If determinism is true, the cause has to guarantee the effect. We often use the word "cause" to refer to things that influence,
but do not guarantee the effect, If determinism is true there are causes going back before you were born
that guarantee what you do now.
831 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 831 of 831im-skeptical,
"This (nothing can cause something to happen) is exactly the kind of ignorant blather that I have been denying."
Ok, so you agree there is no such thing as intrinsic randomness.
You agree that use of a probability distribution is just an admission of ignorance of an underlying causal process.
You agree that asserting an effect without a cause is just gibberish, nonsense.
You realize that a lack of observation of a cause is not an observation of no cause.
Good to know, glad we cleared that up.
"Ok, so you agree there is no such thing as intrinsic randomness."
- NO. You are a cretin who doesn't comprehend what I say. STFU.
"Material and its properties are conjoined by necessity"
The fundamental EM "at base" does not have the properties of the EM in the arrangement. New properties came to exist where none existed before. What is the cause? The only thing it could be is fundamental EM.
So, let's apply the basic principles logic to EM "at base". We know nothing can simultaneously be both actual and potential in the same respect. That means EM cannot actualize the potential. Don't let magical thinking creep into your materialism.
SteveK,
"The fundamental EM "at base" does not have the properties of the EM in the arrangement. "
What is your evidence or reasoning for that?
EM at base just keeps doing what EM does, oblivious to some grand scale of what we call arrangement.
"New properties came to exist where none existed before."
They don't, why should they?
"The only thing it could be is fundamental EM"
Right, what's the problem?
"We know nothing can simultaneously be both actual and potential in the same respect. That means EM cannot actualize the potential. "
That is ancient linear hierarchical sequential thinking.
I suggest that you concentrate, at least for a little while, on conceiving of causation as mutual and multilateral, with EM being material conjoined with its properties simultaneously and inseparably by necessity.
They don't, why should they?
This is the danger of valuing "consistency" in a worldview over accuracy. Plutonium is clearly radioactive, as our observations, instruments, and models all agree, but this very flawed worldview is forced to deny all of that reality. So instead plutonium has to be denied, radioactivity has to be denied, all observations have to be dismissed as hallucinations, and we ourselves are proclaimed to not exist. All that exists is stuff doing stuff, except the stuff the stuff does doesn't exist, while also being the reason why stuff that doesn't exist happens. Magic thinking.
Remember kids, only EM exists, and there are no emergent properties, so since food is good for you, then so is bleach. No emergent properties, so drink away, nonexistent children!
"What is your evidence or reasoning for that?"
See recent comments made by Kevin
im-skeptical,
May 03, 2024 2:25 PM
"What gives rise to that? Nothing."
May 03, 2024 10:20 PM
"nothing there that makes it happen. It just happens."
May 04, 2024 7:15 PM
"So what is this quantum vacuum? Answer: nothing."
May 04, 2024 7:15 PM
"Next question: What makes the vacuum fluctuate? Answer: nothing."
May 03, 2024 10:56 AM
an atomic decay event, ..., and is "caused" by a random quantum event, but there is no chain of causation that goes back beyond that. And this is consistent with a modern concept of determinism that many people have today.
So, again and again you claim that nothing causes something to happen, yet now you deny that you ever said it.
And just in case if that self-contradiction of yours was not enough, you also deny that something causes something to happen.
You're mad about nothing causing something to happen, and you are mad about something causing something to happen.
You even claim that events happening without a cause is "consistent" with determinism!
Kevin,
"then so is bleach. No emergent properties, so drink away, nonexistent children!"
Indeed, the EM will just continue interacting mutually in either case.
"Plutonium is clearly radioactive, as our observations, instruments, and models all agree, but this very flawed worldview is forced to deny all of that reality. "
EM is arranged radioactivity-wise in that case. What's the problem?
"all observations have to be dismissed as hallucinations,"
Why would we dismiss hallucinations? The hallucinations are experiential symbols that the brain generates in association with certain patterns of sense data (sometimes called spike trains).
