Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how?

Postby gib » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:10 pm

How do we get so much qualitative diversity in a universe that ultimately rest on qualitative monotony?

Where is this qualitative diversity, you ask? Look around you. The world is full of colors, sounds, pains and pleasures, cold and hot, light and darkness. There is a whole diversity of life forms on this Earth--different kinds of animals, different kinds of plants, even bacteria and viruses--there are a range of different elements, each with their own unique properties--there are a whole plathora of different worlds, different planets, and they too each have their own unique properties.

Where is the qualitative monotony, you ask? Everything is reducible to particles. There are only so many fundamental kinds. They essentially do one of two things: come towards or move away. Particles either attract each other or repel each other. How is it that from these limited building blocks of the universe that do only a limited number of things we get so much qualitative diversity on higher scales?

Well, maybe the qualities we see in the world ought to be understood as phenomena--that is, as perceptual, as mental--and that in reality, all there really is is fundamental particles pulling each other together or pushing each other apart. But then the same question arises--it arises with even more force--how do you get a quality, like red, even if it exists only in perception, out of something as monotonous as particles attracting or repelling? <-- This is really the hard problem of consciousness, is it not?

Now, some of you might know me as a pantheist or a subjectivist. Well, that doesn't help here either. The only kind of experience I see fit to attribute to particles attracting or repelling each other would be pain or pleasure, desire or aversion. Yet the same question can be asked: how do you get the perception of red out of pains and pleasure, or desires and aversions?

We live in a universe in which obviously something new can, and often does, come about from something old. Something that didn't exist before seems capable of emerging ex nihilo--well, not ex nihilo, but out of things that don't even seem like they have the ingredients to create the new thing. How is this possible?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby Meno_ » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:24 pm

Fascinating and well put.

Let me jump in simply , maybe too simply for Your taste.
The tiniest particle is reducible to near absolute non matter the same way as the discussion is held that .999999999 never reaches 1. But does it not?

Well that's another matter and being as it may, at those tumultuous times , most everything is energy in one form or another. Those various forms embody potentially all that ever was , is , and will be.

That's not saying much or maybe its saying too much. Regardless that tumult or rush of energy compresses or releases the infinite or near indefinitely various kinds of things imminently and not transcendentaly. Its all here and creates shadows, bubbles or whatever eternally, not then or now or sometimes in the future far far away.

Only a god can create this you say? But why does energy need to be created?

Is not the Void just as problematic as existence? I would say. just as , or even more problematic why can't creation and destruction mean the same thing in a higher dictionary ?

Maybe there hides Your riddle somehow..
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2605
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby Pandora » Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:13 pm

Because complexity facilitates entropy or breakdown of general ordering, and as all things still operate on laws of physics, it is a natural consequence of decay of energy. Diversity does not imply that it has more energy than monotony, it only uses it to disperse (or transfer) it more efficiently.
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3845
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby demoralized » Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:23 pm

i think particles have things like density and momentum

i don't know why the distribution of particles in the universe is not more uniform. perhaps they will be some day with a big freeze
demoralized
Thinker
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:27 am

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby gib » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:16 am

Meno_ wrote:Let me jump in simply , maybe too simply for Your taste.
The tiniest particle is reducible to near absolute non matter the same way as the discussion is held that .999999999 never reaches 1. But does it not?


Do you mean to say that fundamental particles are so close to be non-existent (i.e. non-matter) in terms of their size that they are like an infinitesimal quantity compared to absolute zero?

Meno_ wrote:Well that's another matter and being as it may, at those tumultuous times , most everything is energy in one form or another. Those various forms embody potentially all that ever was , is , and will be.


Translation: energy always contains the potential to become, or to make the things they act upon to become, absolutely anything. This may be, but still, if we are speaking in a physicalist context, how is this so? How are we to conceptualize energy such that it has the potential to become anything, even new qualities that didn't before exist?

Meno_ wrote:That's not saying much or maybe its saying too much. Regardless that tumult or rush of energy compresses or releases the infinite or near indefinitely various kinds of things imminently and not transcendentaly. Its all here and creates shadows, bubbles or whatever eternally, not then or now or sometimes in the future far far away.


