# Lessons on Causality
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [August 26, 2017, 6:19pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973 "2017-08-26T18:19:50Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 12
### Author:  [@Arcturus\_Descending](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Arcturus_Descending)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2017, 2:17pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/221 "2017-09-28T14:17:35Z")
Urwrongx1000.
> [@](#):
>
> There is no such thing as a shape without sides. And circles are shapes.
James said that CIRCLES HAVE NO STRAIGHT SIDES.
He did not say that a circle was not a shape.
What James previously said was: "As long as there are no STRAIGHT sides ~~ emphasis on straight.
Can you honestly look at a circle and SEE it as having STRAIGHT SIDES?
Sure, any dummy can take a representation such as a circle and draw a larger square around it.
Does that transform it into a shape with straight lines? Does that actually change its reality?
Both you and Magnus are absolutists!
There is a saying about one having to keep an open mind but not so open so as to have everything within that mind FALL OUT.
---
### Author:  [@MagsJ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/MagsJ)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2017, 2:53pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/222 "2017-09-28T14:53:40Z")
Recently approved post
> [@fax](#):
>
> > [@Magnus Anderson](#):
> >
> > There is no such thing as a perfect circle.
> > Sure, you can pick any shape you want and call it a perfect circle.
> > For example, you can pick the one that passes the million-points test and call it a perfect circle.
> > But if the shape that passess the million-points test is the perfect one, how would you call the one that passess the billion-points test? Super-perfect?
> > No matter how perfect your shape is, it is only perfect in relation to what you already know. In other words, perfection is subjective i.e. it depends on experience. Outside of the context of experience, there is no such a thing as perfection.
> > Shapes that pass the million-points test would appear perfect to those who have no experience with shapes that pass the billion-points test.
> > What this means is that circles can only be MORE OR LESS perfect.
>
> Appears you’re mixing up abstract with concrete.
>
> In math a circle is “the set of points in a plane that are equidistant from a given point”. So if even one point is out, you’ve not got a circle.
>
> But you can’t run your test anyway, since both the shape you’re testing and your measuring equipment must be made of atoms, and atoms are bumpy. Atoms can’t do points, since a point is “a geometric element that has position but no extension”.
>
> Hume would be the goto guy on relations of ideas vs matters of fact (and I guess on the OP).
>
> btw first post, hello world
---
### Author:  [@Urwrongx1000](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Urwrongx1000)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2017, 3:57pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/223 "2017-09-28T15:57:45Z")
> [@Arcturus Descending](#):
>
> Can you honestly look at a circle and SEE it as having STRAIGHT SIDES?
> Sure, any dummy can take a representation such as a circle and draw a larger square around it.
> Does that transform it into a shape with straight lines? Does that actually change its reality?
>
> Both you and Magnus are absolutists!
>
> There is a saying about one having to keep an open mind but not so open so as to have everything within that mind FALL OUT.
Back to the origin, what did I say originally? Did I not say that as a shape increases in (straight) sides, to infinity, it becomes a circle? And was it not you and James that took issue with this definition claiming that circles “have no straight sides”? I then demonstrated shapes to you, the Chiliagon, and pressed you and James to answer “is this a circle?” Both of you cowered and balked at the question.
Your error, your wrongness, your failure of Primary school, 1st grade, caused you to ignore the question. If you say no then you look as a fool compared to most other, reasonable people, who will admit that, after a certain point, “straight-lined” shapes do appear as circles. Maybe it takes 20 sides, maybe 100, maybe 1000, but after a certain point, your eye and mind can no longer tell the difference. To a child, it’s easier. “That’s a circle.”
I, and Magnus, are pragmatic. There is a range within which people will agree or disagree whether a shape is a circle or not. There is a medium. That is something you and James reject.
Like this:
---
### Author:  [@gib](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/gib)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2017, 4:56pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/224 "2017-09-28T16:56:15Z")
This is why one should never get attached to such philosophical trivialities. You guys are getting pissy at each other over circles. ← Think about that.
---
### Author:  [@Urwrongx1000](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Urwrongx1000)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/225 "2017-09-28T17:13:24Z")
If people can’t agree on a shape, then what makes anybody believe people can agree about causes?
How about blame, crime, law, punishment? One person caused a car wreck, maybe intentionally, maybe unintentionally, maybe deaths occurred?
So how ought anybody go about identifying and attributing cause, or blame? Ought people be blamed for their mishaps, errors, or outright maliciousness?
