Lessons on Causality

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:45 pm

Serendipper wrote:What is the cause for that?

I've been wasting my time, like planting a crop, watering it, but only producing weeds. Time to move onto other pastures. Maybe my seeds can take to new soil and climate. This place is infertile.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:45 pm

Magnus, the idea was not for you to collapse from objectvism into solipsism. Both are moronities.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:53 pm

encode_decode wrote:
    Urwrongx1000
    You're basically presuming that logic is "disconnected from reality". I disagree.

    Is that really the presumption that James is making?

    Yes....

    Logic and rationality represent the synthesis that any individual, mind, brain, cognition can complete regarding mental abstractions of causes and events with "the real world". It's also represented by the difference between Experience and Memorization. How else does memorization occur in existence except that a mind and its senses observe events, and attempt to 'copy' them or solidify them, as a camera takes a photograph of a scene? Each human, and almost every evolved lifeform, have abilities to memorize existence as an aspect of the nervous system and general intelligence. Without the ability to memorize, organisms literally become lost and confused. They cannot navigate the world, environment, or existence. It would be like walking aimlessly through a maze, ultimately leading to doom. Organisms that cannot memorize, have no capacity for memory, are preyed upon by organisms that do have extensive memories.

    Memory is a survival mechanism, a core aspect of cognition and intelligence.

    Memories are imperfect, because human senses and perspectives are limited. Humans only have two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth, etc. Imagine having many eyes or ears. Imagine seeing in multiple directions at once, instead of face-forward. Some insects and animals do have eyes on the other side of their heads, like Avians. It creates a problem and challenge with synthesis, to merge multiple sensory perceptions into "one" mental abstraction, resulting in a "memory".

    The whole cause and purpose behind "logic and rationality" is to correctly, accurately, and efficiently synthesize reality and existence, into mental abstractions, so that they can become stored and memories. Even 'genes' are forms of memory, over time, beyond generations, as means and methods of passing upon behavioral instructions from one generation to the next.
    Urwrongx1000
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 512
    Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:57 pm

    Magnus is stuck on the idea of an "uncaused" event, representing any hypothetical "accident" or "randomness".

    But what can be called "random" is what beyond human cognition, specifically, by the human mind's inability to calculate extreme probabilities. For example, a computer can calculate the rolls of a dice, whereas a human cannot. Thus the computer can make sense of "causes" that a human does not.

    What appears "random" to one person, is not to another, therefore subjective. But randomness is based on intelligence anyway. Intelligence is limited. Magnus doesn't seem to realize, or perhaps accept this, yet. Perhaps Magnus is ignorant of his own mental limitations. That is an important philosophical lesson, to become aware of your cognitive "blind spots". Every single human has blind spots, limitations, of reasoning, of intellect, of ascribing causes in existence.

    Evolution, on the other hand, raising the intellect, is the challenge. Isn't it possible "to learn", to understand, to become smarter, more knowledgeable, wiser??
    Urwrongx1000
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 512
    Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Serendipper » Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:18 pm

    Urwrongx1000 wrote:
    Serendipper wrote:What is the cause for that?

    I've been wasting my time, like planting a crop, watering it, but only producing weeds. Time to move onto other pastures. Maybe my seeds can take to new soil and climate. This place is infertile.

    Where are you going? Can I visit? :)
    "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
    Serendipper
     
    Posts: 204
    Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 7:33 pm

    I'm going to move over to youtube, sure, I'll send you a link when I make progress.
    Urwrongx1000
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 512
    Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:25 pm

    Let's discuss the matter of intelligence a bit.

    Intelligence includes three processes in relation to time. There is Memorization, to remember the past. There is Cognition, to synthesize the present. And there is Prediction, to anticipate and decide about the future. All of these together, represent a bulk of the definition of 'intelligence'. Thus the more intelligent an organism is (a particular human), the superior ability it will have to memorize, cognize, and predict.

    Superior memorization is fuller, more accurate memories. Some recent, modern phenomenons of this, are the "Genius-Savants" who can look at an image, and paint or draw it based on memory. They have advanced, evolved, specialized memorization. Thus their mental ability to memorize is superior than average humans. Similarly, humans may specialize in Cognition, sensing the immediate present, and reacting quickly. Sports athletes, MMA fighters, soldiers, many people have distinct advantages in faster cognition and sensing abilities. For example, an NFL quarterback must make decisions rapidly, based on rapidly changing information, variables, threats, etc. Thus superior cognition is an advantage.

    Superior predictability is an extension of memorization and logic. Human intelligence is defined and described as vastly superior to other animals and organisms, because human memorization is extensive. Consider books, texts, transcriptions, videos, recordings, and other information. All of this lends to massive amounts of memorization and memories that collective humanity pools together, and can use, to decide, anticipate, and predict future events. Thus humans can abstract and project in ways never done in previous eras. Human predictability (mental Projection), is evolving, along with the other cognitive faculties, or human intelligence in general.


    All of this coincides with Causation, by how humanity understands "logic and rationality". Logic and rationality is synonymous with ascribing causes between the "Objective" and "Subjective" world. In other words, there is the way the world is (objectivity) versus your singular human perspective (subjectivity). The world is one way, and your mind cognizes and renders existence, according to your individuality and perspective. The problem with this is, that people have different and unique perspectives, and thus will not share exactly the same experiences, but they can be similar. Thus when people attempt to communicate, there are barriers of understanding and empathy.

    The same is true for Causation. What one person knows of causality, as a process of his or her rationality, is not the same as others.

    People instinctively desire to "find cause" for most occurrences of life, hence the questions of "Why?" and "How?" Everytime why and how are asked, these are symbolic of the human need to find cause for existential concerns, which also revolve around anxiety and angst.


    Because "knowledge is power". The more that a human accurately and correctly understands the general, existential "causes of things", the more confident and self-assured he or she becomes living life and navigating the harshness and cruelty of Nature. Knowledge and intelligence increase survivability and chance for survival. Collectively, summed together, the human specie "evolves" corresponding to all this.
    Urwrongx1000
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 512
    Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:26 am

    Urwrong wrote:Prediction of "the future" is only one aspect of intelligence.


    That's the purpose of intelligence.

    You're too focused on one particular aspect instead of the whole of intelligence. Intelligence represents ability and efficiency of cognition, of all mental processes together. While you are blinded by "the future", there are also other portions of time called "the present" and "the past". Intelligence uses them all, not just one. After all, what is "the past" except collected memories? And what is "the present" except the synthesis of experience into memories?


    There is no present. There is no future either. There is only past.
    Future can only be imagined . . . in the past.

    We study past (which also includes what we call present since present is merely our recent past) in order to predict the future.
    Thinking isn't something we do just for fun.

    There are Natural Laws, science, the premises of physics, discovered, rediscovered, and collected by philosophers for thousands of years.


    Yes, there are. These are formulas/models and not the universe itself.

    Maybe your ancestry has no roots in human civilization and cultivation of sciences.


    You're making an assumption that I am denying natural sciences. I am not.

    It's very obvious that you're wrong on these points. What is a Natural Law, except, humanity's best theories and hypotheses with regards to exactly how "the universe operates". There are laws of locomotion, conservation of energy, and thermodynamics. Energy is neither subtracted nor added ex nihilo.


    You don't get what I am saying. So you're not talking to me. You're talking to a hallucination.

