I am saying that these classifications simply refer to reality in an attempt to describe it.
My point is that cause and effect are not distinct Forms, but concepts applied to a dynamic process in order that differing perceptions of that can be compared or referred to eachother.
Therefore a “Cause” refers to a perception of the process which is considered to flow into a separate, distinct perception of the process.
It is an attempt to describe change by separating the process into 2 parts.
The error that arises from the contemplation of Causality using this language is that one can conceive of a “cause” that is not itself “caused” or an “effect” which does not itself have an “effect”
Which leads further into something from nothing or nothing from something; which is equally fallacious as it presupposes the notion of “thingness”.
My position here is the reality is a process, not a series of static points or events described as cause/effect. Therefore it is infinite - without beginning or end as these are nonsensical concepts… given the premise.
My position on free will is not to assume the noumenon. By this I mean that “I” am not separate from what “I” do, or think or whatever.
Descartes’ statement “I think therefore I am” is incorrect in this manner in that it assumes a subject (the noumenon “I”) which performs the action. My position is that “I” am the thought and that the condition of the thought is existence, therefore “am” is redundant.
So I would state it as: “Thought therefore existence”.
Given that, Free Will treated as an absolute in the sense that “I” am divorced wholly from any determinism for my actions, is asserting the noumenon.
“Free” is a relative term which refers to a constraining factor in the process of existence. “I” am free from something.
It is not the case that “I” am free, absolutely, as this would entail non-existence/inertness/the absolute.
Think about what you are saying.
Is this process of the apple like this:
Apple–>Apple–>Apple
Is it? Does an apple cause another, distinct, apple? Or is the apple simply a reference point in the process that you have created to compare the various differing “states” in the process to eachother?
As I have described them, cause/effect when applied to perceived phenomena, are interchangeable. A cause is an effect and an effect is a cause.
This is because perception is assigned these values by the observer, in reference to eachother.
In any case, a 1st cause could not be an effect as well becuse it is uncaused. It is a logical contradiction derived from language.
Perhaps.
For me, it is not a concept to be taken literally; just something to keep in mind when making decisions. “Do you want this choice, this life, recurring forever?”
Simply saying this process repeats eternally says nothing about whether this process is all there is, or whether it was instigated, or whether it is possible to diverge from it.
I do not assume that it is fact, because I do not want to start from a presupposition. Given that, I see no evidence suggesting that ER is the case.
That’s actually false. Beginnings and ends are just as nonsensical as the process that begets them. Your attempt at understanding infinity is what is absurd here, not so much the beginnings and ends that you arbitrarily choose.
LOL!!! Way to divorce thyself from reality. Good job. So instead of positing yourself, instead, you negate yourself entirely. Overcompensation. Rather than becoming a Christian, you become the complete opposite instead, a different type of nihilist entirely, both precluding the same end, the destruction of “I”. Posing “I” in a realm that no longer exists.
What do you do here? Are you fishing for inspiration again? Are you going to claim, again, that you were my teacher on this subject and I was your pupil?
You are a fool and you are absurd for repeating the same comical circus again and again while under the delusion that this record can be anulled and escaped through changing your username and deleting your old posts.
You cannot escape what you are, no matter what mask you wear or how much you pretend.
You are a [edited by Faust] and an [edited by Faust]; no amount of pretense can conceal this and no amount of effort on your part can prevent you from displaying the quality of your mind.
…
Tell me, Unreasonable, whether or not you have the capacity to express whatever reason caused you to come here begging me for attention.
What is a cause or an effect but a description of perception of a dynamic process? What is infinity but the same?
…
Given the nature of the modadmin team here, however, I invite you to continue this discussion on another forum …
In a realm that no longer exists?
Infant, I posit the “I” in the only way it exists - the phenomena, the action.
Tell me about the noumenon. Tell me about the Actor who is separate from the Act.
Tell me about Free Will and all the delicious little fantasies you comfort your demented little mind with.
Tell me about the Word which trumps reality; tell me about the “masculine” forms of knowledge which are true only because they dominate the minds of the retarded.
What troubles you is the growing realisation that it is not I who am nihilistic, not I who observe and attempt to describe reality - but you, who presupposes the absolute and finds reality wanting at its lack.
You, whose very standard of “masculinity” you fail to reach yourself; of what have you convinced anyone? Who have you dominated?
You are a [edited by Faust] and [edited by Faust] who flings his faeces everywhere at the world that continously confronts him with his inadequacies asnd shortcomings.
For that reason, you are coming to prefer fantasy. You are coming to prefer nihilism.
Once, you [edited by Faust] Satyr’s [edited by Faust]. His spurning of your [edited by Faust] has now forced you to compromise on leaner meat: MagnetMan.
How long before you sink even further?
Hey, Faust, I responded to his post BEFORE you edited it. You penalized me and erased my response before I even had the chance. LOL, nice one.
Now take back the warning because I only responded to what was in front of me. If you want to edit and censor and do whatever you like, then either do it quickly, so I can quote the material, or not at all. I made no mistake here. Am I not allowed to quote what another person types? Perhaps you can reiterate these rules to the members of this forum. How are people supposed to respond to posts when MODERATORS edit them out before or AFTER they read them???
The problem with this Forum is that the mod/admins spend so much time interceding on the part of certain members… that all discussion grinds to a halt.
It is not my job to be here 24/7 to get people to behave.
If anything, apaosha, i am interceding on your behalf. This was a perfectly good OP. The thread degenerated not because of anything that i did. I could lock the thread, but it could be a good thread, because it was a good OP. If you guys want to talk about me instead of the OP, I might as well lock it, though. Which it looks like I will. That’s up to you.
