Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the human

This is ambiguous. Because “usefulness” is meaningless as question about fact. In the terms of physics such a expedient may be useful. That is the only place local causality is upheld as a conception. However, physics aims at producing facts, and facts are by definition devoid of usefulness. They are as such, without qualification: neither useful or not useful.

It’s reliable almost never. Most predictions, attempts to predict, are false. Otherwise you would be rich. Although, my prediction that you will not understand what is said, is surely correct!

Guide

I hear you - still I would like the opportunity to pick apart what you have written.

I would say that Causality is a Ramification but that it is not necessarily meaningless - whether it is a lie would depend on whether you are trying to be practical about the usefulness of subdividing the whole or not. It is not always practical to view things as a whole - sometimes it is more practical to see what is apparent even if that leads to what is being viewed as being viewed falsely overall.

I am not 100% certain what you mean by this.

Yes(Everything “then” comes before everything as it “now” is.). No it is not pointless to assign causation - there can be some usefulness to picking a detail out of the whole of what came before - it depends on what you are trying to achieve.

Does this really show a failure of physics entirely though? How do you connect probabilities and accidents to causality?

Causality is not false because it is partially true which means you can partially ask about it. However “All things, the whole past, become all things, the whole now.” is only intuitively correct unless you have something more substantial to offer.

Yet all things are carved out and named - how is this the case? It comes down to a matter of what is practical.

I see what you are saying though - it is an ideal. The work that I have been doing over the last year and a half is quite descriptive of what you are expressing.

How are speculations of this sort ever not ambiguous? In my view, until the gap between what we speculate about these relationships in a “world of words” and the actual material reality of “all there is” is encompassed in a TOE that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace, it’s all just basically an exchanges of WAGs.

There’s our day to day lives and there’s the ontological understanding of existence itself. And in closing the gap between them there is this:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.

Then we get to a more definitive reaction to “Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the human”

What “on earth” does that mean? Let alone in linking the relevance of the “human condition” down here to “all there is” up there.

And only then would it seem can we come to an understanding as to whether or not there is a teleological component embedded in “all there is”.

What facts? In what context? Understood in what particular way? As that relates to the argument in the OP.

This sort of speculation is true or false only to the extent that everyone agrees on the definition and meaning given to words put in any one particular order. The words don’t lead us to anything other than more words. Then around and around we go. The “truths” here are basically tautological.

Just like these words:

It’s one thing to grapple with causality in noting the relationship between the existence of a book and those who brought it into existence. But what if the discussion shifts to an assertion that the book ought to be banned? Now, in a wholly determined world the is/ought world is really just another manifestation of the either/or world. There is only the illusion that, autonomously, freely, we are deciding if it is right or wrong to ban the book. The book was always either going to be banned or not banned when whatever brought into existence the laws of matter themselves set them up as they immutably are.

Same with this exchange:

What does any of this mean if you were never able to not include it in this exchange?

Same with these words:

Back again to everyone argeeing that this assessment must be true because the definition and the meaning that you give to the words that encompass it are understood to be the starting point for any discussion of these relationships.

Or so it certainly seems to me. It is a wholly scholastic assessment that goes nowhere near human interactions from day to day. Let alone interactions that come into conflict out in the is/ought world.

Until this “general description” is related to a particular context in which an attempt is made to distinguish between that which we seem able to establish as true objectively for all of us and that which is thought to be true by any one individual who may or may not be able to demonstrate its objectivity, we are stuck exchanging intellectual contraptions by and large.

Note to others:

What am I to make of this? What do you make of it? How is it relevant to the OP? And how in your view is it related to my own reaction to the OP?

In the tightest sense one can’t say that something was caused by something. The second something is a part of what I mean by ramification. Legal practice distinguishes proximate cause from legal cause. A hand knocks a glass from a table edge. Yet, what were all the circumstance that led to that glass being there? “All the causes”, amounts to saying what happened “before now”. It is wholly meaningless in that form, it happens because this is now and that was then. Empty prattle.