    The point is that our formulas/models are not the universe itself. That's my point.

    I am not the first to say this. I am not the first to say that "the universe" does not operate. Many other people said the exact same thing. Nietzsche, for example.

    Aphorism #109 in Gay Science:
    http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/frie ... 3c0ff.html

    Nietzsche says EXPLICITLY that "there are no laws in nature".
    When Nietzsche says it everyone agrees.

    There is no "set of rules", yet, how else would prediction be successful, in any limited way? Prediction works precisely because there are "sets of rules" to follow. Jump off a cliff, what do you predict, to fall or to fly? That is the "law of Gravity". Do you disagree??? Can you fly?


    Jesus fucking Christ.

    Prediction is possible because there is such a thing as SENSORY INFORMATION and because this sensory information can be REPRESENTED using a set of rules. Not because "the universe" operates according to a set of rules. To say that "the universe" operates according to a set of rules is to say that there is a hidden mechanism that determines every event at every point in time. It is to say that the universe is ORDERED rather than simply containing a degree of order within itself which we can represent with formulas. Your position is closer to Creationism than it is to Evolutionism. Theory of Evolution DOES NOT assume a teleological principle.

    Tell me some events, things, or descriptions about existence that are "uncaused", that have no cause nor correlation to anything else. Tell me about some absolute vacuum of space, Nothingness, Ex Nihilo. Isn't that what you believe?


    It's like asking me to tell you about the absence of God. Or any other kind of absence. How can I talk about absence at all? That's what you're asking. And that's why it's a ridiculous question.

    Not my problem....


    Exactly your problem.
    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: 3550
    Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:45 am

    How do you think the universe came to be? I'm just curious.


    It's an irrelevant question. What I'm discussing here is logic i.e. how thinking works. For this purpose, imaginary sensory information is sufficient.

    But if you really want an answer then I'd say abigionesis. Life came into existence (I suppose that's what you're asking) from inorganic matter.

    I'm not a creationist. I don't believe in extraterrestial origin of life.

    On the other hand, if you're asking me how the universe as in planets and galaxies and whatnot came into existence, then I don't know, and personally, I don't care.

    I don't understand how uncaused events can be logical. Logic is "if A, then B" at its core. How can we have B with no A? It seems like a whole new branch of logic. What could be the rules of this new system? Once events don't require a cause, then there can be no if/then because 'then' can happen without the 'if'.


    First, causation isn't correlation.
    Causation is a specific form of correlation.
    Prediction can work just fine without the concept of causation.
    All you need is correlation.
    It appears legit that in order for prediction to work there must be some kind of correlation or as you say "if, then".
    I am not exactly sure on this point but it appears pretty legit so let's say that's true.
    Prediction cannot work without correlation.

    Now, what happens when there is no correlation?
    What happens is that prediction cannot work.
    You cannot predict.
    And now tell me, how is that illogical?
    I think it's more logical to admit that you cannot predict certain events rather than to pretend that you can and that there are correlates even though you never observed them.

    Logic refers to thinking itself (unless it referes to the study of thinking, but let's ignore that for now.)
    The purpose of thinking is to form assumptions regarding the unobserved.
    It's about choosing the best guess regarding the unobserved.
    There are different ways in which thinking can proceed, which is to say, there are different ways to choose the best guess regarding the unobserved.
    And when these ways stray away from the norm, the usual way of forming conclusions regarding the unknown, then we call them illogical.
    Otherwise, we call them logical.

    There is no doubt that there are different types of logic.
    Different environments breed different logic.
    Dense populations, for example, breed self-referential logic that is centered around personal preferences.
    This is normal considering the fact that in such environments most of the interaction happens between human minds -- there is very little interaction with non-verbal and non-mental elements of nature.
    On the other hand, sparse populations, such as the ones you can find in cold climates, e.g. in Russia, breed information-based logic or quite simply empiricism.
    Such a logic starts with what is evident, apparent, observed, experienced, sensed, etc and proceeds upwards.
    It's a natural way to think.

    Now, if we agree that empiricism is superior to rationalism, then we have to agree that, in the absence of pattern in information, nothing can be predicted. That's the only logical conclusion. Everything else is illogical.
    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: 3550
    Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Serendipper » Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:13 am

    Magnus Anderson wrote:On the other hand, if you're asking me how the universe as in planets and galaxies and whatnot came into existence, then I don't know, and personally, I don't care.

    Yeah, that's what I'm asking. How can you not care?

    The subject of this thread is what I don't care about... except in the context of how the universe came to be.
    "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
    Serendipper
     
    Posts: 204
    Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:32 am

    Magnus you're very solipsistic and essentially arguing that "we can only know models in our head". Also it's you who are claiming there are "uncaused events", nobody else, thus far. You're not explaining yourself. You're not describing how there are "uncaused" events. What does that even mean, except what I already said, randomness, chaos, unpredictability... I've already covered these matters.

    You are a subjectivist arguing that "there is no outside world", or "there are no external causes". These are false. The world does not revolve around you. The world does not revolve around me. Any originality or causality, is teleological, necessarily, by definition. Humans, brains, mind, cognition, these have all evolved to make sense of existence, to find position and locality, to navigate, and to survive.

    You're not presenting any serious considerations or counter-arguments. You don't even seem to have a firm grasp on what you've already implied.
    Urwrongx1000
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 512
    Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Serendipper » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:58 am

    Urwrongx1000 wrote:Magnus you're very solipsistic and essentially arguing that "we can only know models in our head". Also it's you who are claiming there are "uncaused events", nobody else, thus far. You're not explaining yourself. You're not describing how there are "uncaused" events. What does that even mean, except what I already said, randomness, chaos, unpredictability... I've already covered these matters.

    You are a subjectivist arguing that "there is no outside world", or "there are no external causes". These are false. The world does not revolve around you. The world does not revolve around me. Any originality or causality, is teleological, necessarily, by definition. Humans, brains, mind, cognition, these have all evolved to make sense of existence, to find position and locality, to navigate, and to survive.

    You're not presenting any serious considerations or counter-arguments. You don't even seem to have a firm grasp on what you've already implied.

    That seems an accurate assessment.

    You're not describing how there are "uncaused" events.

    Because the only way to do that is to state a cause for the uncaused event. Otherwise there is no description because there is no cause. How can he describe something that doesn't exist? There is no way to describe a cause for something that has no cause.

    I'm not saying uncaused events do not exist, but we certainly can't describe what caused them if they do.
    "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
    Serendipper
     
    Posts: 204
    Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:16 am

    Urwrong wrote:Magnus you're very solipsistic


    I am pretty sure that you do not even know what solipsism is.
    You are one of those people who throw around popular words without any genuine understanding of them.

    Quite the opposite of what you say, it is actually YOU who shows solipsistic behavior since you start with a personal preference for predictability and then conclude that every event that you observe must be predictable no matter how much evidence there is against it.

    That IS solipsism.
    You think that reality has to fit your expectations (that there must be a cause behind every event) rather than that your expectations have to fit reality (that some events have causes and some don't and that this depends on evidence.)

    Any method of thinking that is INDEPENDENT FROM EVIDENCE is solipsistic.
    Whenever you say that something is true NO MATTER WHAT you are being a solipsist.

    Also it's you who are claiming there are "uncaused events", nobody else, thus far.


