Where does Determinism leave us?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 07:45 pm
@QuinticNon,
QuinticNon;112831 wrote:
I don't believe in mysticism. I don't believe in a concept of "supernatural". As far as I'm concerned, if there are ghosts, then it's perfectly natural for them to be there. If there is a God, then it's perfectly natural for there to be a God.
Heh, in a "potential" universe with God's existence, it would be supernatural for that God not to exist.
It is what it is. I'm just trying to see it for what it is rather than what I want it to be.

Code points to a concept, but it is not the concept. The letters L-O-S A-N-G-E-L-E-S are not the same thing as a mega metropolis on the western coast of the United States.
Code is a material lens that allows us to view the immaterial realm of thought.
A DVD or MPeg4 is not "Sunday Bloody Sunday". That concept we call "Sunday Bloody Sunday" may be represented and pointed to in many different ways... sheet music, vinyl grooves, magnetic tape, binary, color coded, smoke signals... it can even be codified into touch sensation. Many different mediums all pointing to the same concept of "Sunday Bloody Sunday".
As well, U2 sells 10 million records... all pointing to the same concept. They didn't sell 10 million concepts. They sold 10 million different records all designed to communicate 1 single concept. A concept from 1 single mind.

In this discussion, I'm using the term concept and thought synonymously. Code manifests upon the rails of conceptualization. Code manifests upon the process of thinking. The codification of thought is the process of thinking. The codification of concept is the process of conceptualization.

Not at all. Concept is a gift of creation, for all concepts are created. The more an entity has the capacity for language bearing faculties, the more greater the ability to create abstract conceptualization... thinking.

OK, I see what you mean now. Yeah, I'm generally in agreement with you. The God comment is correct. I will say that mysticism for me connects to feeling rather than the suggestion of supernatural entities. Mysticism is a mental state. But that's side bar. The U2 parable was good. I agree. Code is a material structure that can transmit concept. How's that? I can live with that.

But dig this: you say you are trying to see it how it is rather than how you want it to be. This gets tricky. Can we say that part of you is trying to not be deceived by another part of you? I mention this because I think truth and motive are inseparable, but that's a different thread.

In any case, my compliments. You've explained yourself well and its a fascinating subject.
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 09:57 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;112834 wrote:
... truth and motive are inseparable...


It depends upon that Truth being given or received. The giver always has a motive... a motive to give Truth. The receiver may or may not have been motivated to receive it. The Ugly Truth is often feared.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 09:58 pm
@QuinticNon,
QuinticNon;112860 wrote:
The Ugly Truth is often feared.


And the pleasant truth is often on the guest list.....
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 10:27 pm
@Reconstructo,
And wonder of both, the Ugly and Pleasant, to which claims Objective or Subjective? Seems they can both be both if or with and.

Regardless, to experience either is a gift to all. But to know either, to go beyond experience and actually think about them... to conceptualize them, attempting to grasp either one, to pass that knowledge along to another... that my friend, requires code.

We may benefit from the Truth, the Thought, the Concept, the Information without even knowing it... but to know it, we must observe and describe it. We do this with code.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 10:50 pm
@Greg phil,
Yeah, we do need code. And we also need concept. Most human experience is an immersion in concept/code. If words are the code that concept rides on(which seems valid), then human experience is full of both. If all we were was sensual experience devoid of thought, we wouldn't be much. In the Eden myth, man is the animal who names. He's also created in the creator's image. Just a myth of course, but a good one. Man is the creator who names, and names are his creation. So are bridges and machine guns and pharmaceuticals of course, but there are impossible with the names/concepts that science is built on. I can only surmise that the original code was made of objects. We had to invent abstract words from the names/code we used for objects in our environment. It's a deep subject, is it not? All this code/concept on code/concept? Like a snake trying to swallow its own tail.
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 02:15 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;112878 wrote:
...man is the animal who names...


That, is what makes him a man, and not an animal. The capacity for abstract representation is the profit of Gods, the very forbidden fruit that we were warned about. Our eyes have been opened, to see as God sees, just as Satan said it would be.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 02:44 am
@QuinticNon,
QuinticNon;112926 wrote:
That, is what makes him a man, and not an animal. The capacity for abstract representation is the profit of Gods, the very forbidden fruit that we were warned about. Our eyes have been opened, to see as God sees, just as Satan said it would be.


