Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 09:01pm PT
|
We could dredge those posts up, too, if you like.
While you're at the dredging, take an assessment of the countless diatribes you have STARTED, to which I have RESPONDED. You will not find one I STARTED against your nutty, narrow-minded world view. You, with Pate, are the most inflammatory, wildly anti-religious haters on the taco. You also seem to have endless time to post and post and post.
I honestly can't keep up, and I've often just given up because of how relentlessly stupid, yet ENDLESS, your postings are. You produce a shotgun blast of ridiculousness, and I don't have time in my life to track down all of the pellets from each blast. But I put in my efforts to address the most stupid of your points when I can find the time.
And how can I call it anything BUT idiotic, when you make ridiculous statements like that "abrahamic" religion has been the greatest threat to genuine education in the world? I know that sounds good to you, but it's just the sort of ridiculous, indeed stupid, hyperbole for which you are known on these threads.
WHO started the most prestigious universities in this nation? Christians! Who has contributed more money over more years to the continuation of education (and, yes, that included science education) than any other demographic group? Christians!
I'll admit that there is a fairly narrow band of radical right-wing nut-job Christians that oppose evolution education (and I am not among them). But you're painting with insanely unsupportably broad strokes to make the sorts of claims you do! But you have never demonstrated concern for fairness of intellectual honesty, as I've pointed out again and again. You are RABID for your world view, and yet you accuse Christians of dogmatism.
Furthermore, if you think that a few undergrad courses in philosophy you took 30 years ago make you philosophically educated, well, that's just another example of the ridiculous level of hubris your every "contribution" is laced with. You know NOTHING of contemporary ethics. You know NOTHING of contemporary philosophy!
And calling Sam Harris a "philosopher" is quite a stretch. He has an undergrad degree in philosophy... more than most, I'll be the first to admit. But an undergrad degree in philosophy is an INTRODUCTION to the subject.
Dennett is at least a genuine, trained philosopher! But he does NOT employ the language of science, as you say he does. He appeals to scientific data, but he "babbles" in EXACTLY the same way that ALL trained philosophers do. You simply prefer the CONTENT of his babbling to that of the MANY other philosophers that oppose his views.
And your claim that he is one of the greatest living philosophers is patently ridiculous and again shows your ignorance. Dennett has his niche, but he is KNOWN as a niche philosopher. Saul Kripke (never heard of him, have you?) is regarded by PHILOSOPHERS (evaluating their own) as arguably the greatest living philosopher. And KRIPKE decimates Dennett on ALL materialistic points.
What about Philip Quinn (past president of the APA, Christian, and divine command theorist)? Philosophers don't elect nut-jobs to be president of the APA. Before his recent death, Quinn was a much more highly regarded philosopher than Dennett, and HE opposed Dennett on virtually all points.
John Searle is a MUCH more highly regarded philosopher than Dennett, and HE opposes Dennett on EVERY aspect of Dennett's "take" on philosophy of mind, and Searle is NO theist!!!
I could go on and on and on and on. In short, you have not actually studied the literature, you have a narrow-minded view of the range of HIGHLY respected thinkers that entirely oppose your view, and you pathetically cherry-pick among the FEW intellectuals you claim to be "in good company" with. If Dennett is your "high bar" of philosophical acumen, then you've been putting way too much stock in the dust-cover blurbs! Grow up and demonstrate a little intellectual honesty!
And, btw, Dennett DOES philosophy, not science!!! So, if philosophy is dead, then don't tout Dennett! And, by the way, EVERY philosopher I've mentioned, as well as hundreds more I could cite, are NOT 18th century; they are contemporary, and most are still living. And if you are so dismissive of Kant just because he was 18th century, then, again, your ignorance is showing!
Nothing new!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 09:06pm PT
|
"You also seem to have endless time to post and post and post."
I'll remind you: It's my work.
I take a breather at this site because my favorite sport is climbing.
Change of mind: You go your way, I'll go mine. YET AGAIN.
P.S. Before I fall asleep tonight, I'll try to think of ONE THING academic philosophy has done for the public good in the 21st century. Want me to name 20 things engineering (a prescriptive applied science) has done for the public good in the same time frame? Good luck to you.
.....
EDIT 6:14p Well, lookie there, looks like we've agreed to part ways. No doubt for the best.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 09:12pm PT
|
What is determinism's relationship / significance to so-called "free will."
I can't address the question without "doing philosophy," which you say is "dead" and which you constantly decry. Indeed, YOU yourself can't discuss this question without "doing philosophy," so you are trying to engage me at a level that you claim is "dead." Thus, there is nothing to talk about, as there is no discourse in which it can be done.