    Plenty of other people said it too e.g. Betrand Russell, Quantum Physicists, etc.
    You are just horribly confused and unwilling to admit it.

    You're not explaining yourself. You're not describing how there are "uncaused" events. What does that even mean, except what I already said, randomness, chaos, unpredictability... I've already covered these matters.


    I already did. An uncaused event is simply an event for which see no cause.
    Very simple.

    Your response was basically "just because you don't see something does not mean it does not exist".
    Which is retarded.
    What other way of judging what exists do we have other than the one based on evidence, on what we see?
    You want us to abandon evidence simply because it reflects our own viewpoint . . . and then do exactly what?
    Spend our time forever exploring reality never being able to make a judgment call?
    It's ridiculous because we can never transcend the fact that our conclusions are personal and never universal.

    You are a subjectivist arguing that "there is no outside world", or "there are no external causes". These are false.


    You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

    The world does not revolve around you.


    That's EXACTLY what I am trying to explain TO YOU.

    The world does not revolve around me.


    Yes, but that's what you think. You think that if you want every event to be predictable that every event is by that virtue alone predictable.
    No respect for evidence whatsoever.
    You think that if you keep exploring reality that you will eventually find what you're looking for.
    Blind optimism, that's how I call it.
    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: 3550
    Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:32 am

    Because the only way to do that is to state a cause for the uncaused event. Otherwise there is no description because there is no cause. How can he describe something that doesn't exist? There is no way to describe a cause for something that has no cause.

    I'm not saying uncaused events do not exist, but we certainly can't describe what caused them if they do.


    You cannot describe a cause that does not exist. However, you can describe an event that does not have a cause.
    In the same way you can describe humans who weren't created by God.
    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: 3550
    Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:54 am

    Let's put it this way:

    You can be EXTREMELY aware and still see no patterns.
    You can have more experience than anyone else in the world and still see no patterns.
    How do you manage to rule out this possibility?
    What kind of James S Saint "logic" do you use in order to rule out such a possibility?

    Just because you actively explore reality does not mean that you will find what you want to find, which is to say, patterns.
    There is no such a guarantee.

    This is why randomness IS NOT the same thing as ignorance.
    Ignorance means that you merely lack sensory information.
    All you have to do is just explore reality a little bit further and then patterns will emerge.
    I ask: where is the guarantee for that?
    How long do you have to explore reality before patterns start showing up?
    Because if you set no time-interval then you can never be proven wrong.
    You thereby place yourself beyond any kind of test.
    You are right no matter what you say.

    That's what pseudo-scientists do.
    They spend all of their time searching for evidence.
    They never find it but they never lose the hope of finding it one day.
    Because no matter how much evidence you have there is still much more of reality to explore.
    And this process is never-ending.
    There is no end to exploration.

    Just because you don't see it does not mean it's not there.
    Just because you don't see God does not mean it's not there.
    Don't be such a solipsist.
    There is more to reality than what you see.
    You see no God? Fine. But maybe one day you will see it . . .
    Don't be judgmental. Be open-minded.
    Everything is possible.

    Believe in things even when there is no evidence for it.
    Don't wait for evidence to show up.
    Believe in it in advance and you will be rewarded.
    You will be rewarded because belief is beyond any kind of test.
    You can never be proven wrong.
    You can never suffer the consequences of being wrong.
    If you follow what is evident then you risk being proven wrong . . .
    Noone wants to be wrong . . .
    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: 3550
    Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Serendipper » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:37 am

    Magnus Anderson wrote:You cannot describe a cause that does not exist. However, you can describe an event that does not have a cause.

    Can you describe an event that had no cause as an example?

    In the same way you can describe humans who weren't created by God.

    Humans were still caused regardless if they were caused by god or natural process or pink unicorn pixie dust. Everything has a cause.
    "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
    Serendipper
     
    Posts: 204
    Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:25 pm

    Solipsism is an infantile and immature egotism, which fundamentally or completely rejects the "outside" world, rejects reality. Solipsists, like you Magnus, believe that existence is based upon consciousness. That if you are not conscious, then the rest of existence, humanity, reality, the world, disappears or dies with you. For a Solipsist, the world ends and begins each night when you go to sleep. Reality "revolves around you". It is very immature and symbolic of cocooning, modernity, and subjectivism. Basically existence revolves around senses, rather than senses revolve around existence.

    Solipsism: Consciousness > Existence. Subject > Object. Human Ego > Gods.


    I am not a Solipsist because I know existence does not revolve around my ego, or really, does not revolve around anything at all. There is no "center of the universe" except for what humans hypothesize and begin Teleology. I believe in Infinity, that existence is greater than humanity, your ego, my ego, anybody, everybody. I reject the idea of a "beginning" of the universe. I am anti-Christian, anti-Abrahamism, anti-Judaism. I am anti-Catholic, no "Big Bang Theory". I reject all of your falsities and lies. No beginnings. No ends. There is only infinity.

    Rather, the reason humans believe in Teleology and "beginnings and ends" to the universe, is due to Anthropomorphization. Because you believe that you will die, Magnus Anderson, you then abstract your human condition back "onto reality". You believe that existence will die, or be born, because you will die and were born. This is false. This is Anthropomorphization. You project the human, living, organic element upon non-living and inorganic materials. There is no reason and no cause for it. Because one entity does not necessarily reflect another. Life is finite. That does not mean existence and the universe is infinite. I'm speaking about individuals and particulars here.

    It's obvious that a Solipsist will not understand Causality, because there is a conflict of logic. For the Solipsist (Magnus Anderson), causes "begin and end" with the human ego. I reject this. There are "causes" in nature such that processes and events occur, with or without human intervention. A volcano erupts. You may or may not understand the causes of the eruption. But just because you are ignorant and unaware, does not erase the causes, and it certainly does not mean "the causes don't exist" as Magnus indicates and implies.

    They do exist, because those causes predicate the events. In other words, there are processes, relationships, interactions, chemical reactions, all occurring, at all times, beyond the knowledge and understanding of humanity, and certainly beyond the knowledge and understanding of individuals (like Magnus).


    Solipsists have a very difficult time accepting there exist things, information, knowledge "beyond" themselves. Solispsists see other egos, organisms, individuals, other humans, as threats. And so any perspective that is not "my own" (Magnus) is a threat. This is extreme paranoia, distrust, and antagonism. Humans are not all solipsistic. In fact much the reason popular religions and Christianity exist, is to reduce and suppress Solipsistic/Individualistic urges in the populace, by supplanting ideas of "god" within people. Thus the only authority, other than the ego of the solipsist, would be god, as a means of overriding anti-social and infighting-competition between people, sentiments of distrust and contention, or resentiment.

    Basically, TLDR, Magnus Anderson, you're not going to understand Causality as a Solipsist, because you cannot link or fuse logic and rationality with "the real world" or "real/objective causes". Obviously the link between subjective and objective causes are hypothetical and theoretical. Humans make "best guesses" and estimates as to why and how existence operates. But that only proves my case further. There are phenomenon "outside" humanity and petulant solipsistic egos.

    If you're not going to confront the "outside humanity", reality, then you're going to remain stuck in your own ego, childishness, adolescence, and fail to see beyond whatever small perspective and habitat in life you've been born into. You're certainly not going to be stepping outside your comfort zone.

