Welcome to my intelligence

[Sapius]

Clyde: By whole I mean undivided.

That still gives a sense of a ONE whole thing. Is that how you perceive totality?

By objective existence I mean exists independently.

Then, no, I do not believe that self and other have some objective existence.

[clyde]

Sapius;

What do you mean by sense? Do you mean strictly the five sense perceptions of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching? Do you include thinking? Or do you mean aware? Or what?

clyde

[Simon]

Hey again Sapius,

Simon: Let's go into the origin of logic. Where does logic begin?

Sapius: In my opinion, it all depends on how one defines ‘logic’.

Simon: Yes, but I want my definition to be based on a discovery that is absolutely true.

Sapius: But don’t we need proper definitions in the first place to discover that? Do you mean that our definitions should be absolutely true? Wouldn’t that which would be absolutely true depend on our definitions?

Ok, how about this:

Do you agree that the experience and acceptance of empirical sense data precedes the process of making definitions and processing absolute truths?

[Simon]

Hey again Kevin,

Simon: Doesn't logic begin at the very moment we accept sense experience as a truth?

Kevin: It begins the moment we accept what appears to us in our minds. We don't know where those appearances ultimately come from. All we know is that they appear to us.

And we don't have any choice about accepting those appearances or not. They are just there, no matter what we do. There's no denying them.

Yes, well at least at first, it does seem absolutely involuntary that we accept appearances and operate to logically. However, people do seem to deny appearances as they grow older and become more self-conscious. For instance, it appears that when a loved human or animal dies, the who is still alive, mourns, and then desperately believes that the animal or the human has gone to heaven. I know people who sincerely believe that their pet has gone to heaven. They would be absolutely crushed if this were not true. So in that sense, humans can deny appearances and believe in that which is not in anyway apparent. And perhaps this is the origin of irational behavior.

[Simon]

Clyde,

Simon: Empirically, they appear to have the characteristics of impermenance and dependence. Didn't Plato believe in a realm where all things, including the self, existed permenantly?

Clyde: Perhaps Plato did, but do you? And if so, on what basis do you hold such a belief?

No, I personally don't. But my point is that it doesnt seem like an absolute truth that all things have characteristics that are impermenant and dependent. It certainly appears that they do, and so I have no reason to believe in anything other than how it appears.

[clyde]

Simon;

I agree.

clyde

[Sapius]

Sapius;

What do you mean by sense? Do you mean strictly the five sense perceptions of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching? Do you include thinking? Or do you mean aware? Or what?

clyde

Thinking included. Including what words may sub-consciously imply or evoke. Personally, I think the word 'undivided' applied to infinity of all that there is, evokes a sort of limit to - "IT".

[Sapius]

Simon,

Do you agree that the experience and acceptance of empirical sense data precedes the process of making definitions and processing absolute truths?

Raw experience, yes. But I don’t think the question of accepting or not accepting the sense data even arise, because if one considers not accepting, in that one is consciously doing so, and what is consciousness but sense data being processed? Does calling sense data “empirical” make any difference? However, I believe that verbal consciousness is perfectly capable of speculation, either way.

[Simon]

Sapius,

Simon: Do you agree that the experience and acceptance of empirical sense data precedes the process of making definitions and processing absolute truths?

Sapius: Raw experience, yes.

Ok, so I want to go back to this ‘origins of logic’ thing.

What I should have asked was: “what is the origins of logic in a human being? where does a human beings logic begin? At what point can we say that the human being is logical?”

But I don’t think the question of accepting or not accepting the sense data even arise, because if one considers not accepting, in that one is consciously doing so, and what is consciousness but sense data being processed?

Yes, I think I see what you mean. One can only doubt the sense data - by first accepting it. Is that what you are saying?

To me it seems like the accepting of sense data is involuntary - at first.

