[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

The point about emergence theory is that it allows you to think about society in non deterministic or non reductionist terms and yet is still in keeping with a materialist conception of history. 

Emergence does not seem to run counter to determinism, the formation of the patterns of snow flakes is a emergent process but I think it would seem not to make sense to say that these are formed through in-determinate means.It’s probably bad to quote wikipedia but I’ll do it anyhow:

wikipedia wrote:

As an illustration, some strategy board games have rigorous rules in which no information (such as cards’ face values) is hidden from either player and no random events (such as dice rolling) occur in the game. Nevertheless, strategy games like chess and especially Go, with its simple deterministic rules, can have an extremely large number of unpredictable moves. By analogy, “emergentists” suggest that the experience of free will emerges from the interaction of finite rules and deterministic parameters that generate infinite and unpredictable behavior. Yet, if all these events were accounted for, and there were a known way to evaluate these events, the seemingly unpredictable behavior would become predictable.[95][93][96] Cellular automata and the generative sciences can model emergent processes of social behavior on this philosophy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Determinism_and_emergent_behavior

robbo203 wrote:

The definitive statement  of the MCH is usually taken to be this passage from his  Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:

It probably is, but to base a ‘critque’ of a theory on a couple of paragraphs is sloppy in the extreme. To get a full handle on it you’d have to read at least The German Ideology,  Anti-Duhring and  Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy.

Engels wrote:

According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase.[…]Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis-à-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction. But when it came to presenting a section of history, that is, to making a practical application, it was a different matter and there no error was permissible. Unfortunately, however, it happens only too often that people think they have fully understood a new theory and can apply it without more ado from the moment they have assimilated its main principles, and even those not always correctly. And I cannot exempt many of the more recent “Marxists” from this reproach, for the most amazing rubbish has been produced in this quarter, too….http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm

[DJP]

How did the meeting with Positive Money go? Was it recorded?

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

Yeah but then you are only assuming what you need to prove – that there is only one kind of  “stuff”. Im saying this with my devil’s advocate cap on but how would go about  proving that  ” mind is  matter” – as opposed to, say, mind is influenced by matter?

I don’t think you could solve the monism (there is one kind of stuff) / dualism (there are two kinds of stuff i.e. mind and matter) debate empirically, it has to be done logically.If there are two completely seperate realms that follow different laws how can these realms meet and interact with each other?If the realms do meet and interact with each other are they not one after all?This is the classic argument for accepting a monist veiwpoint, probably stated quite badly.Once we accept everything is ‘one kind of stuff’ we can either take an idealist view, everything is mental. But this poses the problem of other minds…Or, we can take the materialist veiwpoint, everything is matter and minds are at least an effect of matter…But then we have the problem of consciousness, the ‘Hard Problem’ as it is known to some.Perhaps ‘Panpsychism’ is not such a silly idea after all?Anyone read A.N Whitehead?

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

Can you please explain  how “the mind is matter”?  

I think it may be easier if I rephrase: “If there is only one kind of stuff and this kind of stuff follows deterministic laws then minds must follow these laws as well. Therefore ‘free will’ as traditionally conceived cannot exist.”Maybe that answers some of your other points?

Quote:

Surely, even being hungry and thirsty does not necessarily have to result in  me  desiring a pizza and a cold beer? .  Or does it in your view?

No it doesn’t have to necessarily, because there are other things going on.

Quote:

Do you consider that I have no choice but to desire this and  not , say,  a plate of ravioli  and a glass of red wine and that everything has been “predetemined” beforehand?

All I am saying is that your choice will be the result of a myriad of previously occurring events. ‘Predetermined’ is a fatalistic way of looking at it, suggesting that you would have made the same choice regardless of what happened before.Do you get the distinction between Determinism and Fatalism?All I’m saying is that traditional notions of choice and free will need to be reframed. This is hardly a controversial statement these days.