    You are doomed to walk around in a small circle, within the Great Maze. You are too cowardly to venture into new sections, new understandings, and anything unfamiliar. Modern humans are babied, infantile, and served with silver spoons, very unwilling to acknowledge foreign perspectives even. Thus people cannot listen to each other, and cannot philosophize together.
    Urwrongx1000
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 512
    Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:37 pm

    The Great Beyond:

    Obviously philosophy must confront, challenge, and venture into "the great unknown", objective-reality. Humans define "the world" as subjective, as humanity, as history, as society, and as civilization. Humans are born with silver-spoons, spoiled, babies. They don't want to leave their cribs, their prisons. Prison is safe and secure, you know your cell. You know your place in life. You're afraid to venture out of your comfort zone. Because reality is harsh, Nature is cruel and unforgiving. Mistakes in nature can easily and quickly result in permanent injury, loss of limb, loss of life. So Fear is a critical element. Humans stay within the walls of "Humanity".

    Very few, or none really, value Freedom. Very few individuals on earth are philosophers, "free" thinkers. To be a philosopher, you have to begin to think freely. That means breaking or unlocking all the constraints. That means stepping into the "outside", which Solipsists, Magnus here, defines as "purely hypothetical and theoretical". It's not hypothetical once you actually do it and gain experience. Once you do step out and venture into the unknown, it becomes known. And if you survive, if you apply your education accurately, then you can gain some insights and successes.

    You can take something back to the human world, a newfound wisdom.

    Those trapped within humanity, within the comfort zones, are solipsistic to some degree, at least. Recall Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Humanity is not going to believe, nor accept, at first, whatever wisdom a philosopher brings back. It is not believed until much later in time. Sometimes it takes decades or centuries.

    Consider astronauts and humans that have already ventured into space. Can people on earth really understand or appreciate what the astronauts have accomplished? Can people really relate experience, without setting forth, and doing it yourself? Not really. You have to do it yourself. You have to gain that experience, to truly appreciate the effort, risks, and energy required to attain it. Experience leads to wisdom.

    Solipsists can always reduce philosophy down to "oh but that's only a theory" and "oh but that's only a hypothesis". Not really. Not after those hypotheses and theses are applied directly to reality, to "the outside" world. That's what science is. Science is "philosophy in action". Thus science is the first step away from philosophy.

    Science is deeply rooted in Causality and causal logic. Event A leads to Event B. Reaction X causes Reaction Y. To claim that science "does not have to do with causality", is flagrantly false. Causality is directly linked with logic and rationality. How many times do people ask "why", "how", and react to explain phenomenon with "because". People do this a million times a day. So you know exactly what I'm talking about, don't play stupid and feign ignorance.
    Urwrongx1000
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 512
    Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Arminius » Fri Sep 01, 2017 6:17 pm

    James S Saint wrote:
    Urwrongx1000 wrote:
    James S Saint wrote:Logic is merely the consistency of language. It has nothing to do with physical reality,

    Logic is a trait of cognition and therefore represents the configuration of synaptic connections and patterns within the brain.

    So logic is physical. It is an aspect of your brain. Neuroscientists and brain surgeons know this much.

    Damaging a person's brain can and will damage their logical capabilities and overall cognitive functions. To claim otherwise, is obviously false. Imagine somebody falling off a cliff or their head striking a rock and receiving concussion. You saying that "logic has nothing to do with physical reality" is like saying consciousness is unaffected by physical conditions of the body-skull-brain organ.

    You're basically presuming that logic is "disconnected from reality". I disagree.

    Logic, the father of mathematics, is no more than a rule used to allow thought to take place, a rule of mental and/or spoken language. The rule is not physical in the conventional sense any more than an algebraic rule in mathematics.

    True.

    Rules are spiritual. The spiritual side of language (not the physical side of language: sounds, phonemes etc.) contains the consistency of language, thus logic, the father of mathematics. Yes. Also, logic is the father of ethics. Logic comes before ethics. It is possible to understand logic without ethics, but it is not possible to understand ethics without logic.
    Image
    User avatar
    Arminius
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 5549
    Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
    Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:27 pm

    Science is deeply rooted in Causality and causal logic. Event A leads to Event B. Reaction X causes Reaction Y. To claim that science "does not have to do with causality", is flagrantly false. Causality is directly linked with logic and rationality. How many times do people ask "why", "how", and react to explain phenomenon with "because". People do this a million times a day. So you know exactly what I'm talking about, don't play stupid and feign ignorance.


    Thinking on your own isn't something to be proud of if what you think on your own is stupid. I hope you understand this.

    Causation isn't the same as correlation. If there is something intelligence relies on, it is correlation and not causation.

    The ability to predict requires that there is a correlation, and not necessarily causation, between variables. That they are statistically dependent. And even this might be too strict of an understanding of what intelligence requires in order to operate. I am not sure. What I am sure of is that it does not require causality.

    You should Google what causality means. Then, you should Google what other people have said on the subject long before you were even born (e.g. Bertrand Russell in his "On the Notion of Cause" which you can read online for free.)

    You are simply not right.

    Obviously philosophy must confront, challenge, and venture into "the great unknown", objective-reality. Humans define "the world" as subjective, as humanity, as history, as society, and as civilization. Humans are born with silver-spoons, spoiled, babies. They don't want to leave their cribs, their prisons. Prison is safe and secure, you know your cell. You know your place in life. You're afraid to venture out of your comfort zone. Because reality is harsh, Nature is cruel and unforgiving. Mistakes in nature can easily and quickly result in permanent injury, loss of limb, loss of life. So Fear is a critical element. Humans stay within the walls of "Humanity".


    You need to stop with your posturing and listen carefully to what is being said. And what is being is said is that just because you actively explore reality (i.e. venture into "the great unknown") does not mean you will find what you want to find (i.e. order.) Whoever thinks so -- and clearly, you think so -- is a blind optimist. Not something to be proud of.

    Very few, or none really, value Freedom. Very few individuals on earth are philosophers, "free" thinkers. To be a philosopher, you have to begin to think freely. That means breaking or unlocking all the constraints. That means stepping into the "outside", which Solipsists, Magnus here, defines as "purely hypothetical and theoretical". It's not hypothetical once you actually do it and gain experience. Once you do step out and venture into the unknown, it becomes known. And if you survive, if you apply your education accurately, then you can gain some insights and successes.


    I am not against exploring reality. I am against making conclusions that are not based on evidence but merely on personal preference. If you think that reality is ordered NO MATTER WHAT then that means that you're not guided by evidence but by your personal preferences.

    Your logic can be used, or rather abused, by any theist. God simply exists and whoever says otherwise is simply a solipsist who is unwilling to go out searching for Him. Instead, these non-believers prefer to stay within their comfort zones and believe that there is no God.

    Solipsism is an infantile and immature egotism, which fundamentally or completely rejects the "outside" world, rejects reality.


    I am pretty sure that you are utterly incapable of explaining what you mean by "outside world" and "reality". To you, these are entirely mystical terms.

    You have an unrealistic understanding of how intelligence works. You think that it is something that it is not. Something rather idealistic. And whenever someone honest comes along and makes a claim that intelligence is something less than what you think it is, you have no choice but to accuse them of inferiority in the form of subjectivism, solipsism, idealism and so on.

