A Non-Metaphysical Theory

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 04:54 am
@jeeprs,
wayne;149529 wrote:
it's nice to know I'm not just delusional, or at least not alone in my delusion.


Hey believe me - there's nothin' the matter with you, it is REALITY that is crazy! And don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 05:47 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;146823 wrote:
I don't get the constant appeal to determinism. Why are people so keen to give away their freedom?



The Buddha, Nibbana Sutta ('Total Unbinding')



The truth or falsity of determinism has nothing to do with whether its consequences are good or bad. To think that because the consequences of a theory are bad the theory is false, is to commit the fallacy of the argumentum ad horrendum.

But fortunately, determinism is not incompatible with human freedom. So, no need to worry about it.

---------- Post added 04-08-2010 at 08:09 AM ----------

ughaibu;146611 wrote:
.Determinists seem to think that they have a lot to lose, so they propose theories of determinism that are compatible with quantum mechanics.


Very few philosophers do that. But some physicists (Like Schroedinger) have. But they don't seem to know much about philosophy. I doubt anyone does that now. Even physicists have become more sophisticated philosophically.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 07:55 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;149548 wrote:
I doubt anyone does that now.
What about t'Hooft? or Bohm? and amongst philosophers, presumably all of them who are determinists espouse theories of determinism that are compatible with quantum mechanics.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 09:40 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;149576 wrote:
What about t'Hooft? or Bohm? and amongst philosophers, presumably all of them who are determinists espouse theories of determinism that are compatible with quantum mechanics.



I did not say there were none. Determinists may well espouse theories compatible with qm since I suppose they would hold that there is no good reason to hold that what occurs on a micro-level significantly occurs on the macro-level.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 10:02 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;149602 wrote:
I suppose they would hold that there is no good reason to hold that what occurs on a micro-level significantly occurs on the macro-level.
Of course they dont. They hold the view that all micro-events are exactly specified by laws of nature in conjunction with non-local states of the world, because if micro-level events are not determined, then determinism is false.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 10:18 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;149614 wrote:
Of course they dont. They hold the view that all micro-events are exactly specified by laws of nature in conjunction with non-local states of the world, because if micro-level events are not determined, then determinism is false.


I don't understand what you wrote (not unusual). But what I wrote is that determinists believe that whatever happens on a micro-level does not matter on the macro-level so far as determinism is concerned, and insofar as it is supposed to affect free will.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 10:22 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;149619 wrote:
what I wrote is that determinists believe that whatever happens on a micro-level does not matter on the macro-level so far as determinism is concerned
Determinists obviously do not believe that, because it would amount to believing that whether or not determinism is false, determinism is true.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 10:24 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;149622 wrote:
Determinists obviously do not believe that, because it would amount to believing that whether or not determinism is false, determinism is true.


It would amount to saying that determinism is true on the macro-level.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 10:26 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;149624 wrote:
It would amount to saying that determinism is true on the macro-level.
Which would entail that determinism is also true on the micro-scale, because determinism is all or nothing.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 10:30 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;149628 wrote:
Which would entail that determinism is also true on the micro-scale, because determinism is all or nothing.


Why is that? Why cannot it be true on a macro-scale, and not on the micro-scale if the micro does not significantly affect the macro?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 10:32 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;149630 wrote:
Why cannot it be true on a macro-scale, and not on the micro-scale if the micro does not significantly affect the macro?
Because that is not what determinism is.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 10:37 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;149631 wrote:
Because that is not what determinism is.


Oh. Why didn't you say so in the first place? I would never have attempted to dispute you. "Love means never to have to say you are sorry". "But sometimes I have loved someone, and said I was sorry". "That isn't what love is".
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 10:44 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;149633 wrote:
Why didn't you say so in the first place?
We were talking about physicists and philosophers, I felt no responsibility to make the astoundingly obvious observation that "determinism" is being used as those people use it, during a dialogue about those people's attitudes to it. On the other hand, if you intended the introduction of some peculiar notion of determinism, why didn't you announce the fact?
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 01:33 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;149516 wrote:
actually, the reason I am saying it is not a metaphysical argument, is because it doesn't rely upon the idea of substance. It is based more, as you have noticed, on the emptiness view of Buddhism, and the way that things exist 'dependent on causes and conditions'.


