mfbukowski Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 On 12/14/2016 at 3:18 PM, pogi said: How could subjective meaning not be arbitrary if the objective self is not real? Subjectivity only makes sense in the context of a subject (self). When the "self" is an illusion, subjectivity is also an illusion, the sense of "critical importance" is an illusion. None of it is "real" in a Godless universe, it just seems that way. https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-the-self2 I am not asserting anything here, I am simply comparing and contrasting two different theories. The one theory asserts (not me) that the "self" is not real and that "agency" is not real, thus making the idea of morality both illusory and arbitrary, yet seemingly important. The other theory asserts that law (revealed to us only by God) is objective and absolute which makes morality a non-illusory certainty and not arbitrary. This Harris article is just absurd. Quote In what sense is the self an illusion? For me, an illusion is a subjective experience that is not what it seems. Illusions are experiences in the mind, but they are not out there in nature. Rather, they are events generated by the brain. Most of us have an experience of a self. I certainly have one, and I do not doubt that others do as well – an autonomous individual with a coherent identity and sense of free will. But that experience is an illusion – it does not exist independently of the person having the experience, and it is certainly not what it seems. I don't believe anyone takes this position any more. No philosopher has thought this way in 200 years- the view is horribly simplistic NOTHING can be SAID to "exist independently of the person experiencing it", especially not the self. For us to KNOW that we would have to be able to step outside our perceptions and see what is "OUTSIDE" our perceptions and say "yep- there's no self out here!" but guess what- we cannot do that!! Again the Rorty quote below - Quote " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations. Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5. I keep saying this and no one ever refutes it and yet this opinion is constantly appearing here. Chantal Bax has solved the problem of the contingency of the self conclusively. http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/subjectivity-after-wittgenstein-9781441144102/ Quote Although Wittgenstein is often held co-responsible for the so-called death of man as it was pronounced in the course of the previous century, no detailed description of his alternative to the traditional or Cartesian account of human being has so far been available. By consulting several parts of Wittgenstein's later oeuvre, Subjectivity after Wittgenstein aims to fill this gap. However, it also contributes to the debate about the Cartesian subject and its demise by discussing the criticism that the rethinking of subjectivity received, for it has been argued that the anti-Cartesian turn in continental philosophy has lead to a loss of a centre for both ethics and politics. By further exploring the implications of the Wittgensteinian account of human being, this book makes it clear that a non-Cartesian view on the subject is not necessarily ethically and politically inert. Moreover, it argues that ethical and political arguments should not automatically take precedence in a debate about the nature of man. - See more at: http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/subjectivity-after-wittgenstein-9781441144102/#sthash.bUF4bOya.dpuf Reviews “"Wittgenstein is widely acknowledged to have mounted a sustained and, if successful, devastating challenge to the view of human subjectivity that belongs to the traditional discourse of European modernity: the broadly 'Cartesian' view of Man as a rational thinking subject. But at what cost? Can we make sense of concepts central to contemporary ethics and politics - concepts of rights, of autonomy, and of responsibility in particular - if we do not retain that conception. Rejecting it can seem tantamount to a rejection of those central concepts. In this important new study Chantal Bax offers a compelling account of why a Wittgensteinian understanding of the fundamental sociality of the human subject encourages rather than discourages us to engage with questions at the heart of our ethical and political lives." - Simon Glendinning, Reader in European Philosophy, European Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK” – “This scholarly book is certainly a notable contribution to the literature on Wittgenstein, particularly to W[ittgenstein]'s philosophical anthropology. I believe that no future discussion on the 'embodied and embedded self' from W's point of view should overlook it, at least among scholars in the continental tradition.” – Laxminarayan Lenka, North-Eastern Hill University, India, Philosophy in Review - See more at: http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/subjectivity-after-wittgenstein-9781441144102/#sthash.bUF4bOya.dpuf I suspect this is beyond the expertise of the audience here to evaluate- but take my word for it- Harris is 200 years behind the times in advocating the correspondence theory of truth especially when referring to subjective points of view. His view is circular and question begging. To suggest that what is "in our head" is an illusion negates his entire opinion because his opinion is - where? In his head! If the self is an illusion, the existence of his opinion is also an illusion as well as every thought he thinks. If everything "in our heads" are illusions, then so is every other idea ever discussed by mankind. Freedom is an illusion, love is an illusion, the experience of anything is an illusion, every idea, every perception, every bit of data in an observation is an illusion. It is a totally absurd point of view. What are we talking about? This discussion is itself an illusion.
