Lessons on Causality

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Aug 26, 2017 7:19 pm

I plan to make this my last ILP thread:

This thread will be about Causality, why and how it operates as a cognitive process.

Evolved organisms, gaining consciousness, senses, and intellect, begin to navigate existence with self-serving interests, to survive. Within the cognitive processes and functions, is one function in particular with the purpose to learn and 'Understand' about everything. This is when and where the ideal of Causality originates. Causality is Teleological meaning, that it necessarily and logically precludes the notion of "beginnings" and "ends". A cause begins here, and ends there. Thus "to know" something, is to understand the causes that initiated, forced, and concluded any event.

Causation requires imagination. You need to imagine 'how' causes and events take place. You need to presuppose beginnings to casual-chains, the sequences of causes and affects that flow outward from the presupposed 'source' or 'origin' of those subsequent causes. In other words, a person decides to do this, or chooses to do that, and from the actions of one person, a tidal wave of events can flow outward and affect everybody else.

Recently, the US democracy chose to elect President Trump, or before him, President Obama. And so, from these choices and decisions, subsequent events transpired, and such defines the course of humanity and history.


Philosophical minds are rather obsessed and focused on 'Causality' because it is one of, if not the most, important topics and matters of contention. Causality is a core tenet, or the core, of all Sciences. Thus to know the cause of something, an event, leads to the ability to manipulate such events. If you know how to change isotopes, chemicals, and other processes, then you can use such knowledge to great profit or advantage. Thus it is within the interest of every organism, every mammal, every human, to have firm understanding and knowledge of Causation, to know the general causes of things.

People think they do, but, are often flawed. Because the human mind is flawed, and intellect limited. What people know of existence and reality, the causes, are often mistaken. You thought that A caused B. But actually it was X that caused B. And because you have been wrong about your presuppositions for so long, it out to be an embarrassment and shameful. People disdain each other's general ignorance and flawed premises. Yet everybody has them, somewhere. Philosophy is a craft that highly values true premises, and so, seeks to lay the strongest and firmest premises for subsequent logic and rationalization, for reasoning. When common people are so commonly wrong about everything, and misattribute causation, then they cannot be trusted.

Because common people cannot be trusted with advanced, complicated, or sophisticated Causation, then intellectual authorities become necessary such that people place their trust in them, when it comes to matters of great importance. So too is it with Causation, or general human history. If somebody cannot correctly and accurately attribute the causes of nature, or politics, then they're eventually going to be wrong, and make mistakes, of great importance, that can even cost people, or entire societies, their lives.


So how does anybody go about "understanding" Causation? What does it mean that A causes B or X causes Y? Are causes even real? Or what are they, except reality? To know the "true" causes of things, is that not reality? Philosophers have taken these questions, and the topic of Causality, very serious for centuries. It is a keystone of philosophy. Because, again, if you can correctly and accurately attribute the causes of things, and return the path back to the original or ultimate "source of things", then you can most fully understand any natural process, or even any artificial (human) process, such as politics. If you understand pathology, psychology, and sociology, then you can begin to understand the causes between people. People have needs, which drive them and their motivations, which cause behaviors.

This ought to be a good enough stepping-stone for conversation and further thought.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Sat Aug 26, 2017 7:52 pm

Can you logically prove that an uncaused event is absolutely impossible?

I think that I can, but....?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

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

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

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

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25609
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Aug 26, 2017 8:53 pm

Yes because everything based on 'logic' is also based on Causality. Thus if something were, hypothetically, "uncaused" then it would necessarily be called illogical. In other words, it is the causation and events, unpredictable and seemingly chaotic, without pattern, that humans and intelligence attempts to make sense of, and form an understanding about.

Causality is the essence of existence, which means to say, all things exist and necessarily so, by the way in which they're caused, or change in correspondence with other changes and interaction with other objects.