Quote:

BTW Any observations on Heisenberg’s “Uncertainty Principle ( http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm)  It might be relevant to this debate  but Im not exactly certain

Not yet, I’ll give it a go

[DJP]

Here’s Galen Strawson on Panpsychism:http://philosophybites.com/2012/05/galen-strawson-on-panpsychism.html

[DJP]

We don’t even have to pay attention to Marxism, in fact it’s irrelevant to the question, to answer this question all we need is simple logic.If matter is deterministic and the mind is matter then we cannot have free will since the mind must also run on deterministic methods.Now we could presume that matter is not deterministic i.e. things just happen at random, but this does not help us either. Since now the activity of minds just occurs at random, we have not made them happen.A ‘two horned dilemma’ if ever there was one!The only way ‘free will’ as traditionally conceived could possibly exist is if we could be the cause of our own being i.e. if we existed before we came into existence, which is of course an impossibility.To me it seems to me that with the traditional concept of ‘free will’ we are demanding a logical contradiction, like wanting a round circle. Sure we have a will, but this is not ‘free’ in the sense that it can do anything at any point as libertarians such as Sartre seem to suggest.

Cornelius Castoriadis wrote:

Determinism only has meaning as total determinism

Indeed, and that is what I am talking about.Since everything is on the same footing total determinism is not the same thing as economic determinism etc. where one factor is said to cause all effects regardless of other factors.Neither is it the same thing as fatalism where something happens in spite of what has gone before. Determinism says that things happen because of what has happened before.I have yet to come across an account of libertarianism (free will) which seems to make sense logically, Castoriadis certainly hasn’t provided one.If there where such a thing as uncaused events it remains unclear to me how you would be able to identify them anyhow, there could always be the possibility of some remote cause we have not yet noticed.

[DJP]

Which commentators equate fascism with socialism anyhow? You’re really clutching at straws here.

[DJP]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Socialists must be present and vocal within Occupy to combat such reformism masquerading as revolutionary before it takes root.

I don’t know what the situation is like in London but where I live it’s already died a death.

[DJP]

I think there’s two problems with this kind of communication. 1. You can’t hear the other persons tone of voice or see their facial expressions, that’s why irony works really badly. 2. There’s a kind of road rage element to it all, you’re locked away in your own box so there’s no immediate physical danger if you lash out.

[DJP]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

DJP wrote:

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

Derision! Sure to chase off potential members! And any others watching!

Patronising crap

Moron

Ha ha, I’m sure if you met me we’d best of friends !)

[DJP]

jondwhite wrote:

Using “One World, One People” would be a gift to those commentators who equate National-Socialism with Socialism since the main slogan of National Socialism began with “Ein Volk, Ein Reich”. I can only hope that we have long since consigned “One World, One People” to the rubbish bin where it deserves to be by then.

Utter nonsense! The phrase “One World, One People” is not saying the same thing as “One people, one empire, one leader”. By the same logic we should drop the word “socialist” and be done with it.

[DJP]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

Derision! Sure to chase off potential members! And any others watching!

Patronising crap

[DJP]

It would seem that the bank in your first example would go bankrupt the first time a single withdrawal of £100 or more was made, quite likely since the bank has to account for £1000. That’s why the situation doesn’t hold in real life.I think this can be solved by getting balance sheets for all the major UK retail banks totalling them up and seeing if deposits increase in parallel with loans.

[DJP]

…Maybe Hardy can help us out:http://libcom.org/library/banking-credit-myths-socialist-view” If it is bank loans which create bank deposits then deposits ought to increase in parallel with bank loans. Instead of this happening, Walter Leaf’s figures showed that bank deposits fell when bank loans increased.”

[DJP]

Hud955 wrote:

True but I’m not sure what demonstrating this for a single bank would mean, except that it is either lending more heavily than other banks or failing to attract an equal market share of depositors.   

Here’s a balance sheet for hsbchttp://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=HBC+Balance+Sheet&annualDoesn’t this prove that banks do not make loans of 900 for every 100 deposited with them, as that guy in the green party video claims. Wouldn’t you expect their assetts to be 90% greater than there liabilities if that were the case?

[Author]

Posts