Determinism vs Free Will

Author: Crocodile
Philosophy

Posts

Total: 161
#151
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Tautologically, we don't know what we don't know. It serves no utility in any expression of a relation. Past experience may indicate that we've made "discoveries," but the unknown with respect to what we do know has never changed.
I'm unable to detect your point of contention.
#152
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Presuming of course there is a "scope." And please demonstrate that we don't known everything.
Do you remember how this conversation started?

Do you remember every single word you've written?

Do you remember every song you've ever sung?

Do you remember what you were doing exactly 800,000 seconds ago?
#153
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
The only possible counter-claim would be "we DO know everything" (which is provably false).
Please demonstrate or reference this proof of falsehood.
Tell me what I'm thinking at this particular moment.
#154
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
That begs the question: why is individual identification and ontological division necessary?
It's apparent.  This conversation would be impossible without it.
#155
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Logical necessity.
Logical necessity isn't purely conceptual?

You can compare two pages to figure out which page contains more information.

There is absolutely no reason to demand "perfect knowledge" of a "known maximum".
The differences between what one knows and what another knows is inconsequential because it's all contained in what "we" know, as far as epistemology is concerned. "More" depends on the standard, which necessitates a maximum. Take this for example, when visiting an E.R. or a private physician, and one is experiencing pain, they're typically asked to gauge their pain on a scale from one to 10 (stupid, I know.) They relate these instances of pain with respect to what they experience as the worst and mildest pain they've ever felt. Each degree bears an implicit relation to its minimum and maximum. Even when discussing it qualitatively, each comparative bears an implicit reference to its superlative. For "less," it's "least," and for "more," it's "most." So even when you state that one page bears more information than another, this always bears the implicit reference on the maximum information that can be put on that page. Like numbers on a scale.

I'm unable to detect your point of contention.
The point is that we don't know the extent of that which we don't know. Any discoveries may "add" to our knowledge and "reduce" our ignorance, but that'll be contained in everything we know.

Do you remember how this conversation started?

Do you remember every single word you've written?

Do you remember every song you've ever sung?

Do you remember what you were doing exactly 800,000 seconds ago?
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.

Tell me what I'm thinking at this particular moment.
"Tell me what I'm thinking at this particular moment" is what you were thinking at that particular moment.

It's apparent.  This conversation would be impossible without it.
I would entertain a devil's advocate stance, but fair enough.
#156
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Logical necessity.
Logical necessity isn't purely conceptual?
Logical necessity demands "something" (NOT) "purely conceptual" (NOUMENON).
#157
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
So even when you state that one page bears more information than another, this always bears the implicit reference on the maximum information that can be put on that page. Like numbers on a scale.
Your experience (perception) of "pain" is perfectly legitimate relative to zero.

#158
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Do you remember every single word you've written?
Well, then you don't know "everything".

16 days later

#159
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Logical necessity demands "something" (NOT) "purely conceptual" (NOUMENON).
But isn't the necessity in and of itself purely conceptual? I'm not attempting to contradict that logic requires consistency, but consistency is just that: consistency. If logic allows us to replicate, reproduce, and even "predict" events within an order, then logic is limited to the aforementioned. But that doesn't necessarily inform logic's preceding "being." These analyses presume that we accept logic.

Your experience (perception) of "pain" is perfectly legitimate relative to zero.
Have you experienced the absence of pain?

Well, then you don't know "everything".
That's a temporal circumstance. I didn't "lose" that knowledge; I just can't at the moment recall it.


#160
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
But isn't the necessity in and of itself purely conceptual?
You see a computer screen.  This is definitely "something" (not "no-thing").

Now, we know the "computer" "screen" is almost certainly not, fundamentally, only what it appears to be to us as individuals.

Our best analysis seems to strongly suggest it "is" a temporarily cohesive mass of quarks.

But we know it is "something" (not "no-thing").

So, even though we may never be able to directly observe or even fully comprehend what the "real-and-true-thing-in-itself" actually "is", we can still have 100% confidence that it is "something" (not "no-thing").
#161
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
You see a computer screen.  This is definitely "something" (not "no-thing").

Now, we know the "computer" "screen" is almost certainly not, fundamentally, only what it appears to be to us as individuals.

Our best analysis seems to strongly suggest it "is" a temporarily cohesive mass of quarks.
The difference between "something" and "no-thing" is that we state there's a difference. Of course, I'm not suggesting that this statement of "difference" is made injudiciously. We've applied logic and developed a standard of observation (sensation) where we index reproducible phenomena. That is, the computer I see in front of me bears conceived characteristics which can be reproduced in accordance to a given standard. It allows us to elide the arbitrary capacity of our (mental) faculties. Essentially, as you would put it, the standard produces "efficacy" (reliable predictability.) So what is the significance in "efficacy"? Why does it matter that phenomena and sensations are reliably predictable other than avoiding the influence of "con-artists"? And what role does this efficacy play in determining that which exists and that which doesn't? It's the value for order and the avoidance of chaos (QUALIA.) And there's no other quintessential manifestation of this value than logic.

So then the question I would pose is, does something lying outside of this order, necessarily produce the absence of existence? Can it be a reflection of, for lack of a better term, "chaotic" thinking, and still be, even if our efficacious standard does not apply?