Oops, I just did more philosophy to even draw these inferences. I guess I just don't know science well enough to know how to cast these particular inferences in terms of scientific language and truth conditions.
If you care to take a stab (given the vast bibliography you've just provided) at an account of the determinism/free will dichotomy (oops, another "philosophical" term, dang!), please do so in the "proper" language: mathematics; and appeal ONLY to raw, uninterpreted scientific experimental data.
Why am I wasting my time here? You're an undisciplined, cherry-picking goofball making obviously ridiculous, grandiose claims. The futility is apparent. I'm done for this go-round.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 09:19pm PT
|
I'll try to think of ONE THING academic philosophy has done for the public good in the 21st century.
If you are AT ALL intellectually honest, you should have NO trouble doing this. I can think of many more than 20! But I claim that YOU cannot because you are a narrow-minded, cherry-picking goofball. PROVE me wrong! Show me that there is a shred of intellectual honesty in you by showing us ALL that you have more breadth than I claim you do!
If you think that microwave ovens compare to the remarkable advances in linguistics that philosophy of language has produced, as just one example, then you are every bit as pathetic as I think you are!
I'll respond on this thread in the future based upon how you do with this one.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 09:22pm PT
|
Well, that was entertaining.
Too bad xtranormal.com is charging now.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 10:04pm PT
|
Put these together, as I already knew you would, and you have exactly ZERO distinction between causal and mental determinism. "Mind" just is causally-determined matter; it is just another phenomenon to be examined and explained by science. And it is so approachable by the scientific method exactly because the mind is causally determined. So, don't accuse me of neglecting a distinction that I happen to know is a meaningless distinction to you.
You can SAY words like "freedom," but your world view has exactly ZERO room or explanation for it. YOUR "freedom" is at most a feeling, an illusion. And it does NOT ground moral responsibility.
That my friends is the bullsh'it in a nutshell. Talk about a cup already full. (Does he ever pause long enough to make allowance for a definition of a word or term that might, just might, be different from his own. Sad.)
.....
EDIT
I have two computers on my desk as I write. One's a relic, a Z80 microprocessor-based voice recognition system from the 1980s, the other a 32bit Windows Xp I'm writing this post on. Both are 100 per cent mechanistic (that's the word of choice), in different terms, both are 100 per cent causally deterministic (that's the problematic word traditional philo likes to use), The simple straightforward point: Though both are mechanistic and "obedient to" causality (causal dynamics) through and through, the modern computer is chockfull of abilities, powers, (degrees of, types of) freedoms that the Z80 can't match.
So there you have it, short and sweet in a nutshell, clearly stated, how you can have mechanistic reaction (causal determinism) and "freedom" (as a sort of ability or power) in the same system, the same world or in the same consideration.
Perhaps it is emblematic of the difference between (a) how a classic philosopher-mind might express himself and (b) how a modern engineering-mind might express himself. And perhaps it points the way to new and improved communications not to distant. Let's hope.
P.S. I used to have a "freedom" to climb a particular route, soon I'll have the opportunity to see if I STILL have that ability, aka that "freedom". -Even as a thoroughly mechanistic living thing, no less completely mechanistic than a honey bee or hantavirus.
I've come to grips with this particular sense of freedom, or particular species of freedom. As increasing numbers have. And continue to do so. But keep in mind, this world is STILL chock-full of Christian philosophers (or philosopher Christians) still clinging to supernaturalist belief and ghost-in-the-machine pseudosophies for whom this sort of freedom is unacceptable. For them it needs to be some sort of "ghost freedom" or bust. To that I say, THAT is unacceptable, too bad for them. It's time for the rest of us to move on with the modern science and engineering-based understanding of mechanistic mechanics and freedom - whether it's living things we are talking about or abiotic machines - either way freedoms exist and they evolve.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 10:08pm PT
|
But fun if you read it in John Houseman's voice.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 10:30pm PT
|
Z80 microprocessor is real old. 8 bit.
But I should talk, I use Microchip corp. 8 bit Pic 16 & Pic 18 series.
The Z80 microprocessor-based voice recognition system, did you write the firmware?
How accurate is the voice recognition?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 10:53pm PT
|
Thanks for asking, Werner.
I wrote the assembly code, every bit, hexadecimal, all 4000 steps long, sometimes entered entirely by hand.
"RoboFuzzy" had either a 10-word vocabulary (speaker independent) or 25-word vocabulary (speaker-dependent) with an error rate about 2 per cent (of course under controlled conditions, e.g, quiet environment).
