But those patterns could be generalized to include, what would happen in the hypothetical case it was possible and happened?

But those patterns could be generalized to include, what would happen in the hypothetical case it was possible and happened? — BlueBanana

I use my creative thought to conceive of new patterns that fit all observed patterns. I've never witnessed anyone who has ever come back in time nor have I ever traveled through time, not has anyone ever told be that they have observed such phenomenon.

In philosophy I attempt to understand life/nature. When writing fiction, I'll use a different aspect of my creative mind. The two are different - with similarities.

The fundamental problem with both modern philosophy and science is that creative fiction is replacing direct observation. It is the way it is being taught. Writing friction requires limited experience. It can be taught in a course, both science and philosophy. Developing observational practice takes much time and experience. It requires patience.

Let the following proposition S represent a theory of causal determination:

S: "For every event A, the state of A is determinable by a particular function of the states of all prior events {B,C,D,...} "

If S is true then it is vacuous and says nothing:

Proof:

1) Causal determination implies that the causal theory of reference is true.

2) The causal theory of reference implies that signification of future events is the signification of past events in disguise.

3) Therefore if S is true, its meaning is fully determined by past events and refers only to past events.

4) Therefore if S is true, S is equivalent to asserting that the past is describable by a function.

4) The past is identical with itself, and hence constitutes such a function of description.

5) Therefore if S is true, S says nothing.

Determinism is meaningless and says absolutely nothing (well it says something about its adherents, but v that is a different story).

The meaningless of Determinism can be felt. One must quietly ponder all the Determinism is suggesting including the meaningless of pondering about it. It is a cute game - pretending we are robots. I use to play it as a child. But how many people really believe it? I suspect few, and those who do are walking down a path of meaningless, where ever it may leave them.

A healthy life is one that embraces life. There is enough there to discover to last many lifetimes.

1) Causal determination implies that the causal theory of reference is true. — sime

Not sure how you've derived this, so you might need to expand. There are many critics of the causal theory of reference who are determinists, John Searle for example.

2) The causal theory of reference implies that signification of future events is the signification of past events in disguise.
3) Therefore if S is true, its meaning is fully determined by past events and refers only to past events. — sime

You've way overstated the causal theory here, it's only semantic, if you want to extend it to all of the 'meaning' of a statement you'll have to explain how you've made that jump.

Finally your conclusion at 5 doesn't follow at all by necessity from your previous premise, at least not without further exposition.

Unless a determinist asserts retro-causality (which would seem to nullify his position), I don't see how it is possible to both accept what the determinist says and to understand his sentences as being future-referring. Hence if he is correct, I can only understand him as describing the past which is essentially to say nothing of predictive value.

Where precisely does this argument go wrong?

Unless a determinist asserts retro-causality (which would seem to nullify his position), I don't see how it is possible to both accept what the determinist says and to understand his sentences as being future-referring. — sime

Yes, I see how you arrived at your statements with regards to reference, given a causal reference theory, what I'm saying is that you do not have to adopt a causal reference theory at all. If your references are merely descriptivist, or even mediated, but in some non-causal way, then a sentence can refer to a determined future by reference to the predictions of the users, which are a current state.

Yes, I see how you arrived at your statements with regards to reference, given a causal reference theory, what I'm saying is that you do not have to adopt a causal reference theory at all. If your references are merely descriptivist, or even mediated, but in some non-causal way, then a sentence can refer to a determined future by reference to the predictions of the users, which are a current state. — Pseudonym

But how can descriptivism be irreducible to the causal theory of reference if causal determinism is true? I don't see what non-causal semantic options are available to the causal determinist. Either his utterances reduce to their causes, or they do not.

All I can fathom is that for the causal determinist, predicting the future is synonymous with responding automatically to the past, hence the determinist has no reason to believe that his future-contingent beliefs amount to anything except for disguised summaries of his past experience.

The situation seems analogous to the determinist going for a walk backwards so that he only sees where he has walked and saying in response to his observations "this is determined" "now this is determined", which is to say nothing meaningful, and with the determinist having no idea what he is about to walk into.

One's utterances can reduce to their causes without being vacuous. Even under causal reference, if we presume that the 'baptism' and affirmations of meaning have determined a state of the subject's brain then his utterances refer to that state, either by descriptive (preferably) or even causal reference, at a stretch.

So I'm struggling to see why you think such statements are vacuous.

2) The causal theory of reference implies that signification of future events is the signification of past events in disguise.

3) Therefore if S is true, its meaning is fully determined by past events and refers only to past events. — sime

Does not follow. The function is only determined by the past, but its value (=what it refers to) is the future.

It is contradictory to say that determinism is true.

If everything is an effect of an antecedent cause then that includes determinism. Therefore, with respect to determinism it is correct only to say that something is determined.

"Determinism is determined" is the only correct statement.

Still waiting to hear what determined/caused determinism.

You only have that evience about non-conscious objects. You can't apply those conclusions to include people. — BlueBanana

This is utter nonsense. It's nonsense for the simple fact that it is false. But more ridiculous in that your use of this claim is offered in some sort of mystcal claim that because a person is conscious they can exist outside the realms of cause and effect.
I bet you believe in the myth of positive thinking, where you just have to dream up something in order to have it.
Well DUH.
If you want something you have to DO SOMETHING to cause a thing to happen.

