The Fatal Paradox

@mark noble,

mark noble;162351 wrote:

Hello Kennethamy,

Before your next action?- Can we assume that your physical interaction with your own anatomical diversity is not of your control?
So - the next time you inhale, for instance, can you inhale the exact quantity of oxygen, nitrogen , co2, etc, that you choose? Can you direct the white blood corpusles to a given location so they eliminate a parasitic infection, that you are unaware of?
No, you can't - therefore you are only able to assume your next conscious intended interaction with relative criteria available in the realm to which you are accustomed.

If what you intend to do, indeed, you do? Then you can only be aware of that having taken place, after it has taken place - which clearly makes fatalism a record of the event and not the pre-emption of.

And unless you can be certain of every action complying with said intention, the event loses substance through its random occurence.

Thank you Kennethamy, and fare well.

Mark...

Yes, of course before my next action if I have not yet done what I intend to do, and what I intend to do is my next action, then if I know what I intend to do I know what I will do before I do it. The future is not like the past. You cannot know what happened before it happened. But that does not mean that you cannot know what will happen before what will happen, happens. You seem to believe that the future is like the past, but it is not.

Is there any reason to think that directing my blood corpuscles which I cannot do, is like knowing what my next action will be which I can do? Not that I can see. So, you cannot simply assume the analogy between the two. You have to show that there is one. If X is like Y, then a property of Y's might well be a property of X's. But first, you have to establish that X is really like Y. Don't you agree?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;162353 wrote:

Yes, of course before my next action if I have not yet done what I intend to do, and what I intend to do is my next action, then if I know what I intend to do I know what I will do before I do it. The future is not like the past. You cannot know what happened before it happened. But that does not mean that you cannot know what will happen before what will happen, happens. You seem to believe that the future is like the past, but it is not.

Is there any reason to think that directing my blood corpuscles which I cannot do, is like knowing what my next action will be which I can do? Not that I can see. So, you cannot simply assume the analogy between the two. You have to show that there is one. If X is like Y, then a property of Y's might well be a property of X's. But first, you have to establish that X is really like Y. Don't you agree?

Hello Kennethamy,

What if something intervenes with your decision to, let's say, climb a tree? The tree falls down, you have a stroke and die, the earth is destroyed by a cosmic flare? Is not your decsion corrupted by criteria beyond your control?

The only way we can measure the future is by recording what has passed. therefore the future only exists in the past - because we can only assume the future, suggests that the future is an assumption, and not a given truth.
In your own words - above post - "you cannot simply assume".

And how can X be like Y, they are shaped differently?

Love your arguments Ken, they are wonderful.

Mark...

@mark noble,

mark noble;162358 wrote:

Hello Kennethamy,

What if something intervenes with your decision to, let's say, climb a tree?
Mark...

Right. Good point. In that case, of course, I did not know what my next action would be. I merely thought I knew what my next action would be. I never claimed, nor did I think, that just because I thought I knew what my next action would be, that I did know what it would be. I do not claim to be infallible. Not even about what my next action will be.

I am happy you love my arguments. And I don't blame you, not a bit! I just hope you do so for the right reason. Namely, that they are sound arguments.

The greatest treason is to love something for the wrong reason. (Apologies to T.S. Eliot).

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;162353 wrote:

Yes, of course before my next action if I have not yet done what I intend to do, and what I intend to do is my next action, then if I know what I intend to do I know what I will do before I do it. The future is not like the past. You cannot know what happened before it happened. But that does not mean that you cannot know what will happen before what will happen, happens. You seem to believe that the future is like the past, but it is not.

Is there any reason to think that directing my blood corpuscles which I cannot do, is like knowing what my next action will be which I can do? Not that I can see. So, you cannot simply assume the analogy between the two. You have to show that there is one. If X is like Y, then a property of Y's might well be a property of X's. But first, you have to establish that X is really like Y. Don't you agree?

Careful as you always are, you said it yourself..."if what you intended to do is your next action", if is to be, means hypothetical does n?t it ? You cannot know with certainty unless hard determinism is true, and you can afford to calculate it...

Has for fatalism to my view you fail to prove its wrong with your example on body armour, namely causal simulation does n?t mean causal fact...

To were I stand I agree that if fatalism is true it certainly does not seam to be...
...but that alone does not prove its wrong, once of course it can be the case that a fatalist panorama was care to account for simulating causation...how, you may ask ? give me an example...and I will...
Imagine that we all are part of a three/four dimensional film, a movie history, were fatalism is necessarily the case if it is to be a film at all...the film is done and running, and yet, the entire story accounts in its inner development, in the argument itself, for showing causation is in fact the case...and all of it, with a perfect mathematical simulation of correlation...well, ingenious and far-fetched, OK., you can even throw Occam?s razor in it...but now tell me, if such, were is the cause in fact, if what comes next already coexists in the film frame ?
(...you have no way to tell the difference but to past events example...)

