Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Reasons and Causes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

    Yes he was. Science, theories and hypothesis are not determinist in nature. They test the predictability and consistency of the determinism of nature, which is why theories and hypothesis are not 'proven,' but falsified.

    Theory and reality

    Popper, in the following, describes the relationship between a theory and the reality the theory is supposed to explain. In particular, not all properties of the theory, however successful, should be taken as a property of the world. I think that, however, it is not unreasonable to accept such inference, by default and until it is proven incorrect, as long as we do not claim this inference absolutely true.
    Hey moron,

    I see . . . you're trying to support the thesis that "Popper was a determinist" with a statement about the relationship between theory and reality? Because, obviously, that's totally relevant and convincing! lol I mean, who needs actual evidence or arguments when you can just throw in a quote about theory and reality, right? And sure, it's not like the statement even mentions determinism or Popper's views on it, but why let that get in the way of a good argument? Oh, and let's not forget the cherry on top: a snarky comment about theories and hypotheses not being determinist in nature, as if that somehow proves anything. Bravo, I'm convinced - Popper must have been a determinist, because you said so in the vaguest and most irrelevant way possible.



    I see our scientific theories as human inventionsnets designed by us to catch the world. [...] What we aim at is truth: we test our theories in the hope of eliminating those which are not true. In this way we may succeed in improving our theorieseven as instruments: in making nets which are better and better adapted to catch our fish, the real world. Yet they will never be perfect instruments for this purpose. They are rational nets of our own making, and should not be mistaken for a complete representation of the real world in all its aspects; not even if they are highly successful ; not even if they appear to yield excellent approximations to reality. If we keep clearly before our minds that our theories are our own work; that we are fallible; and that our theories reflect our fallibility, then we shall doubt whether general features of our theories, such as their simplicity, or their prima facie deterministic character, correspond to features of the real world. [...] The world, as we know it, is highly complex; and although it may possess structural aspects which are simple in some sense or other, the simplicity of some of our theorieswhich is of our own makingdoes not entail the intrinsic simplicity of the world. The situation with regard to determinism is similar. Newtons theory, consisting of the law of inertia, the law of gravity, etc., may be true, or very approximately true, i.e., the world may be as the theory asserts it is. But there is no statement of determinism in this theory; the theory nowhere asserts that the world is determined; rather it is the theory itself which as that character which I called prima facie deterministic. Now the prima facie deterministic character of a theory is closely related to its simplicity; prima facie deterministic theories are comparatively easily testable, and the tests may be made more and more precise and severe. [...] At the same time, it seems no more justifiable to infer from their success that the world has an intrinsically deterministic character than to infer that the world is intrinsically simple. [section 15] [/cite]


    Well, clearly Popper's statement that our scientific theories are "nets designed by us to catch the world" and that they should not be mistaken for a complete representation of reality is just a cover-up for the fact that he was secretly a determinist all along! I mean, obviously, his admission that our theories reflect our fallibility and that their simplicity does not necessarily correspond to the intrinsic simplicity of the world is just a smokescreen to hide his true belief in the all-powerful laws of nature that dictate every single event in the universe. And of course, his statement that the prima facie deterministic character of a theory is related to its simplicity is just a clever way of saying that simplicity equals determinism, because why bother with all that pesky evidence and logical reasoning when you can just make wild assumptions based on the perceived simplicity of a theory? Clearly, Popper was not only a determinist, but a master of deception as well!

    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
    George Horne

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post

      Hey moron,

      I see . . . you're trying to support the thesis that "Popper was a determinist" with a statement about the relationship between theory and reality? Because, obviously, that's totally relevant and convincing! lol I mean, who needs actual evidence or arguments when you can just throw in a quote about theory and reality, right? And sure, it's not like the statement even mentions determinism or Popper's views on it, but why let that get in the way of a good argument? Oh, and let's not forget the cherry on top: a snarky comment about theories and hypotheses not being determinist in nature, as if that somehow proves anything. Bravo, I'm convinced - Popper must have been a determinist, because you said so in the vaguest and most irrelevant way possible.

