I mean, suppose a marine biologist says, "Either all the fish are diseased, or they aren't." Would you really interpret that as, "Either all the fish are diseased, or else all the fish are not diseased"? I.e. "Either every fish is diseased, or else every fish is not diseased"? I simply do not see that as a plausible interpretation. — Leontiskos

I see your point which is why I pointed out that the word, "some" was not used. If it were then it would be obvious what you are saying. What if one were to say, "All fish are swimmers, or all fish are not swimmers"? How would that be different, if at all?

Just on it's face, "All narratives are true" simply does not fit observation when we are aware of narratives that contradict each other. All narratives can't be true by way of LEM.

Natural language is fuzzy, so I suppose it could be read like that, although that seems to be a stretch to me. Saying "all x are y or they aren't" is a simple disjunct between affirmation and negation of "all x are y." That's how I intended it at least. So, the objection of the possibility of narratives without truth values was brought up, but I don't think this affects the disjunct. If some narratives are neither true nor false, then obviously they are not "all true." The excluded middle here would instead be "all narratives are neither true nor not-true." Note though that the context is epistemology and presumably epistemology, since it deals in knowledge, deals in narratives that have truth values, if not exclusively, at least primarily.

I don't even like the term "narratives," to be honest. It's connotations seem perhaps inappropriate for epistemology. I would rather say perhaps "all knowledge claims." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Natural language is not fuzzy. It only appears that way in philosophy forums (language on holiday) when philosophers forget that language use is not just syntax but semantics in that language refers to states-of-affairs in the world. The scribbles are about states-of-affairs in the world. Just because you followed the syntactical rules of some language does not mean that you used language correctly. It has to point to some state-of-affairs as well - whether that state-of-affairs be in another country, on another planet, another person and their ideas and intentions, or all knowledge claims as opposed to some.

This is why the knowledge claim, "All knowledge claims are true" is simply false on it's face because we already know that some knowledge claims contradict each other and LEM. I don't even need to get to your other claim that "all knowledge claims are not true" to know that the first one is false. You start off with a faulty premise and it is faulty because it does not fit observation and follow the LEM. Adding the second claim as if it even relates to the first, or your use of "all" is an example of what language on holiday is.

No, I am saying much more than that. I am saying that even my wants must be free from determinants for it to be free. For example, I am thirsty right now. This want is not free from determinants. If I was a brick, I would not be thirsty. Because to be able to be thirsty, one needs to be a sentient biological organism, such as a human or a dog or a cow, etc. — Truth Seeker

Then what you're saying is that to be free of determinism is to not exist as any determinate thing (not exist at all). Is this why people say they are free when they die? When you're dead you can't make any choices - free or determined.

It is our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences that determine and constrain our choices. It is entirely evidence-based and logical. — Truth Seeker

There is evidence in how societies judge individuals for their actions that supports the idea that individuals are the final cause of one's actions and not their parents. You're saying that societies that judge individuals for their actions are not evidence that we are not entirely governed by the factors in the way you say we are? It's our parents fault for the genes they provided and the environment in which we were raised and the experiences and nutrients we consume. So why aren't parents being rounded up for their adult child's bad behavior? That is the implication of what you are saying.

Yes, you can do that. So can other humans. My model supports this. The fact that you want an outcome that is advantageous to you is due to your self-serving desire, which comes from your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Your desires and your capacity to fulfil your desires are both determined and constrained by your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. — Truth Seeker

Then free choice is not having any goals at all. How can you make any choice - free or otherwise - without a goal in mind?

No, I am not saying what you are claiming.

Our choices are not free choices. They are determined and constrained choices. You can prove me wrong by teleporting, even though you don't have the genes, environments, nutrients and experiences necessary for teleportation. — Truth Seeker

But this is nonsensical. It is determinism that allows one to determine their own outcomes.

You have misunderstood what I said. No, I didn't choose to find the strawberry flavour tasty. I chose to buy the strawberry flavour because I found the strawberry flavour to be tasty. The reason I found the strawberry flavour tasty, instead of the chocolate flavour, is my unique mix of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. — Truth Seeker

Ok, so now you're focusing on your goals, not just your choices (the means you obtain your goal) and how they are determined. What you're basically saying is that freedom is being able to choose to do whatever I want whenever I want. But how can you make any choice without having options and how can you have options without having information? It seems to me that you must possess some kind of experiences (the acquiring of information) to be able to make a choice (free or otherwise).

How does uniqueness and ownership correlate to free will? Does the fact that something has an experience and a unique body entail freedom? I don't see how that works.

When you say you have the ability to listen and decide one way or the other, that suggests a libertarian free will. It's not that I disagree with that, but describe how you were able to transcend determinism and make that choice independently. — Hanover

I'm not saying I'm transcending determinism. I'm using determinism to my advantage to make a choice that determines an outcome that is advantageous to me.