Practical is not determined here, nor meaning. Maybe it is wildly impractical, since it leads to blaming people for things. And wholly meaningless, since one deceives oneself perpetually under this myth which rolls on in seeming innocuousness under laughing skys of supercilious idiocy.

Looked at causally, what matters most about all things is that they are the same by virtue of being now. Ergo, the “already” is not the same. Such is the principle of the unity of the whole under the conception of causality.

Since it doesn’t fit what is. The practical method assumes the merit of practicality under some conception (as mentioned already above). The question: Why does one seek to deceive oneself?, becomes more meaty with this detail.

This presupposes the determination of true. It says, all is true. Since one can ask about all. However, that is not what is meant. What is meant is determined by the discussion concerning the good of, e.g., the conception of meaningfulness or practicality above.

“All things, the whole past, become all things, the whole now.” is only intuitively correct unless you have something more substantial to offer.”

No. The issue here is that the idea (what one lives in in daily life), not ideal (something one might hope for or sense in the mind like apodictically immediate parallel lines), is extended to human beings by being (true in the sense that one can ask about it) but is meaningless.

This truth is seldom taken seriously, because one says with an air of supercilious knowing: for ordinary people it never mattered.

This is obviously false, just spend one week reading high law court decisions. The general opinion of human beings on all matters under the sun is in a flux and determines all events on the earth, wars, revolutions, changes of laws and systems of governance. Not to mention revolutions in technology.

However, this is an imaginative stretching of the known unknowns into an formal category.

One must measure it against such a question as: What is the practical? For example, if culpability for crime is meaningless, since there is no agent of the causation, one changes one’s view concerning incarceration and punishment.

It’s you who wrote “they are in fact true”. One must ask, what does fact mean here? Do you notice that if one called all things facts, it would mean all experience of all humans were a kind of scientific result. However, don’t we call those opinions?

No because when one says apple tree, one means something one can come across. And this is true also of the genus, since we do think apple tree as a class or kind of thing. That is something one encounters. Both in the sense that any apple tree is externally a case of the kind of thing one calls an apple tree, and it is also the concept as a mental clarification. These words nominate or title what happens. So “The words don’t lead us to anything other than more words.” is inadmissible, since it is false by the standard of describing what happens accurately.

So far as the “ought” judgment is thought casually, as causing the view in the judge who bans the book, it is a cause like the making of the book by the master printer. However, this whole region of causation is meaningless. Though, the human being lives in this idea.

This seems derivative on the idea of causality. This “going to be” thinking implies the teleology of the idea of time. It evades what is!

The word able would be meaningless (ruled out a priori). The whole sentence would be meaningless. Because you derive the “must be” of your necessity from the freedom of the human. As a removal. We think we are free, we continue to in the idea of necessity. You’re not up to confronting the whirlpool of anti-logic in supposing yourself to be saying something here.

This is fanciful nonsense posing as common sense in the style of persons who claim fake flowers are more practical than living ones, for they need less care. Words name what happens. One writes things as a means of getting to what is.

If you refuse to respect the necessity of definitions, which make visible what is being said for all, you are not worth speaking to. One can explain nothing to fools.

Not sure how this answers the question of what rationality means.

This is comical and ridiculous, as is your obvious insincerity.

Guide not to be unfair but am authentic philosopher must interject on the basis of supporting Your thesis
It is a current controversy You are feeding in , as to what is a lie and what truth is. I think You’re far too intelligent not to see the facade under which Your arguments that appear, prima facea unsupportable on a very basic level, which is incidentally Truml’s problem that eventually people will catch on, unless You are easing into controversy, which sorry today is begging for some kind of synthesis.

I beg Your pardon not to appear as just another vainglory Bullitt pulpit
And I double down on that because You are new and I welcome You to ILP.

Polemical clowning. Sad and despicable.

But: There are truths that can actually be determined. The “world of words” in a legal decision is either in sync with the demonstrable facts or it is not. This can either be shown or it cannot.

For example, there are laws on the book [words in a law book] that, in any particular political jurisdiction, prescribe and proscribe particular behaviors relating to, say, owning guns and rifles.

But how is it determined which set of laws that prescribe and proscribe particular behaviors here ought to be on the book?

