/lit/ - Literature

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91gT68xeDMM

>>22538758
whoops, I forgot
>But muh Heisenberg uncertainty!
Yeah, sorry. Causality is Absolute.

>>22538758
How does causality drive behavior?

>>22538814
By which I meant causality is “mere” and morally neutral, and that good and evil do not exist outside the causal interactions leading to their conception. Also, more deeply, it men and morals cannot transcend the Matter that acts as the medium of causality. Obviously “causality” does not drive behavior, it is particular causes that drive particular behaviors, that was just a way of speaking.

>>22538758
How does saying "Causality is Absolute" debunk half of these? Terrible thread, 4/10 because the bait actually angered me

>>22538820
Which one do you not understand how causality debunks?

>>22538758
The phenomena that perceives, the thing you identify as yourself even before you're aware of your body is not dependent on any causal phenomena you can come up with.
Therefore "you" are a spirit/daemon not meat. You were on earth before your body and you'll be there after, in the volcanoes L. Ron Hubbard described (this part is a humorous addition not meant to be taken too seriously, merely a jest in the style I have become accustomed to).

>>22538827
>muh subject object distinction
Nope. The subject is just a particular type of entity produced by causality, same as all objects. You only think that it is different because it has the illusion of volition.

>>22538827
>>22538835
Also, the idea of “me” is an empirically constructed idea. If no one else existed, I couldn’t see my body from the outside, and I was not a social animal, I would never have created the idea of me.

What causes the cause?

>>22538835
You're confusing the mind and the phenomena that perceives. If we fully model the brain it doesn't account for qualia because it's not part of the causality.
The fundamental elements of the causal rules themselves also can't be causal. If something caused causality that's causal, causality was already there without a cause.

>>22538852
I’m not confusing them, I’m just stating that the mind is an entity created by causality, that delusively believes it is above the matter which it analyzes.
> If we fully model the brain it doesn't account for qualia because it's not part of the causality.
Experience and matter are just the same thing looked at differently. Every material conglomeration has a corresponding experience and vice versa because they are not fundamentally opposed. Perhaps it’s true that you can’t get a full picture of experience by examining matter simply because the concept of matter is an incomplete construct, but that doesn’t mean whatever the complete concept is isn’t subject causality.
> The fundamental elements of the causal rules themselves also can't be causal
Causality is not a rule, it is the essence of experience and matter. And even if existence itself has no cause, all existence is causal, so that’s what is meant by causality is absolute.

>>22538851
Besides the answer I gave here>>22538874
There is another way of looking at it, causality is absolute means all existence is causal. It also means nothing uncaused can be perceived. But that means non-existence cannot be conceived, and hence, to ask what caused existence is nonsensical, as non-existence would be non causal, and to ask what caused existence (causality being the essence of existence) is to ask why there Is not non-existence.

>>22538874
>Experience and matter are just the same thing looked at differently.
Matter can be accounted for using logic, we have a causal account back to a more fundamental part of reality but the fundamentals can't be accounted for, we can only arrange the blocks we have.
>nothing uncaused can be perceived
Except everything. Everything is an exception to your rule.

>>22538895
Acceptable. You're trending very close to some nondualist philosophies.

>>22538931
Existence should be the only “block” you need.

>>22538939
You're saying everything is made of the kind of blocks you're familiar with. I'm pointing out that can't be the case because you can't arrange the blocks in a way that makes blocks like this suddenly exist in the first place. Saying everything is matter is pretending the elements you're familiar with are the totality while obvious examples to the contrary stare you in the face. This is the instinct of a slave that wants to limit his own ability to explore reality.

>>22538758
Dostoevsky debunked this in Notes from Underground

>>22538954
With what? More muh subjectivity or muh morals cope? Dostoevsky removed himself form philosophic discourse by declaring Christ is superior to truth anyway. At least Kierkegaard denies objective truth exists rather than opposing it outright.

