Causality or Causation - The Fundamental Fact Plainly Explained

Ahnimus

Causality or Causation - The Fundamental Fact Plainly Explained by Ted Honderich

Mind Brain Connection by Ted Honderich

Mind and Brain Explanation by Ted Honderich

Determinism as True, Compatibilism and Incompatibilism as Both False, and the Real Problem by Ted Honderich

The Obviousness of the Truth of Determinism by David Hume

Determinism's Consequences -- The Mistakes of Compatibilism and Incompatibilism, and What Is To Be Done Now by Ted Honderich

Freedom and the View from Nowhere by Thomas Nagel

Meaning in Life Without Free Will by Derk Pereboom

Freedom and Resentment by Peter Strawson

How Free are You? by Ted Honderich

After Compatibalism and Incompatibalism by Ted Honderich

Ted Honderich Homepage

angelica

Isn't it interesting how we all "justify" our perspective. And I'm not just referring to you, Ahnimus, but also those who have written these articles which show their justifications. And I also refer to my own self.

And it remains that when we define ourselves, or reality or what have you, we are coming from a position of limitation or perspective, rather than full and actual comprehension.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Isn't it interesting how we all "justify" our perspective. And I'm not just referring to you, Ahnimus, but also those who have written these articles which show their justifications. And I also refer to my own self.

And it remains that when we define ourselves, or reality or what have you, we are coming from a position of limitation or perspective, rather than full and actual comprehension.

That's an interesting way of avoiding a discussion. But I don't find it particularly productive.

I have difficulty with your approach, because rather than addressing some concrete theory with logical arguments. You tend to talk about some integrated wholeness that is untouchable, yet somehow provides insight to you. I find I rarely take anything from it.

But it is an interesting fact, one that I feel has ample explanation from empricism. It seems true, that we gather information about our environments and formulate or acquire certain views, from that point on we tend to ignore or subvert arguments or evidence to the contrary and focus on those that support our perspective. Fortunately many of the books I have read draw on opposing views and present counter-arguments for them. Additionally I will occasionally read literature which is contrary to my perspective, however, I find in most cases the arguments are the same, oft repeated ones.

Are there specific points within the articles that you contest?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

That's an interesting way of avoiding a discussion. But I don't find it particularly productive.

I have difficulty with your approach, because rather than addressing some concrete theory with logical arguments. You tend to talk about some integrated wholeness that is untouchable, yet somehow provides insight to you. I find I rarely take anything from it.

But it is an interesting fact, one that I feel has ample explanation from empricism. It seems true, that we gather information about our environments and formulate or acquire certain views, from that point on we tend to ignore or subvert arguments or evidence to the contrary and focus on those that support our perspective. Fortunately many of the books I have read draw on opposing views and present counter-arguments for them. Additionally I will occasionally read literature which is contrary to my perspective, however, I find in most cases the arguments are the same, oft repeated ones.

Are there specific points within the articles that you contest?

I was actually creating a discussion, being this one.

Anytime we choose a definition of reality, we necessarily shut out possibilities, and dispose ourselves to a limited perspective. It seems to be part of the human experience.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I was actually creating a discussion, being this one.

Anytime we choose a definition of reality, we necessarily shut out possibilities, and dispose ourselves to a limited perspective. It seems to be part of the human experience.

I think you would be interested in reading the article by David Hume, as opposed to the one Causality or Causation - The fundamental Fact Plainly Explained it's a pretty heavy read and takes a lot of effort to make sense of it, but it's probably the most elementary explanation of causation of the articles listed. However, that approach is not necissary for an understanding of causation in human behavior, try Hume's The Obviousness of the Truth of Determinism, it's quite short.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I think you would be interested in reading the article by David Hume, as opposed to the one Causality or Causation - The fundamental Fact Plainly Explained it's a pretty heavy read and takes a lot of effort to make sense of it, but it's probably the most elementary explanation of causation of the articles listed. However, that approach is not necissary for an understanding of causation in human behavior, try Hume's The Obviousness of the Truth of Determinism, it's quite short.

I'll be out for a short while. I might check it out later. If you recall, though, I include determinism in my view, and causation, so I'm not sure what I'll gain.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I'll be out for a short while. I might check it out later. If you recall, though, I include determinism in my view, and causation, so I'm not sure what I'll gain.

