Methinks you're trying to eat the cake and have it to. — Agent Smith

How so?

Human behavior, if you'll take the time to notice, breaks this easiest route rule - we do things in very inefficient ways, most of the times failing to take the shortest route between beginning (of a project) and its end. In essence we violate the Principle of Least Action. — Agent Smith

Yes, we behave inefficiently very frequently. BUT we have reasons for those behaviors. They may not be very good reasons, but they are reasons and thus, it's not "free" will in the traditional conception of the phrase.

That internet mods are increasingly ruthless tyrants or that TPF has a pretty decent mod team? :wink:

Discord is the worst offender, afaik. More and more whiny kids wanting "safe spaces" where they never have to hear about politics or philosophy *at all*. It makes them "uncomfortable." Reddit is getting worse too. I keep seeing subs with a brand new "no politics allowed" rule.

Which, I understand that politics have gotten heated in the past years and so shutting it down saves a lot of time and energy, but I just can't understand how any person who lives in and most likely theoretically supports democracy can suddenly be in favor of censorship.

Of course, I'm not totally naive: I realize free speech has pretty much always only been supported by and for the "in group" but still.... it boggles the mind.

I just want to add another way large swaths of the internet are destroying democracy: servers with authoritarian mods who suppress even benign opinions they dislike. I keep coming back here (despite my better judgement, haha) because at least our TPF mods talk with us reasonably and discuss things thoroughly and fairly.

Well, since you've taken morality out of it and you're admitting it's pretty much all subjective... what's the point of this thread? (I'm not trying to be rude, honest question here.)

As of right now, all I can say is: yeah, go ahead and do the things you think are more worthwhile and interesting than others. Have fun!

I'm still struggling with what you really mean by "worth." I assume you simply mean "has value" and that's subjective. Just like interesting is subjective.

You morally should engage in things that are worth engaging with, and you should not engage in things that are not worth engaging with. — SatmBopd

Seems like some begging the question is going on here unless you clarify or rephrase what it means to be "worth" engaging with.

As is, worth implies moral value, so you're essentially saying:
"You morally should engage in things that are of moral value to engage with."

I have not stated that there could not be a chain of infinite causal regression. All I've stated is there can be no prior reason as to why there exists a chain of infinite causal regression. Meaning the cause for why there is a chain of infinite causal regression is the fact that it exists, and nothing else. So far, I have not seen any one provide a valid counter argument to this claim. — Philosophim

I was not merely referring to your posts alone. When I talk about the thread, I'm referring to its entirety.

And this where faith comes in - to believe in the a god or gods or the supernatural requires a leap of faith. I have known many people of varying religious beliefs and I have seen first hand how their religious beliefs help them in their daily lives - and as long as they do not try to impose their religious beliefs on me that's fine.

But for some people faith is not sufficient - they require some sort of absolute irrefutable evidence or definitive proof. I believe these attempts are doomed to failure - you cannot use logic to prove something illogical.

But maybe I'm wrong - and that would be very cool. But prime mover or first cause arguments lack the necessary rigor for many reasons beside the one I mentioned. — EricH

There's a third option: first mover agnosticism. Nothing in this thread has yet convinced me to be for or against the idea of a first mover... or rather, everything has convinced me of both infinite causal regression and the impossibility thereof.

I already gave you the link. Here it is again. Sub atomic particles pop into existence with no prior "cause — EricH

I'm a total layperson, but have long been interested in someone explaining the quantum stuff adequately. This link doesn't really explain to me how "quantum foam," or the idea that space/time is non-linear, would negate the idea of cause and effect?

Yes, this defies our common sense notion of how the world behaves. If you're curious and want to learn more, here's a good starting point: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/ — EricH

Here Stanford seems to be discussing the notion that we can't measure momentum and location at the same time, right? Again, that doesn't seem to me to have any effect on the notion of cause and effect and I can't find any reference to it in the SEP entry.

↪Artemis I am not seeing any contradiction. You'll need to be a bit more specific — EricH

Sure:

You said:

We factually know that this is not true. Events at the atomic and sub-atomic level have no prior "cause". Events do follow certain statistical patterns, but each event is totally random with no prior "cause". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

In the last 100 years our knowledge of the physical universe has grown exponentially and new discoveries are being made - we are likely just scratching the surface here. To think we can draw any sort of grand philosophical conclusions about the nature of reality is an act of hubris. We must be humble and acknowledge that we really don't know what's going on. — EricH

So, events at the quantum level work in ways that we really don't understand or know how to explain, and the "solution" is to throw out literally everything we do know and can explain about everything else in our personal and scientific experience, namely cause and effect.

...and you say this is "factual knowledge."

But then you also say that we're barely scraping the surface of what we could know about the universe and how it works and we need to "be humble and acknowledge that we really don't know what's going on."

Seems to me that humility would apply to scientists too, and that instead of claiming some "factual knowledge" about something we don't actually have an explanation for and which defies everything else we do know how to explain... we could and should very simply say "as far as we can tell at this moment in time."

