How to break cause and effect?

[belligerent drunk]

Intellectual laziness is a term I like to use, because it describes the phenomenon(a) well. Just like you cannot disprove that there is a god, you can't disprove other concepts. Beliefs should be based on confirmative evidence. Anything different is, and I'm sorry for saying this, but it's laziness.

 

[Foreigner]

Pure free will doesn't exist, but it does partially. You're always co-creating with circumstances that are beyond your control, but you have free will to move within those circumstances. Most people however are living at the level of animal reactions to things. In other words we have free will but people seldom use it.

I don't really understand the original question of cause and effect. Nothing we do is in vacuo, even if it's just breathing. Everything is a complex interdependent web, but the key is to not take on or identify with everything single thing that happens.

There are people in the world who believe in reincarnation and karma so strongly that they refuse to take on anymore karma. They sit around literally doing nothing. They do nothing to overtly influence people or events. I've found this practice interesting, in principle... but it's ultimately not very realistic. Life is always interactive, even in small degrees.

 

[belligerent drunk]

With due respect, Foreigner, can you back your claims up? With backing up I mean reproducible evidence. Just staying that "it feels good this way" is not evidence.

I advise you read my points in this thread, and address them - to a very serious extent. Because if you do not, then I cannot take your arguments seriously.

 

[Img_9999]

I'm going to drop the nice-guy face for a change and tell it how it is. Your argument is faulty because you're basically saying that "since I can't disprove it, then it may as well be true". The problem with that argument is that there is practically nothing that can be disproven by the sole virtue of the evidence saying "it isn't that". Usually the evidence suggests that that something is something else, so by that virtue it cannot be what you're proposing. For example, how do you disprove that the Earth is flat? By showing that it is something else - a rough sphere. Likewise, you cannot disprove that there is a dead bee orbiting around Venus at some particular radius. But that is not an argument to believe that there is?! Surely not?

What I'm saying is that you must believe something if there is reproducible, objective, and unbiased evidence supporting the idea. For example, if I release a rock from my hand, it is going to fall towards the ground, and every experiment that you conduct will arrive at the same conclusion - and that is why I believe that releasing a roughly similar object from my hand will result in it falling down.

You say that this isn't a scientific question. I beg your pardon. Science is our attempt to describe reality. If something is not a part of reality, it is poorly describable by science, but then it also cannot interact with reality and be a part of it. Consciousness cannot be separate from reality and affect it at the same time. If it affects it, then it is a part of the equation, and that could be described/measured.

I'm not one to make assumptions about people, but I know very well why you're arguing what you are. Emotions. It feels bad to not have free will. It feels weird to be a machine that is dependent on physics. Well, guess what. Feelings don't account for shit. It is what it is no matter if you like it or not, and whether it is or it is not depends on experiment.

On the other hand, can YOU prove that reality is deterministic? Of course not, because choosing to explain reality through determinism or free will is an ontological claim, and ontological assumptions are alway arbitrary, and of course, based in affection.

"TRUTH" only exists as a result of experience, even the scientific method, which you seem to think fondly of ( So do I, my whole work relies on it) is based on this notion. And experience can only exist subjectively. Therefore, all truth is perspectivist. Perspective and subjectivity are of course, highly embebed with affection and emotion. Do you not think emotions are part of reality? Do you deny your own feelings? I certainly don't. Then what would be the point of expeling emotions from our concept of truth? Why would we do that? In the name of what? Supposing we could abolish will and perspective from our understanding of reality, wouldn't that be castrating our intellect and letting go of one of the fundamental dimensions of being a human being?

You seem to misunderstand this issue because you are equating "reality" to "matter". I did said I believe conscious is immaterial, because I have never seen any material manifestation of my thoughts, even though I now for sure ny thoughts exist, otherwise I wouldn't be articulating this argument or wouldn't be capable of consciously represent this experience to myself, which is a prerequisite of my ability to react to it.