Hmm, but it still seems limited--too limited to account for the kinds of qualities I'm interested in. Let's take the taste of pineapple for example. A quick study of physiology will tell us that the taste of pineapple is the result of sugar molecules in the pineapple binding to neural receptors in the taste buds, which triggers an electric signal to travel down the nerves and enter the brain, whereupon we (presumably) taste pineapple. So sure, I suppose the energy released when sugar molecules bind to taste receptors relinquishes a bit of the "infinite," and in this case in particular, the taste of pineapple, but how, in a physicalist context, does the infinite contain the taste of pineapple. I know that the concept of the infinite *should* contain the taste of pineapple, along with pretty much everything--infinite implies no limits, no limits that is of what might come out of it, which there is no reason to assume excludes the taste of pineapple, but that's not the same as answering the question of how: how does the potential inherent in an energy source achieve the infinite if the infinite includes that which doesn't seem can come out of energy, at least energy as we are conceptualizing it?

Meno_ wrote:Only a god can create this you say? But why does energy need to be created?

Is not the Void just as problematic as existence? I would say. just as , or even more problematic why can't creation and destruction mean the same thing in a higher dictionary ?

Maybe there hides Your riddle somehow..


Translation: maybe I'm asking the wrong question. Maybe the question isn't: how does a quality like red come out of something completely lacking in that quality? Maybe the question ought to be: how did the lack of red ever exist in the first place. Maybe it's just as valid to think of the presence of red as the default--thereby not requiring an answer to the question: how did it come to be--but then the question is simply moved to that which is no longer the default: how did the lack-of-red or absence-of-red come to be. We can longer say, in this context, that that's the way things begin because, if the presence of red is the default, then that more or less entails that the lack-of-red must have come out of the presence-of-red. It is to say that the full diversities of qualities we see today is how things always were, and how they had to be on a fundamental level, and the question now is: why do we find that the universe can be reduced to such qualitative monotony?

Pandora wrote:Because complexity facilitates entropy or breakdown of general ordering, and as all things still operate on laws of physics, it is a natural consequence of decay of energy. Diversity does not imply that it has more energy than monotony, it only uses it to disperse (or transfer) it more efficiently.


That's true of physical/spatial diversity (in the sense of concentrated centers of matter/energy dispersing itself in space to take on more diverse locations in space), but in terms of qualities, I would think the opposite is true. Highly complicated structures that manifest an organized order tend to bear more qualitative diversity than simple structures with little order.

Cumulus clouds for example, which bear very interesting and unique formations, tend to undergo entropy and become bland and dull stratus clouds.

Am I misunderstanding your point?

demoralized wrote:i think particles have things like density and momentum

i don't know why the distribution of particles in the universe is not more uniform. perhaps they will be some day with a big freeze


I often ask the same question: how are particules (or at least atoms and molecules) typically found with other particles of the same kind? Why is dirt often found with more dirt? Why air with more air? Why water with more water? What is it about atoms and molecules that cause them to be lumped together with other atoms and molecules that are exactly the same?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby James S Saint » Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:09 am

In fear of being far to succinct, to answer your first question:
How many binary numbers can be formed from merely the monotonous group of 1 and 0?

To answer your next:
Why should any regional cause limit itself to merely one individual item of effect?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25760
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby gib » Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:59 am

James S Saint wrote:In fear of being far to succinct, to answer your first question:
How many binary numbers can be formed from merely the monotonous group of 1 and 0?


An infinite amount.

Or maybe just 4.

Depends on what you mean.

But still... how do you get red out of that?

James S Saint wrote:To answer your next:
Why should any regional cause limit itself to merely one individual item of effect?


I didn't ask a second question James!

My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:27 am

The universe isn't governed by a mechanism. In other words, the events that happen and that we observe are not a product of some underlying, hidden, mechanism. Rather, they simply happen. The universe is more like a mass of particulars rather than a mechanism that generates, determines, causes, compels or forces these particulars to happen. If we knew everything about the universe none of us would describe it in terms of a theory. Rather, we would describe it in terms of a mass of particulars i.e. events happening one after another. Theories and mechanisms only emerge thanks to our ignorance. Their purpose is to allow us to make an assumption regarding the unknown. That's all they are. So, it is not that colors arise out of some particles interacting with each other. Rather, it is us observing that the manner in which particles interact is correlated with colors.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby gib » Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:18 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:The universe isn't governed by a mechanism. In other words, the events that happen and that we observe are not a product of some underlying, hidden, mechanism. Rather, they simply happen. The universe is more like a mass of particulars rather than a mechanism that generates, determines, causes, compels or forces these particulars to happen. If we knew everything about the universe none of us would describe it in terms of a theory. Rather, we would describe it in terms of a mass of particulars i.e. events happening one after another. Theories and mechanisms only emerge thanks to our ignorance. Their purpose is to allow us to make an assumption regarding the unknown. That's all they are. So, it is not that colors arise out of some particles interacting with each other. Rather, it is us observing that the manner in which particles interact is correlated with colors.