>>22538758

"If a quantity of force determines and conducts itself in a certain way in every particular case, it does not prove that it has 'no free will'" - Fred Nitzsch

>>22538969
This assumes there is an aseptic essence called “force” that is the cause of its own behavior by its nature. But by causality, everything gets its essence only from conditioning by other entities. Thus the force is not the reason the force always behaves the same way, it is the other causes of the force that make it the force.

>>22538976
>aseptic
Aseitic*

>>22538947
I’m not claiming matter as I understand it is the elements of everything. Matter is simply one of our best guesses at what existence might be. There is a substance like experience and like matter the conditioning of which by causality which is its essence causes the emergence of the things that I am familiar with.

Matter and causality are empirical and cannot be conclusively proven to exist. Consciousness is self-evident.

>>22538992
>consciousness is self-evident
How do you know it doesn’t only appear that way? You may also think that it is self evident that 5 + 5 = 10, but you forget that this has to be drilled into your head as a child and that some humans on earth don’t even understand numbers past 5reel you have the privilege of being an adult entrenched in his ideas. You may think that it is now “self evident” that sound and color are different, but as a fetus and a newborn you most likely had a lot more trouble separating out and processing your senses. Consciousness is simply another one of these mental ideas or operations or conceptions or whatever that you have become accustomed to so much you think it is “self evident”.

>>22538976
>assumes
He observes the same phenomena you do and their apparent causal relationships but notes the surface appearance of causality doesn't prove anything about "free will". The appearance of will is happening to the phenomena that experiences which apparently sits outside all our rules. You haven't accounted for it at all so you can't say you have any kind of proof related to how it operates.
>>22538987
>causes the emergence of the things that I am familiar with.
Except everything, including your experience itself and matter. You're trying to make the limited models that I already accept as working to predict physical things more authoritative and all-encompassing despite clearly not being up to the job.

>>22539000
You're keep confusing the mind with qualia. One thing is roughly modeled the other is not at all, we have no clue how to begin.

>>22539000
>like, how can you know for sure you exist, bro
Stop smoking weed and go do your middle school homework, mr philosopher

>>22539002
> The appearance of will is happening to the phenomena that experiences which apparently sits outside all our rules. You haven't accounted for it at all so you can't say you have any kind of proof related to how it operates.
How have I not accounted for it?it’s just another experience. You’re simply being dogmatic in your insistence that will and the subject are not subject to causality. We can easily study and empirically test and predict people’s will, behavior, decisions, etc. we can and have found biochemical causes of people’s behavior, regardless of whether they think that behavior was “willed.”

>>22539011
I didn’t say that. You’re the one evidently using a new age understanding of what “consciousness” actually is.
>>22539004
I’m not confusing them, I’m saying the mind is simply a type of quality, and that your insistence that they are ontologically different is mere dogmatism.

>>22538959
Of course God is above truth, which is merely an instrument of social control. What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power.

>>22539011
You think that because I don’t accept your notion of what mind is, I must not understand it. This is typical of Kantians and Copenhauerfags who are so entrenched in their subject object distinction way of thinking. Many others have had trouble grasping it when I deny subject object distinction.

>>22539019
Isn’t this Nietzsche? It doesn’t refute causality anyway, it only implies that our conception of causality is merely an analogue to what causality really is, which I never denied as I’ve clearly left open how exactly causality and existence so relate to produce the universe we occupy.

*ruins your thread*

>>22539012
>it’s just another experience
Says nothing.
Matter is something like a form of energy bound in complex interactions we label quarks or whatever. Eventually any account of a thing uses some fundamental elements we can't account for. Logical models can't do any more, ever, it's how they work.
In the case of experience itself you can't even begin to account for any part of it, you have nothing at all. It's a complete mystery which you work hard to ignore so you can pretend our very limited models of very limited phenomena that you don't even understand yourself have more weight than they really do.
>>22539018
>I’m not confusing them
Then account for the phenomena of experience itself. I roughly understand how a brain works, no matter how detailed that description will be it will never account for why the thing experiences anything. It can't be modeled because it's not subject to the same kind of logic the things you like to focus on are.

>>22539034
Firstly he didn’t refute causality, but only a particular understanding of induction. But Kant and Schopenhauer have already made plenty of arguments for why causality is a condition of experience. All I have to do is deny ding an sich and say that the reason causality is a condition of experience is that it was causality which produced the brain to begin with, prior to any representation by the brain.

>>22539012
I love how people always act like human behavior is just totally chaotic and not subject to material conditions, or that the brain is this special entity that operates outside of our understanding.

Humans don't even do anything special. We eat, We fuck, we cry and fight, build hives and dwellings.

I hate how every scientific mind that ever debunked the concept of fatalism relies on this extremely emotional appeal to the divine or enigmatic processes of the brain. The brain is literally just a hunk of meat in a bone sphere, everything that you think of or imagine is just based on shit that happened before, or substances and chemicals affecting it.

wow you ate a special mushroom and saw....colors and like the universe maaaaannnn congrats, you and every other person that ingested that same shit.

>>22539023
>I'm not a subject having an experience, I just think that I am
But who is the one that is being fooled into this illusion?

>>22539045
The brain is not really relevant to the question. Physical memory gives the phenomena a coherent identity but like everyone who ever thought about this for thousands of years pointed out, the phenomena itself exists whether it's perceiving itself as having an identity or not.

>>22539039
Your points about logic are irrelevant because causality is prior to logic. As I’ve already said, causality is in the essence of existence itself, not merely our epistemological models of it. And anyway, I already stated that realizing that matter is merely the shape of experience and that experience is caused by matter already gets rid of the need to “explain” anything. But if you still want to explain why for Example experience is continuous while the brain is discrete, there are many ways to explain that. For example, using hylomorphism to state that the shape of the matter produces the noumenal essence that corresponds to it, ie the soul is the act of the brain. This doesn’t violate anything u e said. You can also use something like. Whiteheads category of the ultimate or really most things in whiteheads philosophy, you just have to make it coherent without creativity to make it consistent with what I’ve said.

>>22539028
The issue is that you think there are objective rules that govern reality. There aren't. The type of person that makes up these rules (priest/ philosopher/scientist) wants you to believe in them absolutely because that makes him more important.

>>22539080
>Bro what if real life was fake
Can we please just not with this childish bullshit.

>>22539087
go ahead and prove matter exists, I'll wait

>>22539080
As I already said here >>22538816 when I say “causality” I am not indicating any universal rule for why things Happen, I’m only indicating that every particular thing is a rule for something else. It is the individual things that are causes, not the abstract rule itself.

>>22539069
>causality is in the essence of existence itself, not merely our epistemological models of it
How would you know that? You can only describe your ideas about reality, you have no clue how well the encompass the truth, just how practical they are for specific human-centric goals.
>I stated
You stating shit means nothing. You don't even understand the absolute basics of the things you're making statements about. You don't know physics but appeal to fucking "matter".
>causality is prior to logic
Another good example of not having the slightest clue.
>x is merely a [braindead metaphor based on conditioned assumptions]
Great, now this is cleared up and nobody has to think ever again.

>>22539045
>CAUSALITY IS ABSOLUTE x 1000
>A wild Humechad appears!
>Well, acktchually he didn't completely destroy causality because hem haw hem haw backtrack retreat kick up dust prevaricate x1000
Inductionlets, when will they learn? Leave this thread immediately or I will be forced to post Wittgenstein

>>22539087
>you must participate in my fiction
This is no different than trannies forcing everyone to believe they're women. Your position is clearly unfalsifiable, I don't know what you were expecting.

>>22538758
Gigabased.