You see, my point is that one can be illogical. (I'm sure you agree - but the origins of illogic and logic in human consciousness is an interesting thing to think about)

It seems to me that people become illogical when they cease to acknowledge what is apparent, and instead put their faith in that which is in no way apparent.

[Sapius]

Simon;

What I should have asked was: “what is the origins of logic in a human being? where does a human beings logic begin? At what point can we say that the human being is logical?”

I will have to first ask you; define ‘human logic'?

Does it mean reasoning?

[Simon]

Simon;

What I should have asked was: “what is the origins of logic in a human being? where does a human beings logic begin? At what point can we say that the human being is logical?”

I will have to first ask you; define ‘human logic'?

Does it mean reasoning?

Ah, that's a good question. I think that making a distinction between the two is perhaps useful.

I would define logic as: consciousness of distinctions.

And I would define reason as: thinking inductively and deductively about the emprical sense data that was gathered.

[David Quinn]

Simon wrote:

I would define logic as: consciousness of distinctions.

And I would define reason as: thinking inductively and deductively about the emprical sense data that was gathered.

If you were to reason about the definition of logic you offer above, would that be a case of reasoning about sense data? Or about a conceptual definition?

Obviously, the latter.

For example, if we were to accept that logic is "consciousness of distinctions", then we can reason that logic isn't something other than consciousness of distinctions. It isn't, say, the process of being asleep.

So here is a case of reasoning about a definitional reality, as opposed to a sensual reality.

The fact that logic originally came into being to help us sift through sense data doesn't mean that it is still confined to that purpose today. Through the increased development of the human brain over time, and the increasing sophistication of its thought-processes, the human race has been able to cross the line and apply logic to abstract things which are beyond the sense-realm.

For example, we are able to reason about abstract things like the self, the Totality, boundaries, infinity, mathematical entities, etc.

-

[Simon]

David,

Because I like a challenge, and also because I would like to see how you deal with my best efforts at countering you, I have formed a counter to your claims. It turns out that I think my counter argument has left me not quite convinced by your claims.

Simon: I would define logic as: consciousness of distinctions. And I would define reason as: thinking inductively and deductively about the empirical sense data that was gathered.

David: If you were to reason about the definition of logic you offer above, would that be a case of reasoning about sense data? Or about a conceptual definition?

Obviously, the latter.

My being aware that I am conscious of making distinctions, is an empirical reality that becomes a concept when my awareness feels a need to conceptualize it.

Likewise, my being aware of a door is an empirical reality that becomes a concept when my awareness feels a need to conceptualize it.

For example, if we were to accept that logic is "consciousness of distinctions", then we can reason that logic isn't something other than consciousness of distinctions. It isn't, say, the process of being asleep.

Likewise, if we were to accept that a door is "a movable, usually solid, barrier for opening and closing an entranceway" then we can reason that a door isnt something other than "a movable, usually solid, barrier for opening and closing an entranceway".

So here is a case of reasoning about a definitional reality, as opposed to a sensual reality.

Why isnt it both? A door is both a definitional reality and a sensual reality. I don't see why logic wouldn't be.

The fact that logic originally came into being to help us sift through sense data doesn't mean that it is still confined to that purpose today. Through the increased development of the human brain over time, and the increasing sophistication of its thought-processes, the human race has been able to cross the line and apply logic to abstract things which are beyond the sense-realm.

These abstract things that you say are beyond the sense realm........to me they seem, as concepts, to be at least rooted in the sense realm.

For example, we are able to reason about abstract things like the self, the Totality, boundaries, infinity, mathematical entities, etc.

The self, the totality, boundaries, infinity, mathematical entities - - despite they are not directly empirically observed, have their roots, as concepts, in sensory experience. Concepts such as infinity, a geometric shape, a number, etc, are all the result of sense experience - by reasoning about what we have gathered empirically, we make extrapolations.

[Jamesh]

These abstract things that you say are beyond the sense realm........to me they seem, as concepts, to be at least rooted in the sense realm.