So what you're saying is: red didn't come out of anything, it just happened, that we shouldn't look for a cause of red, just accept that the universe so happen to turn out that way.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby James S Saint » Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:23 pm

gib wrote:
James S Saint wrote:To answer your next:
Why should any regional cause limit itself to merely one individual item of effect?


I didn't ask a second question James!
gib wrote:I often ask the same question: how are particules (or at least atoms and molecules) typically found with other particles of the same kind? Why is dirt often found with more dirt? Why air with more air? Why water with more water? What is it about atoms and molecules that cause them to be lumped together with other atoms and molecules that are exactly the same?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25760
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby gib » Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:01 am

James S Saint wrote:
gib wrote:
James S Saint wrote:To answer your next:
Why should any regional cause limit itself to merely one individual item of effect?


I didn't ask a second question James!
gib wrote:I often ask the same question: how are particules (or at least atoms and molecules) typically found with other particles of the same kind? Why is dirt often found with more dirt? Why air with more air? Why water with more water? What is it about atoms and molecules that cause them to be lumped together with other atoms and molecules that are exactly the same?


That question is asking: why is there one individual item of effect in the first place? I'm not asking why don't water molecules stop attracting other water molecules after a certain critical mass; I'm asking, why does a single water molecule attract another single water molecule in the first place. And I think I remember an answer to this in high school chemistry, but it isn't the same for other kinds of molecules and elements. But it's true, isn't it? Don't molecules and atoms, not matter what kind, seem to always come together with other molecules and atoms of the same kind--even at the level seen with the naked eye?

Don't confabulate an answer just because you think you can.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby James S Saint » Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:37 am

I already answered your second question (the actual one that you asked). But as I said, "too succinct".

Whatever causes one water molecule is almost never going to be such a specific situation that it causes only one. And because many are created in the same location, whatever bonding or concentrating characteristics they have, there will be relatively nothing interfering with it, thus it will be. Entropy of the gathering takes time and circumstance. Time is still occurring, circumstances are on their way.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25760
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:55 am

gib wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:The universe isn't governed by a mechanism. In other words, the events that happen and that we observe are not a product of some underlying, hidden, mechanism. Rather, they simply happen. The universe is more like a mass of particulars rather than a mechanism that generates, determines, causes, compels or forces these particulars to happen. If we knew everything about the universe none of us would describe it in terms of a theory. Rather, we would describe it in terms of a mass of particulars i.e. events happening one after another. Theories and mechanisms only emerge thanks to our ignorance. Their purpose is to allow us to make an assumption regarding the unknown. That's all they are. So, it is not that colors arise out of some particles interacting with each other. Rather, it is us observing that the manner in which particles interact is correlated with colors.


So what you're saying is: red didn't come out of anything, it just happened, that we shouldn't look for a cause of red, just accept that the universe so happen to turn out that way.


I am not saying that we shouldn't look for that which causes the experience of redness. That's a very useful thing. It is what allows us to predict the experience of redness. It is a very useful thing to know, for example, that whenever we close our eyes we have no experience of colors. This allows us to predict that every time we close our eyes we will experience no colors.

What I am saying is that the universe isn't governed by a mechanism. Rather, we invent these mechanisms, based on the evidence that we have, with the aim to generate predictions. For example, we have observed in the past that each time we close our eyes we see no colors and that each time we open our eyes we see colors in, say, 70 out of 100 cases. Based on this experience alone, we can build a very simple mechanism that goes something like this: eyes closed -> no experience of colors, eyes open -> 70 out of 100 times an experience of colors. Very simple stuff.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby gib » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:54 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:I am not saying that we shouldn't look for that which causes the experience of redness. That's a very useful thing. It is what allows us to predict the experience of redness. It is a very useful thing to know, for example, that whenever we close our eyes we have no experience of colors. This allows us to predict that every time we close our eyes we will experience no colors.