I'm not sure either, your view is an enigma, wrapped in a riddle on a sesame seed bun of mystery. Because determinism and philosophical free-will are incompatible. I also believe that spiritualism and supernaturalism are incompatible with determinism. I see them simply as a matter of incredulity, the nature of which is not unlike that expressed by Nagel in Freedom and the View from Nowhere.

FinsburyParkCarrots

Bollocks.

Ahnimus

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Bollocks.

John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm not sure either, your view is an enigma, wrapped in a riddle on a sesame seed bun of mystery. Because determinism and philosophical free-will are incompatible. I also believe that spiritualism and supernaturalism are incompatible with determinism. I see them simply as a matter of incredulity, the nature of which is not unlike that expressed by Nagel in Freedom and the View from Nowhere.

I understand that my view is an enigma to you. If you can open to the reality behind the arguments, you might be able to perceive What Is, or Being. And still, it's valid to focus on arguments, too, it's just that one limits their perspective. And that's okay.....within that context. It's just that a logical argument is different than "what is" or what exists, or Truth.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I understand that my view is an enigma to you. If you can open to the reality behind the arguments, you might be able to perceive What Is, or Being. And still, it's valid to focus on arguments, too, it's just that one limits their perspective. And that's okay.....within that context. It's just that a logical argument is different than "what is" or what exists, or Truth.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Give me experimental conditions for accessing this "what is" or "truth"?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

That doesn't make any sense to me. Give me experimental conditions for accessing this "what is" or "truth"?

Yesterday you said:

Ahnimus wrote:

I think you are referring to a breakdown of our language. We don't have proper terms to refer to matters on a continua. We either describe facts as true or false, events as good or bad.

When you ask me to give you the experimental conditions for accessing this "what is" or "truth", you ask me to use the language and the limits necessary to quantify and describe the continua of life, or what is. We can do so--attempt to create conditions to study and quantify it--and in doing so we reduce it, and then what we have is longer "what is" or the continua or potential. Instead we are left with a perspective limited by conditions.


Maybe you recognize this quote...it's from your myspace:

"The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced."

The minute we try to quantify and solve the mystery, it's no longer the mystery, but instead it becomes something else.

OutOfBreath

angelica wrote:

When you ask me to give you the experimental conditions for accessing this "what is" or "truth", you ask me to use the language and the limits necessary to quantify and describe the continua of life, or what is. We can do so--attempt to create conditions to study and quantify it--and in doing so we reduce it, and then what we have is longer "what is" or the continua or potential. Instead we are left with a perspective limited by conditions.


Maybe you recognize this quote...it's from your myspace:

"The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced."

The minute we try to quantify and solve the mystery, it's no longer the mystery, but instead it becomes something else.

Very well put, angelica.
I dont really have anything to add.

Peace
Dan

angelica

OutOfBreath wrote:

Very well put, angelica.
I dont really have anything to add.

Peace
Dan

Thanks! That's probably because you've "pre-added" stuff with earlier talk of reductionism, etc.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Yesterday you said:



When you ask me to give you the experimental conditions for accessing this "what is" or "truth", you ask me to use the language and the limits necessary to quantify and describe the continua of life, or what is. We can do so--attempt to create conditions to study and quantify it--and in doing so we reduce it, and then what we have is longer "what is" or the continua or potential. Instead we are left with a perspective limited by conditions.


Maybe you recognize this quote...it's from your myspace:

"The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced."

The minute we try to quantify and solve the mystery, it's no longer the mystery, but instead it becomes something else.

The mystery of life can never be solved. But I'm not after solving the mystery of life. This is about human cognition which is a subset of life.

It sounds like you are talking about divine revelation. This "What is", so-called, is whatever you know intuitively and if someone else comes to a different result then they are either imbalanced or you are both right, no matter how contradictory the results are. I don't accept this, this isn't an explanation of anything, it's totally non-productive. And I ask, why you aren't a devout catholic, because they use the same device to acquire their knowledge. I'll be fascinated to see you actually solve a serious problem, like quantum theory, time travel or cold fusion with your method of acquiring knowledge.

