Determinism is the view that given what happened in the distant past (which you and I had nothing to do with) the future is inevitable. Such past events can simply be the positions of the material particles in the universe as of, say, July 13, 1950 at 12:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time. Or the set of past event could include choices God might have made to predetermine that such and such will happen. Whether it's physical or divine, given that past state, the future is inevitable. If you play a CD with Ariana Grande's music, you will hear her songs the same way every time you play it, and you won't hear Demi Lovato instead. It's predetermined.
Let's call the set of events over which you had not control X.
The argument against moral responsibility might be stated this way.
1) You are not responsible for X. (It happened before you were born).
2) Necessarily, if X occurs, Y occurs (Y is some action you performed. Think of the worst thing you ever did. Make that Y).
3) Therefore, you are not responsible for Y.
See. you're off the hook.
105 comments:
"See. you're off the hook."
Correct.
Objective morality is logically impossible, whether determinism is the case or not. This is proved with arguments of the form of the Euthyphro dilemma.
Another way to show that objective morality is not the case is to assert determinism. Clearly, on determinism there can be no such thing as free will because free will requires that one be able to make real choices. On determinism one cannot make an ultimately free choice. Without a free will choice nobody is ultimately morally responsible for their actions.
Morality is just a convention, like the rules of a card game.
We can write an objective standard for morality just like we can write an objective standard for a particular sort of poker play.
But the objective standard of morality is itself subjective, just as the preference for one sort of poker versus another sort of poker is subjective.
One consequence of determinism would be the inability to stop posting false dichotomies. Of course, under free will, one can simply choose to ignore being wrong and bull forward, full steam ahead, so ultimately it comes down to what reaction to a behavior is justified.
Under determinism, moral outrage is unjustified, always, particularly for those who assert determinism as truth, so any moral content from them is to be mocked and ignored.
"One consequence of determinism would be the inability to stop posting false dichotomies."
Non-sequitur. Some people are just hard wired to present false dichotomies.
"Under determinism, moral outrage is unjustified"
Why would outrage need a justification?
"so any moral content from them is to be mocked and ignored."
Up to you, if that is how you are determined to behave.
Various principles upon which to base a secular objective standard of morality have been proposed.
Promotion of human flourishing
Elimination of involuntary imposition of will
The golden rule
If you choose to advocate for the reduction of human flourishing, involuntarily imposing will on others, and treating others in ways you do not wish to be treated, then you might be hard wired to mock and ignore secular morality.
If you choose
Be consistent.
From within a boundary choices are made based on incoming data as it crosses that boundary, in ordinary language.
On eliminative materialism and determinism no "choices" are "real", that is, relative to the cosmos as a whole the fundamental material is progressing the only way it can.
I don't know much about the cosmos as a whole and neither do you or anybody else. I also don't even know what fundamental material is and neither does anybody else. So, speaking in terms of what happens at the most fundamental level in consideration of the cosmos as a whole seems to be quite impractical.
One of these days you might learn how to speak more than one language in more than one context. So far, manifestly, on these subjects at least, you have not.
OP
"The argument against moral responsibility might be stated this way. "
Ok
"
1) You are not responsible for X. (It happened before you were born).
2) Necessarily, if X occurs, Y occurs (Y is some action you performed.
Think of the worst thing you ever did. Make that Y).
3) Therefore, you are not responsible for Y.
"
Yes, on determinism, nobody is ultimately to blame for anything they do, nor is anybody due any credit for anything they do. In that case, we are all just gears in the great cosmic clockwork.
Moral responsibility is just a personal sensibility, an emotional sense, feelings. Through communication we find that on many topics the great majority of us have broadly similar sensibilities.
Society is the aggregate of all its members. Thus, moral responsibility at the social level is a social construct, an aggregate of broadly shared personal sensibilities, personal moral intuitions. All of which is entirely consistent with determinism on eliminative materialism.
Objectively, we are indeed all off the hook, as well as undeserving of praise. But it does not feel that way to each of us, now does it?
What accounts for this apparent schism?
One of these days you might learn how to speak more than one language in more than one context. So far, manifestly, on these subjects at least, you have not.
You should probably get English down before tossing out silly language-related insults. I recommend beginning with "hallucination". Once you have learned what it means, you can be taken seriously.
Until then? You will not.
"Yes, on determinism, nobody is ultimately to blame for anything they do, nor is anybody due any credit for anything they do. In that case, we are all just gears in the great cosmic clockwork."
On eliminative materialism only fundamental matter exists - and arrangements of fundamental matter, which are different than fundamental matter and given a different English word - except those arrangements are hallucinations because only fundamental matter exists - and those physical brain patterns of the hallucination are an arrangement of fundamental matter that also doesn't exist. You don't exist, your brain doesn't exist, the hallucination that is your brain pattern doesn't exist, gears and clocks don't exist - only fundamental matter exists.
Eliminative materialism is perhaps the most incoherent and F'd up belief system ever invented.
Eliminative materialism is perhaps the most incoherent and F'd up belief system ever invented.
Hard to say since the English language, which doesn't exist, can't even describe it from a user perspective. You have to speak more than one non-existent language in more than one context apparently, while being prepared to redefine non-existent words to match the desired outcome.
"I recommend beginning with "hallucination"."
Ok, there is no such thing as yellow.
When you see yellow you are hallucinating yellow because there is no such thing as yellow in the extramental cosmos.
"except those arrangements are hallucinations because only fundamental matter exists"
Arrangements do not exist, but they are not hallucinations.
When you perceive an arrangement that spatial perception is not an hallucination, rather, it is an icon.
An icon differs from a symbol.
A symbol is just made up in the brain and arbitrarily associated with something else.
An icon has some rough approximate spatial association with an actual extramental arrangement of material.
So, you can hallucinate symbols, but spatial perceptions can at least approximately realistic.
"Eliminative materialism is perhaps the most incoherent and F'd up belief system ever invented."
You are conflating what is unintelligible to you with what is incoherent.
Feser wrote a very good blog piece on that subject some years back. I think part of the motivation to write that post was how frequently his assertions get called "incoherent" when in fact they are "unintelligible", and most especially, unintelligible only to those who lack education in the subject.
When you see yellow you are hallucinating yellow because there is no such thing as yellow in the extramental cosmos.
You might see a neurologist or perhaps get your eyes checked.
While it is difficult for those with such conditions to really grasp what normal vision is like, for most of us, colors are externally triggered when looking at certain objects, based on the wavelength of light entering our eye, and this is quite repeatable and reliable. Thus, by definition of externally triggered and reliably repeatable, they are not hallucinations.
You can test this by going to your local eye doctor or neurologist and complaining that you are seeing colors.
It's regrettable that you are not able to generalize concepts and apply them to various situations. I suspect this is at least somewhat to blame for your struggles with learning from outside sources that conflict with your worldview.
“When you see yellow you are hallucinating yellow”
When you see something that doesn’t exist (yellow) your brain is something that doesn’t exist (yellow). The matter is the very thing you say doesn’t exist. Unintelligible and incoherent.
Everything you say is a hallucination exists in material form in the material arrangement called the brain. Therefore it exists.
Here’s an analogy. You have a mirror that reflects an image of something that you say doesn’t exist. The mirror is hallucinating, you conclude, however the image in the mirror actually exists in physical form so you cannot say the image is a hallucination.
