Determinism

No, Decode, You can’t mind my using a partially derived name Yours, beyond that the course is topological, I too mentioned that on passing via.allusion to the ancient practice of environmental arrangement.

But I am glad that that You cleared up something that I found paradoxical in the above, Your quote.

That there is contention otherwise, may be illusive.

Encode, I hope to bback on track to show , from this angle that we are mostly determined

Admittedly, I’m not at all sure what your point is here. As it relates to free weill and determinism.

Why don’t you focus in on a particular context – an experience that you had – and explain what you mean above given the choices that you had made.

Here, of course, assuming some measure of free will. Otherwise, given determinism as I understand it, this entire exchange that we are having is inherently/necessarily embedded in the only possible reality.

Or, rather, given in turn the complete understanding of the laws of matter.

In other words, assuming that you are free to opt for one rather than the other.

Well, it’s helpful perhaps to note that for most religious folks, God is not compared to nature so much as nature is understood to be the creation of God. Then the tricky part in which we wonder if God created the laws of matter as well or if the laws of matter created a God only able to create anything in accordance with the laws of matter themselves. For example, "each second there are about 100 billion ghostly solar neutrinos passing through the tip of your finger."

So, why do you suppose God felt the need to make this the case? Or is God himself constrained by the necessity that this be so?

Again, whatever that means going back to a definitive understanding of existence itself.

Then the the part where we fit our understanding of science into our understanding of God into our understanding of the laws of matter that may or may not allow us to do so autonomously.

As for this…

…I think I might grasp it, but I prefer to take “intellectual contraption” assessments of this sort out into the world of human interactions and explore the conclusions given actual back and forth behaviors between people in a particular set of circumstances. I am merely more interested in exploring this given conflicting moral or political value judgments. And given the assumption that we either do or do not have free will.

Again, assuming a real deal free will experience for mere mortals here on planet Earth – given the staggering vastness of “all there is” – I am far more interested in distinguishing the times when we are not taking leaps of faith at all to subjective/subjunctive “personal opinions”. Why? Because the thing we are discussing is rather easily confirmed to be the objective truth for all of us.

In other words, the distinction between the seeming objective fact that peacegirl created this thread as a way to get others to read the author’s book, and the seeming subjective opinions regarding our reactions to the conclusions that the author comes to in regard to free will and evil.

I will attempt to read through the chapters, as peacgirl recommends…

…as soon as I get the time…

…assuming I even have a choice in the matter.

Then if I feel motivated(whatever this means at this point) to comment on any material in these chapters, I will.

Until the above conditions are met, I will freely/non-freely take my leave from this thread.

I can only hope that this post is more easily understood.

Yeah, some here might suspect that I reduce objectivist minds of his ilk down to, well, whatever you want to call this.

But, based on my vast experience with them over the years, they don’t need any contribution from me.

This is meant to be ironic of course. Only I’m not the one creating dungeons for those who refuse to think exactly like I do about, well, everything, right?

I recognize instead that in regard to 1] philosophical questions that are this fascinating and 2] moral and political value judgments, no one has access to the whole truth.

No one one grasps anywhere near a definitive understanding of where genes stop and memes begin, where nature reconfigures into nurture, where the brain becomes intertwined in mind intertwined in what may or may not be an autonomous self.

It’s just that some like Satyr, for reasons rooted in dasein, can’t bring themselves to recognize just how much their own hapless dogmas are rooted existentially instead in the OP here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296

What I really don’t get though is why he won’t come here and discuss and debate this with me. Now that the new effort to impose moderation seems to have collapsed. Or, sure, as scathing polemicists in Rant.

Isn’t it an opportunity to finally put me in my place? You know he’s itching to, right?

Not at all what I didn’t expect. Or couldn’t not expect. :sunglasses:

You are more part of the furniture around here than me, iambiguous. I don’t have anything to prove and for whatever reason, I just like the place(ILP). I am always happy to learn something, however.

