gam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (07/29/84)
> From: martin@ism780.UUCP (martin smith INTERACTIVE Systems) > > I think the principle of cause and effect is nothing more than identity. That > is, if A causes B, then A and B are the same. Could you please explain how this works? > ... Without the principle of cause > and effect there is no determinism. Absolutely! Cause and effect is the underlying assumption of the philosophy of science, and hence the scientific method. > ... In the picture below, I am standing on > the X, forever in the present being bombarded with possible futures. I choose > which future will become my past. > > Past Present Futures > > <------------ > <--------------------------------------------X <------------ > <------------ > > "And that's where free will comes from, Charlie Brown." Having so said, Linus > threw his blanky over his shoulder, planted his thumb firmly in his mouth, and > prepared to withstand the hurricane he knew was coming. Whoosh! You have snuck in this concept of `future' and then boldly claimed that you "choose which future will become my past." How have you shown that this choice (if there is in fact a choice) is not the result of deterministic forces? -- Gordon A. Moffett { hplabs!nsc, decvax!sun!amd, ihnp4!dual } !proper!gam
martin@ism780.UUCP (08/02/84)
#R:ism780:20200016:ism780:20200020:000:4946 ism780!martin Jul 31 15:14:00 1984 >>No. When you ask how something works, you are asking for the cause of an >>effect. Since even our language assumes Cause and Effect, I cannot use >>this language to explain a concept that says there is no Cause and Effect. >Gee, I guess the lord works in mysterious ways. It may be true, but it makes >for pretty dull conversation. What you are essentially saying is that >you are choosing meanings for words which makes it impossible to speak >rationally with them. I don't wish to change the meanings of words. What I mean to say is we cannot talk about free will in a language that assumes Cause and Effect. You say the word *because* implies Cause and Effect, but I say it assumes it. Does this make it impossible for me to speak rationally with the word *because*? >You may freely choose to do so, but I prefer to choose >meanings for words which *do* allow exchange of ideas. Besides, I think >you have merely made an analytical mistake and are refusing to defend it. Perhaps I have made an analytical mistake, but if so, I'm certainly not going to defend it. That would be a waste of time. >In many conversations, this manifests itself with the statement >"I have a right to my opinion". This statement is only interesting when >discussing methods to coerce people to change their opinions against their >will. Otherwise, it just means that the person is no longer willing to have >his position challenged, usually because the challenge is too powerful >for him to deal with. My position is that I can't explain what a free choice is or how I go about choosing, because (there's that word again) the tool I have at my disposal, language, is based on the concepts of Cause and Effect and Time Marching On. If language were based on the concepts of objective as cause and time moving from present to past, then I believe this discussion would be about why I couldn't explain what I meant by Determinism. >> While philosophy and science at first seem to be limitless, they are >> restricted by their base. Perhaps we have hit this limit when we try to >> describe a black hole or a mind. If Cause and Effect is the underlying >> assumption of the scientific method, then it is also the underlying limit >> of our understanding of things. >But our understanding of things is all there is. Conceptualization is >based upon induction. There is not a single concept you have which does >not rest upon other concepts and words the implicit meanings of which >were obtained through induction. Black holes and the mind certainly are >not beyond *my* understanding. I also don't think black holes and the mind are beyond your understanding. But I don't think you understand them. The tools that we have to study these things are not adequate. They are based on Cause and Effect, and they seem to be breaking down. Aren't Physicists beginning to say that Cause and Effect doesn't work the same in a black hole? >You may think there is something that is >beyond anyone's understanding, but I dare you to express it. By >understanding something I do not mean determining the truth about it; I think everything in the universe can be understood, because the tool that we use to understand, the mind, is, I think, outside the universe, but has access to information inside the universe. >determining the truth about black holes is problematic and the determination >of what happened before the Big Bang is impossible, but it is possible >to *understand* these things to the degree that they can be expressed. >To quote Wittgenstein, "in order to draw a limit to thinking, we should >have to think both sides of this limit". >> I haven't shown it. But I think I have shown that I can't show it when >> our system of showing things assumes that I can't show it. >> That would be like discussing the existance of God with Jerry Falwell. But don't worry, >> I'm gonna think s'more (because I freely choose to). >One of the problems of merely thinking about things is that the formation >of new concepts based upon old concepts is non-trivial. While Socrates >showed that his subjects already "had" the knowledge, they certainly would >not have been able to access it as readily without his guidance. >Far greater thinkers than either of us have already spent lifetimes thinking >about these things and analyzing what other philosophers thought about these >things, and I suggest following that pattern. >I suggest the works of A. J. Ayers for a particularly deep treatment of >the problems of language and semantics. Some other interesting philosophers >to read are George Berkeley, Rudolf Carnap, Rene Descartes, David Hume, >I. Kant, G. E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, and L. Wittgenstein. I admit that I am not well-read in this area even though I have read things by some of the above. I will read more, but I hate to ruin a mind that I have labored so long to keep pristine. martin smith, INTERACTIVE Systems
martin@ism780.UUCP (08/04/84)
We always seem to describe time as being anchored in the past and proceeding
forward, through the present, into the future. And we draw a picture of it
this way. Drawing it this way leads to the belief that events in the past
cause the state that is the present.
