Philosophy for beginners?

[revol68]

Has anyone experienced a black hole?

experience isn't to be understood in a niave, boy sees ball way. Telescopes, mathmatics, microscopes, theory etc are all experience. the notion that there is some direct and clear experience is bollox.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What has relativity got to do with any of this, again it seems you are doing the all too common fallacy of employing very precise techical definitions of concepts in a very loose allegorcial matter.

.

That is a foolish statement. When I was discussing the experience of time on Earth as compared to a theoretical body moving away from that Earth at the speed of light, that WAS relativity. The Special Theory of Relativity to be precise. Any of us is entitled to consider ourselves at rest. Anything then moving relative to us will be experiencing a different space-time from us. But it is also entitled to consider itself at rest, and all the rules of physics are the same for any body at rest in the universe.

I suggest you read it from the horse's mouth. Einstein's book on Relativity is very well written. It is an accessible, yet very challenging book, and it will probably take you a while to absorb the full implications of it. It certainly took me quite a deal of effort to attain a reasonably deep grasp of it. What I've outlined above is but a very incomplete summary. Sorry, I don't have the energy to teach you Relativity tonight.

 

[revol68]

That is a foolish statement. When I was discussing the experience of time on Earth as compared to a theoretical body moving away from that Earth at the speed of light, that WAS relativity. The Special Theory of Relativity to be precise. Any of us is entitled to consider ourselves at rest. Anything then moving relative to us will be experiencing a different space-time from us. But it is also entitled to consider itself at rest, and all the rules of physics are the same for any body at rest in the universe.

I suggest you read it from the horse's mouth. Einstein's book on Relativity is very well written. It is an accessible, yet very challenging book, and it will probably take you a while to absorb the full implications of it. It certainly took me quite a deal of effort to attain a reasonably deep grasp of it. What I've outlined above is but a very incomplete summary. Sorry, I don't have the energy to teach you Relativity tonight.

That's all very well but what the fuck does it have to do with free will, and more specifically how do these differ from earlier mechanics?
As far as I can see you are just spouting out science in an attempt to avoid dealing with the actual questions.

 

[cesare]

experience isn't to be understood in a niave, boy sees ball way. Telescopes, mathmatics, microscopes, theory etc are all experience. the notion that there is some direct and clear experience is bollox.

But that's all people were doing when they were convinced that the earth was flat. And they were equally convinced as to their science at the time.

A neighbour of mine was a scientist specialising in black hole theory. He decided to leave academia and now has a job constructing futures tables - that's an example of existentialism

 

[cesare]

That's all very well but what the fuck does it have to do with free will, and more specifically how do these differ from earlier mechanics?
As far as I can see you are just spouting out science in an attempt to avoid dealing with the actual questions.

This is it, playing out. Separation point between science and philosophy.

 

[revol68]

But that's all people were doing when they were convinced that the earth was flat. And they were equally convinced as to their science at the time.

A neighbour of mine was a scientist specialising in black hole theory. He decided to leave academia and now has a job constructing futures tables - that's an example of existentialism

yes of course, I didn't say truth I said knowledge, and at the time their experience of the world hadn't lead them to understand it as round.

 

[revol68]

This is it, playing out. Separation point between science and philosophy.

I've no problem with proper science in relation to such questions, I however take issue at people spouting illundersttod shit and passing it off as really deep because they employ technical terms from science yet are bastardising them to fuck (as they say).

 

[cesare]

yes of course, I didn't say truth I said knowledge, and at the time their experience of the world hadn't lead them to understand it as round.

As is ours now. We choose to decide whether our current knowledge is actual knowledge or belief.

 

[cesare]

I've no problem with proper science in relation to such questions, I however take issue at people spouting illundersttod shit and passing it off as really deep because they employ technical terms from science yet are bastardising them to fuck (as they say).

I think hard, natural, measuring science has its place, of course.

 

[revol68]

As is ours now. We choose to decide whether our current knowledge is actual knowledge or belief.

Yeah it's just a toss up really...

You sound like Jazzz with his 'well we've been wrong in the past so anything can be true now' bollox.

I'm sure much of what we have 'knowledge' of now will be either revised, rejected ot much further elaborated in the future. The fact that knowledge is historically and socially contingent is no reason to flatten it so there is no difference between believing in pink unicorns and 'believing' in evolution or gravity etc.

Also many older forms of knowledge whilst being ultimately wrong contained kernels of insight upin which our modern knowledge was constructed over centuries.

