Didn't say it was. — frank

Just wanted to clarify. Re God I mean

No, but I'm surprised that you don't. The argument you present is similar to what's known as the Clockmaker argument. It's a rationalist argument for God. — frank

Yes, Spinoza's view. Note that this is NOT my view. I'm indeterminist. I think the universe is imperfectly predetermined, only partly so, that there is some 'lash' between the wheels of that celestial clock, that if God exists, He can't or won't predict the future. He'd rather play dices

But then in my view these very imperfections make our world better than a perfectly determinist world, because a world where not everything is prewritten can allow novelty to happen. An indeterminist universe would be less static than a determinist universe, more evolutive, and that's a good thing.

Nope. Do you?

you'd agree that what you've said of science applies equally to making a shopping list. — frank

Completely. It applies to any cogent process.

E.g. if I give you a shopping list and I tell that it's the result of some chemical reaction within a solution of water and proteins structured through a set of phospholipid membranes, you are less likely to do the implied shopping than if I tell you that your wife wrote it and expects you home at 6 with the turkey.

Or is it reason? — frank

Reason, and its effectiveness. Reason as a force in this world.

I dont know much about Spinoza. I think a key to understanding Schopenhauer is to see identity as fluid. You can identify with Cause. — frank

Unfortunately, I don't know much about Schopenhauer.

This is in the vicinity of Schopenhauer — frank

Spinoza is right on that train of thought: determinist in a rational way, that is to say in a way that allows for reason to exist and to work.

Because to write down a meaningful (scientific) theory (or to contribute to it's development) is not something you can achieve by some random permutations of letters or some bubling up of a chemical soup. It takes an agent to write it down. Doing so is a deliberate act of cognition, based on a sample of observations that is itself deliberately selected to support some form of logical or mathematical analysis, some for of processing of observations, which is also deliberately chosen for this purpose based on a number of well argued reasons. The whole process ought to have logical coherence, and be described precisely so that it's replicable by other err... well... agents!

Science (or philosophy) is an activity of the human mind. It implies human agency, capacity to observe, to reason, to speak and to act on this basis.

More precisely, some form of agency is implied by the capacity to develop meaningful and possibly true theories (which are more than just assertions).

But there are still causes that result in mutations and malapropisms. They aren't random. They only appear that way because of our ignorance. — Harry Hindu

Is this a relevant consideration though? Does the source of the error matter? And if yes, 1) why does it matter; and 2) what evidence do you have that this is indeed always the case?

My point is: any code replicated long enough WILL at some point get wrongly copied, whatever the cause of the error. In practice, there is no such thing as a perfect information replication system that can always get it right.

Shoot. I think it's logically watertight. It's not my idea by the way. It's been said time and again, including in the very terms I used by a US cognitive scientist who's name I can't locate now.

Support. Accommodate is too weak. Let me try to explain what I mean.

Let us start with a logical point: A theory cannot deny the possibility of its own existence, as a meaningful and possibly true theory. It's like the cogito applied to theories. Or Russel's paradox applied to theories. No theory can state that "no theory can possibly exist that make any sense". Because if such a theory is true, then it makes no sense.... It self destructs, in a way.

Therefore, any theory about the inner workings of the universe (or about human beings within it) must allow for its own emergence, in this very universe it describes, as a meaningful and possibly true theory.

This very simple, logical point rules out any 'naïve materialist' view eg epiphenomenalism. If thoughts are meaningless noise made by the brain, then the idea that thoughts are meaningless noise made by the brain is itself meaningless noise made by the brain. The theory undermines itself; it doesn't allow for its own emergence as a meaningful and possibly true theory.

Therefore, any determinist theory worth it's salt must consider theories and thus thoughts as meaningful and operative, causative. It must integrate thoughts as possible causes of events. That is to say, it must view our mental space as mechanistic and predetermined (of course, being deterministic), but an integral part of this cosmic cause and effect game of the universe.

Therefore supporting the concept of 'agency'.

I think it does. Even some forms of determinism support volition (if by that you mean agency).

I see no good reason to assume an infinity of worlds. It's a very heavy hypothesis, it assumes a humongous lot, and to explain away what? A little randomness in the way our universe works at pixel level... I'd rather go for the latter hypothesis.

