Change and contingency

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Change and contingency

Post by promethean75 »

Alright but just remember that...

"Spinoza was critical of some Christian thinkers’ advocation of both a finite and an infinite substance. Aquinas had assumed the two were not “univocally substantial” (Jones 199), meaning that finite beings and God are not substantially the same. Spinoza reasoned that, if finite beings are not substantially the same as God, why, then, are they called substances? He saw this as absurd. A substance, as previously mentioned, is that which has its existence in itself. Spinoza believed that Aquinas put forth this assumption in order to satisfy Christian dogma..."
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Change and contingency

Post by bahman »

promethean75 wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:59 pm Alright but just remember that...

"Spinoza was critical of some Christian thinkers’ advocation of both a finite and an infinite substance. Aquinas had assumed the two were not “univocally substantial” (Jones 199), meaning that finite beings and God are not substantially the same. Spinoza reasoned that, if finite beings are not substantially the same as God, why, then, are they called substances? He saw this as absurd. A substance, as previously mentioned, is that which has its existence in itself. Spinoza believed that Aquinas put forth this assumption in order to satisfy Christian dogma..."
I have an issue with God being an infinite substance as well. I don't know how it follows from the fact that God is His existence.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Change and contingency

Post by promethean75 »

What's going on there is Spinoza is rejecting Aquinas' claim that humans aren't of the same substance as 'god', on the following grounds.

First, for Spinoza, to be a substance is to be a self-caused necessary being that isn't dependent on the existence of anything else, to exist. Humans aren't like this. They don't have to exist, and if they do, they couldn't, wouldn't, be their own cause.

Spinoza would call humans just modes and modifications of the self same substance. They are finite, unnecessary beings that are causally determined but not... say, ontologically necessary.

Aquinas is tryna call both 'god' and man, individually existing substances.

Now if man is his own cause, he has the characteristics of substance, yes... and he wouldn't be causally related to, engaged with and dependent on, the other substance, 'god'. For Spinoza, two or more substances are logically impossible.

He explains all this right out da gate in The Ethics, tho.

I have dubbed this the Spinz problem of the transubstantiation of causation in a dual substance system.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Change and contingency

Post by bahman »

promethean75 wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:46 pm What's going on there is Spinoza is rejecting Aquinas' claim that humans aren't of the same substance as 'god', on the following grounds.
I think that God's mind is similar to the human mind. Both are the uncaused causes. How could a human has free will if his existence depends on something else? I have two arguments for the mind being eternal. The argument from free will (weak argument) and the argument from change (strong one).
promethean75 wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:46 pm First, for Spinoza, to be a substance is to be a self-caused necessary being that isn't dependent on the existence of anything else, to exist. Humans aren't like this. They don't have to exist, and if they do, they couldn't, wouldn't, be their own cause.
That is true for humans but not the human mind.
promethean75 wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:46 pm Spinoza would call humans just modes and modifications of the self same substance.
What does self-same substance mean?
promethean75 wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:46 pm They are finite, unnecessary beings that are causally determined but not... say, ontologically necessary.
To me, the human mind is an uncaused cause. How it could be otherwise when s/he is free?
promethean75 wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:46 pm Aquinas is tryna call both 'god' and man, individually existing substances.
I think so. They have separate minds.
promethean75 wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:46 pm Now if man is his own cause, he has the characteristics of substance, yes... and he wouldn't be causally related to, engaged with and dependent on, the other substance, 'god'. For Spinoza, two or more substances are logically impossible.
Why not? What is his argument? I have an argument that there are at least two minds.
promethean75 wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:46 pm He explains all this right out da gate in The Ethics, tho.

I have dubbed this the Spinz problem of the transubstantiation of causation in a dual substance system.
Ahan.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Change and contingency

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:53 pm
Age wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 8:52 am
bahman wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 5:48 pm
A falling apple.
So, the ACTUAL 'object' itself is NOT 'changing', only the 'place', the apple IS IN, is 'changing', correct?

If no, then what EXACTLY is 'the change', 'in this object', itself, which I am supposed to be considering here?
The actual object changes too. It just seems that it is not changing since the relative positions of all atoms are similar.
OF COURSE the actual object is changing. Absolutely EVERY object is changing ALWAYS, and it is this Fact that is what REFUTES what you are 'trying to' claim here.
bahman wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:53 pm
Age wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 8:52 am
bahman wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 5:48 pm
Cool.
So, HOW EXACTLY does this relate back to 'the apple', itself?
What do you mean? I thought you agree.
Well you thought Wrong.
bahman wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:53 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 am
bahman wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 5:48 pm
What is that thing that exists when the object is not X?
The rest of the Universe.
But the universe is subject to change at each instance.
It is YOUR use of the word 'instance' here where all of YOUR CONFUSION and Wrong concepts lay and exist.

