Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 3:58 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 1:33 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 1:29 pm What is a causal chain?

If I kick you in the balls, then a causal chain is...

My Desire -> muscles contract -> my foot makes contact with you groin -> your nervous system tells you to experience pain.

That's an academic explanation, is it?

I thought it's quite empirical. Do you want to do the experiment?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 4:37 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 1:29 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 3:08 pm Reality is material, physical, an agglutinate of causal chains.

What is a causal chain?

"an ordered sequence of events in which any one event in the chain causes the next"

In other words: cause & effect (which, as I reckon it, is what determinism is all about).

Well, I think that is the accepted view, and since Hume, is what is meant by, "cause." It wasn't always.

I'm not going to argue against it, though I think it is wrong. In the entire history of the world I cannot identify a single example of a chain of events causing events, or even one event causing another event. Everything I know that has ever happened required an almost infinite number to conditions to occur, if any one of them had been different the event would have been different. How does one go about deciding which one was the cause?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 6:06 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 4:37 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 1:29 pm
What is a causal chain?

"an ordered sequence of events in which any one event in the chain causes the next"

In other words: cause & effect (which, as I reckon it, is what determinism is all about).

Well, I think that is the accepted view, and since Hume, is what is meant by, "cause." It wasn't always.

I'm not going to argue against it, though I think it is wrong. In the entire history of the world I cannot identify a single example of a chain of events causing events, or even one event causing another event. Everything I know that has ever happened required an almost infinite number to conditions to occur, if any one of them had been different the event would have been different. How does one go about deciding which one was the cause?

That seems true to me. How can we know all the chains of events at one time?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 6:06 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 4:37 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 1:29 pm
What is a causal chain?

"an ordered sequence of events in which any one event in the chain causes the next"

In other words: cause & effect (which, as I reckon it, is what determinism is all about).

Well, I think that is the accepted view, and since Hume, is what is meant by, "cause." It wasn't always.

I'm not going to argue against it, though I think it is wrong. In the entire history of the world I cannot identify a single example of a chain of events causing events, or even one event causing another event. Everything I know that has ever happened required an almost infinite number to conditions to occur, if any one of them had been different the event would have been different. How does one go about deciding which one was the cause?

It's becuz there are innumerable causal chains. simple and complex, large and small, mergin' and splitting off from one another, that I say Reality is an agglutinate of causal chains (excepting the free will, of course. Human events, actions, reactions, responses, these have their ground in us, as individuals. One man chooses to enslave, another man chooses to oppose him; neither choice is grounded in events that precede or impinge either man. Both are agents causing events for reasons original to or intrinsic to each. On the other hand, the lightning that strikes the oak is event causation, just the mashing together of unthinking forces and dumb matter).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 8:19 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 6:06 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 4:37 pm
"an ordered sequence of events in which any one event in the chain causes the next"

In other words: cause & effect (which, as I reckon it, is what determinism is all about).

Well, I think that is the accepted view, and since Hume, is what is meant by, "cause." It wasn't always.

I'm not going to argue against it, though I think it is wrong. In the entire history of the world I cannot identify a single example of a chain of events causing events, or even one event causing another event. Everything I know that has ever happened required an almost infinite number to conditions to occur, if any one of them had been different the event would have been different. How does one go about deciding which one was the cause?

It's becuz there are innumerable causal chains. simple and complex, large and small, mergin' and splitting off from one another, that I say Reality is an agglutinate of causal chains (excepting the free will, of course. Human events, actions, reactions, responses, these have their ground in us, as individuals. One man chooses to enslave, another man chooses to oppose him; neither choice is grounded in events that precede or impinge either man. Both are agents causing events for reasons original to or intrinsic to each. On the other hand, the lightning that strikes the oak is event causation, just the mashing together of unthinking forces and dumb matter).

I'm sorry, I thought event causation meant one event caused another event. Are you saying an event is, "the mashing together of unthinking forces?" Does that mean the cause of one event is some mashed-together forces that make another event occur? If an event (like lightning striking an oak) is caused by some mashed-together forces, the cause of the lightning's behavior must be something other than the lighting's own nature.

So the only events you attribute to an entity's own nature are those initiated by human beings. All other events (what all other entities do) is just the smashing together of unthinking forces making those entities do what they do. So a rotten tree that falls in heavy wind was caused to fall by the unthinking force of the wind, even though a hundred other trees in the same orchard are not caused to fall by the same unthinking force. The fact that the tree that fell was dead and rotten cannot be the cause because a cause must be an external unthinking force. What unthinking force makes a plant grow, a fish swim, or a bird fly.