Past Present
-------------------------------------------->
But think of time this way. Each event now in our past was once in the
present. It was in the present before it was in the past. So the picture
should really be drawn this way.
Past Present
<--------------------------------------------
Looking at time this way leads me to believe that I might be effecting the
past rather than the other way around (free will vs determinism?). But what
about the principle of cause and effect? It comes from thinking of time as
in the first picture. If you think of time proceeding from present to past,
then what we used to call an effect precedes its cause.
I think the principle of cause and effect is nothing more than identity. That
is, if A causes B, then A and B are the same. Without the principle of cause
and effect there is no determinism. In the picture below, I am standing on
the X, forever in the present being bombarded with possible futures. I choose
which future will become my past.
Past Present Futures
<------------
<--------------------------------------------X <------------
<------------
"And that's where free will comes from, Charlie Brown." Having so said, Linus
threw his blanky over his shoulder, planted his thumb firmly in his mouth, and
prepared to withstand the hurricane he knew was coming.
martin smith INTERACTIVE Systemska@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (08/06/84)
What I mean to say is we cannot talk about free will in a
language that assumes Cause and Effect. You say the word
*because* implies Cause and Effect, but I say it assumes
it.... My position is that I can't explain what a free
choice is or how I go about choosing, because (there's that
word again) the tool I have at my disposal, language, is
based on the concepts of Cause and Effect and Time Marching
On. If language were based on the concepts of objective as
cause and time moving from present to past, then I believe
this discussion would be about why I couldn't explain what
I meant by Determinism.
The general concensus seems to be that natural languages are "univer-
sal" in the sense of being able to express any concept. A given
language may make it easier or harder to express a given concept, but
I don't believe that a natural language like English can make any
concept impossible to express. For example, English is pretty clearly
biased towards the notion that people have free will, but that doesn't
prevent people from defending determinism. Indeed, the fact that many
language constructs ("I decided", etc.) assume free will is little help
to someone who wants to construct a *valid* argument for free will.
The paragraph I quoted jumps from the claim that the word "because"
implies cause and effect to the claim that all of English implies cause
and effect. The reason that the word "because" appears in the quoted
paragraph is that the writer was reasoning in terms of cause and effect.
The word "because" is hard to avoid because cause and effect reasoning
is hard to avoid, not the other way around. (By the way, the word
"because" is normally used to express effect/cause instead of cause/effect.
It is used to take an effect and reason back to the cause. Thus it is
not clear that the word "because" implies a forward flow of time.)