I would say that uniqueness and ownership are characteristics of the will. Freedom is access to information. Free choices are informed choices. A will is free when it has access to information that allow it to make the most informed choice which improves one's chances of realizing the most beneficial outcome. We do not need access to all information, only relevant information - relevant to the goal.

Acquiring more information means that you have more experiences. So your experiences do play a role in the amount of freedom you can have when making a choice. Having more and different experiences than another means you have more freedom in making an informed decision that maximizes your benefit than another.

A free choice would be free from determinants and constraints. — Truth Seeker

So your saying we can only be free if we live in a world where prior events do not determine our choice, but also our choices would not determine the consequences. Meaning you might make a choice but there is no link between your choice and the goal you wish to realize. So why make a choice? You would be at the mercy of randomness.

No, that's not what I mean. Let's say my friend and I go to a shop. There are two types of ice-cream on sale - strawberry and chocolate. I don't like the taste of chocolate flavoured ice-cream.I do like the taste of strawberry flavoured ice-cream. Therefore, I choose the strawberry flavoured ice-cream. My friend likes the taste of chocolate flavoured ice-cream. So, he chooses the chocolate flavoured ice-cream. Neither I, nor my friend, chose which flavour we find tasty. — Truth Seeker

But you just said that you did choose the flavor which you find tasty.

The issue appears to be more about one's goals and not the means by which we obtain them. If you got the outcome you wanted then how were you not free? It seems to me that you're saying that freedom entails having the option to make a choice that works against your interests. Isn't it the opposite?

You have a choice, but it is not a free choice. It is a determined and constrained choice. A choice is the experience of choosing a behaviour from a range of behaviours, e.g. buying a lottery ticket or refraining from buying a lottery ticket. — Truth Seeker

What would a free choice look like - experiencing the option to go get ice cream when you see your child drowning in a pool and choosing that option? Are you saying that a free choice would be a random choice that comes to mind that is irrelevant to the current situation?

To be determined does not rule out being more or less self-determining and self-governing. To say that freedom requires that our actions are undetermined is equally problematic, since what is wholly determined by nothing prior is necessarily spontaneous and random, which is hardly "liberty." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Exactly. They seem to forget that there is a final determining factor to one's actions that lies within an individual, not outside of it. This is why they fail to explain why some people behave differently in the same environment. What would be the point in making a choice if the consequences do not logically follow from your choice?

He itemized four governing factors that determined behavior (Genes, early environments, early nutrients, and early experiences). Which of these is the "self" that "more or less" governs? And why do we add the new concept of "self" as a holistic entity when we already know the 4 factors that govern decision making. — Hanover

What is the self that is governed by the four factors?

One of the four factors is experiences. Aren't my experiences my own and not someone else's? Am I not the decider of which experiences I have? If I chose to listen to only one side of an issue, did not I not choose to constrain myself? Another was genes. Aren't we all genetically unique?

Either all narratives are acceptable/true/valid, whatever you want to call it, or they aren't.
— Count Timothy von Icarus

Note the form: <Either all narratives are [X], or else some narratives are not [X]>. "Which do you believe it is?" — Leontiskos

I didn't see the word, "some" in the original quote and that seems to make a difference. The original quote seems to be saying "either all narratives are true or all narratives are false", but that doesn't make any sense because there are narratives that contradict each other, so it cannot be that all narratives are true. But all narratives could be false in that we have yet to find the true narrative. This also doesn't seem to take into account that some narratives might be partially true/false.

If we were to narrow down the scope from "all" to "one" then if two people have opposing narratives - viewpoints that are the opposite of each other (god exists/god doesn't exist) - then yes one has to be correct and the other false, but if they do not AND they both have issues, then it could be possible that both are wrong. It seems to depend on where one narrative stands in relation with the other - if they are direct opposites (god exists/god doesn't exist) and how many conceptual holes each one has compared to the other. Many issues do not have black or white solutions. There can often be other narratives which might be a middle ground or might not - depending on how much of the two counter-narratives it overlaps or shares (only if it shares an equal amount of both of the other two narratives would it qualify as middle ground). If there are parts that the 3rd narrative does not share with either, one might say it is not a middle ground, but simply a 3rd possible narrative.

J and Srap Tasmaner in particular tried to say, "Let's take a step back into a neutral frame, so that we can examine this more carefully. Now everyone lives in their own framework..." Their "step back" was always a form of question-begging, given that it presupposed the non-overarching, framework-view. That's what happens when someone falsely claims to be taking a neutral stance on some matter on which they are not neutral* (and, in this case, on a matter in which neutrality is not possible). In general and especially in this case, the better thing to do is simply to give arguments for one's position instead of trying to claim the high ground of "objectivity" or "neutrality." — Leontiskos

When we hear about an issue for the first time and listen to the arguments that support one side or the other for the first time, and evaluate and compare the number and scope of conceptual holes in each for the first time, are we not taking a neutral position? Which position would we be adopting at this point if not one that says reason and logic are valuable methods for determining the truth of a claim? Is there another position one could take? Does it make sense to take the position that logic and reason are NOT methods for determining the truth of a claim? One might, but that would seem to undermine many of the other things that they have said. Is there a person alive that takes the position that logic and reason are NEVER useful methods for determining the truth of a claim? Could such a person survive in the world?

