when approaching slightly new experiences, you may likewise reference the contradictions and failure of abstraction from concrete experiences in approaching possible experiences considered from merely abstract scenarios, or more simply, consciousness of cumulative experience- such as when Lenin tries and fails (noting so with his tongue) to reconcile his tangible experiences of removal of certain material qualities- and those experience's application to the material qualities of motion and matter. Because, he reflects that all he has experienced, including removals of objects, their absences, are merely forms of matter and motion, and that the phenomenon of absence is merely a facet of the very subjects, matter and motion, which he tried to consider as dependent on that phenomenon, he must conclude that he indeed has no experience to relate to the problem, and necessarily for the internal contradictions of the subject considered, so that in conclusion the actual realization, the actual reflection from experience - literal "imagination" in the old greek sense of the term - on an absence of that which is absence, must be considered impossible, or with which Lenin did not mean to incur accusations of self-mutiliation-"unthinkable."

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st August 2006, 00:44

NamePending:

You yourself have said Lenin was trying to explain that a situation was incapable of experience

I think you need to read what I actually said a little more carefully.

and therefore contrived your apparent supposition that he is purposely contradicting himself to entertain you.

Eh?

As we will see, (claim) this readily collapses into incoherence (claim). Oddly enough, even though Lenin had to think these very words (i.e., "motion without matter") to make the point that they were "unthinkable" ([ignorant] claim), that did not stop him from concluding that what he himself had just done (monstrous metaphysical claim) (i.e., think these words) could not in fact be done by anyone (claim)-- which clearly must have included himself! (claim)"

Forgive me, but you are going to have to be much clearer than this if you want me to debate with you.

At present you are doing a good impression of a drunk. Exhibit A:

Excuse me, but your philosophy while it may be overwrought with smug confidence, is simply devoid of justification, and consists of the most religious profusion of claims and claiming, while failing to even make up for it in the metaphysician's friend, appeal.

Lots of abuse here, precious little evidence of reasoning. In fact, this looks like it has been randomly typed. Are you really a machine with its battery running low?

However, I suspect that too much diabolical logic has nuked the higher centres of your brain.

And wtf does all this mean:

That just as you may successfully and with good mannered logic reference an abstraction of thoughts/experiences when approaching slightly new experiences, you may likewise reference the contradictions and failure of abstraction from concrete experiences in approaching possible experiences considered from merely abstract scenarios, or more simply, consciousness of cumulative experience- such as when Lenin tries and fails (noting so with his tongue) to reconcile his tangible experiences of removal of certain material qualities- and those experience's application to the material qualities of motion and matter. Because, he reflects that all he has experienced, including removals of objects, their absences, are merely forms of matter and motion, and that the phenomenon of absence is merely a facet of the very subjects, matter and motion, which he tried to consider as dependent on that phenomenon, he must conclude that he indeed has no experience to relate to the problem, and necessarily for the internal contradictions of the subject considered, so that in conclusion the actual realization, the actual reflection from experience - literal "imagination" in the old greek sense of the term - on an absence of that which is absence, must be considered impossible, or with which Lenin did not mean to incur accusations of self-mutiliation-"unthinkable."

Come back when you can string an argument/clear thought together.

----------------------------------------------------------------

You clearly missed this comment on the opening page of my site:

I have taken great care with these Essays; they have been distilled from work I have been doing for just over ten years, but I have been mulling over the ideas they contain for over twenty-five. Literally thousands of hours have gone into writing, re-writing and re-thinking this material. In addition, I have spent more money than I care to mention obtaining obscure books, theses and papers on a whole range of topics directly and indirectly connected with DM. In that case, anyone who cannot bring to this discussion the seriousness it deserves is encouraged to go and waste their time elsewhere. I am not interested in communicating with theoretical clowns.

Good luck in the circus....

Bretty123

31st August 2006, 00:52

Yea, namepending sounds high.

namepending

31st August 2006, 17:43

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 05:45 PM
NamePending:

You yourself have said Lenin was trying to explain that a situation was incapable of experience

I think you need to read what I actually said a little more carefully.

and therefore contrived your apparent supposition that he is purposely contradicting himself to entertain you.

Eh?

As we will see, (claim) this readily collapses into incoherence (claim). Oddly enough, even though Lenin had to think these very words (i.e., "motion without matter") to make the point that they were "unthinkable" ([ignorant] claim), that did not stop him from concluding that what he himself had just done (monstrous metaphysical claim) (i.e., think these words) could not in fact be done by anyone (claim)-- which clearly must have included himself! (claim)"

Forgive me, but you are going to have to be much clearer than this if you want me to debate with you.

At present you are doing a good impression of a drunk. Exhibit A:

Excuse me, but your philosophy while it may be overwrought with smug confidence, is simply devoid of justification, and consists of the most religious profusion of claims and claiming, while failing to even make up for it in the metaphysician's friend, appeal.

Lots of abuse here, precious little evidence of reasoning. In fact, this looks like it has been randomly typed. Are you really a machine with its battery running low?

However, I suspect that too much diabolical logic has nuked the higher centres of your brain.