As I've said a few times, if we ever devise a test to discern whether QM is Copenhagen-like or MWI-like that is inconsistent with the latter, I would consider fundamental determinism falsified — Kenosha Kid

Put this way, the choice is between: 1) assuming that the wheels of determinism have a little 'lash' between them (indeterminism), and 2) assuming the existence of billions of billions of billions of parallel universes out there...

Which opens the question of "fair" with respect to the rules, or fair under some extended notion of fairness? — tim wood

As you must know, there's the law and then there's the spirit of the law. The two are always a bit askew.

Okay, good point that chaos and regularities are not mutually exclusive. And I agree that there is some degree of chaos in my own mind at least - a necessary feature for creativity me think. But there must also be strong integration and regulation mechanisms at play, because in the final analysis people tend to be predictable. At least to a degree. They have their strengths and weaknesses for instance.

I believe that consciousness is one such mechanism working toward coherence. It's an integrative mechanism, like a mental dashboard, that prepares for action. Action is singular by nature:you can't flee and fight at the same time, you can't make two chess moves at the same time. You must chose one way or the other (exclusive 'or') often under severe time constraints.

Such integration of disparate information and thoughts into a coherent framework for data-based decision making must be an energy-hungry and tiring process, which would explain sleep as a universal phenomenon among superior animals. Sleep is when our mind disintegrates a bit.

In this view, schizophrenia would be a mental integration failure.

Evidently DNA codes for proteins and not for thoughts like human languages do, so it stands to reason there will be major differences between the two types of code.

But both are codes, and when one codes, one may always make a coding error. It is a universal law that copying information cannot be 100% perfect all the time. Errors do creep in duplications, always.

And these errors can create new meaning, just like a DNA mutation can create a new protein.

It's all about how the system builds upon it's own errors, and uses them as a source of novelty.

Creating new theories...

Novelty.

That's what's left sorely unaccounted for. The attribution of meaning to that which is not already meaningful. — creativesoul

Indeed. I propose that malapropisms are the random mutations of human languages. DNA too is a language, though a chemical one, and what I find interesting is how replication error (mutations) can be a strength in that they introduce novelty.

The brain is highly structured, and not chaotic in the sense that people are predictable to a fair degree. They sleep at certain times, they have certain habits such as tea or coffee, certain opinions that are so we'll rooted that no amount of conversation can change them, etc. This is not typical of a chaotic system. Too predictable.

if two brains can be said to be physically identical then it doesn't get more identical than conjoined twins — TheMadFool

Fair enough but it's still a mind experiment, so there is no harm in assuming the two brains absolutely identical in every way at start.

Freedom

My teacher told me one day about something called freedom
I asked the teacher to kindly speak Arabic
Is freedom a Greek word for some historical epoch?
Or something we import... Is it a local product?
Our teacher answered with sadness and tears flowing forth:
You have forgotten all your history and all the lofty values
How I regret that this generation does not understand the meaning of freedom
Does hold neither sword nor pen; does carry nor thought nor identity

Never
Would Pharaoh dare to raise his head
If the people resisted and fought back

I learned of our teacher’s death in solitary confinement
I vowed that as long as God keeps me alive I will not rest
Until I roamed the whole earth in search for the meaning of freedom
And I stood at the niche of history to ask her what freedom is
[History said] You cannot beg freedom from the international monetary markets
Freedom cannot be granted by any charitable organization
Freedom is a plant that grows watered by free and pure blood
So that the youth, the girls and the boys will arise, who adore freedom (x3)

Never
Would Pharaoh dare to raise his head
If the people resisted and fought back

The people
The people
The people want freedom!

June is on the run
For so long
Pushed and pulled then shunned
It was so wrong
These four walls crashing in
Won't stop me now
Cause I'm alive
I'm out tonight
All night

Everybody needs to know
It's the year of the rat
Everyday we've got to hold on
Cause if we hold on
We could find some new energy

Streets with flags unfurled
Like treasure
Thank me for my words
It's a pleasure
Just don't ask me to stay
Cause I'll be gone
But it's alright, I'm okay
Always

Everybody needs to know
It's the year of the rat
Everyday we've got to hold on
Cause if we hold on
We could find some new energy

One
Plus one is one
Together

irie, mon :fire: — 180 Proof

Beg you pardon?

