Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8271
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Er, no. You were NOT driving and not driving. "Driving" denotes physically operating an automobile. You either were or were not. What you were thinking about at the time has no bearing on what you were physically doing.
Well, yes, I was. I was driving, yet on the beach.
GE Morton wrote: July 29th, 2022, 11:53 am Unless you were physically operating an automobile your claim "I was driving" is FALSE. Imagining you were driving is not driving.
Excuse me for dropping into the middle of your conversation, but I wonder if I might offer an observation?

It looks to me as if the reference is not to "imagining" that one is driving, but that one has delegated the habitual task of driving to the unconscious mind — where we assume habits dwell — and is therefore "physically operating an automobile" while consciously thinking about being on the beach.

HTH; sorry if I misunderstood.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

GE Morton wrote: July 29th, 2022, 11:53 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 27th, 2022, 3:12 pm
GE Morton wrote: July 27th, 2022, 2:34 pm
Ontological and cosmological arguments, as discussed, are true based upon definition only (a priori) hence are logically necessary truth's (see the quick 3 min. video I posted yesterday to help you understand).
Your video only discusses the difference between necessary and contingent truths, which is common knowledge among philosophers and which I have no problem understanding. It has nothing to say about the validity of the ontological or cosmological arguments. Again, please set forth the self-evident axioms of this "a priori logic" upon which you rely for your claims.

Of course. Would you like me to re-post both the cosmological and ontological arguments?
No. Those arguments are not the axioms of the logic they employ, which is what I asked for.

Yes of course, they are true by definition ( a priori). Logically necessary truth's.
None of those are "illogical," per any well-documented logic, nor do they "transcend logical thinking." While there may be unresolved philosophical or scientific questions about some of them there is nothing "iilogical" about any of them --- at least, per the "standard" logics. And I have no idea why you remain so mystified by that "driving while daydreaming" business, and persist in seeing some "logical impossibility" in it. Driving an automobile and thinking about driving an automobile are two different things. They don't conflict, and there is nothing "logically impossible" about both being true at once.
Yes they are, hence the proposition that describes that phenomenal experience : I was driving and not driving.
That proposition does NOT "describe the phenomenal experience." A correct description of the phenomenal experience would be something like, "I imagined I was driving," or "I was thinking about driving," or "I remember driving to . . ." The proposition, "I was driving" describes a physical act, NOT a phenomenal experience.

No. The phenomenal experience is that my consciousness allowed me to think I was on the beach, but my body was actually driving. Hence, from a purely objective sense, an independent observer [you] would see me driving, but my conscious thoughts were actually on the beach and not driving. It becomes be my truth to say that I was both driving and not driving. Or, if you prefer, I was sort-of driving. But that would only lead us back to the violation of Bivalence and having multiple truth values. Remember, a priori stuff is either/or. Living life and conscious existence is more often both/and. Pretty neat huh!?

Sort-of reminds me of the metaphysical mysteries associated with the concept of God.


:shock:
Er, no. You were NOT driving and not driving. "Driving" denotes physically operating an automobile. You either were or were not. What you were thinking about at the time has no bearing on what you were physically doing.
Well, yes, I was. I was driving, yet on the beach.
Unless you were physically operating an automobile your claim "I was driving" is FALSE. Imagining you were driving is not driving.

Good point. That's why when one tries to use logic, it's binary truth value becomes inadequate to capture the experience. Hence false and/or logically impossible to be driving and daydreaming at the same time, same respect, etc..
The video has nothing to say about any such things. And, again, cognitive phenomena do not "transcend, go beyond, etc." logic, because logic has nothing to do with cognitive phenomena. Logic has to do with WHAT WE SAY about cognitive, or any other, phenomena. Describing the universe, or anything in it, except propositions, as "logical" or "illogical" is a misuse of those terms and reveals a misunderstanding of what logic is.
I agree to the extend that specifically when we try to explain or describe phenomenal experiences, logic has its limitations. Hence, it's beyond or transcends the usual categories of rational thought.
The limitations, if there are any, are with language, not logic. Moreover, that something complex can be difficult to describe doesn't mean that it "transcends the usual categories of rational thought." It only means you have to work harder to describe it, in terms that actually convey information about it to whomever you're speaking. There is nothing transcendental or mystical about experiential phenomena, though there are mysteries around just how those experiences are generated by physical systems. No "transcendental realm of being" is necessary, or even helpful, in illuminating those mysteries. That is a spurious and uninformative sidetrack leading to a dead-end.