      Well, clearly Popper's statement that our scientific theories are "nets designed by us to catch the world" and that they should not be mistaken for a complete representation of reality is just a cover-up for the fact that he was secretly a determinist all along! I mean, obviously, his admission that our theories reflect our fallibility and that their simplicity does not necessarily correspond to the intrinsic simplicity of the world is just a smokescreen to hide his true belief in the all-powerful laws of nature that dictate every single event in the universe. And of course, his statement that the prima facie deterministic character of a theory is related to its simplicity is just a clever way of saying that simplicity equals determinism, because why bother with all that pesky evidence and logical reasoning when you can just make wild assumptions based on the perceived simplicity of a theory? Clearly, Popper was not only a determinist, but a master of deception as well!

      Insults, intentional ignorance of science and the citations I provided and the Modus Opperandi, of those that cling to ancient tribal mythic scriptures fro answers to everything.

      Nothing more than I already cited to understand 'determinism' in not only the view of Popper, but ALL scientists in ALL disciplines of science.

      Yes he was. Science, theories and hypothesis are not determinist in nature. They test the predictability and consistency of the determinism of nature, which is why theories and hypothesis are not 'proven,' but falsified.

      Theory and reality

      Popper, in the following, describes the relationship between a theory and the reality the theory is supposed to explain. In particular, not all properties of the theory, however successful, should be taken as a property of the world. I think that, however, it is not unreasonable to accept such inference, by default and until it is proven incorrect, as long as we do not claim this inference absolutely true.


      Source: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/researchers/francois/RESEARCH/RESEARCH_NOTES/SCIENTIFIC_NOTES/a-case-for-indeterminism-by-Karl-Popper.html#:~:text=No%20theory%20is%20determinist ic,-Given%20the%20principle&text=In%20particular%2C%20 every%20theory%20based,to%20Popper%2C%20be%20calle d%20deterministic.&text=If%20the%20task%20demands% 20that,the%20theory%20cannot%20be%20used.




      “I see our scientific theories as human inventions–nets designed by us to catch the world. [...] What we aim at is truth: we test our theories in the hope of eliminating those which are not true. In this way we may succeed in improving our theories–even as instruments: in making nets which are better and better adapted to catch our fish, the real world. Yet they will never be perfect instruments for this purpose. They are rational nets of our own making, and should not be mistaken for a complete representation of the real world in all its aspects; not even if they are highly successful ; not even if they appear to yield excellent approximations to reality. If we keep clearly before our minds that our theories are our own work; that we are fallible; and that our theories reflect our fallibility, then we shall doubt whether general features of our theories, such as their simplicity, or their prima facie deterministic character, correspond to features of the real world. [...] The world, as we know it, is highly complex; and although it may possess structural aspects which are simple in some sense or other, the simplicity of some of our theories–which is of our own making–does not entail the intrinsic simplicity of the world. The situation with regard to determinism is similar. Newton’s theory, consisting of the law of inertia, the law of gravity, etc., may be true, or very approximately true, i.e., the world may be as the theory asserts it is. But there is no statement of determinism in this theory; the theory nowhere asserts that the world is determined; rather it is the theory itself which as that character which I called ‘prima facie deterministic’. Now the prima facie deterministic character of a theory is closely related to its simplicity; prima facie deterministic theories are comparatively easily testable, and the tests may be made more and more precise and severe. [...] At the same time, it seems no more justifiable to infer from their success that the world has an intrinsically deterministic character than to infer that the world is intrinsically simple.” [section 15]

      © Copyright Original Source

      Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-12-2023, 09:14 AM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #78
        Dude, you're blind. It's actually kind of sad. I'd actually be really curious to see what your reading comprehension scores would be on a standardized test like the GRE.