 

[revol68]

I think hard, natural, measuring science has its place, of course.

why does that sound filthy?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's all very well but what the fuck does it have to do with free will, and more specifically how do these differ from earlier mechanics?
As far as I can see you are just spouting out science in an attempt to avoid dealing with the actual questions.

Above, I was just trying to tell you a little about relativity. As for its repercussions for free will, they are not certain. The theoretical framework of physics is not complete, and it may not have repercussions. It does have repercussions for our ideas of space, length and time. In fact, the different conception of what is happening when we look at the stars that I attempted to explain to you earlier is a perspective that helps us to overcome some of the contradictions that any messing about with the sequence of events would involve – events only appear to occur at different times from different points of reference. As soon as you come together to the same point of reference, you experience the same space-time, although your memory of previous events may be different.

You are right that a contradiction with free will has not been conclusively shown – yet – but, to touch on quantum mechanics, the phenomenon of quantum entanglement exemplified by the Schrodiger's cat experiment can currently only be understood in terms of three theories, each of which accounts for the experimental results, but none of which can be said to be 'true': (here's the wiki page on it – it isn't brilliant but it explains the nature of the problem)

1. so-called 'spooky action at a distance', which would have implications for the linear flow of time, which the perspective I spoke of above would not resolve.

2. The existence of a multiverse – all possibilities are played out in an ever-multiplying number of universes. This would mean that, effectively, every single decision we could ever possibly have made may be being played out. Again, a headache for free will.

3. Particles with mass sending signals back in time, which would have really quite serious implications for, at the very least, the physical level that free will could operate on.

To be honest, I'm now regretting this diversion a little – at a certain level, cosmology reaches a point where the best fit theories are not regarded by anyone to be likely to be what is really going on (this isn't true of Relativity, many of whose predictions have now been demonstrated).

As for the rest of your argument in favour of the primacy of the existential viewpoint, I simply don't accept it. I can't argue with it any more – it's not how I approach my life.

 

[cesare]

Yeah it's just a toss up really...

You sound like Jazzz with his 'well we've been wrong in the past so anything can be true now' bollox.

I'm sure much of what we have 'knowledge' of now will be either revised, rejected ot much further elaborated in the future. The fact that knowledge is historically and socially contingent is no reason to flatten it so there is no difference between believing in pink unicorns and 'believing' in evolution or gravity etc.

Also many older forms of knowledge whilst being ultimately wrong contained kernels of insight upin which our modern knowledge was constructed over centuries.

And in this post you're just doing what you accused lbj of doing earlier.

First knowledge, then belief, then fall back to knowledge.

 

[cesare]

why does that sound filthy?

Because it is

 

[revol68]

And in this post you're just doing what you accused lbj of doing earlier.

First knowledge, then belief, then fall back to knowledge.

Sorry but that's simply how knowledge works, it gets, revised, rejected or added upon. When something is shown to be untrue we tend to use phrases like 'Early European Pagans believed in Forest Gods' or 'The earth was once believed to be flat' etc.

I fail to see how this is anything like Littlebabyjesus's working acceptance of free will that when faced with the issues that arise from it falls back to determinism in order to avoid dealing with them.

 

[cesare]

Sorry but that's simply how knowledge works, it gets, revised, rejected or added upon. When something is shown to be untrue we tend to use phrases like 'Early European Pagans believed in Forest Gods' or 'The earth was once believed to be flat' etc.

I fail to see how this is anything like Littlebabyjesus's working acceptance of free will that when faced with the issues that arise from it falls back to determinism in order to avoid dealing with them.

It's a separate point but linked. But I don't think we disagree too much. You say it's knowledge+qualifier, I say it's belief (which might be true).

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I fail to see how this is anything like Littlebabyjesus's working acceptance of free will that when faced with the issues that arise from it falls back to determinism in order to avoid dealing with them.

What?

That is a total misrepresentation. What issues have arisen from my working acceptance of free will that I have 'fallen back' to determinism to avoid?

 

[revol68]

Above, I was just trying to tell you a little about relativity. As for its repercussions for free will, they are not certain. The theoretical framework of physics is not complete, and it may not have repercussions. It does have repercussions for our ideas of space, length and time. In fact, the different conception of what is happening when we look at the stars that I attempted to explain to you earlier is a perspective that helps us to overcome some of the contradictions that any messing about with the sequence of events would involve – events only appear to occur at different times from different points of reference. As soon as you come together to the same point of reference, you experience the same space-time, although your memory of previous events may be different.