David actually seems quite Kantian in his post above.

I think of every generalisation in this fashion. Meaning every word we use is based on a generalisation of something empirical.

To me the word Apple is not significantly different from the mathematical symbol 1. The latter is completely generic generalisation, and the former is a limited generalisation - there are many forms of apple but we apply a made up concept to signify that one apple is sufficiently the same as another.

[Simon]

These abstract things that you say are beyond the sense realm........to me they seem, as concepts, to be at least rooted in the sense realm.

David actually seems quite Kantian in his post above.

I think of every generalisation in this fashion. Meaning every word we use is based on a generalisation of something empirical.

To me the word Apple is not significantly different from the mathematical symbol 1. The latter is completely generic generalisation, and the former is a limited generalisation - there are many forms of apple but we apply a made up concept to signify that one apple is sufficiently the same as another.

Why not say that the number 1 is a limited generalization?

There are many forms of the number 1.

There is 1cm in length, 1gram, 1 coin, 1 planet, 1 hertz, etc.

It depends which 'one' you are talking about.

And likewise, with apples, there is a red apple, green apple, small, sour, sweet, etc.

[Jamesh]

Why not say that the number 1 is a limited generalization?

Well, I guess it kind of is, though it is still different to other things, as it is the most generic thingness, reliant only on what one conceptualizes as a thing. The term The Totality is almost the same, except it is not a single thing but all things.

All words are an arbitary (dependant on one's perspective) limitation of that which is infinite. Because everything is interconnected, there really are no absolutely objective 'Ones", but our minds can create the concept because essentially that is all it is - a tool of causal evaluation - it determines causal values relevant to the self, by determining where or where not something is the same or different to another section of the totality.

That is the mind at it's most basic - post that comes subsiduary evaluations of relativity, namely BOTH how one thing is different from another and similar to some other other. There is a structural build up of concepts, that instinctually commences in the womb (hunger, touch etc) - eventually a dynamic mental grid forms from which generalisations can occur.

It all comes from causal effects though - differentiation only comes about by different causal flows affecting the body. There are no effects after all. Causes do not create effects in the sense of effects being a real thing, they create causal flows that appear as effects.

[David Quinn]

Simon,

Simon: I would define logic as: consciousness of distinctions. And I would define reason as: thinking inductively and deductively about the empirical sense data that was gathered.

David: If you were to reason about the definition of logic you offer above, would that be a case of reasoning about sense data? Or about a conceptual definition?

Obviously, the latter.

Simon: My being aware that I am conscious of making distinctions, is an empirical reality that becomes a concept when my awareness feels a need to conceptualize it.

Likewise, my being aware of a door is an empirical reality that becomes a concept when my awareness feels a need to conceptualize it.

We can certainly say that both are appearances to our consciousness. However, your definition of logic differs in that it cannot observed or established by empirical means. Unlike the door, it's not something that can be observed by the senses or tested by scientific means.

So the key difference between an abstract/definitional/logical reality and an empirical one is the former's inability to be supported or negated by empirical observation.

Take the number 1, for example. As a mathematical entity, the number 1 has its own definitional reality and has no connection to the empirical realm. It is only when we start applying it to the empirical world - e.g. one tree, one person, etc - that it becomes part of an empirical entity.

David: The fact that logic originally came into being to help us sift through sense data doesn't mean that it is still confined to that purpose today. Through the increased development of the human brain over time, and the increasing sophistication of its thought-processes, the human race has been able to cross the line and apply logic to abstract things which are beyond the sense-realm.

Simon: These abstract things that you say are beyond the sense realm........to me they seem, as concepts, to be at least rooted in the sense realm.

Again, it all hinges on whether the existence of the thing in question can be established by empirical observation or not.

David: For example, we are able to reason about abstract things like the self, the Totality, boundaries, infinity, mathematical entities, etc.

Simon: The self, the totality, boundaries, infinity, mathematical entities - - despite they are not directly empirically observed, have their roots, as concepts, in sensory experience.

What their roots and origins happen to be is irrelevant. What matters is the here and now. If, in the here and now, a particular conception is beyond the scope of empirical observation to prove or disprove, then it falls into the realm of pure logic.

-

[Sapius]

Simon,

And I would define reason as: thinking inductively and deductively about the empirical sense data that was gathered.

Seems quite reasonable. On a different note... I wonder… if one left out the word ‘empirical’ in the above sentence, would it make less sense? Well, not for me at least. "Illogical" seems to be a result emerging from an individual, not from what we deem 'empirical'. I find empirical to be more logically consistent than a supposedly reasoned conclusion.

However, it is reasoning that defines ‘logic’ per say, and proper reasoning would be the one that conforms to ‘logic’, kind of circular. So what can be considered as logic or logical at its core? I would say existence, for which I also use reasoning, and existence seems absolutely “logical” in its process since it remains absolutely consistent in the form of causality. Nothing arises uncaused, not even dreams, but WE are the ones that are made capable of dreaming and fantasizing, which is a logical outcome of a causal process, BUT, ‘causality’ is not directly responsible (because it is not a “thing” since nothing could lie beyond) for the comparative thought results of individual THINGS. That is where I see the probability of seemingly “illogical” thoughts arising, as seen in a thought that emerges from the base of believing in and from an uncaused point of view, hence it does not conform to the logical flow of the system of causality, hence “illogical”, comparatively speaking of course. But at its core, it is a logical outcome any which way, from the point of view of totality.

So I really don’t know how to define ‘human logic’ in a concise manner, except, a reasoning that consistently conforms to the core process of existence. Any conclusions reached which involves the point of view of uncaused, would be illogical so to speak. Which I take it, is what you mean from the point of view of ‘not apparent’.

[Simon]

All words are an arbitary (dependant on one's perspective) limitation of that which is infinite.

Couldn't you say the same about numbers?

Because everything is interconnected, there really are no absolutely objective 'Ones", but our minds can create the concept because essentially that is all [the concept is] is - a tool of causal evaluation - it determines causal values relevant to the self

I don't think a concept is capable of doing that. I think the factor that determines causal values, is feeling. There is no logical reason to be logical. For some people thinking logically feels like the right thing to do.

That is the mind at it's most basic - post that comes subsiduary evaluations of relativity

Was there a typo in the paragraph above? I couldn't make any sense out of it.

There is a structural build up of concepts, that instinctually commences in the womb (hunger, touch etc) - eventually a dynamic mental grid forms from which generalizations can occur.

This mental grid you speak of seems synonymous with my idea of logic. The entity becomes logical the moment it starts making distinctions. Whereas the generalizations are the result of logic thinking about the sense data, and developing a sense of probability.

It all comes from causal effects though - differentiation only comes about by different causal flows affecting the body.

Do you mean that, when I notice that the stove is hot, I am experiencing a different causal flow?

There are no effects after all. Causes do not create effects in the sense of effects being a real thing

This doesnt seem to be very meaningful,

For instance, I see no reason why it is not equally true to say:

"There are no causes after all. Effects do not result from causes in the sense of causes being a real thing."

They [causes] create causal flows that appear as effects.

Effects result from causal flows that appear as causes.

You see - I don't understand why you are trying to make effects less real then causes. It's either they are both real, or they are both unreal.

It seems to me like you have one foot on the dock and one foot in the boat.

[Simon]

Hey Sapius,

Simon: And I would define reason as: thinking inductively and deductively about the empirical sense data that was gathered.

Sapius:I wonder… if one left out the word ‘empirical’ in the above sentence, would it make less sense? Well, not for me at least.

How can sense data be anything other than empirical? I don’t think it can – so therefore, saying ‘empirical’ sense data was superfluous on my part.

I find empirical to be more logically consistent than a supposedly reasoned conclusion.

I’m sure it depends on the 'reasoned' conclusion. Are there any reasoned conclusions that you have come up against that seem logically inconsistent, yet prized by people who you consider somewhat intelligent?

However, it is reasoning that defines ‘logic’ per say, and proper reasoning would be the one that conforms to ‘logic’, kind of circular.

Maybe not conforms to logic, but extrapolates it.

So what can be considered as logic or logical at its core? I would say existence, for which I also use reasoning

Do you mean: "Through reasoning, I consider existence as logical to it's core" ?

If that's what you mean, then consider this question:

What’s the difference between existence and consciousness?

[Simon]

David,

Simon: My being aware that I am conscious of making distinctions, is an empirical reality that becomes a concept when my awareness feels a need to conceptualize it. Likewise, my being aware of a door is an empirical reality that becomes a concept when my awareness feels a need to conceptualize it.

David: We can certainly say that both are appearances to our consciousness. However, your definition of logic differs in that it cannot be observed or established by empirical means.

Sure, my definition of logic can’t be observed by empirical means, but neither can my definition of a door.

And you even said your self, our tendency to make distinctions (to be logical) is, as a tendency, something that appears to us. In other words, the activity of our mind is sensed by our mind, and thus we make a defintion of logic. Likewise, the distinction of a door is sensed. Both logic and doors, can be made into definitions, concepts.

Unlike the door, logic is not something that can be observed by the senses or tested by scientific means.

Our facaulty for being logical, although it is more complex than a door, can be sensed and acknowledged.

However, the definition/concept of logic cannot be observed empirically, but neither can any definitions, concepts.

So the key difference between an abstract/definitional/logical reality and an empirical one is the former's inability to be supported or negated by empirical observation.

Why isn't an empirical reality a logical one?

Take the number 1, for example. As a mathematical entity, the number 1 has its own definitional reality and has no connection to the empirical realm.

But the definitional reality only makes sense when it is imposed on the empirical realm. It has a very strong connection, a vital one actually.

But I suppose that I can't confidently claim that if my personal sense perception is cut off (if I die) my definitional reality goes down the drain. It lives on in the minds of others - - and even if the others were wiped out with me, then the definitional reality would emerge where-ever else life happened to be in the universe.

Ok, I'm starting to bend.....

It is only when we start applying it to the empirical world - e.g. one tree, one person, etc - that [the #1] becomes part of an empirical entity.

But you speak as if the concept of the #1 is innately in the brain. Don't you believe that we acquire the concept?

I supppose that maybe you are suggesting that the brain, and perhaps all conscious life, when it emerges, is driven by an unlearned tendency to experience reality in a certain way?

Causality for instance, isn't really something we have to learn first before we experience it - - causality is the first thing a baby experiences, without even knowing it. Conscious simply emerges in a particular way, simply because the truth is a particular way. There is no other way consciousness can emerge.

David: The fact that logic originally came into being to help us sift through sense data doesn't mean that it is still confined to that purpose today. Through the increased development of the human brain over time, and the increasing sophistication of its thought-processes, the human race has been able to cross the line and apply logic to abstract things which are beyond the sense-realm.

And you seem to be saying that these abstract things are the result of an involuntary and unlearned tendency - -

consciousness MUST experience things in this way, there is no choice.

David: For example, we are able to reason about abstract things like the self, the Totality, boundaries, infinity, mathematical entities, etc.

Simon: The self, the totality, boundaries, infinity, mathematical entities - - despite they are not directly empirically observed, have their roots, as concepts, in sensory experience.

David: What their roots and origins happen to be is irrelevant. What matters is the here and now. If, in the here and now, a particular conception is beyond the scope of empirical observation to prove or disprove, then it falls into the realm of pure logic.

And pure logic is absolute. Whenever consciousness emerges, no matter where, the truth is always the same.

[Sapius]

Simon,

Sap: I find empirical to be more logically consistent than a supposedly reasoned conclusion.

Smn: I’m sure it depends on the 'reasoned' conclusion.

Sure it does; is there another way to know?

Are there any reasoned conclusions that you have come up against that seem logically inconsistent, yet prized by people who you consider somewhat intelligent?

Well, have you not? Do you think people that believe in a theological, or any sort of a God, or even logically consider some-single-thing as “Absolutely Ultimate”, consider themselves any less intelligent than the guy on the other side of the fence? However, I don’t think intelligence is a good measure of how one thinks and reasons his base values. Even blind faith requires some thinking on ones part; may be resulting in a God that he reasons through intelligent design. Reasoning does not necessarily result in a logical conclusion, unless one reasons his way to a corner where there is no more escape, and rethinks from there.

Maybe not conforms to logic, but extrapolates it.

Yes... of course.

Sap: So what can be considered as logic or logical at its core? I would say existence, for which I also use reasoning

Smn: Do you mean: "Through reasoning, I consider existence as logical to it's core"?

If that's what you mean, then consider this question:

What’s the difference between existence and consciousness?

Yes, that is what I mean, and without giving a second thought to your question, I say, nothing – no difference. One could say that they are the two faces of the same coin.

[Jamesh]

Simon,

Jamesh wrote:
All words are an arbitary (dependant on one's perspective) limitation of that which is infinite.

Simon: Couldn't you say the same about numbers?

Yep, anything in the brain that is of a symbolic nature, is. So all concepts and all mental images would be.

Quote:
Me: Because everything is interconnected, there really are no absolutely objective 'Ones", but our minds can create the concept because essentially that is all [the concept is] is - a tool of causal evaluation - it determines causal values relevant to the self

Simon: I don't think a concept is capable of doing that.

Ok, sorry, the "it" was not the concept - I was referring to the brain, as in "…that is all the brain is…"

I think the factor that determines causal values, is feeling.

Well, it is not "the" only factor but it is the most directly relevant, yes.

There is no logical reason to be logical.

There is the logic that forms from empirical observation.

For some people thinking logically feels like the right thing to do.

Because for those actions taken where thinking logically was observed in the past to result in a positive outcome, values relating to proecessing things logically, have been set to positive.

Positive values will induce chemicals that give one thoughts of feelings good. These chemicals can actually temporarily turn off the pain emotions - "laughter is the best medicine".

Quote:
That is the mind at it's most basic - post that comes subsidiary evaluations of relativity, namely BOTH how one thing is different from another and similar to some other other. There is a structural build up of concepts, that instinctually commences in the womb (hunger, touch etc) - eventually a dynamic mental grid forms from which generalisations can occur.

Was there a typo in the paragraph above? I couldn't make any sense out of it.

Fair enough, but my attempt to explain further will probably just confuse you more.

The brain builds up a set of simple foundational concepts. I guess we could call these foundations "Nouns", they are observations of physical things.

In a baby or foetus, the first concept would be "the self". It is aware of the as yet unnamed thing called the self. This thing, the self, is created by subconscious thought, by what is going on in the background of the mind. It then experiences other things, the womb, sounds etc. These are stored as memories, and given "keys", mental symbols that representative certain things. The brain however is an interconnected unit. Memories are stored in a way that links one memory to another. As part of this process it links emotionally related memories (symbols of past experience) to these things. One's foundational memories are their strongest, but the strength of the emotional values linked to them may alter over time. Emotional values are replenish-able memories, a kind of habit dependant memory system.

Memories are linked in a three dimensional way. Foundational memories are more like "nucleus" memories, they link out in all directions from a centre. When sufficient foundational blocks are in place, rational thought can begin to occur. Rational thought starts when links are developed between, the foundational blocks, when the brain compares how one memory block is like or dissimilar to another, and forms new memories that identify differences and similarities. We can now conceptually differentiate, compare and generalise.

