Determinism And Rationality.

[Jim B.]

Well, to me it just seems much more reasonable to posit that the physical is temporal, but not necessarily the other way around. At least for me it seems logically possible for temporal things that are not physical to exist.

What we've been discussing so far on this thread, namely conscious experiences, if their ontology is essentially subjective and first-person in nature, would be an example of a non-physical thing with temporal duration. There may or may not be such things, but it is certainly logically possible, as you point out.

[mattbballman31]

Yes, determinism leads to your beliefs being ungrounded. Non-rational cause/effect relation is different from the rational ground/consequent relation. Mental causation is at the heart of the argument from reason against naturalism, and, of course, naturalism and determinism go hand in hand.

[shunyadragon]

It certainly made my justification for the B-Theory easier! Rather than needing to get into physics and Relativity (which was still a large part of the reason I was convinced of the B-Theory when I was a theist) I could frame the notion around God's omniscience.

Alack and alas, now I gotta trudge through the harder stuff to explain my views.

The reality of the nature of our physical existence and time is indifferent to the philosophical 'beliefs' such as A Theory nor B Theory, or any other theory of time.

[Jim B.]

The reality of the nature of our physical existence and time is indifferent to the philosophical 'beliefs' such as A Theory nor B Theory, or any other theory of time.

Why do you selectively cite philosophy only when (you think!) it suits your purposes, such as your references to Popper's and Aristotle's philosophy of science? And why do you keep posting your philosophical pronouncements on these very threads that are obviously meant to be taken as true and meaningful, the majority of which are dismissive of philosophy itself as merely subjective and not to be taken seriously? (Therefore, I assume, we should not take your philosophical posts seriously either.) You're deeply muddled.

[shunyadragon]

Why do you selectively cite philosophy only when (you think!) it suits your purposes, such as your references to Popper's and Aristotle's philosophy of science? And why do you keep posting your philosophical pronouncements on these very threads that are obviously meant to be taken as true and meaningful, the majority of which are dismissive of philosophy itself as merely subjective and not to be taken seriously? (Therefore, I assume, we should not take your philosophical posts seriously either.) You're deeply muddled.

ALL the subjective schools of philosophy are open to 'what we think,' and that is the nature and definition of philosophy.

Are you going to be windy again and not respond coherently. Your outburst indicates to me I hit a nerve. I do not negate philosophy at all, but also realize a great deal of philosophy is subjective views as differnt views of 'thinking' about the nature of our existence. In terms of time, such as A Thory and B Theory, which are based on different philosophical/theological world views and not the actual observable nature of time, which I prefer. Actually A Theory and B Theory of time are not theories from the objective perspective.

Challenge: It would be interesting if anyone could present any objective perspective of whether Theory A or Theory B is any more than a philosophical/theological difference in the nature of time.

Popper's work is a land mark achievement in the Philosophy of Science, and was specifically how science can best deal with the development of theories and hypothesis that cannot be 'proven.' His proposals lead to Methodological Naturalism and today's context of objective scientific Methods.

[Stoic]

Yes, determinism leads to your beliefs being ungrounded.

I'm curious as to what you mean by "beliefs being ungrounded". If you mean simply that there are ultimately some beliefs that we have to accept without proof, I doubt that this is any less true without determinism.

Non-rational cause/effect relation is different from the rational ground/consequent relation.

Computers, governed by the non-rational cause/effect relation, seem to be pretty good at representing the rational ground/consequent relation. So the fact that the two are not identical may not be particularly significant.

Mental causation is at the heart of the argument from reason against naturalism, and, of course, naturalism and determinism go hand in hand.

Naturalism doesn't necessarily imply determinism, and determinism doesn't necessarily imply naturalism. But it is probably true that one who is willing to accept one of them is more likely to accept the other.

[seer]

Computers, governed by the non-rational cause/effect relation, seem to be pretty good at representing the rational ground/consequent relation. So the fact that the two are not identical may not be particularly significant.

Except computers are designed and programmed by rational beings.

[Stoic]

Except computers are designed and programmed by rational beings.

And?

[seer]

And?

Computers are not governed by the non-rational cause/effect relation. They are governed by the rational, since the rational created them.

[Stoic]

Computers are not governed by the non-rational cause/effect relation. They are governed by the rational, since the rational created them.

Nonsense. They are pure cause/effect, regardless of how they were created.

[seer]

Nonsense. They are pure cause/effect, regardless of how they were created.

No, they were created by the rational to be rational. How on earth do you get non-rational cause & effect is beyond me.

[Stoic]

No, they were created by the rational to be rational. How on earth do you get non-rational cause & effect is beyond me.

Okay...

But argument from incredulity won't gain you many converts.

[seer]

Okay...

But argument from incredulity won't gain you many converts.

What - I'm stating a fact - computers are created by the rational to be rational. Where in non-rational cause & effect in that?

[shunyadragon]

Yes, determinism leads to your beliefs being ungrounded. Non-rational cause/effect relation is different from the rational ground/consequent relation. Mental causation is at the heart of the argument from reason against naturalism, and, of course, naturalism and determinism go hand in hand.

The different concepts of determinism cannot be generalized.


There are different types of 'Determinism.' You are describing what I call it Hard Philosophical Determinism described as follows:

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=determinism+definition&oq=Determinism&aqs=chrome.1.0l8.10953j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

© Copyright Original Source

I prefer Karl Poppers view of determinism:



There are other views of Determinism which are described here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

[Stoic]

What - I'm stating a fact - computers are created by the rational to be rational. Where in non-rational cause & effect in that?

Why would there be any distinction between "rational cause and effect" and "non-rational cause and effect?"

It's all just cause and effect.