Isn't there something wrong with the idea that a cause of one event (what one entity does) is other events (what other entities do)? Isn't the real cause of any event, what any entity does, caused by that entity's own nature in reaction to its entire environment of other entities? The easiest way to illustrate that is to use Hume's own example of, "cause and effect," one billiard ball's striking another billiard ball, causing the motion of the second billiard ball. But it is not the action of the first billiard ball that causes the action of the second. The behavior of the second is determined by its own nature and how that nature reacts to being struck by the first billiard ball, which can be dramatically illustrated by replacing the second billiard ball with an egg.

This may not seem important to you, but it is vitally important to science. A great deal of science has been wasted looking for non-existent, "cause and effect," while every real advance in science has been achieved by discovering the nature of physical entities which actually determine their behavior and relationships to all other entities.

Isn't there something wrong with the idea that a cause of one event (what one entity does) is other events (what other entities do)? Isn't the real cause of any event, what any entity does, caused by that entity's own nature in reaction to its entire environment of other entities? The easiest way to illustrate that is to use Hume's own example of, "cause and effect," one billiard ball's striking another billiard ball, causing the motion of the second billiard ball. But it is not the action of the first billiard ball that causes the action of the second. The behavior of the second is determined by its own nature and how that nature reacts to being struck by the first billiard ball, which can be dramatically illustrated by replacing the second billiard ball with an egg.

The black ball or egg just sits there till whacked by the white ball. The cause of the black ball's careenin' across the table, or the egg being smashed, is the impact of the white ball. The effect of the white ball's impact is the black ball careenin' across the table or the egg gettin' smashed. The difference between the two effects is becuz in one scenario the white ball is rammin' into the black ball, and in the other the white ball is rammin' into an egg.

In either scenario: the moving white ball (dumb matter) imparts kinetic energy (unthinking force) to the black ball or egg (dumb matter either way). This is cause & effect.

Let's consider two more scenarios...

On a pool table a black ball or egg is struck by a white ball set into motion by a framed photo knocked off the wall by a falling dead tree limb dislodged by a high wind from a thunderstorm forming from warm, wet, air risin' to meet with cold air. This is event causation. Dumb matter meets unthinkin' force.

On a pool table a black ball or egg is struck by a white ball set in motion by Jack as he tries to impress Janet (he's tryin' to get the black ball to bounce offa four sides before sinking into a corner pocket, or, he's demonstratin' a novel way to scramble eggs). This is agent causation. A causal chain initiated with intent.

If Jack is lucky, perhaps Janet will show him her casual chains for a lil S & M.

The safe word is omelet.

But how is Jack not caused to smack the black ball or egg?

Cuz Jack decides if impressing Janet is worth the trouble. In context, she causes nuthin' when it comes to Jack. Instead, Janet excites Jack, gets him thinkin' about what he and she might get up to later in the evening. He imagines what he and she might get up to later and attempts to shape his and Janet's near-future by doin' sumthin' right now to win her favor.

The black ball or egg, in any scenario, doesn't anticipate goin' into the hole.

But Jack does.

There is no such thing as cause and effect, especially when examining the underpinnings of the world...of reality. It's just that WE, who are one of the very many items manufactured by that reality, find it convenient to think that way...and that's ok as long as it's understood that's not how the world works.

You decide to see your dying mother, who lives in city A.. You drive to city A and not to city B. Did uou freely choose to drive there,. or you had no choice?

RogerSH wrote:

----brain => mind isn’t my view anyway, but rather that an account of what the brain does and what the mind does are two equally valid accounts of the same thing going on. Causality is a notoriously slippery concept, but if we confine it to the sense that the effect follows the cause, that clearly cannot apply to the monist account of the mind/brain relationship. Once the brain state has changed, where is no other material effect that could be occurring that can be described as the mind state changing.

I agree. Brain and mind of any individual are parallel events, neither causes the other. Brain and mind are caused in parallel by nature (or God if you prefer).

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 12:48 am There is no such thing as cause and effect, especially when examining the underpinnings of the world...of reality. It's just that WE, who are one of the very many items manufactured by that reality, find it convenient to think that way...and that's ok as long as it's understood that's not how the world works.

To put it another way, this sense of "cause" is a feature of a way that a particular model describes the world. To the extent that the model is a good match, this is also implicitly a statement about reality. But it's a qualified statement, because models are never exclusive nor perfect. (Would it be fair to say that "causes" in this sense belong to epistemology rather than ontology?)