Yes, learning about the correlations that exist in our world is very useful. But you don't think we can go further and say that some of these correlations are causal, and that we can even know the direction of the cause? For example, eyes closed --> no color. We know it doesn't always work the other way around: no color --> eyes closed. So we can say eyes closed causes no color.

Magnus Anderson wrote:What I am saying is that the universe isn't governed by a mechanism. Rather, we invent these mechanisms, based on the evidence that we have, with the aim to generate predictions. For example, we have observed in the past that each time we close our eyes we see no colors and that each time we open our eyes we see colors in, say, 70 out of 100 cases. Based on this experience alone, we can build a very simple mechanism that goes something like this: eyes closed -> no experience of colors, eyes open -> 70 out of 100 times an experience of colors. Very simple stuff.


Are you arguing something similar to Hume? Hume showed that we can't really prove or "discover" cause out in the real world, so it must be an invention in our heads (doesn't mean causation doesn't exist, just that we can't prove it). It's a very useful invention. Like you said, it helps us to predict correlations and even the direction of the correlation.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:43 pm

Gib wrote:But you don't think we can go further and say that some of these correlations are causal


What is a cause?
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby gib » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:44 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Gib wrote:But you don't think we can go further and say that some of these correlations are causal


What is a cause?


A cause is an event that forces a subsequent event to occur. Hume thought this could never be demonstrated. Is that what you're saying?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:20 am

I cannot agree or disagree with a statement the meaning of which I do not fully understand. This is why I ask you to define what a cause is. It is a very tricky concept to understand thoroughly, isn't it? Let\s focus on how you define the concept of cause instead. This should be an easier task. What does it mean for an event to force a subsequent event to occur? What does it mean for a light switch to force a light bulb to shine? What does it mean for an event X to force an event Y to occur? Does it mean anything other than that the history of the two category of events is such that whenever event X occured event Y followed? I think that's what Hume is saying. But I am not a Hume scholar. And I agree with that. That's all the word "force" means. If you want to describe an aspect of reality in the best possible way you have no choice but to do so in terms of a mass of particulars (i.e. facts, events, etc.) The concept of causality does not even enter the picture at this point. It is only when you decide to make a guess regarding some unknown particular, which requires that you extrapolate from what you know, that a need arises to think in terms of causality.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby gib » Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:20 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:I cannot agree or disagree with a statement the meaning of which I do not fully understand. This is why I ask you to define what a cause is. It is a very tricky concept to understand thoroughly, isn't it? Let\s focus on how you define the concept of cause instead. This should be an easier task. What does it mean for an event to force a subsequent event to occur? What does it mean for a light switch to force a light bulb to shine? What does it mean for an event X to force an event Y to occur?


I'll try to break this down further. By "force" I mean to "necessitate". I mean that when event X happens, that makes event Y necessary. Event Y can't not happen if X has just happened. Beyond this, I'm not sure how else to break it down.

Magnus Anderson wrote:Does it mean anything other than that the history of the two category of events is such that whenever event X occured event Y followed? I think that's what Hume is saying.


I don't recall the exact structure of Hume's argument--whether that 'cause' means experiences constantly conjoined or just that the idea of 'cause' is the result of experiences constantly conjoined--the first says this is what we mean by cause, the second only that we can only arrive at the idea of 'cause' if we go through this psychological process of experiencing events being constantly conjoined first. I agree with the latter interpretation. The brain has to have some algorithm for figuring out whether it is dealing with a cause or not. But I don't think that this is just what 'cause' means--otherwise we'd be saying cause=correlation and we'd have no use, or ability, to distinguish them.

Magnus Anderson wrote:But I am not a Hume scholar. And I agree with that. That's all the word "force" means. If you want to describe an aspect of reality in the best possible way you have no choice but to do so in terms of a mass of particulars (i.e. facts, events, etc.) The concept of causality does not even enter the picture at this point. It is only when you decide to make a guess regarding some unknown particular, which requires that you extrapolate from what you know, that a need arises to think in terms of causality.


I would agree, with the caveat that by 'guess' we're talking about an unconscious or automatic process. When I kick a ball and I see it fly through the air, I don't feel like I'm 'guessing' that my foot striking the ball is the cause of the balling flying through the air, I feel like I know. But because no cause can ever be proven, it is on an unconscious level 'guessing' (inferring, projecting, intuiting, etc.).