The essay is about individuals who pretend to be radical individualists but in fact rely on authoritarian, collective institutions that wield immense power. — RussellA

Using this same line of logic, an individual could pretend to be a radical collectivist but is actually an authoritarian radical individualist that consolidates power to become dictator. In essence they are an individual that views the citizens as their property. Stalin comes to mind.

How can we use the essay's explanation to distinguish between the two? Was Stalin a collectivist or a radical individualist that relied on authoritarian, collective institutions that wield immense power?

We all make choices, but our choices are never free from the determinants - which are genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences (GENE). Nor are our choices free from constraints. — Truth Seeker

Which genes, environments, nutrients, or experiences, or combination of the four, gives us the capability to have or make choices? You use the word, "choice", as something we possess, but your post seems to also say that we don't have a choice. Which is it? What is a choice?

Is the Matrix real? Reality has all but disappeared, according to post-modernists. So what has replaced it is a computer generated simulation that we interact with via technology. This fiction is called 'the Matrix' and we are called upon, as philosophers, to interpret it and speculate as to its existence. What we are left with is the 'Desert of the Real', a world destroyed, where the real has escaped us and we function merely as automaton to perpetuate the existence of this formation of today's late-capitalism.
Is the Matrix real?
Yes, I'll take the red pill
No, it's the blue pill for me — Nemo2124

Since I don't know if the Matrix exists or not, I take the red pill as an experiment. When I wake up in a "new reality", how do I know it is the true reality and not just another [part of the] program? How do the "Masters" know if their reality is a simulation or not?

The idea creates an infinite regress, and I don't think the "Masters" would create a simulation that creates its own simulations, or a simulation that includes so much time doing nothing - like waiting two hours in a waiting room in the doctor's or department of motor vehicles' office. What would be the point?

If you think that's a cop-out then we are on the same page. I am saying that there are some cases where it is impossible to say, "I am neither black nor white. I am perfectly neutral." If you think the Theist/atheist case is one of those cases, then that is the sort of thing I am talking about. — Leontiskos

Isn't the common thread of those cases where it is impossible is where the distinctions have been clearly defined and are in opposition (law of the excluded middle)? Atheism is the antithesis of theism. There is no middle ground, but there could be an absence of both (agnosticism). The cases where it is possible are cases where there isn't a clear distinction and\or the ideas are not contradictory - meaning that opposite sides can actually be integrated into a consistent middle ground.

Atheism could be thought of as an absence of any religious frameworks. The issue is when the theist tries to integrate their supernatural framework with the natural one, or even a moral one (why did God create the circumstances that allow childhood cancer to exist?).

Morality is subjective. Sure evil is the opposite of good, but what each individual interprets as good and evil can vary depending on the context (like them being in that situation instead of the person they are observing). Are there better ways to integrate socially (doing good things) that improve the fitness of our species - sure. Is the continued existence of human beings a good thing or a bad thing? What type of framework would an advanced alien species possess and have to say about that? To say that some behavior is moral or immoral is based on one's own subjective framework. There is no universal framework of morality if you're asking if there is some universal moral framework to judge a person's behavior by.

Those mindstates are either supervenient or overwhelmingly causative of the actions in question. This is a causal chain which is morally brought back to the inciter. — AmadeusD

and when the inciter claims that they were incited by another's speech, where does it end? All this does is create a society where no one takes responsibility for their own actions.

For more than 2,600 years philosophers has studied and contributed to our knowledge and understanding but we still suffer from strife, civil disobedience, revolution, and war. "The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipedream!" (from How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence). Why is this? — Pieter R van Wyk

It wasn't philosophers that contributed to our knowledge. It was scientists and inventors of technology. It is through science that we have been able to feed more people and increase their lifespans. Are there people still starving and still dying at young ages? Yes, but it seems we are heading in the right direction unless one makes the argument that more humans is the problem. We don't have enough resources to go around equally so is philosophy/science telling us that a Logan's Run society where everyone dies at 30 to maintain a steady population so scarce resources can be equally distributed is the way to go?

Science doesn't tell you what you should do. It merely tells you what is. What you do with that information is up to you - keeping in mind that you are an individual member of a social species that may need to compromise with other individuals to acquire the benefits of a group while trying to minimize the restraints the group has on your individual freedom and expression (what good are you to the group if you haven't attended to your own well-being?) Evolutionary psychology informs you that this is the set of circumstances we find ourselves cognitively in but it is ultimately up to you to decide how much energy you devote to the group as opposed to yourself.