        That quote has absolutely nothing to do with Popper being a determinist; he is discussing the limitations of scientific theories, and how the simplicity of a theory does not necessarily reflect the underlying complexity or determinism of the natural world. Popper was actually known for rejecting determinism in science and advocating for indeterminism. The quote starts out by noting that the world is complex, and that the simplicity of scientific theories is not necessarily a reflection of the intrinsic simplicity of the world. He's saying that even though some scientific theories may appear prima facie deterministic, this does not necessarily mean that the world is actually deterministic. So, he's saying that those theories that appear to be deterministic are often simpler and more easily testable than those that aren't, but that this does not necessarily mean that the world is deterministic. Then he CAUTIONS against inferring from the success of deterministic theories that the world is inherently deterministic, just as it is not justifiable to infer from the success of simple theories that the world is intrinsically simple.

        Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
        George Horne

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
          Dude, you're blind. It's actually kind of sad. I'd actually be really curious to see what your reading comprehension scores would be on a standardized test like the GRE.

          That quote has absolutely nothing to do with Popper being a determinist; he is discussing the limitations of scientific theories, and how the simplicity of a theory does not necessarily reflect the underlying complexity or determinism of the natural world. Popper was actually known for rejecting determinism in science and advocating for indeterminism. The quote starts out by noting that the world is complex, and that the simplicity of scientific theories is not necessarily a reflection of the intrinsic simplicity of the world. He's saying that even though some scientific theories may appear prima facie deterministic, this does not necessarily mean that the world is actually deterministic. So, he's saying that those theories that appear to be deterministic are often simpler and more easily testable than those that aren't, but that this does not necessarily mean that the world is deterministic. Then he CAUTIONS against inferring from the success of deterministic theories that the world is inherently deterministic, just as it is not justifiable to infer from the success of simple theories that the world is intrinsically simple.
          True Popper was not a rigid mechanical determinist that determinism can be proven, but the following bold accurately describes Popper's view on Determinism, which it cannot be proven nor accepted as simply true. He is the father of Methodological Naturalism which is the foundation of modern science in ALL disciplines.

          Theory and reality

          Popper, in the following, describes the relationship between a theory and the reality the theory is supposed to explain. In particular, not all properties of the theory, however successful, should be taken as a property of the world. I think that, however, it is not unreasonable to accept such inference, by default and until it is proven incorrect, as long as we do not claim this inference absolutely true. [which science cannot simply prove anything]

          Source: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanogr...%20determinist ic,-Given%20the%20principle&text=In%20particular%2C%20 every%20theory%20based,to%20Popper%2C%20be%20calle d%20deterministic.&text=If%20the%20task%20demands% 20that,the%20theory%20cannot%20be%20used.



          “I see our scientific theories as human inventions–nets designed by us to catch the world. [...] What we aim at is truth: we test our theories in the hope of eliminating those which are not true. In this way we may succeed in improving our theories–even as instruments: in making nets which are better and better adapted to catch our fish, the real world. Yet they will never be perfect instruments for this purpose. They are rational nets of our own making, and should not be mistaken for a complete representation of the real world in all its aspects; not even if they are highly successful ; not even if they appear to yield excellent approximations to reality. If we keep clearly before our minds that our theories are our own work; that we are fallible; and that our theories reflect our fallibility, then we shall doubt whether general features of our theories, such as their simplicity, or their prima facie deterministic character, correspond to features of the real world. [...] The world, as we know it, is highly complex; and although it may possess structural aspects which are simple in some sense or other, the simplicity of some of our theories–which is of our own making–does not entail the intrinsic simplicity of the world. The situation with regard to determinism is similar. Newton’s theory, consisting of the law of inertia, the law of gravity, etc., may be true, or very approximately true, i.e., the world may be as the theory asserts it is. But there is no statement of determinism in this theory; the theory nowhere asserts that the world is determined; rather it is the theory itself which as that character which I called ‘prima facie deterministic’. Now the prima facie deterministic character of a theory is closely related to its simplicity; prima facie deterministic theories are comparatively easily testable, and the tests may be made more and more precise and severe. [...] At the same time, it seems no more justifiable to infer from their success that the world has an intrinsically deterministic character than to infer that the world is intrinsically simple.” [section 15]

          © Copyright Original Sourc
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-19-2023, 12:33 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            True Popper was not a rigid mechanical determinist that determinism can be proven, but the following bold accurately describes Popper's view on Determinism, which it cannot be proven nor accepted as simply true. He is the father of Methodological Naturalism which is the foundation of modern science in ALL disciplines.