CV75 Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 6 hours ago, mfbukowski said: What are we talking about? This discussion is itself an illusion. 2
pogi Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, mfbukowski said: This Harris article is just absurd. I don't believe anyone takes this position any more. No philosopher has thought this way in 200 years- the view is horribly simplistic Harris is interviewing bruce hood in the article He is not a philosopher: Quote Bruce Hood is currently the Director of the Bristol Cognitive Development Centre at the University of Bristol. He has been a research fellow at Cambridge University and University College London, a visiting scientist at MIT, and a faculty professor at Harvard. He has been awarded an Alfred Sloan Fellowship in neuroscience, the Young Investigator Award from the International Society of Infancy Researchers, the Robert Fantz Memorial Award and voted a Fellow by the Association for Psychological Science. He is the author of several books, including SuperSense: Why We Believe the Unbelievable. This year he was selected as the 2011 Royal Institution Christmas Lecturer—to give three lectures broadcast by the BBC—the most prestigious appointment for the public engagement of science in the UK. What about Jean-Paul Sartre and atheistic existential nihilism? The conclusion is the same in which rules out any ground for the establishment of an essential self or human nature. In my mind, this is the only reasonable explanation if there is no God. Philosophy is not really popular today, science is the religion of most atheists that I know. From a scientific perspective, the concept of the "self" is not different from the concept of the "spirit", neither can be measured or observed. There is no objective continuity of self, and thus all subjective continuity is an illusion from a scientific perspective. I have more to address, but will have to do so later. Edited December 17, 2016 by pogi
pogi Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 13 hours ago, mfbukowski said: If the self is an illusion, the existence of his opinion is also an illusion as well as every thought he thinks. If everything "in our heads" are illusions, then so is every other idea ever discussed by mankind. Freedom is an illusion, love is an illusion, the experience of anything is an illusion, every idea, every perception, every bit of data in an observation is an illusion. It is a totally absurd point of view. That is exactly my point! It is all "absurd" without the concept of a God. If I remember right, Kierkegaard is one of the philosophers that you reference frequently in your philosophy, isn't he the author of absurdism? There certainly is an element of absurdism in nihilism. Quote Existential nihilists claim that, to be honest, one must face the absurdity of existence
mfbukowski Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, pogi said: Harris is interviewing bruce hood in the article He is not a philosopher: What about Jean-Paul Sartre and atheistic existential nihilism? The conclusion is the same in which rules out any ground for the establishment of an essential self or human nature. In my mind, this is the only reasonable explanation if there is no God. Philosophy is not really popular today, science is the religion of most atheists that I know. From a scientific perspective, it cannot be argued that the self even exists. I have more to address, but will have to do so later. What about what? Can you put it into a cohesive statement? Ever heard of postmodernism? Bax has answered contingency of the self, read her book if you can. Her whole point is that Sartre was wrong. That stuff is 70 years old now. With all due respect you don't know what you are taking about. Philosophy has never been popular thank God, but it is never appreciated until it is passe. What is popular is always 200 years behind philosophy. If thought is an illusion there is nothing to talk about, so let's stop it right here and stop perpetuating the illusion. The pragmatic self and pragmatic freedom is what enables you to even answer. This is absurd and self contradictory. If you cannot see that, I can't help you. If the self is an illusion, no one wrote the paper. Prove me wrong please. Edited December 17, 2016 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 (edited) And no, Camus was absurd in more ways than one. The whole point is that we CREATE PURPOSE out of matter unorganized, it doesn't "exist". This is a movement against existentialism. Existentialism is absurd. You are reading the wrong athiests, try Rorty and Nagel. Kierkegaard was a fideist. I think you are proving your philosophical ignorace, but I love you anyway Edited December 17, 2016 by mfbukowski
pogi Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Kierkegaard was a fideist. I think you are proving your philosophical ignorace, but I love you anyway I flat out admit my ignorance in philosophy, but according to this Kierkegaard was the originator of the idea of absurdism. 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: You are reading the wrong athiests, try Rorty and Nagel. What I don't understand is that if we create our own realities and there is no purpose to our being (other than what we create), then how could any philosophy, philosopher, belief, or subjective perspective be "wrong"? All would be equally valid and intrinsically meaningless. Any purpose or meaning that we create would be absurd. 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Bax has answered contingency of the self, read her book if you can. What do you mean by contingency of the self? Edited December 17, 2016 by pogi
TOmNossor Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) On 12/12/2016 at 4:02 PM, canard78 said: I heard something recently about religion that caught my thoughts: An illustration of this is simply illustrated with this Book of Mormon teaching that creates both the problem and the solution in a single verse: So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it? Sorry I am so late to these discussions, but I thought I would offer two things. First, I have always believed, but I have rebelled against the idea that God is crutch for the weak. This rebellion has morphed from a position of arrogance to a place where I merely assert God’s way is neither hard nor easy neither crutch nor anti-crutch. I was in college when I realize that the reason people didn’t do well in school was not merely that they couldn’t care enough to not be drunk or similarly disengaged. I was just smarter than everyone else (well except for the E-man that dude was insanely brilliant). I was also physically capable. Ran a marathon (poorly), went through Army Airborne school, trained with the Seals. My geekiness won and I was in Submarines, but I liked the physical stuff too. I remember when I thought about God as a crutch …. I would be quite fine if there was no God. God is humbling to me. I believe Him to be so far above me in everything, but if I didn’t believe Him to exist I would put my abilities up against these folks I walked around this earth with any day. I thought quite highly of myself. Well, arrogant fools fall and I did. I was selfish and not very good at being a husband. I struggled mightily to love not just myself. I turned to God for help and God was there. Things got better. I became better. Not good at being a husband, but better. Was God my crutch? No, it was God who called me to be more than the selfish ******* that I was, and it was only through God that I could be more. Without God, I still would be a great human. Perhaps I was not more selfish then others, but when I looked to God I knew I needed to be more. If I didn’t have to follow God’s example I would still be a pretty darn good dude. Truth be told, this position is very similar to the position I see you, Canard advocating (except I couldn’t deny God existed while I advocated for it). It was not just that God was greater than I was, but that God called me to be greater than I could be without Him; still if He was not, I was sufficient even extraordinary. Well, arrogant fools fall and I did. I can focus on my SAT or GRE scores and stand tall (and I am still too proud of this and too arrogant and quite willing to