Now that's poetry. Genesis is a wicked book. Of course it all fits together. The Greek and Hebrew. We tie a super-myth together out of the classic myths with some strange new (old?) negative concepts. Hidden in the concepts is an energy, an ideal. To describe Concept as a fire stole from the gods is a head change. We have a concept of our conceptual freedom. Maybe that's what the Devil sold. The Bible is better than Plato? Or maybe I need to read a King James' translation of Plato.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 02:50 am
@QuinticNon,
QuinticNon;112926 wrote:
That, is what makes him a man, and not an animal. The capacity for abstract representation is the profit of Gods, the very forbidden fruit that we were warned about. Our eyes have been opened, to see as God sees, just as Satan said it would be.


I have heard it was called, DNA. But you know, of course, that all men are animals. If you mean what makes them the species, homo erectus, the answer is, DNA. If you mean, what makes him, as we say, a human being, the answer is, his capacity for language, and his remarkable ability to draw inferences: that is, to reason.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 02:58 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;112932 wrote:
I have heard it was called, DNA. But you know, of course, that all men are animals. If you mean what makes them the species, homo erectus, the answer is, DNA. If you mean, what makes him, as we say, a human being, the answer is, his capacity for language, and his remarkable ability to draw inferences: that is, to reason.



I pretty much agree, except there is a passion in reason that drives it, something like a meta-ideal, some form of religion, however critical. It's the least carnal drive, or the counter-carnal drive. Although it's source is presumably carnal, humans die for it --which I say counter-carnal or pseudo-counter-carnal..... or that's the "conceptual poetry" I'm floating at the moment. To name it is to distance one's self from it. Naming is also a form of negation? Different thread...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 03:02 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;112935 wrote:
I pretty much agree, except there is a passion in reason that drives it, something like a meta-ideal, some form of religion, however critical. It's the least carnal drive, or the counter-carnal drive. Although it's source is presumably carnal, humans die for it --which I say counter-carnal or pseudo-counter-carnal..... or that's the "conceptual poetry" I'm floating at the moment. To name it is to distance one's self from it. Naming is also a form of negation? Different thread...


I'm floating at the moment.

Yes, you are. You are engaged in word-association. Even more than usual. Beddy-time.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 03:13 am
@Greg phil,
Not for me. If so for you, good night.
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 01:33 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;112932 wrote:
I have heard it was called, DNA.


Very well then, as you and I have both said, what makes the species is indeed the DNA. Have we not resolved an answer for this thread? Semantics begs me to replace "what makes the species" with "what determines the species". Thus, Where does Determinism leave us? is authentically answered "Us". Determinism leaves us with ourselves.

Determinism (a thought) is expressed upon code (DNA), leaving us with a physical manifestation of human.

Thus my earlier summation, find a code and behold determinism.

This is no different than building a house, a car, a sculpture. Looking at them with purely materialistic eyes, they are no more than an accumulation of molecules. But trace their genesis back to the original architectural drawings, the plan, the code... that which determined their existence before their physical existence... witness the plans, and determinism has been justly uncovered.

I have found no code for rocks. I've never seen the plans for a tornado either. Nor a lava flow. I may describe these phenomenon with code, but I've found no pre-existing code within them to suggest their existence was determined. The laws of the universe were authored by humans to describe the cosmos, but they were not given to us by the cosmos.

I have found a code for life. There is a determining code for "dogwood". Without that code there is no "dogwood". A dogwood without a code is a rock.

I have found a 6 billion letter code that says "kennethamy". It is determined to be different than the 6 billion letter code that says "QuinticNon". A QuinticNon without a code is a rock.

I have also found strong reason to conclude that all codes have authors.

Determinism leaves us looking for a Determiner.

Alas, I've found one. He's straddled to the words I'm writing. He is the New Determiner, for the one who determined Him insisted upon determining the New Determiner with much the same ability as the Original Determiner.

Like the Original Determiner, the New Determiner may also take an immaterial thought and codify it into physical reality. The Witches and Warlocks were right! We can pull rabbits out of hats... yet it takes more than a snap of the fingers or a wave of the wand. It takes planning. Planning thought into action.