I don’t see why you deleted my ENTIRE response AFTER you edited Apaosha’s response. How was that warranted at all??? You just killed my dialogue, possibly by accident.
You made a mistake, Faust, it happens. This is what happens when you get ancy with positions of power and authority. Sometimes you shoot first and ask questions later. Just be prepared for the blowback. After you kill enough innocent Iraqi citizens, people quit enjoying your military presence in their homeland.
You seem to be referencing time in relation to entropy → a cup falls and breaks, but does not miraculously reform and spring back to the side it fell from. The system cannot be reversed (without conscious intervention). Combine this with the idea of irreducibility of existence (that is, we must experience existence (our conscious ‘observation’ of reality) without reference to some absolute principle guiding it.) We cannot absolutely deduce or infer things about reality (that which is entropic and constantly fluctuating) from ‘within’ said reality, because reality is irreducible, experience, consciousness (as in ‘the subjective experience’ of reality) is irreducible. Our conscious thoughts are geared to observe time flowing along the axis of ‘increasing entropy’, as in, we observe history, and observe determined paths in history. But we can only ever ‘guess’ (perhaps, some more accurate guesses than others) at the ‘future’ based on the determined history we observe as ‘time’.
Kant had some good ideas, but he seems to transgress his own reason by claiming that reality as we see it is but ‘appearance’ and there is a ‘hidden’ ‘noumenon’ behind that appearance (I understand that human perception is fickle, prone to error, not at all accurate, and is ‘cushioned’ by conceptual frames and such, but I think, the reality we experience, must be reality). I think the noumenon so referred to, is actually a ‘logical necessity’, an anchor so to speak, which grounds our ‘perception’. a sub-conscious construct through which we begin to dissect reality. It is like saying ‘existence exists’, but we don’t see it. I don’t know that it is a mist, rather, it is a basic premise against which we cast shadows. It is an extension so that we may build better concepts, and thus, better equip ourselves, in attempting to understand reality, and our place within it.
CAPITALIZED INTEREST - If moderation is an issue for you, PM the mod staff, don’t clog up this thread with your personal gripes!
No, no. Lock it if you like. What needed to be said has been said.
Let it stand as an example of what sort of stunting effect the ideals of democratic inclusion create when applied to the nebulous “standards” that your forum purports to follow.
In either eventuality, I will be continuing my dialogue with realunoriginal/Unreasonable/Capitalized Interest via PM or Know Thyself.
Whichever medium he prefers…
Does an uncaused cause have to be in terms of having an uncaused existence? What about randomness? I can build a objectively random number generator, and though I am the cause of its existence, I am not the cause of what it does, because objective randomness cannot be limited by a cause. I caused the machine’s existence but there is not a true cause of what the machine would generate, which may be up to the uncaused machine.
The machine is the cause of its actions, though it is uncaused by anythingelse, and does so in an indeterministic/random manner. This alternative of an uncaused cause is also described as an alternative to randomness, as it is not “something from nothing”, but rather from something. This is different from a “prime mover” as its existence is assumed to be uncaused because it caused existence itself, because the existence of an entity with indeterministic actions being caused can still be caused by something prior. Perhaps free will can be seen the same way, though it leads to random actions.
Even if the universe is infinitely caused, there is still a question as to why “it is”, which I believe many are curious to know. Just a philosophical question .
This machine could not be objectively random as you put it; I would define randomness as ignorance on the part of an observer with regard to predicting the outcome of a process.
While you can design a machine which functions in a way you cannot predict, this does not mean that such prediction is impossible.
You could cite quantum interaction as an example in favour of your position, but are we to assume that that field has been completely explored?
I mentioned this logic already.
In effect you are asking for the cause of causality.
If every phenomenal manifestation is the result of interaction, then you suppose the universe itself must be such a result too.
Therefore, a cause is posited for it.
Unfortunately, this 1st cause must itself be caused, according to the logic of the premise. It regresses, infinitely.
Therefore you make an exception: it’s uncaused.
So what you are doing is constructing a false premise wherein the universe must be caused by something else, yet this something else is not caused itself, undermining the nature of the premise.
So we are left with the possibility that phenomena can manifest without instigation, existing before xisting in order to bring themselves into existence; appearing, suddenly.
Since this activity is nowhere in evidence, I would assert that it does not happen.
All we can do is look at the apparent and infer.
To operate from a presupposition, however, is to invite error.
I have already considered that, which is why I have used the word “objectively random”. There is a difference between epistemic randomness, which is only unpredictable in perspective, and objective randomness. The idea is more or less a thought experiment about randomness, and I believe you understand the concept?
When you consider an objectively random process, it is, as its name holds, random in the objective sense. Such randomness requires it to be uncaused, or else it will no longer hold its title as random (though it can be unpredictable/ epistemically random). We can build a machine that operates with a random process, but we do not cause the outcome of the processes that the machine operates on, as they are objectively random.
What you’re talking about is a “prime mover”, or “1st cause”, which I have covered of in my previous post. I am not talking about an object’s existence being uncaused. I can build a computer that determines a number in an objectively random manner, but that its objectively random processes are not caused, because they are objectively random.
There are two possibilities of how objective randomness would work that I can conceive of:
It is caused by nothing
It is caused by a random “decision” of something. More or less, it is an objectively random process.
The first would probably be rejected for reasons that nothing cannot have an influence on anything. The second, currently, has little evidence in supports of its non-existence. Though mysterious, it does not lead to a logical contradiction as much as the idea of objective randomness does.
Both are uncaused, in the fact that they do not have any influence from the past. The second idea, though it does from the objectively random process of a pre-existing entity, the entity and its processes are not determined by say, certain factors that determine an outcome. It is uncaused in that fact.
.