revel in the things that are easy for me), but God gave men weakness so that through Him weak things can become strong. I glimpse this, but I still fight God. I can see many folks who are better at human interaction than I am. How can I be so inadequate? Wow. But, when I focus on God and pray and … I do better and I feel joy from interacting with people. Still, this joy, this aspect of my life would be missing if it was not for God. Perhaps He is my crutch and I just need to admit it. ************************************************************************* My theory of the fall and how Christ frees us from sin also seems important here. I suspect good people who get through their young years with the help of accepting parents (who likely learned from God) might forget some of this, but I think it is there. The most selfish human is the newborn baby. Developmental theorists tell us that below a certain age humans are incapable of recognizing anything but that there are things that intact with them. Later they realize that crying gets responses and smiling does too. But, they often cry or smile to get their needs met (not to show love as they do not even understand others feel). Later they recognize that the things they feel are also felt in other humans and over time they can come to recognize that they have made other humans feel poorly. But, by the time they realize there is such a thing as selfishness they realize they have been selfish. The first response I had to this and a response I have seen in many kids is, “I did this because so and so did this or because I needed this or …” It is very natural to self-justify. When I started, I continued. There was so much that I did that I did because I was hurt, entitled, …. I learned how to deserve love in my house. Fortunately, good grades were the ticket and that was easy. It was Christ that told me that I was loved even though I was selfish, even though I didn’t get perfect grades, even though I was mean to my sister. Christ freed me to admit my faults. Christ told me I was loved. Christ saved me and He continues to save me. I think this problem is a problem of the human condition. I think Godfearing parents sometimes get this message across with less obvious divine intervention, but I am quite convinced that I would have failed to get this message across to my kids without God’s help. *********************************************************************** Let me suggest that kids raised by parents who truly follow God, might not see the need for God quite as well as kids who didn’t get such wonderful examples, but a couple generations down the line the need will be more apparent. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Charity, TOm Edited December 18, 2016 by TOmNossor 3
mfbukowski Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, pogi said: That is exactly my point! It is all "absurd" without the concept of a God. If I remember right, Kierkegaard is one of the philosophers that you reference frequently in your philosophy, isn't he the author of absurdism? There certainly is an element of absurdism in nihilism. You essentially agree with Kirkegaard then. Let's take that statement : " It is all "absurd" without the concept of a God." This is a super duper over simplification but essentially Kierkegaard said " It is all "absurd" without faith" So by that logic then Pogi who said it's all absurd without God could be the "author of absurdism" if you believe the wiki article you quoted. Kiierkegaard is quite different from Camus. Kierkegaard is about fighting against having a meaningless life by finding God through faith. Camus is about accepting absurdity and meaninglessness. So in a sense, since Kierkegaard thought up the idea of fighting the absurd- he is the "author of absurdism" because he thought up the idea that the absurd must be fought against. No one had really thought much about life even being absurd before. This is an over simplification but it shows what your quote was talking about. The idea in a way goes back to Kant, but that is a more complicated story. But he believed that we all must CREATE our own meaning in life through faith. It's kind of like Alma 32- we must make the step of faith and first make the effort to believe - to perhaps fight the absurdity that others see in their lives. Then as Alma teaches, the faith becomes sweet as we live with it, and it grows within us as we grow and nurture the seed of faith and grow it from matter unorganized- the metaphoric soil of raw materials, or matter unorganized, into a meaningful life. THAT is why I like Kierkegaard and not Camus. As godlings it is up to each of us to take matter unorganized- the soil of faith- and grow the seed into a meaningful life with God. Now certain atheists will do the same in the face of absurdity and dedicate their lives to ecology or social causes, or world peace of whatever- without God. But it still takes faith to make a meaningful life. You have to have faith that it is possible to save the whales or stop global warming or save the animals in order to live your life dedicated to that cause. Rorty sees human solidarity as his "religion" - but the point is that he recognizes the importance of creating one's own meaning in life- as Alma would, but of course Rorty does it without God and substituting for God, leftist political causes instead of what we would call "Zion" Camus is essentially an absurdist- to over simplify- who says that yes it is all absurd without the concept of God- and then he says "So what? Get over it, face the fact that life is absurd, there is no God, and get on with life". This view actually comes out of Nietzsche- the part of Nietzsche I do NOT like. Maybe this will help you understand that I am not making this up. Quote CAMUS VS. KIERKEGAARD The most glaring difference between Camus and Kierkegaard lies in how they approach the absurd. Kierkegaard seemingly embraces the absurd as an opportunity, a test of sorts. He suggests that in living, man must contend with the absurd, only in death will man truly be revealed. While alive, man must trust, despite the absurd, that there is more to existence than reason and logic can explain. In this respect, Kierkegaard's notion also posits a paradox: after man has exhausted reason and logic, he must deliver himself to the infinite, through faith - blind faith. Kierkegaard suggests that the collapse of reason is inevitable because reason is a human construct; all things human are bound to collapse and only from their collapse can the absolute erect. Conversely, Camus dismisses the notion of the absolute. He proposes that there is no more to existence than meets the eye. Like Kierkegaard, Camus too, posits a paradox. Camus' paradox lies in the absurdity of living in a world that refuses to reveal its meaning. From this notion, Camus presents Sisyphus as the epitome of the absurd hero. In spite of his complete understanding of the meaningless repetition of rolling a rock up a mountain, just to have it roll back down to the summit, Sisyphus continues to repeat the task over and over again. I think maybe Sisyphus' acceptance of how the task will end, lessens the blow of its meaninglessness. I think in this, Camus presents an extremely effective example of how the acceptance of the meaningless of existence, can actually enhance one's quality of life. Sisyphus knows it will all end without any meaning and once life is over, it's over. As such, he takes pleasure in every action, no matter how repetitive, and in every feeling, painful or pleasurable. If at all, Camus and Kierkegaard find some common ground in their refusal to surrender to the absurd. Both acknowledge the absurd and may at times seem overpowered by its magnitude, however, at no point does either man surrender. If any, the only form of surrender in either Camus or Kierkegaard's philosophy is the surrender of the mind to the incomprehensible. Both yield themselves to what they (as men) cannot possibly comprehend. Kierkegaard through a of a leap of faith and the belief in something far greater than worldly existence, and Camus through the acknowledgement of the meaningless and the struggle to make meaning of the void. Ask me, and I'll tell you Camus wins – TKO. Ask the pope, and it's Kierkegaard by a landslide. I'll take Camus' meaninglessness over Kierkegaard's blind faith any day. To me, if Camus is right and everything means nothing, than every single action we make and every single task we undertake becomes infinitely meaningful. The lack of any post-life atonement and the inability to alter the past or foretell the future, leaves nothing but the present. And with nothing but now, nothing but this life, this instant, means anything. Now is all we have, and it only seems natural to make the best of what we have - now. http://ajvexistentialism.blogspot.com/2012/10/camus-vs-kierkegaard.html Edited December 18, 2016 by mfbukowski