The Universe, itself, NOR ANY other object starts and stops NOR comes from nothing. Contrary to what you BELIEVE, there is NO actual separated 'instance', as there is only a consistent flux, or flowing, of change.
bahman wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:53 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 am
bahman wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 5:48 pm
By contingency, I mean that the object is needed a cause to exist.
AND, by Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is caused and created by at least two OTHER 'things', I mean; OF COURSE there is a CAUSE for EVERY object to exist.

What were you IMAGINING?

Were you considering 'things' come from NO 'thing'?
But other things are subject to change at each instance too.
Age wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 am
bahman wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 5:48 pm If it is obvious to you then cool, but you need to prove it.
WHEN you are ABLE TO and ACTUALLY DO inform us of what the 'it' word means, or refers to, in your sentence here, then I will DECIDE if I will prove 'it' or not.

Oh, and by the way, WHY are you under some sort of DELUSION that I NEED to prove 'it'?

I do NOT 'need' to prove absolutely ANY 'thing' here.

'you' are the ONE making the CLAIMS here. I am just the one CHALLENGING 'you' and ASKING the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here.
Ok, so you have no proof.
FOR WHAT, EXACTLY?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Change and contingency

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:17 am
bahman wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:53 pm
Age wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 8:52 am

So, the ACTUAL 'object' itself is NOT 'changing', only the 'place', the apple IS IN, is 'changing', correct?

If no, then what EXACTLY is 'the change', 'in this object', itself, which I am supposed to be considering here?
The actual object changes too. It just seems that it is not changing since the relative positions of all atoms are similar.
OF COURSE the actual object is changing. Absolutely EVERY object is changing ALWAYS, and it is this Fact that is what REFUTES what you are 'trying to' claim here.
Ok, I am glad that you agree that the actual object is changing.
Age wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 8:52 am
bahman wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:53 pm
Age wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 8:52 am


So, HOW EXACTLY does this relate back to 'the apple', itself?
What do you mean? I thought you agree.
Well you thought Wrong.
Ok.
Age wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 am
bahman wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:53 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 am

The rest of the Universe.
But the universe is subject to change at each instance.
It is YOUR use of the word 'instance' here where all of YOUR CONFUSION and Wrong concepts lay and exist.

The Universe, itself, NOR ANY other object starts and stops NOR comes from nothing. Contrary to what you BELIEVE, there is NO actual separated 'instance', as there is only a consistent flux, or flowing, of change.
This is the last time that I discuss this with you: The distance between two points is either zero or non-zero. You cannot build anything from zero and the non-zero interval is discrete.
Age wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 am
bahman wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:53 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 am

AND, by Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is caused and created by at least two OTHER 'things', I mean; OF COURSE there is a CAUSE for EVERY object to exist.

What were you IMAGINING?

Were you considering 'things' come from NO 'thing'?
But other things are subject to change at each instance too.
Age wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 am

WHEN you are ABLE TO and ACTUALLY DO inform us of what the 'it' word means, or refers to, in your sentence here, then I will DECIDE if I will prove 'it' or not.

Oh, and by the way, WHY are you under some sort of DELUSION that I NEED to prove 'it'?

I do NOT 'need' to prove absolutely ANY 'thing' here.

'you' are the ONE making the CLAIMS here. I am just the one CHALLENGING 'you' and ASKING the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here.
Ok, so you have no proof.
FOR WHAT, EXACTLY?
To prove that anything that is subject to change is contingent.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Change and contingency

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 4:31 pm
Age wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:17 am
bahman wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:53 pm
The actual object changes too. It just seems that it is not changing since the relative positions of all atoms are similar.
OF COURSE the actual object is changing. Absolutely EVERY object is changing ALWAYS, and it is this Fact that is what REFUTES what you are 'trying to' claim here.
Ok, I am glad that you agree that the actual object is changing.
I hope you have finally realized that they are ALL ALWAYS changing.
bahman wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 4:31 pm
Age wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 8:52 am
bahman wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:53 pm
What do you mean? I thought you agree.
Well you thought Wrong.
Ok.
Age wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 am
bahman wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:53 pm
But the universe is subject to change at each instance.
It is YOUR use of the word 'instance' here where all of YOUR CONFUSION and Wrong concepts lay and exist.

