I just broke your toys :(

[Faust]

Nobody has seen some odd entity--'causality'--forcing dudes to die when getting hit by trains

What??? You can easily see it, the train crushes vital organs and the dude dies.

and we can imagine a situation where a dude could survive getting hit by a train (Superman does it)

WTF??? This is a religious statement. Superman does not exist, and if he did, there would be scientific explanations for it. Perhaps his outer skin would be very very tough, so his internal organs would be protected. Still causality though.

so it's clear that we just assume that since dudes have been seen to die when getting hit by trains, that dying is an effect of getting hit by trains.

Yes if you get hit by a train you will die.

Nevertheless, the premise upon which such deductions are made is ultimately going to be inductive. Our knowledge of any given causal connection isn't ever deductive 'all the way down'.

just because you say it's so doesn't make it true. Causality can quite well be 'all the way down.'

We can, though, imagine that my first premise might be false.

It's only false if causality has something to do with it.

the limits of our imagination, and our manner of speaking

bla bla bla, rubbish rubbish rubbish, child's play and more child's play

There are a thousand and one conceivable scenarios in which you wouldn't be disappointed to fail an exam.

Oh yeah??? well name me those 1001 scenarios PLEASE, let's see how much you can talk out of your ass. Also, these scenarios would require Causality anyways since it relates to my emotions and my psychology.

Your insistence that it is impossible only demonstrates a lack of imagination.

you really can dig up garbage from the back alley can't you?

Maybe prior to an exam you meet some keen lady who you fall madly in love with, and just utterly stop caring about everything else, content in the knowledge that you'll be happy as long as you have her.

Wouldn't happen. My cynicism and my better judgment and hence, Causality, would refrain me from doing such a foolish thing. Regardless, this scenario IS Causality anyway.

maybe some rich dude has a vendetta against your instructor, and offers you massive cash to fail an exam

How would this, BENEFIT ME or the rich guy, and destroy the instructor??? It's totally the other way around. Regardless, Causality still exists here.

we could imagine that after completing an exam you have some serious accident that paralyzes you from the neck down, and your resulting sorrow runs so deep that you can't be bothered to care about petty things like exams.

Ok, but that's because my original state has been totally changed. Here as well, Causality plays an ultimate role, so you're only proving Causality, which is nice for me :)

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Faust,

What??? You can easily see it, the train crushes vital organs and the dude dies.

How do you know that people die when their organs get crushed? You inductively infer it from the fact that things have always worked like that as far as you know.

WTF??? This is a religious statement. Superman does not exist, and if he did, there would be scientific explanations for it. Perhaps his outer skin would be very very tough, so his internal organs would be protected. Still causality though.

I said that we can imagine a fella surviving getting hit by a train. You're attacking a straw man.

just because you say it's so doesn't make it true. Causality can quite well be 'all the way down.'

I said "our knowledge of any given causal connection isn't ever deductive 'all the way down'". To be a bit more specific, it is our method of inferring our knowledge of any given causal connection that isn't deductive 'all the way down'. I'm talking epistemology here, not ontology.

Oh yeah??? well name me those 1001 scenarios PLEASE, let's see how much you can talk out of your ass. Also, these scenarios would require Causality anyways since it relates to my emotions and my psychology.

I simply said it was possible that you might not feel disappointed if you failed an exam. I've demonstrated that. Your insistence that all scenarios would require causality is begging the question, but I knew you were going to stick to your dogma, so I provided only scenarios in which a cause could be accounted for. I could just say that you could fail an exam and find yourself surprised that you don't feel disappointed at all, but you're so stuck in your dogma that you'd insist that such a thing isn't possible. Your evidence that it is impossible is that you just feel that it must be impossible, or else you've inductively inferred things about yourself which lead you to believe it's impossible.

[Faust]

How do you know that people die when their organs get crushed? You inductively infer it from the fact that things have always worked like that as far as you know.

ever since the later part of the dawn of man, we have realized that we die due to physical causes. It has been like this for centuries, and if it were possible that we could die randomly, then we would have by now, but it has not happened.

I said that we can imagine a fella surviving getting hit by a train. You're attacking a straw man.

I can't imagine such a thing. Imagination does not always reflect reality. Maybe you should try getting hit by a train and imagine yourself not dying.