You intuit what I mean. Society does blame criminals, thieves, rapists, murderers. According to law, some people are accountable for their actions. Which means that some people cause harm. And others can cause good. But if nobody is responsible, and everybody is a victim of circumstance, of randomness, then such a supposition must be addressed to. These perspectives are coming to light, even with this petty argument about circles and sides.
---
### Author:  [@gib](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/gib)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2017, 5:28pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/226 "2017-09-28T17:28:15Z")
> [@Urwrongx1000](#):
>
> If people can’t agree on a shape, then what makes anybody believe people can agree about causes?
>
> One is not a precursor to the other.
>
> How about blame, crime, law, punishment? One person caused a car wreck, maybe intentionally, maybe unintentionally, maybe deaths occurred?
>
> So how ought anybody go about identifying and attributing cause, or blame? Ought people be blamed for their mishaps, errors, or outright maliciousness?
>
> I don’t know, but I guarantee you such questions will not be answers by figuring out whether circles have sides or not.
>
> You intuit what I mean. Society does blame criminals, thieves, rapists, murderers. According to law, some people are accountable for their actions. Which means that some people cause harm. And others can cause good. But if nobody is responsible, and everybody is a victim of circumstance, of randomness, then such a supposition must be addressed to. These perspectives are coming to light, even with this petty argument about circles and sides.
How?
---
### Author:  [@Urwrongx1000](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Urwrongx1000)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/227 "2017-09-28T17:41:37Z")
A team of researchers in a company cooperate and produce a valuable commodity for a business. The item is very successful and generates huge income. The president of company wants to reward and give lots of bonus to those responsible for the commodity. But there is a problem. Which among the team is more or less responsible for the product? Who caused the product to be? Who invented it? Who developed it? Who tested it? Who deserves which reward?
The methods for determining responsibility, applies to determining causality. In humans, this is the phenomenon of Morality. Some people are responsible, and cause things to be, whereas others do not, or do much less so. There is a range of responsibility, causality, morality, etc.
So arguing over circles and sides, is very much the same process of determining correctness, cause, and responsibility.
Determining definition, and handing authority (reward) over to one individual instead of others, can be a very important occasion.
With circles and shapes, simple geometry, there ought not be too much to argue about, not much risk involved. But then you go further and apply these definitions, descriptions, and their accuracy to the real world. What then? Would you not prefer the better or best, most accurate, most aligned with reality, definitions? Wouldn’t you like to know the closest representation of “the cause” of what you seek?
Wouldn’t you, as the lead researcher, the inventor of the item, like the most reward? You certainly earned it, did you not, if you were responsible for inventing it?
But there are many intricacies, details, 1,000,000 straight sides, that people overlook. Maybe the reward goes to somebody else, for some other reason. Maybe the reward isn’t worthwhile in the first place.
---
### Author:  [@gib](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/gib)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2017, 6:41pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/228 "2017-09-28T18:41:47Z")
> [@Urwrongx1000](#):
>
> So arguing over circles and sides, is very much the same process of determining correctness, cause, and responsibility.
That’s like arguing that horses and cows are the same because they’re both animals. Just because they involve the same process in the most generalized sense (i.e. argumentation, reasoning, thinking, etc.) doesn’t mean that solving one will solve the other… unless you mean that arguing about circles is a good practice run for honing your reasoning and critical thinking skills, but then pretty much any topic will do, and therefore why not just stick to cause and responsibility?
If it’s really all about learning to come to an agreement, then it shouldn’t matter what side of the question you fall on, so long as you both agree–yes, circles are made of infinite sides, or no, circles are not made of sides at all. But you don’t even seem to have a handle on that: like most ILP members’ reactions to disagreement, your discussion is falling down the path of pissy remarks and petty insults.
And for what it’s worth, I don’t believe for a second your response to Arc or hers to you is about the importance of cause and responsibility or how to arrive at agreement or truth; you guys are simply doing the same thing countless others on this board do all the time–disagree with each other, take offense, and reactively get nasty–the only reason this nastiness is arising in a discussion about circles is because the discussion started with something worth valuing but then digressed to something completely irrelevant, and the nature of value is such that it migrates to wherever the digression leads–so if at first you valued a discussion about cause and responsibility, and that discussion leads to one of circles, the initial value goes along for the ride and you find yourself getting all in a huff about something which, under any other circumstance, you’d deem too trivial to care about.
^ This is why I always advocate watching out for what your values get attached to. If it starts to seem ridiculous, it might be time to drop the subject.