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;162359 wrote:

I am happy you love my arguments. And I don't blame you, not a bit! I just hope you do so for the right reason. Namely, that they are sound arguments.

).

Hi Ken,

Your arguments are sound. and gratefully accepted.
I have no pedestal from which to fall. and therefore appreciate all responses equalibriously.

Have no concern about my motives - Causality applies on all fronts - How you perceive others is exactly equal to how they perceive you!

Hope to hear from you soon, my friend.

Mark...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;162363 wrote:

You said it yourself, careful as you always are..."if what you intended to do is your next action", if is to be, means hypothetical does n?t it ?

Not at all. No more than if I claim that if 6 is divisible by 2, then 6 is an even number, am I being uncertain. "If" may, but certainly does not always, signal uncertainty. It may, as in my case, simply signal a sufficient condition. "If my name is 'Fred' then I am a male" does not signal that I am uncertain about what my name is, nor my confidence that "Fred" is a male name in English.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;162366 wrote:

Not at all. No more than if I claim that if 6 is divisible by 2, then 6 is an even number, am I being uncertain. "If" may, but certainly does not always, signal uncertainty. It may, as in my case, simply signal a sufficient condition. "If my name is 'Fred' then I am a male" does not signal that I am uncertain about what my name is, nor my confidence that "Fred" is a male name in English.

whatever...so you meant you were certain ? But how could you be certain huh ?

@mark noble,

mark noble;162365 wrote:

Hi Ken,

Your arguments are sound. and gratefully accepted.
I have no pedestal from which to fall. and therefore appreciate all responses equalibriously.

Have no concern about my motives - Causality applies on all fronts - How you perceive others is exactly equal to how they perceive you!

Hope to hear from you soon, my friend.

Mark...

If you think that my arguments are sound, then you should be convinced by them. And, if you are rational, you will be.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;162368 wrote:

If you think that my arguments are sound, then you should be convinced by them. And, if you are rational, you will be.

If you were rational you would not say such thing...are you 100% certain of what you are saying ? I just gave you one example on how you could be wrong ! :sarcastic:

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 08:54 AM ----------

kennethamy;162366 wrote:

Not at all. No more than if I claim that if 6 is divisible by 2, then 6 is an even number, am I being uncertain. "If" may, but certainly does not always, signal uncertainty. It may, as in my case, simply signal a sufficient condition. "If my name is 'Fred' then I am a male" does not signal that I am uncertain about what my name is, nor my confidence that "Fred" is a male name in English.

Fred was instituted to be a male name, so what kind of example is this ???
Of course is valid because we say so, but imagine an alternative reality were Fred is a girl?s name...for all that I know it can even be in China...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;162370 wrote:

If you were rational you would not say such thing...are you 100% certain of what you are saying ? I just gave you one example on how you could be wrong ! :sarcastic:

Which example was that? I am afraid I missed it. What objection have to you what is, after all, the trivial truism that if someone thinks an argument is sound, and that person is a rational person, then he ought to be convinced by that argument. That seems to me analytically true.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;162372 wrote:

Which example was that? I am afraid I missed it. What objection have to you what is, after all, the trivial truism that if someone thinks an argument is sound, and that person is a rational person, then he ought to be convinced by that argument. That seems to me analytically true.

I gave you a panorama were fatalism is true and you could not tell the difference from Determinism...and of course there is a difference between truth, and impression of truth...

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 09:02 AM ----------

I have to ask, do you know what simulation means ??? In VR you cannot trace it...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;162374 wrote:

I gave you a panorama were fatalism is true and you could not tell the difference from Determinism...and of course there is a difference between truth, and impression of truth...

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 09:02 AM ----------

I have to ask, do you know what simulation means ??? In VR you cannot trace it...

You are starting to wander again.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;162368 wrote:

If you think that my arguments are sound, then you should be convinced by them. And, if you are rational, you will be.

Hi Ken,

I do, indeed think your arguments are sound - rationally drawn up. Nevertheless, they are still arguments, and I don't agree with them all, or indeed in entirity. Otherwise, why would the argument exist?

And , as for being convinced by them? I'm not - If I were to revert to (semantics) I would easily find argument with, even my own deliberations.
There are always opposing factors in debate, and alternate views thereof.

This doesn't make me a wanton disciple of any one or any group. I am ME, not you.