I said "our knowledge of any given causal connection isn't ever deductive 'all the way down'". To be a bit more specific, it is our method of inferring our knowledge of any given causal connection that isn't deductive 'all the way down'. I'm talking epistemology here, not ontology.

but it is deductive all the way down.

I simply said it was possible that you might not feel disappointed if you failed an exam. I've demonstrated that.

no you have not!!! You have conveniently ignored my rebuttals to those piss poor examples of yours that only prove Causality.

I could just say that you could fail an exam and find yourself surprised that you don't feel disappointed at all

no!! you can't "just say" whatever the fuck you want, because I know myself more than you!! You're so idiotic in making these pathetic assumptions about my character. I would never feel indifferent after failing an exam. The ONLY time this would be possible would be if the exam was inconsequential and irrelevant in the first place, which only PROVES causality.

but you're so stuck in your dogma that you'd insist that such a thing isn't possible.

it's not dogma for fuck's sakes, it's called character and emotions and Causality.

Your evidence that it is impossible is that you just feel that it must be impossible, or else you've inductively inferred things about yourself which lead you to believe it's impossible.

bla bla bla, jibber-jabber gaggle blurp. i've never felt happy or indifferent after failing an important test, nor should I be nor will I ever be as long as my tests are important and consequential. Once again, all this only proves Causality.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Faust,

ever since the later part of the dawn of man, we have realized that we die due to physical causes. It has been like this for centuries, and if it were possible that we could die randomly, then we would have by now, but it has not happened.

That's hardly logical. It makes some sense: common sense. Really, that's the best kind of sense, save perhaps for human senses. Nevertheless, my point is missed when considered in the sense you're considering it. You see, my point has nothing to do with what is or isn't the case, but rather how it is we might know that something is the case. I've said before, and I won't come off it, that our knowledge of any particular causal connection is derived inductively, and with what you've said above, you've proven that quite wonderfully.

I can't imagine such a thing. Imagination does not always reflect reality. Maybe you should try getting hit by a train and imagine yourself not dying.

You should work on improving your imagination then. I suggest some films, comics, or novels in the speculative fiction genre. As for me imagining anything after I've been hit by a train, how do you suggest I do that? I think I would be quite dead.

but it is deductive all the way down.

A conclusion is only deductive if we cannot imagine it being false if we accept the premise. I'm not using 'imagine' here to mean that we can't imagine a plausible scenario, but rather to mean that we cannot at all grasp what it would even mean for the conclusion in question to be false. The reason why we can't imagine a proper syllogism being false is because the conclusion is contained within the premise. It is simply a restatement of the premise. To say that it is impossible to die randomly due to the fact that such a thing has never been observed, isn't to simply restate the premise.

no you have not!!! You have conveniently ignored my rebuttals to those piss poor examples of yours that only prove Causality.

You didn't have a rebuttal to my last scenario, except to say that I was ignoring the claim you originally made. If I had done as much, you should have told me sooner that I was attacking a straw man by suggesting that you might not feel disappointed if you failed an exam. You didn't do that though, did you now? You simply ranted about how my very suggestion of that was absurd. I demonstrated that it wasn't, and now you want to tell me that you reacted so emotionally to my man of straw. Why should that be? I think maybe I may have originally attacked a man of straw, and you assumed the position of the straw man without really thinking about it. Of course, I'm being generous with that interpretation, and you may very well just be attempting to save face with lame arguments. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though.

no!! you can't "just say" whatever the fuck you want, because I know myself more than you!! You're so idiotic in making these pathetic assumptions about my character. I would never feel indifferent after failing an exam. The ONLY time this would be possible would be if the exam was inconsequential and irrelevant in the first place, which only PROVES causality.

You can assert whatever you will, but I can only respond to you if you give me an argument. That you just really feel you'd act in a particular way doesn't give me anything to chew on. That's not to say I don't believe that you do feel that way, but simply that your feelings concerning such matters don't demonstrate much of anything, now do they?

it's not dogma for fuck's sakes, it's called character and emotions and Causality.

A belief in universal causality is the basis for your belief in universal causality? I have heard arguments of that type made before, but I can't seem to remember exactly what the name for them is. The name has something to do with some shape. Like the shape of a ball but flat. Huh, maybe you might think of it and remind me.

bla bla bla, jibber-jabber gaggle blurp. i've never felt happy or indifferent after failing an important test, nor should I be nor will I ever be as long as my tests are important and consequential. Once again, all this only proves Causality.

