The Irony Of Causal Bodies

[sweetwater]

The Irony Of Causal Bodies


In the convoluted and somewhat confusing argument presently going on in Science between the Indeterminists and the Determinists, Evolutionary Theory comes across as something more mired in the paradox of reasoning and the irony of skepticism, where both schools of thought are at odds with each other, caught in a circular argument, and challenging each other for a theory of mind that explains the fundamental aspect(s) of being and consciousness. And no one seems to be winning the argument, anymore than it is a side which is being chosen and argued, with many defectors. "I used to be a Determinist but now I see that I was wrong and now I am an Indeterminist", argument and vice versa. The irony of probability seems to be the cause of much of this confusion.

The essential difference between the two is cognitive limitation and chance, where the Determinists view everything has a cause but it's our limitations as thinking human beings which present the difficulty of reasoning. The Indeterminists view Evolutionary Theory as something too complex to fully understand or even predict, and therefore everything is Indetermined but not because of cognitive limitation. And this is the basic difference and argument that exists between the two.

Indeterminists seem to be alot more forgiving as human beings, where Determinists seem to want humans to try harder, and exceed our limitations as human, which only presents itself in a light that is all too ironic.

The Indeterminists view the Determinist's argument of cognitive limitation as too hopeful. It's a limitation, afterall. But, the Determinists are hopeful, nonetheless, though they cannot say how this new human being will exceed scientific limitations. The Determinists have yet to determine or even disclose how it is to be determined that we are to exceed human limitation and become Superman.

But the Determinists will argue that evolution has presented itself where we have in the past exceeded our limitations and created a world beyond our imagination. That we have evolved. 'The irony of Determinism is that we are creating a world beyond our imagination.'

The Indeterminists, on the other hand, like to stress that the determined efforts of history doesn't present itself as something to be admired, if you are to include the atrocities that have occured over the last century.

The Determinist seems to be living in a quiet denial where they express themselves in an overly optimistic way, while the Indeterminist seems to be overtly pessimistic. And both seem comfortable in their inherent ironies.

The Indeterminist can't seem to get out of bed while the Determinist is up at the rise of dawn and crowing with the roosters and the crows, and the all too familiar argument which seems to come across as a sibling rivalry can be expressed in many different ways. The scientific community is a family afterall.

The Indeterminist needs his or her eight hours of sleep. It's scientifically necessary and sleep according to the Indeterminist is not a cognitive limitation. So, just how far will the Determinist go to exceed these limitations? Or, a better question, is there a pill that could replace the limitation of sleep? But, the essential question that doesn't seem capable of being answered is the question of 'why'.

Determinists seem to think that the question 'why' is an evil question. They prefer questions that have a greater probability, like 'how' and 'when', but both schools of thought seem to be arguing mostly in the domain of the question, 'what'. As in, what the bleep are you going on about?

And so the irony of causal bodies seems to be a never ending affair full of scandal and misappropriation, with a longer work week and more leisure time, and the end of the debate is yet to be determined. Both sides remain comfortably skeptical. And they are mostly skeptical of each other.

[sweetwater]

the humour is lost on everyone I guess
including myself

i view it as the commercialization of creativity
and hot bran cereals

oh i get it - deficits in short term memory

the piece is actually too long and
you have to think and i guess nobody wants to think anymore

i forgot
it's about poetry and not thinking
that's very zen!

[revolutionrabbit]

actually i think about this stuff quite a bit, and although, from the perspective of a poet, i find the why of it more relevant then the how
or what of it.From the position of being positioned by language, i find the how and what more compelling, as far as being able to get some point through the perspective point, that rests of the horizon of why.

my attention span has been stretched to the limit, and beyond.

so now i focus on why i even think at all.I will leave the how to the brainy thinkers that have an infinite amount of leisure on their hands, and big
fat grants.Or i will leave it the the needy scientists that have to prostrate themselves before the corporations that tell them what to think about.

i have always been fascinated by the notion of objective chance.