Note that such a guess isn't necessarily wrong. There may be causation in the universe after all; it's just that we can't prove it.

Also note that if there is only ever correlation, then if that correlation is perfection (i.e. it never breaks), then that means there is some forcing going on, some necessitating; if event Y occurs every time event X occurs, then event Y is forced to occur whenever X occurs. <-- That starts to sound like my definition of 'cause'. On the other hand, the key thing to note about correlations is that we are never sure which is the cause and which is the effect. For example, it might be that God is the one who ensures that event Y occurs every time he makes event X occur, which means that event X is not the cause of event Y, God is cause of both. But perfect correlations do imply causation somewhere. The only way out of this is to say the correlation isn't perfect (in which case you'd still have to explain the high probability of the correlation) or to say that the correlation holds by sheer coincidence (which would be amazing).
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:46 am

Gib wrote:I'll try to break this down further. By "force" I mean to "necessitate". I mean that when event X happens, that makes event Y necessary. Event Y can't not happen if X has just happened. Beyond this, I'm not sure how else to break it down.


Isn't that what I am saying? that "event X forces event Y to happen" means "whenever event X happens event Y follows"?

I don't recall the exact structure of Hume's argument--whether that 'cause' means experiences constantly conjoined or just that the idea of 'cause' is the result of experiences constantly conjoined--the first says this is what we mean by cause, the second only that we can only arrive at the idea of 'cause' if we go through this psychological process of experiencing events being constantly conjoined first. I agree with the latter interpretation. The brain has to have some algorithm for figuring out whether it is dealing with a cause or not. But I don't think that this is just what 'cause' means--otherwise we'd be saying cause=correlation and we'd have no use, or ability, to distinguish them.


I am not sure I understand the difference between the two types of argument. Care to elaborate?

Also note that if there is only ever correlation, then if that correlation is perfection (i.e. it never breaks), then that means there is some forcing going on, some necessitating; if event Y occurs every time event X occurs, then event Y is forced to occur whenever X occurs. <-- That starts to sound like my definition of 'cause'.


Given the following sequence of symbols, can we say, based on that sequence alone, that A forces B to happen?

_ _ A B _ _ _ A B _ _ _ A B A B _ A B _ A B _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A B _ _ _ _ A B A B A B A B _ _ A B _ _ AB _ _ A B

My understanding is that "A forces B to happen" is a class of sequences of symbols where every occurence of A is immediately followed by B. The above sequence is one instance of that class.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby James S Saint » Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:51 am

Causal forces are deduced to exist through the process of elimination.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25760
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby Silhouette » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:06 pm

My solution to this problem is the rejection of the premise that "reality" causes or is primary to appearance, and instead proposing that the opposite is in fact more true.

It's absurd that inert particles and waves can cause the way that the colour "red" appears to us, or the way "pleasure" feels. But looking at the history of things, particles and waves were "discovered" relatively not that long ago, and these "qualia" and conscious experience in general have been around since the start - whether this is a presumption about the start of conscious beings, or not a presumption about your own personal conscious life.
You learn about "qualitative monotony" in terms of "qualitative diversity" and you witness how they were arrived at, tested and explored through this same medium. Scientific findings around qualitative monotony are all simplified, reduced elements of qualitative diversity: monotony is a subset of diversity and secondary to it.

However, this is then curiously inverted. You come to be taught that the monotony was primary, and diversity is just types of monotony in different arrangements... why? That's the question I ask.

I would say it's a social thing. Other people come along and give different accounts of this conscious experience, and it's possible to sufficiently reconcile these differences to yours in the form of some abstract "reality" that exists beneath us all, founding and causing all these different perspectives. Whether or not it actually exists, and despite the fact that we have zero direct access to it, we created science out of it which is insanely useful - so who cares? The fact that science is insanely useful must mean something, right? So why not just use this as a sufficient explanation even if not a necessary one, and leave it at that? That seems to be the rationale that every practical person uses anyway.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3045
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby James S Saint » Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:03 pm

Silhouette wrote:It's absurd that inert particles and waves can cause the way that the colour "red" appears to us, or the way "pleasure" feels.