So I'm not saying that my consciousness exists beyond this reality. That would be absolutely absurd. Im just saying that reality isn't limited to matter. I know I can think. I know I can feel. I know I have a body that allows me to experience this dimensions of myself. I now my experience and my psyche DO exist as part of this reality, otherwise I would have to accept that other realities exist. Since I dont see any value in thinking about what cannot be reached, I can only conclude that there are parts of what I perceive that are beyond matter. This is not logically faulty, btw, unless you have a problem with induction, but then you would have to drop all your scientifisism because science uses induction much more often than deduction.

Whether reality is deterministic or not is, of course, not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. If you can show me a single peer reviewed scientific article that adresses the chemically definable nature of consciousness and will, I will shut up. But you can't, because there are not. Science IS, as you say, a method we use to understand reality, but it is a method we specifically use to understand the behaviour of nature. There are plenty of things we cannot explain using science, such as love, such as beauty, such as the meaning of life, such as the validity of a political ideology, such as the moral implications of killing someone, and so on. In the same way you cannot explain what math is using a mathematical equation, you cannot use science to test the hypothesis of whether science is the only way to explain reality. If you think you are doing a favor to science expanding the number of things it has the right to talk about, you are wrong. This kind of thinking has spawned the worst results of posmodern thought: The use of quantum mechanics to explain psychology, genetics applied ti aesthetics, and all kinds of charlatanery. If we value science, as I certainly do, we must have a clear idea of it's potential and limitations.

So with all that said, identification with one ontological system or another is always an arbitrary choice founded on affection, subjectivity, will, and most importantly, MORAL. You can choose to join the choir of neo positivists and represent the world as a cold clockwork hanging absurdly in space. I personally don't see any value in choosing this ficiton. Extreme empiricism is rather dangerous IMO, as most extremisms are, because it allows itself to be uses by the most toxic political projects.

I would rather represent myself a different fiction, and embrace the responsibility that I have in my life and in the construction of this world. This is a truth that so far has proved to be a much more useful and valuable moral foundation for my actions.

 

[Foreigner]

........

 

[Nixiam]

Aw, I hate to see good men fight personally. I'm rather sqeuamish in tense moments like these so I might split shortly, but to kind of slip in my opinion...

I believe in determinism because I cannot entirely free will.

If you've got two questions and A is wrong, it's B, right?

I've created a partial free will stance before, but I could not necessarily prove it, even with emotions out of the way. All I could utilize in the argument was, "The common denominator between free will and determinism is that will still exists, so could will sway a different direction if strong enough?"

 

[Img_9999]

"The common denominator between free will and determinism is that will still exists, so could will sway a different direction if strong enough?"

Of course it does. History is the result of the action of men of strong will. Those who don't put their will into the world imagine instead that the world itself has a will. The result of that? Theism, determinism, or any form of idealism.



Ps: whos fighting personally? I assumed we were all having fun in this discussion

 

[Shrooms00087]

I believe in determinism because I cannot entirely free will.

If you've got two questions and A is wrong, it's B, right?

I've created a partial free will stance before, but I could not necessarily prove it, even with emotions out of the way. All I could utilize in the argument was, "The common denominator between free will and determinism is that will still exists, so could will sway a different direction if strong enough?"

Well in a prime number maze knowing is more than half the battle. There's only a 0 and 1 in any question. Free Will exists and can actively prove itself outside determinism. There may be a determined line in a fork but your choice is what matters here. If you sail and you're in a storm the very thing you do is aim your bow toward the wave unless you're wanting to get capsized. This is nature versus nurture you actively have to pursue what kind of nurture you're willing to sail in to.

Personally this makes me depressed being the factor of my own consequences but if I were to do it again I would definitely choose differently which is good enough.

 

[belligerent drunk]

On the other hand, can YOU prove that reality is deterministic? Of course not, because choosing to explain reality through determinism or free will is an ontological claim, and ontological assumptions are alway arbitrary, and of course, based in affection.