The symbols themselves are made up internally and are completely hallucinatory. But, the brain has associated those hallucinations with actual processes of existent material. We don't posses a mechanism to be aware of those processes of material directly, but we are aware of the associated hallucinations.
So, the hallucinations have utility insofar as they are symbols consistently associated with actual processes of existent material.
For example, A-P-P-L-E, the letters, are just symbols. There is nothing about an apple, the object, that indicates A-P-P-L-E.
苹果 is also a symbol for the object, an apple.
सेवम् is another, sevam is another, and so forth.
None of those symbols have anything intrinsically to do with the object, an apple.
Those symbols are not intelligible to most other people who can't read those sorts of symbols.
They symbols are just made up in our heads, just squiggly lines somebody dreamed up, hallucinated.
But, those symbols have utility insofar as they are consistently associated with the object, apple, and we can learn that association and share that association.
So, no, I have never suggested dismissing your hallucinations, quite the contrary.
SteveK,
"See recent comments made by Kevin (for evidence or reasoning)"
Sorry, not a very helpful suggestion, I don't find much there to call evidence or reasoning, sound reasoning leastwise.
SP,
You are good at picking out statements I made. You are no good at hearing EVERYTHING I had to say and applying the principle of charity to make the best sense of it.
Saying that something has no cause is not the same as saying nothing is what causes something.
You are assuming some kind of causation. I don't make that mistake.
Saying that no plausible causal mechanism is observed is not he same as saying "we observe nothing causing something", or whatever you have twisted my words into. It is the mark of a moron to misunderstand my words the way you have. And anyone who knows modern physics would know that causation is not a even a principle of physics. The word 'cause' doesn't appear in any physical law. For the most part, it is a philosophical concept.
As for determinism, I explained at length, and made it perfectly clear that it applies in the non-quantum realm, which is where mental processes occur. And even then, it isn't absolute. I explained my concept of "deterministic free will", with caveats regarding the limits of determinism.
I said all this, and you don't understand any of it. So you go around putting your own words in my mouth, distorting the meaning of what I said, and thinking you have good reason to ridicule me for that. You accuse me of contradicting myself when you don't grok what I said. You understand far less than you think you do.
Indeed, the EM will just continue interacting mutually in either case.
EM is arranged radioactivity-wise in that case. What's the problem?
Once again proving my point. At the level of EM there is no distinction, but at the arrangement level, there is. I agree, at the level of "radioactivity-wise arrangement", which normal people call "plutonium", radioactivity occurs where at the EM level, it did not. Emergent property. Thank you.
Why would we dismiss hallucinations?
Go ask a psychiatrist or qualified neurologist. They'll explain it to you, since Google and dictionaries are beyond your capabilities.
The hallucinations are experiential symbols that the brain generates in association with certain patterns of sense data (sometimes called spike trains).
By definition, "in association with certain patterns of sense data" means they aren't hallucinations. Seriously, why do you keep embarrassing yourself like this?
The symbols themselves are made up internally and are completely hallucinatory. But, the brain has associated those hallucinations with actual processes of existent material.
The only thing hallucinations are symbols of is a problem. Ask a psychiatrist or neurologist about your hallucinations.
Your worldview forces you to only talk about the EM-level, where the capacity to distinguish between substances fails, as you proved by appealing to the arrangement. It forces you to call normal sensory experience a hallucination, which renders the word meaningless, once again removing explanatory power. Your worldview is nonsense, but I will concede it is consistently nonsensical.
I don't find much there to call evidence or reasoning, sound reasoning leastwise.
Your inability to find anything there isn't a flaw on my part.
im-skeptical,
"You are good at picking out statements I made."
That is not difficult, just use a text search.
"You are no good at hearing EVERYTHING I had to say and applying the principle of charity to make the best sense of it."
I have heard your EVERYTHING again and again for decades. You started out like you were going to educate me, which is typical of a person of your magical thinking hubris, you think you have somehow solved the problems and others just have not heard of your "explanations".
I am light years ahead of you. I anticipated everything you have said, which you would have picked up on if you were not so entrenched in your magical thinking hubris.