What distinctions can we note here?

Well, from my frame of mind, it is just common sense. Is there or is there not a seemingly inherent gap between what we think we know about something [about anything] and all that would need to be known about everything?

What if what we construe as practical is only ever that which we could – or would – have construed as practical? For instance, a particular individual’s culpability – like the crime itself, like point of view about the crime itself – may well be wholly scripted into our interactions by “the immutable laws of matter”.

In fact it may well be possible that arguing over what in fact is true here is in fact already embedded in whatever set into motion the fact of matter itself. We’re all basically acting out nature’s script — one that just happens to include the kind of matter that human consciousness itself evolved into. Matter able to ponder itself as matter able to ponder itself. But only as matter was ever able to ponder itself.

And the maddening thing is that until we know for certain what is in fact true or not true here, we can only take one or another existential leap to believing that what we think we do know about it “here and now” is “for all practical purposes” what is thought to “work” for us.

What’s weird about mindful matter is that sometimes all that’s necessary is for it to believe that something is true. It doesn’t necessarily have to actually be true at all.

There are facts we can note in a causual chain that all are able to agree on because in fact they are able to be demonstrated as in fact true. What caused Joe to be executed? He did in fact murder someone, was in fact tried and convicted for it, did in fact live in a state that permits capital punishment.

Okay, but what caused Jane to believe that capital punishment is wrong?

You either grapple with that distinction as I do or you don’t.

Instead, in making a distinction between creating a book and banning people from reading it, you prefer to go here:

Now, in a wholly determined universe, there would not appear to be a distinction to be made. The book will be made, the book will be banned. Both are – ontologically? teleologically? – part and parcel of the immutable laws of matter.

Unless of course I am completely misunderstanding your point here. But, if so, what caused me to? Did I have any capacity --autonomy, freedom – to not misunderstand your point?

Then this part:

What on earth does this have to do – for all practical purposes – with causation embedded in either creating the book or in banning it? It srikes me instead as a purely “intellectual contraption”.

What is “meaningful” to most of us is wanting to read a particular book when others want to ban the book and make it unavailable to read.

How is causation here to be understood from a particular point of view? Understood, say, biologically, epistemologically, ethically, ontologically, teleologically etc.? Given the manner in which this in and of itself is embedded in an explanation for why and how anything exists at all?

And then when I return to this:

…we get this from you:

Fake flowers? Is that actually what you think my points can be reduced to?

There are words used to describe the execution of Joe above. And they are either precisely in sync with the fact of the execution or they are not. Correlation and/or cause and effect here are clearly demonstrable. But what caused Jane to believe it is the wrong thing to do? Are all the variables linked here in the same manner or is the human “mind” a whole new kind of matter?

Then [of course] this:

Definitions. Those contraptions that many serious philosophers fall back on. Suckle on. With them we can stay up in the clouds of abstraction. Or, if we do bring them down to earth, it is only to discuss apple trees and fake flowers.

Where does the conception “truth” get its meaning? Is it determined ostensibly, i.e., defined by pointing at something? The motivation for existing has to be dreamed up as a myth. I.e., the word motivation doesn’t mean anything, except that it gets somehow a meaning, in a non-demonstrable way.

The group regards your view as a myth, since, how can one demonstrate that he must demonstrate, or that it is better to demonstrate, or what demonstration is?

This being said, the group is perplexed that a man can not push a huge boulder over, through mythologizing it differently. And yet, he might insofar as this becomes the value of all humans, and they solve the problem how to move the boulder. And this re-valuing is demonstrable as a truth actually determinable.


It’s not obvious. When one knows how to pour water into a cup, that’s perfect knowledge. What more is wanting? The problem arises in a mysterious way.

In truth, I see no evidence anyone troubled themselves with such things prior to Kant. Perfect was never a mentally strange notion in former times, it was plain.

Practically, what is the equivalent in antiquity to the problem of so-called “bounded rationality”? Perhaps the “I know that I don’t know” of Socrates. this, however, was bounded by diotima, for she said, the gods don’t philosophize. Ergo, it may be our (modern) common sense…


The group says. Sheer religious verbiage without object, the stuff of vacant logomachy.