Teancum Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 On 12/14/2016 at 10:04 PM, PeterPear said: Why are you asking this of others? Are you feeling guilty of something? Guilt is not man-made. Guilt is the pain your SPIRIT experiences when you do something wrong. You can ignore the guilt and deaden your feelings to it - thus searing your conscience - and continue the sin or wrongdoing which will only add to your feelings of guilt - but it's ABSURD of you to blame guilt on religion when religion is the vehicle or message on how to remove guilt. Christ explained this to Nicodemus: For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Christ didn't come into the world to condemn people. Neither does true religion. Christ came to warn of the consequences of doing wrong. It's people with guilt who condemn religion. 18 ¶He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. I think you just proved the point of the OP of this thread.... 1
canard78 Posted December 19, 2016 Author Posted December 19, 2016 10 hours ago, Teancum said: I think you just proved the point of the OP of this thread.... It was very kind of him
pogi Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) Before I answer these questions, keep in mind that my answers are not based on my personal beliefs (Mormonism obviously), but I am taking the side of the atheist to show that without the foundation of theism and absolutism, it is all "absurd". On 12/17/2016 at 2:39 PM, mfbukowski said: The pragmatic self and pragmatic freedom is what enables you to even answer. I would argue that "freedom" is only an illusion. What "enables" me to answer (aka the effect) is a series of events that led to my answering (the cause/s). "You" (a word that I will use out of convenience) are a product of the universe, and the universe is either entirely deterministic, entirely indeterministic (random), or some combination of the two. Either way, free will cannot be reconciled with either determinism or randomness. Any attempt to explain free will under the umbrellas of determinism and indeterminism (which exhaust the logical possibilities) are entirely irreconcilable. No current philosophical theory of free will is bullet proof, and neuroscience pretty much dismisses the idea outright. The only solid foundation that free will has is "faith". Because of this, many subscribe to illusionism, remain "agnostic on the truth of determinism or indeterminism", or avoid the "unintelligeable free will problem" all together. http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/illusionism.html On 12/17/2016 at 2:39 PM, mfbukowski said: This is absurd and self contradictory. If you cannot see that, I can't help you. If the self is an illusion, no one wrote the paper. Prove me wrong please It certainly is "absurd" - that is my argument, but not "self" contradictory (there is no self to contradict itself). This is all simply a result of randomness or determinism, in a freedom-less universe. This is not "me" saying this...there is no "me" or "I" center in the brain where all experience is processed, there is no continuity of self, everything is in flux. This is not "me" talking, this is the universe. The illusion of the self has been written on, but not by any "one" (as you state) as there is no such thing as a "one" which has the capacity to write. http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/history/ Quote If thought is an illusion there is nothing to talk about, so let's stop it right here and stop perpetuating the illusion. This is based on the assumption that "you" have free will to stop. There is nothing inherently wrong or right with the illusion, it just is - so sit back and enjoy the trip while it lasts! Edited December 19, 2016 by pogi
mfbukowski Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 6 hours ago, pogi said: Before I answer these questions, keep in mind that my answers are not based on my personal beliefs (Mormonism obviously), but I am taking the side of the atheist to show that without the foundation of theism and absolutism, it is all "absurd". I would argue that "freedom" is only an illusion. What "enables" me to answer (aka the effect) is a series of events that led to my answering (the cause/s). "You" (a word that I will use out of convenience) are a product of the universe, and the universe is either entirely deterministic, entirely indeterministic (random), or some combination of the two. Either way, free will cannot be reconciled with either determinism or randomness. Any attempt to explain free will under the umbrellas of determinism and indeterminism (which exhaust the logical possibilities) are entirely irreconcilable. No current philosophical theory of free will is bullet proof, and neuroscience pretty much dismisses the idea outright. The only solid foundation that free will has is "faith". Because of this, many subscribe to illusionism, remain "agnostic on the truth of determinism or indeterminism", or avoid the "unintelligeable free will problem" all together. http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/illusionism.html It certainly is "absurd" - that is my argument, but not "self" contradictory (there is no self to contradict itself). This is all simply a result of randomness or determinism, in a freedom-less universe. This is not "me" saying this...there is no "me" or "I" center in the brain where all experience is processed, there is no continuity of self, everything is in flux. This is not "me" talking, this is the universe. The illusion of the self has been written on, but not by any "one" (as you state) as there is no such thing as a "one" which has the capacity to write. http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/history/ This is based on the assumption that "you" have free will to stop. There is nothing inherently wrong or right with the illusion, it just is - so sit back and enjoy the trip while it lasts! I am not going to answer this other than to say that Pragmatism and Wittgenstein refutes all of this silly metaphysical nonsense. Pragmatic freedom is obvious- you have a choice to reply or not. Cosmic determinism is not relevant to how it feels to be human if this is all an "illusion" it is you who are supporting a "matrix" kind of reality where everything we know is an illusion The idea that everything is an illusion is fun, but if you don't pay your taxes you will still go to Jail. THAT is Pragmatism at its most elementary. I will again quote Rorty who refutes Hoffman's notion- or Plato's or Buddha's - all of which have in common with Hoffman the idea that reality is an illusion- as follows: Quote " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations. Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." I don't know why I had to quote that yet again. If you cannot see the relevance of it for the case at hand, there is nothing much I can do to help, sorry. On a personal note, I don't know why you are persisting with this nonsense. If you are looking for a refutation of Hoffman's position, that's is where it is. Hoffman obviously produces sentences. Those sentences are formulated somewhere. Saying that the world formulates the sentences because he is determined to do so by cosmic forces is the idea of the contingency of the self. The idea that this is all illusion becomes irrelevant to life. It is like multiplying by zero- an interesting exercise but irrelevant to anything. As I see it, the best solution would be for Hoffman to stop eating to stop the illusion. Hunger pangs are in his head and are a mental state, and an illusion. In a few weeks all these paradoxes will disappear.