The Universe, itself, NOR ANY other object starts and stops NOR comes from nothing. Contrary to what you BELIEVE, there is NO actual separated 'instance', as there is only a consistent flux, or flowing, of change.
This is the last time that I discuss this with you: The distance between two points is either zero or non-zero. You cannot build anything from zero and the non-zero interval is discrete.
The reason WHY this is YOUR 'last time' you discuss this with me is because you do NOT want to be SHOWN for being Wrong, ONCE AGAIN.

See, I can PROVE that movement, or creation AND evolution, is in a CONSTANT and CONTINUOUS FLOW of 'change'.

Whereas, you have absolutely NO proof AT ALL for YOUR CLAIM that there are stop/start intervals along the continual line of 'change'.

The so-called "non-zero interval" is just in your OWN imagination "bahman". And, it exists there because of the LUDICROUS way you LOOK AT 'things', the Universe.
bahman wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 4:31 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 am
bahman wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:53 pm
But other things are subject to change at each instance too.


Ok, so you have no proof.
FOR WHAT, EXACTLY?
To prove that anything that is subject to change is contingent.
Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is 'subject to change'.

HOWEVER, it could be argued that human beings' BELIEF is NOT 'subject to change'.

As PROVED True by the one known here as "bahman" itself.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Change and contingency

Post by promethean75 »

I don't like to talk metaphysics bahman but yer pulling me in.

In the human being, 'mind' is not an independent substance (of nature) and it doesn't have 'freewill'. Instead it's a mode of being that has a one-way causal relationship with the mode of extended physical things in space... so all of its content, of the 'mind's' content, is either knowledge and experience of the effects on the body (sense data), or knowledge of deductive, self-evident truths, and as such, the intellect is entirely determined by the state(s) of the physical world, it mirrors it... exercising no "freewill" over what is experienced and becomes known (or believed) by the experiencer.

'the order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things', as your boy spinz put it.

'Mind' is just one attribute of nature and not an essential substance itself; it doesn't have to exist by definition, and can't be its own cause if it does end up existing. And insofar as man has 'mind', 'god' has 'mind', but only because 'mind' is an attribute of nature, and nature is what 'god' is.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Change and contingency

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:53 am
bahman wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 4:31 pm
Age wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:17 am

OF COURSE the actual object is changing. Absolutely EVERY object is changing ALWAYS, and it is this Fact that is what REFUTES what you are 'trying to' claim here.
Ok, I am glad that you agree that the actual object is changing.
I hope you have finally realized that they are ALL ALWAYS changing.
bahman wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 4:31 pm
Age wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 8:52 am


Well you thought Wrong.
Ok.
Age wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 am

It is YOUR use of the word 'instance' here where all of YOUR CONFUSION and Wrong concepts lay and exist.

The Universe, itself, NOR ANY other object starts and stops NOR comes from nothing. Contrary to what you BELIEVE, there is NO actual separated 'instance', as there is only a consistent flux, or flowing, of change.
This is the last time that I discuss this with you: The distance between two points is either zero or non-zero. You cannot build anything from zero and the non-zero interval is discrete.
The reason WHY this is YOUR 'last time' you discuss this with me is because you do NOT want to be SHOWN for being Wrong, ONCE AGAIN.

See, I can PROVE that movement, or creation AND evolution, is in a CONSTANT and CONTINUOUS FLOW of 'change'.

Whereas, you have absolutely NO proof AT ALL for YOUR CLAIM that there are stop/start intervals along the continual line of 'change'.

The so-called "non-zero interval" is just in your OWN imagination "bahman". And, it exists there because of the LUDICROUS way you LOOK AT 'things', the Universe.
That is the logical way of looking at things. The distance between two points is either zero or nonzero. If you cannot understand this simple fact then there is nothing more to discuss with you.
Age wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 am
bahman wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 4:31 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 am

FOR WHAT, EXACTLY?
To prove that anything that is subject to change is contingent.
Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is 'subject to change'.

HOWEVER, it could be argued that human beings' BELIEF is NOT 'subject to change'.