Right, the examples are just there to show the difference between the linear (horizontal) series and hierarchical (vertical series), and the difference between metaphysical and temporal priority/posteriority, not to claim the dominoes falling have "one cause." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm trying to understand your notion of hierarchical (vertical series). I only see causation as temporal. Upper vs lower levels of reality do not play a causal role on each other. They are simply different views of the same thing - in that the different levels are a projection, not how the world really is. The world is seamless and it is our goals that break up reality into regional spaces (views). It's not that the top has influence on the bottom. It is that the bottom and the top are merely different views of the same thing (zoomed in vs zoomed out).

I don't know. Which framework is being used by a toddler when they reach the cognitive milestone of object permanence? Can it even be described as a "framework"?

So would you agree with me that there is no need for the members of the rational community to understand or subscribe to rational norms? — goremand

Which framework are you using to reach such a conclusion?

Does an toddler "subscribe" to the idea of object permanence (realism), or is it simply naturally occurring cognitive development? Would the child ever be able to survive on it's own if it did not reach this cognitive milestone?

Right. The idea that we only have indirect access to the world through internal representations is a cartesian, reductionist view of emotion, and stands in direct opposition to the enactivist claim that we don’t represent the world via internal schemes but are in direct contact with it by way of our patterns of activity and interaction. — Joshs

Seems like the same thing to me. Direct and indirect realism are false dichotomies. One must be in direct contact with some part of the world and indirectly connected to the rest of it, or else you are the world (solipsism), or you don't exist. Not to mention what and where the "I" is that is connected to the rest of the world. Are you your consciousness, your brain, your body, or what? Most philosophical problems are the result of a misuse, or an overuse, of language.

I'm saying that no one is both a Christian and an atheist, straddling that line neutrally. A Christian can become an atheist, but if they do so then they are no longer a Christian. No one truly says, "I am both Christian and atheist in a neutral sense."

We could perhaps imagine someone who is neither and views both objectively and neutrally. I'd be fine with that, especially for the sake of argument. — Leontiskos

But that is nonsensical. It would be like asserting that one is both a bachelor and a married man, so of course no one is both a Christian and an atheist. Not being either would qualify one as agnostic - which I think is a cop-out.

Maybe there are better examples? Can one be a realist and a solipsist? No - same issue. Can one be both a rationalist and an empiricist? Maybe. For me, it is a false dichotomy. I see that we are both using both rationality and observations to support our conclusions.

(But note that Srap Tasmaner was not "neither" when he appealed to the very same framework petitio principii that @J was appealing to less eloquently. In fact Srap is very deeply committed to that framework sort of relativism. Nevertheless, the difference is that Srap is much more capable of questioning his own presuppositions by engaging in dialogue and answering questions.) — Leontiskos

Are you saying that Srap is ignoring the law of identity and excluded middle?

All this talk is useless until we start applying what is being said to real-world situations.

I’ve read the Greeks and I’m fascinated how we got where we are today. How we think and what knowledge we have amassed, especially in science. It is mind blowing. But I don’t see any significant contribution to how we live and order society from modern philosophy. It may be my ignorance but I’m aware of quantum mechanics and relativity. — Malcolm Parry

Yes, we seem to be struggling with the same moral dilemmas we've been struggling with for 1000s of years. Religion and politics stem from ethics and ethics are subjective, which is why my default attitude is "live and let live".

I agree 100%. The changes are brought about by changes in science and innovation. There are seismic shifts in social settings too. I don't see much of current philosophy being relevant to what is happening.
It is fascinating though. — Malcolm Parry

I agree as well. I've pointed out before that many people on this forum like to discuss what dead philosophers have said, but what they said is a product of their time and is only useful to seeing where we've come from, not where we are at.

The changes that are brought about by science and technology, take AI for instance, provides a new way at looking at existing problems - like the mind-body problem - not to mention the various interpretations of QM.

I don't have a background in philosophy. I have a background in science and in IT and software development so I'm bringing that to the table when trying to solve existing philosophical problems, not what some dead philosopher said.

Pretty much. The usual suspects are here, together with the personal attacks. — Banno

Haven't you said something like "it's not a personal attack if it's true"? Would it be a personal attack or an observation to say that you are a contradicting hypocrite?

As an ideal, I try to consider ourselves not just as learners, but as teachers, which might mean sometimes patience with those who are missing the point. This is to say I'd prefer an open chess tournament, with grandmasters and novices alike. — Hanover

Me too but Banno ends up taking the whole chess board, pieces and all, to play with someone else after we've only made two moves each.

which might mean sometimes patience with those who are missing the point.
— Hanover
Patience is not infinite. — Banno

No one was asking for infinite patience. Not responding to posts after we've only exchanged two means you have already reached your limit of patience? :roll:

We're just asking you questions to clarify what you said, or why what you said does not integrate well with the rest of what we know.