I do enjoy the challenges posed by interacting with you, Ken.

Thank you and fare well.

Mark...

@mark noble,

mark noble;162380 wrote:

Hi Ken,

I do, indeed think your arguments are sound - rationally drawn up. Nevertheless, they are still arguments, and I don't agree with them all, or indeed in entirity. Otherwise, why would the argument exist?

And , as for being convinced by them? I'm not - If I were to revert to (semantics) I would easily find argument with, even my own deliberations.
There are always opposing factors in debate, and alternate views thereof.

This doesn't make me a wanton disciple of any one or any group. I am ME, not you.

I do enjoy the challenges posed by interacting with you, Ken.

Thank you and fare well.

Mark...

You mean that unless you agreed with an argument, it would not exist, therefore, if the argument exists, it must be because you disagree with it. Hmm. Now that is quite an argument. It must follow, then, that the Ontological argument for God only began to exists when you disagreed with it. But wait, can that be right? For how could you have disagreed with it before it even existed? Very confusing, don't you think?

The mere fact that there are objections to an argument has nothing whatever to do with its soundness; unless, of course, the objections good objections. Someone can conjure up an objection to the proposition that the Moon is not made of cream cheese. What would that show? That it is not true that the Moon is not made of cream cheese, or that we do not know that the Moon is not made of cream cheese? It is the validity of the objections that counts, not the fact of it.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;162389 wrote:

You mean that unless you agreed with an argument, it would not exist, therefore, if the argument exists, it must be because you disagree with it. Hmm. Now that is quite an argument. It must follow, then, that the Ontological argument for God only began to exists when you disagreed with it. But wait, can that be right? For how could you have disagreed with it before it even existed? Very confusing, don't you think?

The mere fact that there are objections to an argument has nothing whatever to do with its soundness; unless, of course, the objections good objections. Someone can conjure up an objection to the proposition that the Moon is not made of cream cheese. What would that show? That it is not true that the Moon is not made of cream cheese, or that we do not know that the Moon is not made of cream cheese? It is the validity of the objections that counts, not the fact of it.

Hi Ken,

If you think the moon is made of cheese? then it must therefore smell of cheese - how can we determine this to be true, if A) we can't get there. B) If we could - we wouldn't be able to remove our spacesuits, so as to verify its' aroma, and C) It would imply that aliens had a damn huge cow out there somewhere.

I can't prove that the moon is not made of cheese, but I'll resign myself to the assumption that it isn't.

May I (in accordance with wittenthingy's beetle principle) redefine your arguments as "GOOD" and "ENJOYABLE" rather than sound?

I like you, my friend.

Thank you,

Mark...

@mark noble,

mark noble;162393 wrote:

Hi Ken,

If you think the moon is made of cheese? then it must therefore smell of cheese - how can we determine this to be true, if A) we can't get there. B) If we could - we wouldn't be able to remove our spacesuits, so as to verify its' aroma, and C) It would imply that aliens had a damn huge cow out there somewhere.

I can't prove that the moon is not made of cheese, but I'll resign myself to the assumption that it isn't.

May I (in accordance with wittenthingy's beetle principle) redefine your arguments as "GOOD" and "ENJOYABLE" rather than sound?

I like you, my friend.

Thank you,

Mark...

What makes you believe that for me to think that the Moon is made of cheese, the Moon has to smell cheesy? That the Moon smells cheesy may, indeed, cause me to believe it is made of cheese, but I happen to be crazy enough to believe it is made of cheese even if it is not redolent of cheese at all.

Wherever did you get the idea that I said anything one way or the other about proving the Moon is made of cheese? However, it may be made of cheese regardless of whether or not it can be proved that it is. Certainly, I need not prove it is not made of cheese to know that it is not. For there is (to say the least) no reason in the world to think it is, and every reason in the world to think it is not. It is hardly an assumption that it isn't, unless "assumption" means something very different from what I think it means.

@mark noble,

mark noble;162393 wrote:

Hi Ken,

If you think the moon is made of cheese? then it must therefore smell of cheese - how can we determine this to be true, if A) we can't get there. B) If we could - we wouldn't be able to remove our spacesuits, so as to verify its' aroma, and C) It would imply that aliens had a damn huge cow out there somewhere.

I can't prove that the moon is not made of cheese, but I'll resign myself to the assumption that it isn't.

May I (in accordance with wittenthingy's beetle principle) redefine your arguments as "GOOD" and "ENJOYABLE" rather than sound?

I like you, my friend.