In terms of aiding survival, this differentiation and comparison will be most beneficial if it done as conscious thoughts directly associated with whatever one is experiencing at the time. The affects of evolution produced a Commander to do this comparison, and this Commander is our frontal lobes, which has massive capabilities to compare and adjust memories. Our thinking brain is not reliant on emotional instincts for valuation, but simply on the logic required for basic comparison. Although it is not reliant on emotional valuations, it will of course be constantly evaluating such feelings and emotions - they form part of the data stream of current experience.

The funny thing about instincts is that the instructions must be recorded in one's DNA. DNA would have to actually contain symbolic images of the experiences it's predecessors had. These symbols do not need to be complex, they can be very abstract, their purpose is simply to induce a certain feeling that instructs the brain that action is required.

DNA does more than just give the instructions to build certain things, but it continue to provide instructions throughout one's life.

This mental grid you speak of seems synonymous with my idea of logic. The entity becomes logical the moment it starts making distinctions. Whereas the generalizations are the result of logic thinking about the sense data, and developing a sense of probability.

Yes.

It all comes from causal effects though - differentiation only comes about by different causal flows affecting the body.

Do you mean that, when I notice that the stove is hot, I am experiencing a different causal flow?

Yes. Or when you feel or sense anything, a pain or a bird, or a desire to concentrate, for example.

There are no effects after all. Causes do not create effects in the sense of effects being a real thing

This doesnt seem to be very meaningful,
For instance, I see no reason why it is not equally true to say:

"There are no causes after all. Effects do not result from causes in the sense of causes being a real thing."

Well to me causes are the only real thing. They cause the flow of the totality.

Effects are just those configurations of causal flows that we can make into finite entities.

They [causes] create causal flows that appear as effects.

Effects result from causal flows that appear as causes.

You see - I don't understand why you are trying to make effects less real then causes. It's either they are both real, or they are both unreal.

It seems to me like you have one foot on the dock and one foot in the boat.

Well I do. One has to. Effects are real in the sense that we can isolate different causal flows, we can identify patterns and name them, but they are not real in terms of having any form of truly existent sense, they are not a separate thing to their causes. Causes do not flow from cause to effect then back to cause again. They are eternally just causes.

I view causes as infinite forces that create change.

[Sapius]

Sorry for the interruption, but I had to ask… James,

Please keep in mind I speak very simply, due to my weak vocabulary.

I view causes as infinite forces that create change.

If causes are the infinite forces that create change, then what is the change but effects?

one cannot talk about causes without talking about effects, in fact one should consider effects first, for if it were not for effects, (since that is what we detect first and then deduce the process of causality by observing change), how could we ever know about the process of causality?

What we are directly aware of are effects and not causes, awareness of causes steps in after conceptualization.

And your view seems to suggest that ‘cause’ is some kind of external force that acts upon something that it is not. Why can’t it be that the process is imbedded within each and every thing itself? May be things change things, and since we cannot believe or accept that a thing could change a thing, because it seems to be merely a “dead” thing, or a lowly non-inherent one, we search for a higher authority, or force, or a much profound concept that churns these things.

In my opinion, causality is no more than a name of a process, used to describe change for the ease of logically understanding change… of one thing to another, from one form to another, that’s all. I don’t see any such “force” called causality ‘acting upon’ any thing, for it is not some-thing that could be apart from things itself.

Just because things do not inherently exist, would not mean that they do no exist in whatsoever form, and hence would not also mean that they do not play any part in creating the next effect. For what are effects but things, and what are causes but previous effects, or things in other words.

Same thing goes for ‘energy’. Is it some thing apart from things, or is it literally all things itself, including a supposed “empty” space?

I would much prefer to say that absolutely everything is subject to change, except change; and change itself is literally empty as ever. Causes seem to create a lot of problems too, among other things :D

[Matt Gregory]

Why do you always say your english is weak, Sapius? What is your first language? Where are you from? Just curious.