GENIUS FORUMS

Jehu wrote:David wrote:

Okay, given your description of what an absolute entity consists of, it follows that you must believe awareness to be eternal. This means that you would have to reject the scientific idea that awareness is causally generated by workings inside the brain and so on.

Do you believe that you were aware when you were just a conceptus - i.e. when you were just a collection of cells inside your mother's body before developing into a foetus?

Of course, but you must understand that all things partake of the cognizant nature of reality; and its two primitive elements: awareness and knowledge; albeit to varying degrees, depending upon their level of complexity. Further, since man is, as far as we are aware, the most complex thing in the universe; it follows that man will exhibit the highest level of awareness and knowledge. But even the simple electron is aware of the other sub-atomic particles in its vicinity, and knows how to react appropriately.

Hummm… It is not that this is not easy to understand, but that it is much harder to accept. I don’t think most can conceptually visualize what you are saying here...

What you say is totally clear to me, Jehu, except the introduction of “entity” which I think you think of as “an entity”.

I can understand “the cognizant nature of reality; (that comprises of, really) and its two primitive elements”, but there is no real/unreal reality as such.

That which is real, has an…

Has what? On the level of which I think you are speaking from, one cannot talk about any thing real or unreal; just as ‘no-existence’ does not apply to existence, absolutely no other opposing attributes apply to existence, for it is not an IT; and neither does ‘existence’ really hold any meaning from that perspective; and neither can one say that all is “within” for there is no without to such a ‘within’, so one can't even say "wilthin". Hence reality, existence, or whatever one wants to call it, is but the two elements. Chasing something “real, has an absolute (independent and immutable) and not merely contingent existence, and may be characterized as indivisible.” is a delusion, for it is the “mere contingent existence” which is itself immutably there, however you look at it, comprised of the two primitive elements you speak of.

In my opinion, awareness is no more or less absolute than knowledge.

What you say is totally clear to me, Jehu, except the introduction of “entity” which I think you think of as “an entity”.

Yes, there is but one entity which is real (absolute); nevertheless there are innumerable entities which are not real but only apparent (relative), and which are wholly dependent upon the primitive elements of the absolute entity, for their own contingent existences. I don’t understand why this should it be so hard to accept? It is just like in a dream, where there is a dream body and a supporting dream world, complete with other seemingly cognizant agents; all of which are nothing more than an illusion, for in truth, there is only the cognizant dreamer.

I can understand “the cognizant nature of reality; (that comprises of, really) and its two primitive elements”, but there is no real/unreal reality as such.

When I use the terms ‘real’ or ‘unreal’ I mean only to differentiate between the manner in which the entity in question is constituted; that is to say, whether it has a necessary or merely contingent existence.

On the level of which I think you are speaking from, one cannot talk about any thing real or unreal; just as ‘no-existence’ does not apply to existence, absolutely no other opposing attributes apply to existence, for it is not an IT;…[/quote
The two modes of existence (absolute and relative) are not opposites, they are interdependent complements; for they complete one another in that ‘universe of discourse’ which we call ‘existence’. Hence their complementary characteristics.

…and neither does ‘existence’ really hold any meaning from that perspective; and neither can one say that all is “within” for there is no without to such a ‘within’, so one can't even say "wilthin".

While I agree with you regarding the use of the term ‘within’, and for this reason prefer the terms ‘intrinsic’ and ‘extrinsic’; I do not agree that the term ‘existence’ holds no meaning. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why you hold this view?

Hence reality, existence, or whatever one wants to call it, is but the two elements. Chasing something “real, has an absolute (independent and immutable) and not merely contingent existence, and may be characterized as indivisible.” is a delusion, for it is the “mere contingent existence” which is itself immutably there, however you look at it, comprised of the two primitive elements you speak of.

Once again, while the nature of reality is essentially two (awareness and knowledge), it is existentially one, and this one existent partakes of a necessary existence and so is absolute, independent and immutable. Consequently, any alterations as may appear to take place within its nature, cannot be real.

I am curious if you can prove that there are only two modes of existence. How about others that simply cannot comprehend?

Iolaus wrote:

For David and Whorly I have asked the question: If awareness is contingent, then from what absolute, acausal principle does it arise?

Nature.

Everything comes from Nature, including trees and awareness.

-

Jehu,

You are treating me quite unfairly, when you accuse me of not making sense, for it is you who must make sense of what I say, and I’m afraid you are not trying as hard as I am, to make you understand. I have said that the concepts that I am trying to convey to you are subtle, but you respond as though these concepts must either be immediately obvious to you, or else I am speaking nonsense. Concepts such as the two modes of existence (absolute and relative) are, and always have been, central to any metaphysical enquiry, and therefore, must be thoroughly understood. Now, I take from your response that you do not understand these concepts, nor the relationship which binds them together, for you do not recognize that change an essential characteristic of a relative entity, and that an absolute entity is necessarily immutable (changeless). Now, I would be more that happy to examine these concepts with you, but I will not bother to do so if you think they are nonsensical; or if you think me insincere.

Hey, relax. I'm simply questioning your assertions. I have my own ideas about the issue of absolute vs relative, but I wanted to find out why you think that reality must necessarily be comprised of absolute and relative modes of existence.

At the moment, you are simply asserting it as a given. Your reasoning behind it is not immediately obvious.

With regard to the relationship which holds between the cognizant subject and its objects, you must try understand that although the two are interdependent, it does not necessarily follow that they are both contingent; and I shall explain why. An absolute entity, such as I claim that the cognizant subject is, is necessarily unrelated to anything extrinsic, and so can relate only to the which is intrinsic. Conversely, a relative entity, such as I claim that all of the objects of perception are, is necessarily unrelated to anything intrinsic, and so can relate only to that which is extrinsic.

Are you saying that a tree has no relationship to its own parts?

While the cognizant subject (absolute entity) is clearly dependent upon its objects (relative entities), this does not violate the independent characteristic of the absolute entity, for that upon which it is dependent abides intrinsically; that is to say, within the cognizant subject’s sphere of awareness. In other words, the only possible way to rationalize the defining characteristics of the two modes of existence, is a model wherein the one absolute entity encompasses the multitude of relative entities, and the only model that will permit this, is the one in which the nature of the absolute entity is cognizant, and the relative entities are mere appearances.

There is another model that I favour - namely, that Nature as a whole is the absolute, while the things which make up Nature - such as trees, people, mountains, awareness, etc - are contingent.

My core objection to your thinking is that you are arbitrarily elevating a particular contingent entity - namely, awareness - to the status of the absolute.

By the phrase, “doubly contingent”, I take you to mean that the extrinsic causes of the objects of awareness are themselves contingent entities; and that their causes are also extrinsic. This however, would be tantamount to claiming that a shadow might itself cast another shadow, but this is not possible.

I'm not sure what WhorklyWhelk means by "doubly contingent", but there is no question that a shadow is causally created by other contingent entities, such as sunlight, tree, ground, etc. And yes, awareness also plays a role in its existence. Awareness is also a contingent entity which is part of the realm of cause and effect. Like anything else, it is causally created by other contingent factors and has a hand in the creation of other contingent entities, such as shadows, trees, mountains, etc.

You are effectively making the same mistake that Expectantly Ironic makes in his thinking about causality, which is that you are emasculating existence in order to support your belief-system. You are emasculating the sheer tangibility and presence of contingent entities by reducing them to shadowy, insubstantial appearances that appear within the mind and, in so doing, you are stripping them of the very qualities which make up their existence.

For example, one of the qualities of a tree is that it is opaque, which means that light cannot pass through it. It is this very quality which plays a role in the formation of shadows. One can only deny the reality of this process by denying the very reality of what a tree is.

WW: I want to go back to the shadow example for a second. Is the tree that casts the shadow supposed to be taken as an absolute entity or a contingent one? I wanted to call it contingent because it's existence is due to the seed, soil, light, water, nutrients, etc. Does our (my) confusion lie here?

I agree that a relative entity can only appear to cause another relative entity.

Jehu: As you say, the tree that cast the shadow has only a contingent existence; for it has the characteristics of a relative entity; therefore, it cannot be the true cause of the shadow.

Nothing can ever be the one "true cause" of anything else. Nothing can ever act as a single sufficient cause of another thing. Things always need the help of other things to perform their creative function.

Causality always involves a multiplicity of processes and factors. Things are always the product of an infinite number of interlocking, interweaving causes. Only Nature itself, the totality of all causes and consequences, can be said to be the one true cause of an object - and even then, it can only be stated poetically.

Would you like to go into the matter of relative causality?

Is there any other kind?

-

WhorlyWhelk wrote:I am curious if you can prove that there are only two modes of existence. How about others that simply cannot comprehend?

As I have said, an entity may be constituted in one of only two possible ways:either it is possessed of its own intrinsic causes or its is not, there being no third alternative [law of excluded middle]; and if it is not possessed of its own causes, then its existence must be dependent upon extrinsic causes.

Jehu wrote:

WhorlyWhelk wrote:I am curious if you can prove that there are only two modes of existence. How about others that simply cannot comprehend?

As I have said, an entity may be constituted in one of only two possible ways:either it is possessed of its own intrinsic causes or its is not, there being no third alternative [law of excluded middle]; and if it is not possessed of its own causes, then its existence must be dependent upon extrinsic causes.

Can you prove that "being" and "existence" follow the law of excluded middle? Or that they follow our grammatical conventions?

From my view the only "being" and "existence" that we can tackle like this are ones that are concepts within our mind. We would be foolish to try and equate this to reality. Why should we even presume that humans are capable of understanding these things at all? To understand something you have to transcend it or detach from it.

David wrote:

Are you saying that a tree has no relationship to its own parts?

On the contrary, a tree, given that it has only a relative existence, consists, as the term ‘relative’ implies, in a relationship between other things. For example, a tree arises out of the coming together of two different sorts of causes, a seed which is its operative cause, and earth, water, sunshine, etc., which are its constitutive causes. Now, given that all of these causes must exist independent of and antecedent to the tree itself, they cannot be said to abide within the tree (entity) itself; and so the tree is not related to anything intrinsic, but only extrinsically.

There is another model that I favour - namely, that Nature as a whole is the absolute, while the things which make up Nature - such as trees, people, mountains, awareness, etc - are contingent.

My core objection to your thinking is that you are arbitrarily elevating a particular contingent entity - namely, awareness - to the status of the absolute.

Perhaps I might shed some light on the meaning of the term ‘nature’, as I have been employing it. It has long been held that everything comprise a unique set of characteristics which are essential to the thing’s being what it is. In the language of the ancient essentialists, these ‘essential characteristics’ were individually called the ‘elements’ of the thing, while collectively they were called its ‘essence’ or ‘nature’. Therefore, when I say that the nature of reality is cognizant, I mean that it comprises two interdependent and complementary elements, awareness and knowledge.
As I have said before, that which has an absolute existence (awareness), although it is dependent upon that which has only a relative existence (knowledge), does not partake of a contingent existence, for which it is dependent upon resides intrinsically within the absolute entity itself; and therefore, it partakes of a necessary existence.

I'm not sure what WhorklyWhelk means by "doubly contingent", but there is no question that a shadow is causally created by other contingent entities, such as sunlight, tree, ground, etc.

I disagree, for I contend that a relative entity, being nothing more than the appearance of an entity, cannot be the true cause of anything; for such entities are devoid of any actual properties of their own. This, however, does not mean that such entities cannot appear to be causes, just as the images (apparent entities) which inhabit the virtual world of a computer game, may appear to have a causal influence on the other apparent entities.

And yes, awareness also plays a role in its existence. Awareness is also a contingent entity which is part of the realm of cause and effect. Like anything else, it is causally created by other contingent factors and has a hand in the creation of other contingent entities, such as shadows, trees, mountains, etc.

This is pure conjecture. In truth, there is only mentation (awareness) and sensation (knowledge), and all else is inductive inference based upon a physicalistic/materialistic worldview.

You are effectively making the same mistake that Expectantly Ironic makes in his thinking about causality, which is that you are emasculating existence in order to support your belief-system. You are emasculating the sheer tangibility and presence of contingent entities by reducing them to shadowy, insubstantial appearances that appear within the mind and, in so doing, you are stripping them of the very qualities which make up their existence.
For example, one of the qualities of a tree is that it is opaque, which means that light cannot pass through it. It is this very quality which plays a role in the formation of shadows. One can only deny the reality of this process by denying the very reality of what a tree is.

Yes, and this is exactly what I am doing: denying the reality of the tree, or any other thing. What I am saying is that relative entities are not real entities, they are only apparent entities.

Nothing can ever be the one "true cause" of anything else. Nothing can ever act as a single sufficient cause of another thing. Things always need the help of other things to perform their creative function.

While it is true that no ‘thing’ can be the one true cause of anything else, the absolute can be the one true cause of all things; for the absolute is not itself a ‘thing’ (relative entity).

Causality always involves a multiplicity of processes and factors. Things are always the product of an infinite number of interlocking, interweaving causes. Only Nature itself, the totality of all causes and consequences, can be said to be the one true cause of an object - and even then, it can only be stated poetically.

I should very much like to go into the matter of causality with you David, for I have read your paper on the subject, and we are not so far apart as it might seem. I have told you that there is the way that things appear to be, and the way that things are in reality; and if we carefully analyze the one, it will lead us to right the other.

WhorlyWhelk wrote:

Jehu wrote:

WhorlyWhelk wrote:I am curious if you can prove that there are only two modes of existence. How about others that simply cannot comprehend?

As I have said, an entity may be constituted in one of only two possible ways:either it is possessed of its own intrinsic causes or its is not, there being no third alternative [law of excluded middle]; and if it is not possessed of its own causes, then its existence must be dependent upon extrinsic causes.

Can you prove that "being" and "existence" follow the law of excluded middle? Or that they follow our grammatical conventions?

From my view the only "being" and "existence" that we can tackle like this are ones that are concepts within our mind. We would be foolish to try and equate this to reality. Why should we even presume that humans are capable of understanding these things at all? To understand something you have to transcend it or detach from it.

What right have we to believe that reality is anything more than mentation and sensations?

Jehu,

DQ: Are you saying that a tree has no relationship to its own parts?

J: On the contrary, a tree, given that it has only a relative existence, consists, as the term ‘relative’ implies, in a relationship between other things. For example, a tree arises out of the coming together of two different sorts of causes, a seed which is its operative cause, and earth, water, sunshine, etc., which are its constitutive causes. Now, given that all of these causes must exist independent of and antecedent to the tree itself, they cannot be said to abide within the tree (entity) itself; and so the tree is not related to anything intrinsic, but only extrinsically.

What about the cells which make up the tree? We can deduce that if all of its cells were to suddenly vanish, then the tree itself would also vanish. Thus, the tree does indeed rely on intrinsic factors. It relies on the continued existence of its own parts.

DQ: I'm not sure what WhorklyWhelk means by "doubly contingent", but there is no question that a shadow is causally created by other contingent entities, such as sunlight, tree, ground, etc.

J: I disagree, for I contend that a relative entity, being nothing more than the appearance of an entity, cannot be the true cause of anything; for such entities are devoid of any actual properties of their own. This, however, does not mean that such entities cannot appear to be causes, just as the images (apparent entities) which inhabit the virtual world of a computer game, may appear to have a causal influence on the other apparent entities.

They do have a causal influence on the rest of the game. For example, when an entity (say, an enemy) makes an appearance in the game, it causes the game-player to react and start pressing buttons on his keyboard in response. His button-pushing then causes the programming within the game to prompt the entity into responding and so on. Similar to real life, really.

You seem to be relying on a very stripped-down, simplistic view of causality in order to make your point.

If you are going to do away with causality, then you need to replace it with something else in order to explain what happens in the world. Since you are reducing everything to awareness, I guess this replacement principle would have to be "will". Everything happens by way of conscious will. Is that how you see things?

DQ: And yes, awareness also plays a role in its existence. Awareness is also a contingent entity which is part of the realm of cause and effect. Like anything else, it is causally created by other contingent factors and has a hand in the creation of other contingent entities, such as shadows, trees, mountains, etc.

J: This is pure conjecture. In truth, there is only mentation (awareness) and sensation (knowledge), and all else is inductive inference based upon a physicalistic/materialistic worldview.

I have plenty of reasons to think that awareness is just another causal phenomenon, and no reasons to think otherwise. For example, I observe people being born and slowly becoming more aware, only for their awareness to disappear again when they die. I observe that my own awareness has only been around for a short time, that it hasn't been around forever. I observe the way in which perceptions, moods and drugs can change awareness, and even extinguish it for a time. All of this strongly suggests that awareness is just a temporary causal phenomenon.

More importantly, it is also a logical truth that awareness is a temporary causal phenomenon. This is because Nature itself is the only thing which is eternal, and Nature is a thing which entirely lacks form. It is so lacking in form that it doesn't even have the form of awareness.

DQ: You are effectively making the same mistake that Expectantly Ironic makes in his thinking about causality, which is that you are emasculating existence in order to support your belief-system. You are emasculating the sheer tangibility and presence of contingent entities by reducing them to shadowy, insubstantial appearances that appear within the mind and, in so doing, you are stripping them of the very qualities which make up their existence.
For example, one of the qualities of a tree is that it is opaque, which means that light cannot pass through it. It is this very quality which plays a role in the formation of shadows. One can only deny the reality of this process by denying the very reality of what a tree is.

J: Yes, and this is exactly what I am doing: denying the reality of the tree, or any other thing. What I am saying is that relative entities are not real entities, they are only apparent entities.

And yet you are not denying the "reality" that a tree is just a mere phantom. To be consistent, you should be denying the insubstantial nature of the tree just as much as you deny its physical nature. The two are in the same boat. The perception of the tree's lack of substance is just as much in the realm of appearances as the perception of its physical reality.

DQ: Causality always involves a multiplicity of processes and factors. Things are always the product of an infinite number of interlocking, interweaving causes. Only Nature itself, the totality of all causes and consequences, can be said to be the one true cause of an object - and even then, it can only be stated poetically.

J: I should very much like to go into the matter of causality with you David, for I have read your paper on the subject, and we are not so far apart as it might seem. I have told you that there is the way that things appear to be, and the way that things are in reality; and if we carefully analyze the one, it will lead us to right the other.

That should be an interesting conversation, because at the moment we seem very far apart.

I used to be a mentalist myself at one time. I used to believe that everything was mentalistic in nature. I found it useful for freeing myself from cruder, materialistic thinking. But there came a time when I began to see the limitations of this perspective. I found that it didn't really get to the very heart of matters. I found that it was nothing more than a conceptual projection on my part, that I was still draping reality with a dress in order to give my ego excitement and comfort. In short, I wasn't naked enough.

-

Jehu wrote:What right have we to believe that reality is anything more than mentation and sensations?

We have the right to believe either way. The notion is at least worthy to be looked at if you want to think that other human beings might be something other than contingent whims inside your mind.

Jehu, I have read the whole thread, so you don’t have to repeat yourself.

All I want to know is, does aware-ness require any thing-ness to be around?

Can an absolutely single particle (which is impossible according to me) have any kind or level of awareness? Be it only intrinsic, since extrinsic is obviously not possible, and what will it be aware of?

I might at a later date discuss your response point by point, but for now lets keep it focused to the queries above.



And you mentioned to Whorly…

What right have we to believe that reality is anything more than mentation and sensations?

Well, you tell me… it is you who believes there is more to it, so by what right?

David, Whorly and Sapius,

Why must our enquiry inevitable turn to speculation? Have I not said that the truth can be attained though deductive reasoning alone? As much as I would like to simply answer each of your questions, to do so would merely take us further away from the truth, and become more and more contentious; as each of us vies to support their own position. A rational enquire may only proceed if its participants are willing to temporarily suspend their beliefs, and to follow certain rules of conduct; these being that they may request additional clarification in so far as it is needed, and then either accept the argument as valid, or provide their own logical argument as to why they feel the original argument is not valid.

Now, I should like to return to the two modes of existence, which it is obvious from your questions, is not yet thoroughly understood. We have agreed that existence constitutes a singular and continuous entity, beyond which there is nothing. Therefore, it may be asserted that all things partake of this one existence; that is to say, there are one and the same in their existential being. However, it is clear that all things do not exist in exactly the same mode or manner; for an idea does not exist in precisely the same way as does a tree or a rock; the latter being though to be real, and the former, only imaginary. Then, as I have already said, there are only two possible ways in which an entity (thing) can be constituted; and we have called that which is possessed of its own causes an ‘absolute/necessary’ entity, and the other, a ‘relative/contingent’ entity. Now, if an idea and a rock exist in a fundamentally different manner, then one of them must be absolute, and the other only relative.

Can we agree thus far?

Jehu,

Why must our enquiry inevitable turn to speculation?

We are asking questions because we see problems in your own speculation. Why are you the only one allowed to speculate in this thread?

Have I not said that the truth can be attained though deductive reasoning alone?

You have asserted so though it seems that truth that can be reached by deductive reasoning is simply truth that is inherent in the definitions of the concepts involved -- truth that we hide and then find again and act like we are making some major discovery. We never understood the nature of reality when we formed the concept of "existence" so what makes you think that we can find it in the concept a few centuries later?

As much as I would like to simply answer each of your questions, to do so would merely take us further away from the truth,

If you simply repeat the same assertions over and over without answering our questions we will continue to miss your "truth" completely.

Therefore, it may be asserted that all things partake of this one existence; that is to say, there are one and the same in their existential being. However, it is clear that all things do not exist in exactly the same mode or manner; for an idea does not exist in precisely the same way as does a tree or a rock; the latter being though to be real, and the former, only imaginary.

It is clear that cognizance is not the same as appearances, yes.

Then, as I have already said, there are only two possible ways in which an entity (thing) can be constituted; and we have called that which is possessed of its own causes an ‘absolute/necessary’ entity, and the other, a ‘relative/contingent’ entity.

I challenge this premise: Can you prove that there are only these two possible ways an entity can be constituted? How about a third or forth? How about some mode that humanity has not yet conceptualized or perhaps is incapable of understanding?

Whorly,

Given that you continue to ask me whether I can prove that there are only two possible modes of existence, despite the fact that I have repeatedly presented a deductive argument in its support; and given that you have not refuted that argument, I can only conclude that you do not fully comprehend it. Consequently, I will state it one more time, not merely as an assertion, but as a logical deduction; and if you think that its is not a valid argument, then I expect that you will present your argument as to why.

A cause cannot exist without that it has an effect, for what then would it be the cause of?

Neither can an effect (result) exist without that it has a cause, for what would it be the result of?

It follows then that an effect and its cause(s) stand in an interdependent and complementary relationship, wherein either they both exist simultaneously, or neither exists.

A effect’s cause(s) either abide intrinsically within the effect (thing/entity) itself, or they do not; and if the do not, then the must abide extrinsically; there being no third alternative [law of excluded middle].

A effect (thing) cannot be constituted in any intermediate manner, that is to say, it cannot partake of both intrinsic and extrinsic causes, for if this were the case then the effect would be, at the same time, both independent and dependent; and this it cannot be [law of contradiction].

Now, will you agree that there are only these two possible modes of existence, or do you deny the ‘Three Laws of Thought’; in which case there is no basis for further discussion, since deductive reasoning is simply not possible without that we accept the indubitably of these laws.

Is causality real or just a useful way to describe what our appearances?

Jehu,

A rational enquire may only proceed if its participants are willing to temporarily suspend their beliefs…

Fair enough; I wipe my slate clean then. I am not academically trained but I am quite willing to learn if you are up to it. So in that light, am I allowed to question before I can comprehend, and may be then accept. Please correct me if I misunderstand.

A cause cannot exist without that it has an effect, for what then would it be the cause of?

Neither can an effect (result) exist without that it has a cause, for what would it be the result of?

So an effect must necessarily have a cause, and a cause effect.

It follows then that an effect and its cause(s) stand in an interdependent and complementary relationship,

Sure, effect depends on cause, and cause on effect.

wherein either they both exist simultaneously, or neither exists.

Why simultaneously? You mean ‘at the same time’? Why not consecutively? How about the dynamic continuum that makes them dependant on each other? Is ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ one and the same thing? If an effect equates a ‘thing’ (you mentioned below), then what about a ‘cause’? Can you define a ‘cause’? And why ‘or neither exists’? Do you have any reason to believe so?

A effect’s cause(s) either abide intrinsically within the effect (thing/entity) itself, or they do not; and if the do not, then the must abide extrinsically; there being no third alternative [law of excluded middle].

So a thing has to have either intrinsic OR extrinsic causes, it can’t be both.

A effect (thing) cannot be constituted in any intermediate manner, that is to say, it cannot partake of both intrinsic and extrinsic causes, for if this were the case then the effect would be, at the same time, both independent and dependent; and this it cannot be [law of contradiction].

So a thing cannot be independent AND dependent at the same time. Similarly, would a cause and effect be the same thing at the same time?

Parrdon my ignorance if you see one, and please correct me where need be.

I have to confess,i'm a bit lost.My understanding is extrinsic means from without.In a trees case sun,water etc are extrinsic,they act upon the tree.

Intrinsic is 'from within';the trees cells, photosynthesis etc.

Aren't the 2 acting simultaneously,in concert?Effect the tree grows.

Whorly wrote:

Is causality real or just a useful way to describe what our appearances?

There is that which is real, and which is the cause of all things; but that which we generally call causality is, like all things, mere appearance.

Sapius wrote:

So an effect must necessarily have a cause, and a cause effect.

Clearly, for the two are related (connected).

Why simultaneously? You mean ‘at the same time’? Why not consecutively? How about the dynamic continuum that makes them dependant on each other? Is ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ one and the same thing? If an effect equates a ‘thing’ (you mentioned below), then what about a ‘cause’? Can you define a ‘cause’? And why ‘or neither exists’? Do you have any reason to believe so?

An effect, according to the dictionary, is the result or consequence of some event, although we are told nothing about the nature of this event; while a cause, we are told, is simply that which produces an effect. Still, even from these relatively crude definitions, one can still sense the interdependent and complementary relationship that exists between these two concepts. By the term ‘ interdependent’, I mean that a cause cannot logically be said to exist independent of or antecedent to its effect, for what then would it be the cause of? Neither can an effect exist independent of or antecedent to its cause(s), for what then would it be the result of? By the term ‘complementary’, I mean that causes and there effect complete one another in that higher ‘universe of discourse’ that we call an entity or thing; that is to say, everything thing is, at one an the same time, both causes and effect; the one being real and the other only an illusion.

So a thing has to have either intrinsic OR extrinsic causes, it can’t be both.

Of course.

So a thing cannot be independent AND dependent at the same time. Similarly, would a cause and effect be the same thing at the same time?

They would, at the same time, be two interdependent and complementary aspects of the same thing.

Ataraxia wrote:

I have to confess,i'm a bit lost.My understanding is extrinsic means from without.In a trees case sun,water etc are extrinsic,they act upon the tree.

Intrinsic is 'from within';the trees cells, photosynthesis etc.

Aren't the 2 acting simultaneously,in concert?Effect the tree grows

Were a tree to have intrinsic causes, those causes must necessarily reside within the tree itself. However, given that a tree is a relative entity, and consists only as a relationship between its parts, there is no ‘tree itself’ wherein its cause might reside. Have you ever seen the optical illusion wherein two dark coloured half vases are placed side by side, so as to give the illusion that there is a complete white vase in the space in between? The causes of the white vase do not reside within the white vase itself, for there is no white vase, there is only the appearance of one. This is the manner in which all relative entities operate.

Jehu,

There is that which is real, and which is the cause of all things;

I challenge you to prove this.

... Let's preempt your response...

Jehu wrote:...according to the dictionary...

And we have finally reached the meat of your argument which is that reality, the one I live in as opposed to how the dictionary defines this word, conforms to the dictionary definitions. Did God write the dictionary? No! Fallible, imperfect, stupid, conceptualizing human beings did, human beings that are PART of the puzzle called reality, not in any way detached from it or transcending it, and therefore they cannot solve the puzzle.

Jehu,

An effect, according to the dictionary, is the result or consequence of some event, although we are told nothing about the nature of this event; while a cause, we are told, is simply that which produces an effect.

Well, I think I know what we are told, but I wanted to know what ‘cause’ is according to you? So what is it, and how does it come about?

Still, even from these relatively crude definitions, one can still sense the interdependent and complementary relationship that exists between these two concepts.

I try not to rely on relatively crude definitions; otherwise eventually my conclusions might turn out to be crude as well. And if it is only a “sense” that has no certainty, then why build a monument of certainty atop the foundation of mere sense or say speculation?

By the term ‘ interdependent’, I mean that a cause cannot logically be said to exist independent of or antecedent to its effect, for what then would it be the cause of? Neither can an effect exist independent of or antecedent to its cause(s), for what then would it be the result of?

So that makes cause dependant on the effect, just as effect is dependant on the cause. So why is cause real and effect an illusion? (you mention so below)

By the term ‘complementary’, I mean that causes and there effect complete one another in that higher ‘universe of discourse’ that we call an entity or thing;

I don’t think that we have reached a stage where I could call such a ‘”higher” universe of discourse’ an entity or thing, (unless I misread you), let alone if there is such a universe. So could you please explain this a bit?

that is to say, everything thing is, at one an the same time, both causes and effect; the one being real and the other only an illusion.

I could understand each and every thing having the nature of cause and effect at the same time, but not at the same instant, otherwise there would be no change happening; just a single cause and single effect, that;s it. So how do you account for infinite number of diversities? And, how did you arrive at cause and effect itself? What makes you thing there is such a thing?

An effect could be a cause of another effect, (hence a thing can be considered to have both aspects) which would then become the cause of another, and since an effect (whihc is really but an aspect) you say is a thing, then it stands to reason that a thing (which also has an aspect of cause) is the cause of another effect (thing), and so on. Could this be possible?

And what makes cause real and effect an illusion? Why is an effect a thing and cause not a thing when both aspects reside interdependently and complementarily in the same thing? Or why aren’t both of them an illusion?

S: So a thing cannot be independent AND dependent at the same time. Similarly, would a cause and effect be the same thing at the same time?

J: They would, at the same time, be two interdependent and complementary aspects of the same thing.

So again; a thing has both aspects - ‘cause and effect’ - at the same time, so why is the effect a thing and cause is not?

Whorly wrote:

And we have finally reached the meat of your argument which is that reality, the one I live in as opposed to how the dictionary defines this word, conforms to the dictionary definitions. Did God write the dictionary? No! Fallible, imperfect, stupid, conceptualizing human beings did, human beings that are PART of the puzzle called reality, not in any way detached from it or transcending it, and therefore they cannot solve the puzzle.

Sapius wrote:

I try not to rely on relatively crude definitions; otherwise eventually my conclusions might turn out to be crude as well. And if it is only a “sense” that has no certainty, then why build a monument of certainty atop the foundation of mere sense or say speculation?

It would appear that the two of you our more interested in a contentious argument, than in a rational one; nevertheless, I will respond to your concerns. I put forward the dictionary definition of the terms ‘cause’ and ‘effect’, not because I believe them to be the definitive definitions, but because we must begin our enquiry somewhere, and there is no better place to begin than with the conventionally prescribed meanings. Further, while it is the function of a philosopher to elucidate upon the meanings of such terms, it is not their function to redefine them, and in the case where we are able to develop a definitive meaning, that definitive meaning must accommodate all of the term’s conventionally prescribed uses; else it is a futile endeavour.

Whorly wrote:

I challenge you to prove this.

What is it precisely that you wish me to prove: (1) that there is something that is real, (2) that everything must have a cause, or (3) that ultimately, a cause must be real?

Sapius wrote:

So that makes cause dependant on the effect, just as effect is dependant on the cause. So why is cause real and effect an illusion? (you mention so below)

Let me put it this way, can there be a dream without that there is also a dreamer, and are not the two interdependent, and do we not say that the dreamer is real, and that the dream is only an illusion?

I don’t think that we have reached a stage where I could call such a ‘”higher” universe of discourse’ an entity or thing, (unless I misread you), let alone if there is such a universe. So could you please explain this a bit?

A ‘universe of discourse’ may be anything that we wish to talk about as having an distinct existence, for example, ‘all human being living or dead’, or ‘ all left handed piano players now living in Boston’, or ‘all existents’; which would be the highest possible ‘universe of discourse’. Now, we have already established that there is one continuous existence, and so that existence is Cleary an entity, as apposed to a quality or relation.

I could understand each and every thing having the nature of cause and effect at the same time, but not at the same instant, otherwise there would be no change happening; just a single cause and single effect, that;s it. So how do you account for infinite number of diversities? And, how did you arrive at cause and effect itself? What makes you thing there is such a thing?

An effect could be a cause of another effect, (hence a thing can be considered to have both aspects) which would then become the cause of another, and since an effect (whihc is really but an aspect) you say is a thing, then it stands to reason that a thing (which also has an aspect of cause) is the cause of another effect (thing), and so on. Could this be possible?

And what makes cause real and effect an illusion? Why is an effect a thing and cause not a thing when both aspects reside interdependently and complementarily in the same thing? Or why aren’t both of them an illusion?

Now you are starting to get the point, the notion of change is simply not logically tenable; but I refuse to speculate upon how the appearance of change comes about, although I assure you that it will become clear if and when the enquiry progresses. At this point, we must simple come to grips with the fact that an effect and its causes cannot be separate things.

Jehu,

What is it precisely that you wish me to prove: (1) that there is something that is real, (2) that everything must have a cause, or (3) that ultimately, a cause must be real?

You are having too much faith in reason. I want you to recognize that all these big words we are using are ultimately derived from empirical observations and were derived in the way that helped humans advance and survive, not in any way to promote the truth of the words. Metaphysics is the wrong use of these words as though God had written the dictionary for us.