There are a few who have shown bad faith, and so with whom I usually do not engage - indeed, I don't often read their posts. They are aware of this, but curiously they insist on participating mainly in my threads. — Banno

I'm sure the people you are referencing have come to the same conclusions and no longer participate in your thread in an effort to change your mind, but to inform other, more open-minded individuals the deficiencies of your ideas. I've had some others respond to my response to your post or thread trying to make your argument for you.

I'll thow out here the difference between linear (temporal) causal series, which are accidental, and hierarchical causal series. The first is the classic example of one domino knocking over another, or a ball breaking a window. The second is the example of a book resting on a table, or a chandelier hanging from a ceiling. For the book to be on the table, the table had to be there. This has to be true at every moment or interval; there is a vertical—as opposed to horizontal—element to efficient causation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not just a table, but a person that put the book on the table. A cause is not necessarily just two interacting things, it could be a multitude of things interacting. Can you explain how the book came to be on the table by just explaining the table? Can you explain how a murder occurred if you only explain the interaction between a victim and the weapon? How would you know if the person was murdered or committed suicide?

Likewise, the chandelier hangs due to its linkage with the ceiling at each moment. Neither the ceiling nor the table are dependent upon the book or chandelier sitting/hanging on them, but there is dependence (priority) in the other direction. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It also hangs due to gravity. If there was no gravity the chandelier would float and not hang. I think the issue here is you're simply leaving out ALL the necessary causes that preceded an effect (like our observation).

Why would this not be comptiablism — Count Timothy von Icarus

It may, but I'm not concerned with labels - only what makes sense which might not always fit neatly in one philosophical "framework" that we've given a name as many philosophical frameworks have holes in them that an opposing view might fill but has holes itself.

I tend to want to frame liberty in terms of (relative) self-determination and self-governance (as opposed to being undetermined) — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which you can only have by having access to information.

I think what is happening is that you have two incommensurable ways of viewing something, and it is likely impossible to try to strike some neutral ground. This is almost certainly why Srap Tasmaner's "St. Louis to Kansas City" idea failed.

So surely ampliation is required to understand the opposing view, and a rather abrupt and extreme form of it. This issue is explored a lot in the field of interreligious studies, where there can be significant limitations on one's ability to understand another view (and the same thing could be said to hold between secular and religious thinking). Religion and culture are the two biggies, where a form of conversion and life is required in order to truly understand. — Leontiskos

I don't know. Would this mean that it would be impossible for a person to convert from one position to another? When I was a Christian I had one framework but began to notice things like how what you believed often depended on where you were born and raised, which made me start questioning my beliefs. I eventually became an atheist. I had overcome my upbringing. What you seem to be saying that what happened to me is impossible. Or are you saying I'm not really an atheist because my original framework prevented me from understanding what it actually means to be an atheist?

For the realist realism is not merely a framework; and for the solipsist solipsism is not merely a framework. To say "both" would require the adherent to claim that their own framework (e.g. realism or solipsism) is superior to other frameworks. — Leontiskos

Right. To say "both" is saying that the framework more accurately reflects the state-of-affairs than other frameworks do and is what makes you a solipsist or a realist.

So is the question, "How can we know when a framework more accurately represents the state-of-affairs?" or "How can we distinguish between the framework and the state-of-affairs?", or something else?

By calling it a "framework" I think we are already presupposing that it is contextualized, aren't we? I think realism presupposes that not every knowledge-claim is reducible to a framework, or is even able to be captured by framework-talk. — Leontiskos

I don't know. Is solipsism a framework, or the state of reality, or both?

I find that the PMs enable deeper focus on a particular issue or argument, to deeply dive into a topic with one or two folk who know what they are talking about. — Banno

It seems that much of what people talk about on this forum is what other philosophers have said, and what some philosophers said is always dependent upon what they knew about the world at their time, and their language reflects that. To someone that hasn't studied what some philosopher has said it may appear that some don't know what they are talking about.

I don't have much experience in what other philosophers have said. I have a lot of experience in what scientists have said and it is our current scientific knowledge that shapes what present-day philosophers say. Dead philosophers probably wouldn't say what they said if they lived today.

I form my philosophy about the nature of the world by integrating what all scientists have said, not what some few dead philosopher have said, about the world. So from a scientific perspective it can appear that you don't know what you're talking about when what you're talking about doesn't take into account the current scientific understanding of how we develop and learn in the world.

:up:
Posting on the forums creates more opportunity to receive input from varying points of view and potential valid criticisms.

Is having to wade through all the drivel to get the few good responses that allow one's ideas to evolve worth it? For me it is.

In what ways has Banno evolved other than him steering more towards using PMs to preach to his choir?

And when the definition of a more authoritative dictionary is provided (the one Google uses and provides as the top result) ... you just dismiss it entirely and you know better than the English professors at Oxford. — boethius

I wasn't arguing about which dictionary we use, only that we use a dictionary to guide our use of terms.