The group says, sheer religious verbiage. What on earth is matter, answer: a conception made up with words.


The group says: what the hell is nature? Answer: sheer nonsense religious swaddling cloth talk. A transformed tradition out of the Greek notion of phusis, which is set off against psuke and means nothing outside the context of the tradition of faithful prattle.


Which collapses the distinction and shows the talk the group is involved with, “matter able to ponder”, is vacant prattle. What is the ostensive definition of consciousness? Point to the picturable thing. Wie?


The group says, this is a deep and large mystery, is it not? Remembering, that the conception of truth, too, is such a believed thing.


The distinction is a concept, just like the second part of the distinction. The group thinks this is group delusion.


The group, in what is written above, is stuck. Like someone in dark glasses who keeps saying, show me a brilliant color, oh!, you fucking can’t do it! To this, the group answers, drop the conception of cause. This is what the group is working at.

The group notices, conceptions are not so arid, or wordy, as the group thinks…


Practicality is a conception. Mere words.

The group says, are you joking? Did the group never here of Herbert Spencer’s phrase, “survival of the fittest?” That answers the question about biological existential cause, as the biological conception. Such is one of the basic sciences, in its conception of all beings that are.


The group says, “reduced” is not the point. Rather: Made clear through analogy. You presuppose the conception of the practical as a deep mythological motivation.


The group says this is absurd. Does “he was executed at the mideweak” speak more exactly than, “He died by execution, under supervision of correctional personnel.” Infinite other similar true sayings could be brought out pertaining to anything.


The group says, what does abstraction mean. Does the group know by pointing? Is the group unaware that definitions are the means to getting the group together to investigate the subject matter? Or does the group remain ingenuously benighted as hell about what it is doing?

Does the group discuss the apple tree, or what comes to mind when one is named? Where is the limit of this? Can it be pointed to? Is it the same for any two group members? Does the group live on mars, or here, where shit is vague and strange as hell?

The truth about what? In particular, in other words. Or, for some, is it always the truth about that which serious philosophers must mean when “conceptually” they discuss the truth about anything?

Again: Demonstrate what? If we discuss animal rights, for example, there are facts that can be demonstrated regarding the actual empirical realtionship between our own species and the species we call chickens or cows or dogs and horses.

Unless, of course, these interactions unfold in a wholly determined universe. In that case [it would seem] any and all of our demonstrations are merely that which were never not going to be demonstrated. Or, further, if our interactions are wholly a solipsistic contraption. Or unfolding in one or another Sim World in which we are all just characters interacting in the “games” of a species far, far more advanced than our own.

Bingo: Back again to whatever or whoever is behind the reality of Reality itself. Human or otherwise.

What on earth does this have to do with the points I raise regarding causation in the either/or world and causation in the is/ought world? And the distinction I make between them?

And then this part:

Yes, “in your head” this point may well be deemed entirely relevant to the point I make. “In my head” though it doesn’t even come close.

I certainly don’t exclude folks like Kant and Socrates from my conjecture that there almost certainly exist a gap between what they thought they knew about the relationship between “I” and the world around them, and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself. That’s why mere mortals [like them] invent the Gods. To procure a point of view said to be omniscient.

So, do you exclude yourself from what is almost certainly an immense chasm here?

Or are you too engaging ironically in exposing the profound irrelevance that much of what passes for “serious philosophy” here seems to encompass with regard to exploring the question, “how ought one to live”? And what causes someone to think this instead of that.

Note to the group: HUH?!!

How are these reactions not what some might construe to be basically intellectual gibberish? How do any of you relate these points to your own interactions with others out in the world that we live in? To that which causes you to behave as you do in the either/or world, or causes you to react to the behaviors of others as you do in the is/ought world?

Let’s focus on this before we get to all of the other things that “the group” is said to think or do.

