Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

truth
Fresco and Tywvel, let me get something clear. Frank asks point blank whether or not a material world exists, and earlier Rufio makes the same challenge, asking me how can I sense a material world when nothing is there. Rufio's grossly begs the question, assuming that I AM sensing a MATERIAL world and then assuming that I argue there is NOTHING there. Trying to deal with such presumptuous thinking is some ordeal. Frank's question at least has the virtue of brevity; I only wished he had put material world in quotation marks. Now I am hoping our interaction here will answer both Frank's and Rufio's question, as quixotic as the hope may be.
I have said elsewhere that I do believe that "something" exists I am not an absolute idealist--we do not make up the world out of whole cloth; we create it interacting with "something" (and I am one with that something), but we make of it what we do because we are meaning-making animals. But that does not deny that what we have constructed is anything more than a construction. This applies to "self", "material world", and the content in the world as conceived dualistically. A "material world" is a construction. I cannot understand how that can be denied. But I do not suggest, Rubio, that it must follow from that that there is really nothing. That would not solve your problem if I had said that, because "nothing", as you see it, remains something separate from us, a dualistic construction, and it is also a construction.
This is getting more muddled than I had anticipated. But let me repeat Tywvel'ls terse response: "Apart from concepts it neither exists or does not exist." He is saying that neither the "material world" nor the "nothing" that would replace it in a dualistic framework exist. I agree with Twyvel's position. I also agree with Fresco's: "...'existence' is 'that which affects interaction' whether 'belief' or 'fact." He seems to consider his position not as extreme as Twyvel's, who "taks an ultimate position, that all interaction is 'illusory' because 'actors'...and 'the world' are an inseparable unity." To me Twyvel's unity is implicit in Fresco's interaction. According to Fresco's interactionISM, as I understand it, not only is "existence" that which affects interaction; interaction is what generates existence. Things emerge because of interactions which are causal in nature. I'm afraid I've made things more murky rather than clear.

0 Replies

So when you say that reality is a social construction you're talking about the categorization of reality and not the existence of reality. I think I mentioned on some thread somewhere rather recently that socially constructed things like language and other ways of categorizing reality are clearly real enough to be intrepreted in the same way by many many people. In some cases, like with the distinctness of objects which I beleive twyvel was hung up on a while ago, this even happens across every culture, and none of these occurances are unique to any one culture in any case. So that really makes it seem pretty improbable that the world is a social construction, since social constructions are the things that really differentiate cultures from each other and are almost never found to coincide so perfectly as our conceptions of reality do. Language, certainly, is rather limited in this respect, and a non-speaker might very well not be able to distinguish individual words. But in distinguishing between objects and even colors (with notable exceptions on the latter), humanity seems to be fairly unanimous.

How can you look at that and say it's a construction?

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Do keep in mind, however, that Tywvel, Fresco and I understand and use both paradigms. You, Joe, Frank, and some others have understood and used only one.

Just the kind of response that I would expect from someone defending a belief system. Really, JLN, the more you try to explain your position, the more you demonstrate just how correct Frank is in comparing the non-dualists with doctrinaire theists.*

It's a pretty feeble defense to say that your opponents don't understand, when what you really mean is that they don't believe. Look, I understand non-dualism: frankly, from the discussions we've had here, I am confident that I understand it better than you do. But then I also understand Christianity, communism, UFOs, the Loch Ness monster, and "compassionate conservatism." That understanding, however, does not entail belief. If understanding non-dualism requires belief in non-dualism, then I have to say that you're asking too much.

*My agreement with Frank should be noted in some respect, perhaps with a plaque or a roadside historical marker.

