Philosophy Discussion Forums

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑August 29th, 2019, 6:53 am

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 29th, 2019, 5:29 am Well yes, but what about those times when no predictions, statistical or otherwise, can be made? The question is about those instances of pure chance. Do they exist?

I dunno, given my non-omniscience however the heuristic that chance exists will probably not do me any harm. Phenomenologically I will experience what will seem like pure chance.

I don't think that way. And I suppose it has helped me, or so it seems, to presume it wasn't chance. I think I have figured out a lot of stuff with the presumption that it was not pure chance.

So, on second thought, I don't think in terms of pure chance much. But I can't make a metaphysical call objectively, just noting my own heuristics.

****, I see motive where others just see chemical machines.

And then there are my friends the trees.

I know absolutely nothing about you; we met by chance, but maybe you are like so many today who sit and look at a screen and think. If you want to know pure chance, you will have to get up off their ass and walk outside and let the world just pour over you.

Right now I can hear a truck going down the road, some dogs barking, some kids screaming, my fan blowing air, a machine cutting metal in a nearby metal working shop, a motorcycle, birds chirping, the upstairs lady pounding on something, and a jet going overhead. It is all by chance that that symphony of sounds has come together. I rather like to listen to such compositions. The world came at me and I didn’t worry or wonder about finding an explanation for any of it. It all just is. Pure chance.

GaryLouisSmith: what about those times when no predictions, statistical or otherwise, can be made? The question is about those instances of pure chance. Do they exist?

We look for patterns of behaviour. We call consistent patterns "determinate," and we call inconsistent or highly variable patterns "indeterminate." If no pattern is discernible at all, we call it "random."

So, as I said before, no one can say if randomness exists because it can't be appraised. Calling something random is like calling something impossible. Short of omniscience, no one can say, not even Einstein, although he seemed to think that God does not play dice. Gary, however, may tell you he saw God at the cosmic blackjack table with a pair of dice in his hand. But still, are they loaded dice? He won't even allow his beloved Gary to inspect them - he's funny that way.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 11:52 pmMagic works at the interface between the subjective and the objective.

Magic is the art of fooling the senses; that's all magic ever was. Magic acts have to be prepared for in order to appear as magic.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 11:52 pmThere really is such a thing as pure chance. For no reason something happens, an accident, a bothersome inconvenience. Why now, why here?

I call it the collusion of events in proximity; in short, ruled by synchronicities. What makes the gods all powerful is that they control these synchronicities. If you want to call that magic that's your choice.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 11:52 pmScience doesn’t predict such irritating trivialities.

It was never meant to. If it could there would be no randomness and easily predict the next winning lottery number with a few calculations.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 11:52 pmIn the interstices of pure chance magic works. And you are undone.

Not necessarily! You could be at the right place at exactly the right time have a computer generate your lottery ticket, wait for the winning number to be announced and voila! you're sixty million bucks richer. That's what I would call synchronicity, a true collusion of events for the one who bought the ticket. It's what that person would call super lucky, not magic.

Consul wrote: ↑August 29th, 2019, 12:35 amWittgenstein famously said (Tractatus 4.0312): "My fundamental idea is that the ‘logical constants’ are not representatives."

According to him, "Ax", "Ex", "&", "v", "~", "–>" refer to nothing, being syncategorematic terms.

In standard logic, all-sentences lack existential import. For example, "All mammoths have long hair" is true despite the fact that mammoths don't exist anymore. But all-phrases can be used to refer (plurally) to (existing) things. When I talk about all dogs, I talk about all the dogs; so the dogs are the referent of "all dogs".

Consul wrote: ↑August 29th, 2019, 3:57 pmWhen I talk about all dogs, I talk about all the dogs; so the dogs are the referent of "all dogs".

Necessarily, the dogs are all dogs, since there cannot be any dog which isn't one of the dogs.

Consul wrote: ↑August 29th, 2019, 3:59 pm

Consul wrote: ↑August 29th, 2019, 3:57 pmWhen I talk about all dogs, I talk about all the dogs; so the dogs are the referent of "all dogs".

Necessarily, the dogs are all dogs, since there cannot be any dog which isn't one of the dogs.

I sense you are having trouble pinning down or defining just what "all" is. To me such trouble indicates that the thing I am dealing with is a primal existent and cannot be defined in terms of something else. Also I sense that you are putting emphasis on the words "Necessarily" and "there cannot be". That, to my mind, indicates that you are here are rock bottom, at something primal and thus beyond analysis.

Felix wrote: ↑August 29th, 2019, 12:57 pm

GaryLouisSmith: what about those times when no predictions, statistical or otherwise, can be made? The question is about those instances of pure chance. Do they exist?

We look for patterns of behaviour. We call consistent patterns "determinate," and we call inconsistent or highly variable patterns "indeterminate." If no pattern is discernible at all, we call it "random."