    It is actually YOU who are denying reality because you are placing your models of reality, which are supposed to be a dependent variable, in front of sensory experience, which is supposed to be an independent variable. For example, you think that the universe is ordered NO MATTER WHAT. In other words, that it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be chaotic. Not because that's what evidence suggests but because you want it to be that way.

    So please, don't give me your ten cent lectures on the effects of sheltering when it is pretty clear that it is YOU who suffers from sheltering. You are so used to the universe being one way (i.e. ordered) that you cannot so much as imagine what it is like for the universe to be another way (i.e. chaotic.)

    You think that the universe is MADE for intelligence. You think that the universe CARES about intelligence. You think that it is so preocuppied with intelligence that it makes sure that every event has a cause.

    Solipsists, like you Magnus, believe that existence is based upon consciousness. That if you are not conscious, then the rest of existence, humanity, reality, the world, disappears or dies with you.


    Can you quote me saying that? You have to prove that you are not hallucinating. Because that's what I think you're doing.

    Basically existence revolves around senses, rather than senses revolve around existence.


    We have nothing but senses to inform our actions. They are the ground upon which models of reality are constructed. To think otherwise, to think that models of reality are more fundamental than the senses, or that something else, such as "intuition" or "sixth sense", is more fundamental, is the definition of subjectivism (or solipsism, as you prefer to call it.) And that's exactly what you're doing.

    It is ENTIRELY MEANINGLESS to speak of anything beyond, anything that transcends, our experience. That is not solipsism. That is realism.

    The word "empiricism" comes from the Greek "empiria" which means nothing other than experience.

    I am not a Solipsist because I know existence does not revolve around my ego, or really, does not revolve around anything at all.


    You are a solipsist because you think the universe functions according to your expectations.

    I believe in Infinity


    There you go. You believe in meaningless concepts.

    I reject all of your falsities and lies. No beginnings. No ends. There is only infinity.


    The universe does not begin.
    The universe does not end.
    This is not because the universe is infinite.
    Because nothing is.
    This is because the universe is a meaningless concept.
    It is meaningless because it does not refer to anything specific.

    The word "universe" is often described as the sum of everything that was, everything that is and everything that will be. But only what was, and even then, only what is known to us, can be said to be meaningful. Everything else is meaningless.

    The universe is a meaningless concept because it transcends personal experience.

    Only what refers to our personal experience is meaningful.

    causes predicate the events


    There you go. Models of reality predicate sensory information.

    Humans make "best guesses" and estimates as to why and how existence operates. But that only proves my case further.


    That only proves you're a retard. Every scientist will agree that intelligence only produces "educated guesses".

    Intelligence is not a supernatural ability that allows us to travel to the future in order to sense what's going to happen.

    You are doomed to walk around in a small circle, within the Great Maze. You are too cowardly to venture into new sections, new understandings, and anything unfamiliar. Modern humans are babied, infantile, and served with silver spoons, very unwilling to acknowledge foreign perspectives even. Thus people cannot listen to each other, and cannot philosophize together.


    You just described yourself and you did so perfectly.
    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: 3550
    Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:27 pm

    Magnus Anderson wrote:Thinking on your own isn't something to be proud of if what you think on your own is stupid. I hope you understand this.

    Sounds to me like you fear thinking on your own, which means you cling to others (Bertrand Russel) to do it for you.


    Magnus Anderson wrote:Causation isn't the same as correlation. If there is something intelligence relies on, it is correlation and not causation.

    The ability to predict requires that there is a correlation, and not necessarily causation, between variables. That they are statistically dependent. And even this might be too strict of an understanding of what intelligence requires in order to operate. I am not sure. What I am sure of is that it does not require causality.

    You should Google what causality means. Then, you should Google what other people have said on the subject long before you were even born (e.g. Bertrand Russell in his "On the Notion of Cause" which you can read online for free.)

    You are simply not right.

    You're missing the point and obviously have reading problems. I didn't claim that correlation is the same as causation, or even similar. That's you, saying it.

    Causality means that there are functions, forces, operations, and interaction in existence that humans attempt to make sense of, and find patterns in. The causation part is objective. The correlation part is subjective. It is usually the case that smarter and most intelligent humans can make sense of, and see patterns within, events and interactions that average humans cannot. That is "science" and scientists, above average intelligence.

    That you don't understand the basics of Causality, is your own problem. You should listen and read carefully instead of jumping to conclusions like a petulant child.


    Magnus Anderson wrote:You need to stop with your posturing and listen carefully to what is being said. And what is being is said is that just because you actively explore reality (i.e. venture into "the great unknown") does not mean you will find what you want to find (i.e. order.) Whoever thinks so -- and clearly, you think so -- is a blind optimist. Not something to be proud of.

    The point is that some patterns and phenomena are essentially universal. They are the same everywhere. Some axioms hold true in every circumstance. And when that is the case, people depend upon them, and refer to these as "Natural Laws" or "Nature" or people even inversely call them "Divinity" or gods. What they represent are that humans, any other life form, can navigate essential patterns in every environment. Gravity, for example, exists everywhere. There are no exceptions, even in dead space far away from massive planets and objects. Because all mass produces force. And the more of a vacuum there is, in dead space, the more that a minuscule mass will produce a force from further distances.

    This is something that, as a Solipsist, you will deny or "trust science" with. You reject objectivity and "outside human experience". To me, it's not "optimism", it is rather extension of scientific premises, and firmly grasping that "Natural Law". In fact the greatest thinkers, intellects, and philosophers can go much, much further, and produce greater theories. Because a greater understanding of Natural Law (Nature) will produce greater results and manipulation. Geniuses discover "new" patterns (latent) on a microscopic level, for example, and they may or may not coincide with previous theories.

    Science is a progression of theories, some are revised, some are thrown out entirely. But "Natural Law" is predicated on Causality. Because causality is how every human attempts to make sense of life and existence. You can call "correlation" if you are so inclined to your solipsistic compulsion, but that doesn't change the topic. You're essentially confusing the two concepts. I already mentioned this in the division between "external" or "internal" causes. You, being a solipsist, either have a very difficult time separate external from internal causes, or, you're simply incapable of doing so. Perhaps you lack the degree of intelligence or mindset required, to differentiate causes in such a way.

    Perhaps, to you, all "causes" are internal, representing your solipsistic malady and mental illness.


    Magnus Anderson wrote:I am pretty sure that you are utterly incapable of explaining what you mean by "outside world" and "reality". To you, these are entirely mystical terms.

    You're projecting. I'm breaking all the topics and concepts down, for you.


    Magnus Anderson wrote:You have an unrealistic understanding of how intelligence works. You think that it is something that it is not. Something rather idealistic. And whenever someone honest comes along and makes a claim that intelligence is something less than what you think it is, you have no choice but to accuse them of inferiority in the form of subjectivism, solipsism, idealism and so on.

    It is actually YOU who are denying reality because you are placing your models of reality, which are supposed to be a dependent variable, in front of sensory experience, which is supposed to be an independent variable. For example, you think that the universe is ordered NO MATTER WHAT. In other words, that it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be chaotic. Not because that's what evidence suggests but because you want it to be that way.

    That's not what I think. So you're projecting. You're obviously wrong.