"You can test this by going to your local eye doctor or neurologist and complaining that you are seeing colors."
If SP actually believes what she says then she's done this already. Birth defects like this can be fixed with some surgery.
"the extramental cosmos"
When fundamental matter is the ONLY thing that exists, this phrase is a differentiation without a difference. The extramental is fundamental matter, which is identical to the mental. Abstractions are literally fundamental matter. Hallucinations are fundamental matter. Beliefs are fundamental matter. Symbols are fundamental matter. Everything is the same.
Arrangements do not exist, but they are not hallucinations.....
So, you can hallucinate symbols, but spatial perceptions can at least approximately realistic.
A summary:
Arrangements don't exist, but you can perceive them.
This perception of non-existence is called an icon, not an hallucination.
You shouldn't confuse an icon with a symbol which is something a brain associates with something else.
The perception of non-existence arrangements (an icon) approximates an actual non-existent arrangement of material and so does not qualify as an hallucination. An hallucination being a false perception of non-existent arrangements rather than a true perception of non-existent arrangements.
Drugs are bad. They do lasting damage even long after the last high.
It was clear long ago that Stardusty is incapable of understanding what is and is not a hallucination.
Victor, I apologize for bringing it into this thread. I saw the false dichotomy yet again and my response was to immediately bring up other glaring failures rather than staying on topic.
"Victor, I apologize for bringing it into this thread."
Ok, since you don't understand the difference between an icon and a symbol, maybe you can at least understand that the basic argument against moral responsibility that Victor presented is correct?
There are a number of ways to show that morality is necessarily subjective, such as arguments of the form of the Euthyphro dilemma. Plato proved the logical impossibility of objective morality over 2000 years ago, yet most people cling the illusion that objective morality is somehow possible.
Like the fact that your qualia experiences themselves are hallucinations, the fact that objective morality is logically impossible is very difficult for most people to accept, and most people will cling to such illusions so strongly that they will invent all sorts of goofy rationalizations to support such illusions.
Another way to show that objective morality is an illusion is the assertion of determinism, as Victor did in the OP. However, that line of argument requires one to also argue for the reality of determinism, if one wishes to use the argument of the OP against the notion of objective morality.
Ok, since you don't understand the difference between an icon and a symbol
As demonstrated countless times now, the lack of understanding on hallucinations is yours. And until you can figure out how to look up a definition and apply it, you won't be taken seriously.
As for your false dichotomies, you ran away when I began to demonstrate why you were wrong about free will, as well, so once again you are not a serious person with whom to engage. I have no reason to expect a serious attempt to understand anything I'm saying if I dismantle your false dichotomy about objective morality, which is frankly child's play and could be Googled. Of course you can't even capitalize God, much less understand anything about him, so once again, wasted effort on my part to engage.
This is the problem with behaving like you do, eventually everyone tires of the antics and you're only left with people who are amused enough to continue engaging, usually to have fun at your expense. And now I'm bored by your utter lack of critical thinking skills, pr at least your unwillingness to apply them in favor of crouching behind your worldview.
The flaws with your eliminative materialism. Free will. Objective morality. The point of the First Way, which even I understand and I'm not a Thomist. Something as simple as hallucinations. You just don't get it, nor do you seem to care to.
It's boring. I'm done.
The spaghetti isn't sticking, throw more.
"It's boring. I'm done."
Uhm, I thought you were apologizing to Victor for derailing his thread, then you proceed to derail it even more without addressing the points of the OP at all.
Which is it?
I mean, I acknowledge, the reasoning of the OP is sound.
On determinism there can be no objective moral responsibility.
On determinism our sensibilities of moral responsibility are merely subjective social constructs.
Victor is correct, at least on this particular point. I reserve my option to take issue with his more general views on Lewis and the argument from reason.
Victor posited determinism as a hypothetical in the OP in order to use deductive reasoning to explore some consequences on that hypothetical.
But is determinism the case?
The alternative to determinism is indeterminism, simple enough as a word construction. But what would indeterminism mean? What would be its consequences?
Indeterminism means randomness, that is to say, indeterminism asserts that at least one sort of process in the cosmos proceeds stochastically. But again, what does that mean metaphysically, or ontologically?
If you consider the PSR to be the case then randomness cannot be the case. If randomness were somehow the case that would necessarily mean that events occur or processes transpire for no reason at all, much less a sufficient reason.
If you hold to the PSR you must be a determinist.
Randomness is most certainly unintelligible, and can only be described in full detail using incoherent assertion sets. Randomness would mean that at base stuff just pops off any old which way for no reason at all, by no causal process, by no mechanism, just poof. Unintelligible indeed.
But now you might be saying, but, quantum mechanics! In quantum mechanics processes are described stochastically, with probability distributions that have been proved to hold true over many experimental trials. Yes, that is the description used.
However, chaos is also commonly analyzed as if it were stochastic, whereas, chaos is actually deterministic, but so complex that human beings cannot write equations for so much detail, so we resort to aggregate estimates, statistics, probability distributions applied to an underlying deterministic process.
That is what QM is, a set of deterministic processes of such complexity at such a tiny scale that we cannot access those processes directly, so all we can do is write gross overall probability distributions that hold over large numbers of trials precisely because the probability distributions are describing an underlying deterministic process.
If there were no underlying deterministic process, no mechanism, no causality, then there would necessarily be a uniform, or flat, or even distribution of events.
In this paper John Stewart Bell describes one way that we have already simulated deterministic QM (see page 4):
https://cds.cern.ch/record/610098/files/cer-002369328.pdf
In this paper Gerard 't Hooft describes how to formulate deterministic QM to any desired precision (which shows that experiments can be accounted for deterministically). Gerard 't Hooft is a Nobel prize winning mathematical physicist who made extremely important contributions in renormalization enabling the electro-weak theory to be formulated.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.04335
So, Victor, what are the consequences of determinism?
No objective moral responsibility.
No free will.
Concurrence with the PSR.
Since the alternative to determinism is irrational and unnecessary, determinism is no mere hypothetical, rather, it is clearly the way the cosmos works, consequences be damned.
StardustyPsyche said:
But is determinism the case? The alternative to determinism is indeterminism ... But what would indeterminism mean? ... Indeterminism means randomness
Determinism is the utter, absolute, and universal denial of the existence of and the reality of possibilities. The alternative to determinism is denial of that determinism denialism. More steps are required to get from this alternative to the asserted randomness alternative. There will be no sound presentation of such steps.
"Determinism is the utter, absolute, and universal denial of the existence of and the reality of possibilities."
There are many ways to state the idea of determinism. Common definitions are sometimes rather anthropocentric.
The cosmos is deterministic if the material in it progresses causally according to intrinsic properties of material such that a future state is fully determined by the initial state and those causal properties.
"The alternative to determinism is denial of that determinism denialism."
You can frame it that way if you want to, but denial of a denial is an awkward and unhelpful approach in my view.
" More steps are required to get from this alternative to the asserted randomness alternative. There will be no sound presentation of such steps."
I presented determinism versus randomness as an obvious dichotomy. Are you proposing a third alternative, and if so, what is it?
StardustyPsyche said:
You can frame it that way ... but denial of a denial is an awkward and unhelpful approach ....