"Saying that no plausible causal mechanism is observed is not he same as saying "we observe nothing causing something""
Right, exactly the point I was making to you, but go on.
"Saying that something has no cause is not the same as saying nothing is what causes something."
Nothing is not a thing to do anything, obviously.
"You are assuming some kind of causation. I don't make that mistake."
Your mistake, among others, is speaking in distinctions without differences.
"It is the mark of a moron to misunderstand my words the way you have. "
Ok, genius, let's see if you can point out the differences in these expressions.
There is no cause for X.
Not anything caused X.
No thing caused X.
Nothing caused X.
Claiming that there simply was no cause for X is not different from claiming nothing caused X. You are making a distinction without a difference.
Word it either way you like, you are thinking in magical terms, you believe in poof, just alakazam and you get X. You might just as well believe in miracles.
"And anyone who knows modern physics would know that causation is not a even a principle of physics. "
You probably mean the formulation of physics, where to identify particle P as the cause and Q as the effect would be arbitrary, and therefore meaningless. There is only the mutual interaction between P and Q, ideally described in various mathematical expressions.
In the practice and teaching of physics and related subjects certainly the notion of causality is employed. Nuclear fusion is said to cause the sun to shine. Relativistic effects are said to cause distortions to electromagnetic GPS signals that must be corrected for, and on and on.
Russell famously proposed eliminating the word "cause" from our lexicon, as it has become so polluted with false notions as to be irredeemable. Some decades later John Stewart Bell proposed banishing the word "measurement" for similar reasons.
I think Russell was hasty, and a better approach is to recognize that causation is an interactive process, always mutual, multilateral, and in the present moment.
"As for determinism, I explained at length, and made it perfectly clear that it applies in the non-quantum realm"
Yes, you made it clear that that you have made a lengthy incoherent assertion set.
What is the supposed dividing line between your imagined quantum realm versus the supposed non-quantum realm?
"And even then, it isn't absolute."
More self contradictory gibberish. There is determinism except it is not absolutely deterministic. How absurd.
"I explained my concept of "deterministic free will", with caveats regarding the limits of determinism."
Sometimes I gotta laugh to keep from crying. What a confused garble of mushy thinking.
im-skeptical,
"I said all this, and you don't understand any of it."
I confess I have difficulty understanding gibberish, self contradiction, hubris, and mushy garble, except that I clearly understand those are the sorts of expressions you are making here.
"You accuse me of contradicting myself when you don't grok what I said."
I have heard all your sorts of expressions again and again for many years. Listening to you is like listening to a Christian apologist. There is no anticipation that perhaps some new sound argument will be put forth. It is just a matter of listening to which tired old nonsense assertions are going to be made in some slightly different wording.
Look, genius, you are asserting poof. You are asserting a one handed handshake, a skyhook.
That's what intrinsic randomness has to be, just poof, for no reason, by no cause, because of not anything, no explanation, no mechanism, because of no thing, because of nothing, just any old time stuff just pops off any old which way.
The hubris and inanity of bringing the tradition of scientific enquiry ad hoc to a screeching halt exploded into physics in the nineteen twenties in what would later be called the Copenhagen Interpretation. That is when some otherwise brilliant physicists came up with a set of equations that proved highly effective in predicting the distribution of observed effects over many trials. They included probabilistic terms with certain distribution functions. In some cases they even claimed physics was complete and there simply is no further work to be done to find any explanatory mechanism for the observed effects!
Some would go on to claim it was not even a valid question to ask! What mechanism gives rise to these observed effects? Well, none, and you should not even be asking!
Physicists are not necessarily very logical regarding the ontological or existential applications of their mathematical expressions. Manifestly, you have fallen victim to this absurdist mindset among physicists. Not long ago it was popular to assert that the big bang started with a singularity, and that time began at the big bang, and that asking what came before the big bang was an invalid question.
Of course, such inane assertions were made based on the totally irrational application of a theory that is known to fail in the very regime where it is being applied! Physics are not necessarily very logical outside of their narrow mathematical expressions.