    The universe, Existence, is neither ordered or chaotic, until cognition and intelligence, a living organism becomes conscious, and begins to make sense out of things. So order and chaos is relative to the living organism and its cognitive ability. A stupider and simpler cognition, existence will seem very chaotic and unpredictable. Imagine the life of insects, birds, unintelligent animals. Life will appear very complex, incomprehensible to them, whereas a smarter animal, or a human, can make sense of things that they cannot. Hence intelligence is a severe and exponential survival advantage. Order and chaos are relative to intellectual ability, relative to intelligence.

    Higher intelligence is obviously indicative of "Higher Order". Thus humans not only adapt to environments (external order), but go further and manipulate environments according to personal preferences and comfort (internal order).


    Magnus Anderson wrote:So please, don't give me your ten cent lectures on the effects of sheltering when it is pretty clear that it is YOU who suffers from sheltering. You are so used to the universe being one way (i.e. ordered) that you cannot so much as imagine what it is like for the universe to be another way (i.e. chaotic.)

    You think that the universe is MADE for intelligence. You think that the universe CARES about intelligence. You think that it is so preocuppied with intelligence that it makes sure that every event has a cause.

    No... you are the one implying that "Uncaused events" can exist. That is mysticism.


    Magnus Anderson wrote:We have nothing but senses to inform our actions. They are the ground upon which models of reality are constructed. To think otherwise, to think that models of reality are more fundamental than the senses, or that something else, such as "intuition" or "sixth sense", is more fundamental, is the definition of subjectivism (or solipsism, as you prefer to call it.) And that's exactly what you're doing.

    It is ENTIRELY MEANINGLESS to speak of anything beyond, anything that transcends, our experience. That is not solipsism. That is realism.

    The word "empiricism" comes from the Greek "empiria" which means nothing other than experience.

    You're clueless.

    Senses must be processed. What do you think synthesizes sensory information and data, except intelligence, and reason?

    It is the reasoning ability, the core cognitive function, that makes sensory information and experience "meaningful". You're missing the core mechanic. You've overlooked the essence of empiricism.

    I'll help you further though. What happens after sensory information is synthesized and reasoned by any and every organism that evolved a cognition and nervous system? They become memorized, memories. Memorization comes after direct experience. Rationalization is a further evolved product of intelligence. Memories are compared, over time, and increasingly with new synthesis and experience. Hence reasonability and intelligence is even more critical after experience expands to include memories, of the past. But it's always the core mechanic. Synthesis is always required. That's how any organism "makes sense" of things, finds direction in life, navigates environments, walks around, chews and eats food, etc.


    Magnus Anderson wrote:There you go. You believe in meaningless concepts.

    What's meaningless is "uncaused causes" which you've already admitted to.


    Magnus Anderson wrote:The universe does not begin.
    The universe does not end.
    This is not because the universe is infinite.
    Because nothing is.
    This is because the universe is a meaningless concept.
    It is meaningless because it does not refer to anything specific.

    The word "universe" is often described as the sum of everything that was, everything that is and everything that will be. But only what was, and even then, only what is known to us, can be said to be meaningful. Everything else is meaningless.

    The universe is a meaningless concept because it transcends personal experience.

    Only what refers to our personal experience is meaningful.

    You're contradicting yourself.

    If the universe has no beginning, no end, and is timeless, then it is infinite by definition, and therefore you agree with me. Lol.


    Magnus Anderson wrote:That only proves you're a retard. Every scientist will agree that intelligence only produces "educated guesses".

    Intelligence is not a supernatural ability that allows us to travel to the future in order to sense what's going to happen.

    We've already mentioned what "the future" is, a set of predictions and projections, based upon intelligence and rationality, based on order.


    Magnus Anderson wrote:You just described yourself and you did so perfectly.

    You're wrong.

    I've been outside the maze. And when you have no constraints, there is little left to do, except to build a new maze.
    Urwrongx1000
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 512
    Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:26 pm

    Urwrongx1000 wrote:You're contradicting yourself.

    If the universe has no beginning, no end, and is timeless, then it is infinite by definition, and therefore you agree with me. Lol.


    I don't think you're capable of differentiating between real contradictions and apparent contradictions.

    I am contradicting myself, that is true, but I am doing so merely because I am using words without sufficient care.

    In order to say that something has a beginning or that something has an end that something must be well defined, and also, that something must be something to which these words can be applied. The concept of universe is not well defined -- it is meaningless -- so it makes no sense to affirm or deny that it has a beginning or that it has an end.

    What does the word universe refer to? Can you point with your finger at something and say "this is universe!" and then point with your finger at something else and say "this is not universe!" You can't, right? It refers to nothing specific.

    It's the same problem with the concept of infinity. Can you give me an example of an infinite number of things? You can't, right?

    Whenever these words are used you can be sure, because that's all they indicate, that the speaker has trouble expressing himself in a precise manner.

    What's meaningless is "uncaused causes" which you've already admitted to.


    I was speaking of "uncaused events" and not "uncaused causes". The concept of "uncaused event" is pretty clear. It refers to any event for which we cannot identify a cause.

    No... you are the one implying that "Uncaused events" can exist. That is mysticism.


    You can declare anything to be mysticism . . . just because you say so.
    You don't understand something because you're a retard? Well, it's mysticism, bro.
    Needless to say, there is absolutely nothing mystical about events for which we see no cause. Maybe you should look into Quantum Mechanics, I don't know. I don't think it's necessary. But when you're too stupid, there is no other alternative.

    Sounds to me like you fear thinking on your own, which means you cling to others (Bertrand Russel) to do it for you.


    That's what you want to believe.
    Because it gives you comfort.

    The reason I am mentioning him is because I am an anonymous.
    It's very difficult to trust what I am saying if what I am saying is something that is unpopular.
    It's easier to simply point at someone famous and say "look, this guy thinks exactly the same as I do".
    That's the only way I can get some support.
    And when someone is stupid and needs a lot of convincing, then it is a must.

    Causality means that there are functions, forces, operations, and interaction in existence that humans attempt to make sense of, and find patterns in. The causation part is objective. The correlation part is subjective. It is usually the case that smarter and most intelligent humans can make sense of, and see patterns within, events and interactions that average humans cannot. That is "science" and scientists, above average intelligence.


    You can think whatever you want to think. If you want to think that correlation is "subjective" and that causation is "objective" and that there are causes everywhere even when you don't see them who am I to ruin your fun? Believe anything you want, I don't care. But I will have no choice but to expose the subjectivism that underlies your thoughts. There is no avoiding you will get upset. Because you think yourself objective and smart and great and whatever. But I have to do it.

    Again, that's not a given. Nothing is a given. Everything is conditioned by sensory information. Because sensory information is fundamental. If there are causes, then there are causes. If there are no causes, then there are no causes. The universe isn't obligated to have a specific form. The universe does not have to be ALL CAUSES or ALL NO CAUSES. It can be anything it wants to be. Don't tell the universe what to be.

    You expose your degeneration over and over again all the while maintaining this pretense of being above it.

    That you don't understand the basics of Causality, is your own problem. You should listen and read carefully instead of jumping to conclusions like a petulant child.


    That's what you're doing. You're a bit full of yourself. And there is plenty of evidence for it. You're obsessed with being the next great thing, aren't you?

    The point is that some patterns and phenomena are essentially universal. They are the same everywhere. Some axioms hold true in every circumstance.


    So you're an absolutist. You think there is such a thing as "absolute truth". I am very glad you admitted this.

