Cause and effect

[encode_decode]

This is a general discussion on cause and effect. Please don't be confused by the first few posts - it started out as a joke and was met with disapproval so therefore I changed it to provide more comfort for those who follow along. I am not certain whether I should apologize but I will offer an apology to anyone that I may have offended, upset, confused and caused any other negative effect on.

Here I quote Wikipedia:

Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second, and the second is dependent on the first.

My interest here involves multiple causes and effects in our mind and how they lead to each understanding we have about any arbitrary topic.

I will further state that I am very interested in the Absolute. It is my opinion that the Absolute need not detract from everyday life and any such interest in worldly matters(in my case Machine Intelligence and Human Intelligence).

I have a lot to think about each day and like the idea of remaining enlightened while playing in the playground of life.

I wish everybody the best in what they set out to do in life and wish for great success in these endeavors.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Please make an attempt to be less cryptic [edit: the opening post has been modified since, it only contained one word originally]. The forum is not a place to scribble half-assed thoughts. You have paper on your desk for that.

The more work you put in your material, the more meaningful a discussion can become. Experimenting with form becomes here usually some ego-game.

[encode_decode]

@Diebert van Rhijn - Ok fair enough - I will give you that - I will also state that it was intended as an easily identified joke. The inspiration for it actually came from an article called "Physicists:‭ ‬The Great Pretenders".

I can see that tensions are high on this forum as with the rest of the world.

I would like to say that I really enjoyed the article "Physicists:‭ ‬The Great Pretenders" on Genius Realms.

Well I have likely offended you - Am I sorry? Well of course not. If you have some reason why anyone should not laugh even in confusing times then I would really like to hear it.

:)

As for ego - well fella - it is sad that you feel that is what I was expressing.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

@Diebert van Rhijn - Ok fair enough - I will give you that - I will also state that it was intended as an easily identified joke. The inspiration for it actually came from an article called "Physicists:‭ ‬The Great Pretenders".

Hi, it's not an easily identifiable joke. Plus it's not that funny or equally likely: I just don't get it :)

I can see that tensions are high on this forum as with the rest of the world.

Nothing new under the sun: no tension, no sharp thought. My reaction was based on years of people starting topics in a similar sense.

Well I have likely offended you - Am I sorry? Well of course not. If you have some reason why anyone should not laugh even in confusing times then I would really like to hear it.

You're assuming too much: offense, joke, references, or some position on laughter. Perhaps rethink those assumptions?

As for ego - well fella - it is sad that you feel that is what I was expressing.

But I didn't say that. I wrote: "experimenting with form becomes here usually some ego-game". If you want a conversation: read and don't assume.

Please try to save this thread with describing your deeper, mediated thoughts on causality :-)

[encode_decode]

Like I said; Ok fair enough - I will give you that - I also stated my intention.

Just reiterating; I really enjoyed this article; "Physicists:‭ ‬The Great Pretenders" on Genius Realms.

I quote myself:

Well I have likely offended you - Am I sorry? Well of course not. If you have some reason why anyone should not laugh even in confusing times then I would really like to hear it.

I understand this was uncalled for. I will say though that I was not assuming; it was more like a poor and wrong guess on my part.

I probably did take you the wrong way with the ego stuff. I certainly hear you about years of people starting topics in a similar sense. If you think about how you arrived here from the index; clicking on the word "cause"; would your arrival here not be the effect?

Actually I am on this forum to learn from all the people here - I do that by "reading" and it just so happens I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the things you have written too.

By the way: I do not see the harm in what I did - it did not really make me laugh that hard when I thought of doing it but just the same I thought I would do it anyway for one reason; fun!

So why am I here to learn by reading an interacting on this forum? I have always loved this thing called philosophy. I love its many views and logical conclusions. I totally see where David is coming from with the "Physicists:‭ ‬The Great Pretenders" blog article. Unlike Lawrence Krauss I did independently think to myself "one day I really should ask some questions of these philosophers about a few concepts that science has no hope of explaining". I most certainly have no feeling of animosity toward anyone on this forum. I am only a member of four forums on the internet - the other three are related to computer programming. I have read the rules of this forum - maybe I did not read them properly - I will go and read them again.

