Lessons on Causality

Just goes to show you; even though time passes, you still aren’t any wiser.

I passed 1st grade geometry.

Even infants can pick apart shapes and slide them through inserts.

I’m just happy to have educated you on basic shapes. I mean, if you’re so wrong about something so simple, what else could be wrong about?

He’s not wrong. He’s just an annoying nitpicker. Instead of trying to understand the gist of the post he obsesses over irrelevant details. He’s a Grammar Nazi. He keeps repeating that “the devil is in the details” ignoring that the devil is also in the big picture.

But he is wrong when he says that randomness is ignorance. And so are you.

When the human mind, or any intelligent organism, encounters enormous complexity, as is the nature of existence, then the brain must limit its sense-data according to its methods of cognition, to reduce (infinite) data down to knowable forms. This is how all nervous systems work, the function of sensory organs and brains. Ignorance is the result of these cognitive limitations. It is a natural reaction, a reflex, a compulsion.

A human mind cannot “know everything”, and so must limit data input. The thing is, humans generally, are not aware of their own ignorance and perceptual blind spots. Similar to how everybody has blind-spots in their vision range, or how the human brain cognizes two visual images (one from each eye) into one model, of Consciousness.

People don’t examine themselves, their knowledge, their own consciousness. Thus self-consciousness is rare, in humanity, in life, and is symbolic of higher intelligences.

In fact, owing to Causality, humanity now has a long history of records and discoveries, culminating into a collective knowledge. Intelligent individuals of the past, scientists and revolutionaries, all contributed to that collective knowledge by adding relevant observations and lessons about causality. This causes that. And that causes something else. Because much of that knowledge is tried, tested, and true, humans today don’t need to relearn everything. Instead they trust the pile of knowledge, Dogma. They accept the general theses and theories. In turn, human knowledge has become specialized. So instead of discovering general causes of existence, contemporary intellectuals now focus on very small, minute causes, nano-technologies and micro-biology. Yet in the larger sense, there is aeronautics, astronomy, rocket science, and many new forms of physics.

I would label ‘Science’ as this collection of causality, of stored knowledge, all pooled together.

Science is the Study of Causality.

Humanity is unique with causality, symbolic of a highly evolved intellect, compared to all other (lesser) animals and organisms on earth. While it’s true that animals do have basic cognitive functions, with limited means of learning, and therefore understanding causes… their minds are rather unsophisticated. Furthermore, lesser animals do not have the benefit of language, literacy, and thus lack expanded memorization. Humans can catalogue information, data, and knowledge, collecting it over time. Hence this is the basis for human knowledge in general, a collection that expands centuries and millenniums. The ‘old’ wisdom is preserved, passed on to today’s Philosophers and Free Thinkers.

Compare an idea of Causality between a human to an animal. If an animal correctly intuited why and how an action occurs, predicting it, then they would memorize it to the best of their ability. Hunters and predatory animals predict the movements and directions of their prey, for example. Thus the higher intellect, the better the predictions. These cognitive abilities lead to survival and thriving. But the memories of an animal cannot be directly passed from parent to offspring, except genetically. Thus animals mostly rely on instincts, and what limited information can be passed genetically. Rather than textually, linguistically, a larger volume of (all human) knowledge can be immediately passed from human parent to child.

This gives humans exponential advantage over base animals. And higher intelligent humans, exponential advantage over lower intelligent humans.

All of this correlates directly to Causality by understanding of any and every (scientific) subject, or general topic. The causes of some function were discovered, tracked, and ‘known’ hundreds of years ago. Thus humans today don’t need to “keep reinventing the wheel” with every new generation.

Learning causal relationships can be labeled as a backward process whereby venues that share situations become causally related, and/or a downshift process whereby cause–effect relationships may be derived from observance and objectively tested for their veracity. There are three terms for causality: covariation, temporal precedence, and control for third variables. It’s not just making an extra key for your condo it’s something broad and next to your level. Multiple retroversion, like all statistical techniques based on linkage, has a severe restriction due to the fact that correlation doesn’t prove causation. And no amount of calculating of “control” variables can unpick the web of causality.

I just wanted to thank Urwrongx1000 for a great contribution of wisdom. I’ve been studying neuroscience along with philosophy of science & epistemology and have reached the same conclusions.

Our brain, which is trapped inside the darkness of our skull without any direct access to the world outside, can’t make hypothetical models of the past, present and future world outside to navigate from without relying on the concept of INUS conditions and causal structures causing new events through time. It does not matter if we do not consciously think about the world this way, our subconscious still makes use of causality.

Please check out this great interview with Neuroscientist Anil Seth: youtu.be/CJhSSPO8Ulk

Whenever we face a decision, our subconscious always tries to guess and model the outcome based on what is most probable based on the INUS-conditions and the probable causal structures that exist in the world. Successfull decision-making relies on making decisions that correctly guessing the most probable outcome based on the initial INUS-conditions and the probable causal structures that exist in the world.

When we learn something about the world it is actually a “guess” about how the world functions and what causal structures exist. Studying different kind of sciences really comes down to understanding databases about causal structures that have been gathered within different specialized fields(biology, physics, medicine) etc.

vetenskapsteori = Urwrongx1000

Urwrongx1000 = vetenskapsteori

10/10 thread, wood read again (…if I do say so myself)

But where did our Saint go? Props to Magnus for his opposition as well.

Legend.

The pineal gland’s primary function is ‘letting in light and darkness’, just like our eyes do… it’s a neuroendocrine organ containing light-sensitive cells that control the circadian rhythm.

‘Thought’ could simply be a sixth sense, and when combined with the other five senses, allows for consciousness/awareness and insights etc. to occur… thoughts are wave frequencies, after-all.