You may be right, it is very difficult to place your theory strictly into a field of thought which essentially deals with things or substances which are unmeasurable or undetectable. The idea of spirits is a strong idea. I would tend to believe that the platonic forms can be both in the realm of ideas and/or spirits.

jeeprs;149516 wrote:
What interests me is the way in which modern people, or scientific people (which is almost the same!), conceive of the idea of spiritual realities or forms. The idea is they must exist somewhere, in some ideal place. Then, to put it crudely, it is a short step to being able to say 'there is obviously no such place, and so there can be no such thing'. They basically reject them because they cannot conceive of such a thing. I guess, being wedded to what they understand as Naturalism, the first rule of anything is that 'we can conceive of it'. Otherwise they reject it.


I agree that there is utter confusion out there. The definition of ideas is well settled by the modern or scientific man, though. It is the definition of spirits which is in the mists. One problem being, the inability of men to encounter such entities in everyday life. I think more than naturalism, it is materialism that should get the blame, if at all it is right to do so.

jeeprs;149516 wrote:
Dawkins faces this problem with his conception, or misconception, of Deity. His attitude is that deity must be something more complex than that which it creates, and as the universe is obviously extremely complex, then this deity must be immensely complex indeed. What I see, with thinking of this type, is this demand that whatever deity is, first and foremost it must be something we can conceive of, or imagine. So the way he imagines it, it is hugely improbable that such a being should exist.


No, i don't think there is such a demand or a rule for deitisation and that it is or can only be possible if 'we can conceive it', as or more complex than the universe. If Dawkins, is of that view, he is mistaken. Deities exists because of conceivements. Thats culture.

Spirits is a different ball game. It is the world of intangibles. The dispute, as alluded above is how do we define it. You said it is neither here nor there, and the materialists keep on asking 'where'?........ I remember, from my school days, there was a poem in my local language which translated would tend to mean 'In this my hut/house'. Here the poet goes on to describe his curiosity to know where his God resides. So he goes out seeking Him, he travels all around; he goes to his temple, he could not find him; he goes to the holiest city, he could not find Him; he goes into the jungle, he could not find Him; he goes to the Himalayas, he could not find Him; he goes to mosques, churches, gurudwaras, ashrams, synagogues, and all such places where allegedly God could reside; he looks into the oceans, caves, skies, moon and heavenly bodies, he goes here, there everywhere, but he just could not find his creator. Tired he comes back home. He then says and concludes that God is no where, but is everywhere, and therfore God is in his very home, from where he begun his quest at first. It could be the home or the heart even.

Now, thats poetry but a profound one. hope one can get the message.

You are right, if you assert that the 'idea' or conceivement of spiritual reality can only come through experience, and when it needs verification, and not by merely thinking or reasoning.

jeeprs;149516 wrote:
I can agree that no such being exists, but also observe that this is from the outset a misunderstanding of the nature of Deity. So Dawkins is spending an immense amount of effort, in effect, of proving the non-existence of something that doesn't exist.


yeah, it is funny, he sometimes jumps into dealing with concepts of which he is not even remotely aware off, except by reading, i suppose.

jeeprs;149516 wrote:
What I am reflecting on is that I don't think there is a 'where' or 'what' when it comes to these higher levels of being. They are beyond our imagination or conception. Now of course a Christian would say, 'but Deity has revealed something of himself in the life of Jesus and the Scripture. That is how we know'. But even though that may be the case, I am still curious to know something of 'spiritual' or 'formal' realities. So what does 'knowing' comprise in this context?

The esoteric understanding is that the Platonic forms actually represent 'the formal realm' and Deity the 'causal realm' - this is part of the hierarchical ontology. But these are not actually 'realms' in the way the ordinary imagination can depict them. They are subtle realms. The way in which beings on this level both do, and do not, exist, is the subject of the Diamond Sutra.