            Theory and reality

            Popper, in the following, describes the relationship between a theory and the reality the theory is supposed to explain. In particular, not all properties of the theory, however successful, should be taken as a property of the world. I think that, however, it is not unreasonable to accept such inference, by default and until it is proven incorrect, as long as we do not claim this inference absolutely true. [which science cannot simply prove anything]

            Source: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanogr...%20determinist ic,-Given%20the%20principle&text=In%20particular%2C%20 every%20theory%20based,to%20Popper%2C%20be%20calle d%20deterministic.&text=If%20the%20task%20demands% 20that,the%20theory%20cannot%20be%20used.



            “I see our scientific theories as human inventions–nets designed by us to catch the world. [...] What we aim at is truth: we test our theories in the hope of eliminating those which are not true. In this way we may succeed in improving our theories–even as instruments: in making nets which are better and better adapted to catch our fish, the real world. Yet they will never be perfect instruments for this purpose. They are rational nets of our own making, and should not be mistaken for a complete representation of the real world in all its aspects; not even if they are highly successful ; not even if they appear to yield excellent approximations to reality. If we keep clearly before our minds that our theories are our own work; that we are fallible; and that our theories reflect our fallibility, then we shall doubt whether general features of our theories, such as their simplicity, or their prima facie deterministic character, correspond to features of the real world. [...] The world, as we know it, is highly complex; and although it may possess structural aspects which are simple in some sense or other, the simplicity of some of our theories–which is of our own making–does not entail the intrinsic simplicity of the world. The situation with regard to determinism is similar. Newton’s theory, consisting of the law of inertia, the law of gravity, etc., may be true, or very approximately true, i.e., the world may be as the theory asserts it is. But there is no statement of determinism in this theory; the theory nowhere asserts that the world is determined; rather it is the theory itself which as that character which I called ‘prima facie deterministic’. Now the prima facie deterministic character of a theory is closely related to its simplicity; prima facie deterministic theories are comparatively easily testable, and the tests may be made more and more precise and severe. [...] At the same time, it seems no more justifiable to infer from their success that the world has an intrinsically deterministic character than to infer that the world is intrinsically simple.” [section 15]

            © Copyright Original Sourc
            I'm shocked Shunya agreed with me. There's hope for humanity yet!
            Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
            George Horne

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post

              I'm shocked Shunya agreed with me. There's hope for humanity yet!
              I actually do not remotely agree with you. I referred to Popper's philosophy as the basis for Methodological Naturalism and the falsification of theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence which is the foundation of all sciences including the sciences of evolution.

              Of course, science is at it's foundation is skeptical and does not prove anything.

              You should avoid reading to much into Popper to justify your religious agenda. Humanity may yet survive the burden of ancient tribal religions.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-24-2024, 01:35 PM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                Donal Davidson started this and it's dependent on his anomolous monism. Reasons are final causes, not efficient causes. Davidson illicitly reified belief-desire states and called them reasons; the states can be subsumed under a law of nature, but their description (which is anomolous) can't be. Anscombe and C.S. Lewis are right here. Reasons aren't causes. They can't be. Unless you're a compatibilist, which I think is highly implausible.
                I consider CS Lewis a little old on the issue. At present I consider Libertarian Free Will and Hard Determinism too extreme and require assumptions that are difficult to justify the extremes. I at present consider there to be a Limited potential Free Will where yes our choices are limited by various sources including the chain of cause and effect outcomes, culture, peer influence, Natural Laws, but there are a limited range of possible outcomes in our choices, and the potential of choices represents the fact that most do not make choices outside a very narrow range of possible choices, but it is possible. Reasons or causes such as Natural Laws and the outcomes of prior cause and effect events, constrain the possible range of the outcomes of cause and effect outcomes.