First, I wish to slightly rephrase my previous remark. The change in no way affects the supposed awkwardness, and the change in no way ameliorates the supposed unhelpfulness, but the rephrasing is worthwhile nonetheless. The new version is: The alternative to determinism is denial of the possibilities-denialism of determinism. Another version would be: The alternative to determinism is denial of the denialism which is determinism. With that out of the way, let us move on to the matter of the supposed unhelpfulness of the denying-the-denial approach.
At the very least, this approach can be appreciated as helpful inasmuch as it establishes that the attempted dichotomy production is unsuccessful owing to the fact that the attempt does not consider/address and is not applicable to all relevant contexts/perspectives. That is to say that the attempt at dichotomy production is oblivious to the matter/nature of possibilities. Oh, and here is another way in which the denying-the-denial approach is helpful: within the very narrow context of the attempted dichotomy production, the brute fact lack of possibilities helps lay bare that the actual dichotomy is (as noted more than three months ago) between ordered and disordered, or orderly and disorderly, or orderliness and disorderliness.
"The alternative to determinism is denial of the possibilities-denialism of determinism"
Still awkward, still unhelpful.
One can say that truth is not not not not not not true. You can frame it that way if you want, but the multiple negations just add useless verbal baggage.
Rather than using such awkward and unhelpful negations, try this:
The cosmos is deterministic if the material in it progresses causally according to intrinsic properties of material such that a future state is fully determined by the initial state and those causal properties.
That tells you what determinism is, not what it isn't. You can draw a number of conclusions or consequences by arguing from that definition, as Victor has soundly done in the OP.
The obvious alternative to determinism is randomness. If you don't understand that then you apparently have not been exposed to the rudiments of the subject.
In quantum mechanics the debate is determinism versus randomness. As Einstein has often been attributed as saying "god does not play dice".
Either the cosmos progresses deterministically at base such that the future is fully determined by the present state and the material transfer functions, or there is at least some element of intrinsic randomness in the progressions of material over time.
That's it. If you don't understand that all I can suggest is that you do some basic research on the subject.
StardustyPsyche said:
Rather than using such awkward and unhelpful negations, try this ... That tells you what determinism is, not what it isn't.
For all your meandering, it is most interesting that you never object to the content of my remarks. But, of course, how can you? After all, even if my remarks in this thread started with your preferred point of commencement, I would still quickly get to the matter of the denialism which is determinism - including specifically the determinism denial of possibilities. We have already had that part of the discussion. And maybe you do not realize that to ascribe as illusions and hallucinations, for example, is to deny.
"the denialism which is determinism"
Any assertion X is implicitly a denial of assertions that are incompatible with X. So what?
"to ascribe as illusions and hallucinations, for example, is to deny."
Deny what?
Determinism versus randomness is a true dichotomy. You certainly have not even begun to propose a potential third alternative.
To understand why determinism versus randomness is a true dichotomy one reasonably considers what determinism is and what randomness is, which you have yet to display any capacity to do.
On determinism the Principle of Sufficient Reason holds.
On randomness there can be no such thing as the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
So which is it folks?
Abandon the PSR so you can have randomness?
Or abandon randomness so you can have the PSR?
StardustyPsyche said:
"the denialism which is determinism"
Any assertion X is implicitly a denial of assertions that are incompatible with X. So what?
Hmmm. You think that the so-what might have to with what it is that gets denied?
StardustyPsyche said:
"to ascribe as illusions and hallucinations, for example, is to deny."
Deny what?
Well, think about what you have designated as being hallucinations. Then think about what you are denying about what you designate as hallucinations.
For anyone else who might read this and who is not disingenuous, to start to get an appreciation for how very correct it is to identify determinism as predominantly a denialism, first consider that human consciousness/conscious experience is necessarily epiphenomenal under the assertions of determinism, and then consider how that means that the determinism net of denial spreads inordinately wide.
Michael
"identify determinism as predominantly a denialism"
Are you saying that determinism results in a denial of reality? I would agree that SPs version of determinism does exactly that. The cosmos makes SP deny the reality of her own experiences. I referenced this denial in prior statements above. The mirror analogy I thought did a good job of demonstrating SPs denial. The experience of color that SP says is a hallucination exists identically as a physical entity, and SP denies it.
"You have a mirror that reflects an image of something that you say doesn’t exist. The mirror is hallucinating, you conclude, however the image in the mirror actually exists in physical form so you cannot say the image is a hallucination"
SteveK said:
Are you saying that determinism results in a denial of reality?
Hmmm. I might could. Time for some stream-of-consciousness to come up with an answer. Or something close-ish to an answer.
I expect that anyone who holds to determinism would be so off-put by the notion that determinism results in a denial of reality that such a statement would not manage to be constructively provocative. I have indicated (maybe even explicitly noted) previously that determinism (when consistent and extended consistently) results in a denial of there being importance, and this of course also relates to the discussion about the fact that determinism is incoherent with regards to (or is not congruent with) and does not even begin to (and never will actually) explain or describe the experience had of human being.
Another way of considering the denialism which is determinism is to take account of the very notion of what it means for something to be posited as fundamental. Clearly, determinism in the form of physicalism claims to reduce to fundamentals, and that determinism gives priority to such reduction: consider how objects and the derivative term objectivity get regarded as necessarily having priority relative to subjects and subjectivity. Such reduction in itself is not what is meant by science, but reduction can often be a useful tool for genuine science. Of course, science can be (and is best) conducted without resorting to metaphysical systems thought; determinism is not science; it is misleading to describe determinism as being based on science. A metaphysics which gives fundamental priority to reduction is a metaphysics not at all suited to contributing to the synthesis manifest in creativity, for instance.
And the thought of creativity brings me back to the matter of any determinism insisting on the previously noted epiphenomenalism. Yeah, that is a determinism which in effect denies reality.
SteveK said:
The cosmos makes SP deny the reality of her own experiences.
Don't be silly! How could StardustyPsyche deny the reality of the experience of knowing that reductionism reveals the fundamental existents? It's only everything else that's an hallucination. Obviously. Because if that (experience of having) knowledge about fundamental existents were also an hallucination, then that would mean - - what? That there is only hallucination? Would that mean that hallucination was more fundamental than an electron? And, if that is the case, would that mean that an hallucination about an electron is more fundamental than an hallucination about a banana?
Putting all that fun aside, determinism as a philosophy is painfully shallow. And that's the kindest thing I can say about that philosophy.
Michael,
"For anyone else who might read this and who is not disingenuous, to start to get an appreciation for how very correct it is to identify determinism as predominantly a denialism, first consider that human consciousness/conscious experience is necessarily epiphenomenal under the assertions of determinism,"
That is your anthropocentric little view of the vast cosmos.
Determinism is the progression of materials through time such that the future state is fully determined by the present state and the transfer function properties of materials.
Determinism is defined positively in that manner for what determinism is.
You are looking at this vast cosmos through a tiny little anthropocentric straw.
Determinism is the manner of material progressions throughout the cosmos irrespective of your little consciousness of some tiny subset of such progressions.
StardustyPsyche said:
"For anyone else who might read this and who is not disingenuous, to start to get an appreciation for how very correct it is to identify determinism as predominantly a denialism, first consider that human consciousness/conscious experience is necessarily epiphenomenal under the assertions of determinism,"
That is your anthropocentric little view of the vast cosmos.
