GENIUS FORUMS

DavidQuinn000 wrote:If a person happens to value Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection, etc, then he is a recipient of good fortune. None of us had any say over what our genes, upbringing, and personalities would turn out to be like. It all boils down to chance.

-

"Blind Causality" is a contradiction.

How so?

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:How so?

-

Causation generates a deductive sequence of events. If cause A[premise] happens, then the result[conclusion] will be event B.

So a causal sequence represents a deductive series of connected cause and effect relations, a convergence, converging towards a predictable - later - event along the series.

"Blind Causality" implies that cause and effect have no real purpose. That the logical chain of events are purely accidental and the convergence is merely a fortunate jumbling together of accidents that can diverge and decohere at any moment in the near future since it is not a deduction but merely random happenstance. the laws of logic would then be a fortunate accident, not the rock solid invariant laws of truth that we observe them to be. But the abstract laws of truth isomorphically correspond to our actual reality though.

A = A cannot be an accident.

Therefore causality cannot be blind if reality is coherently unified.

wookie wrote:causality cannot be blind

It is blind so far as we conscious beings are concerned, because we don't know when we will be run over by a truck, or spontaneously combust. We can't predict with certainty when these things will happen. All events are locked-in by Nature, and by cause and effect, but we don't know what is locked in. That's what "chance" means.

ksolway wrote:

wookie wrote:causality cannot be blind

It is blind so far as we conscious beings are concerned, because we don't know when we will be run over by a truck, or spontaneously combust. We can't predict with certainty when these things will happen. All events are locked-in by Nature, and by cause and effect, but we don't know what is locked in. That's what "chance" means.

So causality is not blind but humans simply lack the information in order to predict certain events? Thus you cannot deduce that the laws of causality are NOT "caused" by some type of conscious intentionality. You don't have enough information.

wookie wrote:So causality is not blind but humans simply lack the information in order to predict certain events?

Yes. We can't predict any physical events at all - at least, not with certainty.

Thus you cannot deduce that the laws of causality are NOT "caused" by some type of conscious intentionality. You don't have enough information.

I'm not what your point is here, or why you put "caused" in inverted commas. Any particular thing is necessarily caused by (is dependent on) something other than itself. This is a logical necessity.

The electricity isn't invisible. It is perfectly detectable by our instruments and is clearly a manifested phenomenon.

Similarly, consciousness is also a manifested phenomenon and detectable by anyone who looks at it. If it wasn't a manifested phenomenon, we wouldn't be able to talk about it. It wouldn't be able to produce any signs or effects. We wouldn't even know of its existence.

At root, if something isn't manifested, it doesn't exist.

I was going for a course example. To the naked eye, we do not 'see' electricity, or the wind, or gravity, but it is there. In the case of gravity, we can measure 'it' and see what it does. We can describe or predict it with mathematical models, but I'm not sure if anyone really knows what it is. It's not the same as nuclear/partical attractions - the forces are so much weaker. Anyway, it is an odd thing that we don't really have a handle on. There is also 'dark matter' and 'dark energy.' No one knows what it is or what effect it has on us. Since the universe is LARGELY dark matter, it must have effects upon us that we do not detect at all.

Anyhoo, I have always wanted to talk about consciousness itself. When I say 'consciousness' or 'pure consciousness' I mean self-consciousness. A tree, a frog, a Mormon, a computer display 'problem solving, logic, decision making etc. Yet, no machine can be made with self-consciousness.

In college, I was a little interested in artificial intelligence and linguistics. Some hold the hope of 'Hal' the computer from 2001 which becomes self-conscious. It will NEVER happen. And so, logic does not rule supreme. Computers can count, choose, use logic, plan and even learn these days. BUT they are NOT and will NEVER be self-conscious. Why is this? What is it about self-consciousness that cannot be duplicated, replicated, imitated?

DavidQuinn000 wrote:If a person happens to value Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection, etc, then he is a recipient of good fortune. None of us had any say over what our genes, upbringing, and personalities would turn out to be like. It all boils down to chance.

-

Genes and upbringing aside, does not YOUR particular reasoning play any part in shaping your present personality? Thinking? Conclusions?

If your reasoning or your conclusions are indeed a matter of chance, then what is the difference between you and a zombie? Either would then be necessarily thrown about causally rendering your logic and reasoning redundant, actually.

It logically boils down to just that.

It is not that “IF a person happens to value…”, there are reasons behind what one values, and any particular reason is necessarily worked out by an individual, not BY causality, albeit the principal or process on which Reasoning works is still causality.

Basically what you are saying is ‘reasoning’ does not exist, or at least not inherently.

Wookie wrote:

"Blind Causality" implies that cause and effect have no real purpose.

That's exactly right. Causality unfolds without a care in the world. It has nothing riding on the outcome, and favours no one particular state over another. It is entirely free in that regard. What possible use could the "future" have for it?

"Blind Causality" implies that cause and effect have no real purpose. That the logical chain of events are purely accidental and the convergence is merely a fortunate jumbling together of accidents that can diverge and decohere at any moment in the near future since it is not a deduction but merely random happenstance. the laws of logic would then be a fortunate accident, not the rock solid invariant laws of truth that we observe them to be. But the abstract laws of truth isomorphically correspond to our actual reality though.

A = A cannot be an accident.

Therefore causality cannot be blind if reality is coherently unified.

I think you're confusing two separate issues here. Some things are necessarily true because it is literally impossible for them to be false. A=A is one of these things. It doesn't matter how the process of causality does its creating, it will never be able to create an object that violates A=A.

A=A is part of the very logic of what it means to exist. It makes no difference whether things are created by blind causality or by conscious intention - the principle of A=A cannot be violated either way.

-

Sapius wrote:

DQ: If a person happens to value Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection, etc, then he is a recipient of good fortune. None of us had any say over what our genes, upbringing, and personalities would turn out to be like. It all boils down to chance.

S: Genes and upbringing aside, does not YOUR particular reasoning play any part in shaping your present personality? Thinking? Conclusions?

If your reasoning or your conclusions are indeed a matter of chance, then what is the difference between you and a zombie? Either would then be necessarily thrown about causally rendering your logic and reasoning redundant, actually.

It logically boils down to just that.

It is not that “IF a person happens to value…”, there are reasons behind what one values, and any particular reason is necessarily worked out by an individual, not BY causality, albeit the principal or process on which Reasoning works is still causality.

Basically what you are saying is ‘reasoning’ does not exist, or at least not inherently.

Whether one decides to take reason seriously in the first place is a matter of upbringing, genes, life-experiences, etc - which is akin to saying it's a matter of chance.

If your reasoning or your conclusions are indeed a matter of chance, then what is the difference between you and a zombie?

My reasonings and conclusions are logically coherent and thus differ from a jumble of randomly-selected thoughts. But at the same time, my ability to think coherently has been as much an "accident" as the zombie's inablity to think at all. I mean, I could easily have been born a zombie. It wasn't my decision.

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Some things are necessarily true because it is literally impossible for them to be false. A=A is one of these things. It doesn't matter how the process of causality does its creating, it will never be able to create an object that violates A=A.

Then you agree that "A=A" has a cause. You cannot logically prove that its cause was mindless, you can only assume that causality is blind. Yet you make authoritarian statements - implying that blind causality is a proven fact? It is only an opinion, a mere assumption.

Or can you, DQ, prove that causality is blind and purposeless?

wookie wrote:Can you prove that causality is blind and purposeless?

It comes down to how you define "purpose".

Since causality includes everything, it cannot have a goal apart from itself nor a motive from outside itself.

So, each moment predetermines the next, but not for any purpose.

This is a logical necessity.

ksolway wrote:

wookie wrote:Can you prove that causality is blind and purposeless?

It comes down to how you define "purpose".

Since causality includes everything, it cannot have a goal apart from itself nor a motive from outside itself.

So, each moment predetermines the next, but not for any purpose.

This is a logical necessity.

It looks like you are saying that the universe is exactly the way it is because it cannot be any other way. It is completely pretdetermined by a chain of causality?

Also, the movements of consciousness themselves are fundamentally comprised of causal processes, which are necessarily blind.

Moreover, consciousness is always focused on what it is observing in the present, which means that it is blind to everything else, including the future. It may be able to entertain speculations and assumptions about what will happen in the future, but at root, it has no real idea what will happen next. This necessarily applies to any kind of consciousness, not just human consciousness.

-

wookie wrote:It looks like you are saying that the universe is exactly the way it is because it cannot be any other way. It is completely pretdetermined by a chain of causality?

That's right.

wookie wrote:

DQ: Some things are necessarily true because it is literally impossible for them to be false. A=A is one of these things. It doesn't matter how the process of causality does its creating, it will never be able to create an object that violates A=A.

W: Then you agree that "A=A" has a cause.

It doesn't mean anything to say that A=A is caused or uncaused, because it isn't a specific thing as such. Rather, it is what underlies the existence of all specific things. It is part of the very body of causality itself.

Causality can only create and destroy specific things, whereas A=A is the core form of each specific thing. No matter what happens, it is always there.

Speaking poetically, of course ....

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:
It doesn't mean anything to say that A=A is caused or uncaused, because it isn't a specific thing as such. Rather, it is what underlies the existence of all specific things. It is part of the very body of causality itself.

Causality can only create and destroy specific things, whereas A=A is the core form of each specific thing. No matter what happens, it is always there.

Speaking poetically, of course ....

-

According to you, A=A is a law, a necessity of existence.

Does that which is logically necessary have a cause?

A=A might have a cause?

A=A might not have a cause?

It cannot be determined if A=A has a cause or not.

Therefore since it cannot be determined if the basic law of existence A=A has a cause, or not, reality is fundamentally indeterministic...?

Trying to determine whether A=A is caused or uncaused is like trying to determine whether justice is yellow or purple.

I believe they call this a "category error".

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Trying to determine whether A=A is caused or uncaused is like trying to determine whether justice is yellow or purple.

I believe they call this a "category error".

-

Yellow and purple are distinct properties that apply to specific/less general aspects of existence.

Causality is general and fundamental and applies to all properties existence.

A=A is a property of existence. It is a law.

You could argue that A=A is more fundamental than causality.

Can A=A exist independent of causality? Can any type of existence exist independent of causality?

David wrote,

Whether one decides to take reason seriously in the first place is a matter of upbringing, genes, life-experiences, etc - which is akin to saying it's a matter of chance.

So life-experiences are what shape personalities, and not individual reasoning? Why then when two individuals faced by a similar experience conclude differently? Does not an individual thing, brought forth in and of causality and made capable of reasoning, reason? Is causality reasoning?

My reasonings and conclusions are logically coherent and thus differ from a jumble of randomly-selected thoughts. But at the same time, my ability to think coherently has been as much an "accident" as the zombie's inablity to think at all. I mean, I could easily have been born a zombie. It wasn't my decision.

You see, in a sense we all are born “zombies”, (what you call unconscious), because we KNOW not that we are zombies, (that is we do not KNOW that we are Absolute slaves to causality), so it is the ‘KNOWING of’that we are literally “Zombies” (slave to causality), which is enlightenment. So that makes one what? An Enlightened Zombie?

Generally people do not use the freedom already given by causality in and of reasoning, and more the clarity an individual develops, more the freedom; not FROM causality, but eventually from the very 'concept' of causality itself.

An individual conscious effort is as responsible as the process it is based on, which although created through causality, produces diversity in and of thought. A thing is necessarily a particularly defined thing because it is not any other, and that particular thing is what it is because of its individual unique attributes that can be defined, for example a human can reason, some more clearly than another, not because some ones quality of causal experiences are better than another, but what one makes of or uses’ the process logically.

The process of accepting or rejecting a conclusion is an absolutely internal process of a particular thing, what we call the “mind”, and works even when all external direct experiences are taken away, all that is needed is the retained memory to work with. In fact, the process works ONLY with and because of Memory that gives rise to what seems to be NOW. But by the time one can say ‘here and now’, those moments are already a past event, and exist only as memory in and of the NOW.

David: Moreover, consciousness is always focused on what it is observing in the present, which means that it is blind to everything else, including the future. It may be able to entertain speculations and assumptions about what will happen in the future, but at root, it has no real idea what will happen next. This necessarily applies to any kind of consciousness, not just human consciousness.

So how about the past? Although consciousness is “observing” it in the present, how are past events NOT past events? Are you saying that all events that consciousness observes in the present are present events? Just as one can conceptualize a past, one can conceptualize a future, and both exist by definition, and so does the present.

And if as you “It may be able to entertain speculations and assumptions about what will happen in the future, but at root, it has no real idea what will happen next”; I have tried to show it elsewhere, that irrelevant of all known and unknown uncertainties, it is not that uncertain to predict an effect. In fact we do that all the time without even being aware of it. Every step I take is because I KNOW that in the future it will land in front of me, unless I walk backwards of course. And how about when your hand goes for a burger, picks it up, and extends to towards the mouth? Don’t you know that your mouth WILL BE exactly where you think it will be?

So how un-real or unreliable is the predictability involved when eating a burger?