Anyway Diebert, you know a lot more about philosophy than me it would appear. I am certain over time I will learn much more but in the meantime I will not post such a cryptic topic again.

:)

[jufa]

I have no judgmental Cause to speak on the Effect the participants of this thread have initiated, and responded to. But making a statement then providing ones own effectual determination of meaning, without filling in the gap, does nothing for a readers understanding.

If I may, I'd just like to add "Words in any logical setting are understood to be descriptive to one's point of view from one's specific learning which is always individualized by one's learning process. Words go no further than the ceiling of one's own comprehension, and are never definitive of anything exactly. If words were absolutely definitive, there would be no need for discussions and debatable dialogue, for an exchange of knowledge and wisdom would be exact for one and all. The key to this paragraph and words is relative. Words never move one into truth because words never move beyond relativity."​ jufa

One should be more considerate of the name of this forum, and therefore the readers Eye of Comprehension. Context must have a body of contents to give it meaning.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[encode_decode]

@jufa - actually jufa, I totally agree with you and for that matter I totally agree with Diebert too. Aside from the original intent of the post as being a joke it does illustrate what is acceptable form of comprehension on the forum.

We have experienced this twice in a week although the other poster at least offered around 75 words in their post and 8 words in their title.

I think what is important to remember here is that being concise is giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive. Without being concise one is able to provide a lot more information in hopes that the receiving party is able to decipher it the way one had originally intended.

There would be no hard and fast rules except maybe read back what you have written before posting it and maybe take a few guesses at what the final reception may be. So in essence - how do my words stand by themselves? <- this is not a question that is intended to be answered by the way.

So therefore: whether there are 1 word or 8 words in the title; 2 words or 75 words in the post - if it is not comprehensible then it is not comprehensible. This is not a fault of those who respond but a fault of the original posters intent.

My mind is however drawn to a quote:

Genius . . . is the capacity to see ten things where the ordinary man sees one.

[encode_decode]

I found the following rather interesting(From Wikipedia):

Derivation theories
Nobel Prize laureate Herbert A. Simon and philosopher Nicholas Rescher[34] claim that the asymmetry of the causal relation is unrelated to the asymmetry of any mode of implication that contraposes. Rather, a causal relation is not a relation between values of variables, but a function of one variable (the cause) on to another (the effect). So, given a system of equations, and a set of variables appearing in these equations, we can introduce an asymmetric relation among individual equations and variables that corresponds perfectly to our commonsense notion of a causal ordering. The system of equations must have certain properties, most importantly, if some values are chosen arbitrarily, the remaining values will be determined uniquely through a path of serial discovery that is perfectly causal. They postulate the inherent serialization of such a system of equations may correctly capture causation in all empirical fields, including physics and economics.
From Wikipedia

"the asymmetry of the causal relation is unrelated to the asymmetry of any mode of implication that contraposes" {I find this statement interesting - it says to me that understanding is derivable for the resultant search in any text or any dialog of connecting impressions} essentially indicating that cause and effect can be multiples but intent only makes sense if the connection between the cause and the effect is clear. Would you say I am correct in my analysis of this text?

I can see upon serialization of this conversation plenty of inherently connected implication/s despite the apparently context free inception.

One more question: Do you think that the statement "cause and effect" has any conception by itself? I do.

[jufa]

@encode_decode. If a word stands by itself and give a full volume of intent and purpose by forming a image conducive to all readers this would eliminate relativism, but no word can do this, as a painting, or pictured image cannot. So detail is always need to insure communicative paths which links conjunctions.

Ezra Pound wrote:
Genius . . . is the capacity to see ten things where the ordinary man sees one.

The above quote has a flaw. The flaw is the mind can observe many things, but can only discern, at one time, that which pronounce a thought of that view. To me a genius is anyone who can see through the wall of rhetorical rhetoric of both book and street knowledge, then is capable of applying the right formula to a situation, or circumstance, or condition which is agreeable concerning all. Of course you will always find some heads who will disagree, but that is their bad.

The Derivation theory you present in another post is, from my POV, double talk which attempt to acknowledge asymmetry causal relation, but then divide the silver cord which links unrelated asymmetry relations without a system of division provided. This is the very thing Diebert was telling you you were doing by with your one word "scribble half-assed thoughts."