More non-sense. To deny that consciousness is epiphenomenal - to assert that consciousness can indeed be efficacious - is not the same as being anthropocentric. But your non-sensical thinking is useful as but another glimpse into the anti-life core of determinism, particularly the reductionistic form of determinism built upon the notion of nomological necessity.
"That is your anthropocentric little view of the vast cosmos"
The irony of ironies is that this anthropocentric view is identical to a physical brain state. That means physical matter has anthropocentric properties - which, again, serves to demonstrate that SPs eliminative materialism is one of the most F'd up beliefs ever invented.
Michael,
"To deny that consciousness is epiphenomenal"
You can consider consciousness all you want but the cosmos progressed deterministically before human consciousness, and it progresses deterministically in the vast majority of the cosmos that is not conscious, and the material of the cosmos will progress deterministically long after the sun expands and wipes out all life on Earth.
Determinism is not defined by consciousness.
Determinism is a mode of material progressions.
Once you understand that fact you are free to make sound arguments regarding the consequences of determinism, like Victor did in the OP.
StardustyPsyche said:
Once you understand that fact you are free to make sound arguments regarding the consequences of determinism
Free?!?!?!?! FREE?!?!?!?! Hilarious. You're a funny guy. Given determinism, there is no free! Well, unless you have decided to add the buffoonery of compatibilism to your magazine of senselessness. But even then there is still no free; there is instead only the buffoonery.
Listen up: Everything I have said about determinism is dead on accurate. And you know it. That's why you do not and cannot counter-argue. You are perfectly happy to accept the determinism consequence of not being responsible, but, when it comes to seeing the repulsive ugliness of what determinism entails, you do your best to look away.
"Listen up: Everything I have said about determinism is dead on accurate. And you know it. That's why you do not and cannot counter-argue. "
Your approach is backwards.
You are defining determinism by your argued consequences of what it is.
Determinism is a mode of material progressions in the cosmos through time.
You can make whatever further arguments about the consequences of determinism that you wish, as Victor did a nice job of in the OP.
Your error would be as if Victor had defined determinism to mean "you are off the hook". That would have been backwards, and Victor did not do that, but you have.
StardustyPsyche said:
You are defining determinism by your argued consequences of what it is.
Wrong yet again. I am working from your definition of determinism. I have been working from that definition all along. We have been agreement that there are no actual possibilities, no actual options given determinism. Remember? We have been in agreement that given determinism everything is always already determined/set/settled. Remember? So, what are further consequences of that determinism? It is legitimate and proper to extend considerations in light of the given determinism.
StardustyPsyche said:
Your error would be as if Victor had defined determinism to mean "you are off the hook". That would have been backwards, and Victor did not do that, but you have.
Huh?! I have no idea what you are talking about. You said, "Yes, on determinism, nobody is ultimately to blame for anything they do ... we are all just gears in the great cosmic clockwork." Now, if you personally have a sense of responsibility contrary to what holds "on determinism", then good for you. I actually have expected from the beginning that you do have such a sense as well as other senses which do not follow from determinism and which are inconsistent with what determinism holds. That is why I long ago said that I expect that most if not all determinists live in a manner inconsistent with what determinism holds, and I think that is a good thing. As I recall, you said that you live perfectly consistently with what determinism holds. I figured you were being humorous. Regardless, I have gotten nothing backwards.
"We have been agreement that there are no actual possibilities, "
That is not what determinism is, that is an argued consequence of determinism.
"Huh?! I have no idea what you are talking about."
Clearly.
Try reading the OP for "off the hook".
"I have gotten nothing backwards."
Determinism is a description of the mode of material progression below the quantum mechanical formalism of what is commonly called "the collapse of the wave function".
From Newton to Einstein physics was formulated deterministically. Most of the quantum mechanics formalism is also deterministic, until we get to a so-called "measurement". At that point, it was imagined in Copenhagen, somehow something goes poof, god plays dice, there is a "jump", there is a "collapse", and somehow determinism no longer is the case...it was imagined.
Determinism is the assertion that the so-called "collapse" and so-called "jump" at a so-called "measurement" is simply a chaotic deterministic mechanism that is presently beyond our observational and analytic capabilities.
There is the rational starting point for defining and understanding determinism. What you have gotten backwards is starting at conclusions that are far down the logical argumentation road from the beginning, which is that determinism is defined by the causal mechanisms of material progressions through time at the most fundamental level.
StardustyPsyche said:
"We have been agreement that there are no actual possibilities, "
That is not what determinism is, that is an argued consequence of determinism.
If I imagine you as intellectually honest, and if I make believe that there is a worthwhile distinction between "what determinism is" and "an argued consequence of determinism", then I think I can see how you might have become discombobulated, and I think I can see how I might clarify the situation for you.
Just because a devotee to determinism comes to realize subsequent to or as a consequence of being devoted to determinism that, given determinism, there are no actual possibilities, this MOST DEFINITELY does not mean that this supposed utter impossibility of there being actual possibilities is a(n argued) consequence of determinism. In order to understand this point, it is necessary to see that the denial of possibilities is DEFINiTELY NOT a consequence of determinism; rather, that denial is a feature, an actual aspect, indeed the very essence of determinism.
According to Google's English dictionary as provided by Oxford Languages, a consequence is "a result or effect of an action or condition." An aspect, on the other hand, is "a particular part or feature of something." The fact that there are no actual possibilities given determinism is not a consequence of determinism; rather, that fact is a necessary aspect of determinism - with “necessary” here meaning that it is impossible for there to be the nomologically necessary determinism of physicalism unless there are no actual possibilities (particularly those which are matters of human experience). The lack (or denial) of such actual possibilities is a feature, an aspect of determinism rather than an effect or a consequence of determinism.
Therefore, as noted, there is no determinism if there are actual possibilities. Likewise, to proclaim determinism is to deny that there are actual possibilities. There is no determinism without this aspect/feature. This determinism and the denial of possibilities are inseparable. No matter what else you might want to highlight about determinism, the fact is that the denial of actual possibilities is always present.
You are NOT off the hook!
"denial is a feature, an actual aspect, indeed the very essence of determinism."
Fundamental materials do not deny possibilities, they simply progress as they do.
Denial is a human experience.
You manifestly have a highly anthropocentric view of how the cosmos progresses.
"Therefore, as noted, there is no determinism if there are actual possibilities."
That is an argument.
"This determinism and the denial of possibilities are inseparable."
Again, fundamental materials do not deny. Denial is not a property of fundamental materials, rather, denial is an abstraction of the human mind.
"the fact is that the denial of actual possibilities is always present."
There is no denial in nearly all of the cosmos. The only place we know of that denial takes place is in an extremely thin biosphere of a tiny spec of all that exists.
You are confusing your model for the thing itself, which is what you have backwards.
Fundamental materials do not deny possibilities, they simply progress as they do
He didn't say fundamental materials deny possibilities. He said that is a necessary feature of determinism, which is a human model, an abstraction of the human mind, just like denial.
You are confusing your model for the thing itself.
StardustyPsyche said:
The only place we know of that denial takes place is in an extremely thin biosphere of a tiny spec of all that exists.
Okay, and, in line with Kevin's remark, we know that it occurs as an essential aspect of that product of human thinking referred to as determinism.
"He said that is a necessary feature of determinism, which is a human model, an abstraction of the human mind, just like denial."
Materials simply progress as they do.
If somebody wants to make further arguments about what can't happen in that case that's fine, but such arguments are not what define deterministic progressions of materials.