For senior design class, the VR system was incorporated into a cute little robot Pac-man shaped. Hence the name.
That was my introduction to hands-on causality (causal dynamics) at home and in the lab. Causal dynamics- it REALLY runs true.
That kind of work over the years - supplemented with lots of life science and bio-engineering work - tends to turn people into causal dynamicists.
...
EDIT 8:02p
"You are treating "capacities" as "freedoms," and those are clearly different concepts."
Not. Not. Not. Maybe in your school of thinking. Not in mine. And most importantly not in the school of thinking of a new discipline soon to emerge.
EDIT 8:04 I just read your post. There's just no other way to say it. It's just so crude and antiquated. Maybe it might on the surface seem intellectually stimulating or whatever to someone who is relatively new to these ideas but it is what it is - crude, decrepit, retrograde. Sorry.
Hint to progress: For starters, get rid of the "just" and "nothing more than" crap - it's old bad habit. (Sour grapes, whining, or something.) Example: Living things (incl hbs) are mechanistic, they're obedient to" physics and chemistry and cellular physiology - plus, repeat plus, they are a whole lot more thanks to synergy, synergistic sum, and a buildup (assembly) of anabolic processes, anabolic systems.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 11:00pm PT
|
You are treating "capacities" as "freedoms," and those are clearly different concepts. A volcano has many more "freedoms" (by which you really mean POWER to do things in the world) than a diamond. Yet, neither is FREE! The most either can "do" in the world is be part of a causal chain of EVENTS about which neither could have done differently than it did! A causal chain inexorably produced a particular event, and knowing the preconditions accurately enough would enable you to predict with EXACT accuracy what MUST transpire in the next step of the causal chain. No CHOICE involved in the process.
On your view, humans are just more CAPABLE (your actual and non-standard meaning of "free") than rocks, but they are essentially the same things. Essentially, humans and rocks are nothing more than clouds of sub-atomic particles, causally affected to produce EVENTS in the world. But none of those events are actually CHOSEN, and none of those EVENTS are FREE. Just like a volcanic eruption, if you knew the preconditions with sufficient accuracy, you could predict EXACTLY what the next link of the causal chain would produce.
What you call me using terms in a "narrow" way, I call being CLEAR about conceptual distinctions that matter! Your use of "freedom" is confusing to this particular discussion because it fails to explicate the key distinction: there is a difference between determinism and free will; and you can't make that distinction go away by merely confusing terms to pretend like "free will" is just the same thing as "powerful". A volcano is powerful, but it is NOT free!
You decry philosophy, but you DO it all the time... just badly.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 11:06pm PT
|
Here it is, last time. Clearly stated:
(1) Either I have the "freedom" to escape this jail cell or I don't.
(2) Either this sweet hot thing has the "freedom" to climb Astroman or she doesn't.
Both of these are clear. Both of these are meaningful. People get that. You can choose to or not.
Later...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 11:12pm PT
|
(1) Either I have the "freedom" to escape this jail cell or I don't.
(2) Either this sweet hot thing has the "freedom" to climb Astroman or I don't.
Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic!
Either you have the POWER to escape this jail cell or you don't. Either you have the POWER to climb Astroman or you don't.
POWER only correlates with FREEDOM if YOU use the power. You are smuggling in the YOUness of freedom into your use of "power," yet you are not entitled to that concept! A volcano has POWER, but it does not have AGENCY. It is not EXERCISING "its" power. It is merely part of a chain of EVENTS.
You smuggle in the notion of AGENCY, but that's the very thing you are not entitled to do, because AGENCY IS THE DIFFERENCE between free will and determinism.
AGENCY produces actions, while determinism produces only events.
And, btw, you are STILL trying to do philosophy! Ironic, isn't it?
EDIT 9:01 -- To people that like to confuse distinct concepts, you might appear to be onto something. But your endless conflations only reveal the sort of fuzzy thinking that you have perpetually demonstrated in ALL of your posts.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 11:17pm PT
|
Essentially, humans and rocks are nothing more than clouds of sub-atomic particles, causally affected to produce EVENTS in the world. But none of those events are actually CHOSEN, and none of those EVENTS are FREE. Just like a volcanic eruption, if you knew the preconditions with sufficient accuracy, you could predict EXACTLY what the next link of the causal chain would produce.
Also, ironically, I'M the one here appealing to scientific FACTS to make my points. All you have done is conflate distinct concepts.
The tables are turned! Hehe... I'm the scientist, and you are the bad philosopher!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 11:20pm PT
|
Either the volcano has the "freedom" to erupt or it doesn't.