Edit:

irie
/ˈʌɪriː/
adjective
(chiefly in Jamaican English) nice, good, or pleasing (used as a general term of approval).
"the place is jumping with irie vibes"

I think we should leave a room for fair competition. Eg in business or sports, when you're trying to win but in a fair way.

Hats off.

I also explained that the differences are irrelevant to brain function. — TheMadFool

I am sympathetic to the broad thrust of your argument but find this particular premise a bit shaky.

One could posit that the brains of two identical twins are more similar to one another than, say, the brains of two siblings or those of two people taken at random. I don't know whether it's a proven fact but it can reasonably be argued. But brains of identical twins are always different in their 'fine structure' of neuron connections as you say, and the brains of any two strangers (e.g. yours and mine) are generally indentical in terms of their 'large structures' (cerebrum etc.). So the 'large structure' argument works for any pair of brains, not just for twins. It doesn't really cut it here, it's not specific to any twins.

I would rather start with two hypothetically identical brains in the twins. That is, erase the irreducible 'fine structure' differences by making the whole thing a thought experiment: let's assume for the sake of the argument that the twins' brains are identical, so they share the same brain and the same environment.

In this manner one can introduce the inevitable competition between the two brothers (even though they share that competition too) as one of the possible factors of divergence in the twins' general character and attitude to life.

Here is the story of Layla and Majnun - an Arab pre-Islamic tale of love and solitude. Very contemplative music. I gather that it's an old poem that Souad Massi put in music. If anyone can try and translate the lyrics, that'd be great.


Sand drawings by Nadia Amlou

تَذَكَّرتُ لَيلى وَالسِنينَ الخَوالِيا
وَأَيّامَ لا نَخشى عَلى اللَهوِ ناهِيا
وَيَومٍ كَظِلِّ الرُمحِ قَصَّرتُ ظِلَّهُ
بِلَيلى فَلَهّاني وَما كُنتُ لاهِيا
بِثَمدينَ لاحَت نارُ لَيلى وَصُحبَتي
بِذاتِ الغَضى تُزجي المَطِيَّ النَواجِيا

فَيا لَيلَ كَم مِن حاجَةٍ لي مُهِمَّةٍ
إِذا جِئتُكُم بِاللَيلِ لَم أَدرِ ماهِيا

فَقالَ بَصيرُ القَومِ أَلمَحتُ كَوكَباً
بَدا في سَوادِ اللَيلِ فَرداً يَمانِيا
فَقُلتُ لَهُ بَل نارُ لَيلى تَوَقَّدَت
بِعَليا تَسامى ضَوءُها فَبَدا لِيا
فَلَيتَ رِكابَ القَومِ لَم تَقطَعِ الغَضى
وَلَيتَ الغَضى ماشى الرِكابَ لَيالِيا

فَيا لَيلَ كَم مِن حاجَةٍ لي مُهِمَّةٍ
إِذا جِئتُكُم بِاللَيلِ لَم أَدرِ ماهِيا

Old pirates, yes, they rob I
Sold I to the merchant ships
Minutes after they took I
From the bottomless pit

But my hands was made strong
By the hand of the Almighty
We forward in this generation
Triumphantly

Won't you help to sing
These songs of freedom?
'Cause all I ever have
Redemption songs
Redemption songs

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery
None but ourselves can free our minds
Have no fear for atomic energy
'Cause none of them can stop the time

How long shall they kill our prophets
While we stand aside and look?
Uh, some say it's just a part of it
We've got to fulfill the book

Won't you help to sing…


Bob Marley & The Wailers - Redemption Song


(beautiful video)

That's why I get so cross when people want to take that argument away on the purely ideological grounds that they feel more comfortable about the idea of free-will. It's fine on a random internet forum, but in the real world such nonsense actually threatens years of progress dealing with the mentally ill and socially deprived defendants. — Isaac

Maybe you get cross just because your braincells determine you to be cross... I'm trying to be really charitable here, Isaac style, by thinking of you as a puppet rather than as an agent.

Indeed I know better than that, and you don't even know what you mean...

What is at fault is the explanation of communication in terms of reified meaning. — Banno

Meaning is not a thing, huh? I guess it's a nothing then, which is true in the specific case of people who make a lot of noise with their mouth to say nothing.

In essence, the two brains of conjoined twins are identical — TheMadFool

Nope. In the previous lines you argued they aren't, that they differ in their 'fine structure'.