>>22539096
Now you make it beyond obvious that you have not really been engaging with my posts. I could have pointed this out earlier but didn’t want to assume the worst and wanted to maintain discourse. But now that you’ve broken it yourself I can clearly state the fact that you have already decided what I believe beforehand and have only been selectively reading my posts for things that you can fit into this idea of what I think.
> How would you know that?
Obviously I have other epistemological thoughts if you really want me to get into that
> You can only describe your ideas about reality
And what are the ideas descriptions of? Reality.
> you have no clue how well the encompass the truth
I haven’t found any reason not to believe them
> just how practical they are for specific human-centric goals.
None of this is relevant to my goals
>>22539098
I didn’t backpedal at all lmao. Hume was answered already by philosophers that came after him.

>>22538758
>Causality is Absolute
refuted 1500 years ago (picrel)

>>22539116
On the contrary - AUM is itself merely a symbol of causality, as it indicates the continuity of creation.

>>22539115
>I can clearly state the fact that you have already decided what I believe beforehand
There's no virtuous goal that leads down the road of making these posts. You're not interested in thinking.
>causality is in the essence of existence itself, not merely our epistemological models of it
This is proof of that. You want to claim your ideas are reality, to lie to yourself that you have it all figured out.
>I haven’t found any reason not to believe them
Which is the exact same thing as saying you find them practical.
>None of this is relevant to my goals
How do you not know you're a retard? Surely there have been some kind of clues in your life.

>>22539141
> You want to claim your ideas are reality
By “causality” I am not referring to my idea of causality but what I think my idea represents. I already said the same thing with regard to matter.
> You're not interested in thinking.
Then I would just be posting soijaks against you like >>22539098

>>22539141
> Which is the exact same thing as saying you find them practical.
Not if my reasons are purely philosophical? I could eilt believe that I am beyond causality and it would change nothing about my practical life. I don’t believe that ideas affect actions very much,

>>22539144
>By “causality” I am not referring to my idea of causality but what I think my idea represents
There is no fucking difference retard. You have a map of a territory, other people disagree and say your map is wrong. Your replies, over and over are "my map is right therefore my map is right". You don't even try to support the idea.

>>22539150
>Not if my reasons are purely philosophical?
It's still about practicality like being able to test things. I can't model things without logic, in practice I have to rely on it. That's not evidence for or implying nothing else exists.

>>22539154
> There is no fucking difference retard
Yes there is, I even have precedents for stating that terms in predications refer to the thing and not to the idea of the thing. If you take the term to refer to the idea it makes everything more confusing.
>my map is right therefore my map is right
You also repeatedly assume that mind is not a qualia because it just can’t be. And anyway this debate hasn’t been about me proving that causality is real from first principles. it’s mainly been me defending the positions from your attacks of it. So there was never any onus for me to explain why my Map was right, obviously I’ve only been explaining why its not wrong. The only real onus you wanted to put on me was to explain how mind comes from matter. When I offered some explanations you chipped out and reverted to this “well how do you KNOW that?” Skepticism as a last resort. It would obviously be much more difficult for me to prove that causality is accurate rather than simply showing how it can be accurate which is what I’ve been doing. True, causality is just one theory among many, and perhaps I can’t directly prove that it is true without great difficulty. But I can argue that it is superior to other theories and that no good argument can be leveled against it, which is what I have been doing.

>>22539172
>You also repeatedly assume that mind is not a qualia because it just can’t be
I'm desperately asking for any account, there's no attempt at an explanation even given. Just that your map is right because it accurately reflect the territory and is therefore right. It's the same as when I dig deeper into anything you say like when you talk about "matter". You have no clue what matter is, don't even bother to look it up before making retarded statements about it.

>Yes there is,
>causality is in the essence of existence itself, not merely our epistemological models of it
This is stating that your map is the territory and therefore your map is correct. It's braindead. It's the foundation of every word out of your mouth so you can justify anything. You're right because you're right because you're right.

>>22539195
You’re just repeating yourself and not even reading my posts. I already gave some explanations here >>22539069
which you have ignored.
> This is stating that your map is the territory and therefore your map is correct
no lol , that is simply stating the relation of causality and essence within my theory. I didn’t say my theory is correct, I said that based on my experience of causality it exists prior to epistemology.