Rather it is the limitation of intellect, consciousness, and evolved cognitive processes that fails to anticipate or predict ranges of causation and events. Humans only remember so much, about the past. Humans only see so much, of the present. And humans can only predict, to a small range of certainty, events of the future. All human intellect is limited, and because it is so, will always fail to anticipate or merely remember causes, which can already have transpired.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Aug 26, 2017 10:08 pm

Intelligence does not require causality. Nor do sciences. Bertrand Russell published a paper titled "On the Notion of Cause" over one century ago in which he explained this in great detail. Many scientific fields have no notion of cause. Instead, they speak merely in terms of formulas. A simple, non-scientific, case where intelligence is used without any notion of cause is our prediction that the sun will rise every morning in the future. We know this simply because of our past experience: every morning in our past that we are aware of coincided with sunrise. No notion of cause whatsoever. Unless you think that the night causes the day.
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: 3551
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby surreptitious57 » Sat Aug 26, 2017 10:35 pm

Urwron wrote:
something were hypothetically uncaused then it would necessarily be called illogical

That would mean everything that has happened had a cause which would rule out a past infinite Universe
But that logic is not currently supported by science because at this point in time it simply does not know
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby surreptitious57 » Sat Aug 26, 2017 10:52 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
A simple non scientific case where intelligence is used without any notion of cause is our prediction that the sun will rise every morning in the
future. We know this simply because of our past experience every morning in our past that we are aware of coincided with sun rise. No notion
of cause whatsoever. Unless you think that the night causes the day

By that bizarre logic then the Sun will carry on rising for ever just because it always has or for at least as long as we have existed
Good job that we do not have to rely on assumption to understand the natural world because it is not as reliable as you think it is
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:03 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Yes because everything based on 'logic' is also based on Causality. Thus if something were, hypothetically, "uncaused" then it would necessarily be called illogical. In other words, it is the causation and events, unpredictable and seemingly chaotic, without pattern, that humans and intelligence attempts to make sense of, and form an understanding about.

Well, you can't really say that. Logic is merely the consistency of language. It has nothing to do with physical reality, other than how we use the language. My question is whether you can use a perfectly consistent language (aka "logic") to show that uncaused events are necessarily and absolutely impossible.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Causality is the essence of existence, which means to say, all things exist and necessarily so, by the way in which they're caused, or change in correspondence with other changes and interaction with other objects.

I agree that such is true. But the question is whether one can prove that it must absolutely (beyond any possible logical doubt) be true to reality.

The Quantum Mystics claim that down on the ultra small scale, where no one can perceive what is happening, there are events that have no cause at all. They can only claim that because Science cannot prove them wrong. But I believe that a good philosopher can prove them wrong.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

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

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

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

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25609
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:21 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Intelligence does not require causality. Nor do sciences.

So you're saying humanity, brains, people, just pop into existence magically? People don't have sex? Evolution is not a process over time?

You're wrong. You have a cause (your parents had sex). Sciences have a cause. Everything has cause. Again, just because you don't have the reasoning ability to understand causes, doesn't mean they don't exist. It's fairly obvious to most people, common sense really, that having sex produces people, hence is very much the reason and cause behind the re-production of intelligence.

You must believe that things pop into and out of existence magically...
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:25 pm

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.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:51 pm

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.

But I guess all of this answered my question.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

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

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

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

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25609
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:57 pm

We need to make some distinctions between subjective causes and objective causes. Objective causes are "the real world" and existence, what occurs despite human wishes and intervention. Objective causation is "Nature" or "God". So any human attempting to learn or understand "the world" is an attempt to recognize objective causation.

People confuse that with subjective causation. In other words, the ability to learn and known causes, to attribute them to real-world events and occurrences, is flawed. People can be very wrong about causes. You thought something was one way, based on some information. Turns out you were wrong, with additional information, you learned that it was another way entirely. So the logical process of attributing causes, is subjective. Also, another aspect of subjective causation, is the way in which people attempt to "take responsibility" for actions, that they may or may not be in fact (objectively) responsible for. For example, people can take responsibility for the actions of another. A parent can take responsibility for a child. A military officer can take responsibility for a soldier. A king can take responsibility for a peasant. A state can take responsibility for a citizen.

Etc.

Think bigger.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby James S Saint » Sun Aug 27, 2017 1:53 am

I would distinguish those as "actual" vs "theoretical".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

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

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

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

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25609
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Aug 27, 2017 4:08 am

Urwrong wrote:So you're saying humanity, brains, people, just pop into existence magically? People don't have sex? Evolution is not a process over time?


Perhaps you need to start with the understanding of what intelligence is. The purpose of intelligence is quite simply to choose the best guess regarding some future observation. That's what it is (even when it concerns itself with the question of what was in the past, because the reason we ask what was in the past is in order to form a better idea regarding what will happen in the future so that we can prepare ourselves in advance.) The purpose of intelligence isn't a vague "in order to understand how the universe operates". The universe DOES NOT operate. To say that the universe OPERATES is to impose a strict form on sensory information. It is to say that sensory information can only take CERTAIN form and that to take any other form is IMPOSSIBLE. In other words, it is to FILTER THROUGH sensory information. It is to make reality boring, repetitive, formulaic . . . which is why every creative person despises determinism. There is much more variety to reality than simple causal chain of events. In other words, sensory information can take any form whatsoever. That sensory information presents itself in a single form consistently through time does not mean that it will present itself like that for all eternity.

