Causal exclusion problem

[Fervent]

Regarding the entirety of what can be true and false....you've identified something that cannot possibly be false?

Yes, tautologies are by definition true. And God's existence is tautological, in that the only way to define God is by self-reference and not in terms of any prior. For God to not exist tautologies would have to be possibly false so there is no foundation to arrive at knowlede of any sort from

I'd argue we don't...but as neither of us created the English language it's not a substantive question.

The word clearly changes the picture in questions of mind-body relationship in a substantial manner.

I still don't understand what discrepancy you keep referring to.

This is a problem within the mind-body discussion known as causal exclusion, where four propositions with significant experiential support that all seem to be true individually cannot stand together without one of them needing to be adjusted or held false. Any mix of 3 work, but as soon as the 4th is brought into the mix a contradiction is created.

Which one or one's are in conflict?

That's what the question asks. Typically mind-body theorists will attack either distinctiness or causal overdetermination. But what I did is to take out a metaphysical hypothesis about reality from a expermentally supported principle and removing that metaphysical hyopthesis allows all 4 popostions to stand together without any conflict among the four.

I've never heard that before. I've never heard your 4 propositions before.

You can look into it, its a major source of discusson among mind-body theorists who have provided robust convoluted theories to resolve the issue. Traditionally, it was a challenge raised by Jaegwan Kim as an attack on supervenience and non-reductonist physicalist theories of mind.

All things physical may be natural but that doesn't necessarily mean all things natural must be physical.

What, exactly, physical means isn't really all that clear when we look at the broad range that word covers.

I wouldn't call an absolute vacuum physical but I would call it natural.

This isn't really relevant to the discussion

I wouldn't call darkness physical though I would call it natural.

Again, not relevant

You're conflating categories.

No, Im speaking cause to cause. There is a presumption that mental activity has its origin in physical processes, but since this problem can be solved by removing a metaphysical assumption about what causal closure entails it would seem that the simplest explanation is to let go of the idea that the ontologiical basis of reality is physical.

Nature is nature.

I hope this helps.

Except there is a typical sleight of hand where nature is assumed to be fundamentally physical, which seems to be contradicted by this problem in the field of mind-body relationships.

 

[SelfSim]

No, Im speaking cause to cause. There is a presumption that mental activity has its origin in physical processes, but since this problem can be solved by removing a metaphysical assumption about what causal closure entails it would seem that the simplest explanation is to let go of the idea that the ontologiical basis of reality is physical.

The 'ontological basis' of anything is a mind.

I would say the simplest, pretense free, (by way of jettisoning them), explanation we can come up with, starts with looking at what is actually going on with our minds. The first observation is noticing that 'what is actually going on', is that we are modelling ourselves and the model we come up with, not only depends on our minds, it is the basis of what we mean by our minds. At this point, we cannot use any kind of logical imperatives to say what is true, we have only models and our ability to test those models, or alternatively, our ability to simply choose a belief system, without the need to test it.

'Metaphysical', 'physical', 'natural', etc, are then whatever we select by way of either testing/results, or simply choosing a belief.
It's almost like people forget where the meaning of such/any/all words comes from in the first place, ie: from making and testing models under the auspices of the rules of logic, or from simply choosing beliefs.

 

[Fervent]

Where's the evidence for mental causation?

Your keyboard type out your posts automatically? Seems to be evidence right there, the only issue is a refusal to see it for what it is. Or do your thoughts have nothing to do with the electronic signal being broadcast across the internet and are just random collisions of mindless particulate matter?

 

[Fervent]

Fervent has been doing a good job trying to communicate René Descartes mind-body distinction. If anyone is interested in a more detailed explanation, they can find it here: Descartes, Rene: Mind-Body Distinction | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy If Fervent has already given references, I’m sorry if I missed them.

I'm actually not articulating dualism of any sort, my position is neutral monism. Both the mental and the physical obtain on a third fundamental element. I call it Pneuma, Spirit, or Soul. An atheist would likely call it Form or Information or some other impersonal term.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm actually not articulating dualism of any sort, my position is neutral monism. Both the mental and the physical obtain on a third fundamental element. I call it Pneuma, Spirit, or Soul. An atheist would likely call it Form or Information or some other impersonal term.

