Don Atreides


DonAtreides

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi, Don. Since you're a determinist how do you fit a need for a philosophy into that? Philosophy, of course, is about humans making choices and that's in turn about free will. And doesn't determinism necessarily make one totally accepting of the world as it is? As with Christianity not being compatible with Objectivism, how is determinism? I don't know.

--Brant

determined to de-determine the afflicted and de-poor the poor

An excellent question. Here's an analogy: Let's pretend for a moment that we're all brains floating in jars somewhere and that reality is just a computer simulation that's stimulating electrodes attached to the jar. What effect does that have on our lives? Well, none really. We can only perceive the simulated world we're presented. We'll never be able to crawl out of our jars or even perceive that we're in a jar. So if ultimately we're all brains floating in jars, our reality, even if it's simulated, is unchanged. If I cut myself in the simulated world I feel pain. If I eat a grape, I enjoy the taste. Simulated reality, even if it isn't the "ultimate" reality is what I have to deal with day-to-day, from birth to death. So, even if the universe is deterministic, we have to behave as though we do have free will, because we'll never be able to know otherwise - i.e. we'll never be out of the jar. No computer, no matter how fast, could ever calculate everything there is to predict the future. You would need a computer bigger than the universe. So our only choice is to act as though we do have free will - even though we ultimately don't.

This is what Lord Keynes meant when he said that in the long run we're all dead.

In the context of your stated position the question is how much room do we have to play in? You seem to be a determinist because determinism is the dominant existential context. I'm not because the dominant context for human action philosophically is freedom and choices. Rand explicitly endorsed the statement that "Reality to be commanded must be obeyed." You, sir, are not reality looking at human beings as theater, but that's where you are positioned. You are a human being yourself, not an anthropologist from Mars. The dominant focus of a person is what he can do and the doer is thus primarily a free-willer even if he doesn't explicitly acknowledge this. So properly speaking determinism and free will both exist and perspective determines which is dominant at any given time for a given person--i.e., the perspective shifts. Ironically, however, free will must dominate because both concepts embrace philosophy epistemologically speaking. So if we draw a circle within which free will and determinism dance with first one leading then the other and another circle circling that calling it philosophy and one more calling it reality, that's what's really going on.

This can be put another way: "I am a determinist" is what I mean when I say "I am a pantheist" or God is reality in all its manifestations which I respect but do not worship. So much for that. Now, then, what about me? I gotta be me. That's all I can be. That's who I am.

--Brant

determined to have free will and I had better act like it or a determined God will strike me down for only free will makes me compatible with reality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit, Brant, I don't follow most of what you're saying. Let me say this then in the hopes of clarifying my position: I accept that I do not have free will any more than bacteria does. There's nothing special about my growth in the womb that caused free will to spring forth into my body. Self-awareness is demonstrable, but free will - no. I'm still bound by the same physics, the same causality, as rocks, trees, and sunshine.

Whether I like it or not is inconsequential - it's what reason dictates. If it conflicts with a philosophy then I must alter or reject that philosophy. I am a pure rationalist. To be honest, I find it hard to understand how someone could be otherwise. (<- Not accusatory.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree to disagree, anyway, but concepts based on concepts aren't demonstrable either. Reality is a bunch of concepts right out of hard-nosed physicality, but reality itself only by referencing the totality of all those other concepts. Self awareness is somewhat similarly demonstrable, but not free will which is based on self awareness. This is something imperfectly akin to the natural rights debate--i.e., they cannot be observed through dissection so they don't exist, but the natural in natural rights comes from the nature of human nature and its needs, or abstraction of abstractions.

--Brant

dazed and confused

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don: I am determined to welcome you to this forum, and yet I say this of my own free will. :laugh:

Thank you PDS. :)

I value intellectual integrity above all. I abhor pseudo-intellectuals and pretentiousness. I can't stomach laziness of mind. If your goal is to sound intellectual to impress others or bolster your ego, we will not get along.

hmm ok no pretentions, whats up dude

I was commenting on your admonition that we may not get along and the implication that that may be a disvalue

No pretentiousness - just trying to save time. pre·ten·tious Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An excellent question. Here's an analogy: Let's pretend for a moment that we're all brains floating in jars somewhere and that reality is just a computer simulation that's stimulating electrodes attached ....