---
### Author:  [@Urwrongx1000](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Urwrongx1000)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2017, 6:54pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/229 "2017-09-28T18:54:56Z")
My insistence against James and Arc is not that they were wrong, but they were wrong and headed in the wrongest direction. They were as far from right as possible. They both clung to the definition that circles have no (straight) sides. That’s as far away from what a circle is, comprised of sides (lines). I made the point about infinity, that as the polygon/shape increases in sides, it becomes a circle. They balked at this point too.
As straight lines increase, it becomes more circular. Even James conceded on that point, calling it “more circular” but not admitting to “a circle”. Arcturus made no such concession.
So there’s a difference between petty squabble and “being completely wrong”.
And, unfortunately, due to the constraints of this forum, its moderation, its rules, I have very little power to force those who respond back on topic. I can’t force everybody here to participate in the topic, which is Causality, despite my desires to do so. In fact, this forum has very poor moderation in this regard, as many topics are trolled relentlessly and the topics are avoided entirely. Good moderation would be to get topics back to their relevant content, which is causality.
Because of these constraints, I must reconnect the off-topic content (disagreements over definitions of circles) back with causality, which I did, and now you are not helping the matter either, but further hindering my thread, by doubting my integrity and/or ability.
If you don’t want to talk about causality, either, then simply don’t respond here.
---
### Author:  [@surreptitious75](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/surreptitious75)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2017, 8:58pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/230 "2017-09-28T20:58:23Z")
Given how no one here is actually going to agree on this then it might be
best to return to the original premise of this thread as ron has suggested
---
### Author:  [@gib](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/gib)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2017, 9:41pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/231 "2017-09-28T21:41:21Z")
> [@Urwrongx1000](#):
>
> So there’s a difference between petty squabble and “being completely wrong”.
Not in this case.
> [@Urwrongx1000](#):
>
> And, unfortunately, due to the constraints of this forum, its moderation, its rules, I have very little power to force those who respond back on topic. I can’t force everybody here to participate in the topic, which is Causality, despite my desires to do so. In fact, this forum has very poor moderation in this regard, as many topics are trolled relentlessly and the topics are avoided entirely. Good moderation would be to get topics back to their relevant content, which is causality.
Why do you need to bring other people back on track? If they go off topic, ignore them and just make your point about cause and responsibility.
To respond to digression is to encourage digression.
> [@Urwrongx1000](#):
>
> Because of these constraints, I must reconnect the off-topic content (disagreements over definitions of circles) back with causality, which I did, and now you are not helping the matter either, but further hindering my thread, by doubting my integrity and/or ability.
>
> If you don’t want to talk about causality, either, then simply don’t respond here.
I don’t mind digressions. In fact, I’ll even digress in my own threads. But I did want to point out that the reason this digression is happening, and why people are getting all passionate about circles, is not for the reasons you claim (i.e. that it is important to determine whether circles are made of sides or not in order to determine whether we are caused to engage in our actions or we are free and thus responsible for them).
Now that I’ve done that, I’m all on board with getting this thread back on track. So what was your point about cause and responsibility? Is this just the old determinism vs. free will debate? Let me know and I’ll drop my two cents.
---
### Author:  [@Urwrongx1000](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Urwrongx1000)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2017, 5:24am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/232 "2017-09-29T05:24:15Z")
If you can’t keep up with the thread then you aren’t entitled to criticize.
---
### Author:  [@fax](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/fax)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2017, 8:15am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/233 "2017-09-29T08:15:29Z")
Sorry about intruding on your tantrums with my earlier post, I mistakenly thought this was a philosophy forum.
---
### Author:  [@Arcturus\_Descending](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Arcturus_Descending)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2017, 2:15pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/234 "2017-09-29T14:15:05Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Like this:
>
> 
I do not take it as a circle. It is kind of lopsidedly circular in nature but there is no smooth-running flowing about it. There is no essence of infinity about it as you would get when viewing a circle.
It looks more like a rock or boulder to me.
---
### Author:  [@gib](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/gib)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2017, 2:26pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/235 "2017-09-29T14:26:37Z")
> [@Urwrongx1000](#):
>
> If you can’t keep up with the thread then you aren’t entitled to criticize.
Not entitled?! ← Oh man, I must be some kind of big bad rebel!
---
### Author:  [@Urwrongx1000](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Urwrongx1000)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2017, 2:40pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/236 "2017-09-29T14:40:42Z")
This was a philosophical discussion until Arc revealed she flunked out of 1st grade geometry. Then James revealed he did as well. Now other children, including gib, are clamoring as well.
Philosophy will be reserved for the adults, if and when they arrive.
Until somebody shows genuine interest in the topic matter, Causality, and can keep track of the conversation, this thread will be closed. Those that demand a higher standard, you may find me on another forum.