It provides a nice demonstration of how you rationalize your opinion. You do so inductively, which is exactly how I said you do it. Can I read minds, or do I simply have a point here? I prefer the former, but will settle for the later.

[David Quinn]

Expectantly Ironic,

DQ: Time and space are logically necessary for the existence of the apple, as is the existence of the Universe itself. Yet we don't normally think of these things as being part of the apple.

EI: The universe is only what occurs within it, and divides into that which occurs within it. Time is a fancy name for change, and thus our knowledge of it can be divided into facts about things changing (and then exhausted). Same basic idea goes for space as well.

DQ: Nonetheless, the Universe, and time and space (or change, if you want to call it that) are all logically necessary for the apple to come into existence.

EI: Nah. Space, the universe, time, color, apple seeds, and whatnot, just necessarily come into existence with the apple.

And yet we constantly see apples come into existence within time and space and a waiting universe, and then disappear again. The universe and time and space all exist prior to the apple coming into existence, they are necessary to its existence, and thus they are part of the prior contributing causes of the apple.

So your point to Faust that prior causes of a thing cannot be demonstrated is untrue.

DQ: If we observe a creature that requires oxygen to continue functioning and existing, then we can deductively conclude that it requires oxygen to continue functioning and existing.

EI: No we can't. It doesn't follow from the fact that such a creature now requires p, that it will then always require p.

DQ: What happens in the future doesn't matter, as far as this issue is concerned. What matters is that which is occurring right before us.

EI: Eh? So you can't demonstrate that one event must necessarily follow after another.

I've already acknowledged this point many times before. How about we move on?

You are constantly clinging to the Hume uncertainty with respect to specific causal linkages between things in an attempt to cast doubt upon the principle of causality itself. It's fallacious reasoning.

It is like arguing that since the Bible is unreliable, the existence of God is in question. It is a case of using a minor, superficial piece of evidence to try and undermine a deeper, larger point.

Hence, Hume's simple observation about how we infer causal connections remains intact, though Kant added something of an important footnote to it. The point here is that our knowledge is ultimately informed by empirical observation, the limits of our imagination, and our manner of speaking. There is no back door to a more urgent sort of truth or realization.

There is such a door - for those who are willing to leave Hume and Kant and the entire academic mentality behind.

I predict, however, by examining the causes and consequences of your current existence, that you will never go through it.

DQ: For example, consider fire. It is the very nature of fire that it emits heat and light in cooler, darker surroundings. You can't divorce these consequences from the fire without mentally destroying the very nature of what fire is - i.e. without emasculating its existence and turning it into a featureless non-entity.

EI: Alright, now demonstrate why fire has to be the result of something else to exist (without falling back on inductive inference). That is far less clear.

DQ: Well, what is fire exactly?

EI: this stuff

DQ: It's combustion, isn't it. It is a chemical reaction which transforms wood into ash, or oil into gas. It thrives by consuming things.

EI: Sure, we can run with that. I prefer 'glowing gas' myself, but I generally think of fire as flames.

Well then, your question has been answered. Fire requires the things it consumes and thus is causally dependent.

-

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Quinn,

And yet we constantly see apples come into existence within time and space and a waiting universe, and then disappear again. The universe and time and space all exist prior to the apple coming into existence, they are necessary to its existence, and thus they are part of the prior contributing causes of the apple.

You still miss my point here. An apple only depends upon as much space as it takes up. The only reason we should say it is necessary that an apple requires space is because an apple is space. If we're talking about an apple needing space in the sense that it requires a prior existing empty space to move into, then that's not a deductive inference at all.

So your point to Faust that prior causes of a thing cannot be demonstrated is untrue.

My point was that prior causes can't be demonstrated deductively.

I've already acknowledged this point many times before. How about we move on?

I'd love to.

You are constantly clinging to the Hume uncertainty with respect to specific causal linkages between things in an attempt to cast doubt upon the principle of causality itself. It's fallacious reasoning.

I don't know that I'm doing that at all. You're just worried that I am.

There is such a door - for those who are willing to leave Hume and Kant and the entire academic mentality behind.

A Kierkegaardian leap of faith perhaps?

Well then, your question has been answered. Fire requires the things it consumes and thus is causally dependent.