pogi Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I am not going to answer this other than to say that Pragmatism and Wittgenstein refutes all of this silly metaphysical nonsense. The fact that philosophers disagrees with one another doesn't mean much to me. I can guarantee that the problem of free will has never been answered by Wittgenstein or Pragmatism. Pragmatic freedom seems obvious, but is it? When you understand how the mind works, you start to understand the illusion of it all (see video). Quote One of the most dramatic demonstrations of the illusion of unified self comes from Michael Gazzaniga, who showed that each hemisphere of the brain exercises free will independently when surgeons cut the corpus callosum. Gazzaniga discovered this with a simple experiment. When he flashed the word “WALK” in right hemisphere of split-brain patients they walked out of the room. But when he asked them why they walked out all responded with a trivial remark such as, “To go to the bathroom” or “To get a Coke.” Here’s where things got weird. When he flashed a chicken in a patient’s left hemisphere (in the right visual field) and a wintry scene in their right hemisphere (in the left visual field), and asked them to select a picture that goes with what they see, he found that their left hand correctly pointed to a snow shovel and their right hand correctly pointed to a chicken. However, when the patients were asked to explain why they pointed at the pictures they responded with something like, “That’s easy. The shovel is for cleaning up the chicken.” Nietszche was right: “We are necessarily strangers to ourselves…we are not "men of knowledge" with respect to ourselves.” As far as metaphysical nonsense goes, the "self" fits the bill. It does not belong to science. It is as metaphysical an idea as is the spirit - neither have been discovered or measured. 14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations. Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." This doesn't answer anything for me to be honest. Sentences are illusions and meaningless. Truth is meaningless. Everything just is and we can't do anything about it. It is all absurd! What are words? What really can be said about anything? When you break down each noun further and further, we discover that there is nothing but the deterministic/random universe at it's core. Everything is an illusion with only apparent continuity and oneness. What is an "I"? What does that even mean? Only religion can answer that. 28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: On a personal note, I don't know why you are persisting with this nonsense. It is to show that the only logical conclusion of atheism is absurdity. Free will and the "self" are metaphysical ideas with no scientific foundation. If theism and absolutism did not answer questions, any "meaning" or "moral" that an atheist lives by is spineless and simply empty words - "they are either lying or deluded" as on philosopher put it.
mfbukowski Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 38 minutes ago, pogi said: The fact that philosophers disagrees with one another doesn't mean much to me. I can guarantee that the problem of free will has never been answered by Wittgenstein or Pragmatism. Pragmatic freedom seems obvious, but is it? When you understand how the mind works, you start to understand the illusion of it all (see video). As far as metaphysical nonsense goes, the "self" fits the bill. It does not belong to science. It is as metaphysical an idea as is the spirit - neither have been discovered or measured. This doesn't answer anything for me to be honest. Sentences are illusions and meaningless. Truth is meaningless. Everything just is and we can't do anything about it. It is all absurd! What are words? What really can be said about anything? When you break down each noun further and further, we discover that there is nothing but the deterministic/random universe at it's core. Everything is an illusion with only apparent continuity and oneness. What is an "I"? What does that even mean? Only religion can answer that. It is to show that the only logical conclusion of atheism is absurdity. Free will and the "self" are metaphysical ideas with no scientific foundation. If theism and absolutism did not answer questions, any "meaning" or "moral" that an atheist lives by is spineless and simply empty words - "they are either lying or deluded" as on philosopher put it. Unfortunately atheists will not agree with you for reasons I have already detailed. Rorty would disagree with you, and he is an atheist. Nagel would disagree with you and he is an atheist. Wittgenstein was a theist, arguably but a mystic and he would disagree with you. Sartre, Camus and other absurdist atheists would disagree with you. Since sentences are meaningless there is no point in carrying on this conversation or you posting anything. That is what any good atheist would tell you. I wish you well. Of course that also is meaningless, but I won't bother you any more. You have succeeded I guess in your quest. I think you have lost your marbles.
pogi Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 17 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Unfortunately atheists will not agree with you for reasons I have already detailed. Rorty would disagree with you, and he is an atheist. Nagel would disagree with you and he is an atheist. Wittgenstein was a theist, arguably but a mystic and he would disagree with you. Sartre, Camus and other absurdist atheists would disagree with you. There are actually very many atheists, scientists, and philosophers who do agree with me in the conclusion that the "self" and free agency are illusions, but they fail to take it to the ultimate conclusion by attempting to safeguard the experience of meaning. Ray Brassier, on the other hand is an example of a philosopher who does dare to go there, but even he, after making his conclusions speaks of it as a "speculative opportunity", which doesn't make sense because "speculative opportunity" implies free will and a hope for meaning. I don't get philosophers, they are often unwilling to accept the ultimate reality of their conclusions! They accept yet resist the absurd in the same breath. It is not surprising that the atheists and philosophers that you mention would not agree with me and would not dare go there. What human being would welcome that conclusion? It is the intrinsic and eternal self/spirit/soul that each atheist possesses that resists that ultimate conclusion, because there is meaning, there is free will, there is "self", there is no logical or scientific explanation for it, but they can't let go of it. So, it is totally understandable why they would disagree. I'll be honest, I find it difficult to understand how or why any believing theist, or Mormon for that matter, could or would argue otherwise. If you remove the revelations, what you are left with is exactly what I describe. Any acceptance of the "self" or "free will" is entirely based in faith and not science, which atheists try to avoid. If you remove the reality of those two things (self and free will), you are left with a universe of mostly empty space which does not care and has no meaning. Obviously I agree with you in that our language and experiences do have meaning and truth, but that can only mean one thing - atheists are wrong! Any attempt for Rorty or any other atheistic philosopher to hold on to meaning, is equivalent to a child closing his eyes in an attempt to hide from what is staring him in the face. I think Thomas Ligotti put is best: "There is nothing to do and there is nowhere to go There is nothing to be and there is no-one to know" 17 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You have succeeded I guess in your quest. I think you have lost your marbles.
