Well, I get that some people believe that, and some people adhere to just about any position you can imagine. However, I can't make sense of it. No material thing shows a property that is contrary to cause and effect that I can see. The exceptions are the will (if you assume it must be material, contrary to the evidence and without proof, which I do not) and perhaps some seemingly random events at the very smallest scale we can observe (though random doesn't seem to necessarily mean uncaused). Under the terms you describe, even God would have to be material if He was in the mix. I just can't wrap my head around that position. I suppose you can't disprove it, but that certainly doesn't prove it true.Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 17th, 2021, 10:04 amI don't think determinism and free will are incompatible. I've discussed that in some previous topics.chewybrian wrote:I had to think about this one for a while. I'd say we could agree that the models or systems are incompatible if we try to make both of them describe the entire universe. Neither determinism nor libertarian free will can work within the closed system of the opposing view. They can not both be complete and perfect models of reality at the same time, as each negates the other. One of them is wrong, or they are both wrong, by definition and simple logic.
But the point I was making in the previous post that you quoted was not about determinism versus free will. It was that the ontological position called materialism doesn't necessarily go with a believe that causality is universally applicable. Materialism is not the same thing as determinism. There are some materialists who believe that some events have no prior causes. (There's at least one who posts on this site.)
Ontology of Being
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1602
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Ontology of Being
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
I'd call the question of location more than a reasonable opinion. I'd say the assumption that my personality happens somewhere in me and not, say, next-door or in Paris, is at least a racing certainty. I've never seen anything to suggest otherwise.chewybrian wrote:We don't know where your experience is or what it is in any objective terms. You know it subjectively and that's it. Your assumption is fair enough, but I don't see that it rises beyond the level of a reasonable opinion.Steve3007 wrote:...I know, as well as I know anything, that everything associated with my personality happens in the middle of my head, plus or minus, let's say, 8 inches.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
Well, you'd have to talk to Terrapin Station about that one. He's the poster I was referring to. As I recall, from previous conversations, he's a strict materialist and he believes that human actions (where he uses the word "action" in a specific philosophical sense) can (obviously) cause things to happen but they are not themselves caused. I think he regards action (in that sense) to have, by definition, no prior cause. I think we discussed this in the context of a discussion about free speech.chewybrian wrote:Well, I get that some people believe that, and some people adhere to just about any position you can imagine. However, I can't make sense of it. No material thing shows a property that is contrary to cause and effect that I can see. The exceptions are the will (if you assume it must be material, contrary to the evidence and without proof, which I do not) and perhaps some seemingly random events at the very smallest scale we can observe (though random doesn't seem to necessarily mean uncaused). Under the terms you describe, even God would have to be material if He was in the mix. I just can't wrap my head around that position. I suppose you can't disprove it, but that certainly doesn't prove it true.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8385
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Ontology of Being
And yet, when we start examining specific examples, the cause seems to slide away from our magnifying glass. There are sequences of connected 'causes' that we sometimes conflate into one 'cause', maybe incorrectly. And there are cases where we combine many different influences into 'single' cause. And all of those influences might each be a connected sequence of mini-causes too.chewybrian wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 7:22 am No material thing shows a property that is contrary to cause and effect that I can see.
I think that, even if cause and effect is a hard and fast rule of the universe, cause still becomes diffuse, like a fractal, when we examine it closely. It would be unreasonable to say that cause actually disappears, but it becomes so diffuse that it 'soaks into' its environment, and thereby seems to disappear.
"Who cares, wins"
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Ontology of Being
There is something to read at least, such as John Barrow's recommendable "The Book of Nothing" (2001).
* Nothingness: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/
* Nonexistent Objects: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/
QUOTE>
"First, note that the word ‘nothing’ can be used as a quantifier, but it also has a perfectly good use as a noun phrase, meaning nothingness. (Hegel and Heidegger wrote about nothing, but said quite different things about it.) In what follows, to avoid any confusion, when I wish to use ‘nothing’ as a noun phrase I will boldface it, thus: nothing.
Nothing is the absence of all things. It is, as it were, what remains after everything has been removed; and by ‘everything’, here, I mean absolutely everything, all things.
It follows that nothing is ineffable. To talk about something requires one to predicate something of it. One can predicate nothing of nothing simply because there is nothing there of which to predicate it. One might also put the point this way. To predicate P of something, a, requires a to be an object. (I do not say existent object.) The very syntax Pa tells you this. But nothing is not an object: it is the result of removing all objects.
Of course, we are in paradoxical territory here. Nothing is an object (as well). After all, one can refer to it by the name ‘nothing’. Consequently, it is effable, as well."
(Priest, Graham. "Nothingness and the Ground of Reality: Heidegger and Nishida." In Non-Being: New Essays on the Metaphysics of Non-Existence, edited by Sara Bernstein and Tyron Goldschmidt, 17-33. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. pp. 17-8)
<QUOTE
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1602
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Ontology of Being
Yes, we certainly can't show that the weather is fully determined. We assume it is, and we can't show that it is not, but it quickly gets away from us when we try to gather up all the inputs. Strangely, our decisions about digging up coal and oil and burning them do affect the weather, so in that sense, perhaps it is not fully determined.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 8:55 amAnd yet, when we start examining specific examples, the cause seems to slide away from our magnifying glass. There are sequences of connected 'causes' that we sometimes conflate into one 'cause', maybe incorrectly. And there are cases where we combine many different influences into 'single' cause. And all of those influences might each be a connected sequence of mini-causes too.chewybrian wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 7:22 am No material thing shows a property that is contrary to cause and effect that I can see.
I think that, even if cause and effect is a hard and fast rule of the universe, cause still becomes diffuse, like a fractal, when we examine it closely. It would be unreasonable to say that cause actually disappears, but it becomes so diffuse that it 'soaks into' its environment, and thereby seems to disappear.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8385
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Ontology of Being
chewybrian wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 7:22 am No material thing shows a property that is contrary to cause and effect that I can see.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 8:55 am And yet, when we start examining specific examples, the cause seems to slide away from our magnifying glass. There are sequences of connected 'causes' that we sometimes conflate into one 'cause', maybe incorrectly. And there are cases where we combine many different influences into 'single' cause. And all of those influences might each be a connected sequence of mini-causes too.
I think that, even if cause and effect is a hard and fast rule of the universe, cause still becomes diffuse, like a fractal, when we examine it closely. It would be unreasonable to say that cause actually disappears, but it becomes so diffuse that it 'soaks into' its environment, and thereby seems to disappear.
I hadn't thought of weather, but it looks like a good example. Weather is a chaotic system, so it is possible (?) that there are no causes for weather effects, or some of them. Some chaotic systems, under certain circumstances, are not predictable. This doesn't quite say these events have no cause, but it shows us something quite similar to that.chewybrian wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 4:06 pm Yes, we certainly can't show that the weather is fully determined. We assume it is, and we can't show that it is not, but it quickly gets away from us when we try to gather up all the inputs.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
Yes, but you are changed by what is said and pictured about Paris.Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 7:26 amI'd call the question of location more than a reasonable opinion. I'd say the assumption that my personality happens somewhere in me and not, say, next-door or in Paris, is at least a racing certainty. I've never seen anything to suggest otherwise.chewybrian wrote:We don't know where your experience is or what it is in any objective terms. You know it subjectively and that's it. Your assumption is fair enough, but I don't see that it rises beyond the level of a reasonable opinion.Steve3007 wrote:...I know, as well as I know anything, that everything associated with my personality happens in the middle of my head, plus or minus, let's say, 8 inches.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023