"we know that it occurs as an essential aspect of that product of human thinking referred to as determinism."
You can assert or argue that human thinking requires certain considerations of deterministic progressions of materials. That is what I mean by your anthropocentric approach, which is backwards.
The grounding for determinism is how materials actually progress through time at the most fundamental level, which occurs irrespective of any essential aspects of human thinking about it.
"You are NOT off the hook!"
I'm not sure you understood the argument Victor made in the OP. He argued, soundly, that on determinism there is no objective moral responsibility, hence, you, I, and even the worst criminals are all "off the hook", meaning, we have no objective moral responsibility for our actions.
StardustyPsyche said:
your anthropocentric approach
You need to learn what the word anthropocentric means, or, in the alternative, you need to substitute an argument for your use of that word. Oh, and here is a hint for you: Be sure that your fundamentals are independent of any and all human perspectives.
StardustyPsyche said:
I, and even the worst criminals are all "off the hook", meaning, we have no objective moral responsibility for our actions.
And you are not responsible for what you think or the lack of quality in what is supposed to pass for thinking. But if you were capable of thinking in terms of possibilities, then you would be able to consider responsibility in terms of response-ability and you would develop the capability. None of that will happen, but in the future I can still "imagine you as intellectually honest" for the sake of possibly interesting considerations. At present such an imagining is not worthwhile.
Materials simply progress as they do.
I will pretend this addressed anything I said. Yes, this profound statement is true. But what materials do isn't determinism, so everything you said to Michael accusing him of claiming that fundamental material denies things was wrong.
But then, you're incapable of admitting to being wrong, so instead give responses like the one I quoted above, responding to nothing, or simply run away and don't answer at all. Simple yes or no questions are scary.
That's why you're boring. Michael also finds you boring per his last post, so now two of the only people willing to engage with you online find you boring due to your antics. Most people who enjoy online discourse would reflect upon that.
Of course, per your determinism, you aren't responsible for your antics or inability to admit when you're wrong, so none of this was even worth saying to you. You can simultaneously claim denial occurs in a biosphere and then deny this biosphere exists in the first place, claim that fundamental material does not deny but then deny the existence of emergent properties in higher orders of arrangement. Back and forth, nonexistent goalposts, pun intended.
Boring.
"Denial is not a property of fundamental materials, rather, denial is an abstraction of the human mind"
Incorrect. The human mind is fundamental materials and denial is a property of those fundamental materials.
Eliminative determinism is incoherent nonsense.
Let's say you work hard for your children so they can have a better life than you did. You react with love and pride when they graduate, when they land good jobs, when they start their own families.
Now let's say you're abusive to your children and couldn't care less about their wellbeing. You spend your money on beer instead of breakfast. You are indifferent when they are arrested, when they become addicts, when they die young.
According to determinism and eliminative materialism, on the macro level that we experience, both parents are of equal moral standing, as neither their actions nor feelings are by choice. The good parent is not worthy of praise, the bad parent not worthy of condemnation, the neglected children not worthy of pity. None of their lives, none of their actions mean a thing, and those who think otherwise are deluded.
Furthermore, on the micro scale, none of them actually exist, none of their experiences are anything more than hallucinations of nonexistent and helpless perceptions, the cruelest joke possible from a senseless reality, and by no means do any of their lives have any more value than the bacteria the good parent taught his kids to brush off their teeth.
Of course, there is no good parent, because there is no good and there is no parent.
Now, can a person "live consistently" with this? Obviously not. The closest one can get is reducing experience to a peculiar hallucination of the nonexistent mind (the very belief of which automatically disproves itself), striving to never judge any action as good or bad, and abandoning language, which is constructed to relay the same human experience that these beliefs deny.
Indeed, to speak is to deny both eliminative materialism and determinism, for why hear the thoughts of an unthinking lump of carbon polluted water which doesn't even exist? You are speaking about nonexistent gibberish if you aren't speaking about the motion of fundamental material doing what it does - which is impossible, because a description of the thing is not the thing, and the description would be based on hallucinogenic observation anyway.
No one actually believes this.
"No one actually believes this."
True. Calling things a "hallucination" is the eliminative materialists way of saying "my beliefs are complete and utter nonsense but I can't say it out loud so I'm going to pretend this word makes everything sound coherent"
"if you were capable of thinking in terms of possibilities,"
Can you teach me that capability?
Our friend im-skeptical tried to teach me, but all I heard from him seemed to be incoherent noises about poof.
For our friend im-skeptical requiring a sufficient reason to accept a proposed causal process is mere religion.
Maybe you can explain to me the compatibility between a sufficient reason for causal processes and "thinking in terms of possibilities"?
StardustyPsyche said:
"if you were capable of thinking in terms of possibilities,"
Can you teach me that capability?
Our friend im-skeptical tried to teach me
I never got the impression im-skeptical was trying to teach you about thinking in terms of possibilities. Why would he? After all, he agrees with you that the experience of there being possibilities is an illusion (if not an hallucination). As do you, he denies the actuality of possibilities.
You must not have followed those threads closely, which is fine, I mean, I am sure you have other things to do than study every word on some thread.
For im-skeptical randomness is thought of as a real feature of the cosmos.
But somebody else's views aside, how do possibilities work? I mean, what is the mechanism or process of a possibility?
What is an actual possibility? How would we identify an actual possibility as opposed to a not-actual possibility, at least in principle?
What does "thinking in terms of possibilities" mean? What sorts of thoughts are those? Is thinking in terms of possibilities just thinking of fantasies, or useful fictions? Or is there some real feature of the cosmos that is an actual possibility, and if so, what is it and how does it work?
"I never got the impression im-skeptical was trying to teach you about thinking in terms of possibilities."
StardustyPsyche replied: For im-skeptical randomness is thought of as a real feature of the cosmos.
Interesting word association there. Might return to that later.
"if you were capable of thinking in terms of possibilities"
StardustyPsyche replied: Can you teach me that capability?
The more appropriate question might regard what is necessary for a person to learn. Might return to that later as well.
StardustyPsyche asked:
how do possibilities work? I mean, what is the mechanism or process of a possibility?
Here are excerpts presented as one approach to a summarized introduction. Will be interesting to see whether or not you get anything from it:
"Traditionally, possibilities are regarded as abstract things, where 'abstract' is supposed to be a contrast to 'physical'. ... It might be that possibilities can be considered as constituent of the physical even if they are not – or might not ever be – constituent of physics, a study of the physical context formalized generally around the notion that ... if it is not measurable [or describable in equation(s)], then it is a matter which physics ignores. ... According to some quite conventional contemporary scientific (or science-based) cosmologies ... space-time is the sequential totality of all events ... for an event to have actual location within space-time, the event must have some dimensionality; it must exhibit some space-time duration (or extension) ... still leaves us with having to distinguish between events ... each event must have a terminus in order to be identifiable as an event (as distinguished ... from a process which need not similarly have an end). ... An event is most often defined by – its terminus is most often identified with – there being alternatives for what sequentially follows. This is to say that an event ends with there being alternative possibilities for what follows. (There might be sequences which end without there being any possibility for anything else to sequentially follow; this is to say that there might be sequences which terminate. ... given that events have space-time extension, events could be dynamic event-courses or event-segments or segment-courses or sequence-segments delimited either according to the possibilities for subsequent sequence alternatives or by an end without any possible following sequence ...)"