Yep, I can show how chemistry works, and show that living matter also works according to laws of chemistry. And you know what's beautiful about it? The fact that it works the same no matter what place, if you like it or not, or anything.

You seem to misunderstand this issue because you are equating "reality" to "matter". I did said I believe conscious is immaterial, because I have never seen any material manifestation of my thoughts, even though I now for sure ny thoughts exist, otherwise I wouldn't be articulating this argument or wouldn't be capable of consciously represent this experience to myself, which is a prerequisite of my ability to react to it.

Source? What evidence do you have to suggest that consciousness is immaterial? I addressed that point in my previous posts, and explained why the concept is nonsense.

Provide a case based on factual evidence, and then it can be argued fairly. Emotional appeals do not count as arguments.

 

[Img_9999]

Yep, I can show how chemistry works, and show that living matter also works according to laws of chemistry. And you know what's beautiful about it? The fact that it works the same no matter what place, if you like it or not, or anything.

This hardly says anything about the deterministic natue of reality, though. I never claimed that reality is unintelligible. Of course we can explain things. But going for there to conclude that free will doesn't exist is a long stretch with very little argumentation behind it.

You are falling in the same binary logic you are trying to avoid and also not providing any "sources" for your claims.

 

[Foreigner]

Yep, I can show how chemistry works, and show that living matter also works according to laws of chemistry. And you know what's beautiful about it? The fact that it works the same no matter what place, if you like it or not, or anything.



Source? What evidence do you have to suggest that consciousness is immaterial? I addressed that point in my previous posts, and explained why the concept is nonsense.

Provide a case based on factual evidence, and then it can be argued fairly. Emotional appeals do not count as arguments.

Prove to us that you are real. I'm not talking about your physical body, but whatever is making the choice to communicate with us. Prove that you're in there somewhere.

Prove to us what happens after death.

Prove to us that the soul doesn't exist.

Doubting is not proving. You're being a pseudoskeptic. True scientists don't concern themselves with these questions because their concerns are within the material realm only, hence you can have scientists who are also followers of spiritual faiths.

You can't just show up in a thread where people are talking philosophy and spirituality, and start steamrolling everyone who doesn't adhere to your standard of evidence. You should know very well that these subjects are subjective. Enough with the hubris already.

 

[belligerent drunk]

This hardly says anything about the deterministic natue of reality, though. I never claimed that reality is unintelligible. Of course we can explain things. But going for there to conclude that free will doesn't exist is a long stretch with very little argumentation behind it.

You are falling in the same binary logic you are trying to avoid and also not providing any "sources" for your claims.

If there is no reproducible evidence which shows how living matter is able to "make choices", rather than be a stream of physical/chemical reactions, then the whole reasoning behind your belief is unfounded, and as I like to call it, emotional. What kind of evidence do you have in mind in particular that I should provide? How laws of physics are universal and constant in our universe? And how matter on Earth (and most likely everywhere else in our universe) abides by laws of physics described in every relevant textbook, and how to our best understanding what is responsible for "decision making" in a typical mammal is the brain, which is a collection of cells, which work on chemical and physical processes?

Prove to us that you are real. I'm not talking about your physical body, but whatever is making the choice to communicate with us. Prove that you're in there somewhere.

I'm not in there somewhere, I'm physics.

Prove to us what happens after death.

Prove to us that the soul doesn't exist.

What does this have to do with anything? Prove that the soul exists. Prove that god doesn't exist.

Doubting is not proving. You're being a pseudoskeptic. True scientists don't concern themselves with these questions because their concerns are within the material realm only, hence you can have scientists who are also followers of spiritual faiths.

You can't just show up in a thread where people are talking philosophy and spirituality, and start steamrolling everyone who doesn't adhere to your standard of evidence. You should know very well that these subjects are subjective. Enough with the hubris already.

This is very simple, really. What evidence do you have to support your idea of immaterial consciousness or the like? How do you disprove that there is a damaged flipflop orbiting around the Sun at about 90 Gm? The answer is, there is no evidence, and you cannot disprove something like that (under which category concepts such as the god, or immaterial consciousness fall).