>>22539206
>causality and essence
Causality and existence*

>>22538758
*shoots you with a gun and kills you*
whoa, look what causality did!

>>22539206
There is no attempt at explaining anything, you just told me you're right, appealed to "matter" again and dropped names you apparently don't understand a word from since you can't express anything coherent.
You tried to answer some question you read somewhere and didn't understand that I already fucking answered.
>you still want to explain why for Example experience is continuous while the brain is discrete
I already explained this and any explanation doesn't give an account for the actual phenomena. Physical memory gives the phenomena a sense of identity. Humans since cavemen times understood this.

>>22539215
How does this refute me? Causality indeed caused you to kill me.

>>22539220
Are you saying memory gives them identity or that identity is transcendental inexplicable non-causal thing? If you are saying that memory gives them a sense of identity, you’ve answered yourself for me. It’s a qualia caused by memory.

>>22539221
so i'm not morally culpable for it at all?

>>22539206
>no lol
If you believe this you don't even understand the words you use. You regurgitate this bullshit so mindlessly that you'll deny your own words.
>cheese is the essence of existence not merely our epistemological models of it.
You said this mindless shit. Own it, recognize how fucked in the head you are and get better.

>>22539232
I mean, the state or other people might still do something against you for breaking their rules or something. I don’t know what moral culpability means or implies.

>>22539237
> You said this mindless shit
You want me to own up not to what I said but to your bizarre interpretation of what I said. The idea that something exists which is prior to any theory can be part of a theory stating it within the theory is not the same as stating that the theory is correct.

>>22539226
>It’s a qualia caused by memory.
You're just revealing over and over that you can't put together a thought on any subject. All you know how to do is parrot things you don't understand.
How do we reproduce the effect and what are the practical parameters? Does computer memory with 8 bytes have qualia? Why? Why not?

>>22539249
>the pathetic worm squirms away from any hint of honesty
Here's your post:
>>22539069
>Your points about logic are irrelevant because causality is prior to logic. As I’ve already said, causality is in the essence of existence itself, not merely our epistemological models of it.
The point about logic is about the limits of models. You say that's irrelevant because your model isn't just a model, it's the essence of existence itself because.. just because ok.

>>22539244
>I mean, the state or other people might still do something against you for breaking their rules or something.
that won't deter me. i am an impoverished vagrant with no hope for the future, and prison would be preferable to my current lifestyle. the only thing stopping me is my belief that it would be wrong to blow you away with the saturday night special i have tucked in my waistband
>I don’t know what moral culpability means or implies.
yes you do, and i don't find your feigned ignorance cute

>>22539254
I thought you were asking me why identity Is possible and getting mad that I instead answered why qualia Is possible. Now you are getting mad that I haven’t explained how to scientifically test my theory for why qualia is possible. Do you want me to scientifically test your theory that memory causes a sense of identity to be attached to phenomena? First of all that was never my theory, my theory was that identity arose from social interaction. This has been tested by, for example, the mirror test, and you can use the mirror test to guess that at some point babies develop a sense of identity, indicating that it is not a transcendental subject but another learned concept. The inference that there is a self creates the experience of a self.
> Does computer memory with 8 bytes have qualia? Why? Why not?
Talking about computers and qualia is a bit pointless because we, as humans, have a noumenal insight into ourselves, but when it comes to things that are non-human, we only have representations of them. If matter produces qualia then there must be something external to us that has qualia. But whether that external entity is organized like the computer in our representation is not easily knowable. There is something which produces the representation of the computer which has qualia, that is all I can say to that.