Causality is also sometimes used as synonymous with determinism, in other words some claim about the entire state of the world at an instant being caused by earlier states.

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 6:33 am You decide to see your dying mother, who lives in city A.. You drive to city A and not to city B. Did you freely choose to drive there, or you had no choice?

This is actually an interesting question because it illustrates what is wrong with the idea of, "free will," and why I only use the word volition.

Volition means everything a human being does consciously they must consciously choose to do, including everything they consciously think and, "decide." But volition only pertains to what is possible within the limits of one's own physical and psychological ability. One cannot make choices about what they have no knowledge of and cannot do what is not physically possible, even if they choose to try to.

So, an individual who, "decides to visit his mother," has already made a choice. Since his mother is in location A, to see her will have to go to location A, but nothing makes him go there. It was his choice, and he can change his mind on the way and go somewhere else, and not see his mother. But, no matter what he does, he won't do anything without choosing to do it.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:03 am RogerSH wrote:

----brain => mind isn’t my view anyway, but rather that an account of what the brain does and what the mind does are two equally valid accounts of the same thing going on. Causality is a notoriously slippery concept, but if we confine it to the sense that the effect follows the cause, that clearly cannot apply to the monist account of the mind/brain relationship. Once the brain state has changed, where is no other material effect that could be occurring that can be described as the mind state changing.

I agree. Brain and mind of any individual are parallel events, neither causes the other. Brain and mind are caused in parallel by nature (or God if you prefer).

Unless you are referring to brain activity, the brain itself is not an, "event," it is an entity. If you are referring to brain activity, I think you would have to include the entire neurological system. Without that entire neurological system I cannot be conscious of what I am doing with my hands and feet or see, hear, feel, smell, or taste anything.

I don't see how consciousness and brain activity can be independent of one another. It seems it is the activity of our neurological system that is what we are conscious of and by which we are conscious of everything else. You cannot damage that system without affecting consciousness.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 12:18 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:03 am RogerSH wrote:

----brain => mind isn’t my view anyway, but rather that an account of what the brain does and what the mind does are two equally valid accounts of the same thing going on. Causality is a notoriously slippery concept, but if we confine it to the sense that the effect follows the cause, that clearly cannot apply to the monist account of the mind/brain relationship. Once the brain state has changed, where is no other material effect that could be occurring that can be described as the mind state changing.

I agree. Brain and mind of any individual are parallel events, neither causes the other. Brain and mind are caused in parallel by nature (or God if you prefer).

Unless you are referring to brain activity, the brain itself is not an, "event," it is an entity. If you are referring to brain activity, I think you would have to include the entire neurological system. Without that entire neurological system I cannot be conscious of what I am doing with my hands and feet or see, hear, feel, smell, or taste anything.

I don't see how consciousness and brain activity can be independent of one another. It seems it is the activity of our neurological system that is what we are conscious of and by which we are conscious of everything else. You cannot damage that system without affecting consciousness.

Actually as far as we can tell, every entity, possibly excluding elementary particles if there are such things, are events or processes--they obtain via smaller things (quarks, leptons, bosons, etc.) being in dynamic relations with other smaller things (other quarks, leptons, bosons, etc.).

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 12:18 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:03 am RogerSH wrote:

----brain => mind isn’t my view anyway, but rather that an account of what the brain does and what the mind does are two equally valid accounts of the same thing going on. Causality is a notoriously slippery concept, but if we confine it to the sense that the effect follows the cause, that clearly cannot apply to the monist account of the mind/brain relationship. Once the brain state has changed, where is no other material effect that could be occurring that can be described as the mind state changing.

I agree. Brain and mind of any individual are parallel events, neither causes the other. Brain and mind are caused in parallel by nature (or God if you prefer).

Unless you are referring to brain activity, the brain itself is not an, "event," it is an entity. If you are referring to brain activity, I think you would have to include the entire neurological system. Without that entire neurological system I cannot be conscious of what I am doing with my hands and feet or see, hear, feel, smell, or taste anything.

I don't see how consciousness and brain activity can be independent of one another. It seems it is the activity of our neurological system that is what we are conscious of and by which we are conscious of everything else. You cannot damage that system without affecting consciousness.

That seems right. When you move your body including your brain, consciousness comes with you. Therefore, I conclude they are dependent. Where the brain is, is where consciousness is if my reasoning is right.