Then, you realize that "we" are only just aspects of your own imagination. No one else exists. Then it occurs to you based on the summations of all the inputs you have received that it is not electrodes in a jar, but the collective smells of an insect hive and you are their Idea. And it still would not make any difference. And then you feel a shaking and suddenly you wake up! And your mother says, "Wake up. You were having a nightmare." And you focus your eyes and see that your mother is the Queen of the Hive and you are a Worker. And you get out of bed to attend the eggs, but when you exit the door, you find yourself on a carnival merry-go-round and you realize that you are an octopus ...

I hope that your software works better than your philosophy.

By the way, here on Objectivist Living is Stuart Hayashi's "Argument from Arbitrary Metaphysics."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don:

Welcome to OL.

Maybe you should become a Calvinist.

The doctrine of predestination in Calvinism deals with the question of the control God exercises over the world. In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, God "freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass."[1] The second use of the word "predestination" applies this to the salvation, and refers to the belief that God appointed the eternal destiny of some to salvation by grace, while leaving the remainder to receive eternal damnation for all their sins, even their original sin. The former is called "unconditional election", and the latter "reprobation". In Calvinism, people are predestined and effectually called in due time (regenerated/born again) to faith by God.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An excellent question. Here's an analogy: Let's pretend for a moment that we're all brains floating in jars somewhere and that reality is just a computer simulation that's stimulating electrodes attached ....

Then, you realize that "we" are only just aspects of your own imagination. No one else exists. Then it occurs to you based on the summations of all the inputs you have received that it is not electrodes in a jar, but the collective smells of an insect hive and you are their Idea. And it still would not make any difference. And then you feel a shaking and suddenly you wake up! And your mother says, "Wake up. You were having a nightmare." And you focus your eyes and see that your mother is the Queen of the Hive and you are a Worker. And you get out of bed to attend the eggs, but when you exit the door, you find yourself on a carnival merry-go-round and you realize that you are an octopus ...

I hope that your software works better than your philosophy.

By the way, here on Objectivist Living is Stuart Hayashi's "Argument from Arbitrary Metaphysics."

You're missing the point. Brains in jars, bee hives, never-ending dream - it doesn't matter if the person can never wake up. The consequences are real regardless. If you were predetermined to murder someone, you still go to jail. From your link, we're all Oedipus except that we have no idea what fate holds. The point is that, even if the universe is determined we might as well act as though it isn't because it's so impossible to predict.

Do we have free will? No. But we might as well pretend that we do so we can get on with the process of living.

Incidentally, that reminds me of Bertrand Russell's solipsist joke: "As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me." - Bertrand Russell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don,

No it doesn't.

Reason doesn't dictate it at all.

It's what your understanding of reason dictates.

The real issue is underneath that. But I don't know if you are open to checking that premise.

Michael

It follows logically that strict causality doesn't somehow lead to free will. How could it? That's like saying that when enough human cells get together a ghosty soul magically appears for no reason. Or that rats are generated by piles of dirty rags. It doesn't follow.

Even supposing we allow that it could, the burden of evidence is on the believer to prove it. So far, I've seen no evidence of free will that isn't better explained by a perception of free will.

In fact, neuroscience has found that our decisions are made by the subconscious brain before we're even consciously aware of the choice. The theory is that the conscious brain "catches up" to the decision that has already been made. I'll post a link when I have some time to hunt it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don:

Welcome to OL.

Maybe you should become a Calvinist.

A...

Thanks Selene. If there was a god, I would. ;) Indeed, if you (the general "you") believe that there is an omniscient, omnipotent being that guides things, then by definition s/he knows all the decisions, moral and otherwise, that you will make before you are born. Indeed, a creator would make you what you are - sinner or saint. Computers can't do things we don't tell them to do. Sometimes they do things we don't expect because we're not omniscient - but I can assure you, they can only do what we tell them. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don:

Welcome to OL.

Maybe you should become a Calvinist.

A...

Thanks Selene. If there was a god, I would. ;) Indeed, if you (the general "you") believe that there is an omniscient, omnipotent being that guides things, then by definition s/he knows all the decisions, moral and otherwise, that you will make before you are born. Indeed, a creator would make you what you are - sinner or saint. Computers can't do things we don't tell them to do. Sometimes they do things we don't expect because we're not omniscient - but I can assure you, they can only do what we tell them. :smile:

Don:

However, you do know that the proverbial "they" is working on the ineptly named "A.I." [artificial intelligence].

Can you conceive of a plasma state intelligent machine that will do what it decides is best beyond the limits of some of it's programing states?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It follows logically that strict causality doesn't somehow lead to free will.

Don,

So your epistemology starts with causality and deductive logic as standalone elements?

btw - I have read some neuroscience, including what you talked about. I don't recall any claim that ALL decisions are made subconsciously before getting to awareness, merely that many are. And I can't remember what brain imaging technique they used to determine that. I have to look it up because that was some time ago.

I generally read neuroscience stuff from a marketing standpoint, so I tend to look at crossovers with psychology and concentrate on that kind of material (especially a synthesizer for practical business applications like David Rock, Your Brain at Work). However, I also muck around with readings from Daniel Kahneman (especially Thinking, Fast and Slow), Steven Pinker (only parts of How The Mind Works) Antonio Damasio (several lectures online and parts of Descartes Error) and others of that calibre.

btw - Sorry to not provide more names, but I find name-dropping qua name-dropping distasteful. If we start discussing this stuff, more will emerge as we get into what they are actually talking about.

Also, I like to be honest, so sometimes really comical things happen to me and I simply talk about them as they happen. For instance, as this is an interest I have jumped into in earnest only during the last 3 years or so, a friend of mine--a child therapist who knows I like this stuff--started talking to me about Oliver Sachs. Oliver who? That was my response. :) I have since gotten some stuff by him and realized that he is only Mr. Bestselling Populizer of Neuroscience and has been for years. Duh. But I have only skimmed his most recent book on hallucinations so far. And, of course, I saw Awakenings, the movie, when it came out, but I was more interested in the story and Robert De Niro's marvelous performance at the time. I think I am going to like him a lot because he does the weird stuff like V.S. Ramachandran, who fascinates me.

I don't have a university degree level of knowledge of this field. I'm merely an interested amateur. I'm really interested in what neuroscience and modern psychology says about story (including some fascinating fMRI scans I have seen analyzed). There's even a pretty good writing book on this called Wired for Story by Lisa Cron which I'm reading for the second time (I have to do that often as there is so much I miss the first time around, even when I read slowly). I like books like that, which are practical applications, not just theory or research. But that's not the only book I've read on this.

Speaking of fMRI scans, you might be interested in seeing what our dear President is up to in education. Here's a discussion of a study where the Department of Education wants to collect an enormous database on school children based on fMRI scans and other neuroscience measuring techniques, following them from first grade up to graduation. There's even a picture of some of the devices they suggest for use. It's kinda creepy because it strongly hints at a technocratically mind-controlled society over time.

I'm only mentioning all this right now so you get a feel of who you are talking to. I suspect we will have some things to discuss. However, I tend to like simple explanations along with the jargon for the benefit of readers. Some accuse me of dumbing things down, but that's not really the case. I strongly believe that even the most complex ideas can be explained in plain English if the author is really intent on communicating them and not just showing off.

In fact, I go further. I believe (and strongly believe) it is an intellectual failing on the part of an author if he cannot do this. Not for all eggheads, of course. Some live in the clouds and they will never come down. But I hold it is true for far too many. Especially those who like to post frequently on forums and other online discussion places. They do what I call dumbing-up their content, so to speak. They use big words to scratch an emotional itch of showing off instead of scratching the itch to communicate the substance in a manner that prompts fruitful response.

But my real focus is not on him in this case. That's just my observation. My real focus is on the forum--my job. I run a discussion forum. So I keep an eye on how interesting the forum is for readers. They tend to leave when the only fare they get is long-winded jargon-laden screeds, often accompanied by mind-numbing statistics--and delivered in a condescending snarky tone.

Er...

