Causality and determinism

[Kevin Solway]

What is important to know is that either thoughts follow a pattern or the molecular arrangement that the thoughts are a function of do .

It would be highly unlikely that both would.

Thoughts are in fact a chemical/molecular arrangement, so there is only one thing, and not two.

The thought of the number "one" would be a particular arrangement of chemicals, and the thought of the number "two" would be another chemical arrangement.

But in the case that there are non-physical things, they too must be caused, and therefore we would expect to see them follow a pattern.

[samadhi]

chikoka,

I'm sorry to hear about your travails. It's a tragedy what's happened to your country (I visited Zimbabwe in 1981, it was quite a nice place then). I hope you are able to find a way out. Good luck to you.

[Leyla Shen]

Ambience, glorious ambience...

I am asking you why you think it is true that Pluto, for example, exists.

If I have intuited or been taught that Pluto exists and my only means to verify its existence---to establish the truth of the matter---is rational thought, then the first thing I would have to know is what is meant by existence. Having established that, I can then determine whether or not Pluto exists.

Existence is phenomenological. Since Pluto is a particular phenomenon, it is true that it exists and would exist and be defined solely by the characteristics that distinguish it from other existing things. However, these statements are, all of them, statements of pure, deductive logic---abstractions; their conception is distinguished from conceptions by the crass/“external” senses as ideas, thoughts or abstractions---you don‘t see or feel or hear, can’t touch or taste, “existence is phenomenological” as an abstraction, a thought or an idea.

So, are the distinctions that are truth, belief, thinking and irrationality established by phenomena or logic?

[shytalk]

Paste is subject to cut.

[chikoka]

Imagine a brain that works like this.
It consists of a pipe and a ball moving through it.
The state of the ball at different points in the pipe represents different thoughts.
Lets say that at point A the system (of the ball at that particular position in the pipe)
this represents the thought A.
Further down the pipe at point B it will represent the thought B and further down still at point C it represents the thought C.

I propose that the brain functions in a simmilar kind of determinism.

So we could imagine the owner of this brain would think thoughts A,B,C in that order as the ball went down the tube.
Now we know that the ball can be seen to have been caused to go through this tube by its velocity , friction etc.

Now what if the owner of this brain was called on to think thought A then thought C .

How would this be represented in the brains physical system of the ball and pipe.

The ball would roll down the pipe till it meets point A at which point the thinker will think thought A.
Now comes the interesting part.
In order for the thinker to think thought C next, the ball will somehow have to "skip" point B in order to reach point C in order for the thinker to think thought C.

This skipping is what i say is not caused or rather is self caused.
That is what i mean when i say that either the Thoughts are caused or the physical machinary that the thought s are a function of are.

Not both.

[brokenhead]

Existence is phenomenological.

That can be debated. Recall that thinking is phenomenological, and existence had to be deduced from it ("I think therefore I am.") But it's your rope, so I'll go along and let you wrap it around your neck.

Since Pluto is a particular phenomenon, it is true that it exists and would exist and be defined solely by the characteristics that distinguish it from other existing things. However, these statements are, all of them, statements of pure, deductive logic---abstractions; their conception is distinguished from conceptions by the crass/“external” senses as ideas, thoughts or abstractions---you don‘t see or feel or hear, can’t touch or taste, “existence is phenomenological” as an abstraction, a thought or an idea.

And there you go. If Pluto is a phenomenon (an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition) how do you know it exists?

So, are the distinctions that are truth, belief, thinking and irrationality established by phenomena or logic?

This is what I am trying to get you to tell me. You already seem to know what I think, how my mind works. If you didn't, then you have no grounds for attacking it. Remember - you are the one who is scoffing at my beliefs as somehow irrational. I am defending them by asking you why you think so. So don't answer my question by asking your original question again. I am saying you form your beliefs about the world on a scaffold of shaky assumptions. Don't you? If not, why are mine suspect? I believe mine are as rational as yours. After all, nothing very serious relies on whether you form an opinion about Pluto, or Plato, or ancient China for that matter, yet form them you have. You have, I take it, a desire to know what really happened, whether you experience it firsthand or not, as it gives you a fuller, more proper, appreciation of the world you do experience first hand. Why can you not accept that this is my motivation as well?