Thank you,

Mark...

kennethamy;162395 wrote:

What makes you believe that for me to think that the Moon is made of cheese, the Moon has to smell cheesy? That the Moon smells cheesy may, indeed, cause me to believe it is made of cheese, but I happen to be crazy enough to believe it is made of cheese even if it is not redolent of cheese at all.

Wherever did you get the idea that I said anything one way or the other about proving the Moon is made of cheese? However, it may be made of cheese regardless of whether or not it can be proved that it is. Certainly, I need not prove it is not made of cheese to know that it is not. For there is (to say the least) no reason in the world to think it is, and every reason in the world to think it is not. It is hardly an assumption that it isn't, unless "assumption" means something very different from what I think it means.

Given what we already know about the moon, there is no good reason to think the moon is made of cheese, even if we cannot verify the moon is not made of cheese. If I know that P implies Q, and I know that P, then I know that Q. There is no reason to suppose I don't know that Q if I know that P and know that P implies Q.

If I know the moon is made of rock, and I know that rocks are not made of cheese, then I know the moon is not made of cheese. I know the moon is not made of cheese because I know it is made of rock, and knowing that it is made of rock implies knowing it is not made of cheese.

@Extrain,

Extrain;162403 wrote:

Given what we already know about the moon, there is no good reason to think the moon is made of cheese, even if we cannot verify the moon is not made of cheese. If I know that P implies Q, and I know that P, then I know that Q. There is no reason to suppose I don't know that Q if I know that P and know that P implies Q.

If I know the moon is made of rock, and I know that rocks are not made of cheese, then I know the moon is not made of cheese. I know the moon is not made of cheese because I know it is made of rock, and knowing that it is made of rock implies knowing it is not made of cheese.

Not unless the cheese is hard cheese. But, yes. I agree whole-heartedly.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;162408 wrote:

Not unless the cheese is hard cheese. But, yes. I agree whole-heartedly.

Unless you have some definition of "rock" that includes all those cases of hard cheese, what you say is false. The moon is not made of hard-cheese, because we already know that no rock is made of hard-cheese. Cheese is a dairy product that comes from some animal, hard or not. No result ever showed from testing the molecular composition of a moon rock astronauts gathered from their moon-landings, that moon rocks are made of hard cheese. So there is no good reason to think moon-rocks are made of hard cheese anywhere on the surface of the moon. The inductive generalization is both strong and cogent (and cogent for reasons of our knowledge of many other facts about the moon). So to think otherwise is to be inconsistent with what one already knows (given he does, in fact, know these other things about the moon).

But I know I am "preaching to the choir"...

@kennethamy,

[CENTER]The Scarlet Letter "D"[/CENTER]

Determinism is a deceitful b'itch. She tells me (and only tells me) that if there was, is, or will be an event, then there was, is, or will be a cause for the event. No more does she ever see fit to convey.

Now I find out that she's only been telling me half the story. Yes, she has told the truth, but she has not been truthful, and her deceitfulness lies in the fact that she has been telling everyone else the whole story while leaving me in the dark regarding the remainder of the story. She's a witch in need of a trial, I exclaim! I am not ordinarily so vile, but she leaves my heart as dark as the trust I have for her has faded.

Determinism (that wretched ole witch) said to me:

1) If there was a past event, then there was a cause prior to that past event, but what she neglected to tell me was that if there was a past event, then there was a subsequent event to that past event. Yes, I always knew that to be true, but never did I hear it uttered from the mouth of my dear determinism.

2) If there is a current event, then there is a cause prior to the current event, but what she neglected to tell me was that if there is a current event, then there is going to be a subsequent event to the current event. Again yes, I always knew that to be true, but never did I think it was something determinism should say.

3) If there will be a future event, then there will be a cause prior to the future event, but what she neglected to tell me was that if there is a future event, then, there will be a subsequent event to the future event. Finally, I always knew that to be true, but never did I think (not even for a moment) that it was her place to tell me, nor would I have ever expected that she was going around telling others such things that she neglected to tell me.

Why O why has she led me astray!? Will she continue to be untruthful until my dying day? Any idiot knows that two plus two is four, but never has Ms. Determinism felt the need to utter that truth to me! Nor do I believe it was ever her place to.

There's still a place in my heart for thinking that maybe it was never her place to tell me about what will happen subsequent to events that have antecedent causes, and maybe (just maybe) she is not really the one saying all those things others attribute her to saying (and thus need not wear the letter upon her chest), but if I'm mistaken on that account such that she is as deceitful as I now suspect that she may be, then it saddens me greatly that I will have to take her fishing southern style-being fed to alligators, that is.

Philosophy Forum

The Fatal Paradox

Quick Links

My Account

able2know