As PROVED True by the one known here as "bahman" itself.
Nonsense.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Change and contingency

Post by bahman »

promethean75 wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:36 pm I don't like to talk metaphysics bahman but yer pulling me in.
Oh, come on dude, let's discuss some metaphysics. :mrgreen:
promethean75 wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:36 pm In the human being, 'mind' is not an independent substance (of nature) and it doesn't have 'freewill'. Instead it's a mode of being that has a one-way causal relationship with the mode of extended physical things in space...
Let's say that you are offered two options that you like one and dislike another one. Can't you choose the option that you don't like for no specific reason?
promethean75 wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:36 pm so all of its content, of the 'mind's' content, is either knowledge and experience of the effects on the body (sense data), or knowledge of deductive, self-evident truths, and as such, the intellect is entirely determined by the state(s) of the physical world, it mirrors it... exercising no "freewill" over what is experienced and becomes known (or believed) by the experiencer.
What is an experiencer? In absence of mind, you just have experience, accepting that the hard problem of consciousness can be resolved. Experience cannot cause anything yet we observe a fantastic correlation between what we experience and what we cause.
promethean75 wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:36 pm 'the order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things', as your boy spinz put it.

'Mind' is just one attribute of nature and not an essential substance itself; it doesn't have to exist by definition, and can't be its own cause if it does end up existing. And insofar as man has 'mind', 'god' has 'mind', but only because 'mind' is an attribute of nature, and nature is what 'god' is.
How do you deal with the contingency problem?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Change and contingency

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 4:25 pm
Age wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:53 am
bahman wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 4:31 pm
Ok, I am glad that you agree that the actual object is changing.
I hope you have finally realized that they are ALL ALWAYS changing.
bahman wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 4:31 pm
Ok.


This is the last time that I discuss this with you: The distance between two points is either zero or non-zero. You cannot build anything from zero and the non-zero interval is discrete.
The reason WHY this is YOUR 'last time' you discuss this with me is because you do NOT want to be SHOWN for being Wrong, ONCE AGAIN.

See, I can PROVE that movement, or creation AND evolution, is in a CONSTANT and CONTINUOUS FLOW of 'change'.

Whereas, you have absolutely NO proof AT ALL for YOUR CLAIM that there are stop/start intervals along the continual line of 'change'.

The so-called "non-zero interval" is just in your OWN imagination "bahman". And, it exists there because of the LUDICROUS way you LOOK AT 'things', the Universe.
That is the logical way of looking at things.
Looking at the sun revolving around the earth was also, once upon a time, the "logical" way to LOOK AT and SEE 'things'. BUT 'things', literally, DO CHANGE.
bahman wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 4:25 pm The distance between two points is either zero or nonzero. If you cannot understand this simple fact then there is nothing more to discuss with you.
You can say what you like here but the only one 'you' are FOOLING here is 'you'.

The 'distance' between TWO points could NEVER be zero BUT this in NO way infers NOR even implies that a non-zero interval means there is NOT a continuous flow.

The way you 'try to' are for your currently held BELIEF "bahman" is NOT 'logical'.

If you can NOT understand this simple Fact, then this is FURTHER PROOF of just how the human being FOOLS and TRICKS itself into BELIEVING 'things' because of previously held BELIEFS and/or ASSUMPTIONS.

In fact to even IMAGINE that there could NOT be a CONTINUOUS FLOW just SHOWS and PROVES how this one's BELIEFS are DISTORTING thee ACTUAL Truth of things here and PREVENTING and STOPPING this one from SEEING thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth here.
bahman wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 4:25 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 am
bahman wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 4:31 pm
To prove that anything that is subject to change is contingent.
Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is 'subject to change'.

HOWEVER, it could be argued that human beings' BELIEF is NOT 'subject to change'.

As PROVED True by the one known here as "bahman" itself.
Nonsense.
If you say so, then it MUST BE SO, correct?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Change and contingency

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:38 am
bahman wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 4:25 pm
Age wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:53 am

I hope you have finally realized that they are ALL ALWAYS changing.



The reason WHY this is YOUR 'last time' you discuss this with me is because you do NOT want to be SHOWN for being Wrong, ONCE AGAIN.

See, I can PROVE that movement, or creation AND evolution, is in a CONSTANT and CONTINUOUS FLOW of 'change'.

Whereas, you have absolutely NO proof AT ALL for YOUR CLAIM that there are stop/start intervals along the continual line of 'change'.

The so-called "non-zero interval" is just in your OWN imagination "bahman". And, it exists there because of the LUDICROUS way you LOOK AT 'things', the Universe.
That is the logical way of looking at things.
Looking at the sun revolving around the earth was also, once upon a time, the "logical" way to LOOK AT and SEE 'things'. BUT 'things', literally, DO CHANGE.
bahman wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 4:25 pm The distance between two points is either zero or nonzero. If you cannot understand this simple fact then there is nothing more to discuss with you.
You can say what you like here but the only one 'you' are FOOLING here is 'you'.

The 'distance' between TWO points could NEVER be zero BUT this in NO way infers NOR even implies that a non-zero interval means there is NOT a continuous flow.