The group is not sure it understands this. What does concept first mean? If we seriously ask that, are we not already philosophizing? What does it mean for Plato (the first grand self-conscious philosopher and synthesizer of what had recently come to be called philosophizing) to philosophize? People are using a word, e.g., truth, and one notices it and inquiries into it. This is analogous to walking, and noticing one walks, and then considering the features of walking. One notices various things, and most of all, that something is being generally called walking. It is found here, and then there, and again—a pattern! The concept is the awakening awareness of what is already happening (or, what seems to have already been happening through the lense of the conception of the concept). Yet, the pattern of the pattern is the only perfect pattern. Its coming to be noticed is the mystery of raising the eyes which one has long been used to calling philosophy.


The group means, that demonstration is a thing at all. In other words, presumably, squirrels have no manner of discussing it. Of saying, it is demonstrated, ergo, bow down to reason. It is only possible to quibble about what counts as demonstration because the concept is in some way available and forcible to the human being. Perhaps it is a wrong force, a useless force, a harmful instinct.

This is not obviously a matter of necessity or human freedom. The question of necessity is derivative on what comes forward by way of mythological discussion possibilities, such as the concept of cause.


Because of the issue in Dostoevsky’s Devils. The freedom to interpret (the either / or) comes up against the stone, the man-god is not wholly sublime. Ergo, not wholly superior to the terrible and unpleasant forces which show him how little he is worth.

Paraphrase the point. The group doesn’t see what you want to say in the statement “…seemingly inherent gap…” if you don’t mean bounded rationality.

The group regards this as a Kaspar Hauser frame of mind. In other words, such a great fixation on the idea of omniscience an inability to see that knowledge meant nothing like that for philosophers. What they mean was simple knowing, e.g., such as how to pour a glass of water. Which is perfect knowledge of pouring a glass of water which requires nothing more.


Not in the least. The group regards this as an issue of presuppositions about what is in question. Especially in the form of a near-unconscious gross slander on philosophy, which misses its content and meaning entirely.


This part of the group is not largely concerned with causation. Rather, with being.


Since the group can’t discuss anything without clarifying what we are speaking about so we know what we are talking about as a means to getting at the subject matter itself of those things. Otherwise the discussion is whu-whu, blah blah, and dog’s barking. I.e., it is sheer noise.

It is really amazingly sad that the group needs to be insesently fought in order to get it to philosophize rather than blather meaninglessly.

Note, this is added on, since the group is not sure what it has left unanswered. And so it apologizes for any oversight.


The conception of the fact was hardly known in Locke’s time. A very few individuals in the Royal Society started that. In the polemic between Hobbes and Boyle it began. Now it is everywhere taken for granted. The older meaning of fact was the legal meaning, as in “accessory after the fact’, it meant voluntary act. The carry over has to do with voluntary testing, and from that thinking of all human experience as testing things. We move with the train of world history in this respect, it is part of the reaction norm’s environment when thought evolutionarily.


The group thinks you are fixated on the conception of necessity and freedom.

The group regards this as mythical pitter-patter. The group’s kneeling to worship its notion that the human being is “non-special” comes out in Freud, when he says: the masochist whips himself, and thereby remains the master. The thoughtless part of the group is whipping itself.


Well, for instance, these days, in a political connection, one often hears the claim “you can have your own opinions, not your own facts”. This phrase is confused, and therefore it confuses discussion. If one is unable to say what a fact is, and how it differs from an opinion, one is bound to have trouble. Is it not an “ethical quagmire”? One must determine the concept.

Guide, I’m going to follow you a bit, since you called me a moron.

Let’s understand the implications of your op.

Everything that came before us is exactly the same “everything” (which is a tricky equivocation) therefor, to establish causality to anything must include everything, and thus can’t exist.

I’ll give you a very simple refutation, in your analysis, there can never be singularities, such as you or I , yet, in the present we apprehend an infinite number of singularities. How then can a singularity exist without causation? I don’t necessarily mean intelligent causation, simply something discerned from your amorphous all theory, you, proves that there are streaming points of singularity, which certainly makes the all not amorphous whatsoever.

The mere act of making your post, agrees that not all causes have the same effect, because you believe in yourself and other people.

So really, this thread is a scam.