0 Replies

JLN

I would describe the difference in our various positions as degrees of transcendence. In as much as we agree to talk/communicate at all it seems to me we have to acknowledge at least the temporary existence of "self/selves".
That is obviously a problem fot twyvel i.e. to say anything at all. (Non dualists know about that "silence") My position is one of "pragmatism" which characterizes cognition (selfhood) as having particular "needs" and evoking and utilizing concepts which satisfy such needs. My transcendence comes in appreciating that such needs and concepts are arbitrary, transient, and involve social consensus. I am therefore prepared to aknowledge the utility of the concept of a "material world" but not its axiomatic status. As a physics student many years ago I came across the concept of "particles of matter" as "nodes of reinforcement at the intersection of three dimensional electromagnetic waves"....nice....but who needs it ....with the emphasis on "who" and "need" ! It also become obvious that "truth" and "falsity" are situation specific and have little to do with "ultimate reality", hence "belief" and "fact" are merely matters of degrees of confidence.
This last point is where I think we differ radically from the "realists" and materialists" who are prepared to argue for "facts".

0 Replies

Re: truth

joefromchicago wrote:

JLNobody wrote:
Do keep in mind, however, that Tywvel, Fresco and I understand and use both paradigms. You, Joe, Frank, and some others have understood and used only one.

Just the kind of response that I would expect from someone defending a belief system. Really, JLN, the more you try to explain your position, the more you demonstrate just how correct Frank is in comparing the non-dualists with doctrinaire theists.*

*My agreement with Frank should be noted in some respect, perhaps with a plaque or a roadside historical marker.

I just came on-line -- and after reading the postings from Fresco, Twyvel and JL, I determined that I felt like JL. Trying to get the other side to understand is, indeed, quixotic.

I also determined that the best way to proceed right now would be to simply note that the more I read of what they had to say, the more certain I am that I was correct in suggesting that the way they attempt to rationalize their beliefs (their guesses) in attempts to make the guesses look like something more than guesses -- is comparable to theistic methods of rationalizing their guesses in attempts to make them look like something more than guesses.

They are two of a kind -- whether Twyvel, JL, or Fresco can see it or not.

Then I scrolled further -- and noted that you beat me to it.

Thanks!

And I guess a plaque is in order. :wink: :wink:

0 Replies

Frank,

How do you differentiate between "a guess" and "a fact" ?

Is it a fact or a guess that;

(1) George Bush is President as you read this.

(2) Atoms exist.

(3) Men have been to the moon.

I put it to you that there is merely a high level of "evidence" that might make you say these are "facts" and none is 100% certain as we speak.
(Bush may have been assassinated, "atoms" may be discarded as a useful model, the moon landings may have been faked) but of course we would be aberrent to remove "factual status" even though we are basing this on high probability. So at what level of probability does something cease to be "a fact" and become "a guess" ?

Surely the statement "I don't know for certain" is essentially a truism about most states of affairs is it not ? We are guessing most of the time ! What therefore matters is not whether a proposition is "a guess" (they ALL are) but whether the proposition is useful and that's another ballgame !

0 Replies

Fresco

Your point is well taken -- and I can tell you that I can make a spirited defense of the proposition that most things asserted as fact can be shown to have an element of uncertainty about them.

All that being so, however, I'm not really sure of how it impacts on the context of what I've had to say here.