No. Language is both metaphysical and logical. Much like a priori mathematics.
Oh, that is all quite true, but not at all problematic. The problem occurs because "red" is not well-defined. The solution is to give that term a precise definition (which would be done as a matter of course if a computer-controlled machine were sorting the apples by color). You cn generate all sorts of logical pseudo-problems if your terms are sloppily defined.
Precisely. Conscious experience using your words, is "sloppily defined". So if you mean that the nature of conscious existence is some-thing that lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought, you'd probably get little argument.
Egads. No, by "sloppily defined" I don't mean, "Outside the usual categories of rational human thought." Nor is consciousness "outside the usual categories of human thought." The thought of consciousness is itself a human thought; even the notion of things "outside of human thought" is a human thought --- one which has no referent in experienced phenomena and no explanatory utility.

No. Think of one's stream of consciousness is something that occurs to him, not by him.
So in effect, or in broad simple terms, you yourself, are not a rational human being because not only can you behave irrationally, when you try to explain or describe the nature of your own conscious existence, you cannot. In the daydreaming-driving example (among other previous examples of reality) it's logically impossible to do so.
Nothing prevents a rational human being from occasionally behaving irrationally. A "rational human being" only means, "A person who is capable of rational thought." And I certainly can describe the "nature of my own conscious existence." I do so every time I say something, e.g., when I say, "I'm tired," or "I saw a bluebird today," or "I was thinking about the problem of consciousness." And, of course, your "driving" example does not reveal any "logical impossibility;" it is just a confused and self-contradictory proposition, as explained above.
As an ancillary note, perhaps you would understand this statement (from your discussion with PC); you yourself are both 'good and bad'. If correct, ethically or epistemologically, which parts are good and which parts are bad?
"I am both good and bad" doesn't mean that the person per se is good or bad. It means that he is good at some things, bad at others, or acts properly at times and improperly at other times. The proposition presents no logical "impossibilities."
No. Parse each feeling and associated perception of both good and bad to where they have independent truth values.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

GE Morton wrote: July 29th, 2022, 10:58 am
Astro Cat wrote: July 28th, 2022, 10:27 pm
I don't think that consciousness/subconsciousness violates Excluded Middle. A thought is either conscious or it is subconscious, it is not both at the same time and in the same respect. Seems to remain logical to me.
Isn't the expression "subconscious thought" oxymoronic?
GE!

Yes, it would be 'oxymoronic' because it's almost self contradictory. Much like our discussion about the violation of binary truth values (a priori either/or logic, etc.).

This may or may not help; the Liars Paradox is yet another example:

In philosophy and logic, the classical liar paradox or liar's paradox or antinomy of the liar is the statement of a liar that they are lying: for instance, declaring that "I am lying". If the liar is indeed lying, then the liar is telling the truth, which means the liar just lied. In "this sentence is a lie" the paradox is strengthened in order to make it amenable to more rigorous logical analysis. It is still generally called the "liar paradox" although abstraction is made precisely from the liar making the statement. Trying to assign to this statement, the strengthened liar, a classical binary truth value leads to a contradiction.