    You reject objectivity and "outside human experience".


    You are right.
    Because you say so.

    The universe, Existence, is neither ordered or chaotic, until cognition and intelligence, a living organism becomes conscious, and begins to make sense out of things. So order and chaos is relative to the living organism and its cognitive ability. A stupider and simpler cognition, existence will seem very chaotic and unpredictable. Imagine the life of insects, birds, unintelligent animals. Life will appear very complex, incomprehensible to them, whereas a smarter animal, or a human, can make sense of things that they cannot. Hence intelligence is a severe and exponential survival advantage. Order and chaos are relative to intellectual ability, relative to intelligence.


    Whatever you say.
    I am sure you are right . . . in your mind.

    I will only say this . . . because I have to, not because I am right.
    So hear me out . . .

    Blind people do not see things that people with vision do.
    For example, blind people do not see sky.
    But we know sky exists, right?
    So it follows that whenever you say something does not exist, it merely means you are blind.
    You think there is no God?
    Well, that's because you are blind.

    More or less, that's your way of thinking.
    Which, as anyone sane can see, is ridiculous.

    Randomness does not mean ignorance, you idiot.
    Randomness means absence of patterns (i.e. repetitions) in information.
    Noone defines randomness the way you do -- apart from you.
    Ignorance is merely absence of information.
    You can be extremely informed and still see no patterns.

    It's like saying that negation is ignorance.
    We deny the existence of things (e.g. the existence of God) merely because we are ignorant.

    It's stupid beyond belief.
    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: 3550
    Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:28 am

    Urwrongx1000 wrote:The universe, Existence, is neither ordered or chaotic, until cognition and intelligence, a living organism becomes conscious, and begins to make sense out of things. So order and chaos is relative to the living organism and its cognitive ability. A stupider and simpler cognition, existence will seem very chaotic and unpredictable. Imagine the life of insects, birds, unintelligent animals. Life will appear very complex, incomprehensible to them, whereas a smarter animal, or a human, can make sense of things that they cannot. Hence intelligence is a severe and exponential survival advantage. Order and chaos are relative to intellectual ability, relative to intelligence.


    You are wrong.
    It's in your name.

    Randomness is the degree to which information can be compressed. Basically, it refers to incompressibility or irreducibility of information. No amount of intelligence can help you compress information that cannot be compressed. The only way out of such a situation is to believe that you are missing some information.

    You think that all randomness is merely apparent i.e. that all randomness is merely due to lack of intelligence (the ability to recognize patterns in information) or due to lack of information (that would reveal patterns.)

    I don't deny that there is such a thing as apparent randomness. What I deny is this delusion that all randomness is merely apparent.

    It's fairly easy to demonstrate that there are incompressible strings. Which would mean that not every randomness is due to lack of intelligence.

    Consider the following numeric sequence:
    0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101

    It's very easy to see that this sequence can be compressed to something like "32 repetitions of '01'".

    Now take a look at the following sequence:
    1100100001100001110111101110110011111010010000100101011110010110

    How would you compress it?
    There appears to be no way.

    Let's say you want to predict the next number in the sequence.
    In the first case, that would clearly be 0.
    But in the second case, that would be . . . exactly what?
    Now, tell me, is that because you are stupid?
    Or because the numeric sequence lacks order?

    Consider that there are exactly 2^n bit strings of length n. In order to compress any of these strings, and to do so without any loss of information, you must find a shorter bit string that fully represents the original. This means that the length of the string must be less than n. The number of bit strings that can compress strings of length n is exactly 2^0 + 2^1 + 2^2 + ... + 2^(n-1) = 2^n - 1. This means that the number of bit strings that can compress bit strings of length n is lower than the number of bit strings of length n. In other words, not every bit string can be compressed. At least one must be incompressible.

    This proves that incompressible strings exist. That incompressible strings exist means that not every randomness is due to lack of intelligence. This means that you cannot use the "lack of intelligence" excuse for every random string of information. Instead, sometimes, you must rely on the "lack of information" excuse. This excuse, however, runs into the problem of induction. How much effort do we have to expend exploring reality before we can make a judgment call as to whether the relevant aspect of reality is random or non-random?

    Basically, you have absolutely no clue what randomness is.
    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: 3550
    Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:40 am

    Magnus Anderson wrote:I don't think you're capable of differentiating between real contradictions and apparent contradictions.

    I am contradicting myself, that is true, but I am doing so merely because I am using words without sufficient care.

    In order to say that something has a beginning or that something has an end that something must be well defined, and also, that something must be something to which these words can be applied. The concept of universe is not well defined -- it is meaningless -- so it makes no sense to affirm or deny that it has a beginning or that it has an end.

    What does the word universe refer to? Can you point with your finger at something and say "this is universe!" and then point with your finger at something else and say "this is not universe!" You can't, right? It refers to nothing specific.

    Universe means Everything. So yes you can point to anything and everything and say "this is universe". The ideal that there is something "outside, before, after" the universe, is what physicists and scientists conjecture about, hence the "Big Bang Theory" which is a postulation of "the beginning" of the universe.

    You should know this by now. This is elementary quality, common sense, knowledge. That you don't know this, or are feigning ignorance, will make me and everybody else lose what little respect there can be, for your intellect. I can only hope at this point that you're playing the fool. Or you are a fool. Either way these lessons on causality are a bargain for you.


    Magnus Anderson wrote:It's the same problem with the concept of infinity. Can you give me an example of an infinite number of things? You can't, right?

    Whenever these words are used you can be sure, because that's all they indicate, that the speaker has trouble expressing himself in a precise manner.

    Infinity is a process of change, hence it is always demonstrated. A person can keep counting and counting, hypothetically forever. Or a computer could. Chaos theory depends on the concept of infinity, as does change. Change is eternal, "Flux", the fundamental condition of existence. Everything is always changing. Hence humans evolved intelligence, as do other organisms, to anticipate, find direction, and predict the universe and particular environments.


    Magnus Anderson wrote:I was speaking of "uncaused events" and not "uncaused causes". The concept of "uncaused event" is pretty clear. It refers to any event for which we cannot identify a cause.

    That's your problem here. You can't understand the observation that just because doesn't identify the cause to an event, doesn't mean the event has no cause.

    That's also why you are solipsistic. Just because you don't understand something, or I don't understand something, doesn't make it uncaused, or impossible. That's foolish. It's ignorance. And you are admitting to your ignorance casually. To claim that events "have no cause" is absurd, which is to say, you're ignoring whatever causes that led to the event anyway. Some people do, correctly and accurately, identify the causes to events and processes. You ought to admit this, with your reliance on science and Bertrand Russel. He would agree with me. Logic means that some minds and brains, are suited to some tasks and environments, and thus can identify causes within certain sets of problems, or even language, that other brains and minds would not associate. Because the 'logic' of one person is not the same as others, although people can reach the same conclusions, and agree upon certain premises.

    Logic is a series of conditions, when granted truth, people can follow one cause to the next, to the next, to the next, and understand why and how any particular event occurs.

    In science, this is most obvious with Chemistry and chemical reactions, physical processes which have clear and immediate evidence, results, when inoculated with other elements.