A reasonable scientific thinker would most likely concur with an objectively testable model named: 'mind'.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Uhhhh....thinking about it really hard, influenced by the consideration of certain logical paradoxes.





Nope. Never read any Wittgenstein....though obviously, it's unlikely I'm the first to have an idea.



Right...well whatever you consider the basis of logic, it's clear to me that it's basis is rooted quite literally in the language we use. Let's take one of the most basic and uncontroversial laws of logic as an example....

The law of non-contradiction.

Two contradictory statements cannot be true in the same time in the same way.

Formally A cannot also be not -A.

While formal logic is fun...it's not really how we describe the world. The law describes categorical sets like inside and outside. One cannot be inside a room in the same way at the same time as they are outside a room.

What if we imagine someone standing exactly in a doorway to the room though....half inside, half outside? Are they not both inside and outside the room in the same meaning of those words at the exact same time? Both inside and not inside at the same time? Both outside and not outside at the same time?

Fortunately, a third categorical set was created to describe such things..."at the threshold" between between inside and outside....and it was the linguistic creation of the third category which describes the truth of something or someone at the threshold of two or more contradictory states.

.... While formal logic is interesting, I had more in the mind the practical application of Informal Logic and the citation of various fallacies people all too often indulge in when attempting to justify their person points of view.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And God's existence is tautological, in that the only way to define God is by self-reference and not in terms of any prior.

Not really.

Def: A god is a being with supernatural aspects, typically in a group of the most powerful of such beings or the most powerful or only of such beings believed in by some people, where supernatural refers to things beyond the known and testable physics.

Def: God in English typically refers to the single god of the monotheistic Abrahamic religions (Judiasm, Christianity, Islam [Usually given with the Arabic "Allah"], etc.)

It wasn't really that hard.

For God to not exist tautologies would have to be possibly false so there is no foundation to arrive at knowlede of any sort from

If you think you can define a god into existence, it just means you are using a set of presumptions that such a being already exists definitionally.

 

[Fervent]

Not really.

Def: A god is a being with supernatural aspects, typically in a group of the most powerful of such beings or the most powerful or only of such beings believed in by some people, where supernatural refers to things beyond the known and testable physics.

God is not "a god" as if there are a set of similar beings, God is unique in all His character. That which can only be defined in terms of itself, and described by way of analogy.

Def: God in English typically refers to the single god of the monotheistic Abrahamic religions (Judiasm, Christianity, Islam [Usually given with the Arabic "Allah"], etc.)

It wasn't really that hard.

We usually identify God through the revealed religions, but just about every human culture has reference to Him in some form or fashion. Some cultures see Him as a God that is so far removed from humanity that He has no role in human affairs and as such plays no part in their religious livess, others speak of Him as the Great Spirit. But God is unique and holy(fully alien). He is not "supernatural", as He is fundamental to nature so a better word for Him would be superfundamental to show that He is both the primeval simplicity creation proceeds from and the final end to which it is moving. Alpha and Omega. The beginniing and the end.

If you think you can define a god into existence, it just means you are using a set of presumptions that such a being already exists definitionally.

It's not "defining" a god into existence, it's recognizing the necessity of God for truth to exist. Something must be tautologically true and defined in terms of itself and itself alone. That can't be "the universe" or "the world" or whatever word atheists want to call the fundamental reality because such things do not truly exist but instead are merely a conceptual set of things that exist. We can't start our epistemics at the world, because doing so eventually leads to the foundations of our epistemics crumbling and we are left with nothing but circular reasoniing. Which is sustainable so long as nobody asks questions about the foundations that do not exist.

 

[partinobodycular]

God is not "a god" as if there are a set of similar beings, God is unique in all His character. That which can only be defined in terms of itself, and described by way of analogy.

We usually identify God through the revealed religions, but just about every human culture has reference to Him in some form or fashion. Some cultures see Him as a God that is so far removed from humanity that He has no role in human affairs and as such plays no part in their religious livess, others speak of Him as the Great Spirit. But God is unique and holy(fully alien). He is not "supernatural", as He is fundamental to nature so a better word for Him would be superfundamental to show that He is both the primeval simplicity creation proceeds from and the final end to which it is moving. Alpha and Omega. The beginniing and the end.