The problem is, as with catholicism and divine revelation, it isn't a divine revelation, what they believe is exactly what is written in scripture. It's more likely that what they believe through divine revelation is really what they read previously in scripture. Their knowledge is more likely coming from indoctrination than anything else. But the method employed doesn't allow them to see past their intuition into what is causing the intuition. Likewise your views seem to be identical in ways to Panpsychism, which leads me to wonder if you've inadvertently read something by Panpsychists without realizing that's what it is, then through intuition coming to believe that it was revealed to you as "What Is".

If you do want to know what causes intuition, then you have to look outside yourself, an objective view, and from that view, intuition, free-will and the like dissolve into nothing, at least nothing supernatural.

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

Very well put, angelica.
I dont really have anything to add.

Peace
Dan

You never have anything to add. You kiss some peoples ass and you rag on others. That's about it.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

The mystery of life can never be solved. But I'm not after solving the mystery of life. This is about human cognition which is a subset of life.

So you are acknowledging that the idea of determinism is just that--an idea, a product of human cognition? I was under the impression you felt it was a base fact of everything in the universe--that everything is is absolutely and universally determined.

It sounds like you are talking about divine revelation. This "What is", so-called, is whatever you know intuitively and if someone else comes to a different result then they are either imbalanced or you are both right, no matter how contradictory the results are. I don't accept this, this isn't an explanation of anything, it's totally non-productive. And I ask, why you aren't a devout catholic, because they use the same device to acquire their knowledge. I'll be fascinated to see you actually solve a serious problem, like quantum theory, time travel or cold fusion with your method of acquiring knowledge.

Again, you are trying to quantify that which can't be quantified. Of course it seems unproductive.

The way one comes to know "what is" is by experiencing it. That is far from intuitive. Experience is holistic--when we are open to experience "what is" in the present, we do so with our body, and all our senses, plus with our emotions, our intuiton and our intellect, all at once. Full, presence and experience--just Being--is real and true. Quantifying this experience and taking the abstraction of quantification to be real is like taking the map to get to the neighbouring city to be the real journey, in comparison to the actual experience of getting there in reality.

The problem is, as with catholicism and divine revelation, it isn't a divine revelation, what they believe is exactly what is written in scripture. It's more likely that what they believe through divine revelation is really what they read previously in scripture. Their knowledge is more likely coming from indoctrination than anything else. But the method employed doesn't allow them to see past their intuition into what is causing the intuition. Likewise your views seem to be identical in ways to Panpsychism, which leads me to wonder if you've inadvertently read something by Panpsychists without realizing that's what it is, then through intuition coming to believe that it was revealed to you as "What Is".

If you do want to know what causes intuition, then you have to look outside yourself, an objective view, and from that view, intuition, free-will and the like dissolve into nothing, at least nothing supernatural.

Again, I'm talking about experience, which is not at all "intuitive". It's Being. It's engaging in life, itself.

It's the theories of life that are about arbitrary indoctrination and mental programming removed from the context of what is real or "what is".

Ahnimus

Angelica.

You haven't a clue. Take off.

You offer nothing.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Angelica.

You haven't a clue. Take off.

You offer nothing.

It's always obvious when you don't have a reasonable response, Ahnimus. As much as you'd like, you can't give away your inner sense of lack.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

It's always obvious when you don't have a reasonable response, Ahnimus. As much as you'd like, you can't give away your inner sense of lack.

You haven't read any of the material!

You came in here with your usual mixed-up an irrational comments. There is nothing for me to respond to, your entire philosophy is untouchable because you guard it by talking in an irrational code.

You may have had a point 2,000 years ago, but even Democritus would have slammed the door on you. Nothing you are saying has any incling of rationality to it.

Anon

Ahnimus wrote:

You never have anything to add. You kiss some peoples ass and you rag on others. That's about it.

i don't know why anybody would even bother trying to have a discussion/debate in one of your posts. this is how it looks to me. you start up a thread, looking as though you are keen to throw something on the table for discussion. angelina comes along, gives her views on the subject at hand, and you then tell angelina 'her view is an enigma, wrapped in a riddle on a sesame seed bun of mystery'. it's insulting. i don't know why angelina even bothers with the constant back and forth with you. and why insult someone just because they tell her they agree with her post. is that not allowed here? or is it because someone is not blowing smoke up your ass that you don't like it???

from the mouth of the great Ahnimus.......

Ahnimus wrote:

then you have to look outside yourself, an objective view,

mmm hmm. and that's something that you are not very good at isn't it.