If my arguments are faulty, then kindly show how so. The fact that my opinion differs from yours, and the mainstream idea, doesn't mean I cannot voice it. Judge arguments on their merits.

E: a post I seem to have missed.

Whether reality is deterministic or not is, of course, not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. If you can show me a single peer reviewed scientific article that adresses the chemically definable nature of consciousness and will, I will shut up. But you can't, because there are not.

Do you read scientific literature? If you did, you'd know that the current model of the brain (very simplistically) is that it is a collection of cells, which react in physical and chemical ways to produce signals, which then downstream result in some consequence, such as mechanical movement. Our understanding of the brain is incomplete at best, because polymer chemistry and physics is a complicated subject, but there is no indication that there is more to it.

 

[polymath]

It's not possible to prove or disprove statements about things like free will or "the soul". I know that there is no scientific evidence that would suggest that I (or any of you guys) would be anything but a soulless machine made of proteins, lipids, carbohydrates and nucleic acids, bound to do what the laws of physics determine. But I don't think about this fact every day, in my everyday life I'll rather stay in the delusion of having a free will. Much like most healthy people don't think about their mortality all the time. They think about their eventual death only if it is for some reason necessary, like when getting a life insurance or when agreeing to donate their organs to someone in the case of accidental death.

 

[Shrooms00087]

I think consciousness starts with I and ends with you. I think that is all the material you need to prove consciousness exists.

 

[Foreigner]

If there is no reproducible evidence which shows how living matter is able to "make choices", rather than be a stream of physical/chemical reactions, then the whole reasoning behind your belief is unfounded, and as I like to call it, emotional. What kind of evidence do you have in mind in particular that I should provide? How laws of physics are universal and constant in our universe? And how matter on Earth (and most likely everywhere else in our universe) abides by laws of physics described in every relevant textbook, and how to our best understanding what is responsible for "decision making" in a typical mammal is the brain, which is a collection of cells, which work on chemical and physical processes?



I'm not in there somewhere, I'm physics.



What does this have to do with anything? Prove that the soul exists. Prove that god doesn't exist.



This is very simple, really. What evidence do you have to support your idea of immaterial consciousness or the like? How do you disprove that there is a damaged flipflop orbiting around the Sun at about 90 Gm? The answer is, there is no evidence, and you cannot disprove something like that (under which category concepts such as the god, or immaterial consciousness fall).

If my arguments are faulty, then kindly show how so. The fact that my opinion differs from yours, and the mainstream idea, doesn't mean I cannot voice it. Judge arguments on their merits.

E: a post I seem to have missed.



Do you read scientific literature? If you did, you'd know that the current model of the brain (very simplistically) is that it is a collection of cells, which react in physical and chemical ways to produce signals, which then downstream result in some consequence, such as mechanical movement. Our understanding of the brain is incomplete at best, because polymer chemistry and physics is a complicated subject, but there is no indication that there is more to it.

Not everything falls within the scope of scientific purview. You would know this if you were intellectually honest.

You can't prove or disprove spirit, consciousness, and the nature of people's existences. That's why it's relegated to the subject of belief.

The arrogance here is astounding.

And yes I read loads of scientific literature, and I practice medicine. I value science, but I'm aware of its limitations, unlike you who seems to think you can dictate reality for the rest of us based on your personal confidence in a particular modality.

 

[polymath]

By pure logic, it can be concluded that no one can fully prove themselves even the fact that other people (or anything outside their own mind) exist at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

That's kind of a view from the opposite extreme, where the "mind" is seen as the primary thing that exists and the "physical" is secondary to that or even doesn't exist at all.

 

[belligerent drunk]

And yes I read loads of scientific literature, and I practice medicine. I value science, but I'm aware of its limitations, unlike you who seems to think you can dictate reality for the rest of us based on your personal confidence in a particular modality.