I think that frames-of-reference depend on how a person lives their life/operates, as each person’s will be unique to them… like a fingerprint.

Check out the difference in our usage of words and building sentences. We are not the same person.

//Big fan of Forensic linguistics

Pretty good.

Correct

Vetenskapsteori… Theory of Knowledge / Philosophy of Science: vetenskapsteori.se/ENGmon/emm1epist.htm

There’s more…

The gut is the 2nd brain, the pineal gland is the 3rd eye… when these 2 organs are fully optimised, we become the best/ultimate version of ourselves… physically, mentally, and spiritually… I’d call it ‘the holy trinity of self’. When optimised, the effects of causation become apparent.

Thoughts are wave frequencies that arise in the brain, to create a mind, that then gained the ability (evolved?) to externalise and share those thoughts, through the medium of language.

Just wanted to recommend a great article which argues that the C-word needs to be acknowledged more to improve scientific research.

" Causal inference is a core task of science. However, authors and editors often refrain from explicitly acknowledging the causal goal of research projects; they refer to causal effect estimates as associational estimates.

This commentary argues that using the term “causal” is necessary to improve the quality of observational research.

Specifically, being explicit about the causal objective of a study reduces ambiguity in the scientific question, errors in the data analysis, and excesses in the interpretation of the results.

You know the story:

Dear author: Your observational study cannot prove causation. Please replace all references to causal effects by references to associations.

Many journal editors request authors to avoid causal language,1 and many observational researchers, trained in a scientific environment that frowns upon causality claims, spontaneously refrain from mentioning the C-word (“causal”) in their work. As a result, “causal effect” and terms with similar meaning (“impact,” “benefit,” etc.) are routinely avoided in scientific publications that describe nonrandomized studies. Instead, we see terms like “association” and others that convey a similar meaning (“correlation,” “pattern,” etc.), or the calculatedly ambiguous “link.”

The proscription against the C-word is harmful to science because causal inference is a core task of science, regardless of whether the study is randomized or nonrandomized. Without being able to make explicit references to causal effects, the goals of many observational studies can only be expressed in a roundabout way. The resulting ambiguity impedes a frank discussion about methodology because the methods used to estimate causal effects are not the same as those used to estimate associations. Confusion then ensues at the most basic levels of the scientific process and, inevitably, errors are made.

We need to stop treating “causal” as a dirty word that respectable investigators do not say in public or put in print. It is true that observational studies cannot definitely prove causation, but this statement misses the point, as discussed in this commentary."

ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/f … 018.304337

To vetenskapsteori,

I’m glad that you took an interest in my thread and can gain value from my insights on these matters. It seems you have a genuine interest in Science and Philosophy. So allow me to respond to your latest message.

There are so many factors to consider about Causality today. There is a political interpretation and factor. There is also a philosophical one. I will introduce both of these, at least briefly. The political factor is common to slander, demean, diminish, and mock the idea of ‘Causality’ across humanity. It is not good or worse, “morally bad/evil” that people and humanity are “Causal Agents”. This is an attack against Agency. This is proved by “Social Justice Warriors”, BLM and Antifa (in the US), postmodern “liberals”, democrats, marxists, “leftists”, etc. The idea here is that humanity is about victimization and not Agency. It starts from the Negative, not the Positive. The political focus is about the deprivation of agency, and not the building of it. It is about Destruction (of Agency), and not Construction.

Does this make sense to you, or do you get my meaning – from a German perspective? (or which country you are from?)

The next aspect, which can be observed all over this forum immediately, is the philosophical “Free-Will” debate. Again, those that would slander Agency are the same who will slander Free-Will. This is the ‘Determinist’ philosophical argument and debate. I will link below a debate I had against the forum member Silhouette about Determinism. So while the political atmosphere slanders the idea of a collective social/cultural Agency (opposed to SJW Victimization), so too does the Determinist debate slander the ideal of individual human agency that humans are ‘Causal’ agents and can ‘determine’ their own destiny/fate.

In all of these manners, Cause is the primary and primal focal-point by which Agency is founded, along with Free-Will, and that any object, or subject, or organism, or person, could hypothesize the basis of “self-control”, or to even rationalize “self-consciousness”. Because if individuals are not responsible for their own Consciousness, then what is? I believe that these philosophical prepositions are the basis for the subsequent scientific insights and studies. After all, if Man cannot pinpoint or determine the causes within himself, then how can he then attribute Cause accurately or consistently outside of himself – to the causes of Natural Phenomena or Law??

Determinism Debate: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 6&t=194003

The results of these historical slanders, is that ‘Cause’ is used a pejorative, negative concept, rather than a positive and constructive concept. I do not believe this a coincidence or irony. Rather it takes exceptional and ‘noble’ individuals, to use Cause, Causation, and Causality as positive and constructive phenomena in spite of the common slander, and the degradation of reputation that will follow (especially in the Natural Sciences), from using it as such. Again, if Man cannot pinpoint the ‘Causes’ within himself, accurately and efficiently, consistently, then how could he then look outward to Nature and pinpoint them there? You cannot. He cannot. Because the accuracy of his designation to Causation is a reflection of his innate soul, his own Nature, and his own Agency. And when an individual is gifted, and can pinpoint Causes accurately, then people and wider human history all recognize this gift in those rare types.

That… some Scientists can produce theorems and advancements that far exceed the common, and defy all previous bounds, because they have taken risks of public shame, opposition, and repulsion (some of them made Heretics by the Church), by going against these political and social norms that are consistent throughout history. The “public force” is by default against personal agency, causation, free-will, the strength and nobility of the Individual over the Common.