0 Replies

truth
Fresco, thank you for your very subtle yet clear characterization of the most essential elements of "our" position. I say "our" because I'm sure that if there are differences between the perspective of the three of us, you have laid out our major points of agreement. I too see dualism, and the ontological "axiomatic status" of the so-called objective, fact- endowed "material world" as a realm of experience constructed solely for its utility value. Indeed, its utility value reflect prerequisites of survival, which explains its near universality. My attitude toward "truth" and "belief" is, as it is toward philosophy and science as a whole, is that of pragmatism. Truths are definitely historically and circumstantially "situation specific." This would include matters of ideology and interests, matters going beyond the simple prerequisites of survival. In short, "knowleldge" is always useful and relativistic, never pure and absolute. Your ability to relate this to the status of contemporary scientific knowledge and methodology far surpasses mine, and Twyvel's ability to point to nondualistic experience by means of talk (something impossible to achieve completely) astounds me. I am very pleased to learn from both of you, to expand my consciousness by means of your contributions.
Unfortunately, Joe, Frank, and perhaps Terry, are closed to such opportunities. They choose to equate our perspectives as no more valid than the doctrinal "beliefs" of theism. No matter, one thing I am pleased to report is that I feel no great attachment to my perspective qua philosophy. It is most clear to me when my mind is silent, and threatens to fade away when I attempt to defend "it" verbally.
In this spirit of receptivity to knowlege given by others, I would like to ask Joe to also enlighten me on the nature of non-dualism, since he is confident that he understands it better than I. And I do not doubt that this may be so, regarding philosophical dualism, i.e., the general opposition to Descarte's and his successors' distinction between mind and body, self and other, inner and outer. But his inability to "understand" the meanings expressed by Twyvel suggest very strongly that he and others here do not enjoy nondualism as any part of their mental orientation.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Fresco, thank you for your very subtle yet clear characterization of the most essential elements of "our" position. I say "our" because I'm sure that if there are differences between the perspective of the three of us, you have laid out our major points of agreement. I too see dualism, and the ontological "axiomatic status" of so-called objective, fact endowed "material world" as a constructed realm of experience, constructed solely for its utility value. Indeed, its utility value includes the matter of survival which explains its near universality. My attitude toward "truth" and "belief" is, as it is toward philosophy and science as a whole, is that of pragmatism. Truths are definitely historically and circumstantially "situation specific." This would include matters of ideology and interests, matters going beyond the simple prerequisites of survival. In short, "knowleldge" is always relativistic and never absolute. Your ability to discuss such matters with reference to the status of contemporary scientific knowledge and methodology far surpasses mine, and Twyvel's ability to approach dualism is his talk (something that is not possible to achieve completely) astounds me. I am very pleased to learn from both of you, to try to expand my consciousness with your contributions. Unfortunately, Joe, Frank, and perhaps Terry, are closed to such opportunities. They choose to equate our perspectives as no more valid than the dogmatic "beliefs" of theism. No matter, one thing I am pleased to report is that I feel no great attachment to my perspective as philosophy. It is most clear to me when my mind is silent, and threatens to fade away when I attempt to defend "it" verbally.
In this spirit of receptivity to knowlege given by others, I would like to ask Joe to also enlighten me on the nature of non-dualism, since he is confident that he understands it better than I. And I do not doubt that this may be so, regarding philosophical dualism, i.e., the general opposition to Descarte's and his successors' distinction between mind and body, self and other, inner and outer. But his inability to "understand" the meanings expressed by Twyvel suggest very strongly that he and others here do not enjoy nondualism as any part of their mental experience.

JL, I agree with so much of what you have to say on other things, once again I amcompelled to mention that I feel almost a traitor in responding to your posts on this issue as I must...but...I am going to anyway.

This last post of yours could have been written by a Christian explaining why folks like us simply "cannot get it."

Sorry you guys are so immersed in this thing that you cannot see it for what it is, but...

0 Replies

truth
Frank, too bad (for me) that you read my unedited version. No matter, the points were the same in both versions.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

In this spirit of receptivity to knowlege given by others, I would like to ask Joe to also enlighten me on the nature of non-dualism, since he is confident that he understands it better than I.

I understand that non-dualism is a metaphysical belief system, the existence of which is incapable of being demonstrated either inductively or deductively. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly does not understand non-dualism as well as I do.

JLNobody wrote:

But his inability to "understand" the meanings expressed by Twyvel suggest very strongly that he and others here do not enjoy nondualism as any part of their mental orientation.

Damn skippy! But then, if it's necessary to "enjoy non-dualism as a part of my mental orientation" in order to understand non-dualism, you're merely asserting that understanding derives from belief. Frankly, that's not how things work -- except for believers in metaphysical systems.

Or lunatics.

0 Replies

Frank,

If you accept the principle of "utility" as more viable than the principle of "actuality" then statements say about " the divine origin of free will" can only be evaluated in terms of the utilitarian significance of attaching "divine" to "free will" or otherwise . From a sociological point of view the "divine" angle is "useful" in adding an element of "external authority" and hence "confidence" within tests of "criminality". ( This also has a bearing on the "attraction" of religious schools where "the discipline is better".)