                The differentiation between reasons and causes is ambiguous.

                I do not like the Compatibilism option, because as worded it is only a variation of determinism, "We think we make choices, but in reality we do not.

                I with reservations due support ano,olous monism based on recent research on the relationship of the brain and the mind,
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-24-2024, 04:34 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by [B
                  mattbballman31][/B]
                  Donal Davidson started this and it's dependent on his anomolous monism. Reasons are final causes, not efficient causes. Davidson illicitly reified belief-desire states and called them reasons; the states can be subsumed under a law of nature, but their description (which is anomolous) can't be. Anscombe and C.S. Lewis are right here. Reasons aren't causes. They can't be. Unless you're a compatibilist, which I think is highly implausible.
                  Clarification why I consider CS Lewis a little old, because his argument was based exclusively on theology and philosophy of the time including his sidelines of NAtural LAws. I go with the recent history of scientific advances on the relationship of the brain and the, nature of consciousness, and other advances concerning the explanitory power of Chaos Theory to explain what was considered randomness in the past.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-24-2024, 05:33 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post

                    Okay. I'm waiting for a non-simplistic explanation in your own words (not copied and pasted).
                    I do not believe there is a simplistic explanation

                    I at present tentatively go with anomolous monism, pending more research and information concerning the brain mind relationship. I do believe some variation of monism concerning the mind;brain relationship is supported by current research and knowledge..

                    I do believe the following is a significant example of the advances of current research:

                    Source: https://new.nsf.gov/news/mind-body-connection-built-brain-study-suggests



                    Mind-body connection is built into brain, study suggests


                    Findings point to brain areas in the motor cortex that integrate planning, purpose, physiology, behavior, movement
                    May 23, 2023



                    Calm body, calm mind, say the practitioners of mindfulness. A new study, partially funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, indicates that the idea of the body and mind being inextricably intertwined is more than just an abstraction. The study was done by a large multi-university team led by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

                    The results show that parts of the brain that control movement are interleaved and connected with networks involved in thinking and planning, and in control of involuntary bodily functions such as blood pressure and heartbeat. The findings represent a literal link of body and mind in the structure of the motor circuits in the brain.

                    The research, published in the journal Nature, could help explain some baffling phenomena, such as why anxiety makes some people want to pace back and forth or causes “butterflies in the stomach;” why stimulating the vagus nerve, which regulates internal organ functions such as digestion and heart rate, may alleviate depression; and why people who exercise regularly report a more positive outlook on life.

                    “People who meditate say that by calming your body with, say, breathing exercises, you also calm your mind,” said first author Evan Gordon. “Those practices can be helpful for people with anxiety, for example, but so far, there hasn’t been much scientific evidence for how it works. But now we’ve found a connection.

                    “We’ve found the place where the highly active, goal-oriented ‘go, go, go’ part of your mind connects to parts of the brain that control breathing and heart rate. If you calm one down, it should have feedback effects on the other.”

                    Gordon and senior author Nico Dosenbach initially set out to verify the long-established map of areas of the brain that control movement, using modern brain-imaging techniques. They did not set out to answer age-old philosophical questions about the relationship between the body and the mind, but their discoveries have led to a new understanding of the organization of the motor cortex.

                    “This project provides new insights into the brain organization and functional connectivity of the human motor cortex,” said NSF program director Jonathan Fritz. “It shows that the brain’s motor circuits are integrated with executive and cognitive function, and with control of basic bodily processes, revealing that body and mind, perception and action, are closely woven together.”
                    Research areas

                    Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE)
                    Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (SBE/BCS)

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                    169 responses
                    567 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post JimL
                    by JimL
                     
                    Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                    21 responses
                    137 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post shunyadragon  
                    Working...
                    X