Boy, did I take a detour. :)

I guess I'm still feeling the effects of someone I just had to deal with who was a forum-killer in these aspects. The dude posed as a brain (which wore the cowboy hat, but when you looked, there wasn't much cattle around), and was also real nasty and snarky. So he would get an immediate surge in attention at times (all people like to come out to see a train-wreck, including intelligent folks), but the long-term effect of such a person is for independent intelligent people of goodwill to get fed up and stop posting and the general reader to drift away. I know this to be fact because I speak from experience in dealing with it several times over the years (with different individuals) and observing what people do in reaction.

So please don't take my comments as referring to you. They might apply in the future (I doubt it from what I have seen so far, even though we will probably disagree on much, but who knows? :) ). For now, I'm just riffing off one thing to another.

As long as this is a disorganized post, here is a link to a curated site I visit sometimes, one I think you might like (if you don't go there already). It was suggested by a persuasion guru, (a guy called Dave Lakhani). He said it was a good idea to visit it daily. I actually did for a while. I'm glad this post happened because it reminded me of how much I used to like it, so I think I will resume the habit.

Science Daily - Mind & Brain News

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An excellent question. Here's an analogy: Let's pretend for a moment that we're all brains floating in jars somewhere and that reality is just a computer simulation that's stimulating electrodes attached ....

Then, you realize that "we" are only just aspects of your own imagination. No one else exists. ... you find yourself on a carnival merry-go-round and you realize that you are an octopus ...

I hope that your software works better than your philosophy.

By the way, here on Objectivist Living is Stuart Hayashi's "Argument from Arbitrary Metaphysics."

You're missing the point. Brains in jars, bee hives, never-ending dream - it doesn't matter if ...

Well, we are talking past each other then, because you missed my point. Your "brains in a jar" thought experiment is contrary to reality. Period. Where does the story come from? Who designs the inputs? What makes them "real" to us? And, as you admit, the narrative does nothing for the so-called "problem" of free will.

Incidentally, that reminds me of Bertrand Russell's solipsist joke: "... Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. ... ." - Bertrand Russell

Old story. Cute. It shows the absurdity of such mind games. Words allow us to imagine what we call "unreal." We make up stories about unicorns, giants, galactic empires, time lords, and such. But, in fact, each of them must of necessity be comprised of real elements. Granted that the elements are thrown together in contradiction to reality - Pegasos was a flying horse - but it is impossible to imagine the unreal. Still, we play with words and it amuses us.

Your "brains in a jar" is not really a philosophical discussion. It is a campfire tale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I only look at the the brain and mind stuff.

Besides, it's curated content, which means content from around the web collected in one place according to theme.

Michael

Thanks for that information. I'll take another look.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don:

However, you do know that the proverbial "they" is working on the ineptly named "A.I." [artificial intelligence].

Can you conceive of a plasma state intelligent machine that will do what it decides is best beyond the limits of some of it's programing states?

A...

Good question. I don't think that a machine can ever do anything beyond it's programming. It could conceivably do something we wouldn't expect, but even if it becomes sentient it's still bound by physics. Indeed, even a machine that could reprogram itself could only do so based on it's original programming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Er...

Boy, did I take a detour. :smile:

Michael

.

I'll say! :) At least it was an interesting detour.

I suppose I do start with causality and deductive logic as axiomatic. I think causality is safe to assume above the quantum level. Below the quantum level, I'd probably need a lot more knowledge of physics to make that call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we are talking past each other then, because you missed my point. Your "brains in a jar" thought experiment is contrary to reality. Period. Where does the story come from? Who designs the inputs? What makes them "real" to us? And, as you admit, the narrative does nothing for the so-called "problem" of free will.

Your "brains in a jar" is not really a philosophical discussion. It is a campfire tale.

A thought experiment isn't supposed to be true to reality - that's the "thought" part of it.

My point is this - even if we are brains in jars, we'll never know so what does it matter?

Determinism is the same. Regardless of whether we have free will or not, we have to act as though we do to go about our lives.