We factually know that this is not true. Events at the atomic and sub-atomic level have no prior "cause". Events do follow certain statistical patterns, but each event is totally random with no prior "cause". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

In the last 100 years our knowledge of the physical universe has grown exponentially and new discoveries are being made - we are likely just scratching the surface here. To think we can draw any sort of grand philosophical conclusions about the nature of reality is an act of hubris. We must be humble and acknowledge that we really don't know what's going on. — EricH

Doesn't your second paragraph refute your first one here?

Undergrad. But, potentially more once completed. — Shawn

Good! That opens things up a bit.

If you're generally looking to get a degree, I would strongly recommend double majoring. My favorite philosophy prof advertised the idea to me as "You get one degree for yourself, and one for your parents." By parents he just meant, something practical that has more specific job paths associated with it. Our undergrad program was about 90% dual majors. People got a philosophy degree alongside one in English, Psychology, Biology, etc.

The benefits are:
-Two majors for the price of one!
-Take classes you enjoy!
-More open doors: you can then persue a career or higher ed in EITHER degree.
-The philosophy part of your resume will make you stand out, both in itself and due to the skills you aquire in a phil program.

People say a phil degree has no or very little pragmatic value for getting a job. I haven't persued a career in philosophy myself, and yet twice I've been outright told that I got an interview and job offer because of that background, and many other times I have gotten a job offer or promotion based on skills I can directly trace to my philosophy degree.

And ALL of these are points I'm making aside from my more fundamental belief: a philosophy degree has immeasurable personal value.

Not pertinent to the discussion. — Philosophim

I thought you said you read it? :rofl:

You'll need to narrow down what specific points counter my reasons if we're to have a meaningful conversation. I have read it before, and I have a good understanding of the subject matter. — Philosophim

Relax, it was just a book recommendation.

See Kant, "Critique of Pure Reason"

So, what you're saying is that I am a brilliant, towering genius. Thank you. Thank you very much. — T Clark

Well, that's par for the course :wink:

But I do in fact think and agree that the conversations on the ENTIRE forum would go better if people clarified their terminology/baseline positions and worldviews before getting into the actual debates :chin:

From now on, I'm just going to use the term "C-metaphysics" to denote that usage. I'm serious. I mean it. You guys can all go fry ice. I don't care what you say....No.. No.. La, la, la, la, la, la, la...

I really am serious. — T Clark

That's actually valid. Academics do it all the time.

Are you looking to enter an undergraduate or graduate program?

But, I will extend this olive branch:

I know my tone here isn't going to be appreciated by anyone who doesn't agree with me and share my experiences in this conversation. That's fine. It was a little insider humor for myself. So, I apologize for ruffling feathers, if I have.

I've seen your posts on other subjects here, and while I think you ARE too inclined toward semi-grandiose statements, I think you have interesting thoughts underneath all the rhetoric and I appreciate your contributions to those conversations.

So yeah, that's my olive branch for today and my exeunt from this thread.

Even worse, you are not offering any evidence a flaw, much less any support for your side. — James Riley

But neither did you. That's the hilarious part of this. You started this whole thing telling me I can't possibly understand or know until I go and hunt and until then I'd be irredeemably blind.

I'm not even pretending to give evidence or arguments. So why you're griping about it ... I really cannot fathom.

And I'll add, yes, I'm being lazy and don't really WANT to rehash what has been hashed out ad nauseam on this forum already...

BUT at least I'm not clouding my stance in some pseudo-mystical fiddlydud about becoming one with the deer, but no actually with the hunter of the deer, which is the same as the deer but somehow like... not the same? And if you don't understand, then you're just blind! blind I say!

I said this thread and others through the eyes of the other side, actually.

But, hey, your whole "you need arguments" spiel is coming on the heels of your whole "I can't give you arguments, you just need to hunt and see it for yourself" yadda yadda yadda.

So excuse me, but I think my asking you to just read some past conversations, which are literally just a few clicks away is a lot less out there and "inconvenient" than some suggestion that I should --quite literally-- get blood on my hands.

Because you are not an interlocutor? Someone in the past failed to agree with you? — James Riley

Someone in the past, as I've mentioned and just for example, told me they'd eat disabled people. So yeah, it's tedious.

BTDT. :smile: — James Riley

Didn't you JUST say you don't want to look at the archives and don't know anything about what was said there? So much for BTDT....

So far, crickets. — James Riley

Nah, I already explained why I'm not interested.

But I do cordially invite you to read this thread and previous threads not through your own eyes, but through the eyes of a non-omni.... hey, kinda like you told me to inhabit a deer or cougar or something by hunting! Go ahead! It'll be fun! :snicker:

If you could maintain interest and look a little deeper, you might find your interlocutors have been on the other side, yet progressed with experience. — James Riley

So could you.

At least not entirely – I want it to be the set of rules, assumptions we agree on to allow discussion, reason, to proceed, e.g. there is a knowable external, objective reality; truth represents a correspondence between external reality and some representation of it — T Clark

It just seems to me that we could come up with all manner of rules and principles that are perhaps internally intelligible, but don't apply to the reality we actually deal with. Like solipsism. It makes a strange kind of sense, but it doesn't compute with the data available to us.