This New Determiner has a question for you. He has determined this question specifically for you... all of you.

?What will you determine next?

Please determine your responses accordingly and get back with me at your leisurely convenience.

kennethamy;112932 wrote:
But you know, of course, that all men are animals.


Life is life. How may I see it as purely materialistic?

Rock = Energy + Matter

Animal = Energy + Matter + Codified Information

Is the codified information between man and animal different? Of course it is. How may I comfortably say that all men are animals? I may as well claim that all men are plants. I prefer to say, that all men live, all toads live, all dogwoods live. Rocks don't live.


kennethamy;112932 wrote:
If you mean what makes them the species, homo erectus, the answer is, DNA. If you mean, what makes him, as we say, a human being, the answer is, his capacity for language, and his remarkable ability to draw inferences: that is, to reason.


I sneaked a peek up under the skirt of Determinism. She's not shy. She wants us to see the Meaning of Life. Stick your head under here with me and lets have a look at her goods. Wow! Do you see what I see? She's lettin' it all hang out!

Meaning IS Determinism. Meaning of Life is that which is Determined for and by Life.

Says you: "what makes them the species"...
Yes, DNA... the code that expresses Deterministic Meaning. Deterministic Meaning is a Thought. We begin life as the Thoughtful Deterministic Meaning of the Original Determiner.

This explains the TDM for Life.

Says you: "what makes him, as we say, a human being, the answer is, his capacity for language..."
Thus after the first TDM, humans become the New Determiner, exercising their innate ability to author New Code, to create, to express their very own Thoughtful Deterministic Meaning into physical reality... to become like Gods. We author The New Meaning of Life with every breath we speak. The original Meaning was Determined as Us. The New Meaning is whatever we Determine worthy of Codification.

Find a code, share a thought.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 08:41 pm
@QuinticNon,
QuinticNon;113045 wrote:


Says you: "what makes him, as we say, a human being, the answer is, his capacity for language..."
Thus after the first TDM, humans become the New Determiner, exercising their innate ability to author New Code, to create, to express their very own Thoughtful Deterministic Meaning into physical reality... to become like Gods. We author The New Meaning of Life with every breath we speak. The original Meaning was Determined as Us. The New Meaning is whatever we Determine worthy of Codification.

The whole post was great. Juicy stuff. We are created in the image of the creator. Determined in the image of the determiner. DNA made possible these viral sentences, a new sort code. Gene leaps to meme. Meme made the machines that discovered meme's roots in genes. Fortune is a strumpet, as you say in other words. When the meme becomes conscious of itself as viral meme...blammo. the dogs are loose.
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 08:52 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;113105 wrote:
Juicy stuff.


In the beginning was the Word.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 09:00 pm
@Greg phil,
When humans start making lots of words about words, the snake begins to catch its tail. To conceive of/create the "transcendental ego" must have been a trip. Is reason (logos) holy? So many of our highest feelings are associated with words and so many words are inspired by such feelings. Then I think of human math. That's a sublime form of code in itself. Perfectly concise. Neither surplus jot nor tittle.

DNA / Logos / Math / Physiognomy (What do you think of the code/plastic art relationship?
 
scdevey
 
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 12:02 pm
@Reconstructo,
I believe strongly that there is a very real dichotomy between reality and the world of our experience. Both sides of this dichotomy are true in their own ways. Consider matter briefly. The world of our experience tells us that when we sit down in a chair, for instance, that said chair is solid. There is no worry that we will fall through the chair to the ground (which I suppose in turn could be fallen through to the core of the earth). However, quantum physics says that however remote the possibility that this could happen. The reality of matter is that it is 99.99999999% empty space. The same could be said about free will. Just like we have the illusion of solid matter, we have in this world of our experience the illusion of free will. I want to make this point very clear though, just because free will is an illusion doesn't mean you need to give in to apathy and nihilism. In fact, I have found the complete opposite in my life. I'll talk about that a little bit later. The point I want to get across here is that just because free will only exists in the realm of our experience doesn't mean that it's any less true. ... See More