Quantum woo is all the rage now, and for good reason, hucksters get rich selling woo to the credulous. You are manifestly among such of the credulous.
Best wishes on your recovery and entry into sound scientific thinking in some of the next great scientific challenges, identifying the mechanisms that account for so-called dark matter, dark energy, and observed quantum effects.
You do realize that is the core of the scientific project, looking for mechanisms to account for observed effects, right?
SP, the big difference between you and me is that I have both academic credentials and a lifetime of professional experience in the field, and as nothing more than a wannabe, you don't.
Reminds me of the pot calling the kettle black
im-skeptical,
"I have both academic credentials and a lifetime of professional experience in the field, and as nothing more than a wannabe, you don't."
Translation, you can't form any sound counter arguments so you attempt to argue from authority.
Translation: You don't know what you're talking about. You are stuck on the religion of deterministic causality in quantum mechanics, and you won't be swayed by evidence to the contrary.
Reminds me of the pot calling the kettle black
Pots can't talk, only a theist would engage in such magic thinking. Shame on you.
im-skeptical,
"Translation: You don't know what you're talking about."
Ok, still no sound counter arguments, just a few snide invectives, got it.
Kevin,
"only a theist would engage in such magic thinking. "
Clearly that cannot be the case, since im-skeptical is a demonstrated counter example.
But, he is not the only only one. Some people are very rational up to a point, then they go magical.
The scientific project is, among other things, a search for mechanisms to explain observed effects.
Observation - the diversity of life.
Scientific explanation - biological evolution.
Observation - lights in the sky move.
Scientific explanation - astronomical model.
Observation - cosmic objects seem to move in unexpected ways.
Scientific explanation - TBD, not yet known, placeholder labels of dark energy and matter, keep working on it until an explanation can be determined.
Observation - distribution of outcomes in submicroscopic experiments.
Scientific explanation - poof, no reason, it just happens, no mechanism, you are an idiot for questioning the majority of physicists who insist you just shut up and calculate, even asking the question is invalid and just shows what a moron you are.
Oh, wait, there is a problem with that last one.
Kevin,
"Once again proving my point. At the level of EM there is no distinction, but at the arrangement level, there is. I agree, at the level of "radioactivity-wise arrangement", which normal people call "plutonium", radioactivity occurs where at the EM level, it did not. Emergent property. Thank you."
You're welcome? I suppose? EM keeps doing the same sorts of things irrespective of how it is arranged relative to other EM. Ok, what is the problem supposed to be exactly?
Are you concerned that "mereological simples arranged plutonium-wise undergo dynamic changes in arrangement that include some of those mereological simples as arranged radiation-wise" is just too cumbersome compared to "plutonium is radioactive"?
Well, yes, speaking more precisely is typically quite cumbersome. Most people speak inaccurately and leave it up to the listener to understand the many unexpressed nuances.
"By definition, "in association with certain patterns of sense data" means they aren't hallucinations."
In a definition that fails to distinguish between the qualia experience itself and the subjects of that experience then such a superficial, inadequate, and misleading definition might be the case.
" It forces you to call normal sensory experience a hallucination, which renders the word meaningless, "
You just have not yet grasped the more detailed meaning that comes by going beyond folk psychology definitions to carefully analyzed scientific definitions.
"Ok, still no sound counter arguments, just a few snide invectives, got it."
- Counter arguments to what? Your know-it-all attitude? Your ideological battle against the evidence-backed consensus of the scientific community? Sorry, dude. Go back to your sandbox.
""By definition, "in association with certain patterns of sense data" means they aren't hallucinations.""
Suppose we consider
R=viewing an apparent distant body of water, wherein the body of water is really out there.
H=viewing an apparent distant body of water, except the body of water is not really out there.
Of course, this is the classic mirage of the thirsty person in a desert, perhaps exacerbated by dehydration induced diminished brain function. We can see this effect ourselves on a hot day, there can seem to be a shimmering in the distance that resembles water. The scientific explanation for this shimmering effect has to do with refractions and hot air.