mfbukowski Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: There are actually very many atheists, scientists, and philosophers who do agree with me in the conclusion that the "self" and free agency are illusions, but they fail to take it to the ultimate conclusion by attempting to safeguard the experience of meaning. Ray Brassier, on the other hand is an example of a philosopher who does dare to go there, but even he, after making his conclusions speaks of it as a "speculative opportunity", which doesn't make sense because "speculative opportunity" implies free will and a hope for meaning. I don't get philosophers, they are often unwilling to accept the ultimate reality of their conclusions! They accept yet resist the absurd in the same breath. It is not surprising that the atheists and philosophers that you mention would not agree with me and would not dare go there. What human being would welcome that conclusion? It is the intrinsic and eternal self/spirit/soul that each atheist possesses that resists that ultimate conclusion, because there is meaning, there is free will, there is "self", there is no logical or scientific explanation for it, but they can't let go of it. So, it is totally understandable why they would disagree. I'll be honest, I find it difficult to understand how or why any believing theist, or Mormon for that matter, could or would argue otherwise. If you remove the revelations, what you are left with is exactly what I describe. Any acceptance of the "self" or "free will" is entirely based in faith and not science, which atheists try to avoid. If you remove the reality of those two things (self and free will), you are left with a universe of mostly empty space which does not care and has no meaning. Obviously I agree with you in that our language and experiences do have meaning and truth, but that can only mean one thing - atheists are wrong! Any attempt for Rorty or any other atheistic philosopher to hold on to meaning, is equivalent to a child closing his eyes in an attempt to hide from what is staring him in the face. I think Thomas Ligotti put is best: "There is nothing to do and there is nowhere to go There is nothing to be and there is no-one to know" We agree, except you do not understand Rorty's philosophy of language and meaning, but that's ok. I would not expect it. Yes there kooks out there. Glad to know you found your marbles. Edited December 20, 2016 by mfbukowski
pogi Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: We agree, except you do not understand Rorty's philosophy of language and meaning, but that's ok. I would not expect it. Yes there kooks out there. Glad to know you found your marbles. I don't want to ruffle any feathers because I know how much you like Rorty, and I think he makes a lot of sense in the context of the "self" and free will, but in the deterministic/random universe those things just flat out don't make sense and require a hefty dose of faith. When you remove faith from the equation, you are left with the cold hard facts of the Godless, careless, meaningless universe where the "self" has never been discovered, observed, or measured in any way, and free will is incompatible with the nature of the universe. It is my faith and only my faith that convinces me that such is not the case. It is only by faith that any man can say that the self, free will, and meaning exists. If anyone protests, I challenge him to reconcile free will with a deterministic/random universe without huge assumptions/faith. I challenge him to reconcile the singleness and solitude of the self with the multifariousness and multiplicity of the brain/mind let alone the body and its systems. Where is the "I" in the "us" of the self, if it really exists? I challenge him to reconcile the continuity of self with a universe of constant flux. It has never been done, so why do atheists believe in it? Because like it or not, they have faith - and because the alternative sucks! They build their philosophies on the foundations of self and free will, which is really a foundation of faith. I like Rorty, and I do think I get the gist of what he is about, but I think he is closing his eyes to the ultimate implications of a Godless universe. I think he, like most philosophers are afraid to go there. There are very few who are honest and brave enough to go there. Edited December 20, 2016 by pogi
mfbukowski Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 41 minutes ago, pogi said: I don't want to ruffle any feathers because I know how much you like Rorty, and I think he makes a lot of sense in the context of the "self" and free will, but in the deterministic/random universe those things just flat out don't make sense and require a hefty dose of faith. When you remove faith from the equation, you are left with the cold hard facts of the Godless, careless, meaningless universe where the "self" has never been discovered, observed, or measured in any way, and free will is incompatible with the nature of the universe. It is my faith and only my faith that convinces me that such is not the case. It is only by faith that any man can say that the self, free will, and meaning exists. If anyone protests, I challenge him to reconcile free will with a deterministic/random universe without huge assumptions/faith. I challenge him to reconcile the singleness and solitude of the self with the multifariousness and multiplicity of the brain/mind let alone the body and its systems. Where is the "I" in the "us" of the self, if it really exists? I challenge him to reconcile the continuity of self with a universe of constant flux. It has never been done, so why do atheists believe in it? Because like it or not, they have faith - and because the alternative sucks! They build their philosophies on the foundations of self and free will, which is really a foundation of faith. I like Rorty, and I do think I get the gist of what he is about, but I think he is closing his eyes to the ultimate implications of a Godless universe. I think he, like most philosophers are afraid to go there. There are very few who are honest and brave enough to go there. Well I have no idea where you are getting your information about Rorty but this is VERY far off from anything he has said. Not even close.