>>22539264
No lmao, your point about logic was that logic required unexplained object. The reason I said that that was irrelevant was because causality was not a logical system and therefore doesn’t require unexplained objects to derive things from. As I said, I am not squirming away from what I said but from your interpretation of what Insaid

>>22539278
>I thought you were asking me why identity Is possible
You can't be honest with yourself about anything, not even posts you made a few minutes ago.
The only time I mentioned identity was to explain the observable difference between the meat and the phenomena. Qualia was mentioned many posts before.
>I instead answered why qualia Is possible
You said nothing. You seem to not understand how to despite talking about causality. I want causes that account for the phenomena. Parameters that dictate its behavior. The things we can do with every phenomena that's actually subject to what we model with causal logic.
>>22539284
>No lmao, your point about logic was that logic required unexplained object.
A requirement is a limitation. You are illiterate, likely an actual woman or child. Please work on the absolute basics.

>>22539266
I still don’t understand your point, I am not looking for some spook that will stop you from killing me, I don’t need an imaginary concept to deter you from killing me. If you kill me, that doesn’t change whether it was morally wrong to kill me or whether it was morally neutral inevitable causality.

>>22539294
> I want causes that account for the phenomena. Parameters that dictate its behavior.
Then I refer you back to
>>22539278
>>22538842
>>22539069

>>22538758
Causality is derived from non-causality in the same way that order arises from chaos. Causality is not absolute, we just happen to be in one of the infinite universes in which causality seems to be a “law.”

>>22539303
I already went through all of those posts, every word is dumber than the last. Read them yourself and the replies. Try to understand why you can't put together anything approximating a thought.
I gave an example of a rough account of matter, referencing physics.
What elements can we arrange together to make qualia emerge? What common axioms can you build a model on that describes when qualia is expressed and when not? I'm not asking for a full model, just hints at a rough one like I gave for matter in a single sentence.
You have no clue what the thing is but just pretend you do for some reason. Nobody who values finding things out would ever behave like this, you're trying to accomplish something different, some kind of manipulation of your own psychology.

>>22539304
The problem with this theory is that even if by random chance the universe I’m in got to be regular for all the time up until now, the chance that it will continue to be regular in the next moment after this is zero considering there are I finite random things that could happen only one thing that could happen according to causality.

>>22539327
> What elements can we arrange together to make qualia emerge?
Literally everything that happens has some kind of qualia somewhere out there. I already said this. Arrange together any fucking elements you want. You just won’t be able to predict what kind of qualia or where it is as Is aid here. >>22539278

Anyway I think you are a bit confused here, I was never trying to do empirical science and never claimed I was. Even when I said “matter” I was not referring to anything described in physics. I have always been talking about metaphysics.

>>22539343
>Literally everything that happens has some kind of qualia somewhere out there.
I agree it's the most reasonable model when we have no other information but you didn't give any account for the phenomena, it's apparently fundamental and beyond your causal models like the rules that allow causality. It's just there apparently. So there's more than causality.
>when I said “matter” I was not referring to anything described in physics
I understood you're basically using pre-physics language of philosophers you're parroting. There was a sense of "matter" not being spooky, it was the definite reality and "dualism" was considered an actual thing but matter is spooky as fuck, everything is.

>>22538758
Random numher generators are not random but just 2smart4human so it's like a randomness simulator for the chalkboard or motherboard

Causality IS ABSOLUTE

>>22539363
Dude… I did give account for the phenomena, you just keep saying that I am a retard so my explanations dont count. Until you actually address some of my explanations you are just repeating yourself. Explain why my explanations are bad without saying that I am a retard.
>matter is spooky
Yes, that’s why I said literally at the beginning of this conversation that I don’t think matter as currently understood is the final conception.

>>22539297
i'm not "making a point", i'm asking you a question. am i morally culpable for my actions?

>>22539371
What do you mean by morally culpable?

>>22539328
One of the infinite random things that happens is causally consistent with the previous state and the mechanism that allowed life to evolve traverses that chain of collapsing probabilities to allow the consistency needed to copy information.

>>22539379
> One of the infinite random things that happens is causally consistent with the previous state
But it’s only one out of infinity, effectively zero probability of happening
> the mechanism that allowed life to evolve traverses that chain of collapsing probabilities to allow the consistency needed to copy information.
You realize it doesn’t make any sense to say that causality evolves when causality isn’t a law to begin with? What you’re saying here is incoherent.