That said, I think it does matter in terms of intellectual integrity. Many people believe in free will, not for a rational reason, but because they "want to". That's intellectually dishonest. The are good reasons (that I ultimately object to) to believe in free will. But many people believe in free will because it makes them feel as though they're somehow "above" physics, chemistry, and biology - in the same way and for the same reasons that people "object" to Evolution. ("I'm not a monkey!") Again, it's about intellectual integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we are talking past each other then, because you missed my point. Your "brains in a jar" thought experiment is contrary to reality. Period. Where does the story come from? Who designs the inputs? What makes them "real" to us? And, as you admit, the narrative does nothing for the so-called "problem" of free will.

Your "brains in a jar" is not really a philosophical discussion. It is a campfire tale.

A thought experiment isn't supposed to be true to reality - that's the "thought" part of it.

My point is this - even if we are brains in jars, we'll never know so what does it matter?

Determinism is the same. Regardless of whether we have free will or not, we have to act as though we do to go about our lives.

That said, I think it does matter in terms of intellectual integrity. Many people believe in free will, not for a rational reason, but because they "want to". That's intellectually dishonest. The are good reasons (that I ultimately object to) to believe in free will. But many people believe in free will because it makes them feel as though they're somehow "above" physics, chemistry, and biology - in the same way and for the same reasons that people "object" to Evolution. ("I'm not a monkey!") Again, it's about intellectual integrity.

A thought experiment is not an arbitrary campfire tale. Einstein's ride on the train traveling near the speed of light, Einstein's elevator, etc., elucidate certain facts to be tested. They do not just say, "the universe could be this way if it were not really the way it is." Your "brains in a jar" does not solve the problem of free will.

Certainly, you have seen The Matrix. Your inputs could come from some controlling agency and you could still have free will by your nature as a human being.

Free will is a fact of evolution and has roots deep within the simplest animal behavior. I do not know where it begins - oyster? amoeba? - but starting with us and moving down, clearly we see the origins of choice all around us. One of my cats has this thing for drinking water from the bathtub faucet. Not all cats like scones. Never mind the quantum cloud stuff, free will comes from the complexity of the entity possessing it, and the range of its awareness and possible actions.

DA: "Regardless of whether we have free will or not, we have to act as though we do to go about our lives."

By "we" you mean you yourself. I say that because someone else could believe in Determinism and still live their life pretty much outwardly like everyone else. Instead of foolishly thinking that they are "making choices" they would be a passive observer of their own behavior. "I do not know what I will make for breakfast this morning. Let me see what the Universe determined me to do..." That would beg the question of who it is that is viewing this behavior, but, perhaps, that entity also is predetermined to exist within the actor. I do not argue this as a position, only to say that "we" could have many explanations for our behavior.

In fact, Julian Jaynes suggested in The Breakdown of the Bi-cameral Mind that passages in the Iliad and Odyssey show the affect of literature, of writing, on our self-perception. In the Iliad men say that they are externally moved to do things - what god made you do this? In the Odyssey, Odysseus has a hidden agenda, an internal motive kept apart from his outer actions - disguised as a beggar, he enters his home.

While free will has deep roots in animal behavior, self-awareness is a recent invention.

DA: "... many people believe in free will because it makes them feel as though they're somehow "above" physics, chemistry, and biology - in the same way and for the same reasons that people "object" to Evolution. ("I'm not a monkey!") Again, it's about intellectual integrity."

You have not given a lot of thought to intellectual integrity. You seem to think that "accepting the laws of physics" means that you are pre-determined in your actions, but that you "choose" to act as if you have free will. And you call that integrity.

Moreover, you claim that "many" people have some belief, but you do not say how many, what percentage, where you found them, etc. In argument, that is called the fallacy of the unnamed collective.

I don't know if I could consider myself an Objectivist or not - probably. I do believe in Objective Reality. I do believe in Reason as the sole means for acquiring knowledge. I do believe in the virtue of selfishness. Politically, I'm not certain that Capitalism as it's practiced is the necessary outcome of the first 3 tenets, but if not, it's probably something close to it. Regarding Aesthetics, I've never really considered it.

On the question of free will, I'm a Determinist.

Also, like many others here, you are welcome to participate - and that is not up to me, of course - but just to note that while you might know something about Objectivism, you are not an Objectivist. You do not even seem to be a student of Objectivism. You just have a general consonance with some of the canonical literature. You mentioned Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. If you did read more, I missed your citation.