So yes, the purpose of intelligence is to predict, not to discover how "the universe" operates. It builds formulas or models which are basically generators of predictions. And it builds them, if it truly is intelligence, by generalizing from sensory information. Formula, in fact, is nothing but a compressed form of sensory information. And different sensory information compresses differently i.e. different formulas/models for different sensory information. Some formulas/models involve the strict concept of causality, some don't. And these formulas/models, I have to repeat, once again, do not describe how the universe works. The universe DOES NOT operate according to the rules of our formulas/models. Formulas/models merely describe the compressed version of our individual (personal) sensory information (that is if they are grounded in sensory information and not merely in our imagination.)

In short, the universe does not operate according to a set of rules (a Divine Plan of some sort.) The universe does not determine events. There is no mechanism that calculates what event will follow what other event. Rather, it is our brains that determine our guesses regarding what's going to take place in the future.

You're wrong. You have a cause (your parents had sex). Sciences have a cause. Everything has cause. Again, just because you don't have the reasoning ability to understand causes, doesn't mean they don't exist. It's fairly obvious to most people, common sense really, that having sex produces people, hence is very much the reason and cause behind the re-production of intelligence.


I didn't say there aren't causal relations (or at the very least correlations.) I said that just because some events have causes does not mean that all events have causes. I have also stated that many scientific fields do not think in terms of causes. The more advanced a scientific field, the less it concerns itself with the strict concept of causality.

You must believe that things pop into and out of existence magically...


I think that you're incapable of differentiating between formulas/models and sensory information.
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: 3551
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Lessons on Causality

Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 27, 2017 4:34 am

    Magnus Anderson

    Apologies in advance for cutting in . . . I read an article that mentioned correlation implies causation - QM related.

    Magnus Anderson wrote:I didn't say there aren't causal relations (or at the very least correlations.) I said that just because some events have causes does not mean that all events have causes.

    I am curious as to what events would not have causes.

    Magnus Anderson wrote:I have also stated that many scientific fields do not think in terms of causes. The more advanced a scientific field, the less it concerns itself with the strict concept of causality.

    The scientific fields that do not think in terms of causes, simply have no need for that - I would say because they are focusing on a smaller field of knowledge - id est more specialized. When you say more advanced, do you actually mean more focused? In other words - more specialized.

    I am in need of clarification of what you mean - I am not intending on a debate with you. I just find the way we express ourselves these days is a little loose and some of the intended meaning is lost on the receivers end. I hope that makes some sense.
    It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
    (Anomaly654 - 2017)

    But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
    - which is to say there is always meaning.

    (gib - 2017)

    Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
    (Myself - 2017)
    User avatar
    encode_decode
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 975
    Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
    Location: Metaspace

    Re: Lessons on Causality

    Postby Serendipper » Sun Aug 27, 2017 4:41 am

    Urwrongx1000 wrote:I plan to make this my last ILP thread:

    What is the cause for that? Don't do that. Stick around, even if we disagree, especially if we disagree. Echo chambers are boring.
    "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 encode_decode » Sun Aug 27, 2017 4:42 am

      Urwrongx1000

      Urwrongx1000 wrote:I plan to make this my last ILP thread

      Why make this your last thread?

      I just want to say that I do not understand where you are coming from on a lot of things but I would hate to see you go. Are you not going to be posting at all on ILP?

      I know you do things on you own terms and I have no problem with that - but you get people communicating, which I commend you for. I still remember a post you made in a thread of mine that I thought was quite well written. I don't care if you think you are better than me - I would hate to see you leave.

      Maybe I am reading things the wrong way - but if I am not then I am at least glad I have spoken up on this occasion.

      I have theories people would consider crazy - but I have no intention of leaving.
      It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
      (Anomaly654 - 2017)

      But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
      - which is to say there is always meaning.

      (gib - 2017)

      Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
      (Myself - 2017)
      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Thinker
       
      Posts: 975
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
      Location: Metaspace

      Re: Lessons on Causality

      Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 27, 2017 4:45 am

        Serendipper

        I am glad somebody else agrees . . .

        Serendipper wrote:
        Urwrongx1000 wrote:I plan to make this my last ILP thread:

        What is the cause for that? Don't do that. Stick around, even if we disagree, especially if we disagree. Echo chambers are boring.