I may have annoyed you for no good reason - my apologies if I have. I am done horsing around in this thread. My sense of humor will still remain - I will just take it elsewhere. Simple!

Yeah? Nice.

It would be just as easy for you to do that but I don’t think either of us really needs to at this point.

Don’t get me wrong, this is interesting but I would sooner read a discussion between you and someone else that goes into further detail about it.

I am not motivated to consider political value judgments of any type which would leave conflicting moral judgments and this:

The vastness of “all there is”…is exactly one of the things that turn me off going down this path - I don’t have enough free time to contribute to a discussion about any of this in a substantial way. I have my own ideas on the topic of free will and how much of it we actually have. Not knowing what is in the book makes it difficult to talk about what is in the book. I don’t know what the discovery is that peacegirl is referring to and most discoveries can be summed up well enough in a paragraph to motivate someone to read more about them. I am aware of my own misbehavior in this thread and I am not ashamed to admit to it - there was a cause for it, however. I conclude that I don’t have enough to enter a substantive discussion with you iambiguous…it would be great if I did - but I simply don’t.

More to the point [on this thread] are you “done” [given determinism], done [given free will] or “done” [given peacegirl’s own rendition of compatibilism] horsing around?

Me? Okay, the experience I am having right now is in typing these words. But I do not seem to have access to an argument or to evidence that would pin down once and for all whether I could freely opt to do something else instead. So, given the gap between what I think I know here and know and all there is to be known about existence itself, I have taken an existential leap to determinism. Rooted in dasein. Rooted in the laws of matter.

I have no idea what you mean by that. And how, even given a real deal free will world, could I go into further detail about it when I am not an astrophysicist myself? Nor a theologian. Only they would seem qualified to explore it further.

Turned off by it or not doesn’t make it go away. And the whole point of this thread is to explore the meaning of such things as “substance” and “substantial”. All the while acknowledging the surreal situation that we seem to be in given mindless matter somehow configuring into mindful matter given the biological evolution of lifeless matter into living matter on planet Earth. The staggering mystery of it all.

Okay, so read the first three chapters of the author’s book and come back to the thread.

Compelled or otherwise.

Satyr is not a dogmatist.

Note to nature:

Settle this, okay?

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

Okay, so given his understanding here what are we to make of this:

“Baruch Spinoza, was a Jewish philosopher who, at age 23, was put in cherem (similar to excommunication) by Jewish religious authorities for heresies such as his controversial ideas regarding the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible (which would formed the foundations of modern biblical criticism) and his pantheistic views of the Divine. Prior to that, he had been attacked on the steps of the community synagogue by a knife-wielding assailant shouting “Heretic!”, and later his books were added to the Catholic Church’s Index of Forbidden Books.”
wiki

Are all of the human interactions that unfolded here historically in turn but “merely facets or modes of this one infinite, indivisible divine substance in which they all dwell.”

Spinoza comes to the conclusions that he did…but only because he was never able not to conclude anything other than that? In the only possible reality? Is this in sync with his conclusions?

Again, the irony. A book entitled Ethics in a universe where the moral and political value judgments of mere mortals are but another manifestation of “all things have necessarily flowed, or always followed, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles.”

Or, sure, I am missing something here that makes human ethics somehow qualitatively different from human biology and physics and chemistry.

So, Spinoza went about living his life from day to day convinced that everything he thought, felt, said and did was destined, fated, rendered inevitable in the only possible reality?

Is that what he proposed?

And did he also recognize that his conclusions were really little more than one of nature’s “thought experiment” insofar as he was never able to establish his own assumptions as those that all rational men and women were obligated to embrace.

How, here, was he not in the same boat that all the rest of are in given “the gap” above?

Including this part:

You tell me.

Pantheistic I really not arguable, as it contains equivalance between God and Nature. That is why the problem is offensive and heretical to the clergy.

However the arguability and the demonsgratibility is based on formal neo-Platonism. su h as Augustine was won’t to confesd, but for so my 'mystical reason, was compelled.