So, as I said before, no one can say if randomness exists because it can't be appraised. Calling something random is like calling something impossible. Short of omniscience, no one can say, not even Einstein, although he seemed to think that God does not play dice. Gary, however, may tell you he saw God at the cosmic blackjack table with a pair of dice in his hand. But still, are they loaded dice? He won't even allow his beloved Gary to inspect them - he's funny that way.

Lets say that you live in a world where nothing happens by pure chance. You get up in the morning and you walk outside. You see a dead cat in the road, a guy in a blue blazer running past, some fallen electrical lines, a bum begging for money. In your world those things had to be there. All facts in your world exist of necessity. Nothing happens by chance.

Perhaps we can’t see or know the reason why things happen as they do, but we know that there is a reason. If we knew the Whole, we could see that the parts had to be. It is the Whole that is guiding all things. And the Whole is self-sufficient, that is to say it does not depend on any outside existent to be. It is self-creating. We come from the Whole as we are of necessity and we are bound forever to the Whole. Nothing could have been different from what it is.

Jklint wrote: ↑August 29th, 2019, 3:36 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 28th, 2019, 11:52 pmMagic works at the interface between the subjective and the objective.

Magic is the art of fooling the senses; that's all magic ever was. Magic acts have to be prepared for in order to appear as magic.

Yes of course magic is the art of fooling the senses and the rest of the mind and of course one must prepare. Your mistake is in thinking that "science" is not trickery. It too is very well prepared in order to "fool the senses".

Trickery is the only real thing there is.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 29th, 2019, 11:05 pm

Jklint wrote: ↑August 29th, 2019, 3:36 pm

Magic is the art of fooling the senses; that's all magic ever was. Magic acts have to be prepared for in order to appear as magic.

Yes of course magic is the art of fooling the senses and the rest of the mind and of course one must prepare. Your mistake is in thinking that "science" is not trickery. It too is very well prepared in order to "fool the senses".

Trickery is the only real thing there is.

Yeah, whatever you say. This thread is getting really boring and stupid.

Jklint wrote: ↑August 30th, 2019, 12:00 am

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 29th, 2019, 11:05 pm

Yes of course magic is the art of fooling the senses and the rest of the mind and of course one must prepare. Your mistake is in thinking that "science" is not trickery. It too is very well prepared in order to "fool the senses".

Trickery is the only real thing there is.

Yeah, whatever you say. This thread is getting really boring and stupid.

I've been thinking the same thing for a long time, but I keep coming back just for something to do. I think I take you lead and exit.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 29th, 2019, 9:03 am I know absolutely nothing about you; we met by chance, but maybe you are like so many today who sit and look at a screen and think. If you want to know pure chance, you will have to get up off their ass and walk outside and let the world just pour over you.

Yeah, I live a very exploratory life and have right from early. I am talking about how I deal with the unexpected, the anomolous, the new, and 'things' that many people would say are chance. And, again, I realized in my last post, where I switched horses midstream - even that should tell you something - I find it better to treat things as not chance. I learn a lot about the world, what is happening behind the veil, through assuming it is not chance. Perhaps there is pure chance, but I have found a great deal of knowledge through assuming it is not, using that as a heuristic. It has led to me understanding what other people are doing, even without their own knowledge, what chance encounters on the street with strangers is trying to elicit in me and what I am suppressing in myself, what dreams and overheard conversation and illnesses are actually rooted in, and much more. In fact, thank you for defending chance, because while the logic centers of my brain first wanted to just agree, I realized that, no, my heuristics and attitude are to not treat things as chance and this has helped me and in fact the more I do this, the stronger I become. Doesn't mean it is ontologically correct, just talking about what is working for me. And now I am more conscious of it as a set of general choices. And that's good.

Right now I can hear a truck going down the road, some dogs barking, some kids screaming, my fan blowing air, a machine cutting metal in a nearby metal working shop, a motorcycle, birds chirping, the upstairs lady pounding on something, and a jet going overhead. It is all by chance that that symphony of sounds has come together. I rather like to listen to such compositions. The world came at me and I didn’t worry or wonder about finding an explanation for any of it. It all just is. Pure chance.

And for me I would have particular reactions to that, and portions that would be like the soloists and in the dynamice between mean and that composition, as you yourself labelled it, there would not only be meaning, but a nuggest of understanding about myself and the world. And I treat it as 'that is what that composition is for.' It is what I through it and it through me was trying to help me take a next step, to get more integrated, more whole via.

And this is not all nicey nicey oooh new age sweetness, it can be very dark **** also that I have not been willing to face.