You provided two definitions:

1. a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
Similar:

2. the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism. — Google citing Oxford Languages

I was referring to the first one. If you want to refer to the second one, that is fine. Neither definition mentions socialism or libertarianism. So it would now be necessary to define socialism and libertarianism to see where those definitions overlap with anarchy and where they don't.

My point was that many people conflate the first definition with libertarianism but isn't libertarianism, and the second definition is more like libertarianism than socialism.

I am pretty sure I had almost this same conversation re reasons versus causes with ↪J, using the stop sign example. Maybe it was a stop light :rofl: — Count Timothy von Icarus

Great minds think alike :cool:

I would just suggest that a difficulty here is that "causes" is often used very narrowly, as always referring to a linear temporal sequence (either as extrinsic ordering, or a sort of intrinsic computation-like process), but also very broadly as encompassing the former, but also all "reasons." Or, causes might also be used narrowly in a counterfactual sense. "Reasons" often tend to include a notion of final and formal causality that is excluded from more narrow formulations of "cause." — Count Timothy von Icarus

It depends on how we want to look at causes. Causes are an interaction of two or more things (like a broken tree limb and a window, or like a stop sign, a car and a driver) to create a new set of circumstances - an effect (the broken window, or stopping at a stop sign). Physicists often describe it as a transfer of energy. We should also consider that every effect is also a cause of subsequent effects, and that our current goal is what makes us focus on specific parts of the ongoing causal chain of events - that the boundaries between a cause and its effects are arbitrarily dependent upon the current goal in the mind.

You can raise your hand, or I can do it for you. Both of our wills are the causes of your hand being raised. You might resist me in which case it would be both a battle of wills and of strength, but our comparative strengths only come into play if our wills are still battling - I intend on raising your arm, while you intend on resisting. How can a will cause anything? If a will can be a cause why can't a reason?

So, it's tricky. Lift is a "cause of flight," but you won't find the "principle of lift" as an observable particular in any instance of flight. Likewise, moral principles are causes of people's actions, but you won't find them wandering about the world. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not sure if I'd agree that lift is a cause of flight. It seems to me to be part of what flight is. If you are flying you have lift. A cause would be what preceded the act of flying, just as what preceded the act of stopping at a stop sign. The cause of flight is the interaction of wings and air before one declares flight has been achieved. At what point in the process of running, flapping ones wings and jumping in the air does one achieve the effect of flight? It seems to me that lift is something you have already achieved to say that you are flying - not something that preceded the act of flying.

Just because we don't see moral principles "wandering about the world" (and I assume you mean wandering around independently of minds) does not mean that moral principles do not exist in the world.
They do - as mental constructs, or reasons, for determining one's actions. Morals exist only as characteristics of minds, just as ripeness only exists as a characteristic of of fruit. We don't see ripeness wandering about the world either. If that were the case the world would be a fruit, or the world a mind in the case of morals. They are properties of specific things in the world, like minds and fruit, not properties of the world itself.

Understandably, if there is no choice or decision -- if one adopts a hardcore physicalism or determinism -- then the distinction rather collapses. — J

Not necessarily. I am a determinist and a free-will Libertarian. How do I reconcile the two? I see freedom as having access to as much information as possible. By having access to as much information as possible, you are able to make more informed decisions. By having access to more information, you might choose differently, or you at least have the power to choose differently than you would have if you didn't have the information.

Many people make this assertion that determinism implies that you have the feeling of being forced into something you didn't want to. I say that determinism implies that you have a feeling of naturally choosing what decision is best. Your decisions and actions would feel natural, not forced, if determinism is the case. You always make the best decision with the information you have at that moment. It is only your fear of the consequences that you cannot foresee that make it feel forced. Thinking that you should have chosen differently only comes after the consequences have been realized (after you have more information).

That's a bit dire. I didn't say there was no such thing as a shared world, or that we can never decide how to talk about it meaningfully. I just meant that, taken out of any context, the term "the world" is going to refer to different things for different people. If you and I, or anyone else, want to introduce the term into a conversation, it would be a good idea to first agree on some rough reference. We could locate our usage on a map of well-known usages, such as physicalism, idealism, intersubjectivity, Platonism, et al.

I would say there's no wrong way to do this -- it's only a term -- we just need to stipulate how we'll use it. Then we can indeed talk about our shared world, and if it turns out that our way of using the term isn't as perspicuous as we wanted it to be, we can revise. — J

When someone says that "world" is going to mean different things for different people then you're saying that all qualifiers for "world" are up for debate, including "shared". You could be a solipsist for all I know.

Terms are not really the issue. It is what we are referring to with those words that is the issue. We might use different terms to refer to the same thing, or maybe the boundaries of our terms might overlap in some way. So what if I were to define the world as everything that was, is and will be?