Now these ideas are known in the various schools of what are now called the perennial philosophy, but it requires considerable subtlety of thought, or should I say cognition, to know what they mean. So the Platonic realm is, in a sense, the way cognition itself works; these forms, represented in one sense as the Archetypes, actually in-form the very way in which we interact with the world. So of course they can never be disclosed by direct inspection, as it were. Because again, they don't exist, but they cause things - in the case of the archetypes - to exist the way they do. They are like the ground of existence, not another existing thing. Any knowledge of them, and I use the term in a very qualified sense, can only arise out of 'meditative realization' as distinct from discursive thought. This is how the understanding is always taught in the traditional setting, whether Christian, Hindu, Sufi or Buddhist.


Yes, i think, you are right to the extent, that meditation has the proven ability to make one believe how the spiritual realm exists. Here than, i also see what you meant by 'Non-metaphysical' things or beings. However, i should caution you that merely a feeling or as you put it, the subtlety of thought, (which is cognition, paradoxically) or a sense or semblance of the spiritual experience is not enough to conclude that a 'Deity' exists. The mind/body experience and not the cognitive or thought experiment (or discursive conceptualisation, as you had said), of the spiritual world or realm transforms into a tangible experience, once it is experienced as one and becomes knowledge.

Even as, the subtle experience still cannot escape the human tendency of interpreting the same in word forms.

jeeprs;149516 wrote:
So this is a very basic misunderstanding in the modern world generally, the idea that 'spirit' is simply something that can be thought of. I suspect most people would instinctively hold a view like that. But it is a mistaken view.


Yes the spirit cannot be conceived or thought off unless it is equated with energy, which you thought it fit to keep aside from the present discourse.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 01:37 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;149634 wrote:
We were talking about physicists and philosophers, I felt no responsibility to make the astoundingly obvious observation that "determinism" is being used as those people use it, during a dialogue about those people's attitudes to it. On the other hand, if you intended the introduction of some peculiar notion of determinism, why didn't you announce the fact?


I don't know that physicists or philosopher hold that it is not possible for determinism to be true on the macro-level, but false on the micro-level. How do you know it? Who decreed it?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 07:34 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;149672 wrote:
I don't know that physicists or philosopher hold that it is not possible for determinism to be true on the macro-level, but false on the micro-level.
Your wilful ignorance about this, is remarkable.
kennethamy;149672 wrote:
How do you know it?
When something interests me, I read about it. In this case, determinism is such a simple claim, that it's no real challenge to figure out for oneself.
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 08:01 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;146422 wrote:

What I am considering is that the relationship between existing things - the lawful manner in which things exists - is of a different order of reality to the things themselves. In this depiction, the material objects are given form by the lawful operations of the Universe which are of course implicit everywhere.

But putting it like this, you can see that 'the lawfulness of the universe' cannot be objectified. It is not anything in particular - it is simply the way that everything is related or comes to exist. In other words, in itself it does not exist. It is not any particular thing. Nevertheless, without it, nothing would exist. Furthermore, it underlies not only all material particulars, but also the way that the mind itself works. So again, it cannot be objectified or considered.



These relationships between existing things - what you call the lawful manner in which things exists, seem to me to be nothing less than the intelligible causes of physical things; they are what is necessary for knowledge. When science seperates laws from objects it does so by pointing out that objects are serving a subjective non-scientific role in society.

The intelligible form of earth, for example, is not a substance or an idol, but is known only by relations going backward in time to its origins; and those origins are only known by going back even further in time. Science has proven the unity of material objects. Accordingly, there is no specific scientific designation for 'objects' as such.


True knowledge lies exclusively in the way that things come to exist. The world of knowledge is not seperate from the world of objects, but it would be the placing of objects in their true scientific context.

Macroscopic objects have blinded man and woman since the beginning. The problem was the weakness of man's senses which science now makes up for. A world or a society of pure knowledge would distance itself from what we now call material objects because it would know their true nature. It would not believe that those objects were categorically seperate from the laws, the forces, or the knowledge which understands the unity of the laws with the objects, in my opinion.