It's not "defining" a god into existence, it's recognizing the necessity of God for truth to exist. Something must be tautologically true and defined in terms of itself and itself alone. That can't be "the universe" or "the world" or whatever word atheists want to call the fundamental reality because such things do not truly exist but instead are merely a conceptual set of things that exist. We can't start our epistemics at the world, because doing so eventually leads to the foundations of our epistemics crumbling and we are left with nothing but circular reasoniing. Which is sustainable so long as nobody asks questions about the foundations that do not exist.

I'm sorry, but the majority of this just looks like metaphysical woo to me. Not that I have a problem with metaphysics, as a solipsist I spend a lot of time wandering off into philosophical wastelands. But I try very hard not to get so enamored with what I find there, that I can't find my way back to the fundamentals of what's actually knowable.

But there is however one thought in your post that I found interesting, and that's this one:

But God is unique and holy(fully alien). He is not "supernatural", as He is fundamental to nature so a better word for Him would be superfundamental to show that He is both the primeval simplicity creation proceeds from and the final end to which it is moving. Alpha and Omega. The beginniing and the end.

I find it interesting as it reminds me of Penrose's CCC, in which reality is an eternal cycle of aeons beginning in a state of low entropy, then passing through a state of ever increasing entropy, inevitably returning to a state of low entropy, only to start the process all over again.

But nothing in this process requires a conscious agent, or a bunch of metaphysical woo. It's just a matter of entropy always increasing, and in doing so creating matter, and galaxies, and us. Who then ponder the existence, and nature of their creator, without realizing that the explanation is actually very, very simple. Reality is simply beginning in a state of low entropy, transitioning through a state of ever increasing entropy, only to return to a state of low entropy again.

But as I say, as a solipsist I try very hard not to get too enamored with woo, be it of the metaphysical or scientific variety. Instead I always try to return to what I can be sure of... and that's that I don't know.

It seems to me that you've gotten a bit too enamored with your own personal wasteland, and have lost sight of what you can actually know to be true.

 

[Fervent]

I'm sorry, but the majority of this just looks like metaphysical woo to me. Not that I have a problem with metaphysics, as a solipsist I spend a lot of time wandering off into philosophical wastelands. But I try very hard not to get so enamored with what I find there, that I can't find my way back to the fundamentals of what's actually knowable.

I find your willingness to call yourself a solipsist a rather bizarre thing to accept if you have any concern for Truth at all.

But there is however one thought in your post that I found interesting, and that's this one:



I find it interesting as it reminds me of Penrose's CCC, in which reality is an eternal cycle of aeons beginning in a state of low entropy, then passing through a state of ever increasing entropy, inevitably returning to a state of low entropy, only to start the process all over again.

A rose by any other name. Though that is nothing but metaphysical speculation.

But nothing in this process requires a conscious agent, or a bunch of metaphysical woo. It's just a matter of entropy always increasing, and in doing so creating matter, and galaxies, and us. Who then ponder the existence, and nature of their creator, without realizing that the explanation is actually very, very simple. Reality is simply beginning in a state of low entropy, transitioning through a state of ever increasing entropy, only to return to a state of low entropy again.

And what do you base this assumption on? How do you know what is and isn't required for the existence of the universe? Did you not say you were a solipsist? Yet now you claim to know what the basic requirements of reality are? What is your justification?

But as I say, as a solipsist I try very hard not to get too enamored with woo, be it of the metaphysical or scientific variety. Instead I always try to return to what I can be sure of... and that's that I don't know.

Then why bother saying anything at all? If you don't believe what you understand about reality to be truth, then all you're doing is venting hot air.

It seems to me that you've gotten a bit too enamored with your own personal wasteland, and have lost sight of what you can actually know to be true.

Not at all, I have simply recognized that only a fool would pretend not to believe what they believe to be true. I can roll with the mysteries of God, and see that the beginning of knowledge is the fear of God. You claim to be a solipsist, but then proceed to claim to know something of what is and isn't necessary about what lies beneath theoretical physics. I know God is real not because I ascended to Him, but because He descended to me and pulled me out of the epistemic wasteland through His death, burial, and resurrection.

 

[partinobodycular]

And what do you base this assumption on? How do you know what is and isn't required for the existence of the universe? Did you not say you were a solipsist? Yet now you claim to know what the basic requirements of reality are? What is your justification?