I'm not sure if this line of questioning is going to be useful. Suffice to say, I am a monist and a determinist, so am going to view the world as seamless where there are no "physical" boundaries with the mental. Causes and reasons are the same thing from different views. One monist might say everything is physical. Another might say that everything is mental, or ideas. I like to try to merge the best of the two together and say that everything is information. The world consists of deterministic causal relations - information.

It's not just a matter of having access to information. It's also a matter of who to trust. I chose to trust a qualified and experienced psychiatrist over my parents because I thought that was the right thing to do. I can't even come off the 600 mg of Quetiapine XL I take per night because my brain has become dependent on this medication, and I can't function without it. I am depressed even though I take such a high dose. — Truth Seeker

Getting a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc opinion would also qualify as getting more information before making a decision. I always try to find natural remedies first and will seek alternate opinions if the first doctors are recommending pharmaceuticals or surgery first. They should always be a last resort. And another suggestion, children should listen to their parents more. Parents are not the ignorant, out of touch people that the media portrays to teens. Parents' motives are not typically related to money where a doctor's can be.

I meant whether my nonexistence would have been better for me, compared to the life I have lived so far, which has been mostly suffering. Also, my nonexistence would have prevented all of my negative and positive impacts on others and the world e.g. ecological footprint. I am a Vegan, Egalitarian, Sentientist. — Truth Seeker

That is an unanswerable question, and best not to waste time contemplating it as it would just make your depression worse. There is always someone or some animal that is suffering more. It would be more productive to focus on ways to improve your life than to focus on things you have no control over or can never hope to answer.

Not all of philosophy is contained in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. — boethius

All of philosophy is contained in language which Merriam-Webster provides guidance for using.

Furthermore, a dictionary's goal is to list the most common uses of a word, and not many, if any, meanings specific to a tradecraft or discipline. — boethius

Sure, you can use symbols arbitrarily for your own private use, but if you intend on sharing your ideas, then you might consider using words in ways that others are using them (the common use vs your own private use). It would be like you trying to talk to someone else in a different language.

Not only that, but your definitions need to integrate well with the other words we use that are defined in the dictionary, or you do you never use any words as they are defined in a dictionary?

2. the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism. — Google citing Oxford Languages

Sounds more like Libertarianism, not socialism. Libertarianism is for limited government that does not intrude on personal choices to voluntarily cooperate with other individuals while socialism/communism is for a more robust government that insists on imposing itself within and dictate every personal cooperative agreement. This is what I mean in that if you want to use a word differently it needs to integrate well with the way we use other related words, or else you'll find yourself redefining all words and creating your own language.

Also an important caveat, property in this context is the means of production — boethius

And where does production occur if not within a territory you have to own to then say that you own the means of production within that territory? Why isn't the means of production shared with other societies? Because the means of production occurred within a certain territory and not another.

Not everyone can have the latest iPhone. In a socialist society, who gets the latest iPhone?

Do you think it's the case that, in our everyday talk, no one would find a meaningful difference between what caused the broken window, and the reason why the window broke? — J

I'm not sure. This is the first time I'm asking this question of anyone, including myself. It does appear to be the case given how they are using the terms. I would have to ask that if they do mean something different, what exactly is it that is different.

What I have in mind is that reasons generally are broader, and to ask an interesting
question about reasons is often to require an answer that talks about more than some efficient cause like a tree limb. — J

I don't know. It seems to depend on what we are talking about. It seems to me that we can give specific reasons or broader reasons as to why some state-of-affairs is the case, and those reasons correspond to the causes as to why some state-of-affairs is the case. We could talk about more broader causes of the tree limb breaking in the tree had to grow to a certain height to have one of its branches break the window, another tree had to begat the tree near the window, all the way down to the Big Bang, or we could talk about the more immediate (specific) cause/reason as to why the window is broken - a tree limb broke and hit the window.

(And my personal view is that any talk of "the world" is going to be a matter of stipulation, as there is no agreement on how to use such a term.) — J

If you don't agree that the world is something we share, then I don't know how to talk to you about anything and we would just talk past each other all the time. Do you think that we are always talking past each other when talking about the shared world?

Well, mostly anarchists and communists are both communists — boethius

Then why do so many people on this forum conflate anarchy with libertarianism - as in do whatever you want?

Anarchy:
absence of government
b
: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
the city's descent into anarchy
c
: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without [any] government [including socialist governments]
2
a
: absence or denial of any authority or established order
anarchy prevailed in the war zone
b
: absence of order — Merriam Webster

It must be that the are using anarchy as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, not as defined in your "Marxist Dictionary".

the end goal is the same of living in equal and vibrant communities without private property. — boethius

You're leaving out the part where the socialist goal is for the state to be the only owner of property - privately owned and not shared with the rest of the world. Government property isn't much different than private property in that the government still has to defend it by force.