So, you would say, R is viewing reality, and H is an hallucination, because in R the water is really there and in H the water is not really there.
Suppose we say
W=water is really there
A=only air is really there
Q=the qualia experience of W
Q=the qualia experience of only A
So, we have the same qualia experience, Q, if A the same as if W.
We have the same qualia experience if there is really water or if there is really only air.
But what is the hallucination then?
You say
Q and W is not an hallucination, because Q is associated with real water.
Q and A is an hallucination, because Q is associated only with air, which is falsely believed to be water.
So correctly interpreting a symbol is not an hallucination, you say.
But, incorrectly interpreting a symbol is an hallucination, you say.
Indeed, that is the conventional view, the folk psychology view, the manifest image view, the ordinary superficial not very carefully considered view. Yes.
But what is the symbol itself?
A quick search on "icon index symbol" yields the below, there are many other such references.
https://vanseodesign.com/web-design/icon-index-symbol/
3 Types of Signifiers — The Categories of Signs
Peirce said the form a sign takes, it’s signifier, can be classified as one of three types an icon, an index, or a symbol.
An Icon has a physical resemblance to the signified, the thing being represented. A photograph is a good example as it certainly resembles whatever it depicts.
An Index shows evidence of what’s being represented. A good example is using an image of smoke to indicate fire.
A Symbol has no resemblance between the signifier and the signified. The connection between them must be culturally learned. Numbers and alphabets are good examples. There’s nothing inherent in the number 9 to indicate what it represents. It must be culturally learned.
Note, the symbol is just made up, it is an invention of the brain, there is no inherent connection between the symbol and the extramental thing it is associated with.
That is what makes the symbol itself an hallucination. It is completely imaginary, with no inherent connection to the extramental thing it is associated with.
You say the experience of perceiving X when there is no X in the extramental reality is an hallucination.
I agree.
There is no such thing as yellow or sweet in the extramental reality. That makes those qualia experiences themselves hallucinations.
im-skeptical,
"- Counter arguments to what?"
June 29, 2024 8:40 AM
June 29, 2024 8:43 AM
June 29, 2024 11:42 AM
Drop your know-it-all attitude. Then maybe you can begin to understand what the evidence indicates, and people are telling you.
im-skeptical,
"Drop your know-it-all attitude."
"I have both academic credentials and a lifetime of professional experience in the field,"
Hilarious.
Pot, meet kettle.
I have found that when the other guy is incapable of forming his own arguments in his own words he will refuse to do so, only claim to be an expert who's opinion should be accepted on authority, hurl insults, claim the majority of experts agree, and make short vague allusions to evidence that supposedly supports his claim.
Behind the bluster, insults, claims to be an authority, appeal to the majority, appeal to authority, and blatant hypocrisy is, well, nothing.
Or, at least, no rational intelligible attempts at specific counter arguments in response to the very careful, explicit, and detailed arguments I have made.
Calling Mr. Dunning, Mr. Kruger. We found your patient.
Are you concerned that "mereological simples arranged plutonium-wise undergo dynamic changes in arrangement that include some of those mereological simples as arranged radiation-wise" is just too cumbersome compared to "plutonium is radioactive"?
Notice how heavily reliant on various forms of the word "arrange" your description is, in order to accommodate various effects. Can you accommodate various effects without appealing to arrangement?
In a definition that fails to distinguish between the qualia experience itself and the subjects of that experience then such a superficial, inadequate, and misleading definition might be the case.
That's not the point of the word.
You just have not yet grasped the more detailed meaning that comes by going beyond folk psychology definitions to carefully analyzed scientific definitions.
Neither have scientists apparently.
So, you would say, R is viewing reality, and H is an hallucination, because in R the water is really there and in H the water is not really there.
No, I wouldn't say that. You do realize the difference between a mirage and a hallucination, don't you?
To borrow from your post, the shimmering water-like image is due to refractions and hot air. That's due to the behavior of light. You can take a picture of it. And since it is an image triggered by light entering our eye, or a camera lens, it is not a hallucination.
The attitude stands intact. OK. That's something I can't argue with.
Post a Comment