Self referential meandering gibberish.
Those confused excerpts reduce to "possibilities are possibilities"
The questions I posed remain unanswered.
You cannot provide an intelligible description of how possibilities work or the mechanisms of possibilities because the "abstract thing" is manifestly just that, some vague notion of your imagination, no more.
How funny.
Stardusty is hallucinating that someone is hallucinating.
This is the best entertainment anywhere. And it's free!
Especially when he doesn't actually believe what he claims and definitely doesn't live consistently with it, as I demonstrated.
Somewhat entertaining, but mostly just boring. I would love a serious person to debate.
Kevin,
It's a funny joke at first but you're right that it gets boring when you see it over and over and over.....
SP's Philosophy of Life:
"It's very important that every human believe as I do - because I only believe what the science tells us is true - but it's not very important to live a life that is consistent with those beliefs"
Not very inspirational.
StardustyPsyche said:
Is thinking in terms of possibilities just ... useful fictions?
Is thinking in terms of variables - which is thinking in terms of possibilities - a matter of useful fictions? There is no intentional, thoughtful problem-solving if there is no thinking that could be expressed in terms of variables, and that, of course, means that there is no science if there is no thinking that could be expressed in terms of variables. On the other hand, there can be scientistic thinking without thinking in terms of variables, but, as noted repeatedly, matters scientific and matters scientistic are very distantly related - if they are to be said to be related meaningfully at all.
But maybe this thinking in terms of variables is a fiction. There is still the question raised regarding usefulness. Usefulness does not cohere with reducing all to what might as well be described as the philosophy of sub-atomic Brownian motion. And that highlights the uselessness of regarding sub-atomic Brownian motion as philosophically or even scientifically fundamental; it is useless - it has no use - as application; it is useless even as explanation. Usefulness is a matter of importance; importance has no place in the devotion to reductionism; reductionism eliminates importance.
Speaking of fundamentals, the issue regarding whether there is an arrow or direction of time presents an interesting problem for reductionists and the priority they assign to physics fundamentals:
"... one might naturally expect the underlying laws of physics to reveal why all ... processes are seen to go regularly in only one time direction; but the laws do not—at least the fundamental ones do not. To explain the apparent inconsistency between the observed time-asymmetry of macroscopic processes and the time-symmetry of fundamental microscopic processes ..."
Reductionist-fundamentalism is replete with such problems - problems which can be put forth as inconsistencies or incoherence, as we have previously discussed with other examples. Reductionist-fundamentalism is unjustified; the highest regard which reductionists reserve for their so-called fundamentals is a mere preference which begets a bias which gets surreptitiously promulgated as science. But, of course, what actually gets promulgated is not so much science as it is pseudo-science or a scientistic viewpoint. In any event, let us continue on with the arrow of time matter:
"... some philosophers of physics point to the need to discover a new fundamental law that implies there is an arrow ... Members of the 'entropy camp' claim there is an explanation, but it does not need any new fundamental law because the arrow is produced by entropy increasing plus the fact that the universe once had minimal entropy ... According to the entropy camp, the arrow emerges as the scale [of the system being considered] increases."
This "entropy camp" viewpoint is clearly another nail in the coffin of the validity of regarding reductionism as foundational or fundamental for philosophy; reductionism is not even fundamental for science although reductive investigations can be scientifically useful.
There are other interesting facets regarding the entropy-time issue which are relevant to our current discussion, but those matters can be taken up later if need be. Now that the scientific and philosophical inadequacy of any devotion to reductionism has been established, let us move forward with additional considerations into the matter of possibilities: Have you ever had the experience of having options available to you? If so, then please describe that experience of an encounter with possibilities.
bmiller,
"Stardusty is hallucinating that someone is hallucinating."
Just supposing that were the case.
Why not?
What prevents one from dreaming that someone is dreaming?
Kevin said...
"Especially when he doesn't actually believe what he claims"
Your mindreading skills are truly incredible.
"But maybe this thinking in terms of variables is a fiction"
A mathematical variable is an abstraction.
"Have you ever had the experience of having options available to you? If so, then please describe that experience of an encounter with possibilities."
Much a-woo about nothing.
What is a possibility?
What is the mechanism of a possibility?
You seem to be asserting that "possibility" is a real feature of the cosmos.
Well, on that assertion, what is a "possibility"?
Can you describe how a "possibility" works?
What is the mechanism by which one "possibility" transpires but some other "possibility" is never actualized?
If a "possibility" is never actualized then in what sense was that notion ever truly possible?
Your mindreading skills are truly incredible.
I demonstrated that you don't. It stands unrefuted by you or anyone else.
StardustyPsyche said:
A mathematical variable is an abstraction.
QUESTION: Which of the following explanatory possibilities best account for the above-noted blatantly irrelevant response?
a) Utter ignorance about how science is conducted, or
b) Simple disingenuity on the part of the person making that response, or
c) Both ignorance and disingenuity on the part of the person on the hook for that remark.
ANSWER: c) Both ignorance and disingenuity on the part of the person (StardustyPsyche) on the hook for that above-noted remark.
Repeated experiences indicate that the disingenuity is a StardustyPsyche character flaw. With regards to the displayed ignorance, here is a very easy to understand explanation of controlling for variables. From that simple introduction, StardustyPsyche can note that galvanized steel, stainless steel, and molybdenum are not abstractions - thereby removing ignorance as a factor and leaving StardustyPsyche with the possibility of rectifying his disingenuity character flaw along with the possibility of ignoring/denying that character flaw.
StardustyPsyche said:
"Have you ever had the experience of having options available to you? If so, then please describe that experience of an encounter with possibilities."
Much a-woo about nothing.
And that remark just adds to the already extant superabundance of confirmation that denialism is inherent to reductive physicalism and its determinism.
StardustyPsyche said:
What is the mechanism of a possibility?
Can you describe how a "possibility" works?
What is the mechanism by which one "possibility" transpires but some other "possibility" is never actualized?
Were StardustyPsyche merely ignorant, the above questions would serve as useful opportunities for him to learn about locating and identifying hidden or unconsidered assumptions and to learn about the introduction of biases. Unfortunately, StardustyPsyche is disingenuous in addition to being ignorant. That is a most dreadful and hopeless situation. Even so, it is still possible that StardustyPsyche will be entertaining/distracting in the future.
“What is the mechanism by which one "possibility" transpires but some other "possibility" is never actualized?”
It begins with what the thing is that you’re talking about. Water can possibly become ice but it cannot possibly become iron. It’s a shame that you reject this starting point, this fact, in favor or the insane belief that only fundamental matter exists, meaning everything is the same.
What prevents one from dreaming that someone is dreaming?
Being conscious and sane.
And that remark just adds to the already extant superabundance of confirmation that denialism is inherent to reductive physicalism and its determinism.
To deny having experienced making choices just adds yet more evidence to my unrefuted assertion that Stardusty does not believe what he says. He may think he does, but clearly not one iota of consideration as to the ramifications of those "beliefs" has been undertaken.
Kevin said:
To deny having experienced making choices just adds yet more evidence to my unrefuted assertion that Stardusty does not believe what he says. He may think he does, but clearly not one iota of consideration as to the ramifications of those "beliefs" has been undertaken.
