Self

[mts]

-

[mts]

-

[Resolute]

i caught your posts before you deleted them, and they contained some interesting stuff. i think the overall theme is that you're moving in the right direction; which is good. so keep up the good work.

so you disagree with hume as well?

[mts]

-

[Victimorthecrime]

Can we be absolutely certain that we cannot be absolutely certain? As I sit here now I am certain that I am thinking about this but what does it mean?  

[Resolute]

1 hour ago, mts said:

I'm not sure. And I think Hume means absolute certainty. What can we be absolutely certain of?

there are plenty of things of which we (the absolutists of the world) can be absolutely certain. i'll list a few examples;

- aristotle's law of identity; that everything equals itself (and doesn't equal anything else). examples: 1=1; 1≠2; 1≠3; 1≠10; 1≠86; 5=5; 257=257; 257≠300; 257≠785; 257≠257.00001; 257≠256.999999999999; and so on and so forth.

- aristotle's law of contradiction; that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. example: 1=2 and 1≠2 cannot both be true.

- aristotle's law of excluded middle; that two contradictory statements cannot both be false at the same time and in the same respect. example: 1=2 and 1≠2 cannot both be false.

[Victimorthecrime]

Mathematics provides certainty. Mathethatical statements can be proven to be true.  

[Resolute]

51 minutes ago, Victimorthecrime said:

Mathematics provides certainty. Mathethatical statements can be proven to be true.  

for relativists (or at least some of them) that's not necessarily true. moreover, logic (mathematics is derived from logic) is the basis for all knowledge, empirical or not. without it we can't actually know anything.

[mts]

-

[Resolute]

i'll read up about it a bit and get back to you.

p.s., don't delete post.

[Resolute]

ok, so i skimmed thru this article:  http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/understanding/section4.rhtml  and i think i'm ready to give my verdict on the matter.

it appears to me that hume has a fundamental misunderstanding of cause and effect. he seems to believe that a person who believes in cause and effect must necessarily also believe that he can predict certain events with absolute certainty, and with no possibility of being wrong. that, of course, is not the case. cause-and-effect essentially means determinism which in turn means predictability. however, the predictability of deterministic things (basically everything) is in principle, and not necessarily in practice. in other words, one would be able to predict the outcome of any given thing, provided that he know all the variables without exception and with complete accuracy (refer to laplace's demon); something that is clearly impossible in practice for any human (at least to my knowledge).

i agree with hume when he says we can't infallibly predict the future based on past events, but that is only because the variables of which we are unaware are possibly greater than the ones of which we are aware, and not due to the falsity of the law of cause-and-effect. one might argue whether cause-and-effect is universal or not, but no one should be ignorant or foolish enough to deny it absolutely.

[Victimorthecrime]

Ok so putting certainly aside, can the study of cause and effect and/or determinism increase the percentage of occasions where one correctly predicts the outcome of a particular event?  When I say 'increase the percentage' I mean versus blind guessing.  I would think yes and that this alone would justify such an endeavor.  

[Resolute]

without any cause-and-effect, prediction of any kind would be inconceivable. in such a case, a "prediction" would literally be a blind guess and nothing. perhaps the best phrase to use for human predictions (in many cases) is 'educated guesses'. whenever you see a pattern of any sort, you can bet that cause-and-effect was behind it.

if the world was based on chance and randomness and there were no patterns of any sort, the following things (just a few among many others) would be obsolete:

- weather forecasts.

- stock/market predictions and manipulations.

- professional gambling, casinos, making money selling lottery tickets etc.

- spreads/odds in sports.

- odds in elections.

in fact, most, if not all of our behaviors in everyday life are based on patterns and past experiences aka cause-and-effect. why would anyone go to work if they didn't anticipate/"predict" getting paid? why would anyone pay taxes if they didn't expect to get in trouble? why are certain places popular tourist destinations (caribbean etc) while others are not (afghanistan, somalia, sudan etc)?

we can observe patterns even in animal behavior. why do predators hunt at certain locations and not others if not for past experiences? why do some animals make predictable yearly migrations?

without cause-and-effect, there would be no such thing as empiricism; empirical science would have absolutely no place in a purely random existence, where any patterns and consistencies are completely absent. knowledge (any sort of learning) would also be impossible. nothing would ever make sense... to anyone.

[mts]

-

[Resolute]

7 minutes ago, mts said:

I'm not sure about Hume's view anymore, I'll have to read more. I don't think Hume is denying cause and effect.

I'm not sure about that, but my question gave the impression. I agree here anyway. I think my quote was fairly good for once, but it was spoiled by my question. I have some trouble sharing views here, I get overwhelmed once I try to explain a viewpoint of prolific philosophers.

i'd be happy to discuss it further if you care to elaborate.

 

Quote

Why is it impossible in practice, just curious.

because how can any human possibly know all the variables in the universe/existence?

[mts]

-

[mts]

-

[Resolute]

6 minutes ago, mts said:

I've been cleaning all day I am so tired...

take a break; relax; take a load off. personally, i'm way too lazy to clean anything.

[IrmaJean]

On 11/5/2016 at 1:04 PM, mts said:

I appreciate that, Beth. I just felt silly coming on here and writing loads of stuff. No one else does in the main forums. Anyway, it was without a direction, just complaining about the past, about stuff which I caused, so I guess it's pretty useless to share.

I'm feeling better regarding the infection, thank you.

When I visited samaritans I felt a positive emotion: "embarrassment", all the oxygen went up to my head, my eyes felt more open and for a time, I think I felt alive. Usually I feel shame. I wonder if avoidance of embarrassment could cause depression.

Thanks for reading what I wrote.

I'm a bit behind here.

I hear that you felt silly. It's okay to express yourself. I find that free writing about whatever is on my mind can be very helpful. I hope it is for you too.

Good news about the infection clearing up, mts.

What does embarrassment look like to you? Do you mean you felt more open or were blushing? It's good that you were aware of something that felt positive.

@Resolute You're welcome for the emoticons. I will keep adding them as long as the software allows it. (I saw you posted, but I can't find which thread now. :/ )

[Resolute]

@IrmaJean, it was in the "beer" thread.

[Victimorthecrime]

So popular I am thinking of starting a Wine & Vodka thread.  

[Resolute]

i'm sure kling would love that.

[Resolute]

i just remembered something; does my "whining" thread count as wine?

[mts]

-

[mts]

-