I'm sorry, as a solipsist I often forget that people have certain preconceptions about solipsism... my bad.

A solipsist begins with what they can know to be true, which is at the same time both 'not much' and 'more than you might think'. This doesn't however preclude them from speculating about what might be true, and presenting the arguments for those things as if they actually believed them to be true.

It's rather cumbersome to have to preface every statement with the disclaimer that 'I cannot know that this is true'.

So if it isn't too much to ask, please keep that disclaimer in mind if we should happen to converse again. Which we may well do. I'm a pretty understanding fella.

 

[SelfSim]

I can roll with the mysteries of God, and see that the beginning of knowledge is the fear of God.

The beginning of knowledge is the emotion of fear, eh?
(Not in my case, it aint).

 

[Fervent]

The beginning of knowledge is the emotion of fear, eh?
(Not in my case, it aint).

Fear of God is not an emotion, at least not in the way emotions are typically defined. And knowledge can only have one foundation, we can't define what that foundation is we can only accept it or try to find another foundation. "Knowledge" built on an unjustified assumption is not properly called knowledge, so before we can begin discussing epistemics or what reality is at it's most fundamental state we must identify our foundation. We need logical laws like the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction, but both of those laws depend on it being impossible for a tautology to be false. But if we use the definition of God given by the Bible then it is Truth. Atheists tend to want to jump in mid-stream and never question the foundation of their beliefs. All they seem to be able to do is dance around with semantics trying to deny that they believe anything at all.

 

[Hans Blaster]

God is not "a god" as if there are a set of similar beings, God is unique in all His character. That which can only be defined in terms of itself, and described by way of analogy.

If you waited until I got to *your god* (the second definition) it would be more clear. (I also left out the "one" in "or the only [one] of such beings" which was bad copy editing on my part.

This definition of "gods" was a *categorization*. Putting a claimed god into that category doesn't imply that it exists or doesn't. It doesn't imply that it is one of many or the only one. It is a broad category that treats all believed in gods (existant or not) in the same fashion. Then we move on to defining your god, known as simply (and confusingly) "God"...

We usually identify God through the revealed religions,

Yes, gods in general and your god "God"*[see footnote] are known through religions. This is not a point I dispute.

but just about every human culture has reference to Him in some form or fashion.

But, this is a *claim* that all cultures (and religions) reference your god "God". The other Abrahamic religions would seemingly recognize that you and they are discussing the same god even if you all think the other is getting aspects of its nature incorrect. When we go outside that sphere do those other religions actually consider you god to be the same as your god, or one of their gods? Have you actually spoken to people in other religions about what they think of your god?

Some cultures see Him as a God that is so far removed from humanity that He has no role in human affairs and as such plays no part in their religious livess, others speak of Him as the Great Spirit. But God is unique and holy(fully alien).

This sounds like a description of the lone god/primary god/one of the gods in various religious traditions, but you haven't backed your claim that they think their "Great Spirt" is your god.

Saying your god is part of their religion is *your* claim, not, as far as I can see, their claim.

He is not "supernatural", as He is fundamental to nature so a better word for Him would be superfundamental to show that He is both the primeval simplicity creation proceeds from and the final end to which it is moving. Alpha and Omega. The beginniing and the end.

What you are describing is what we would call a grand unified theory of physics (or theory of everything). I don't know how that coincides with the concept of god, other than the panethestic "god is the Universe" concepts. I know that is not how Christianity works.

It's not "defining" a god into existence, it's recognizing the necessity of God for truth to exist.

It is a grandiose claim, and just a supposition.

Something must be tautologically true and defined in terms of itself and itself alone.

Why would it be the case that it must be a "thing"? What about the logical absolutes like "A=A"? or the basic fact that "stuff exists"? An agent is not generally required, whether their is one or not.

That can't be "the universe" or "the world" or whatever word atheists want to call the fundamental reality because such things do not truly exist but instead are merely a conceptual set of things that exist.

Either there is something or not. It is a brute fact that there is something. If there wasn't anything, then there would be no being to ask why there wasn't something.

We can't start our epistemics at the world, because doing so eventually leads to the foundations of our epistemics crumbling and we are left with nothing but circular reasoniing. Which is sustainable so long as nobody asks questions about the foundations that do not exist.

