Change and contingency
-
- Posts: 5099
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Change and contingency
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..."
"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..."
Re: Change and contingency
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 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..."
-
- Posts: 5099
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Change and contingency
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.
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.
Re: Change and contingency
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 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.
That is true for humans but not the human mind.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.
What does self-same substance mean?promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:46 pm Spinoza would call humans just modes and modifications of the self same substance.
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 They are finite, unnecessary beings that are causally determined but not... say, ontologically necessary.
I think so. They have separate minds.promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:46 pm Aquinas is tryna call both 'god' and man, individually existing substances.
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 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.
Ahan.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.
Re: Change and contingency
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 pmThe actual object changes too. It just seems that it is not changing since the relative positions of all atoms are similar.
Well you thought Wrong.
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.
FOR WHAT, EXACTLY?bahman wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:53 pmBut other things are subject to change at each instance too.
Ok, so you have no proof.Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 amWHEN 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.
Re: Change and contingency
Ok, I am glad that you agree that the actual object is changing.Age wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 12:17 amOF 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.
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 amIt 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.
To prove that anything that is subject to change is contingent.Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 16, 2022 1:18 amFOR WHAT, EXACTLY?bahman wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 3:53 pmBut other things are subject to change at each instance too.
Ok, so you have no proof.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.
Re: Change and contingency
I hope you have finally realized that they are ALL ALWAYS changing.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 4:31 pmOk, I am glad that you agree that the actual object is 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.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 4:31 pmOk.
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 amIt 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.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 5099
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Change and contingency
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.
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.
Re: Change and contingency
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: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:53 amI 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.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 4:31 pmOk.
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
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.
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.
Nonsense.
Re: Change and contingency
Oh, come on dude, let's discuss some metaphysics.promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:36 pm I don't like to talk metaphysics bahman but yer pulling me in.
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 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...
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 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.
How do you deal with the contingency problem?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.
Re: Change and contingency
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 pmThat is the logical way of looking at things.Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:53 amI 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.
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 you say so, then it MUST BE SO, correct?
Re: Change and contingency
If the distance between two points can never be zero then you cannot have continuous motion.Age wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:38 amLooking 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 pmThat is the logical way of looking at things.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.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.
Yes, I am correct as always.
-
- Posts: 5099
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Change and contingency
"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.
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.
Re: Change and contingency
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 "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?
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 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.
-
- Posts: 5099
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Change and contingency
"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.
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.