If "this sentence is false" is true, then it is false, but the sentence states that it is false, and if it is false, then it must be true, and so on.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by GE Morton »

Pattern-chaser wrote: July 29th, 2022, 12:06 pm
It looks to me as if the reference is not to "imagining" that one is driving, but that one has delegated the habitual task of driving to the unconscious mind — where we assume habits dwell — and is therefore "physically operating an automobile" while consciously thinking about being on the beach.
Sure. But there is no inconsistency, and certainly no "logical impossibility" involved in doing both of those things at once. 3017 confuses doing two different things at once with doing and not doing the same thing at once (and he can't seem to understand the difference).
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

GE Morton wrote: July 29th, 2022, 6:36 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: July 29th, 2022, 12:06 pm
It looks to me as if the reference is not to "imagining" that one is driving, but that one has delegated the habitual task of driving to the unconscious mind — where we assume habits dwell — and is therefore "physically operating an automobile" while consciously thinking about being on the beach.
Sure. But there is no inconsistency, and certainly no "logical impossibility" involved in doing both of those things at once. 3017 confuses doing two different things at once with doing and not doing the same thing at once (and he can't seem to understand the difference).
Remember, it's not about consistency at all. It's about binary truth value.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by GE Morton »

3017Metaphysician wrote: July 29th, 2022, 1:45 pm
GE Morton wrote: July 29th, 2022, 11:53 am
No. Those arguments are not the axioms of the logic they employ, which is what I asked for.
Yes of course, they are true by definition ( a priori). Logically necessary truth's.
You're apparently unaware of what logical axioms are. Here is one set for propositional logic:

1. p→(q→p)
2. ((p→(q→r))→((p→q)→(p→r))
3. (¬p→¬q)→(q→p)

Arguments are not axioms.
Yes they are, hence the proposition that describes that phenomenal experience : I was driving and not driving.
That proposition does NOT "describe the phenomenal experience." A correct description of the phenomenal experience would be something like, "I imagined I was driving," or "I was thinking about driving," or "I remember driving to . . ." The proposition, "I was driving" describes a physical act, NOT a phenomenal experience.
No. The phenomenal experience is that my consciousness allowed me to think I was on the beach, but my body was actually driving. Hence, from a purely objective sense, an independent observer [you] would see me driving, but my conscious thoughts were actually on the beach and not driving. It becomes be my truth to say that I was both driving and not driving.
Er, no. There is no "my truth" and "your truth." You were either driving or not; what you may have been thinking about at the time is irrelevant. Doing X while thinking about Y does not constitute any sort of logical (or any other kind of) impossibility. You're using the phrase "not driving" to refer to "not thinking about driving." Those are two different things; you're simply misusing the former phrase.
Sort-of reminds me of the metaphysical mysteries associated with the concept of God.
Those "mysteries" result from similar logical and conceptual confusions.
The limitations, if there are any, are with language, not logic. Moreover, that something complex can be difficult to describe doesn't mean that it "transcends the usual categories of rational thought." It only means you have to work harder to describe it, in terms that actually convey information about it to whomever you're speaking. There is nothing transcendental or mystical about experiential phenomena, though there are mysteries around just how those experiences are generated by physical systems. No "transcendental realm of being" is necessary, or even helpful, in illuminating those mysteries. That is a spurious and uninformative sidetrack leading to a dead-end.
No. Language is both metaphysical and logical. Much like a priori mathematics.
What is "metaphysical" about language? Or about mathematics?
Egads. No, by "sloppily defined" I don't mean, "Outside the usual categories of rational human thought." Nor is consciousness "outside the usual categories of human thought." The thought of consciousness is itself a human thought; even the notion of things "outside of human thought" is a human thought --- one which has no referent in experienced phenomena and no explanatory utility.
No. Think of one's stream of consciousness is something that occurs to him, not by him.
How does that refute what I said above? Thoughts are part of that "stream of consciousness." They are not "outside it."
No. Parse each feeling and associated perception of both good and bad to where they have independent truth values.
First, "good" and "bad" are expressions denoting approval or disapproval, of some agent with respect to some thing. They are subjective and relative to the valuer (the person doing the judging). Those terms have no "independent truth value." They are only true or false relative to a valuer.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

GE Morton wrote: July 29th, 2022, 9:12 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 29th, 2022, 1:45 pm
GE Morton wrote: July 29th, 2022, 11:53 am
No. Those arguments are not the axioms of the logic they employ, which is what I asked for.
Yes of course, they are true by definition ( a priori). Logically necessary truth's.
You're apparently unaware of what logical axioms are. Here is one set for propositional logic:

1. p→(q→p)
2. ((p→(q→r))→((p→q)→(p→r))
3. (¬p→¬q)→(q→p)

Arguments are not axioms.
Yes they are, hence the proposition that describes that phenomenal experience : I was driving and not driving.
That proposition does NOT "describe the phenomenal experience." A correct description of the phenomenal experience would be something like, "I imagined I was driving," or "I was thinking about driving," or "I remember driving to . . ." The proposition, "I was driving" describes a physical act, NOT a phenomenal experience.
No. The phenomenal experience is that my consciousness allowed me to think I was on the beach, but my body was actually driving. Hence, from a purely objective sense, an independent observer [you] would see me driving, but my conscious thoughts were actually on the beach and not driving. It becomes be my truth to say that I was both driving and not driving.
Er, no. There is no "my truth" and "your truth." You were either driving or not; what you may have been thinking about at the time is irrelevant. Doing X while thinking about Y does not constitute any sort of logical (or any other kind of) impossibility. You're using the phrase "not driving" to refer to "not thinking about driving." Those are two different things; you're simply misusing the former phrase.
Sort-of reminds me of the metaphysical mysteries associated with the concept of God.
Those "mysteries" result from similar logical and conceptual confusions.
The limitations, if there are any, are with language, not logic. Moreover, that something complex can be difficult to describe doesn't mean that it "transcends the usual categories of rational thought." It only means you have to work harder to describe it, in terms that actually convey information about it to whomever you're speaking. There is nothing transcendental or mystical about experiential phenomena, though there are mysteries around just how those experiences are generated by physical systems. No "transcendental realm of being" is necessary, or even helpful, in illuminating those mysteries. That is a spurious and uninformative sidetrack leading to a dead-end.
No. Language is both metaphysical and logical. Much like a priori mathematics.
What is "metaphysical" about language? Or about mathematics?
Egads. No, by "sloppily defined" I don't mean, "Outside the usual categories of rational human thought." Nor is consciousness "outside the usual categories of human thought." The thought of consciousness is itself a human thought; even the notion of things "outside of human thought" is a human thought --- one which has no referent in experienced phenomena and no explanatory utility.
No. Think of one's stream of consciousness is something that occurs to him, not by him.
How does that refute what I said above? Thoughts are part of that "stream of consciousness." They are not "outside it."
No. Parse each feeling and associated perception of both good and bad to where they have independent truth values.
First, "good" and "bad" are expressions denoting approval or disapproval, of some agent with respect to some thing. They are subjective and relative to the valuer (the person doing the judging). Those terms have no "independent truth value." They are only true or false relative to a valuer.
GE!

Let's go back to the examples of sentience (the will versus intellect/voluntarism) and go through a cognitive science exercise in how, for example, feelings and logic are mottled as multiple truth values, inclusive to one's decision making process and their cognitive objects of perceptions from the stream of consciousness. I'll put together a list of questions for you to answer that will compare quantity valuations of objects percieved to quality phenomenon.. Then we'll see how they differ. I sincerely appreciate your interest as this is a very intriguing topic.

I would recommend going back and review the William James video and Bivalence, Voluntarism v. Rationalism etc... We'll attack the problem from all three axioms: psychology, philosophy and logic. Meantime, with respect to the latter this paradox may help you understand multiple truth values (when is a heap of sand no longer considered a heap) and how it differs from binary a priori logic. (Another way to think about these distinctions is to think about the differences between a priori and a posteriori cognitive phenomenon- see video.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by GE Morton »