StardustyPsyche is an internet persona (as distinguished from the possibly human being whom we do not know behind the mask of that internet persona) who is trying to maintain that persona in light of the problems which have been highlighted regarding the philosophical approach that defines that persona.
SteveK said...
*What is the mechanism by which one "possibility" transpires but some other "possibility" is never actualized?*
" Water can possibly become ice "
Ok, well, at least that is not meandering paragraphs of irrelevant gibberish.
So a possibility is imagining a particular mechanistic process.
A possibility is an abstraction about an unknown future.
Is it possible for pure water to not become ice when chilled well below 0C at standard atmospheric pressure under nearly static conditions? I think not.
Water must become ice under a given set of conditions.
Water must become liquid under a given set of conditions.
Water must become gas under a given set of conditions.
There is no alternative possibility for water in those respects.
The only alternative possibility is in our imagination regarding our ignorance. We don't know what the conditions will be, so we imagine the sorts of things that are in accordance with known mechanisms so we can better guess, in our ignorance, what we imagine might happen.
For the cosmos as a whole, then, there is no such thing as a possibility.
All processes transpire in the only causal manner they can, causality being a mutual interaction mechanism that occurs locally in the present moment in accordance with the intrinsic necessary properties of fundamental materials.
Water can possibly become ice but it cannot possibly become iron.
Under the beliefs Stardusty claims to hold but clearly does not, nor live consistently with, neither water nor ice nor iron exist. Water doesn't freeze under certain conditions because it is just fundamental matter doing what it does, and fundamental matter can't present conditions because conditions are abstractions of fundamental matter doing what it does. The description of water freezing is an abstract model of an abstraction presented by nonexistent "people" helplessly speaking gibberish, which is all that "people" can speak even theoretically because language cannot convey truth about fundamental matter doing what it does. Any such observation is an abstraction based on hallucinations.
Now, if it is granted that arrangements of fundamental matter give rise to properties that other arrangements do not, so that one can indeed speak of water turning into ice and not iron, then we would have a useful starting position to speak of, well, anything. If we don't grant that, then we do not. Everything is gibberish except fundamental matter doing what it does, which can neither be observed nor explained without dependency on abstractions.
Yet the experience of being presented with a choice is woo. Yep. Definitely can live consistently with that.
To the hallucinator all is woo. To everyone else it is all poo.
“ Ok, well, at least that is not meandering paragraphs of irrelevant gibberish”
You do a good job of that all by yourself.
StardustyPsyche said:
"Have you ever had the experience of having options available to you? If so, then please describe that experience of an encounter with possibilities."
Much a-woo about nothing. What is the mechanism of a possibility? So a possibility is imagining a particular mechanistic process. For the cosmos as a whole, then, there is no such thing as a possibility.
What we see above is apologetics, not scientific thinking, and not philosophical thinking. What we see above is a purely defensive maneuvering to preserve the already held viewpoint. Quite amusing given how the producer of that apologetics has a history of railing against apologetics when proffered by others with different viewpoints. In the case of the above apologetics, the viewpoint opts to assign priority to the microcosmic domain including its abstracted idealized "laws", and the viewpoint intentionally ignores matters of experience along with the fact that experiential matters remain extensively not only unexplained by the microcosmic viewpoint but also in significant ways contrary to the microcosmic viewpoint. Rather than consider experiential matters and the fact that they do not cohere with the determinism/reductionism/physicalism viewpoint, the above cited apologete waves away experiential matters as insignificant (in size? in effect?) relative to the whole of the cosmos.
Why would someone resort to such apologetics in the sorts of discussions had here about determinism and reductionism - particularly in light of the fact that no one has claimed to have established the impossibility of determinism or the falsity of reductionism or even all possible forms of physicalism? Why would someone resort to such apologetics in the sorts of discussions had here about determinism and reductionism when the antagonists have simply highlighted apparent problems which follow from determinism and reductionism and the forms of physicalism predominant in our time?
To be continued
Continuing
It is already well established that the above cited apologete is incapable of the concurrent taking into account of alternative possibilities. This plus the history of denigrating the subjective goes a very long way towards explaining why this apologete is apparently more interested in being instructed than in learning:
"... the subjective is relevant not only to the improvement of understandings but also to the initiation or formation of understanding. This is to be expected, because understandings are, of course, always subjective. Many of what might be thought of as a person’s earliest understandings come about as – or because of – exposure to others’ stories or explanations. These exposures most often occur as part of education or (other) acculturation processes, and ... it is commonly the case that the earliest understandings are less about what is being explained than they are about how one is expected to respond to, replicate, speak about, or otherwise re-present the received explanations. The very otherness of such explanations – the fact that they clearly originate from outside the subjectivity of the person to whom the explanation arrives – tends to impart a sense of (a more) accomplished objectivity (even facticity) to the explanation. However, where the understanding that has been formed only regards how to satisfy the expectation about how an explanation is to be re-presented acceptably, then, with regards to that explanation itself, what has been formulated is a mimesis, a replication, a repetition of the explanation rather than an understanding of the explanation. Such mimesis of an explanation is minimally subjective, to the extent that it is subjective at all. Were the objectivity of an explanation in a simple inverse relationship to subjectivity, then mimesis – having the most minimized subjectivity – would be the most objective form both for presentation and response. In that case, understanding (and explanation) would be largely besides the point. This indicates that there is error in regarding objectivity in explanation as being necessarily in opposition to subjectivity. An understanding of an explanation ... requires a more extensive subjectivity, a deeper subjective involvement than is necessary for mimesis. ... in instruction manuals, for instance ... [w]hen instructions are done well, virtually nothing more than mimesis is required. When instructions are ... in any way not sufficient, the person receiving the explanation will have to devise his or her own explanation for how the task is to be accomplished. In that case, the person’s own subjectivity has to be imprinted upon the original presented explanation; in that case, mimesis is inadequate, and understanding is required. ... instructions are intended (or expected) to minimize the need for understanding on the part of the person receiving instruction."
When the subjective is regarded as something rightly denigrated, it follows that investigation into and awareness of self are essentially avoided and ignored. And there we have the persona of StardustyPsyche.
Kevin,
"Under the beliefs Stardusty claims to hold but clearly does not, nor live consistently with, neither water nor ice nor iron exist."
I speak multiple languages. That is typical of scientists, scientific thinkers, philosophers, and specialists of various sorts.
Do catch up, OK?
That is typical of scientists, scientific thinkers, philosophers, and specialists of various sorts.
Which is completely irrelevant to your views and behavior as presented on this blog.
Do catch up, OK?
I'm waiting for you to admit that you do not live consistently with the beliefs you claim to hold, but actually don't, barring an astoundingly superficial analysis of those "beliefs". My demonstration of this fact has yet to be refuted, as you have predictably avoided addressing it.
I have no need or desire to catch up with mediocre and careless "thinking".
And there we have the persona of StardustyPsyche.
I've interacted with numerous people online who present themselves much differently in that format than when I have met them in person. So it is entirely possible that the person behind StardustyPsyche has a much different personality profile than SP as presented on this blog.
That said, SP as presented on this blog is incapable of learning, incapable of admitting error, and denies every aspect of human experience while still holding others to that experience. SP as presented on this blog is sometimes amusing but is mostly boring due to the endlessly repetitive nature of repeating the exact same errors.
I myself fall victim to the repetitive nature of repeating, it seems.