But I thrive much more when in addition to any confusion and unpleasant or pleasant feelings treat it as not chance, but having purpose and being organized. A composition, yes, including me.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑August 30th, 2019, 1:48 am

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 29th, 2019, 9:03 am I know absolutely nothing about you; we met by chance, but maybe you are like so many today who sit and look at a screen and think. If you want to know pure chance, you will have to get up off their ass and walk outside and let the world just pour over you.

Yeah, I live a very exploratory life and have right from early. I am talking about how I deal with the unexpected, the anomolous, the new, and 'things' that many people would say are chance. And, again, I realized in my last post, where I switched horses midstream - even that should tell you something - I find it better to treat things as not chance. I learn a lot about the world, what is happening behind the veil, through assuming it is not chance. Perhaps there is pure chance, but I have found a great deal of knowledge through assuming it is not, using that as a heuristic. It has led to me understanding what other people are doing, even without their own knowledge, what chance encounters on the street with strangers is trying to elicit in me and what I am suppressing in myself, what dreams and overheard conversation and illnesses are actually rooted in, and much more. In fact, thank you for defending chance, because while the logic centers of my brain first wanted to just agree, I realized that, no, my heuristics and attitude are to not treat things as chance and this has helped me and in fact the more I do this, the stronger I become. Doesn't mean it is ontologically correct, just talking about what is working for me. And now I am more conscious of it as a set of general choices. And that's good.

Right now I can hear a truck going down the road, some dogs barking, some kids screaming, my fan blowing air, a machine cutting metal in a nearby metal working shop, a motorcycle, birds chirping, the upstairs lady pounding on something, and a jet going overhead. It is all by chance that that symphony of sounds has come together. I rather like to listen to such compositions. The world came at me and I didn’t worry or wonder about finding an explanation for any of it. It all just is. Pure chance.

And for me I would have particular reactions to that, and portions that would be like the soloists and in the dynamice between mean and that composition, as you yourself labelled it, there would not only be meaning, but a nuggest of understanding about myself and the world. And I treat it as 'that is what that composition is for.' It is what I through it and it through me was trying to help me take a next step, to get more integrated, more whole via.

And this is not all nicey nicey oooh new age sweetness, it can be very dark **** also that I have not been willing to face.

But I thrive much more when in addition to any confusion and unpleasant or pleasant feelings treat it as not chance, but having purpose and being organized. A composition, yes, including me.

That was very nicely written. I think you will have no problem finding your way to an understanding of these very difficult matters.

GaryLouisSmith: Lets say that you live in a world where nothing happens by pure chance. You get up in the morning and you walk outside. You see a dead cat in the road, a guy in a blue blazer running past, some fallen electrical lines, a bum begging for money. In your world those things had to be there. All facts in your world exist of necessity. Nothing happens by chance.

Perhaps we can’t see or know the reason why things happen as they do, but we know that there is a reason. If we knew the Whole, we could see that the parts had to be. It is the Whole that is guiding all things. And the Whole is self-sufficient, that is to say it does not depend on any outside existent to be. It is self-creating. We come from the Whole as we are of necessity and we are bound forever to the Whole. Nothing could have been different from what it is.

Is this what you believe? Reason is an awfully small box to pack a Universe in, I doubt very much that it would fit.

Felix wrote: ↑August 30th, 2019, 4:25 pm

GaryLouisSmith: Lets say that you live in a world where nothing happens by pure chance. You get up in the morning and you walk outside. You see a dead cat in the road, a guy in a blue blazer running past, some fallen electrical lines, a bum begging for money. In your world those things had to be there. All facts in your world exist of necessity. Nothing happens by chance.

Perhaps we can’t see or know the reason why things happen as they do, but we know that there is a reason. If we knew the Whole, we could see that the parts had to be. It is the Whole that is guiding all things. And the Whole is self-sufficient, that is to say it does not depend on any outside existent to be. It is self-creating. We come from the Whole as we are of necessity and we are bound forever to the Whole. Nothing could have been different from what it is.

Is this what you believe? Reason is an awfully small box to pack a Universe in, I doubt very much that it would fit.

Holism is the philosophy that's most popular today. It is the belief that the universe, the natural world, is sufficient unto itself to explain everything. No outside supernatural entity is necessary. We only have to look the the whole of the natural world to find the reason for all that exists. One piece will not suffice; we must look to the interconnected Whole. A piece, it is thought, is an abstraction that when ripped out of the texture of the One Thing that is the Whole becomes lifeless. Each thing exists and has meaning only in the interconnectedness of the All. It's a family/community thing.

That is NOT my philosophy. I was only presenting, what I thought was my opponents view. I believe in pure chance. Things happen for no reason. The pieces are disconnected to any whole. The Whole doesn't exist.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 30th, 2019, 6:33 pmHolism is the philosophy that's most popular today. It is the belief that the universe, the natural world, is sufficient unto itself to explain everything. No outside supernatural entity is necessary.

That's not holism but naturalism!