3017Metaphysician wrote: July 29th, 2022, 9:58 pm
Let's go back to the examples of sentience (the will versus intellect/voluntarism) and go through a cognitive science exercise in how, for example, feelings and logic are mottled as multiple truth values, inclusive to one's decision making process and their cognitive objects of perceptions from the stream of consciousness.
Well, no, let's not. How about you presenting some cogent argument, with succinct premises and a succinct conclusion you think follows from them. Or go back to the post above and respond to the specific comments I made there.
I would recommend going back and review the William James video and Bivalence, Voluntarism v. Rationalism etc... We'll attack the problem from all three axioms: psychology, philosophy and logic.
Please look up the meaning of "axiom." Psychology, philosophy and logic are not axioms.
That is a non-problem that derives from a mistaken definition of "heap." It assumes that what constitutes a "heap" depends on the number of elements comprising it. It doesn't.
EricPH
Posts: 449
Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by EricPH »

3017Metaphysician wrote: July 22nd, 2022, 10:51 am Question for all:

Perhaps worthy of another thread. However since we are discussing PSR/trichotomy and contingency/causation, if there are existing things which are logically impossible to exist, yet still exist, what does this mean (what are some implications)?

In other words, if logically necessary things present too much contradiction, which is 'better' to have, logical necessity or logical impossibly?

AC?
A thousand years ago it might of seemed logically impossible to send a man to the moon. Meaning our logic today; depends on our perceived understanding today.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

GE Morton wrote: July 30th, 2022, 10:51 am
3017Metaphysician wrote: July 29th, 2022, 9:58 pm
Let's go back to the examples of sentience (the will versus intellect/voluntarism) and go through a cognitive science exercise in how, for example, feelings and logic are mottled as multiple truth values, inclusive to one's decision making process and their cognitive objects of perceptions from the stream of consciousness.
Well, no, let's not. How about you presenting some cogent argument, with succinct premises and a succinct conclusion you think follows from them. Or go back to the post above and respond to the specific comments I made there.
I would recommend going back and review the William James video and Bivalence, Voluntarism v. Rationalism etc... We'll attack the problem from all three axioms: psychology, philosophy and logic.
Please look up the meaning of "axiom." Psychology, philosophy and logic are not axioms.
That is a non-problem that derives from a mistaken definition of "heap." It assumes that what constitutes a "heap" depends on the number of elements comprising it. It doesn't.
GE!

I realize that in some respects you may be a fish out of water, so I understand if you can't continue, but generally metaphysics (the relationship between mind and matter) is not for the faint-hearted. Remember, you're good enough, smart enough and daggonit, people like you :P

All kidding aside, after reviewing your latest response, we also maybe further apart than once thought. I have a host of questions for you, but before we even go there, one glaring 'deficiency' or concern was relative to the basics/nature of language and mathematics itself, and their existence. You implied they in-themselves were not metaphysical. Let's assume they are physical things (physical languages), how is that logically possible?

For example, as it relates to the OP, are you thinking that there are abstract mathematical structures in the universe somewhere that have physical qualities? And specific to our discussion about the mind, when I was driving while daydreaming about the beach then crashing the car, was the beach 'physical'? Is the Will (intentionality) physical too? With respect to propagation of the species, are you also maybe thinking there is 'physical information' somewhere that's encoded into (all) biological life forms? Let's parse those questions before we continue...I better stop there.

Please share your thoughts if you are able.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by GE Morton »

3017Metaphysician wrote: August 1st, 2022, 8:41 am
All kidding aside, after reviewing your latest response, we also maybe further apart than once thought. I have a host of questions for you, but before we even go there, one glaring 'deficiency' or concern was relative to the basics/nature of language and mathematics itself, and their existence. You implied they in-themselves were not metaphysical. Let's assume they are physical things (physical languages), how is that logically possible?
Not everything not physical is "metaphysical." I take "physical" to be that which is the subject matter of physics, which comprises matter and energy. "Matter" is whatever occupies a defined spatiotemporal location and has mass; "energy" is any force having a measurable effect on matter. Language and mathematics (which is just a specialized language) are neither matter not energy, and thus are not physical (though any verbal or written expression is physical). They are conceptual artifacts, products of the human imagination.

I take "metaphysics" to be a philosophical discipline concerned with presumed "realities" which "transcend," or "go beyond" physical realities, and even phenomenal realities --- (the raw phenomena of experience). Kant's noumena is such a metaphysical reality. That one is defensible (because it is so minimal), but most "metaphysical" speculations are incoherent nonsense.