"I speak multiple languages"
Given all that you've written here, "nonsense" is your native language of choice.
I've also noticed a fluency in Gibberish and Prattle. And a familiarity with Drivel and Mumbo Jumbo.
Multilingualism can be invaluable in the world of the New Atheist.
Mumbo Jumbo and Drivel are dialects of the Nonsense language and are frequently spoken by many New Atheists. SP has mastered these completely - and if you doubt me, just read her words on this blog and you will be convinced. She's very, very good. I've seen her speak Gibberish, but not very often so I cannot say how fluent she is with this particular language.
"I'm waiting for you to admit that you do not live consistently with the beliefs"
Then you will be waiting until the Lord gets ready for you to move.
Manifestly, you imagine that you can read my mind to know my beliefs.
"Multilingualism can be invaluable in the world of the New Atheist."
Indeed.
When one learns to communicate in multiple languages the benefits are invaluable.
One term for this skill is "shifting". Most people "shift" fairly effortlessly.
When speaking with a child, one sort of language is employed.
When speaking at one's place of employment one "shifts" to another appropriate language.
When speaking publicly one "shifts" again.
When speaking to a highly technical audience the "shift" employs technical language very different than the language used in other contexts.
Are you people so hopelessly stupid as to not already understand how to "shift"?
Then you will be waiting until the Lord gets ready for you to move.
Oh I'm well aware that you won't admit it, either due to being a troll or having utterly failed to examine your own beliefs.
Manifestly, you imagine that you can read my mind to know my beliefs.
I did the same thing you did to produce this particular accusation. That isn't mind-reading, but rather coming to conclusions based upon what people say or fail to say when they logically should, and importantly, how often they say it or fail to say it when they logically should. Based on years of interactions with you, and with no contrary evidence, I have formed this conclusion.
Of course, it was predictable that you would dodge instead of addressing my demonstration above, which is unrefuted by you.
Are you people so hopelessly stupid as to not already understand how to "shift"?
Nice try. You aren't "shifting languages", you are moving goalposts and contexts as needed to avoid being pinned down when the flaws in your presented beliefs are demonstrated. Those are very different things.
Try speaking only in terms compatible with eliminative materialism and determinism, and you will instantly find you have nothing to say. It is not surprising at all to me that you must "shift".
"Manifestly, you imagine that you can read my mind to know my beliefs."
And here we have another inconsistency that is lived out. The thousands of words written on this blog are different than your beliefs.
"Are you people so hopelessly stupid as to not already understand how to "shift"?"
When you "shift" like this the results are colloquial sayings, generalizations, metaphors, analogies, etc. None of these shifts are actually describing eliminative materialism as you believe it.
For example, you reject the term "choice" even if people are "shifting" when they use that term. You do that because that language does not describe what you actually believe.
As Kevin already said, if you were to stick to the facts according to what you actually believe, you wouldn't be able to say much. When all of the terms boil down to one thing (fundamental matter) it's difficult to create a sentence.
What Stardusty does is equivocate. Equivocating is not speaking a different language or "shifting" (another equivocation BTW).
I was reading some philosophy forums touching on subjects of free will, determinism, reductionism/EM, and so on. I will say, while I still disagree with the proponents of EM and determinism, they were far more knowledgeable about their beliefs than what gets presented here. They understood the implications of those beliefs and expressed a reasonable measure of uncertainty in them, possessing enough intellectual humility to acknowledge they could be wrong. Very refreshing and far more interesting than what we get here.
SteveK
"The thousands of words written on this blog are different than your beliefs."
No, your misunderstandings of those words are different than my beliefs.
"As Kevin already said, if you were to stick to the facts according to what you actually believe"
When you say the sun rises in the morning do you believe the sun rises?
Do you feel compelled to inject into every such reference to the apparent motion of the sun the understandings we have of orbital motions, our planetary system, time keeping techniques, our system of geographical coordinates, and myriad other detailed facts you know about the sun and our planetary system?
If you are speaking with a reasonable person they realize what you mean when you say the sun rises and they do not accuse you contradicting yourself for not speaking about the things you really believe about the sun.
People speak in common language which employs a whole host of placeholder terms and metaphors. Most people understand that, but from time to time one encounters idiots who don't, and instead think the have pulled off a gotchya moment merely because one is speaking in common terms.
"possessing enough intellectual humility to acknowledge they could be wrong"
Indeed, it is far past time for you to acknowledge you could be wrong on a whole range of subjects, but a reasonable starting place is your misunderstandings of nearly everything I write.
Most people understand that, but from time to time one encounters idiots who don't, and instead think the have pulled off a gotchya moment merely because one is speaking in common terms.
Indeed. You have pulled that very thing with me regarding, at a minimum, "exists" and "thinking", suddenly darting off into the weeds when convenient to ponder the nature of their meaning and the concepts they describe rather than addressing what I said. A reasonable person would know what I meant in both instances, so you definitely have that part right. One does encounter these idiots.
Not that you will acknowledge this, but it's good to point out anyway.
Now, in your case there is the added problem in that every time you speak, it is out of accordance with what you claim is the underlying nature of reality, which is that none of the things you speak of exist according to you (including every time you say "I"). I do not believe vampires exist, so it would be quite the bizarre tactic for me to argue against their existence by debating their feeding preferences. You deny the existence of water and ice and iron, so why talk about them? They don't exist to you. Be consistent, because there is no need for your supposed "shifting". We are discussing your beliefs, so your equivocation is at best contradictory to the defense of eliminative materialism.
Not only that, but according to you, what you say and think, and what we say and think, are the result of a deterministic process over which we have no control. Appealing to idiocy while believing no one has any control over their beliefs and behavior is quite the victim blaming. For me, idiocy implies the capacity to do better but choosing not to, which is why I will call a New Atheist an idiot, but someone who is low functioning mentally I will not. Seems to me that insults contradict determinism, unless one is just deterministically a giant d-bag.
Indeed, it is far past time for you to acknowledge you could be wrong on a whole range of subjects, but a reasonable starting place is your misunderstandings of nearly everything I write.
I could be wrong on a whole range of subjects, including what you write.
Can you say the same?
What Kevin said. Additionally, the sun is visibly rising above the horizon and moving higher over your head so it’s not entirely false to say the sun is rising. On the other hand, in what way are you (fundamental matter) making a choice? There is no way that doesn’t also result in screen doors making choices via the same deterministic mechanism. You live inconsistent with your beliefs if you don’t treat screen doors like people and ask them to choose X or Y.
"I do not believe vampires exist"
SP doesn't call it a vampire, but SP orders her life around non-existent things like color - many similar things in fact - things that are essentially ghosts. And we're supposed to take her ideas seriously??
Fascinating.
It really is.
I have often accused Stardusty of refusing to even admit the possibility of being wrong, but once the question was posed, the conversation was instantly abandoned.
Perhaps the timing is a coincidence, and the question will be answered later.
The good news, Kevin, is that SPs dictum "Nonresponsive, thus, all my points stand uncontested" is in full effect. You don't need an answer to be correct.
Hope Victor is OK
Agreed. Hopefully he just needed a vacation from reading the comments here.
Yes, hopefully Victor is doing okay and didn't suffer a medical emergency while reading SPs comments. The mental gymnastics that are required to make sense out of her ongoing materialistic nonsense is too much for most people.
Post a Comment