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[encode_decode]

I will keep my sense of humour away from the forum but I will be keeping my sense of humour.

I will be back to make some sort of response - likely a robotic one at that.

@jufa - I will modify the title of the post and the first post just for Diebert and yourself - based on Diebert's suggestion in another post.

And right now I am smiling - it will be the last time I indicate that - but unnoticed behind the screen of my computer will be a person who smiles.

:)

[encode_decode]

"half-assed thoughts" - I wonder about the value of this type of language - is there not another way for one to emphasize where they are coming from.

Experimenting with form becomes here usually some ego-game.

I don't care what things "becomes here usually" as I am not the person that caused those things to begin with. I merely fucked up(to reflect the language being used here); in other words I made a mistake - big deal!

I can make a promise to everyone; I never intend for any resulting ego-game to take place - I am not even certain what an ego-game is - I can only guess that it is something like "your ego versus my ego". That is just not my style but in saying that I will defend my position and search for flaws in my knowledge.

I am grateful for the help I have received here in pointing out flaws in my knowledge. I admit that sometimes I am a little cryptic - I also admit that I am not setting out to do that. From my point of view, there are plenty of cryptic texts on this site.

[jufa]

@Encode_decode. Never stop smiling, never. Diebert is the moderator here, and determines what is appropriate for posting. I have even been threaten to be banned because of suppose radical post.

Don't come here much for this reason, I don't know what is really suitable here anymore, and although I sided with Diebert statement, no way was it a personal affront on you. But volume is a necessity if dialogue is sought. Your post are the first I have posted in on this forum for a while, which is saying I have enjoyed our conversation. Hope it is not the last.

If you feel I have disrespected you,, I cannot do anything about that. But I do offer my apology, for it is not so coming from this computer. Nevertheless, keep smiling.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[encode_decode]

@jufa - no no - I do not feel disrespected jufa - I am enjoying all of this - I am just trying to work out the right thing to do - we will be having many more conversations - neither Diebert nor yourself owe me an apology - that is not clear from my wording - I already know this - I am just being illustrative - I too mean no disrespect.

I see why you sided with Diebert's statement - I need to provide more volume to my discourse - I was never going to know that unless I pushed a few boundaries or simply asked - the boundaries have been more entertaining than simply asking.

I quote from Board Conduct and Usage:

Genius does not necessarily discourage or denounce ideas and beliefs, only the false reasoning that underpins them.

I am interested in my false reasoning as I want to increase my own level of rationality.

Overt attempts at spamming or disrupting the board for malicious purposes or continual gratuitous abuse of members will not be tolerated. Other than that the theme is, basically - go for it.

I am certain that I am still following on these lines - if I am not I would like to know; I mean that. So in essence, I am basically "going for it".

It looks like I am being disagreeable - but I agree to where Diebert and yourself are coming from.

I now quote from Welcome to Genius Forum:

If one is not deliberately causing pain to the ego, both in oneself and in others, then what is the good of one's life?

This is what I am after - I don't want my ego doing all the thinking for me.

So in essence what I am saying is: go for it; cause pain to my ego if "need" be. I emphasize the word "need" here.

I will never stop smiling and I do not want others to either.

[encode_decode]

I want to offer something I "borrowed" from another thread I have started:

Reasoning when answering a question is limited by:

• 1. cognitive limitations
  2. time available to answer the question
  3. openness to influence from our own existing thoughts and the social norm

I want to try and somehow reconcile this with the new content in my first post in this thread.

Quoting myself(again)

My interest here involves multiple causes and effects in our mind and how they lead to each understanding we have about any arbitrary topic.

Let me clarify - Using information from another thread: 2. The total sum of experience from birth to the present. Connecting this to 3. openness to influence from our own existing thoughts and the social norm. Before a new experience, if we take the aforementioned into account then we end up with a chain of causality which I am certain effects the integration of our new experience.

Can you see here what I mean by multiple causes and effects in our mind? If not I will attempt to clarify further.

:)

[Dan Rowden]

The causes of any individual thing are endless, no thing being able to exist independent of the Totality, but our mind is not endless, being a thing, so we construct webs of causation that 'work' for us, both cognitively and practically in terms of how we are able to physically manipulate the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WApNIX-ZlXE