You are right that a contradiction with free will has not been conclusively shown – yet – but, to touch on quantum mechanics, the phenomenon of quantum entanglement exemplified by the Schrodiger's cat experiment can currently only be understood in terms of three theories, each of which accounts for the experimental results, but none of which can be said to be 'true': (here's the wiki page on it – it isn't brilliant but it explains the nature of the problem)

1. so-called 'spooky action at a distance', which would have implications for the linear flow of time, which the perspective I spoke of above would not resolve.

2. The existence of a multiverse – all possibilities are played out in an ever-multiplying number of universes.

3. Particles with mass travelling back in time, which would have really quite serious implications for, at the very least, the physical level that free will could operate on.

To be honest, I'm now regretting this diversion a little – at a certain level, cosmology reaches a point where the best fit theories are not regarded by anyone to be likely to be what is really going on (this isn't true of Relativity, many of whose predictions have now been demonstrated).

As for the rest of your argument in favour of the primacy of the existential viewpoint, I simply don't accept it. I can't argue with it any more – it's not how I approach my life.

No you started spouting about relativity in order to gain some 'credibility' by using intelligent and intimidating technical definitions. Essentially you were hoping I'd shit myself if you bust out some impressive sounding nonsense and concede the argument. It's an old trick unfortunately whilst I know next to nothing about physics I have a keen ey for bullshit.

The three scenario's you list a no more undermining of free will than newtonian mechanics and infact both the multiverse and the quantum particle stuff I have heard pimped as possible evidence for 'mind over matter' by posteuring muppets.

ofcourse all of this is irrelevant to the fact you claim to accept free will as a necessary working assumption and yet when confronted with an existentialism that similarily starts from this assumption, you bottle out of addressing the issues it gives rise to and instead fall back into some metaphysical wank about free will being an illussion.

This would suggest you take free will as a working assumption until you are faced with something you can't grasp and so fall back into an area where you're free to speculate on brain fart after brain fart, all the while claiming to be much cleverer to all those existentials who didn't even realise their questions were all superflous as all is determined anyway.

 

[revol68]

It's a separate point but linked. But I don't think we disagree too much. You say it's knowledge+qualifier, I say it's belief (which might be true).

okay so you feel there is nothing useful in the distinction between knowledge and belief, because a lot of the things we thought we knew turned out to be wrong?


If the button was a real man you'd walk into more doors!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

ofcourse all of this is irrelevant to the fact you claim to accept free will as a necessary working assumption and yet when confronted with an existentialism that similarily starts from this assumption, you bottle out of addressing the issues it gives rise to and instead fall back into some metaphysical wank about free will being an illussion.

.

Again, a misrepresentation. You haven't understood me at all, have you.

This was my response, laying out my position in detail. It at no point falls back into the idea that free will is an illusion. It simply doesn't look for answers as to how the individual should relate to society solely from the individual's point of view.

The basis of existentialism, for me, is the realisation that all that we can know is our experience plus the realisation (I would say it should in fact be called a belief/assumption) that we have free will. It then takes this realisation out into the world and, well I don't know what it does then. I've always thought of ethics as a bit of a woolly appendage to philosophy.

For the most part, once I get to this stage, I don't look at the situation from that point of view at all. I find, very often, that an outside-in perspective that looks at biology, evolution and history can provide excellent insights into the question of how an individual should act within a society. Politically, individual freedom except where it impinges on the freedoms of others, in which case, a settlement – a social contract – will need to be negotiated. Collective provision where possible without impinging on freedom (and I do not mean the economic 'freedom' to take a larger share of the pie for yourself here – that's already disqualified as it impinges on the freedom of others to have their share), mutual aid as the very best way for us to get along.

I don't need the existentialist's point of view to reach these conclusions. There are other routes to them.

That was my point really, at the beginning, that existentialism was something to get out of your system. It is a dead end. It does not lead to useful answers to these questions. It leads to the Outsider. It leads to Raskolnikov. It leads to despair among some. But its philosophical underpinnings are (almost) sound, and it is a good way to discard the garbage of superstition and irrationality.

 

[revol68]

You don't even know the basics of Existentialism yet you claimed it's questions were irrelevant because it's assumption of free will was based on a fallacy, this despite the fact you claim to roll with a working assumption of free will.

Honeslt, you write off existentialism, then claim that what I'm discussing is not philosophy but politics and ethics, which led me to ask you what existentialist has not focussed on those issues and again you dodged the question in favour of going off on a detour with relativity.

You're a charlatan.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You don't even know the basics of Existentialism yet you claimed it's questions were irrelevant because it's assumption of free will was based on a fallacy, this despite the fact you claim to roll with a working assumption of free will.

.