    Magnus Anderson wrote:You can declare anything to be mysticism . . . just because you say so.
    You don't understand something because you're a retard? Well, it's mysticism, bro.
    Needless to say, there is absolutely nothing mystical about events for which we see no cause. Maybe you should look into Quantum Mechanics, I don't know. I don't think it's necessary. But when you're too stupid, there is no other alternative.

    If you cannot defend your assertion about "uncaused events", then it is mysticism, the same as 'god' or divinity.

    Go ahead and explain yourself. You already did. "I don't know the cause of this or that event, therefore, it has no cause." That is retarded. You seem to be an irrational person.


    Magnus Anderson wrote:That's what you want to believe.
    Because it gives you comfort.

    I don't cling to dead, nor living, authorities. Philosophy is about becoming your own authority, concerning the essential qualities of life and existence.

    It's about speaking for yourself. If you need dead philosophers to argue on your behalf then that's your problem.


    Magnus Anderson wrote:The reason I am mentioning him is because I am an anonymous.
    It's very difficult to trust what I am saying if what I am saying is something that is unpopular.
    It's easier to simply point at someone famous and say "look, this guy thinks exactly the same as I do".
    That's the only way I can get some support.
    And when someone is stupid and needs a lot of convincing, then it is a must.

    I probably know more about what Bertrand Russel wrote, and meant, than you do. So it's a moot point. His critical points were/are about how logic is tied up to language mechanics and how people communicate limits what they can relay about logic and rationality.


    Magnus Anderson wrote:You can think whatever you want to think. If you want to think that correlation is "subjective" and that causation is "objective" and that there are causes everywhere even when you don't see them who am I to ruin your fun? Believe anything you want, I don't care. But I will have no choice but to expose the subjectivism that underlies your thoughts. There is no avoiding you will get upset. Because you think yourself objective and smart and great and whatever. But I have to do it.

    Again, that's not a given. Nothing is a given. Everything is conditioned by sensory information. Because sensory information is fundamental. If there are causes, then there are causes. If there are no causes, then there are no causes. The universe isn't obligated to have a specific form. The universe does not have to be ALL CAUSES or ALL NO CAUSES. It can be anything it wants to be. Don't tell the universe what to be.

    What a cop-out. You obviously have limits when attempting to understand things, and this topic particularly. If nothing else then you should learn about limits to knowledge, Epistemology. You are the subjectivist to imply, repeatedly, that "because we don't know something" then it must not exist.


    Magnus Anderson wrote:Blind people do not see things that people with vision do.
    For example, blind people do not see sky.
    But we know sky exists, right?
    So it follows that whenever you say something does not exist, it merely means you are blind.
    You think there is no God?
    Well, that's because you are blind.

    More or less, that's your way of thinking.
    Which, as anyone sane can see, is ridiculous.

    That's not my argument. See how you cleverly insert "God" into the analogy??? That's not my doing; it's your doing. What I am saying is that human knowledge, wisdom, experience, any given perspective, an individual, has limits. People have blind-spots in vision. Just because you don't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's you position, Solipsism. What I'm saying, about the unseen and unknown, is that it must follow the rules and natural law to which humanity has axioms, insofar as those axioms have held true historically, and they have. For example, you cannot produce counter-evidence as to the theory of gravity, relativity, or the physical explanations of mass, matter, conservation of energy, and the like. And because you cannot counter-argue them, and show no significant nor deep knowledge of them currently, you don't know shit. You obviously argue from a position of ignorance.

    Newton's Laws still reign supreme. You cannot demonstrate or really even imagine any circumstance that mass or energy is created or destroyed. Thus the axioms are given, and beyond common doubt. People trust them. You trust them, without even knowing or realizing it. And the fact of the matter is the physical theories are dependent upon "the objective" world, and how the human mind attempts to rationalize, and apply logic to, existence. It's not a matter of subjectivity. It's not "dependent upon my experience" or "your experience".

    You are an obvious novice in philosophy when you admit ignorance about scientific essentials. Science and philosophy have already covered the matter of sensation and experience. Berkeley, for example, studied the human cognitive and perceptual blind spots in depth. It's very obvious to those who are educated, then, that what one person cannot sense does not coincide with another, necessarily. Hence this is why the philosophy of "Perspectivism" and scientific "Relativity" emerged.

    You have a long, long way to go, before talking about concepts that you barely know an ounce about.
    Urwrongx1000
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 512
    Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:42 am

    Magnus Anderson wrote:
    Urwrongx1000 wrote:The universe, Existence, is neither ordered or chaotic, until cognition and intelligence, a living organism becomes conscious, and begins to make sense out of things. So order and chaos is relative to the living organism and its cognitive ability. A stupider and simpler cognition, existence will seem very chaotic and unpredictable. Imagine the life of insects, birds, unintelligent animals. Life will appear very complex, incomprehensible to them, whereas a smarter animal, or a human, can make sense of things that they cannot. Hence intelligence is a severe and exponential survival advantage. Order and chaos are relative to intellectual ability, relative to intelligence.


    You are wrong.
    It's in your name.

    Randomness is the degree to which information can be compressed. Basically, it refers to incompressibility or irreducibility of information. No amount of intelligence can help you compress information that cannot be compressed. The only way out of such a situation is to believe that you are missing some information.

    You think that all randomness is merely apparent i.e. that all randomness is merely due to lack of intelligence (the ability to recognize patterns in information) or due to lack of information (that would reveal patterns.)

    I don't deny that there is such a thing as apparent randomness. What I deny is this delusion that all randomness is merely apparent.

    It's fairly easy to demonstrate that there are incompressible strings. Which would mean that not every randomness is due to lack of intelligence.

    Consider the following numeric sequence:
    0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101

    It's very easy to see that this sequence can be compressed to something like "32 repetitions of '01'".

    Now take a look at the following sequence:
    1100100001100001110111101110110011111010010000100101011110010110

    How would you compress it?
    There appears to be no way.

    Let's say you want to predict the next number in the sequence.
    In the first case, that would clearly be 0.
    But in the second case, that would be . . . exactly what?
    Now, tell me, is that because you are stupid?
    Or because the numeric sequence lacks order?

    Consider that there are exactly 2^n bit strings of length n. In order to compress any of these strings, and to do so without any loss of information, you must find a shorter bit string that fully represents the original. This means that the length of the string must be less than n. The number of bit strings that can compress strings of length n is exactly 2^0 + 2^1 + 2^2 + ... + 2^(n-1) = 2^n - 1. This means that the number of bit strings that can compress bit strings of length n is lower than the number of bit strings of length n. In other words, not every bit string can be compressed. At least one must be incompressible.

    This proves that incompressible strings exist. That incompressible strings exist means that not every randomness is due to lack of intelligence. This means that you cannot use the "lack of intelligence" excuse for every random string of information. Instead, sometimes, you must rely on the "lack of information" excuse. This excuse, however, runs into the problem of induction. How much effort do we have to expend exploring reality before we can make a judgment call as to whether the relevant aspect of reality is random or non-random?

    Basically, you have absolutely no clue what randomness is.

    You're wrong.

    Computers can calculate what humans cannot. That still doesn't mean that what a human incorrectly guesses is "impossibly random" is actually so.

    Perhaps 'Pi' is a truly random and chaotic number, but that's about it. Almost everything else, a computer can calculate.
    Urwrongx1000
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 512
    Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

    PreviousNext

    Return to Philosophy



    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]