How full of rage are you?

T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
mixed_biscuits said:
Read up on quantum physics and the problems with the idea of causation per se e.g. in Celia Green's The Lost Cause.

Also, retroactive causation has been shown experimentally.
Click to expand...

But you're evading the point. you deny the existence of the physical world? things can be retroactively caused, or have multiple causes, whilst still being physically determined.

In some senses it is true that causation is a manner in which we order things in of themselves for things-for-us. In that sense Hume's scepticism is justified.

But to then go from that to denying our participation in the material world means you deny that thermodynamics and the inverse square law acts upon our physical bodies.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
thirdform said:
and yet you are terminally unable to explain the books you cite in a convincing manner.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to persuade you, I'm informing you of facts, facts which prevent my being persuaded. If your argument is contradicted by facts it doesn't work.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
thirdform said:
But you're evading the point. you deny the existence of the physical world? things can be retroactively caused, or have multiple causes, whilst still being physically determined.

In some senses it is true that causation is a manner in which we order things in of themselves for things-for-us. In that sense Hume's scepticism is justified.

But to then go from that to denying our participation in the material world means you deny that thermodynamics and the inverse square law acts upon our physical bodies.
Click to expand...
Lots of non sequiturs here. One thing to consider is that the universe doesn't behave neatly according to the thermodynamic laws, and this explanatory gap is reflected in the concepts of dark energy and dark matter, which energy and matter are ubiquitous not just out there in space...so we have a far from complete understanding of even just the 'straightforwardly materialist' shape of things.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
mixed_biscuits said:
I'm not trying to persuade you, I'm informing you of facts, facts which prevent my being persuaded. If your argument is contradicted by facts it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

no, you're backtracking. you haven't explained how these facts contradict my argument. because they would require you to deny physical determination.

Also if you're not trying to persuade me, then why on earth do you want to be persuaded by my argument?

this is the cuckold dilemma again isn't it? I'm wrong so you have to be more materialist than me to correct my error, in which case I'm still fundamentally right.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
mixed_biscuits said:
Lots of non sequiturs here. One thing to consider is that the universe doesn't behave neatly according to the thermodynamic laws, and this explanatory gap is reflected in the concepts of dark energy and dark matter, which energy and matter are ubiquitous not just out there in space...so we have a far from complete understanding of even just the 'straightforwardly materialist' shape of things.
Click to expand...

as for the straight forwardly materialist shape of things, you aren't arguing about the human will, you are arguing for its freedom. freedom can only be negative. So what is it free from?

If you argued that humans are able to act in determined constraints, a will which is determined to greater or lesser degrees, then we have nothing to disagree about. But then free just becomes obfuscatory, and you make it a synonym with choice, which is moving the goalposts.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
thirdform said:
as for the straight forwardly materialist shape of things, you aren't arguing about the human will, you are arguing for its freedom. freedom can only be negative. So what is it free from?

If you argued that humans are able to act in determined constraints, a will which is determined to greater or lesser degrees, then we have nothing to disagree about. But then free just becomes obfuscatory, and you make it a synonym with choice, which is moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...
Your picture of determinism is just wrong, according to the things I've read. There is no up to date scientific view that accepts hard determinism.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
mixed_biscuits said:
Your picture of determinism is just wrong, according to the things I've read. There is no up to date scientific view that accepts hard determinism.
Click to expand...

Hard and soft determinism are just philosophical sophisms. They should be rejected along with the pseudo problem of free will vs determinism. But I'll continue to use it to irritate both you and her (sorry his) majesty's government constantly banging on about OBE's. why not take a lecture with a professor banging on about what if we are brains in a vat?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top