As I have said before, your "agnostic stance" tends to be socially neutral, but that may render it irrelevent. My atheistic stance tends to be socially iconoclastic but I work on the premise that the net impact of "theism" is negative at the global level.

0 Replies

truth
Ah, Joe, so your UNDERSTANDING of non-dualism amounts to no more than the critical evaluation of it as lunacy.
Let me tell you that if I needed a lawyer, I would certainly hire you, partly for your obvious intelligence and partly because of your tenacity. I know that you would never give up.
By the way, you characterize my (our) nondualistic perspective as a "metaphysical belief system" (MBS) "incapable of being demonstrated either inductively or deductively." If this perspective of ours were an MBS we would at least present (validly or not) some inductive or deductive defense of it (that would be so, by definition of MBS). But as far as I know we have only been trying (with great patience) to describe our perspective, not to defend a "system" of "thought" by either of the two logical approaches.
Lunatic

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Frank,

If you accept the principle of "utility" as more viable than the principle of "actuality" then statements say about " the divine origin of free will" can only be evaluated in terms of the utilitarian significance of attaching "divine" to "free will" or otherwise . From a sociological point of view the "divine" angle is "useful" in adding an element of "external authority" and hence "confidence" within tests of "criminality". ( This also has a bearing on the "attraction" of religious schools where "the discipline is better".)

Okay...and what does this have to do with anything I've said.

Quote:

As I have said before, your "agnostic stance" tends to be socially neutral, but that may render it irrelevent. My atheistic stance tends to be socially iconoclastic but I work on the premise that the net impact of "theism" is negative at the global level.

Yes, I understand you atheists want to delude yourselves into thinking that.

However, my agnostic stance has a much, much better chance of impacting on the problems theism presents to the planet than your atheism -- and my guess the chances of it impacting to a greater degree than atheism is SIGNIFICANT.

Theist base their philosophy on the absolutely necessary contingent that the NATURE OF REALITY can be known. According to them -- not only can it be know, but it is known -- and it involves a Creator and blah, blah, blah.

Atheism attempts to counter that by agreeing with theism that in fact the NATURE OF REALITY can be known -- but that the truth is that there are no gods.

Theism and atheism are essentially arguing about which philosophy correctly KNOWS the answers to Ultimate Questions about the NATURE OF REALITY.

And it is a delight to watch them battle over how many whatsits can ballet dance on the head of a pin.

Agnostics, on the other hand, acknowledge that they do not know the NATURE OF REALITY -- that there doesn't seem to be enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about the specific issue of whether or not there is a God or are no gods -- and that the theists and atheists of the world don't know either and that they have no more evidence to work with than we do -- and that insofar as both are still insisting they can explain REALITY, both camps are full of ****.

Atheists have almost no chance of getting through on this issue, because atheism tacitly accepts that the TRUTH can be known.

It is particularly laughable, because except that they don't really think very clearly, theists could point out that they at least COULD be right that they KNOW God exists -- but atheists simply can never really be right that they KNOW there are no gods.

And so that you don't misunderstand and fixate on the word KNOW here, Fresco, I am willing to acknowledge that CERTAINTY is virtually, if not definitely, impossible -- and something less must be allowed.

In shortif "utility' is what is being discussed - and if the objective is to impact on the negatives theism presents for society -- atheism comes in a very poor second to agnosticism.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Ah, Joe, so your UNDERSTANDING of non-dualism amounts to no more than the critical evaluation of it as lunacy.

Wow, JLN, that is so far off the mark that it doesn't even work as a feeble jest.

JLNobody wrote:

Let me tell you that if I needed a lawyer, I would certainly hire you, partly for your obvious intelligence and partly because of your tenacity. I know that you would never give up.

I'll send you one of my business cards.

JLNobody wrote:

By the way, you characterize my (our) nondualistic perspective as a "metaphysical belief system" (MBS) "incapable of being demonstrated either inductively or deductively." If this perspective of ours were an MBS we would at least present (validly or not) some inductive or deductive defense of it (that would be so, by definition of MBS).