Language, mathematics are not "metaphysical." Neither is history, or art, or literature, or economics, or such things as games, or laws, or logics, or moral codes. All those are members of another large ontological category, namely, human conceptual constructs.
For example, as it relates to the OP, are you thinking that there are abstract mathematical structures in the universe somewhere that have physical qualities?
No, except in the sense that they exist in human minds, and those minds have physical qualities (being the products of physical human bodies).
And specific to our discussion about the mind, when I was driving while daydreaming about the beach then crashing the car, was the beach 'physical'?
There was no beach; there was only a thought about a beach. You seem to be having a hard time distinguishing between those.
Is the Will (intentionality) physical too?
The "will" is a certain propensity to act, inferred from an observable action. It is physical in the sense that, as with all other mental phenomena, it is a product of physical brains.
With respect to propagation of the species, are you also maybe thinking there is 'physical information' somewhere that's encoded into (all) biological life forms?
Yes, there is information physically encoded in all (known) lifeforms, information that determines the physical properties and behavioral propensities of the organism. It is encoded in each species' DNA, and differs from species to species.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by Sy Borg »

Phenomenology meets materialism.
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by Tegularius »

Sufficient enough if it works; if it does the dirty deed of rinsing out what effects follow what causes even though that too is not the correct paradigm.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

GE Morton wrote: August 1st, 2022, 2:24 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: August 1st, 2022, 8:41 am
All kidding aside, after reviewing your latest response, we also maybe further apart than once thought. I have a host of questions for you, but before we even go there, one glaring 'deficiency' or concern was relative to the basics/nature of language and mathematics itself, and their existence. You implied they in-themselves were not metaphysical. Let's assume they are physical things (physical languages), how is that logically possible?
Not everything not physical is "metaphysical." I take "physical" to be that which is the subject matter of physics, which comprises matter and energy. "Matter" is whatever occupies a defined spatiotemporal location and has mass; "energy" is any force having a measurable effect on matter. Language and mathematics (which is just a specialized language) are neither matter not energy, and thus are not physical (though any verbal or written expression is physical). They are conceptual artifacts, products of the human imagination.

I take "metaphysics" to be a philosophical discipline concerned with presumed "realities" which "transcend," or "go beyond" physical realities, and even phenomenal realities --- (the raw phenomena of experience). Kant's noumena is such a metaphysical reality. That one is defensible (because it is so minimal), but most "metaphysical" speculations are incoherent nonsense.

Language, mathematics are not "metaphysical." Neither is history, or art, or literature, or economics, or such things as games, or laws, or logics, or moral codes. All those are members of another large ontological category, namely, human conceptual constructs.
For example, as it relates to the OP, are you thinking that there are abstract mathematical structures in the universe somewhere that have physical qualities?
No, except in the sense that they exist in human minds, and those minds have physical qualities (being the products of physical human bodies).
And specific to our discussion about the mind, when I was driving while daydreaming about the beach then crashing the car, was the beach 'physical'?
There was no beach; there was only a thought about a beach. You seem to be having a hard time distinguishing between those.
Is the Will (intentionality) physical too?
The "will" is a certain propensity to act, inferred from an observable action. It is physical in the sense that, as with all other mental phenomena, it is a product of physical brains.
With respect to propagation of the species, are you also maybe thinking there is 'physical information' somewhere that's encoded into (all) biological life forms?
Yes, there is information physically encoded in all (known) lifeforms, information that determines the physical properties and behavioral propensities of the organism. It is encoded in each species' DNA, and differs from species to species.
GE!

I'm glad to see you've re-engaged! There are so many glaring deficiencies in what little response you provided, it almost deserves a kind of 101 summary of things. I see you are kind-of wanting to go there, but your equivocation is making things worse.