I'm quite aware that we can say that the word P means Q, and then say that without Q as a cause there can be no P. Nevertheless, if Q and P are the same thing, than it's silly to say that one is the cause of another, and it certainly can't be a natural or physical cause, but simply a metaphysical one that arises entirely from how we use language. Fire simply is a change. We should say that whatever change occurs depends upon the thing that changes. It's like me throwing a glass against the wall. Does the existence of 'me throwing a glass against the wall' depend upon a glass? It is simply a description of a situation that involves a glass, and only in some queer manner of speaking is it an existent thing that is caused by a glass.

[David Quinn]

Expectantly Ironic,

DQ: And yet we constantly see apples come into existence within time and space and a waiting universe, and then disappear again. The universe and time and space all exist prior to the apple coming into existence, they are necessary to its existence, and thus they are part of the prior contributing causes of the apple.

EI: You still miss my point here. An apple only depends upon as much space as it takes up. The only reason we should say it is necessary that an apple requires space is because an apple is space.

I would say that an apple fills or occupies space. Space is something different from it. That's why we have different labels, "apple" and "space".

The fact that space is different from an apple, yet necessary for its existence, demonstrates deductively that apples are dependent upon other things for their existence. Without the existence of space, the apple couldn't possibly be. Of course, this in and of itself doesn't demonstrate the necessity of prior causes for the apple, but it does demonstrate dependency.

If we're talking about an apple needing space in the sense that it requires a prior existing empty space to move into, then that's not a deductive inference at all.

Okay, I'll have to go back to a line of reasoning I made a few weeks ago. Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, the possibility of an apple and the space it resides in suddenly emerging out of nothing whatsoever, it is still necessarily the case that it would depend on the existence of prior causes. For example, it would depend on Reality being structured in such a manner that makes it possible for apples + space to emerge spontaneously.

In other words, if Reality was structured in such a manner that made it impossible for apples + space to emerge, then it would be impossible for an apple + space to emerge. Thus, the very nature and structure of Reality is a prior cause which is necessary for the apples and space to emerge.

DQ: Well then, your question has been answered. Fire requires the things it consumes and thus is causally dependent.

EI: I'm quite aware that we can say that the word P means Q, and then say that without Q as a cause there can be no P. Nevertheless, if Q and P are the same thing, than it's silly to say that one is the cause of another, and it certainly can't be a natural or physical cause, but simply a metaphysical one that arises entirely from how we use language. Fire simply is a change. We should say that whatever change occurs depends upon the thing that changes. In fact, fire itself (unless we mean flame) isn't a substantial thing at all, but actually a process.

You're changing your conception of fire here. Above, you equated it to flames; now you seem to be equating it with something else.

If we say that fire is flames, then it becomes true that fire is dependent upon things other than itself for its existence - for example, the wood or oil that is being consumed.

It's like me trowing a glass against the wall. Does the existence of 'me throwing a glass against the wall' depend upon a glass? It is simply a description of a situation that involves a glass, and only in some queer manner of speaking is it an existent thing that is caused by a glass.

I agree it would be ridiculous to say that the glass is "the" cause of a person throwing a glass against the wall. No one in their right mind would suggest such a thing.

Let me ask you this. Would you say that the act of throwing a glass against a wall is a causal process, or not?

-

[Faust]

You should work on improving your imagination then. I suggest some films, comics, or novels in the speculative fiction genre. As for me imagining anything after I've been hit by a train, how do you suggest I do that? I think I would be quite dead.

that's FICTION, which means NOT REALITY. Telling me to read fiction to understand philosophy and Reality is quite belligerant. You think you would be quite dead?? This proves Causality then, you just agreed that you would die.

To say that it is impossible to die randomly due to the fact that such a thing has never been observed, isn't to simply restate the premise.

ok fine. it's impossible to die randomly because nothing happens randomly.

You didn't have a rebuttal to my last scenario, except to say that I was ignoring the claim you originally made. If I had done as much, you should have told me sooner that I was attacking a straw man by suggesting that you might not feel disappointed if you failed an exam. You didn't do that though, did you now? You simply ranted about how my very suggestion of that was absurd. I demonstrated that it wasn't, and now you want to tell me that you reacted so emotionally to my man of straw. Why should that be? I think maybe I may have originally attacked a man of straw, and you assumed the position of the straw man without really thinking about it. Of course, I'm being generous with that interpretation, and you may very well just be attempting to save face with lame arguments. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though.

what the hell is this. I rebutted your last scenario quite well, since it involved changing conditions of my life and therefore Causality. I never said that I would not feel disappointed failing an exam, unless the exam was irrelevant, but that's another example than yours, and it only proves causality. You didn't demonstrate that your suggestions were plausible because I refuted them quite well. The rest of this paragraph is top notch Spin Doctoring.