        My thoughts exactly - thank you for speaking up Serendipper, as you say, echo chambers are boring.

        :D
        It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
        (Anomaly654 - 2017)

        But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
        - which is to say there is always meaning.

        (gib - 2017)

        Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
        (Myself - 2017)
        User avatar
        encode_decode
        Thinker
         
        Posts: 975
        Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
        Location: Metaspace

        Re: Lessons on Causality

        Postby Serendipper » Sun Aug 27, 2017 4:58 am

        encode_decode wrote:
          Serendipper

          I am glad somebody else agrees . . .

          Serendipper wrote:
          Urwrongx1000 wrote:I plan to make this my last ILP thread:

          What is the cause for that? Don't do that. Stick around, even if we disagree, especially if we disagree. Echo chambers are boring.

          My thoughts exactly - thank you for speaking up Serendipper, as you say, echo chambers are boring. :D

          Glad we agree :)

          I like your sensitivity:

          encode_decode wrote:Apologies in advance for cutting in . . .

          I am in need of clarification of what you mean - I am not intending on a debate with you. I just find the way we express ourselves these days is a little loose and some of the intended meaning is lost on the receivers end. I hope that makes some sense.

          That's good stuff! I'll have to copy you ;)
          "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 encode_decode » Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:14 am

            Serendipper

            Very kind of you . . .

            Serendipper wrote:That's good stuff! I'll have to copy you ;)

            Sure, what ever I post here is for everyone. Copy away . . . I particularly like what you said - especially if we disagree - to me if the person who is disagreeing is legitimate in their disagreement then there is cause for re-evaluation on the receivers end - if the receiver is still agreeing to his or her own premise or whatever then the premise or whatever can be strengthened in the receivers mind - causing stronger arguments.

            Urwrongx1000 has some ideas about pride that I disagree with, however I am still very interested to see where Urwrongx1000 is going to take these ideas regarding pride - the results might prove useful to me or anyone else and for different reasons.
            It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
            (Anomaly654 - 2017)

            But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
            - which is to say there is always meaning.

            (gib - 2017)

            Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
            (Myself - 2017)
            User avatar
            encode_decode
            Thinker
             
            Posts: 975
            Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
            Location: Metaspace

            Re: Lessons on Causality

            Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:15 am

            encode_decode wrote:I am curious as to what events would not have causes.


            What particular events don't have causes is irrelevant.
            What is relevant is that there are people who say that every event has a cause regardless of what our experience (i.e. what we normally call reality) says.
            Perhaps we do not see a cause of some event X but think that it is very probable that if we made an effort to explore reality using certain approach that we would find the cause of that event X within some period of time.
            I don't deny the validity of such a thought so as long the probability of successful discovery is grounded in our experience.
            This is, however, different from people who say that every event has a cause no matter what our experience says.
            It is different because it is an empirical generalization i.e. it is dependent on experience.
            Whereas what these people express is a claim that is based on their personal preference i.e. it is independent from experience.
            There is a cause behind every event not because reality suggests so but because we like it that way.

            Again, sensory information can take any form.
            You can search for causes for hundreds of years -- say if you're very long lived -- and still find no causes.
            There must be a point at which you have to stop and say "okay, enough, there simply aren't any causes here".
            This isn't an absolute claim. Just a claim based on personal experience.
            It might turn out that you are wrong.
            But you can be wrong about anything.
            You can even be wrong about being wrong about thinking that the event has no cause.

            When I say "there is no God" I am not making an absolute claim.
            It is not an unconditional claim i.e. a claim that is independent from experience.
            Someone or something might prove me wrong in the future.
            It's a claim that is dependent on evidence.
            Today I have no evidence that God exists so I have no choice but to conclude that God does not exist.
            But tomorrow I may have evidence that God exists and then I will have no choice but to conclude that God does exist.

            They say that the idea of "uncaused events" is illogical.
            This is non-sense.
            They don't think that non-existence of God (and anything else) is illogical but they think that non-existence of causes is illogical.
            Ridiculous.
            I don't know what else to say but ridiculous.
            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: 3551
            Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

            Re: Lessons on Causality

            Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:26 am

              Magnus Anderson

              Everything you said up to your last paragraph made perfect sense to me. Thank you for clearing things up.

              Magnus Anderson wrote:They say that the idea of "uncaused events" is illogical.
              This is non-sense.
              They don't think that non-existence of God is illogical but they think that non-existence of causes is illogical.
              Ridiculous.
              I don't know what else to say but ridiculuous.