pogi Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) 57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Well I have no idea where you are getting your information about Rorty but this is VERY far off from anything he has said. Not even close. I don't know what you mean. I haven't said anything about Rorty or his ideas other than the fact that his ideas require the context of the self and free will. My only point was that faith is required to believe in free will and the self - just seems ironic coming from an atheist. Edited December 21, 2016 by pogi
mfbukowski Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, pogi said: I don't know what you mean. I haven't said anything about Rorty or his ideas other than the fact that his ideas require the context of the self and free will. My only point was that faith is required to believe in free will and the self - just seems ironic coming from an atheist. His ideas say that we are products of our "vocabularies" - the way we speak and think. You think and speak as only Pogi does. But on one hand you have been programmed by what you have been taught culturally, in, for example, Mormonism. If you never had been taught Mormonism, would you be Mormon? So the goal is to CREATE your own vocabulary and by doing so you CREATE your self that is not programmed by anyone else. So in a sense if you just slog through life believing and understanding everything you have been told, you do not have a "self"- you are just a mirror of other people's ideas I would not say that Rorty "believes in" the self and free will, because determinism and free will are two sides of the same coin. We are determined by language but putting together new ways of speaking about things and being aware of the fact that we are creating our "selves" creates what seems to us to be freedom. So it's kind of complicated. I am not sure that requires "faith" exactly Quote 1) The contingency of language[edit] Here, Rorty argues that all language is contingent. This is because only descriptions of the world can be true or false, and descriptions are made by humans who must also make truth or falsity: truth or falsity is thus not determined by any intrinsic property of the world being described. Instead they purely belong to the human realm of description and language. For example, a factual case of green grass is not true or false, in and by itself, but that grass is green may be true. I can say that that grass is green and you could agree with this statement (which for Rorty makes the statement true), but our use of the words to describe grass is distinct and independent of the grass itself. Apart from human expression in language, notions of truth or falsity are simply irrelevant, or maybe inexistant or nonsensical. Rorty consequently argues that all discussion of language in relation to reality should be abandoned, and that one should instead discuss vocabularies in relation to other vocabularies. In coherence with this view, he thus states that he will not exactly be making "arguments" in this book, because arguments, as expression mostly within the domain of a given vocabulary, preclude novelty. 2) The contingency of selfhood[edit] Rorty proposes that each of us has a set of beliefs whose contingency we more or less ignore, which he dubs our "final vocabulary". One of the strong poet's greatest fears, according to Rorty, is that he will discover that he has been operating within someone else's final vocabulary all along; that he has not "self-created". It is his goal, therefore, to recontextualize the past that led to his historically contingent self, so that the past that defines him will be created by him, rather than creating him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency,_Irony,_and_Solidarity Now Nagel on the other hand has said that he "hopes God doesn't exist". He is an atheist who plainly has faith that God does NOT exist. So as i said, it's complicated One can have faith that "Marxism is true" and dedicate one's life to Marxist revolution and have "faith" but not faith in God. Edited December 21, 2016 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 4 hours ago, pogi said: I don't know what you mean. I haven't said anything about Rorty or his ideas other than the fact that his ideas require the context of the self and free will. My only point was that faith is required to believe in free will and the self - just seems ironic coming from an atheist. Maybe this will help, perhaps not Quote The world does not speak. Only we do. The world can, once we have programmed ourselves with a language, cause us to hold beliefs. But it cannot propose a language for us to speak. Only other human beings can do that. The realization that the world does not tell us what language games to play should not, however, lead us to say that a decision about which to play is arbitrary, nor to say that it is the expression of something deep within us. The moral is not that objective criteria for choice of vocabulary are to be replaced with subjective criteria, reason with will or feeling. It is rather that the notions of criteria and choice (including that of "arbitrary" choice) are no longer in point when it comes to change~ from one language game to another. Europe did not decide to accept the idiom of Romantic poetry, or of socialist politics, or of Galilean mechanics. That sort of shift was no more an act of will than it was a result of argument. Rather, Europe gradually lost the habit of using certain words and gradually acquired the habit of using others. As Kuhn argues in The Copernican Revolution, we did not decide on the basis of some telescopic observations, or on the basis of anything else, that the earth was not the center of the universe, that macroscopic behavior could be explained on the basis of microstructural motion, and that prediction and control should be the principal aim of scientific theorizing. Rather, after a hundred years of inconclusive muddle, the Europeans found themselves speaking in a way which took these interlocked theses for granted. Cultural change of this magnitude does not result from applying criteria (or from "arbitrary decision") any more than individuals become theists or atheists, or shift from one spouse or circle of friends to another, as a result either of applying criteria or of actes gratuits. We should not look within ourselves for criteria of decision in such matters any more than we should look to the world. The temptation to look for criteria is a species of the more general temptation to think of the world, or the human self, as possessing an intrinsic nature, an essence. That is, it is the result of the temptation to privilege some one among the many languages in which we habitually describe the world or ourselves. As long as we think that there is some relation called "fitting the world" or "expressing the real nature of the self' which can be possessed or lacked by vocabularies-as-wholes, we shall continue the traditional philosophical search for a criterion to tell us which vocabularies have this desirable feature. But if we could ever become reconciled to the idea that most of reality is indifferent to our descrjptions of it, and that the human self is created by the use of a vocabulary rather than being adequately or inadequately expressed in a vocabulary, then we should at last have assimilated what was true in the Romantic idea that truth is made rather than found. What is true about this claim is just that languages are made rather than found, and that truth is a property of linguistic entities, of sentences. Richard Rorty, Contingency Irony and Solidarity, p 7 http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/rorty/rorty_CIS_full.pdf