It comes down to argument for it’s own sake, sheteas It’s Own Sake could illustrate. the two modes of Dasein. So close to 'design.phonetically, it’s strange.

Note to nature:

Compel me to actually understand this.

Try this:

researchgate.net/publicatio … o_Thinking

im trying to decode this as it relates:

"Up until recently, designers had a hard task ahead of them if they wanted to investigate Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and beyond. My struggle through Being and Time and Being and Nothingness back in 2008 was made considerably easier (if still time-consuming, and likely to risk bias from only one interpretation) thanks to finding the audio recordings of Stanford professor Hubert Dreyfus online. (Sadly the Merleau-Ponty ones have disappeared). Paul Dourish’s Where the Action Is is a useful but dense review of embodied interaction and its relationship to phenomenology. There is also well received 2010 film on phenemonology made by former Dreyfus student Tao Rouspoli—though it is hard to get hold of so I haven’t as of yet seen it. The hunger for easy to understand information for designers about phenomenology means that I was surprised to find that a brief article I wrote on the topic for Johnny Holland (and in hindsight has some rather clunky grammar amongst other things) was referenced in two research textbooks!

So, I was ecstatic that there was a talk at the Interaction14 conference on phenomenology for designers. And even more impressed (if a little put out after my own struggles with the key texts) that the presentation on the topic was not only relatively easy to understand and relevant from a designer’s perspective, but also included discussions right up to current understandings of the field.

The latter point is something that as a design researcher I’m often concerned about. Design is generally very good at lifting concepts from other disciplines (Picasso and Jobs would be proud), but without an awareness of what discussion has happened la

Phenomenology, like its more literary friend semiotics, is one of those things that is generally known of than known about. Heck, even spelling it is hard. (My trick: ‘no men’ make phe-no-men-ology.)

In fact, two well known 90s films use it as a shorthand for the impenetreble intelligensia. In You’ve Got Mail, Tom Hank’s editor girlfriend mentions how Meg Ryan’s boyfriend (an original hipster, he was well ahead of the game in proclaiming the virtues of the typewriter) is the type of person who

“…you think he’s going to be so obscure and abstruse. He’s always talking about Heidegger and Foucault. And I have no idea what it’s about, really.”

And Ethan Hawke’s character in Reality Bites is reading Heidegger’s Being and Time. Go figure.

I actually own this exact edition of Being and Time. Which is incredibly weird. Does that make me cosmicly connected to Ethan Hawke?

The initial impenetrability of phenomenology is a concern, as its key concepts are of utmost important to today’s iDevice designers. As technology moves away from the screen and towards the body, we’re having to understand what it means to have a body to interact with it. While psychologists have been testing this from a cognitive perspective, philosophers have been thinking about this from the perspective of how we make sense of this lived-world for almost a century. (And said philosophers would probably recoil at the concept of “natural user interfaces” which became concernedly popular in the last few years.)

Up until recently, designers had a hard task ahead of them if they wanted to investigate Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and beyond. My struggle through Being and Time and Being and Nothingness back in 2008 was made considerably easier (if still time-consuming, and likely to risk bias from only one interpretation) thanks to finding the audio recordings of Stanford professor Hubert Dreyfus online. (Sadly the Merleau-Ponty ones have disappeared). Paul Dourish’s Where the Action Is is a useful but dense review of embodied interaction and its relationship to phenomenology. There is also well received 2010 film on phenemonology made by former Dreyfus student Tao Rouspoli—though it is hard to get hold of so I haven’t as of yet seen it. The hunger for easy to understand information for designers about phenomenology means that I was surprised to find that a brief article I wrote on the topic for Johnny Holland (and in hindsight has some rather clunky grammar amongst other things) was referenced in two research textbooks!

So, I was ecstatic that there was a talk at the Interaction14 conference on phenomenology for designers. And even more impressed (if a little put out after my own struggles with the key texts) that the presentation on the topic was not only relatively easy to understand and relevant from a designer’s perspective, but also included discussions right up to current understandings of the field.