You miss too many of the key targets to be considered a student of Objectivism. Declaring yourself a capital-D Determinist would be just metric. (See above.) Whether you argue this well or not, determinism is contrary to Objectivism.

DA: "I'm not certain that Capitalism as it's practiced is the necessary outcome of the first 3 tenets, but if not, it's probably something close to it."

Do you mean that whatever the best political system is, it is close to capitalism? Or do you mean that capitalism is close to the political system necessitated by reality, reason, and self-interest? When you say "Capitalism as it is practiced" you reveal that you either have not read the two relevant essays in Virtue of Selfishness, "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government", or you did not understand them. I take it also, that you read nothing in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. It is perfectly fine to question whether the label "capitalism" is better or worse than "free enterprise" or "private enterprise" or "open market" or a dozen other synonyms. Some people claim that "capitalism" is itself a socialist label for free enterprise. But that seems not to be your reservation with the economic system under discussion. Again, if you have doubts about capitalism - as with your doubts about the reality of free will - then you are not even "probably" an Objectivist. You can be whatever you want, of course, but words have meanings, and that one in particular.

Finally, if you never even considered aesthetics, then you still have a ways to go before calling yourself "probably an Objectivist." It is not up to me to declare you this or that. I only point out that the word has a specific meaning to those who use it with a capital-O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MEM states above: "While free will has deep roots in animal behavior, self-awareness is a recent invention."

This is a fascinating statement, especially so if true. I know Harold Bloom has argued as much in his various writings about Shakespeare.

MEM: what are you basing this statement on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Determinism is not just contrary to Objectivism but to any philosophy including any determinist philosophy. It is self-contradictory if not on its face then in every other way. Philosophy is all about choice which is why people want, need and use philosophy even if they don't know that's what they are doing. Conceptual consciousness needs direction, perceptual consciousness takes care of direction automatically. (Below that level are the functions of the autonomic nervous system.) That most people's philosophies are predominantly osmotically acquired, contradictory mishmashes, not even sorted out for the safety of compartmentalization, doesn't change any of this but is reflected in bad life choices hardly unleavened by the luck of life circumstances such as being born in America instead of Afghanistan or over scores of other countries.

We can say the universe determines and has determined that people will self determine by exercising free will, a necessary component of conceptual consciousness. This works--it is not a contradiction--because the universe is a higher level of abstraction than a person respecting the referents. If the universe is reduced to its referents I can't say it determines for "it" has vaporized while I'm still here determining what I can and will determine or not.

--Brant

creating a life after birth

"The world was made when I was born and the world is mine to win."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Determinism is not just contrary to Objectivism but to any philosophy including any determinist philosophy. It is self-contradictory if not on its face then in every other way. Philosophy is all about choice which is why people want, need and use philosophy even if they don't know that's what they are doing. Conceptual consciousness needs direction, perceptual consciousness takes care of direction automatically. (Below that level are the functions of the autonomic nervous system.) That most people's philosophies are predominantly osmotically acquired, contradictory mishmashes, not even sorted out for the safety of compartmentalization, doesn't change any of this but is reflected in bad life choices hardly unleavened by the luck of life circumstances such as being born in America instead of Afghanistan or over scores of other countries.

We can say the universe determines and has determined that people will self determine by exercising free will, a necessary component of conceptual consciousness. This works--it is not a contradiction--because the universe is a higher level of abstraction than a person respecting the referents. If the universe is reduced to its referents I can't say it determines for "it" has vaporized while I'm still here determining what I can and will determine or not.

--Brant

creating a life after birth

"The world was made when I was born and the world is mine to win."

The entity "I" being physical is always in a state of flux. (Think about it, cells in our bodies dies and some are reproduced. Atoms come in and out of our bodies all the time etc. etc.). So which "I" does the determining? The "I" at time time t? The "I" at time t + delta t?

See the Platonic dialogue -Parmenides- for a discussion on this matter. What is the reality? The One or the Many?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba'al, all you are doing is saying an organism has constituent parts. We do not know the universe as an organism but as an idea. Thus you are not addressing my post. Even if we posit the universe as an organism it's still a higher level of reference.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now