This happens because I am haunted by previous errors. If I had known how things would turn out, I would have chosen differently. — Truth Seeker

Exactly. If you had access to more information you would have chosen differently. So the question is, could it have been at all possible for you to have that information when making your decision? If not, then you can't blame yourself. You made the best possible decision given the information you had at that moment. Now, we could talk about who might be to blame, if anyone, for your limited access to information (and it could be you that is to blame if you chose to live in a bubble) that would have allowed you to make a more informed decision, but that is a different topic.

Wouldn't it have been better if I had never existed at all? — Truth Seeker

Only if you were Caligula, Hitler or Stalin. But even then, every human is an example of the variety humans come in and permits us to bear witness the scope of human experience and existence that exists.

That's why I mentioned what happens at a stop sign. What caused us to stop? Is what caused us to stop the same as the reason why we stopped?

A broken tree limb caused the broken window. The broken tree limb was the reason the window is broken. What's the difference?

I think the stop sign example is better because the process crosses those "physical" boundaries into the mental. The tree limb breaking the window does not include a mind in the process like the stopping at a stop sign does.

Is our reasoning merely representing the causal process? If we assert there are causal process in the world, why would that not be applied to our minds being that our minds are part of the world? If we were omniscient, we could predict every effect of every cause, and that would include the causes of others' behaviors - the reasons they use to act certain ways.

The plan was to approach the problem of relativism in a particular way, by acknowledging that you are already relying on some particular worldview (etc) when you face the question of whether some other worldview is "acceptable" or in some other way good. It's not like going shopping for something you don't have yet. (Hence the usefulness of the metaphor of where you live, since you must already live somewhere — Srap Tasmaner

I don't know. We are all born solipsists. When we reach 8-12 months of age we convert to realism by acquiring object permanence. Was realism and the idea of other minds a position the toddler already had, or did it just make more sense to the toddler that their mother (other minds) still exists when they are not seen or heard after interacting with the world over the past 8-12 months?

The sorts of issues I wanted to raise seem obvious to me: you've got a worldview, and presumably it provides the framework within which you will evaluate alternative worldviews ― smart money is on finding that you've already got the best one and the others are crap. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't know. If you start evaluating other worldviews are you not expressing some dissatisfaction with the one you currently have? Once you start evaluating other worldviews, can you say you are in a state of actually having one?

It's extraordinary to have someone use the internet to deny that the world is coherent and predictable. — Banno

It's extraordinary to claim that the world is coherent and predictable yet we all fail to come to a common understanding of what the world is, how it came to be, what our purpose is (or even if there there is one), what is moral, what is real, what is truth, what language is, etc.

Maybe the world is coherent and predictable to me and those that disagree with the way I interpret simply don't have the intellect to grasp the way I interpret it.

If the world is so coherent and predictable then why do you assert that so many people on this forum are wrong in the way they are interpreting their experiences of the world? Why don't you agree with me 100% of the time?

But reasoning is not a logical rule. — Quk

Reasoning is using reasons to support a conclusion - logic.

Is this a partial answer to the above questions? Do reasons determine a conclusion in the same way that a physical cause determines an effect? Not trying to back you into that position, just intrigued whether you do see them as the same. — J

What does "physical" mean? Your question seems to stem from a dualist perspective in that somehow mental processes not part of the "physical" world, or are somehow distinct from "physical" processes. Its all process. I don't see "physical" as a useful distinction when a process can encompass both physical and mental - like participating in a philosophical discussion on an internet forum. Reading involves the process of looking at the scribbles on your computer screen (what you might call a physical object) and processing the input to produce a valid response by typing on your keyboard and clicking the submit button.

What caused you to look at your computer screen? What caused you to interpret the scribbles on the screen the way you did? What caused your response to appear on others' computer screens? It seems to me that there was a whole lot of causation crossing "physical" boundaries here, appearing to be without any regard to "physical" things. Is the term even necessary?

Don't we point to "physical" states of affairs as reasons to act certain ways? For instance, when you see a Stop sign, is that not the reason you stop? A stop sign is a "physical" object that somehow becomes a mental construct - a reason - to perform an action - to stop. Why did you stop? Because there was a stop sign. You might also run into the stop sign and stop by the stop sign impeding your movement forward. Was the stop sign the reason you stopped in both cases?

If this is going somewhere, please dispense with Socratic questions and get to the point. On the other hand, if you have no clue, as you seem to imply, then go and have a good think, and get back to us when you have something to even start a conversation. I am not interested in watching you stumble in the dark. — SophistiCat

"Socratic questioning is a form of disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we do not know, to follow out logical consequences of thought or to control discussions. Socratic questioning is based on the foundation that thinking has structured logic, and allows underlying thoughts to be questioned. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that the former is systematic, disciplined, deep and usually focuses on fundamental concepts, principles, theories, issues or problems."
-Wikipedia.