That being said, I want to look at an idea that I think is the core of the rejection of determinism in most people. I think most people crave control. They want to feel like they are in control of themselves and the situations around them. How could this be a bad thing most people would ask. I feel strongly that this is one of the greatest barriers to true happiness. If you look at the act of trying to change something to fit your view of how things should be, you will see what you're really thinking is that things aren't good enough how they stand. As Tyler pointed out, you are never in control of everything around you. Thus, there is always something that could be better. I have found that most people live their lives regretting things in the past or looking forward to the vague possibility that something is going to come along in the future that will finally make them happy. The problem with this mentality is that ultimately they miss the only thing we really have, the knife edge of experience. By living in the past or future they miss the beauty of the moment that is reality as we know it.

Well then, we're back to apathy at very least. If the moment is good enough as is, then there is no ambition to change anything. I disagree with that statement wholeheartedly. As I look at my personal view of the world, there is no question in my mind that we can be better both personally and as a society. I would say that I have a big picture view of how we can be better, but I have an understanding that things that happen to me on a small scale day to day basis would happen no matter what. In this way I'm able to focus all my time, talents, energy, and emotion into working the make the future I want to see a reality instead of focusing it on the muck of human drama.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 03:37 pm
@scdevey,
scdevey;137935 wrote:
I believe strongly that there is a very real dichotomy between reality and the world of our experience. Both sides of this dichotomy are true in their own ways. Consider matter briefly. The world of our experience tells us that when we sit down in a chair, for instance, that said chair is solid. There is no worry that we will fall through the chair to the ground (which I suppose in turn could be fallen through to the core of the earth). However, quantum physics says that however remote the possibility that this could happen. The reality of matter is that it is 99.99999999% empty space. The same could be said about free will. Just like we have the illusion of solid matter, we have in this world of our experience the illusion of free will. I want to make this point very clear though, just because free will is an illusion doesn't mean you need to give in to apathy and nihilism. In fact, I have found the complete opposite in my life. I'll talk about that a little bit later. The point I want to get across here is that just because free will only exists in the realm of our experience doesn't mean that it's any less true. ... See More

That being said, I want to look at an idea that I think is the core of the rejection of determinism in most people. I think most people crave control. They want to feel like they are in control of themselves and the situations around them. How could this be a bad thing most people would ask. I feel strongly that this is one of the greatest barriers to true happiness. If you look at the act of trying to change something to fit your view of how things should be, you will see what you're really thinking is that things aren't good enough how they stand. As Tyler pointed out, you are never in control of everything around you. Thus, there is always something that could be better. I have found that most people live their lives regretting things in the past or looking forward to the vague possibility that something is going to come along in the future that will finally make them happy. The problem with this mentality is that ultimately they miss the only thing we really have, the knife edge of experience. By living in the past or future they miss the beauty of the moment that is reality as we know it.

Well then, we're back to apathy at very least. If the moment is good enough as is, then there is no ambition to change anything. I disagree with that statement wholeheartedly. As I look at my personal view of the world, there is no question in my mind that we can be better both personally and as a society. I would say that I have a big picture view of how we can be better, but I have an understanding that things that happen to me on a small scale day to day basis would happen no matter what. In this way I'm able to focus all my time, talents, energy, and emotion into working the make the future I want to see a reality instead of focusing it on the muck of human drama.


If determinism is true, then I suppose we are in the same position we have always been. Those who are apathetic will remain apathetic, and the unapathetic will remain unapathetic. I don't see why determinism implies apathy. You may be confusing determinism with fatalism which does seem to imply apathy.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 06:05 pm
@Greg phil,
Greg;69165 wrote:
I'll leave the question open as to Soft VS Hard Determinism but I want this thread to discuss how we should approach moral law, and judgment of im/moral behaviour, knowing that human (or any physical being's) behaviour is caused.
Whether that causation is found in the brain, social influence, physiological state or whereever else is irrelavent. You can try to argue for Freewill (libertarianism) if you must but it will have to be a brilliant argument because not only have I no idea how we could have Freewill, but neither does the concept even make sense.

It seems difficult to judge one act right or wrong if we are determined (even if we can judge it good or bad easily enough) and it also seems difficult to decide how WE should behave outside of some objective moral law (which I say no reason to believe in) to which we can respond (which we can't if we are determined).