I am saying that you assume Pluto exists. You have it as an (albeit minor) part of your world conception. How did it get there and why do you accept it as such? How in fact do you know that men walked on the moon, and that it wasn't an elaborate Hollywood construction designed to gain political advantage during the Cold War?

[Steven]

I don't believe in any of that causality bullshit. I am a free agent.

You mean random.

[Leyla Shen]

brokenhead:

L: Existence is phenomenological.

That can be debated.

Only by someone who doesn’t having thinking mixed up with feeling.

b: Recall that thinking is phenomenological, and existence had to be deduced from it ("I think therefore I am.")

Recall? I suggested no agreement with such a dogma. I refer to Hegelian-type phenomenology, remember?

If I held such a dogma to be true, I would have to contradict myself and say that you do not exist. That would be quite some misfortune for you, would it not? Then again, it doesn’t surprise me that a God-believer such as yourself “thinks” this way on the matter. You take no responsibility for your own ideas (or lack thereof), casting aspersions at others on the matter whilst taking refuge in some God-idea that has nothing to do with thinking; clear evidence that you do not have a mind of your own. Must be God's, eh?

May my words haunt the contemptible, empty crevices of your cracked cranium, insallah!

But it's your rope, so I'll go along and let you wrap it around your neck.

You are deluding yourself, again...

And there you go. If Pluto is a phenomenon (an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition) how do you know it exists?

Let me put it this way: logic, not faith. Do you have an actual, logical argument for the existence of your God?

You already seem to know what I think, how my mind works. If you didn't, then you have no grounds for attacking it.

Actually, in exploring the rubbish that faithfully spews forth from your keyboard, I have decided that you don’t have a mind, as earlier mentioned.

I am defending [my beliefs] by asking you why you think so.

But you are ignoring the evidence. Pure, thinking genius!

I am saying that you assume Pluto exists.

That’s right---and I have already said that my existence, or Pluto’s, is not a matter of faith but a matter of reason based on the evidence. In other words (again!), since you insist on drawing an still-to-this-very-moment unexpressed parallel between these things and your God, provide reasoning and evidence of the same order for the belief in your God. If you’re going to merely repeat what we have already discussed, I will simply ignore it. Alternatively, you can have a fresh look at it and see if you can glean some new insight.

[Steven]

Why should we perceive anything at all unless it is necessary for us to comprehend what is perceived within the context that it is presented to us? We all love to think of the mind as the meaning behind the body, rather than its tool, but where is the logic in that?

Where does the consciousness attain its means of the development of ideas and the progression of apparent experience if it is not both finite and subject to influence? How can you conceive of anything unless you perceive of something? If you perceive of something, how is it that this perception is communicated to you if not by means of some "other" that is not your consciousness?

Leyla is quite right to say that reason provides us with conclusions supporting a contextually accurate representation of external reality, for that is the purpose of reason! Reason cannot do otherwise that attempt to explain and order and analyse and understand what we think we see, and the only reasonable conclusion for that being the case is that that is what our minds exist for, to evaluate information and make decisions upon actions within the context of the senses.

Lo and Behold when we study our "illusion" the empirical data from every conceivable field of study within this "perception" comes back telling us that yes, that is the precise reason underlying the minds presence in this "interpretation".

So have we proven "reality"? In this current "intellectual" climate I think the correct phrase would be the "theory of realism".

Why is that under the scrutiny of religion, science and philosophy must define itself in terms of its deficiencies, when religious arguement suffers no such burden of honesty? It becomes apparent to a reasonable man, if I may generalise, that religion is no good thing at all.

[Iolaus]

Why is that under the scrutiny of religion, science and philosophy must define itself in terms of its deficiencies, when religious arguement suffers no such burden of honesty?

Says who?

[Steven]

The legions that peddle their claims of the divine whether over or covert.

[shytalk]

Paste is subject to cut.

Using logic cut is subject to paste.