No I didn't. I said that, once you have reached the point where the individual has to ask how to relate to society (and in fact it is wider than that – how to relate to the world in general), that is where other perspectives provide insights. The existential viewpoint, by itself, provides none. That is my answer to your question. That is my stance with regard to existentialism as a philosophical position.

One more point, then I really will go to bed. I do not 'fall back' on determinist positions. I simply recognise that there is absolutely no evidence outside me for my free will, and that causal explanations of phenomena appear to get by rather well without it. In terms of explaining things, its existence in fact seems to cause more problems than it solves. I also face up to the fact that certain discoveries in theoretical physics may not sit easily with the idea of free will. I also stated a belief, a speculation if you like, that the way we frame the idea of free will may be the problem here, based on our particular take on space-time and our place in it. I specifically did not supply answers here, merely an indication of the kind of question that may be useful. I don't 'fall back on' determinism at any stage – I merely point out that there is no overriding reason for us to believe in free will, and that discoveries about the fundamental nature of the universe are likely to see us at the very least change how we view it. We feel like we have it, and that's good enough for me to operate as if I do. We probably don't disagree on that. Again, it appears to me to be you seeing a problem where I see none.

 

[cesare]

okay so you feel there is nothing useful in the distinction between knowledge and belief, because a lot of the things we thought we knew turned out to be wrong?


If the button was a real man you'd walk into more doors!

On the contrary, I think there's a very real distinction between knowledge and belief - but in this particular instance we had more ground for agreement than not. Especially as the thread inevitably moves towards scientists proving things and further examples of that separation point.

Button does pragmatic i.e. asleep.

 

[cesare]

No I didn't. I said that, once you have reached the point where the individual has to ask how to relate to society (and in fact it is wider than that – how to relate to the world in general), that is where other perspectives provide insights. The existential viewpoint, by itself, provides none. That is my answer to your question. That is my stance with regard to existentialism as a philosophical position.

Isn't the existential viewpoint about considering the abstract/confused and solidifying that into how life plays out in reality?

 

[revol68]

Sorry, I just don't see them as problems. What you're now talking about is ethics: How can we know how to live when there is no god to tell us, and when we are (apparently) free to act as we choose?

We know how to live because we have grown up in and been socialised into our societies – that on top of the remaining innate behaviours that still remain in humans – just as we always have done.

What you refer to as 'the crisis of modernism' is not a matter for philosophy as I understand it.

As such, the existentialism that you speak of is something broader than a philosophical position. It is also a political one. This is fine, but it is not what I was talking about.

These comments lead me to believe you don't have a notion what existentialism is. Afterall if we are discussing existentialism then ethics is central (certainly not the wooly appendage to philosophy you think). If the crisis of modernity is not a philosophical issue may I ask you what exactly 90% of continental philosophy, from Arendt to Zizek is about? If the crisis of modernity is not a philosophical issue then on what grounds is the existentialism you were so keen to discuss? Furthermore what existentialism has not been political?

The comment about knowing how to live as we are socialised I qoute again only to press home the fact you have no notion what existentialism is.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

OK. I'll leave it there. You and I certainly disagree about which aspects of existentialism are essential to it and which are not. What you haven't done is give a concrete example of how 'an existentialist' determines how they should relate to society. I'm afraid I have little time for many of the strains of Continental Philosophy. I just don't find them useful.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Isn't the existential viewpoint about considering the abstract/confused and solidifying that into how life plays out in reality?

I'm afraid I have no idea what that means. As I said before, I look elsewhere for my answers as to how I should live.

 

[HobgoblinMan]

Haha, I think it's pretty cool how you're all still going on about this, hours after I innocuously asked LBJ why we should move on from existentialism. I just been lurking, you lot are far to cerebral for an oik like me. Respect

 

[Jonti]

There never has been a god to tell us what to do. It has always been us working it out for ourselves even when we have not realised that this is so.
...

Ah, nice.

Not even a trace of residual theism

 

[Jonti]

... Relativity has been demonstrated experimentally to be true. And it is a theory that, if it is true, has certain very concrete consequences. That there is no supporting evidence for the concept of free will; that, further, there is currently no way to incorporate it into our physical understanding of the universe, is also not speculation at all. It is simply a statement of truth about current understanding. (Free will also hasn't been disproved – the harsh truth is that, as a concept, it has not been found to be useful when explaining how things work using scientific method.)
...

Yes, all good stuff; but is this harsh truth a criticism of the present state of the sciences, or of current interpretations of particular scientific theories?

But anyway, I suggest it is not useful to espouse a doctrine (fatalism) which one cannot actually believe*.

* yes, it's a Mary Midgley line
.