All of this is nothing more than some sort of presuppositional apologetics wrapped up to look like something sophisticated.

*I find myself forced into this odd construction because in most languages the Christian term for their god is the same word as a single example of a god in polytheistic religions, but with a different stress or grammatical usage. In modern written English texts this results in capitalizing the word as "God" and using it as a proper noun in sentences. If we were using a loan word from Hebrew, as we do with the Arabic "Allah" to refer to the Islamic version, then the usage would be far less confusing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The beginning of knowledge is the emotion of fear, eh?
(Not in my case, it aint).

And fear is the mind killer. Do the math.

 

[Fervent]

If you waited until I got to *your god* (the second definition) it would be more clear. (I also left out the "one" in "or the only [one] of such beings" which was bad copy editing on my part.

At what point are you supposed to have gotten to my God? All I see in your post is a burning man of straw.

This definition of "gods" was a *categorization*. Putting a claimed god into that category doesn't imply that it exists or doesn't. It doesn't imply that it is one of many or the only one. It is a broad category that treats all believed in gods (existant or not) in the same fashion. Then we move on to defining your god, known as simply (and confusingly) "God"...

Except the God I believe in isn't a member of a set of like objects. He is Holy, fully alien. Nothing else belongs in the same category as Him, so all you've done by assigning Him to a category is defined Him out of existence.

Yes, gods in general and your god "God"*[see footnote] are known through religions. This is not a point I dispute.

My God is not a "god" as if there are any beings like Him. Even saying He "exists" is not a powerful enough statement about His status.

But, this is a *claim* that all cultures (and religions) reference your god "God". The other Abrahamic religions would seemingly recognize that you and they are discussing the same god even if you all think the other is getting aspects of its nature incorrect. When we go outside that sphere do those other religions actually consider you god to be the same as your god, or one of their gods? Have you actually spoken to people in other religions about what they think of your god?

I have explored other religions, and I've found even among the ones that are typically discussed there is a near universal recognition of something over and above(or underneath and foundational) what is typically understood. I have yet to have someone to present to me a coherent reason to deny my faith, which is nothing more than a hope and a prayer. Whenever I ask an atheist for demonstration of their knowledge, though, it suddenly seems to vanish into nothing mroe than an argument from ignorance combined with burden shifting by denying that they are making a unique claim on what reality is at base. So long as they can maintain that their metaphysics is self-evident in some fashion and never seriously question their basis for believing in a mindless self-sufficient universe they can maintain a false claim of ignorance.

This sounds like a description of the lone god/primary god/one of the gods in various religious traditions, but you haven't backed your claim that they think their "Great Spirt" is your god.

It doesn't really matter if they think it is so, because Truth does not depend on human recognition. It is true regardless of disagreements about what it entails.

Saying your god is part of their religion is *your* claim, not, as far as I can see, their claim.

It's a question of naming and identity. Whatever name we call God by, He remains the same. So while they may not recognize the universality of such beliefs and instead attribute the movements of God to other causes what is true remains true.

What you are describing is what we would call a grand unified theory of physics (or theory of everything). I don't know how that coincides with the concept of god, other than the panethestic "god is the Universe" concepts. I know that is not how Christianity works.

Nope, because the supposed unified theory is simply another thing that is believed to be true. It's a metaphysical imposition onto a reality that demands it align with our intuitions about physicality. A philosopher may come to a panentheistic image of God through human intellect, but ultimately true knowledge depends on a revelation. I would be surprised to find that God only revealed Himself to a single people, and I find a great deal of consistency among the religious beliiefs of different people groups when I discard notions of "monotheism" and "polytheism" and allow each set of religious beliefs to stand on its own feet. You beleve in something that no one knows is true or not, and do so purely on the basis of an assumption you've intuited about what lies at the bottom of it all. Science isn't the ground floor, it's a bridge too far.

It is a grandiose claim, and just a supposition.

Not at all, it's a refusal to assume I know what reality is.

Why would it be the case that it must be a "thing"? What about the logical absolutes like "A=A"? or the basic fact that "stuff exists"? An agent is not generally required, whether their is one or not.