Causal chains produce more and more magma, more and more pressure, inevitably: ERUPTION!
BAD volcano! Bad, bad, BAD!
I mean EVIL!
Evil volcano!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 11:22pm PT
|
Insofar as any system - biotic or abiotic - has agency (and by the way, how many in pop culture are going to understand this word? I mean get it? enough to incorporate it into their working vocabularies? which is ultimately to whom my efforts in my work are directed), it has freedoms - degrees of freedom, dimensions of freedom, powers of freedom - however you'd like to say it - doesn't matter to me. It is freedom.
P.S. There are thousands of smart systems in the 21st century to choose to make your point vis a vis a rock and you use volcano? Pleeeezzzeee!
EDIT
Volcano: No agency, no freedom. Doesn't everyone get that? I think they do.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 11:37pm PT
|
Insofar as any system - biotic or abiotic - has agency (and by the way, how many in pop culture are going to understand this word? which is ultimately to whom my group is going to appeal), it has freedoms - degrees of freedom, dimensions of freedom, powers of freedom - however you'd like to say it - doesn't matter to me. It is freedom.
FINALLY you agree with me in the PROPER use of the term "freedom." The ISSUE is agency!!! THAT is what I've been trying to get you to see for over an hour! Finally, you get it!
Regarding "pop culture," if that's your target audience, then it SO much explains your endlessly fuzzy thinking. So, tell me, how well does "pop culture" understand something like this nonsense?
"One begins with a poset (causal set) and assigns Hilbert spaces to the vertices and evolution operators to sets of edges. However, within this framework, one is quickly led to violations of causality—as the author herself notes—essentially because the slices used are “too global.” She mentions the possibility of working with a dual view. In fact, in our work, we take such a dualized viewas our starting point. In otherwords we assign operators representing evolution or measurement to vertices and Hilbert spaces to the edges. However, if we only work locally we get a causal theory but lose the possibility of capturing nonlocal correlations." (Discrete Quantum Causal Dynamics, Richard F. Blute, Ivan T. Ivanov and Prakash Panangaden, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS Volume 42, Number 9, 2025-2041)
BTW, I'm sure you know of this article. Right? Interestingly, they claim to prove that your nonsense about causal dynamics being related to freedom (or escape from causality) is unfounded: "Causal relations are made explicit and we prove that no influences breaking causality arise in our scheme." Surely you've read this entire article. Right? So you know that what you are claiming about anything like "causal freedom" is nonsense. Right? And "pop culture" is going to "get" this better than my arguments? Puuullleeeaaassseee!
Back to agency... THAT is the issue. Causal determinism has NO account of it! You can't smuggle it in, you must ACCOUNT for it among the clouds of sub-atomic particles affected EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM by causality.
Good luck!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 11:45pm PT
|
Still doing philosophy, btw. No hard science in sight!
I'm off to bed.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 11:46pm PT
|
There you go again, oh boy.
"Agency" and its relationship to power and freedom is about as common in engineering circles as bandpass filters and Laplace transforms.
You and Bill O'Reilly if not Dick Morris ought to get together. You're all MASTERS. Masters of rhetoric, masters of spin and soundbites.
Later...
.....
Here, sleep on this: My use of "freedom" is no more loose and uncertain than the philosopher's use of... wait for it...
wait for it....
wait for it....
God...
or...
Evil...
or...
Spirit.
.....
Truth is, it all needs overhauling. Under a new standard. And I've got the faith this will be done. New vocabulary and everything. Keep the faith.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 11:55pm PT
|
"escape from causality"
There is no "escape from causality."
Sorry for the news, if this is taken as bad news,
Said the man eating freely from his bowl of ice cream.
Yes, this is tiring now.
I think I'll go free-climb something tomorrow for a pleasant escape
From all this philosophizing (term used loosely).
Hmm... I should at least have the freedom to climb Nutcracker, I think.
.....
Here, too, while you dream of "free will" vs "determinism" -
Everyday real world proof of causality (causal dynamics) in action. Beats the stuffing out of volcanoes.
"No hard science in sight!"
That timing diagram is "hard science in sight."
Just remember every second your computer continues to work - or more soulfully, every second your heart beats - this is proof that causality is the name of the game in this universe.
"Causality deserves respect. The lives of all living things depend on it running true." -damn straight.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2010 - 12:32am PT
|
Causality is subordinate to the supersoul.
The soul lies beyond the cause and effect.
It is the master input clock.
And the supersoul is the master of all the clocks.
It is the true origin of all life.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!