In a nut shell, there exists both physical and metaphysical phenomena in the world. Be it cosmology and information (the perception/feeling of time, quantum tunneling, Higgs Boson/God particle, Hawking black hole paradox, PAP, non-locality, etc.) or the human mind (the Will, intentionality, sentience/love, abstract thinking, etc.) there are all sorts of abstract structures that exist. Take music and music theory/composition for example, are they qualities of the mind (Qualia) that are physical? Is the language of music physical? You mentioned mathematics, how can that in-itself be physical? Did you know that both music and math have little if any biological survival advantages? For example, do we need to know the laws of gravity to evade falling objects in the jungle? Is time and gravity, the actual thing-in-itself, purely physical? Similarly, tell me how both knowledge of physics and music theory confers any biological survival advantages.

You may be conflating, or at least dichotomizing your view of physical/metaphysical phenomena. Again, your comments only beg other questions concerning the nature of reality, not to mention permanence and change.

Mathematical truths are unchanging truths, purely objective, and do not depend on how we feel about them for their truth value. In language, a priori analytic truths are similar. Yet, both are logically necessary to describe (and to a lessor degree) explain the world around us and its existence (physical/metaphysical). Math itself, is permanent. What is permanent must remain forever the same, like mathematical and objective truths as found in language. A bullet point summary may help you:

1. Math is objective
2. Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. Analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction/a priori) as the nature of Math.


Now, with respect to language, you seem to be a bit confused. In certain aspects of reality, language itself cannot change. Certainly many new concepts can evolve and new words/meanings can be developed (i.e., urban dictionary), but the meaning of those established concepts/words themselves have to stay the same and cannot change. If they changed, there would be no coherence in any communication. Yet, the world around us is in a constant state of change. A simple example of that inconsistency would relate to the simple act of speaking or writing. If we took change literally, as in everything is changing around us, one cannot even discuss anything absolute since no permanence exists. The illusion of time works similarly, but that's yet another metaphysical discussion for another time.

You mentioned the Will and biologically coded information. I'm confused with your response. Please explain in detail how information necessary for propagation and the will, is considered to be is all physical? What is physical that strives for existence? Doesn't everything strive and press toward existence? Please explain the infinite willingness, facility, and exuberance with which the will to live presses impetuously into existence under a million forms everywhere and at every moment, if you can. And explain it exclusively in physical terms. Otherwise please consider these questions:

1. Is the will a metaphysical ineffable phenomenon?
2. Are feelings of desire, wonder, intention, etc. metaphysical qualities (Qualia) of consciousness?
3. Can the will be objectively explained?
4. Does the Will have similarities to quantum coherence in nature (biology and physics)?
5. Is the will yet another manifestation of biological propagation?
6. If the essence of the Will and its subjective nature, includes the will to live, what is objective about it?
7. Does this notion of Will presumably exist as a causational force not only subjectively/emotively
but have an independence beyond observable things-in-themselves?
8. Does the Will have any Darwinian biological survival advantages?
9. Does the Will to live precede the intellect (logic)-see Voluntarism?
10. Is the concept of Emergence a genetically coded Will for both animate and inanimate matter?

Finally, with respect to your comment about daydreaming, what you are suggesting doesn't square with reality at all. Are you saying that driving while daydreaming and crashing, was caused intentionally? How can that be? For all that person knew, they were physically on the beach watching a cute babe swimming. He did not care about driving at all. But if in all reality, he was not on the beach as you suggest, where was he?
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Principle of Sufficient Reason: Trichotomy?

Post by GE Morton »