These twins, because they're stuck to each other, share the same experiences — TheMadFool

I imagine that if I had to share limbs with my brother, we would have fought even more than we did. There's a competitive element in people's relations, which has to be taken into account. Some twins want to differentiate themselves from their brother/sister.

But of course there is not one thing that is what was actually meant, and which is shared by multiple folk. — Banno

And hence communication is impossible... :joke:

Then again, I didn't really answer the question of the OP of 'what is the purpose of philosophy', but rather addressed 'what is a purpose of philosophy'. — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes, there could be many purposes to philosophy, as also pointed by Mo.

Often we search in philosophy some ways to work on our weaknesses: to reassure ourselves by analysing away our fears, to buttress our confused thoughts, to strengthen our fledging morale, to calm down and get a grip on our anger, or to find the way out of a connendrum we often face.

I think good philosophy can help solve such real-life problems, when you take it as a (modest, uncertain) self-improvement project. But it can also be treacherous. Bad philosophy can do harm.

But he argues that indeterminism is no better than determinism in this respect — SophistiCat

Yes, and that is the key take away message for me: whether one adopts a determinist or an indeterminist outlook doesn't change the problem of freedom that much.

Edit: That's because the question of whether somebody could (theoretically speaking) have acted differently now seems esoteric to me, and secondary to a better question, more pragmatic and real, which is whether somebody should (morally speaking) have acted differently. And if you ask the question this way, it is meaningful even in a fully determinist outlook.

Rome's republican institutions have left an enduring legacy, influencing the Italian city-state republics of the medieval period, as well as the early United States and other modern democratic republics. — Gus Lamarch

Indeed. It's noticeable in many ways, one of my pet topics being the symbolic use of public space and monuments. All the Washington DC highlights (senate, white house etc.) copy Rome. Even the obelisc is not an Egyptian reference as much as an imperial one. Romans put Egyptian obeliscs all over their city, and these monuments say: "We conquered the Egyptian empire of old." Bonaparte did the same thing in Paris: he brought back an obelisc from his Egypt campaign, to do like the Romans did and symbolise power. And that's also why there's this big obelisc planted in the heart of DC. It's basically a phalic symbol of imperial power inherited from ancient Rome.

I don't see a logical issue there. — Isaac

Maybe that's because you are predetermined not to see a logical issue here.

either mental states do not constrain our free choice at all (which means no one has any diminished responsibility), or mental states do constrain our free choice, — Isaac

We are our mental states, own them, identify with them. And so whatever degree of freedom we have is just a part of our mental state's ways of working, not something separate from them.

there's no logical problem with those constraints being absolute. — Isaac

There are lots of logical problems linked with thinking of constraints as absolute, especially when they don't look absolute. For instance: if you Isaac are completely and totally determined as you seem to think you are, is what you are saying still philosophy, or is it instead just the product of some molecular machine that can't think otherwise?

I've not heard this definition anywhere — Isaac

Well, Echarmion put the same idea much better than I could, so let's use his characterisation:

That is, for a given state at T0, more than one future state of the system is possible — Echarmion

The neurological basis of decision-making, for example, which started this discussion, needs, under indeterministic interpretations, some mechanism whereby physical action is brought about without physical causation. QM is often invoked as the mechanism, but so far resolves to classical mechanics at a cellular scale, so cannot account for it. — Isaac

I don't think this is a proven fact. Pretty large molecules have been found to display wave-particle duality, for instance. This said, I personally doubt the explication for "the hard problem" is as simple as quantic physics. There's a lot more we don't know in there.

Determinism is the theory that every event is the result it's causes, — Isaac

That is the definition of causality, not determinism. Maybe we should try and define what we are talking about a bit better. My understanding is that determinism requires that every given set of causes results in one and only one possible set of effects. The effect is determined in the sense that the solution to the equation is always supposed to be unique.

If a given set of causes can result in several possible effects, then the effects are not fully determined and thus we are in an indeterminist outlook.

You're completely crazy. I never said anything like that.

Edit: Also you are being unfair and unjust, accusing a random stranger (me) of wanting to put innocents in jail just because I believe in moral responsibility.

So what's you excuse for behaving as a board inquisitor? You can't help yourself because Mom and Pop determined you to become the Scourge of God on TPF?