-
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 06:54 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;149669 wrote:
You may be right, it is very difficult to place your theory strictly into a field of thought which essentially deals with things or substances which are unmeasurable or undetectable. The idea of spirits is a strong idea. I would tend to believe that the platonic forms can be both in the realm of ideas and/or spirits.


I find 'spirit' not a very satisfactory word. This is maybe because the English language is so bereft in this matter, in which Sanskrit has a richer lexicon. Anyway the whole idea of 'spirit' still seems to be some incorporeal substance, something which is spread out through space. This is a very poor representation. I much prefer 'gist' which is like 'geist' or 'meaning'. 'Gist' is like 'the meaning of something' or 'the spirit of Christmas' or 'a way of being'. This is much closer to the meaning I seek than the idea of spirit as some kind of ethereal vapour, substance, or ghostly thing.

It is a way of being, not a kind of thing. It is the spirit of compassion, the spirit of love, the spirit of giving. It is only disclosed by these qualities, not by imagining what it must be like.

Jackofalltrades;149669 wrote:
I agree that there is utter confusion out there. The definition of ideas is well settled by the modern or scientific man, though. It is the definition of spirits which is in the mists. One problem being, the inability of men to encounter such entities in everyday life. I think more than naturalism, it is materialism that should get the blame, if at all it is right to do so.


Actually it is not confusion, it is ignorance. It has come from believing that 'Spirit'; or 'The One'; or 'The Ground of Being'; can be designated and spoken of as something. Whereas, 'the way that can be spoken is not the real way', says Lao Tze. They say 'familiarity breeds contempt'; never more so than here. This is also why Socrates was wise to say that he knew nothing. Ignorance in this matter, surpasses knowledge in all others.

As for materialism and naturalism: 'naturalism' is a more polite expression, but it really amounts to the same. But even so, it still conveys the blatant falsehood that 'nature' is something we really understand. We certainly understand many things about nature, but nature has a great deal in reserve. The things which seem so trifling to her, are completely baffling to us. We assume we know her, at our peril.

Jackofalltrades;149669 wrote:
I remember, from my school days, there was a poem in my local language which translated would tend to mean 'In this my hut/house'. ....Tired he comes back home. He then says and concludes that God is no where, but is everywhere, and therefore God is in his very home, from where he begun his quest at first. It could be the home or the heart even.


That is because you went to school in a culture where they still remember and teach what is beautiful and true.

Jackofalltrades;149669 wrote:
Yes, i think, you are right to the extent, that meditation has the proven ability to make one believe how the spiritual realm exists.
.

Better than to believe is to know. This is 'vidya', is it not? Vidya is to see the way things are in reality. It is possible, but it must be sought and acquired.

Jackofalltrades;149669 wrote:
Yes the spirit cannot be conceived or thought off unless it is equated with energy, which you thought it fit to keep aside from the present discourse.


Energy is the capacity to do work, though, whereas this is also 'knowing'. It is like 'knowing energy', if there were such a thing.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 06:59 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;149763 wrote:
Your wilful ignorance about this, is remarkable. When something interests me, I read about it. In this case, determinism is such a simple claim, that it's no real challenge to figure out for oneself.


I can't figure out why determinism cannot be true in one area, but not in another. So I congratulate you. Perhaps, someday, you will let me know what your argument is for that.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 07:22 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;149896 wrote:
I can't figure out why determinism cannot be true in one area, but not in another. So I congratulate you.
Thanks, but it's about as simple as matters, discussed by philosophers, get. So, work on it, or read up. As far as I can see, you dont lack the intellectual capacity to understand this.
kennethamy;149896 wrote:
Perhaps, someday, you will let me know what your argument is for that.
You've had several elucidations over, at least, a three year period, on at least three sites. Apparently you have psychological reasons for deluding yourself about determinism, that make your stance irrational. I'm not your shrink, so, it's up to you to deal with it yourself.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/14/2021 at 12:02:46