So when a radioactive atom decays, are you saying that was determined by a cause? Something suddenly made its decay more probable, nay inescapable, in that moment rather than - as inductively confirmed in the study of these things - that the decay probability does not vary with time? The chance was constant, therefore the determinism was - measurably - zero? — apokrisis

Predictable; caused. Deterministic. What is your problem?

But more ridiculous in that your use of this claim is offered in some sort of mystcal claim that because a person is conscious they can exist outside the realms of cause and effect. — charleton

It's not anymore nonsensical than claiming consciousness is bound by those rules with no evidence. There's 0 evidence of either claim.

I bet you believe in the myth of positive thinking, where you just have to dream up something in order to have it.
Well DUH.
If you want something you have to DO SOMETHING to cause a thing to happen. — charleton

What is any of this based on? If you want to keep your comments brief, so be it, but don't fill them with ad hominems or unrelated and unbased claims.

Still waiting to hear what determined/caused determinism. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I don't think any determinist claims to have 'solved' the puzzle of the ultimate cause, but that doesn't make determinism wrong. No metaphysics solve this puzzle. If the world had a creator, then who made God and gave him the properties he had? Maybe God created the universe, made it entirely deterministic and then immediately ceased to exist. Maybe time did not exist until matter so there was no 'before' determinism and so nothing determined determinism because there was no such thing as cause and effect before it.

We cannot solve these problems within our own frame of reference, but that's common to all metaphysics, I don't see how determinism is any different.

Determinism is on every level and every where, but on occasion must be taken to the infinite decimal place. The cause originated in the commodity of product, yes, this simple. The art is in the simplicity, philosophical affirmations. These are what people remember, and it makes philosophy avilable for everybody, not merely the present ivory tower gods..

What is any of this based on? If you want to keep your comments brief, so be it, but don't fill them with ad hominems or unrelated and unbased claims. — BlueBanana

It's called induction. And despite its failings, as taken humans from primitive animals to technological experts, masters of the world.
I have the entire history of civilisation on my side as evidence. What do you have Depak Chopra and his gay band of mystics.

It's called induction. And despite its failings, as taken humans from primitive animals to technological experts, masters of the world. — charleton

Induction requires existing perceptions to induct from. All the humans you know have the power to dream up anything to have it, therefor I have as well?

I have the entire history of civilisation on my side as evidence. — charleton

Ah yes, the ancient Egyptian writings of BlueBanana conjuring things by the power of his will. Am I time traveler or immortal?

Ah yes, the ancient Egyptian writings of BlueBanana conjuring things by the power of his will. Am I time traveler or immortal? — BlueBanana

Neither, just a bit confused by the sound of it.

Neither, just a bit confused by the sound of it. — charleton

Go ahead and clarify then.

Clarify your immortality???

You do know how quotations work, right? If I quote a claim of yours and say "clarify" I mean "clarify the thing I quoted".

You made the claim I believe in "the myth of positive thinking". I asked for proof. You quoted that question and said you "have the entire history of civilisation" as your proof. My obviously sarcastic and rhetoric question was a clear implication the history of mankind cannot be used to draw conclusions about my personal thoughts. Then you denied this by calling me confused, and I asked you to clarify your reasoning for this claim.

There is no other correct approach than the most direct one, the shortest route, for every single other approach contains within it the potential to eventually take one almost anywhere. Beyond directness there is subject change, one is discussing side issues.not directly essentially a part of a given question. This has always been a deliberate ploy by those sat in ivory towers, and in their effort of making philosophy exclusive. The genuine art of philosophy is to be measured in terms of straight forward simplicity We are programmed to be led by that which we find hardest to grasp, such is the power of this institution....

It's for me to decide where you seem confused.
And immortality is that area

And immortality is that area — charleton

sarcastic — BlueBanana

I can even go ahead and admit my confusion about my mortality if that makes you happy but I'd be delighted if this discussion could advance somewhere, so would you care to explain how the history of human civilization is evidence of my beliefs?

We are programmed — celebritydiscodave

Probably by gods.

Why would a god do that?

Why would a god do that? — BlueBanana

I don't know. Maybe they got a degree in programming and decided everything has to be programmed. Gods are like people, they like to imagine things.

During our nurturing years and then on until our mid teens. Age prejudice, for instance, is often not entirely established until then, or even slightly later.. Much of our broader thinking tends to being programmed, leaving us only with the detail. The media is at the center of this, where the world of best and most desiring to be read stories is thought to be the real world. The real world can in reality only be known first hand..I`m not offering you proof but then neither do you likely require it, for your instinct for that which is correct when honestly applied is often far more than just adequate. Better than endless get you nowhere counter arguments any day..

If one views life as an evolving Mind there are all kinds of sources for prejudice, mostly related to economics. However, if everything is Determined, there is only one source, the God of the Laws of Nature, and there ain't anything anyone can do about that. It's all programmed, right?