---
### Author:  [@WendyDarling](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/WendyDarling)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2017, 2:46pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/237 "2017-09-29T14:46:03Z")
Other than KT where most folks are not allowed to conduct educational discussions, what forum?
---
### Author:  [@Arcturus\_Descending](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Arcturus_Descending)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2017, 2:51pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/238 "2017-09-29T14:51:05Z")
Urwrongx10
> [@](#):
>
> My insistence against James and Arc is not that they were wrong, but they were wrong and headed in the wrongest direction. They were as far from right as possible.
lol Do not worry. We all at times contradict ourselves.
> [@](#):
>
> They both clung to the definition that circles have no (straight) sides.
You still cannot see the tree for the forest here, Urwrong.
A perfect circle, as represented in anything, has NO straight lines.
So, if you place a gigantic mat in a clearing and place four people outside and around it equidistantly, then you will be able to envision four sides if you choose to call them sides - many would not. As I said, universally speaking, a circle has no sides.
> [@](#):
>
> That’s as far away from what a circle is, comprised of sides (lines). They balked at this point too.
Perhaps this is all a language problem. Most people when viewing any circle will see only ONE line - ad infinitum.
> [@](#):
>
> I made the point about infinity, that as the polygon/shape increases in sides, it becomes a circle.
Well, this part I myself cannot know for sure. Is that really a fact? I myself would have to investigate that. I can see the polygon shape increasing in size but ONLY becoming a larger polygon shape ~~ like when you copy and drag a shape in Word. It enlarges but it remains basically the same shape.
> [@](#):
>
> As straight lines increase, it becomes more circular. Even James conceded on that point, calling it “more circular” but not admitting to “a circle”. Arcturus made no such concession.
See above.
> [@](#):
>
> So there’s a difference between petty squabble and “being completely wrong”.
Excuse me but I am not being petty here. I am arguing a point[s].
You still do not understand it. A lot of this is about reality and how we perceive things. There is, strictly speaking, no \*being completely wrong" or even perhaps _being completely right_ here.
Your username bespeaks your attitude first and foremost.
> [@](#):
>
> And, unfortunately, due to the constraints of this forum, its moderation, its rules, I have very little power to force those who respond back on topic.
Sure you do. You might have dispensed with the circle conversation altogether and brought it back to the causality one.
But you actually did use what I can intuit as a key word to what is going on here; namely, power. Will to power. Where has that gotten us? lol
> [@](#):
>
> I can’t force everybody here to participate in the topic, which is Causality, despite my desires to do so. In fact, this forum has very poor moderation in this regard, as many topics are trolled relentlessly and the topics are avoided entirely. Good moderation would be to get topics back to their relevant content, which is causality.
As they say, if you are not part of the solution, you are a part of the problem. So you are blaming the moderaters for what has been going on here? Really?!
> [@](#):
>
> … I must reconnect the off-topic content (disagreements over definitions of circles) back with causality, which I did, and now you are not helping the matter either, but further hindering my thread, by doubting my integrity and/or ability.
I don’t doubt either your integrity or ability - I do not know you enough to - but no one gets it right all of the time. A little intellectual humility might help you along the way.
> [@](#):
>
> If you don’t want to talk about causality, either, then simply don’t respond here.
That’s fair enough.
---
### Author:  [@gib](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/gib)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2017, 3:19pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/239 "2017-09-29T15:19:00Z")
> [@Urwrongx1000](#):
>
> This was a philosophical discussion until Arc revealed she flunked out of 1st grade geometry. Then James revealed he did as well. Now other children, including gib, are clamoring as well.
>
> Philosophy will be reserved for the adults, if and when they arrive.
>
> Until somebody shows genuine interest in the topic matter, Causality, and can keep track of the conversation, this thread will be closed. Those that demand a higher standard, you may find me on another forum.
Well, then I’ll take over.
To get this thread back on track, we must begin with a history of cause and responsibility.
Cause began with the Big Bang… 'nough said.
Responsibility began… never.
Therefore, we can safely conclude that cause is the only thing that exists, and no baby murdering psychopath is ever responsible for his or her actions. ← There, I solved the problem of determinism vs. free will.
---
### Author:  [@Urwrongx1000](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Urwrongx1000)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2017, 3:21pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973/240 "2017-09-29T15:21:48Z")
There was no “Big Bang”. Big Bang Theory is a sham, false, not real.
The universe is infinite, without beginning (no big bang) and without end.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973.md?page=11)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/lessons-on-causality/44973.md?page=13)