pogi Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) On 12/20/2016 at 7:36 PM, mfbukowski said: I would not say that Rorty "believes in" the self and free will, because determinism and free will are two sides of the same coin. We are determined by language but putting together new ways of speaking about things and being aware of the fact that we are creating our "selves" creates what seems to us to be freedom. So it's kind of complicated. I am not sure that requires "faith" exactly I think we are speaking of determinism in different ways. I am not talking about our perceived ability to "determine" our own future (free will), I am talking about determinism in terms of science/physics/laws of nature - determinism on the cosmic scale. Einstein was a determinist who saw that the cosmos and nature obeyed universal laws and evolve through cause and effect, where everything that happens was "determined" by something that happened before it. Einstein believed that what you are going to eat for lunch 10 years from now has already been determined by events that have preceded it - a sort of domino effect, because as Einstein famously stated, "God doesn't play dice". Then Heisenburg destroyed that perspective with the "uncertainty principle" based in quantum mechanics, which introduced an element of randomness to the universe. You can read about how that discovery changed determinism as explained by Stephen Hawking here, who states that God does indeed play the dice. Quantum mechanics changed everything, and some believe that the random nature of the universe on the quantum scale somehow allows for free will, but Steven Hawking refutes that idea. He says: Quote According to quantum physics, no matter how much information we obtain or how powerful our computing abilities, [or how elaborate our language ] the outcomes of physical processes cannot be predicted with certainty because they are not determined with certainty. Instead, given the initial state of a system, nature determines its future state through a process that is fundamentally uncertain. (Hawking and Mlodinow, 2010, p. 72, emphasis in original) In other words, determinism (cause and effect) is still the way nature works, but it is no longer 100% predictable as Einstein thought, instead there is an element of randomness. So, the future is not certain according to science, but that doesn't mean that we can somehow "choose" the future. Randomness does not give us agency, it simply makes determinism (cause and effect) more random. In other words, cause and effect is still the nature of the universe, but causes can have an element of randomness to them. A good example of this is the evolution of species. Just like an individual's personal evolution through life may appear determined by will and through the creative process of intelligent design, so to the evolution of species appears to be "designed", "created" or "willed" into existence, yet science insists that it is caused by random mutations and the cause and effect forces of nature. Any sense of intelligent design or creation of life and "self" is an illusion according to science. Evolution of species is the perfect illustration of how human lives evolve. Each appear to have an element of intelligent design but according to science, it is simply randomness and the laws of cause and effect at work which molds species, and our own lives. Hawking says this about free will and determinism: Quote “Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? Is it only multicelled organisms that have free will, or only mammals? We might think that a chimpanzee is exercising free will when it chooses to chomp on a banana, or a cat when it rips up your sofa, but what about the roundworm called Caenorhabditis elegans—a simple creature made of only 959 cells? It probably never thinks, “That was damn tasty bacteria I got to dine on back there,” yet it too has a definite preference in food and will either settle for an unattractive meal or go foraging for something better, depending on recent experience. Is that the exercise of free will? Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.” “ — Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, Bantam Books, New York, 2010, p. 32. So, to say that "we create ourselves" does not follow the laws of nature and is an obvious fallacy in that there would first have to be a "self" before a self could be created by a self - otherwise who or what has will power and is doing the creating exactly? To say that we are "determined by language" instead of nature suggests that language somehow exists outside the laws of nature, when in fact the entire universe which we, and thus language, came from is determined by the laws of nature. If language could somehow cause us to not be susceptible to the laws of the universe; if we could somehow "create" outside of the laws of 'cause and effect' - that would lead to catastrophic consequences on a cosmic scale! That would give a whole new frightening dimension and meaning to chaos theory. If both Einstein and Hawking believed/believe that free will is an illusion due to determinism (albeit different versions of determinism), and that free will is certainly not the other side of the coin of determinism, then perhaps the idea is not so absurd after all, but does indeed have an element of intelligence and reason behind it. Those are pretty smart dudes after all! Edited December 22, 2016 by pogi
mfbukowski Posted December 24, 2016 Posted December 24, 2016 On 12/22/2016 at 9:30 AM, pogi said: I think we are speaking of determinism in different ways. I am not talking about our perceived ability to "determine" our own future (free will), I am talking about determinism in terms of science/physics/laws of nature - determinism on the cosmic scale. Einstein was a determinist who saw that the cosmos and nature obeyed universal laws and evolve through cause and effect, where everything that happens was "determined" by something that happened before it. Einstein believed that what you are going to eat for lunch 10 years from now has already been determined by events that have preceded it - a sort of domino effect, because as Einstein famously stated, "God doesn't play dice". Then Heisenburg destroyed that perspective with the "uncertainty principle" based in quantum mechanics, which introduced an element of randomness to the universe. You can read about how that discovery changed determinism as explained by Stephen Hawking here, who states that God does indeed play the dice. Quantum mechanics changed everything, and some believe that the random nature of the universe on the quantum scale somehow allows for free will, but Steven Hawking refutes that idea. He says: In other words, determinism (cause and effect) is still the way nature works, but it is no longer 100% predictable as Einstein thought, instead there is an element of randomness. So, the future is not certain according to science, but that doesn't mean that we can somehow "choose" the future. Randomness does not give us agency, it simply makes determinism (cause and effect) more random. In other words, cause and effect is still the nature of the universe, but causes can have an element of randomness to them. A good example of this is the evolution of species. Just like an individual's personal evolution through life may appear determined by will and through the creative process of intelligent design, so to the evolution of species appears to be "designed", "created" or "willed" into existence, yet science insists that it is caused by random mutations and the cause and effect forces of nature. Any sense of intelligent design or creation of life and "self" is an illusion according to science. Evolution of species is the perfect illustration of how human lives evolve. Each appear to have an element of intelligent design but according to science, it is simply randomness and the laws of cause and effect at work which molds species, and our own lives. Hawking says this about free will and determinism: So, to say that "we create ourselves" does not follow the laws of nature and is an obvious fallacy in that there would first have to be a "self" before a self could be created by a self - otherwise who or what has will power and is doing the creating exactly? To say that we are "determined by language" instead of nature suggests that language somehow exists outside the laws of nature, when in fact the entire universe which we, and thus language, came from is determined by the laws of nature. If language could somehow cause us to not be susceptible to the laws of the universe; if we could somehow "create" outside of the laws of 'cause and effect' - that would lead to catastrophic consequences on a cosmic scale! That would give a whole new frightening dimension and meaning to chaos theory. If both Einstein and Hawking believed/believe that free will is an illusion due to determinism (albeit different versions of determinism), and that free will is certainly not the other side of the coin of determinism, then perhaps the idea is not so absurd after all, but does indeed have an element of intelligence and reason behind it. Those are pretty smart dudes after all! I decided not to leave this end loose. Yes I studied all of this probably years before you were born. These points are not really relevant to the issues as I see them. I am not speaking about physics I am speaking about the way we think about physics and the truth value of scientific theories in general. That is called philosophy. I think further conversation on this is not possible. There appears to be no communication on this point.
Recommended Posts