I only think now - though I hope this thread will make me revise my thoughts - that we should be very sympathetic with criminals and 'immoral' people. Yes punish them if for the sake of improving them or protecting other people but I think we must not actually think "he's evil".



It is very simple. If everything is determined, then people who are evil are made that way by preceding causes. But that does not make them any less evil; it merely means that there is a cause of them being evil.

Suppose I were to build a house, but suppose that I am not very good at it, and it is unsafe and poorly designed. The house is a bad house. You may say, it is not the fault of the house that it is bad. Be that as it may, it is still a bad house, regardless of how it got that way.

Likewise, with a person, if the person is stupid or evil or whatever, whether some external cause made them that way or not, they are what they are. An evil person who is caused to be evil is no less evil than one just like him who was uncaused (if such a thing is possible).

When a person is judged to be evil, one is judging their current state, not how they came to be that way.


Something you state in a later post:

Greg;69408 wrote:
I think some of you missed the point of this thread: it is meant to start from the assumption that Freewill doesn't really exist.
(No Quantum Indetermenency, even if it is true, would not disprove Determinism at least in the moral sence. Ok some of your behaviour may be indetermined; but that does not lead to Freewill, at best it leads to random behaviour which, while not determined by physical laws, is nonetheless out of your control).
...



That does not fit with your opening post, because "soft determinism" is another expression for "compatibilism", the idea that free will and determinism are compatible with each other. See:

Free Will and Determinism

So if you were really wanting to leave it an open question whether soft or hard determinism is correct, it would be an open question whether or not people have free will.


As for those who would have you believe that the world is not deterministic, but subject to random forces, how would that make any difference to the above? If you are the way you are as the result of chance, it still does not make you any different from the way you are.

When someone is judged to be a bad person, there is no need to inquire into what, if anything, caused the person to be bad. When someone is a mass murderer rapist torturer, that person is bad, regardless of whether the person was caused to be that way or not.

Now, of course, if determinism is true, then it would be a good idea to look into the causes of people being good and the causes of people being bad, and then try to change the world such that more good people are produced than bad ones. In fact, we do such things to some degree, as, for example, we believe that teaching people to read and right and do arithmetic and so forth will make them better people, so we endeavor to teach them these things. If we did not think these things would have a positive effect, we would not have schools and such things.
 
scdevey
 
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 10:55 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;138002 wrote:
If determinism is true, then I suppose we are in the same position we have always been. Those who are apathetic will remain apathetic, and the unapathetic will remain unapathetic. I don't see why determinism implies apathy. You may be confusing determinism with fatalism which does seem to imply apathy.


Sorry I just threw this up because I wanted some feedback on it. It was a response to someone who was claiming that determinism leads to apathy. I don't believe that it does at all.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 04:55 am
@Greg phil,
Greg;69165 wrote:
I'll leave the question open as to Soft VS Hard Determinism but I want this thread to discuss how we should approach moral law, and judgment of im/moral behaviour, knowing that human (or any physical being's) behaviour is caused.
Whether that causation is found in the brain, social influence, physiological state or whereever else is irrelavent. You can try to argue for Freewill (libertarianism) if you must but it will have to be a brilliant argument because not only have I no idea how we could have Freewill, but neither does the concept even make sense.

It seems difficult to judge one act right or wrong if we are determined (even if we can judge it good or bad easily enough) and it also seems difficult to decide how WE should behave outside of some objective moral law (which I say no reason to believe in) to which we can respond (which we can't if we are determined).


I only think now - though I hope this thread will make me revise my thoughts - that we should be very sympathetic with criminals and 'immoral' people. Yes punish them if for the sake of improving them or protecting other people but I think we must not actually think "he's evil".
- punishing criminals even if it doesn't improve their moral and ethically behavior, it serves as scaring others from doing the same.

Dunno if I actually understood much of your stuff right, but I'll try to answer as best as I can.

To understand the morals and ethics of any society, it's not to understand how to follow them, that is the fundemental issue, it is to goven the society, to prevent anarchy and chaos. It is mere guidelines, and the excat judgement of weather it's right or wrong is subjective.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 06:14:58