Lessons on Causality

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.

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?

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”.

Not my problem…

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.

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

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.

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??

Where are you going? Can I visit?

I’m going to move over to youtube, sure, I’ll send you a link when I make progress.

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.

That’s the purpose of intelligence.

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.

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

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

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:
nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/frie … 3c0ff.html

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

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.

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.

Exactly your problem.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.

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

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.

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.

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 . . .

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

Humans were still caused regardless if they were caused by god or natural process or pink unicorn pixie dust. Everything has a cause.

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.

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.

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.