The latter point is something that as a design researcher I’m often concerned about. Design is generally very good at lifting concepts from other disciplines (Picasso and Jobs would be proud), but without an awareness of what discussion has happened later, we can be missing important developments. It would be like stealing tips from Mad Men without realising that advertising now often uses far more collaborative messages these days.

As it turned out, Thomas Wendt has expanded on this topic into his newly released book Design for Dasein.

The book tackles a number of angles of phenomenology and design, including the expected introduction to phenomenology and its relationship to design, but also how design thinking can be reframed using phenomenology, embodied interaction, designing and problem framing, and post-phenomenology and object studies.

Sadly since I have a Kindle version I can’t get a nice book picture.

The different chapters will appeal to different audiences: as a design researcher I found the chapters on post-phenomenology the most exciting as it tied together theories from people I hadn’t heard of or had but didn’t entirely have a grip on the theories yet.

I was personally really happy to learn about how modern technology is something that according to Don Ihde we “act with” and read into (such as a thermometer), something that can’t be derived from the work of the pre-digital original phenomenologists. A lot of researchers’ ears will probably pick up at the post-phenomenology concept of “multistability”:

“Multistability accounts for the difference between what designers want to occur and what actually occurs… [is because] technology takes shape not according to what it is but rather what it can do… [including] possibilities that were not yet considered”.

I suspect for the newcomer this chapter could be a bit overwhelming and need to be read lightly, or at least without worrying too much over the names.

The chapters more relating to phenomenology will be invaluable for those wanting a primer on the topics as they serve as a ‘greatest hits’ of key theorists (including those I’ve mentioned above) and an easy read and reminder for those that are more familiar with the topics.

Similarly, the design sections are often territory that design school grads should know about, though there are also some nice inclusions such the lesser-known-than-he-should-be Klaus Krippendorf (who I was excited to see talk at the same conference as Wendt yet was surprised that few in the audience had heard of).

While the book does require some attention to read—particularly for those not familiar with a lot of the names mentioned—it is to date the clearest and most widereaching account of philosophy in a way that can seem relevant to designers (even if that last point may vary from chapter to chapter depending on the person). For those that want to think about technology and designing in a meaningful way, this is a must own and potentially a jumping off point for further reading into all aspects of design and research."

Note to others:

You tell me.

You know, if, in the real deal free will world, your life depended on it.

Course when You note to others, You are excluding me from that set
( the others)

And how does anyone know if my life depends on it or not?

Nature to iambiguous:

I compel you not to push him too far. After all, the last thing you need here is another “condition”.

God to Iambigious :

Conditions are effects of conditionals of earthly approximated values , usually generated by appearent contradictions.

Although Nature and God are not synanomous, they are not Necessarily antogonistic.

One can equally argue for God"s Existance or it’s nullity, even it’s contradiction.

Even contradictory powers can be viewed on a higher level as merely circular within variable degrees. They may amount to less then 90 degrees of separation.

The ultra large sphere. of cosmic image of that less then 90 degrees , there separation on any cyclically formed gap may amount to anywhere between zero plusany increment to minus ziillionths of degrees.

Nature may mirror god or disperse it, without destroying it, and vicars versa.
Nature is mirrored by God, it may also be called Cosmic Counsciousness.
Without it, there is no life . It is Atman.

Don’t worry, he is excluded from this set too. But not completely for either of you.

:wink:

This thread has gone off the rails. This has turned into a dumping ground for everybody’s ideas. My purpose here has gotten lost. So sad!

Is your purpose to get others to read the book and discuss only what is in the book? Not allowing others to bring their own thoughts from all their experience in their existence…when presenting their opposition or agreement to the contents of the book…Or otherwise? The first conversation would probably still reflect the current mood in the current conversation as with the second conversation(of otherwise).

For anyone to prove or disprove scientifically what is in the book they can not just use the contents of the book.

The OP:

Picking your purpose out of this is actually kind of difficult.