No, that's not by any definition of a metaphysical belief system, although I have no doubt that you'd try to make some sort of defense regardless.

JLNobody wrote:

But as far as I know we have only been trying (with great patience) to describe our perspective, not to defend a "system" of "thought" by either of the two logical approaches.

JLN, you must be kidding: that's all you've been trying to do. Seriously, do you honestly think that all you've been doing is describing perspectives? Then why the challenges to "understand" your position? Why such declarative statements such as this:

[i]This is getting more muddled than I had anticipated. But let me repeat Tywvel'ls terse response: "Apart from concepts it neither exists or does not exist." He is saying that neither the "material world" nor the "nothing" that would replace it in a dualistic framework exist. [b]I agree with Twyvel's position.[/b][/i]
Sorry, JLN, you can't make claims that your position is correct and then retreat behind denials that "all I'm doing is describing my perspective."

If all you want to do is describe your perspective, consider your task accomplished. You need no longer burden us with the repetition. If, on the other hand, you're trying to draw conclusions from that perspective, then don't hide behind the farcical claim that you're not.

0 Replies

truth
Joe, your points make sense, but please understand our dilemma. We want to" point" to a perspective, but there is no language to do so that does not look like metaphysical arguments. I am only trying to get you to look at our perspective, to "see" what we mean.
I do wish you and Terry and Frank did not make such extensive use of the cut and paste method you depend on. I know it's convenient, but it permits too many pseudo responses of the "you don't say so" type. You deny my characterization of metaphysical belief systems with a simple (simplistic) ["]No, it isn't["], but without any counter thesis of what an MBS is. Fresco, Tywvel and I have worked hard, I'm sure, to construct our efforts to communicate complex and difficult portrayals of our perspective. But we are most often--not always--met with "you don't say so[s]" or "prove it[s]." Do keep in mind that you will rarely, if ever, find mystical "arguments" directed to sceptics. It is hard enough to bring the eager aspirant to some kind of "insight" (which is what I should always say instead of "understanding").

0 Replies

What about my question?

0 Replies

truth
Rufio, I did not respond to your "question" because of a strong sense of deja vu. Haven't we discussed the matter of the "social construction of reality" of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann elsewhere? In any case, I (we) have been talking about the constructive nature of world pictures (world views, cosmologies, definitions of the situation, etc.), not just those of social systems, i.e., cultures. Yet I would agree that virtually all thinking rests on cultural conditionings. Cultural systems do more than merely "categorize" the "objective" phenomena people experience; they actually create them, by interacting with an essentially meaningless world and other members of society, they bring the "meaningfulness" of human experience/life into existence. Cultures create worlds of meaning; they don't just fine-tune or tinker with apriori meanings. At the same time, there is far more variability of meanings across members of a society than has been acknowledged by many anthropologists, especially those who have to simplify the matter writing textbooks. There is SUFFICIENT sharing of learned skills, values, definitions and beliefs for interaction to occur but that sharing is never complete, which accounts for much of the dynamics of daily life. Just look at the conflicts occuring on these threads because of unshared values, assumptions, meanings, understandings, etc.
But I do not really want to debate the matter. If you were an anthropologist, say of the Marvin Harris materialist persuasion (ah, now I KNOW we have discussed this before, Harris brings it all back), and you debated an idealist like Clifford Geertz, nothing would come of it. Believe me. Nevertheless, the two of you would find your respective orientations useful for the conduct of your ethnographic research and interpretations. It's relative, and--as Fresco has noted somewhere here--a matter of utility not actuality.

0 Replies

I agree that meaning is socially contructed, and I've never disagreed with that fact. But you and twyvel have continuously been arguing that objective things, stripped of meaning and cultural influences, are still socially constructed somehow. How?

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, your points make sense, but please understand our dilemma. We want to" point" to a perspective, but there is no language to do so that does not look like metaphysical arguments....[/quess]

Well, you could always try something like: "Our guess is...but we could be wrong."
:wink:

0 Replies

Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know