(P.s. thanks for the new thread! I'm afraid the little'uns get in the way of my spending too much time constructing lengthy posts, let alone OPs on here, so I appreciate your efforts.)

Nevertheless, an absence of argument does a position no good. — James Riley

Maybe... but I lose interest even attempting the debate when I think my interlocutors aren't actually open to seeing the other side.

If you look through the archives here, btw, you'll see that the conversation has been had many many times and many good arguments have been made... but I lost hope when it turned out that people would rather bite the bullet every. single. time. and make claims, like... oh, they'd eat a disabled person, rather than admit they're making mistakes somehow somewhere in their thinking.

Probably not. People usually need someone to make intelligent arguments from experience pointing out flaws in order to see those flaws. When those arguments are missing . . . — James Riley

I dunno... my personal experience ( :wink: ) is that people's psychologies get in the way of this debate. I mean, something they do every day, something they enjoy, something that bonds them to other people is at stake and I find that is a real obstacle to being open-minded and resolving cognitive dissonance.

Same issue that inhibits real conversation with theists.

Sometimes I wonder if the occasional omni reads these animal rights threads and.... though s/he is perhaps not yet convinced about animal rights... realizes that everything being said on the omni side is irredeemably flawed. :chin:

But only one species of natural beings has gone beyond the limitations of Natural Laws, to become a law unto themselves. Humans can now break, or bend, the laws of Nature to their own Will (culture). — Gnomon

You can break the laws of nature? Really? Where? How? Let me see!

What you're talking about is humans understanding and using the laws of nature. And even you admit that we're not doing a very good job at it.

Global warming is strong evidence that we neither know what we're doing nor are we fully capable of controlling it.

BUT, even if we were, even if you're right... being the most powerful natural beings doesn't make us and our culture unnatural. It doesn't actually remove us from nature. Just like being a king or a queen doesn't make anyone not human.

It does. But you don't see it. That's unfortunate. But not unusual. — James Riley

Okie dokie.

This doesn't in any way, shape, or form address what I said.

The deer is what you must become when you hunt it. Otherwise, you will not succeed. — James Riley

This is nonsensical. Deer don't hunt. If you became a deer, you would eat leaves and leave all the other deer alone.

Another sickness brought on by our distance from who we are is the illogical conflation of disparate things, like hunting and serial killers. It's sad to watch the blind stumble around so. They actually think food comes from the grocery store. — James Riley

Well, have fun with your strawpersons anyway.

I know, right? We've separated ourselves so far from the natural order of things that many cannot even fathom the notion. It's like trying to explain sight to one who has never seen.

If you are sincerely interested in seeing, then I suggest you take up the hunt. Nothing will help you see better than becoming that which you seek. — James Riley

No thank you.

Same way I don't need to become a serial killer or rapist in order to see through those things.

the way we do it lacks respect, grace, gratitude and a personal relationship with the prey — James Riley

The idea that things like respect or grace could possibly matter when killing someone seems pretty far-fetched to me.

I don't think it's that simple. "Not true" is not the same as "false." In this case, they live in different universes. I think this is an important issue, but I'm not sure I've been addressing it right in the past. I need to think about it some more. — T Clark

I think I should be clear: this is how we deal with it in basic logic. There's a time and a place to get more into the details of the umbrella terms that are "true" and "false" in the context of logic.... but I don't think it's worth wading into at this particular juncture. Another avenue for a good thread perhaps?

I don't agree with this. I see a relatively definitive delineation between metaphysical and scientific issues, statements, and questions. I call it "scientific" because that's the term we've been using, but it's more than that. It includes all of our regular daily interactions with the world — T Clark

Ok. So what do you think that definitive delineation is?

Yes.

But that leads us to what Banno and I were addressing earlier: where something veers into science versus philosophy versus literal and figurative belly-aching is more content-specific than anything else, and even there more overlap exists than one might initially assume.

The sticky part #1 is that humans ARE natural beings as well. Just as much as a bird. So how does a building or a computer differ from a nest? They're are both built by natural beings.

Sticky part #2: they're all built by natural materials, just the degree of processing has changed, which seems trivial, especially considered together with #1.

"Harry Potter is a wizard" is neither a true nor a false statement. "In J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter book series, the character of Harry Potter is portrayed as a wizard" is a true statement. "Unicorns are pink" is neither true nor false. "Unicorns are sometimes portrayed as pink in color" is a true statement. Based on what she's written, "Artemis claims that unicorns are pink" is also a true statement. — T Clark

I had a bunch written up, but then I realized, we're more or less quibbling over semantics. You said before that a claim about a non-existent thing is meaningless, I say it's false. Tomayto, tomahto, because false simply means not true, and meaningless would mean not true as well. Same dif.

In what sense is "The earth revolves around the sun" a metaphysical statement. — T Clark

It's a statement about the state or nature of an aspect of reality.