The way you 'try to' are for your currently held BELIEF "bahman" is NOT 'logical'.

If you can NOT understand this simple Fact, then this is FURTHER PROOF of just how the human being FOOLS and TRICKS itself into BELIEVING 'things' because of previously held BELIEFS and/or ASSUMPTIONS.

In fact to even IMAGINE that there could NOT be a CONTINUOUS FLOW just SHOWS and PROVES how this one's BELIEFS are DISTORTING thee ACTUAL Truth of things here and PREVENTING and STOPPING this one from SEEING thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth here.
If the distance between two points can never be zero then you cannot have continuous motion.
Age wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 am
bahman wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 4:25 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 am

Absolutely EVERY 'thing' is 'subject to change'.

HOWEVER, it could be argued that human beings' BELIEF is NOT 'subject to change'.

As PROVED True by the one known here as "bahman" itself.
Nonsense.
If you say so, then it MUST BE SO, correct?
Yes, I am correct as always.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Change and contingency

Post by promethean75 »

"Let's say that you are offered two options that you like one and dislike another one. Can't you choose the option that you don't like for no specific reason?"

Just to be ironic I guess, sure. But what do you mean by 'choose', anyway? And how would 'choosing' be evidence of freewill?

"What is an experiencer? In absence of mind, you just have experience"

In the most general terms, 'experience' is what happens when an organism with a nervous system interacts with an environment. Without those organisms, you'd just have the environment. But you wouldn't still have 'experience'.

I'ont know what this has to do with the hard problem of consciousness tho.

"Experience cannot cause anything yet we observe a fantastic correlation between what we experience and what we cause"

I've sat here for five minutes staring at that statement trying to figure out what to say. I've concluded that I don't understand what the statement means, and that, indeed, by virtue of its ineffability, the statement is genuinely philosophical in nature and to be avoided if possible.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Change and contingency

Post by bahman »

promethean75 wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 8:05 pm "Let's say that you are offered two options that you like one and dislike another one. Can't you choose the option that you don't like for no specific reason?"

Just to be ironic I guess, sure. But what do you mean by 'choose', anyway? And how would 'choosing' be evidence of freewill?
It means that there is no causal relation between options and your decision. In another word, you are not caused to choose yet you could choose and cause. That is the very definition of free will.
promethean75 wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 8:05 pm "What is an experiencer? In absence of mind, you just have experience"

In the most general terms, 'experience' is what happens when an organism with a nervous system interacts with an environment. Without those organisms, you'd just have the environment. But you wouldn't still have 'experience'.

I'ont know what this has to do with the hard problem of consciousness tho.

"Experience cannot cause anything yet we observe a fantastic correlation between what we experience and what we cause"

I've sat here for five minutes staring at that statement trying to figure out what to say. I've concluded that I don't understand what the statement means, and that, indeed, by virtue of its ineffability, the statement is genuinely philosophical in nature and to be avoided if possible.
Let's accept that a biological system scuh as brain can cause consciousness for sake of argument. This is what people call buttom-top causation. We however have top-bottom causation too, for example you feel hugry and you eat, where feeling hungry is bottom-top causation and eating food is top-bottom causation. We experience a fantastic correlation between these two, bottom-top and top-bottom. The question is how such a subjective phenomenon, consciousness, can cause anything. No need to say that you can choose not to eat which this questions the fact that consciousness does not essentially have causal power. That questions what is that thing that has causal power if it is not consciousness.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Change and contingency

Post by promethean75 »

"In another word, you are not caused to choose"

Well sure I am. So long as I'm conscious, I'm acting deliberately. Even my choice to do nothing would be deliberate.

Imma goal oriented struggler like all other organisms and am compelled to chose and act intentionally nearly every waking moment. Just how I am bro.

But here's where we ain't on the same page yet and are talking about terms differently. I don't deny that there is choice, only that 'choosing' is no indication of freewill... it's just a description of that deliberate, goal oriented intentional behavior that cognizant humans exhibit.

The feeling of freewill is a side effect of the loopy wiring of the human brain. And philosophical talk about it involves two distinctly metaphysical claims; that there is a second, immaterial substance (like a 'will' directed by a 'soul', etc) interacting with the body and making it do things... and that these two substances are somehow causally compatible while existing independently of each other. Material and mind interacting. Yeah but how? How does a 'mind' make an arm move or a person start making spaghetti?

One Harris, Sam had a clever insight; even if you were a Cartesian ghost in the machine, you didn't chose to be the ghost you would be.

I add that if you did, you'd begin an infinite regress of ghosts.
Post Reply