Those are two different statements. The first is a tautology, something that is true because it is self-referential. The second implies knowledge that isn't justified in adding "stuff" to the concept of existence. Logic requires two laws to proceed, the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. God is First Principles, but without revelation from God we can say nothing about Him. "Does God exist?" is an incoherent question if we let the Bible define God since the name God gave to Moses is "I am=I am". I know two things with relative certainty, God exists in some form or fashion, and I am not God. The challenge is identifying the right God, not proving His existence.

Either there is something or not. It is a brute fact that there is something. If there wasn't anything, then there would be no being to ask why there wasn't something.

It is a brute fact, and God is the brutest of facts. God is the statement that Truth=Truth. The question boils down to where we derive our brute facts from, do we pretend to know what is fundamentally true about reality or do we seek something external to ourselves to build our understanding upon?

All of this is nothing more than some sort of presuppositional apologetics wrapped up to look like something sophisticated.

Call it what you will, it's simpy a recognition of the reality of the debate at hand. Ultimately, my belief depends on faiith though I am open to hearing reasons to deny it. When I ask atheists for their reasons, the only thing they seem to be able to come up with is personal ignorance. I know God exists because I spend time with Him, I have a personal relatonship. He shows me things, we talk. I don't pretend to know how it works or have some systematiic understanding of it, but I do see how accurate the claim that the wisdom of God makes foolishness the wisdom of the wise when they tell me that they know what is true but then stick qualifiers on it like "approximate" as if there are degrees of truth. Truth is truth, everything else is mistaken.

*I find myself forced into this odd construction because in most languages the Christian term for their god is the same word as a single example of a god in polytheistic religions, but with a different stress or grammatical usage. In modern written English texts this results in capitalizing the word as "God" and using it as a proper noun in sentences. If we were using a loan word from Hebrew, as we do with the Arabic "Allah" to refer to the Islamic version, then the usage would be far less confusing.

And what is the meaniing of the Hebrew word? Perhaps if you knew that, you would recognize why it is appropriate for a God that is at once responsible for the laws of nature and described nearly universally within various human religious.

 

[Hans Blaster]

At what point are you supposed to have gotten to my God? All I see in your post is a burning man of straw.

In the second definition, the one where "God" was capitalized and as I just told you in the sentences you wrote this under. It makes me think you are either not reading what is written, or chose to not deal with it.

 

[SelfSim]

It doesn't really matter if they think it is so, because Truth does not depend on human recognition. It is true regardless of disagreements about what it entails.

Understanding what you just typed, is entirely dependent on human cognition therefore, what is 'True' is just as dependent on human cognition
That is, unless you're just demanding that we completely ignore that demonstrable fact!?

 

[SelfSim]

It is a brute fact, and God is the brutest of facts. God is the statement that Truth=Truth. The question boils down to where we derive our brute facts from, do we pretend to know what is fundamentally true about reality or do we seek something external to ourselves to build our understanding upon?

When you seek something 'external' there, we can all plainly see from your words that it is you doing that seeking. You may be external from me in my physical model, but I can observe that you are using your own mind to develop you own personal beliefs about what exists 'externally'.
There is therefore exactly nothing independent from your own mind in your doing any of that.
The evidence for that claim are the simple observations I just made about you using your mind.

 

[SelfSim]

Fear of God is not an emotion,

Then don't use the word 'fear'.
Fear is an emotion.

And knowledge can only have one foundation, we can't define what that foundation is we can only accept it or try to find another foundation. "Knowledge" built on an unjustified assumption is not properly called knowledge, so before we can begin discussing epistemics or what reality is at it's most fundamental state we must identify our foundation.

My definition of knowledge is not the completely useless: 'justified true belief'.
I wanna test my beliefs before I claim having any knowledge.

We need logical laws like the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction, but both of those laws depend on it being impossible for a tautology to be false.

The so-called 'Laws of Thought' you base this upon, are nothing more than word-salad.
Eg: they are completely useless in scientific enquiry.

But if we use the definition of God given by the Bible then it is Truth. Atheists tend to want to jump in mid-stream and never question the foundation of their beliefs. All they seem to be able to do is dance around with semantics trying to deny that they believe anything at all.

So .. test the beliefs .. there's your 'foundation', right there!
Its better than making up yet another story ..