I’m done here.
I guess I’ll give up trying to work in this topic too, then.
Sometimes it is a very good idea to let something go, to give it a breather, and then at some point, the mind is refreshed and may or may not come back with something which at least appears to be new.
So that IS a GOOD.
[b]From whatever you wish to know and measure you must take your leave, at least for a time. Only when you have left the town can you see how high its towers rise above the houses.
Friedrich Nietzsche
[/b]
Right, everything has a cause, even when it cannot be inferred from past observations.
Because Void and the supposedly irrefutable princinple of sufficient reason say so.
Not because I said so, because it is true. If you disagree, please offer your refutation of the principle of sufficient reason. I’ll wait.
I’m particularly interested in how you’ll demonstrate or explain how it is possible for something to exist or occur for which no reasons are the case. And be careful how you use any reasoning in your demonstration, so as not to beg the question.
See the problem yet? It is absolutely impossible to explain how something has literally no explanation. The very idea that something could have no explanation for what it is and why/how it is the case is simply the destruction of reason and thinking as such. But again, I’ll wait for your argument backing up your claim that the principle of sufficient reason isn’t irrefutable.
In your own words, provide a detailed explanation and analysis, what is a “Cause”?
What does it mean for anything “to be caused” or to cause? Explain.
While I wait I’ll add a quick clarification to my last long reply to Fixed. I should have been more clear in my explanation that I believe all life, indeed all being, seeks to minimize contradiction, to become as consistent with itself as possible. I think these contradictions are experienced ontologically, biologically and psychologically as burdens and energy drains, and being always seeks to either resolve the contradiction or to incorporate it into a higher synthesis thus encompassing it and rendering it “frozen” and less problematic (and even useful).
When being encounters a contradiction it is logically driven to either resolve it (make it go away) of to expand and encompass the contradiction, thus making it usefully part of that being itself for which the contradiction is able to be encountered and experienced qua contradiction.
This relates directly to my views on morality being derived from a higher tectonic of the rational-logical. What we call morality is an attempt, made possible and necessary for certain kinds of beings capable of doing so, to resolve certain logical contradictions that said being is capable of encountering and experiencing by virtue of being that such and such kind of being which it is. For an extreme example, raping babies implies a logical contradiction because we know unconsciously at least that the baby does not want that to happen, and that we ourselves would not want that to happen to us, and that the baby is logically similar to ourselves (back when we know thy we ourselves were also a baby once), and that the act of doing something like that, even if to the rapist it appears as valuable for some reason, implies a deep contradiction with that which oneself is.
This contradiction is a problem because as I noted above we are logically driven to either resolve away or overcome and freeze contradictions, because of the added energy waste that the contradiction implies and because of how we psychologically feel the contradiction as problematic, like an itch (as in cognitive dissonance for instance). Therefore there are a huge number of possible things and actions and desires and goals and outcomes that produce some degree of contradiction in us and produce in us the awareness of that contradiction; these sort of things are what I am calling aspects of the moral sphere.
The golden rule is so because to violate it implies a contradiction, and we feel that contradiction in our very being. If we do not feel it then that means we are not able to encounter and experience that said contradiction, which means that in that particular we are not morally capable, which means we are not rationally and perceptibly developed enough to feel and recognize the contradiction as contradiction.
Hope that offers some clarification.
Cause means that one thing bumped up into another thing and made an impact upon it such that the thing which was bumped into was affected and changed somehow.
It’s not up to me to refute it.
It’s up to you to prove it.
The principle of sufficient reason states that for every event B there must be an event A that caused it.
You have to prove this.
I wrote earlier:
Yes it is. You made a claim, so back it up.
I did. I already pointed out that it is necessarily, absolutely impossible to ever explain an uncaused event. You literally cannot even conceive such a thing in your mind, because to even conceive it means to conceive the “why” of it. Let’s assume an uncaused event just happens for no reason, let’s call it X. So you say “X happened”. What does that mean? Well what is X? You might try to tell me what X is, but it won’t make any sense without reasons why X is X rather than Y or Z or anything else.
A random unicorn pops into existence. Why? No reason, it just did. Well, why a unicorn rather than a giraffe? Um, no reason, according to you. Just because. Because why? Because nothing.
Yeah, that is the sort of “reasoning” you are advocating here. It is notable that despite advocating the total death of your mind, you aren’t actually willing to trace out the supposed logic of that, even after you make the claim. You dodge it with “I don’t need to defend what I say” nonsense. Which is good to see, because it means that you actually know what you are saying is bullshit.
To speak about what something is, is already necessarily to speak about why it is that rather than something else. Which is, again, necessarily, able to speak about the reasons why it is that. The reason for something is the thing itself, and nothing besides. That is what it means to “be something”.
An uncaused event is simply an event for which we see no cause.
That’s all it is.
Not true.
No. An uncaused event is an event for which we see no “why”.
That’s a very strange way of thinking.
Suppose I observed a red apple.
According to you, it would make no sense for me to tell you that I observed a red apple (instead of a green one) without explaining to you what caused this observation.
And what exactly is the problem?
You keep asking “why?” when there is no “why”.
I am not saying an uncaused event is caused by “nothing”.
I am saying that an uncaused event has no cause – it is not caused at all.
You have a problem accepting that reality does not function according to our expectations.
When there is no pattern in information, there is simply no pattern in information.
You cam try to acquire more information with the hope that a pattern will emerge.
But how long will you keep doing this?
How much information do you have to collect before you can say “it’s enough, let’s see what we’ve got”?
You must stop collecting evidence at some point.
You appear to think that it’s impossible to recognize patterns in data (this impossibility is what you call “the death of mind”) unless this data has been generated by some hidden mechanism according to some predetermined set of rules.
Which is non-sense.
I can see causal relations on my computer monitor.
And my computer monitor is just a bunch of pixels – basically, tiny lightbulbs that emit light of certain color.
These are immovable – they are fixed in place – and yet I can perceive causal relations.
They are independent from each other – they have no effect on each other – and yet I can perceive causal relations.
A bunch of pixels of uniform color on my monitor is interpreted as a ball that is moving in certain direction at certain speed.
When it hits one of the edges of my monitor, the ball changes its direction of movement.
In other words, “the edge” causes “the ball” to change the direction of movement.
That’s an example of causal relation that is interpreted by a brain.
Even if I didn’t know that my computer has been programmed to function in this manner, I’d still perceive causal relations.
You see . . . no need for hidden mechanisms to perceive causal relations.
You really confuse reality itself with what you’re able to see of reality?
Damn man. I got nothin for you.
I am simply telling you that we can perceive causal relations even when there is no evidence of hidden mechanism underlying our observations.
It is your stance that in the absence of this hidden mechanism (the so-called “absolute truth” or simply God) there can be no perception of causal relations.
That reason cannot exist (or function) without it.
I am simply telling you that it can.
Our judgment of what is real is based entirely on what we are able to see.
However, I am pretty sure that in your case your judgments are based on more than what you’re able to see.
I am, of course, speaking of imaginations.
Imaginations such as the idea that every event has a cause (which really amounts to saying that events in the universe unfold according to a predetermined set of rules that we refer to as “absolute truth”.)
You are taking things too literally.
The way parrots do.
Since parrots only understand conclusions and not what stands behind conclusions.
They have no choice but to interpret things too literally.
You think that your model of reality is reality itself.
You think that the requirements of your model of reality are the requirements of reality itself.
Not to mention the fact that causality is not a requirement for a model of reality.
Certain scientific fields have no notion of causality whatsoever.
And yet they work.
There may be events that happen in nature for which there is no rational explanation and it may be that there is none or that the explanation is not yet know
But our perception and understanding of the natural world is limited so satisfactory explanations cannot always be provided. Reality does not always conform
to our expectation of it and so it is a mistake upon our part in expecting that it must. Therefore when it occurs we should just acknowledge it rather than try
to fill the gap in our knowledge. Our natural tendency to wish to know everything cannot be satisfied sometimes ignorance has to be accepted unsatisfying as
this may be. Though not knowing is actually more interesting than knowing even if it does not necessarily seem so. For if we knew everything it would be less
so and so we should be grateful there is a limitation to our knowledge
They are attached to certain ways we model reality.
Indeed, they are so attached they are unwilling to model reality unless it can be modelled precisely that way.
The above cretin is attached to the idea of causality.
He wants to model reality in such a way such that every event has a cause.
He cannot accept that some events simply have no cause.
No, every event must have a cause.
Simply because Void (of Reason) likes it that way.
Because he finds it more aesthetically pleasant that way.
They choose the form of their models in advance.
Long before they take a look at the evidence.
They do not start with the evidence.
They start with the way they want to model reality and then they try to make evidence fit into it.
Like JSS and his attachment to locality.
Can’t accept action at a distance. All action must be local.
Not because that’s what evidence suggests – there’s more to reality than evidence.
But because of “logic” i.e. because he likes it that way.
It’s more organized that way.
An interesting read:
Bertrand Russell - On the Notion of Cause
But he’s an analytic philosopher.
What does he know?
Look what he says:
Did he just say that determinism, interaction and affectance are all purely logical?
Any reliable model has to be built upon evidence and nothing else. Philosophical interpretations are not necessarily evidence based so should be avoided
Even ones that are evidence based such as materialism for example should be avoided because they could be wrong as philosophy is not science. Science
is only interested in the study of observable phenomena. It has nothing to say about it beyond its physical properties. Materialism is ontology not science
A rather blanket presumption and accusation. Where is your evidence?
Void_X_Zero
Wouldn’t that be like saying that the reason for the crash which was caused by the drunk which killed the little boy in the other car was the crash itself?
There was nothing which caused that crash? Nothing, which by reaching back in time and seeing a number of dynamics at play like an ad continuum could be seen as bringing that crash into existence?
The crash was the cause of the crash?
Add up every single thing that led to the crash, including the drinking and the two drivers and their decision trees and the road and the cars and the speed limits, and you will get the event itself (the crash).
It doesn’t reduce to one thing, like the drinking. The causality is everything that had to come together in just the right way to cause the event. If the other driver had made different decisions and hadn’t been driving at that place and time, then he wouldn’t have been hit by the drunk, for example.
The sum total of all reasons for the event is the event itself. Ontologically speaking.
You are a mystic.
Not a rational person.
Causal relations do not precede events.
Rather, they succeed them.
That’s basically saying that models of reality do not precede sensations.
Rather, they succeed them.
Sensations are precedant.