I had a very similar argument with my brother today, and the intellectual dishonesty was incredible. I'm trying to advocate modesty in thinking, and reliance on evidence. All I'm saying is that one's beliefs should be based on reproducible evidence supporting the idea (according to logic), and not swayed by feelings. What you find so offensive about it is beyond me.

If there were to surface evidence suggesting something else, I'd drop my beliefs without giving it a second thought. That is the most liberating feeling I've ever experienced - being able to adjust my beliefs to what the experiment says. If after 50 years of believing that the violent reaction of alkali metals with water is the result of rapid hydrogen gas release, I were to come across evidence describing what actually goes on, I'd lose my shit with excitement and forget my old beliefs.

 

[polymath]

If after 50 years of believing that the violent reaction of alkali metals with water is the result of rapid hydrogen gas release, I were to come across evidence describing what actually goes on, I'd lose my shit with excitement and forget my old beliefs.

I don't think there will ever be any evidence about that process that will make it look like a completely different thing, but you can often learn something new about familiar things... Did you know that the reason why cesium goes off harder in water than lithium is not that it would be electrochemically more reactive? The cesium's reaction is actually more vigorous because its melting point is so low that it immediately turns into liquid when it starts reacting with water, and forms small cesium droplets that have a large contact area with the water, accelerating the reaction by orders of magnitude.

 

[belligerent drunk]

^ I think this recent article puts a fairly new perspective to the matter, especially if you consider that it's been taught years after years that alkali metal reaction with water is very well understood and the main reason for the explosions is hydrogen gas combustion. But it has actually been shown that it is a coulomb explosion (which still results in rapid hydrogen gas formation and rapid expansion), so it is not really as it was thought to be.

If you think about it, then the previously accepted explanation contains several red flags. The main of them being that the reaction would be self-inhibiting, and such reactions cannot produce explosions (explosions result from self-activating reactions which result in rapid gas formation). It is mind-boggling that this explanation had/has been a textbook one taught by top class professors around the world, when it is fairly simple to show that it cannot be the case, and a little bit harder to show what it actually may be, but still not outside realm of possibility.

To Foreigner and group, I will stop the discussion here, because I feel that the only thing we can do is agree to disagree, and continuing this will not benefit the thread.

E: to polymath regarding the alkalis (and I'm sorry for going completely off-topic, but I love the chemistry). There are many myths regarding the alkali-water reaction, main of which being that cesium is the king of the alkalis, and its reaction with water results in an explosion akin to a grenade or TNT. Brainiac at some point made an episode in which they deliberately used real explosives to fake rubidium and cesium reactions with water. The funny thing about alkalis is that lithium, gram-for-gram, is about 20 times more energetically dense than cesium, because lithium's molar mass is 7 and cesium is like 130, and the energies released from their reactions with water are roughly the same. Lithium may react more slowly (for reasons you explained, the couloumb explosion kind of depending on the metal being molten), but per mass unit, it releases 20 times more energy.

I was honestly quite fascinated by that article when I came across it, and I went ahead to watch the Youtube videos of the leading author in which he documented his experiments. Since the process takes place in microseconds, it was hard to actually get it on camera. But I was as excited as them when the realization came, and I find it one of the most fascinating findings of recent years in simple chemistry. We're at the stage of describing complex polymer behaviour, and then comes about a finding suggesting that one of the basic understandings about elemental chemistry is wrong. Eh, wow.

 

[polymath]

^ That was a nice article you linked, I just finished reading it. I've heard about that sodium/potassium alloy before and I've heard it's melting point is even lower than that of mercury, because the relative sizes of K and Na atoms are so incompatible for forming a solid lattice by closest packing.

EDIT: Looks like I remembered wrong... The melting point of K-Na alloy is still higher than mercury's by about 20 Celcius degrees.

Coulomb explosion are fun. I remember once approximating, by dimensional analysis, how large the pressure inside a 1 dm³ container would be in atm's if you were to confine 1 coulomb of electric charge inside it... The value was quite celestial. :D