Kenneth Almquistmartin@ism780.UUCP (08/08/84)
>***** ism780:net.philosophy / proper!gam / 10:45 am Jul 30, 1984 >> From: martin@ism780.UUCP (martin smith INTERACTIVE Systems) >> >> I think the principle of cause and effect is nothing more than identity. That >> is, if A causes B, then A and B are the same. >Could you please explain how this works? No. When you ask how something works, you are asking for the cause of an effect. Since even our language assumes Cause and Effect, I cannot use this language to explain a concept that says there is no Cause and Effect. >> ... Without the principle of cause >> and effect there is no determinism. >Absolutely! Cause and effect is the underlying assumption of the >philosophy of science, and hence the scientific method. While philosophy and science at first seem to be limitless, they are restricted by their base. Perhaps we have hit this limit when we try to describe a black hole or a mind. If Cause and Effect is the underlying assumption of the scientific method, then it is also the underlying limit of our understanding of things. >> ... In the picture below, I am standing on >> the X, forever in the present being bombarded with possible futures. I choose >> which future will become my past. >> >> Past Present Futures >> >> <------------ >> <--------------------------------------------X <------------ >> <------------ >> >> "And that's where free will comes from, Charlie Brown." Having so said, Linus >> threw his blanky over his shoulder, planted his thumb firmly in his mouth, and >> prepared to withstand the hurricane he knew was coming. >Whoosh! You have snuck in this concept of `future' and then boldly >claimed that you "choose which future will become my past." How >have you shown that this choice (if there is in fact a choice) is >not the result of deterministic forces? -- I haven't shown it. But I think I have shown that I can't show it when our system of showing things assumes that I can't show it. That would be like discussing the existance of God with Jerry Falwell. But don't worry, I'm gonna think s'more (because I freely choose to). martin smith, INTERACTIVE Systems
jim@ism780b.UUCP (08/08/84)
>>Could you please explain how this works? > >No. When you ask how something works, you are asking for the cause of an >effect. Since even our language assumes Cause and Effect, I cannot use >this language to explain a concept that says there is no Cause and Effect. Gee, I guess the lord works in mysterious ways. It may be true, but it makes for pretty dull conversation. What you are essentially saying is that you are choosing meanings for words which makes it impossible to speak rationally with them. You may freely choose to do so, but I prefer to choose meanings for words which *do* allow exchange of ideas. Besides, I think you have merely made an analytical mistake and are refusing to defend it. In many conversations, this manifests itself with the statement "I have a right to my opinion". This statement is only interesting when discussing methods to coerce people to change their opinions against their will. Otherwise, it just means that the person is no longer willing to have his position challenged, usually because the challenge is too powerful for him to deal with. > While philosophy and science at first seem to be limitless, they are > restricted by their base. Perhaps we have hit this limit when we try to > describe a black hole or a mind. If Cause and Effect is the underlying > assumption of the scientific method, then it is also the underlying limit > of our understanding of things. But our understanding of things is all there is. Conceptualization is based upon induction. There is not a single concept you have which does not rest upon other concepts and words the implicit meanings of which were obtained through induction. Black holes and the mind certainly are not beyond *my* understanding. You may think there is something that is beyond anyone's understanding, but I dare you to express it. By understanding something I do not mean determining the truth about it; determining the truth about black holes is problematic and the determination of what happened before the Big Bang is impossible, but it is possible to *understand* these things to the degree that they can be expressed. To quote Wittgenstein, "in order to draw a limit to thinking, we should have to think both sides of this limit". > I haven't shown it. But I think I have shown that I can't show it when > our system of showing things assumes that I can't show it. > That would be like discussing the existance of God with Jerry Falwell. But don't worry, > I'm gonna think s'more (because I freely choose to). One of the problems of merely thinking about things is that the formation of new concepts based upon old concepts is non-trivial. While Socrates showed that his subjects already "had" the knowledge, they certainly would not have been able to access it as readily without his guidance. Far greater thinkers than either of us have already spent lifetimes thinking about these things and analyzing what other philosophers thought about these things, and I suggest following that pattern. I suggest the works of A. J. Ayers for a particularly deep treatment of the problems of language and semantics. Some other interesting philosophers to read are George Berkeley, Rudolf Carnap, Rene Descartes, David Hume, I. Kant, G. E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, and L. Wittgenstein. -- Jim Balter, INTERACTIVE Systems (ima!jim)
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/09/84)
****************
The general concensus seems to be that natural languages are "univer-
sal" in the sense of being able to express any concept. A given
language may make it easier or harder to express a given concept, but
I don't believe that a natural language like English can make any
concept impossible to express. For example, English is pretty clearly
****************
How, in English or any other language, can I express to you the
precise type and degree of discomfort of a slightly queasy stomach,
or the glory that I feel under the right circumstances listening
to the right music? Language is good only for communicating concepts
that can be tied (perhaps by a looong string) to elements of mutual
experience. Cause and effect can be thought of as a shared experience,
but when one wants to look deeper into the idea, the very sharability
of the concept gets in the way because the language has trouble
expressing just what the difficulty might be. The language of
mathematics can go a lot further than can natural language in expressing
non-shared concepts, because the foundations are precisely specified
and so are the rules for making one concept out of previously constructed
(or defined) ones. Even in mathematics, however, new "paradoxes" or
inconsistencies keep being discovered, and the basic concepts have to
be made yet more precise. We can't do this with natural language,
because neither the foundational concepts nor the rules for building
new concepts are sufficiently tightly controlled to allow us to go
far in the building. We pretty soon get into the realm of "you aren't
using the words properly (i.e. my way)," or more probably we get into
that state without noticing that different usage is at the bottom of
a disagreement.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt