Causastion

I already heard that one. But I hear too many errors in thought from Watts; He got the “one-hand” koan incorrectly, his “Bark of the dog” causation example is misguided, … Sorry to say, but I’m not impressed with him.

I would think that, “Continuation,” would be more appropriate for some people of Religion than, “Causation.” That’s not true of all of them, of course, but in the view of some we are just turning pages in a book that has already been written.

Maybe not even a religious imperative, I suppose it could also be, “Continuation,” depending on one’s view of time.

:banana-explosion: :banana-explosion: :banana-explosion:

I recall that you always hated this dancing banana.
But hello there. It is so good to see you (in a manner of speaking) in here.

I thought that you might have gone to some parallel universe or something.

Welcome back for as long as you are staying, Pav.

There is a slight distinction in the two. A continuance doesn’t imply cause, it merely infers that there probably is cause.

The simple fact is that “causation”, in a sense, is the make of the physical universe. If the universe was not made of causation, time would not exist and you would not be here to discuss it. Time, causality, change, physicality, affectance (affect-upon-affect) are all virtually the same thing and the very fundamental make of you and your universe. Everything else in the physical universe is merely the emergent aberrance.

What causes something else, except, the “Prime Mover”?

If you can’t tell me what/who causes something, then you can’t really say much about causation at all.

Are you speaking about God here? Or energy?

Wouldn’t that depend on what you’re speaking about?

The word and use of “cause” has two distinct meanings; cause as in “why or what led to what” and cause as is “the reason, justification, or logic”. People rarely distinguish those very different meanings.

The “Prime Mover” is the second of the kind of causes. The “Prime Mover” is the Fundamental Principle (the Logic behind the event). The Prime Mover has never been a physical causation, else would, by definition be a physical entity. The Prime Mover was never a physical entity, but rather a “divine”/“ideal”/“conceptual” entity.

So the actual Prime Mover “causes” in the sense that the Prime Mover is the REASON that the universe exists, the Logic behind the actuality.

People believe and put faith in the ideal that a person, or animal, or thing, or object causes something, an event, a chain of events, to happen. A pebble rolls down a cliff and causes an avalanche. But what caused the pebble to loosen and roll?

People quickly become lost in infinite chains of causes/event. These are called “causal chains” or “vibrations of string theory, energy”. Things cause other things. Events cause other events. When people become lost, or refuse to keep searching, for original causes, then they believe that “things happen randomly” or without cause, which is false. Rather it’s more obvious that human reasoning and intellect is limited.

Just because you cannot see nor pinpoint the cause of something, of an event, of human interaction, does not mean there was no cause. It’s more sensible and logical that some causes slip under the radar of human perception and consciousness.

In other words, despite the top 1% of human intellect, the best of humanity, the best philosophies of all time, many causes and chains still go unnoticed. The human intellect keeps progressing, and making some discoveries, revealing some chains previously unknown, however, there is always something smaller, more distant, to become aware of.

Perhaps something happend, in the year 1527 AD, that led to your current circumstance today. You’re not aware of it. Your ancestors and ancestry is lost in time. But your great-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-grandfather made a decision. He chose this, instead of that. And that is why you are, as you are today. Because the cause has been lost/forgotten in time. Lost to you, to humanity, to history, to records, but not lost in existence.

Existence is greater than human knowledge and reason. There are infinite casual-chains. And so, despite the best efforts of humanity, cannot know everything omnisciently. Instead humans can search and discover, with great effort, a small aspect of the questions and mysteries that dominate right now. Some issues, or questions, are more pressing than others. Thus people search for the causation of particular interests.

Causality, and Existence, is like a great universal maze, without beginning nor end, yet humans are still stuck within, never free, but always trapped and enslaved to paths, turns, twists, loops, circles, and few gain the skill and memory to properly traverse the maze of life. But, some answers can become known. You become familiar with a small sub-section of the maze. What you call “privacy”, your “home”, your limited knowledge of existence. People cling to a few corners of the Great Maze.

The banana is just fine, pleasure to see you again is all mine! That goes for everyone here, as well. I’ll hopefully pop in more often, I need to stop treating this like the town I grew up in. You go there every now and then just to not really think of it for some timee.

I think that a key difference for the purposes of this discussion is that continuance and direct causation can be known even without language. That said, I don’t know that any notion of, “First cause,” could be achieved without language. From a practical standpoint, “First Cause,” shouldn’t even matter as it does not change the situation at hand. Direct Cause does.

Imagine existence without language: You would see people grow older and die, then you would yourself notice that you are growing older. You would understand that your life is a continuance without even needing the word. In that sense, I consider the notion of continuance to be naturally-occurring in even the most primal sense.

Also, causation is a concept not a physical anything. That being the case, nothing can be, “Made,” of causation.

Which is why the Chinese refer to the Abramic religions as “ligament” (holding the mindless masses and muscle to the bone of Man).

Precisely … Urwright. :sunglasses:

Just because you cannot see nor pinpoint God does not mean that there is no God. It’s more “sensible” and “logical” that God slips under the radar of human perception and consciousness.

Rather than believing blindly, without evidence, in the existence of causes (and magical entities such as God) it’s better to ground your beliefs in reality, which is to say, in your prior observations.
Otherwise, you can never be proven wrong. You are right no matter what you say. You are right because you say you are right.

If your prior observations suggest that some event does not have a cause then it’s only natural to conclude that it has no cause.
It does not matter that it’s possible that you’re wrong.
Because it’s possible that you’re wrong about EVERYTHING.
And it does not matter that you WANT there to be a cause.
What we want to be the case is not necessarily what is the case.

There is no evidence that God exists.
But if we keep searching for it we will find it one day.
It’s important to be an optimist.
Don’t be a pessimist.
You need to keep the hope.
Just keep searching and one day you’ll find it.
And noone can prove you wrong.
Because no matter how much evidence there is against the idea that God exists there is still more evidence to be found in the future.
So it’s still possible that God exists.

You expected a deity? Everyone gets something wrong now n then. What’s the problem with the “one-hand” koan?

That’s a shame.

If you want to ascribe ‘God’ to Causality then that’s your prerogative to do so. You’re not the first and you won’t be the last. For a long time, and even now, Christian monks have associated the ideals of “First Cause” and “Prime Mover” with “God”.

You’re making the mistake of placing your own personal preferences (e.g. that causes are everywhere around you even when you don’t see them) above sensory information (e.g. that for some events we see no causes no matter how much we look for them.)
The exact same mistake that Christians and people like James (who think that you can “logically prove” that there is no such a thing as uncaused events even though it’s one of the most obvious things) make.
Basically, subjectivism.

Either you’re a rationalist (who believes that logic is something more than just a pattern of reasoning, something above sensory information) or you’re an empiricist (who believes that sensory information is fundamental.)
If you’re a rationalist, then you’re delusional.
That’s how it is.

There’s no such thing as something uncaused.

Just because you can’t find the cause of things or pattern of events, doesn’t mean there isn’t.

That is subjectivism.

My position is objectivism. Causation, explanations, reasoning, logic, are relative between people. Knowledge is limited. My position is that human intellect and consciousness is limited. You seem to claim otherwise.

Your presumption is that: “Beyond our/my limits, you cannot say nor predict anything meaningful.” I disagree. I’m saying that “uncaused things” or “chaos” is irrational. Just because you don’t know something, doesn’t mean it’s impossible. For you to presume as much, is solipsistic-subjectivism.

An uncaused event is simply an event for which we see no cause. That’s all it means.
A caused event is simply an event for which we see a cause. That’s all it means.
What appears to be an uncaused event today might turn out to be a caused event tomorrow when new evidence arrives.
And what appears to be a caused event tomorrow might turn out to be an uncaused event the day after the tomorrow when further evidence arrives.
And so on ad infinitum.
Do you get my point?
When you see no causes of an event, and when no amount of effort can help you to find them, then the only realistic thing to conclude is that the event is uncaused.
That’s how thinking works.
If there is no evidence for something then that something does not exist.
End of story.
There is no evidence that God exists, therefore, God does not exist.
There is no evidence that some event E has a cause, therefore, that event E does not have a cause.
You don’t go “look, our consciousness is limited, so just because we can’t see something does not mean that something does not exist”.
Because if you adopt that way of thinking then EVERYTHING becomes equally possible as everything else.
Who am I to say that God does not exist?
I have to open my mind and keep it in that state for an infinite period of time.
Otherwise, I risk being accused of subjectivism, solipsism, etc.

Objectivism means not believing in things unless there is evidence for them.
I see no evidence that God exists (and that every event is caused by some other event) so I don’t think that God exists (and that every event is caused by some other event.)
That’s a conclusion based on my viewpoint which is personal.
You are accusing me of being a subjectivist simply because of the fact that my viewpoint, which means nothing other than a set of observations that I possess regarding the world, is personal (i.e. limited) rather than universal (i.e. unlimited, absolute, complete, etc.)
As if there are viewpoints that are omniscient.
You are asking me to ABANDON my viewpoint and immerse myself in the realm of imagination all the while pretending that this is a more objective path.
Which it isn’t.
When you abandon your personal viewpoint the only thing that remains is IMAGINATION.

Methinks some definitions need to be agreed upon prior to any meaningful continuance.

:blush: