What's the most interesting philosophical thing you've ever heard?

[Obvious Leo]

Give an example of transcendent causality.

Too easy. Transcendent causality can only be applied in the case where a physical system has been specifically designed to operate in the way that it does. The causes of the behaviour in the system are extrinsic to the system itself. A motor car is an example.

Newton established the methodology for physics on the basis of such a transcendent cause assumption and this same assumption in physics obtains right up till the present day. You can pick up practically any physics book you like and read that the matter and energy in the universe behave according to a suite of laws known as the "laws of physics". Utter asinine bullshit. There are no such laws. The so-called laws of physics are merely the codification procedures of physicists as they model a system which is entirely self-causal.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Give an example of transcendent causality.

Too easy. Transcendent causality can only be applied in the case where a physical system has been specifically designed to operate in the way that it does. The causes of the behaviour in the system are extrinsic to the system itself. A motor car is an example.
l.

You are claiming that "Transcendent Causality" is the same as intelligent design?

How does this relate to Darwin?

I can see how you think this works with ducks.

PS. and please say why you have changed your terminology from this;"However Darwin never actually understood the full implications of his own theory because that both linear and non-linear determinism can co-exist in the physical world is a metaphysical absurdity'

To "transcendental and immanent"

[Obvious Leo]

This is where all the multiverse bullshit in modern physics derives from. By adopting its transcendent cause assumption it begs for itself an unanswerable question. Why these laws and not some other laws? Why these mathematical constants and not some other? Such questions have no answer because no such laws exist. It is not the laws of physics which makes reality but reality which makes what the human mind interprets as the laws of physics. REALITY MAKES ITSELF.

[Obvious Leo]

Hobbes. Transcendent cause is synonymous with linear determinism and immanent cause is synonymous with non-linear determinism. Linear determinism mandates intelligent design as an a priori assumption. Hence the motor car example.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes. Transcendent cause is synonymous with linear determinism and immanent cause is synonymous with non-linear determinism. Linear determinism mandates intelligent design as an a priori assumption. Hence the motor car example.

But you are claiming that both cannot exist.
And you have not said how this relates to Darwin.
"However Darwin never actually understood the full implications of his own theory because that both linear and non-linear determinism can co-exist in the physical world is a metaphysical absurdity"
Presumably you are actually claiming that a car cannot be Transcendent, because determinism can only allow immanent causality?
Which one do you think darwin is claiming? Or are you claiming he thinks both are possible.?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes. Transcendent cause is synonymous with linear determinism and immanent cause is synonymous with non-linear determinism. Linear determinism mandates intelligent design as an a priori assumption. Hence the motor car example.

You do realise that you are contradicting yourself, by claiming that only one type can exist in nature, when you have already said both exist.

[Obvious Leo]

Hobbes. Transcendent cause is synonymous with linear determinism and immanent cause is synonymous with non-linear determinism. Linear determinism mandates intelligent design as an a priori assumption. Hence the motor car example.

You do realise that you are contradicting yourself, by claiming that only one type can exist in nature, when you have already said both exist.

If you insist on being precious then you're quite right. I am making a distinction between intelligently designed physical systems and those for which no evidence of intelligent design is apparent. Only organisms with minds are capable of orchestrating a linearly determined artefact but this is not restricted to human organisms. A bird's nest or a spider's web are also examples of linear determinism because in the absence of a living being to create them they cannot occur in nature. As you can see this distinction between linear and non-linear determinism illustrates the distinction between cause and purpose. All physical processes are caused but only linearly determined ones are caused for a purpose.

Newton assumed that cause and purpose were synonymous terms.

Hobbes. Transcendent cause is synonymous with linear determinism and immanent cause is synonymous with non-linear determinism. Linear determinism mandates intelligent design as an a priori assumption. Hence the motor car example.

But you are claiming that both cannot exist.
And you have not said how this relates to Darwin.
"However Darwin never actually understood the full implications of his own theory because that both linear and non-linear determinism can co-exist in the physical world is a metaphysical absurdity"
Presumably you are actually claiming that a car cannot be Transcendent, because determinism can only allow immanent causality?
Which one do you think darwin is claiming? Or are you claiming he thinks both are possible.?

Darwin was a keen observer of nature but he wasn't a philosopher of any great note. I'm very familiar with his writings but I never got the impression that he was aware of the fact that his theory of evolution was a redefinition of determinism more generically and not just a refutation of intelligent design which was only applicable to biological systems. He can be easily forgiven for this oversight because he didn't have the benefit of our current state of knowledge. We now know it as an absolute FACT that the universe had been steadily evolving from the simple to the complex for over 9 billion years before the earth even came into existence, let alone before life crawled out of the slime of his "warm little pond".

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes. Transcendent cause is synonymous with linear determinism and immanent cause is synonymous with non-linear determinism. Linear determinism mandates intelligent design as an a priori assumption. Hence the motor car example.

You do realise that you are contradicting yourself, by claiming that only one type can exist in nature, when you have already said both exist.

If you insist on being precious then you're quite right. I am making a distinction between intelligently designed physical systems and those for which no evidence of intelligent design is apparent. Only organisms with minds are capable of orchestrating a linearly determined artefact but this is not restricted to human organisms. A bird's nest or a spider's web are also examples of linear determinism because in the absence of a living being to create them they cannot occur in nature. As you can see this distinction between linear and non-linear determinism illustrates the distinction between cause and purpose. All physical processes are caused but only linearly determined ones are caused for a purpose.

Newton assumed that cause and purpose were synonymous terms.

Hobbes. Transcendent cause is synonymous with linear determinism and immanent cause is synonymous with non-linear determinism. Linear determinism mandates intelligent design as an a priori assumption. Hence the motor car example.

But you are claiming that both cannot exist.
And you have not said how this relates to Darwin.
"However Darwin never actually understood the full implications of his own theory because that both linear and non-linear determinism can co-exist in the physical world is a metaphysical absurdity"
Presumably you are actually claiming that a car cannot be Transcendent, because determinism can only allow immanent causality?
Which one do you think darwin is claiming? Or are you claiming he thinks both are possible.?

Darwin was a keen observer of nature but he wasn't a philosopher of any great note. I'm very familiar with his writings but I never got the impression that he was aware of the fact that his theory of evolution was a redefinition of determinism more generically and not just a refutation of intelligent design which was only applicable to biological systems. He can be easily forgiven for this oversight because he didn't have the benefit of our current state of knowledge. We now know it as an absolute FACT that the universe had been steadily evolving from the simple to the complex for over 9 billion years before the earth even came into existence, let alone before life crawled out of the slime of his "warm little pond".

I think your distinction is about a POV not an absolute undeniable distinction.
You also need to be more careful, as you started by saying that both linear and nonlinear could not co-exist. A claim you immediately contradicted. Then you confused the issue by changing your terminology which sounded like equivocation.

A spider's web is NOT a linear and purposeful effect. The reason I say this is although it looks like an intentionally designed item, a spider will not find itself capable except by a strict algorithm of inventing a novel type of web and the design of the web is unvarying though its life, being preprogrammed through the necessity of its genes. It does not require a mind and is not an ad hoc response to a perceived situation of need. In effect it is no different from the action of an single celled organism creating a temporary vacuole to engulf food, or a virus modifying a strand of RNA to exploit a host.
In a similar way the creation of a car being utterly deterministic and ordained by necessity, whilst conforming to your definition of linear, has aspects of non-linear causality, as there is no absolute design capability and the humans designing the car must also follow aspects of their actions which are beyond their individual knowledge or control being at the apogee of thousands of years of technological evolution in a similar way that the spider is at the apogee of millions of years of natural selection.
Where in evolution does the break happen? There seems to be a problematic dualism here. From the actions of 'mindless' organisms to the actions of 'mindful' organisms; neither completely fulfilling one type of causality or the other.
It seems obvious that as a human, presumably the species most capable of intentional and linear actions, is also unavoidably bound by the unbidden necessity of his nature and instincts; thus simultaneously linear and non-linear; both bound by his immanence but able to apply some transcendence and picture an as yet unmade future.
As each causal type seems present at the top, one can assume that as the complexity of each species declines along the evolutionary hierarchy, back to simple life the linear causality diminishes to nothing in viruses.

For me the use of the word "purpose' can only be applied to intentional actions. Living things devoid of minds are as purposeless as molecules of water.
But I also think that real transcendence requires the extra-somatic storage of information in cultural systems for it to be anything more than temporary and persistent.

If your claim that both causalities cannot co-exist, then we have a problem.

[uwot]

That's all very well, but who decides what is good or bad in the first place?

I do. Reason does. That's what this process is. Building a closed system is deciding what these things are.

So you and reason are in agreement? What if someone else's reason disagrees with yours?

[Obvious Leo]

Where in evolution does the break happen? There seems to be a problematic dualism here. From the actions of 'mindless' organisms to the actions of 'mindful' organisms; neither completely fulfilling one type of causality or the other.

In biology this is not seen as a meaningful question, any more than the distinction between life and non-life is a meaningful question. These are spectrum phenomena which relate to overall informational complexity and can't be reduced to such a "line in the sand" approach.

It seems obvious that as a human, presumably the species most capable of intentional and linear actions, is also unavoidably bound by the unbidden necessity of his nature and instincts;

Yes. I think we covered this point in an older thread on free will. Attaching the adjective "free" to the notion of the will does nothing but add confusion to the issue because none of us are free of our biology. However neither does this mean that we are mindless automata and neither is the spider. He doesn't spin his web according to a precise algorithm but is able to change its configuration to suit different environmental circumstances. He can also learn from his mistakes, so long as they aren't fatal ones.

As each causal type seems present at the top, one can assume that as the complexity of each species declines along the evolutionary hierarchy, back to simple life the linear causality diminishes to nothing in viruses.

That's a pretty good way of putting it because it captures the idea of these different causalities as spectrum phenomena contingent on information processing power. I've elsewhere expressed this idea of minds as being that which can linearise the non-linear. (Incidentally this is what the physicists are doing as they invent their laws of physics)

If your claim that both causalities cannot co-exist, then we have a problem.

I thought I'd clarified that point although I concede that my earlier statement was contradictory without the subsequent qualification. Linear determinism is a function of cognition and I see no need to draw a line in the sand where cognition begins and ends in living organisms. Maturana and Varela are the best sources for these ideas in biology, as is Lynn Margulis.

[Jaded Sage]

Leo: I suppose you could also argue that genes are a kind of map that we have from birth, so we are never without a map. I wonder if it is not that it is impossible to perceive without a map, but that it just never happens.

HC: I suppose non-rational and a-rational are synonymns. I think I got the term from an Epicurus class. I mean like what Hume calls impression, strictly sensation, like the feeling of heat (but all of this is beside the point if we are all using what I'm going to call an "alternative" notion of the word "theory"—I'm not quite ready to cross over to that side, but it does seem like a good one). Interesting stuff about faces. Thanks for sharing.

To jump in between you two: I think maybe there is a technical and a non-technical version of the word "evolution," and one of you is using one, and the other is using the other. You two are both heavy hitters. With respect, ya gotta be on your game when it comes to the fundamentals. We wouldn't wanna be too wordy —the philosopher's achilles heal, lol.

Peace to you both, I'm bowing out of this one.

[Jaded Sage]

That's all very well, but who decides what is good or bad in the first place?

I do. Reason does. That's what this process is. Building a closed system is deciding what these things are.

So you and reason are in agreement? What if someone else's reason disagrees with yours?

Well, "we" do. I just say "I" because I'm the only one I know who is doing this. I suppose if someone else's reason disagrees with mine, we work together to see whose reason is more reasonable, or which solves the problem better, or which explains more.

So I say the sufficient condition for being good is being "that which is good in at least one way and bad in no more than zero ways." If another says, for instance, that more than a single good way is required, or that a single bad way is allowable, then we will have to debate it out. I like mine because it is simple. I think that might be the only justification for it, but it might turn out that nothing satisfies those conditions, so it'll have to change. In fact, I think there might not be, but I'm sticking with it until I can find something better, or an example.

Also, yes. I'm fairly certain reason and I are in agreement.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Where in evolution does the break happen? There seems to be a problematic dualism here. From the actions of 'mindless' organisms to the actions of 'mindful' organisms; neither completely fulfilling one type of causality or the other.

In biology this is not seen as a meaningful question, any more than the distinction between life and non-life is a meaningful question. These are spectrum phenomena which relate to overall informational complexity and can't be reduced to such a "line in the sand" approach.

Where are you getting your terminology, BTW?

It seems obvious that as a human, presumably the species most capable of intentional and linear actions, is also unavoidably bound by the unbidden necessity of his nature and instincts;

Yes. I think we covered this point in an older thread on free will. Attaching the adjective "free" to the notion of the will does nothing but add confusion to the issue because none of us are free of our biology. However neither does this mean that we are mindless automata and neither is the spider. He doesn't spin his web according to a precise algorithm but is able to change its configuration to suit different environmental circumstances. He can also learn from his mistakes, so long as they aren't fatal ones.

You'd not say that is you say a spider in zero gravity. The key difference is the potential to learn. The web is not linear (by your definition) but might have some aspects of contingent linearity to the construction. No one bush is the same and the lengths of the frame differ. But I suggest this variability is accommodated by the inate method of construction, not the 'mind' if the spider.

As each causal type seems present at the top, one can assume that as the complexity of each species declines along the evolutionary hierarchy, back to simple life the linear causality diminishes to nothing in viruses.

That's a pretty good way of putting it because it captures the idea of these different causalities as spectrum phenomena contingent on information processing power. I've elsewhere expressed this idea of minds as being that which can linearise the non-linear. (Incidentally this is what the physicists are doing as they invent their laws of physics)

If your claim that both causalities cannot co-exist, then we have a problem.

I thought I'd clarified that point although I concede that my earlier statement was contradictory without the subsequent qualification. Linear determinism is a function of cognition and I see no need to draw a line in the sand where cognition begins and ends in living organisms. Maturana and Varela are the best sources for these ideas in biology, as is Lynn Margulis.

I don't like the terminology. It does not suit the purpose. I don't see what is wrong with "instinctive", "innate", or "contingent" and " intentional". I think the transcendental and immanent seem more etymologically suited, but I hate the jargonisation of disciplines. New punks with old ideas masquerading as new ones. It is by this method that academia pretends to stay relevant by re-cycling old data presented as new.
And actually I think you CAN find this in Darwin - in Descent of Man, but just not articulated with any thing resembling the jargon. Herbert Spencer was also aware of the role of learning and cultural evolution.
So I don't think this is anything new.


There is also a more nuanced taxomomy of causality from Aristotle.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Leo: I suppose you could also argue that genes are a kind of map that we have from birth, so we are never without a map. I wonder if it is not that it is impossible to perceive without a map, but that it just never happens.

HC: I suppose non-rational and a-rational are synonyms. I think I got the term from an Epicurus class. I mean like what Hume calls impression, strictly sensation, like the feeling of heat (but all of this is beside the point if we are all using what I'm going to call an "alternative" notion of the word "theory"—I'm not quite ready to cross over to that side, but it does seem like a good one). Interesting stuff about faces. Thanks for sharing.

To jump in between you two: I think maybe there is a technical and a non-technical version of the word "evolution," and one of you is using one, and the other is using the other. You two are both heavy hitters. With respect, ya gotta be on your game when it comes to the fundamentals. We wouldn't wanna be too wordy —the philosopher's achilles heal, lol.

Peace to you both, I'm bowing out of this one.

"Evolution" is a word with much accretion to it. Darwin avoided the word like the plague, and his original Origin of Species never applied the word, except a final "evolve', towards the end. Like so much in his time - in fact all his language was so bound up with the language of Christian Ideology and assumptions of theism that he struggled to make his deterministic case, as there were so few words without these connotations.
Take "creatures" for example, commonly used for all living things implies a creation. Despite his atheism still manages to use it 9 times in OofS.

The word now is so overused that it implies nothing. You might just as well say change, evolution implies a change towards or from a changing situation. AN evolved system changes for need, or to a solution.

The history of stars has no external pressure and no imperative or interest in survival or achievement. I just don't think evolution is applicable.

[Obvious Leo]

So I don't think this is anything new.


There is also a more nuanced taxomomy of causality from Aristotle.

I wasn't trying to suggest that any of this is new. I was drawing the more general parallel between causation as it applies to both living and non-living systems, not trying to pursue an argument about what does or does not constitute purposeful behaviour in so-called "lesser" animals. I'm sure we can agree that as life on earth evolved into more and more informationally complex forms the behaviour of some of its species became more purposeful in proportion to their neurological complexity. We can also safely conclude that homo managed to clamber his way to the top of this tree of sentience but we may not conclude that he stands alone in terms of cultural evolution because there are are other organisms with the capacity for purposeful behaviour.

How this relates to the nature of determinism is the more general point I was making because only living organisms of a sufficiently advanced complexity are capable of deliberately bringing into existence such linearly determined physical systems. ALL "non-livng" physical systems are exclusively non-linearly determined and yet this is NOT how the models of physics have been designed to model the world. Non-linear dynamic systems cannot be modelled in a Cartesian space and this is a completely uncontroversial fact well known to science. They can also not be modelled by using Newton's classical mathematics although these tools can be used to make probabilistic predictions in such systems. They can only be modelled in a topological space using fractal geometry but the tools of fractal geometry are not predictive tools.

It is for this reason that I claim that the methodology of physics is one which conflates its map with its territory and the reason for this can be traced all the way back to its founder. Newton established his new science on the a priori assumption that the universe was an artefact of intelligent design.