Fact is consensus of opinion :laughing:


Does the concept of causality refer to all things? In other words, are all things the same insofar as causality is concerned? It seems to me this “equivocation” as the group polemically put it, is part of the concept of causality. Or, how might the group avoid that? The group acts as though it were part of the group’s dishonest presentation (and, presumably, its natural and inborn practice).


If there are an “infinite number” of something, that implies a universal. One can’t speak of singularities except as a universal conception. Aristotle says here, the thing one points at can never be the subject of a science. In this sense, causality, so far as it is a scientific concept, doesn’t apply.

The group says, what is a “singularity”? A member of the group sees, right now, before them, a keyboard. They have no ostensive access to a “singularity”. And never in their life did they see one. There are many keyboards, the word signals them, one can draw infinite numbers of them, in diverse styles. One thinks of them, remembers them. They are things in the sense of “all things”. All things, if the group allows, might also include the things that now might come to be, but aren’t, unborn and unconceived children or keyboards for instance. Even things not yet thought of as patterns.

What is the singularity? There is pointing, one points, “this one”, and calls it singular, but it is derivative on the keyboard. Which is part of, I emphasize, a pattern or universal.

What is the singularity? There is a theory of dispersion of mass, heterogeneous stuff in unique patterns. That exists only in the mind of physicists. Since it is an ideal like parallel lines.


So says the religious part of the group, that kneels to its abstract ideal of the “singular”. Yet, the thinking part of the group says, surely not.

So says the group.

The group says: I ten people who know they are lying claim the sun is green, it is a fact? Or, do we need more than ten? And can they lie, or must they believe what they are saying?

Are you trying to establish fact about fact? Only a joker would lie about his opinion and that’s a fact :wink:

My opinion about fact is Climate Change is fact because of the consensus of opinion, but wrong.

In law, I’m pretty sure that fact is up to the jury to decide (consensus of opinion). Maybe Carleas can validate that.

This is typical:

I ask you to embed that which you construe to be the “conceptual” meaning of “truth” into that which unfolds when [existentially] different individuals come to conflicted understandings regarding what the truth is with respect to moral and political conflagrations out in the world that we live in. Instead, you take us straight back up into the scholastic clouds.

Same here:

My point doesn’t revolve around what squirrels tell each other. It revolves around what we human beings tell each when we make that crucial distinction between hunters discussing the best way to kill animals and all the rest of us discussing whether the hunting and the killing of animals is a good thing or a bad thing.

And then the extent to which the causual chain is either the same or different when these distinct conversations unfold.

Instead, we get this…

[b]Note to others:

You tell me: How are his points here connected to mine? How respectfully should I take his points as sophisticated arguments?[/b]

Seriously, are his points here actually worth pursuing? Or should I perhaps just cross him off the list as but one more “serious philosopher” – pedant? – hopelessly out of sync with the manner in which I probe such things as morality and causality in human interactions.

Or, sure, is the thread just a “scam”? An exercise in irony? A way to expose just how shallow the “technical” arguments of the serious philosophers can be out in “the real world”?

Pursue them if it’s fun to pursue them. “Worth” implies some goal you’re working towards and I couldn’t ascertain “worth” before knowing what your goal is.

We don’t know what a fact is, so all we can do is investigate. Such a presupposition, directive of the seeking, would exclude the possiblity of genuine investigation. One could say, we seek the truth about the fact, though, there too, we make a difficulty. Since we don’t know what truth is. Ergo, we enter the hermeneutic circle with as much openness as possible only guided by the subject matter of the fact itself.

So if someone is a “joker” then we can dismiss his claim about facts? In other words, the modern objection and universal cheep escape clause: “ad hominem” must be wholly set aside. How do we, however, know when we have a “joker” on our hands?

Here there is a distinction to be made between expert opinion of scientists, and Scientific facts. The latter relies on the accuracy of quantifiable demonstration. Which, in the case of a one-time future event, can only be given ,at best, probabilistically. Strictly speaking, no scientific fact can be given here concerning future happening.

Fact is opposed to law there. I.e., interpretation or construal of the law. Accessory after the fact means: after the act. Act means a voluntary, ergo, a culpable deed.

What is fact? One thing or many?