3017Metaphysician wrote: August 2nd, 2022, 9:33 am
I'm glad to see you've re-engaged! There are so many glaring deficiencies in what little response you provided, it almost deserves a kind of 101 summary of things. I see you are kind-of wanting to go there, but your equivocation is making things worse.
It is you who are not responding. Go back to my post above, and respond to the specific arguments and claims made therein. Instead of responding to arguments, you just repeat the same incoherent nonsense you uttered previously. Nor is there any "equivocation" in any of the statements I made above.
In a nut shell, there exists both physical and metaphysical phenomena in the world.
No, there is not. There is physical phenomena and non-physical phenomena, but utterly no "metaphysical phenomena." That "phenomena" exists nowhere but in the imaginations of some confused philosophers.
Be it cosmology and information (the perception/feeling of time, quantum tunneling, Higgs Boson/God particle, Hawking black hole paradox, PAP, non-locality, etc.) or the human mind (the Will, intentionality, sentience/love, abstract thinking, etc.) there are all sorts of abstract structures that exist. Take music and music theory/composition for example, are they qualities of the mind (Qualia) that are physical? Is the language of music physical?
Yes indeed, all those exist. But none of them are "metaphysical."
You mentioned mathematics, how can that in-itself be physical?
I didn't say it was.
For example, do we need to know the laws of gravity to evade falling objects in the jungle?
No.
Is time and gravity, the actual thing-in-itself, purely physical?
Yes. See the definition of "physical" I gave above.
Similarly, tell me how both knowledge of physics and music theory confers any biological survival advantages.
Why would I do that? I didn't claim they did.
You may be conflating, or at least dichotomizing your view of physical/metaphysical phenomena. Again, your comments only beg other questions concerning the nature of reality, not to mention permanence and change.
What questions are those?
You mentioned the Will and biologically coded information. I'm confused with your response. Please explain in detail how information necessary for propagation and the will, is considered to be is all physical?
I already did. That information is encoded in any organism's DNA, which is physical.
Doesn't everything strive and press toward existence?
No. Only living organisms "strive."
Please explain the infinite willingness, facility, and exuberance with which the will to live presses impetuously into existence under a million forms everywhere and at every moment, if you can. And explain it exclusively in physical terms.
The "will to live" is a term we apply to our awareness that we are programmed to preserve our lives to whatever extent we are able. All living organisms have some form of that programming; if they didn't they would no longer be around. That programming is encoded in DNA. There is nothing mystical, mysterious, and certainly not "metaphysical," about the the will. "The will" is an explanatory construct we've cooked up to denote certain desires and propensities to act in certain ways, just as "the mind" is an explanatory construct we've invented to unify and locate the phenomena of experience. Do wills and minds exist? Yes, they do --- as explanatory constructs; NOT as "metaphysical" entities.
1. Is the will a metaphysical ineffable phenomenon?
2. Are feelings of desire, wonder, intention, etc. metaphysical qualities (Qualia) of consciousness?
No.
3. Can the will be objectively explained?
Yes.
4. Does the Will have similarities to quantum coherence in nature (biology and physics)?
It has nothing to do with quantum coherence. Nor does the latter have anything to do with biology (as far as anyone knows). That is a physical phenomenon with a role in explaining certain EM behaviors.
5. Is the will yet another manifestation of biological propagation?
"The will" was explained above.
6. If the essence of the Will and its subjective nature, includes the will to live, what is objective about it?
"The will" has no "essence," if by that term you mean something "metaphysical," "transcendental," etc. The explanation for it is quite mundane.
7. Does this notion of Will presumably exist as a causational force not only subjectively/emotively but have an independence beyond observable things-in-themselves?
"The will" has no existence independent of the biological system in which the propensities to which the term refers are encoded.
8. Does the Will have any Darwinian biological survival advantages?
9. Does the Will to live precede the intellect (logic)-see Voluntarism?
10. Is the concept of Emergence a genetically coded Will for both animate and inanimate matter?
All of those questions presume "the will" is some sort of entity, or force, or phenomena distinct from and independent of the creature whose will it is. It is no such thing. "The will to do X" just means, "A desire or propensity to do X."
Finally, with respect to your comment about daydreaming, what you are suggesting doesn't square with reality at all. Are you saying that driving while daydreaming and crashing, was caused intentionally?
Nope. I said no such thing. I said that "driving" and "thinking about driving" are two different things, and hence one can be driving while thinking about something else.
For all that person knew, they were physically on the beach watching a cute babe swimming. He did not care about driving at all. But if in all reality, he was not on the beach as you suggest, where was he?
By hypothesis, in his car, driving it.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021