              Hmm . . . perhaps you have a point here - I mean looking for a cause for each event is abstract in itself given that if cause is indeed ubiquitous then everything would be part of a causal chain. An infinite causal chain that had no initial cause - humans single out events for convenience to help them understand the event - the event is merely part of a "no event" if there was no initial cause. But then a "no event" would seem not to have taken place.

              I wonder if we are still ill equipped to deal with causality/non-causality - much like zero/infinity.
              It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
              (Anomaly654 - 2017)

              But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
              - which is to say there is always meaning.

              (gib - 2017)

              Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
              (Myself - 2017)
              User avatar
              encode_decode
              Thinker
               
              Posts: 975
              Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
              Location: Metaspace

              Re: Lessons on Causality

              Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:44 am

                Urwrongx1000

                A distinction between logic and physical reality can be made.

                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.

                I would say that the logic humans have invented/configured is a result of cognition, not a trait. I would agree with what you are saying if you said configuration of synaptic connections and patterns within the brain can lead to consistency of language contained within logic. One must first learn logic. This learnt logic is built into the neural patterns.

                So logic is physical. It is an aspect of your brain. Neuroscientists and brain surgeons know this much. << Yes, this is partially true - but you did not explain anything leading up to this point.

                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. << again true . . . I am staying out of this however >> 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.

                Is that really the presumption that James is making?
                It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
                (Anomaly654 - 2017)

                But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
                - which is to say there is always meaning.

                (gib - 2017)

                Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
                (Myself - 2017)
                User avatar
                encode_decode
                Thinker
                 
                Posts: 975
                Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
                Location: Metaspace

                Re: Lessons on Causality

                Postby Serendipper » Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:07 am

                encode_decode wrote:
                Serendipper wrote:That's good stuff! I'll have to copy you ;)

                Sure, what ever I post here is for everyone. Copy away . . . I particularly like what you said - especially if we disagree - to me if the person who is disagreeing is legitimate in their disagreement then there is cause for re-evaluation on the receivers end - if the receiver is still agreeing to his or her own premise or whatever then the premise or whatever can be strengthened in the receivers mind - causing stronger arguments.

                I meant I'll have to copy your demeanor and consideration for people. If we disagree on something, that is good because then we have something to talk about. The bad part about disagreeing is when people don't have respect and consideration for the other's point of view. I can imagine that displaying consideration is especially hard for most guys to do, not because they're inconsiderate, but showing emotions in any form other than anger is difficult. Anyway, it's good to have a role model around to teach us ;)
                "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 Serendipper » Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:21 am

                Magnus Anderson wrote:Today I have no evidence that God exists so I have no choice but to conclude that God does not exist.
                But tomorrow I may have evidence that God exists and then I will have no choice but to conclude that God does exist.

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

                They say that the idea of "uncaused events" is illogical.
                This is non-sense.

                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'.
                "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 4:42 pm

                Magnus Anderson wrote:Perhaps you need to start with the understanding of what intelligence is. The purpose of intelligence is quite simply to choose the best guess regarding some future observation.

                Prediction of "the future" is only one aspect 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?

                For you to be so locked into "the future" demonstrates that you don't have a complete understanding of intelligence.


                Magnus Anderson wrote:In short, the universe does not operate according to a set of rules (a Divine Plan of some sort.) The universe does not determine events. There is no mechanism that calculates what event will follow what other event. Rather, it is our brains that determine our guesses regarding what's going to take place in the future.

                There are Natural Laws, science, the premises of physics, discovered, rediscovered, and collected by philosophers for thousands of years. Maybe your ancestry has no roots in human civilization and cultivation of sciences. 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.

                So you obviously do not have a basic, elementary knowledge of physics. If you had then how could you make such huge errors of reasoning?

                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?


                Magnus Anderson wrote:I didn't say there aren't causal relations (or at the very least correlations.) I said that just because some events have causes does not mean that all events have causes. I have also stated that many scientific fields do not think in terms of causes. The more advanced a scientific field, the less it concerns itself with the strict concept of causality.

                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?

                That there are things uncaused in existence? Tell me about that. What is "not caused"? Tell me what is an "accident" or "totally random".


                Magnus Anderson wrote:I think that you're incapable of differentiating between formulas/models and sensory information.

                Not my problem....
                Urwrongx1000
                Thinker
                 
                Posts: 512
                Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

                Next

                Return to Philosophy



                Who is online

                Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]