And wtf does all this mean:

That just as you may successfully and with good mannered logic reference an abstraction of thoughts/experiences when approaching slightly new experiences, you may likewise reference the contradictions and failure of abstraction from concrete experiences in approaching possible experiences considered from merely abstract scenarios, or more simply, consciousness of cumulative experience- such as when Lenin tries and fails (noting so with his tongue) to reconcile his tangible experiences of removal of certain material qualities- and those experience's application to the material qualities of motion and matter. Because, he reflects that all he has experienced, including removals of objects, their absences, are merely forms of matter and motion, and that the phenomenon of absence is merely a facet of the very subjects, matter and motion, which he tried to consider as dependent on that phenomenon, he must conclude that he indeed has no experience to relate to the problem, and necessarily for the internal contradictions of the subject considered, so that in conclusion the actual realization, the actual reflection from experience - literal "imagination" in the old greek sense of the term - on an absence of that which is absence, must be considered impossible, or with which Lenin did not mean to incur accusations of self-mutiliation-"unthinkable."

Come back when you can string an argument/clear thought together.

----------------------------------------------------------------

You clearly missed this comment on the opening page of my site:

I have taken great care with these Essays; they have been distilled from work I have been doing for just over ten years, but I have been mulling over the ideas they contain for over twenty-five. Literally thousands of hours have gone into writing, re-writing and re-thinking this material. In addition, I have spent more money than I care to mention obtaining obscure books, theses and papers on a whole range of topics directly and indirectly connected with DM. In that case, anyone who cannot bring to this discussion the seriousness it deserves is encouraged to go and waste their time elsewhere. I am not interested in communicating with theoretical clowns.

Good luck in the circus....
Sounds like denial, the very stuff of people who don't know what they are talking about...

I'd like to note:

1) you've spent a good deal of time on me, contradicting your own assertion that either you don't waste time on clowns, or that I am such.

2) (based from your website): time is a product of motion and can't be placed against it, as is obvious from the rather painful difficulty (better; impossibility) of trying to posit the concept of time without referencing the motion of things

3) It is impossible to be a materialist as you claim if you stick your head in the dirt to the hegemony of material motion, which is understood through materialism. You cannot say: it is necessary that the Bourgeois gained their wealth through exploitation and not "divine will," if you believe it is entirely reasonable to have circumstance without differentiation, material without motion, quantity without quality, phenomena in themselves free of any reference to the subjective realization of other phenomena...

4) of course something can be both stationary and moving and still be correctly understood without denying the two terms stationary and moving- as you do in response to Engels fine writing which you quote-

"this 'contradiction' is based on ambiguities in Engels's use of words like "moment" and "place", which means that once these have been resolved, the 'contradiction' disappears."

you seem to believe that there is some sort of objective universe where objects have their own value, and ridiculously cite Aristotle of all people- the big ole' Church Philosopher for a thousand years and the Caliph's nightly reading for the thousand years before that- but from the correct understanding of subjective experience, it is perfectly simple to say "the object [matter and motion, as object] I experience is stationary compared in my experience of 'a rocket' or mobile in my experience compared to what I've seen of the flag on the moon...
only in an objectivist fantasy could one render the word stationary, as employed by Engels, as a regularly regarded and daily noted example of nothingness, which is impossible from the viewpoint of those you accuse, or so one-dimensionally look at motion.

Haven't you heard of the great solution of philosophy, once religion fell away, of finally gutting absolutes? Neither stationary nor motion are words meant to be understood as absolutes and in no small way because of the nature of "absolute" itself as a metaphysical error.

It's probably pointless, however, explaining any of this to you because I doubt with all that time you've spent typing away in error that you will be well disposed to rethinking your "philosophy."

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st August 2006, 19:34

NameP:

you've spent a good deal of time on me, contradicting your own assertion that either you don't waste time on clowns, or that I am such.

Ah, but that was before I saw your orange hair, over-long shoes and baggy suit.

time is a product of motion and can't be placed against it

Not only do I not say this, I would never say this, or anything like it.

I note you did not post the quote, or the link.

Once again, wtf does this mean:

It is impossible to be a materialist as you claim if you stick your head in the dirt to the hegemony of material motion

And as far as this is concerned:

You cannot say: it is necessary that the Bourgeois gained their wealth through exploitation and not "divine will," if you believe it is entirely reasonable to have circumstance without differentiation, material without motion, quantity without quality, phenomena in themselves free of any reference to the subjective realization of other phenomena...

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word 'relevant'.

Is English a second language to you?

It will help explain the very odd sentences you post.

For example this looks like the ramblings of a drunk:

you seem to believe that there is some sort of objective universe where objects have their own value, and ridiculously cite Aristotle of all people- the big ole' Church Philosopher for a thousand years and the Caliph's nightly reading for the thousand years before that- but from the correct understanding of subjective experience, it is perfectly simple to say "the object [matter and motion, as object] I experience is stationary compared in my experience of 'a rocket' or mobile in my experience compared to what I've seen of the flag on the moon...
only in an objectivist fantasy could one render the word stationary, as employed by Engels, as a regularly regarded and daily noted example of nothingness, which is impossible from the viewpoint of those you accuse, or so one-dimensionally look at motion.

Since it bears as much resemblance to anything I have ever argued/posted as you do to the Crab Nebula, I will not comment on it.

Haven't you heard of the great solution of philosophy, once religion fell away, of finally gutting absolutes? Neither stationary nor motion are words meant to be understood as absolutes and in no small way because of the nature of "absolute" itself as a metaphysical error.

Eh?

It's probably pointless, however, explaining any of this to you because I doubt with all that time you've spent typing away in error that you will be well disposed to rethinking your "philosophy."

If what you have posted so far is an example of your powers of 'explanation', I doubt anyone, let alone my good self, would be able to follow it.

Now, unless you can be bothered to write something comprehensible, this is the last time I am going to answer, or even attempt to answer, any queston/point you care to make.

Otherwise, I will resort to treating you like I treat Citizen boZo: as a joke.