??? Why is that "absurd"?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25760
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby Silhouette » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:49 am

James S Saint wrote:
Silhouette wrote:It's absurd that inert particles and waves can cause the way that the colour "red" appears to us, or the way "pleasure" feels.

??? Why is that "absurd"?

It might not seem absurd if waves and particles were just reduced elements of consciousness, but they are intended to be without consciousness - independent of it and without any consciousness intrinsic within them. Therefore it is required that a complete lack of something might result in that something, if only these non-somethings were arranged in certain ways.

I think something emerging from its opposite, or at least from a complete lack of that something is the epitome of what absurdity is supposed to mean.

Whether or not absurdity can happen is a different matter, of course. You can just leave it at "well it just does", and practically speaking that's true. Photons having certain wavelengths "just do" cause red to look like it does rather than any other way, despite having no redness or consciousness within them. No properties of any sensation are contained within the object causing it, but that's how they appear when observed.

You can't even see sight or any kind of sensory perception when observing a brain, the sensation has to be a result of the brain only unto itself, without ever even any having any specific spatio-temporal position. Where is the red? Where is the pleasure? You can explain what they're made of and what things interact to cause them, but none of this explanation and any understanding of it will actually cause the specific experience of them in the particular way that your brain seems to conjure them. Quite aside from how matter vibrations move your eardrums, the kinetic energy is converted to electric signals, interacting with chemicals blah blah blah - the sensation is all the work of the brain. The brain doesn't even need any outside stimulus from "reality" to make consciousness happen.

Somewhere along the way between explanations, a divide is crossed to actual experience. It's necessarily absurd in fact, because all these explanations will all be in terms of experiences, and you just have to accept it when you're told they are independent of experiences.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3045
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:46 am

What does it mean for B to emerge or arise from A? That's the most important question in this thread, isn't it?

Does it not simply mean that B can be predicted based on A? If that's the case, then it is far from absurd to claim that consciousness arises or emerges from particles and waves. It simply means that you can predict consciousness based on particles and waves. Nothing else.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Qualitative diversity out of qualitative monotony... how

Postby gib » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:26 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Isn't that what I am saying? that "event X forces event Y to happen" means "whenever event X happens event Y follows"?


Not quite. In the first statement, it's made clear that it's event X that's doing the forcing. In the second statement, it *could* be X that does the forcing, or a third variable (like God) that forces both.

Magnus Anderson wrote:
I don't recall the exact structure of Hume's argument--whether that 'cause' means experiences constantly conjoined or just that the idea of 'cause' is the result of experiences constantly conjoined--the first says this is what we mean by cause, the second only that we can only arrive at the idea of 'cause' if we go through this psychological process of experiencing events being constantly conjoined first. I agree with the latter interpretation. The brain has to have some algorithm for figuring out whether it is dealing with a cause or not. But I don't think that this is just what 'cause' means--otherwise we'd be saying cause=correlation and we'd have no use, or ability, to distinguish them.


I am not sure I understand the difference between the two types of argument. Care to elaborate?


Certainly! The first argument is about what 'cause' means, whereas the second is only about what creates the concept of 'cause' in our minds. The first one says: I draw the conclusion that X causes Y because I've consistently seen X and Y conjoined in experience. The second one says: I intuit that X causes Y, though I'm not sure why. My neurologist tells me it's because of all my past experiences seeing X constantly conjoined with Y. The first is making a logical argument. The second is merely a causal result of experiences. I maintain that the first is invalid because if all you've experienced is X constantly conjoined with Y, then you can only draw the conclusion that a correlation exists. If you conclude a cause exists, you are adding something extra. <-- That extra bit (which raises the concept to a 'cause' proper) may be a result of the brain having undergone certain experiences (i.e. seeing X constantly conjoined with Y), which is what the second argument is saying, but it can't just be a reference to what you've experienced since we never experience a 'cause' per se. Thus, 'cause' must mean something more than just X and Y being constantly conjoined.

Magnus Anderson wrote:Given the following sequence of symbols, can we say, based on that sequence alone, that A forces B to happen?

_ _ A B _ _ _ A B _ _ _ A B A B _ A B _ A B _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A B _ _ _ _ A B A B A B A B _ _ A B _ _ AB _ _ A B


Technically no. Even if we were to infer that all instance of 'AB' above are all the instance of 'AB' that exist, we don't know whether A is causing B or a third variable (say God) is causing both.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users