You can assert whatever you will, but I can only respond to you if you give me an argument. That you just really feel you'd act in a particular way doesn't give me anything to chew on. That's not to say I don't believe that you do feel that way, but simply that your feelings concerning such matters don't demonstrate much of anything, now do they?

Why would they not?? You have failed to prove that I would feel indifferent if I failed an important exam, I used this example to prove that we can definitely know the causal connections.

It provides a nice demonstration of how you rationalize your opinion. You do so inductively, which is exactly how I said you do it. Can I read minds, or do I simply have a point here? I prefer the former, but will settle for the later.

you aren't a comedian you know, your jokes aren't even funny. I didn't rationalize my 'opinion' it was a logical conclusion based on my character and Causality. Since you cannot break this up you resort to low-grade slander.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

David,

I would say that an apple fills or occupies space. Space is something different from it. That's why we have different labels, "apple" and "space".

How is the space an apple occupies different from the apple though? We can inspect every aspect of the apple and only find empty space between the particles that comprise it, and everything else is just the apple. Furthermore, I'd say that the empty space contributes to the sensations that comprise the apple, and thus are also simply part of it. Space is only different from an apple in the way that redness is. We tend to think of both of them as universals, though in reality they can be reduced to the totality of their particular instances.

In other words, if Reality was structured in such a manner that made it impossible for apples + space to emerge, then it would be impossible for an apple + space to emerge. Thus, the very nature and structure of Reality is a prior cause which is necessary for the apples and space to emerge.

You assume your case in order to make it. It isn't necessary that things could ever be such that it would be impossible for an apple to emerge spontaneously.

If we say that fire is flames, then it becomes true that fire is dependent upon things other than itself for its existence - for example, the wood or oil that is being consumed.

Yes, but that hardly contradicts anything I've said, as we know as much because of inductive inference.

Let me ask you this. Would you say that the act of throwing a glass against a wall is a causal process, or not?

It seems to clearly be a causal process. Minor indeterminate factors may play a near inconsequential roll in it, but that seems unlikely, given that indeterminate activity at the quantum level doesn't seem to filter up to the macroscopic world.

[David Quinn]

Expectantly Ironic,

DQ: I would say that an apple fills or occupies space. Space is something different from it. That's why we have different labels, "apple" and "space".

EI: How is the space an apple occupies different from the apple though? We can inspect every aspect of the apple and only find empty space between the particles that comprise it, and everything else is just the apple. Furthermore, I'd say that the empty space contributes to the sensations that comprise the apple, and thus are also simply part of it. Space is only different from an apple in the way that redness is. We tend to think of both of them as universals, though in reality they can be reduced to the totality of their particular instances.

The trouble is, space doesn't begin or end with the apple. It is also a part of every other object that exists in space as well.

If space were truly a part of the apple, then it would be impossible for it to be a part of anything else in the universe, such as a banana. And yet space is needed for the banana too.

Saying that space is nothing more than a part of the apple is like saying that the ocean is nothing more than a part of a fish. It ignores the reality that space extends beyond the apple and doesn't depend on the apple for its own existence. While the apple depends on space for its existence, space doesn't depend on the apple.

DQ: Let me ask you this. Would you say that the act of throwing a glass against a wall is a causal process, or not?

EI: It seems to clearly be a causal process. Minor indeterminate factors may play a near inconsequential roll in it, but that seems unlikely, given that indeterminate activity at the quantum level doesn't seem to filter up to the macroscopic world.

Okay, what about the scenario of someone placing a glass on the table, which you then pick up and throw against the wall? Is that a causal process too?

-

[Faust]

has Expectantly given up?

[ExpectantlyIronic]

faust,

has Expectantly given up?

Speaking to you? Yes. You aren't civil enough to bother with. I may reply to David when I get some time.

[Faust]

Hahaha, yeah right..... I've already refuted your lousy examples of when I would not feel bad failing an exam, yet you ignore this. You ignore the fact that you change important variables to prove your examples which only supports causality.