>>22539375
YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN
STOP PRETENDING THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION

>>22539369
>Explain why my explanations are bad without saying that I am a retard.
There are multiple posts above explaining the basics of how models work including an example of a short model accounting for matter.
The most obvious model for qualia is that it is fundamental. You've said you agree with that. That means it has no causal mechanism explaining it, you can't explain it and neither can anyone else. Your premise that causality is absolute and everything is invalidated by the existence of anything that does not rest on casuality.

>>22539384
I literally don’t know what you mean.

>>22539215
Hating causality itself is causal

>>22539387
I equated existence with experience. I equated the essence of existence with causality. And I explained why existence doesnt require a cause despite causality being absolute here >>22538895
>>22538874
so if existence is “uncaused” I’m that asking what it’s cause is incoherent, and existence is merely whatever is common to matter and experience, then I’ve already explained why qualia can be “fundamental”. This whole time I’ve only been explaining what The causes of particular qualia are because qualia itself is merely existence.

>>22539389
I'M USING PLAIN ENGLISH
THERE IS LITERALLY NO WAY TO FURTHER SIMPLIFY THE QUESTION

>>22539221
>i deny causality vaguely and emotionally
>for the implicit cause of I have something to hide and I want something from you and this pattern itself though inarticulate is my habitus
>i appeal to your denial of causality
>for the cause of making you happy
>because I can predict our happiness because I know the adage ignorance is bliss even if I am ignorant of that adage I am not unconditioned from stupifying experiences having popular appeal
>i simp therefore I am

>>22539401
Ok. Then don’t s8impify it. Just say it without using the words morally and culpable. Then I might understand it.

>>22538758
>>22538778
>causality is absolute
Your causality can't touch my randomness. I may not have free will but you also can't predict me.

>>22539383
>But it’s only one out of infinity, effectively zero probability of happening
It's selected by the process that already started, creating emergent causal chains.
>You realize it doesn’t make any sense to say that causality evolves when causality isn’t a law to begin with?
Our form of cause and effect like billiard ball style causality is emergent from the small scale probability waves that collapse in a chain that can be traced to macro processes like the energy from the big bang. Within our current science we're already beyond the billiard ball causality, who knows how much more complex it gets. There are some kind of fundamental rules but not necessarily any kind of direct causality we're familiar with, beyond that is something beyond all forms of logic.

>>22539407
i refuse, because i know for a fact you already understand the question

These digits ARE ABSOLUTE

>>22539412
> Your causality can't touch my randomness
I don’t have to predict you when you’ll probably just randomly explode or teleport to another dimension or something if we got into a fight. Of all the infinite random things that could happen to you, only a small fraction of them lead to my death, so I’m likely to win.

>>22538758
I caused me to flex DEEZ NUTS

CAUSALITY IS ABSOLUTE

>>22539399
>I explained why existence doesnt require a cause despite causality being absolute here
In that post you said the equivalent of
>given that I'm right that means x
But x is not something we observe or is bolstered by anything else except assuming you're right.

>>22539328
but that universes is guaranteed to exist. And there are infinite other similar causal universes. So the experience that you have, of living your whole life of causality, MUST exist. It is not impossible and its improbability is irrelevant because it exists NECESSARILY. If you imagine that each second, infinite parallel universes are created, then you would actually be living in all those universes, but you can’t be aware of it, because your consciousness in this universes is trapped in… this universe. So from your perspective it seems improbable. But this is like the richest man on earth saying “wow what is the probability that I would be the richest man,” which is dumb, because there MUST be a richest man anyway.

>>22539432
We went over this >>22539249 and it’s still not relevant to what I just said. You are vascillating between what you want me to do. At first you just want me to explain a phenomenon within my theory. But the when I do, you immediately shift the goalpost to me proving my whole theory from first principles.

>>22539434
> u have, of living your whole life of causality, MUST exist
I grant that the universe that looks like causality must exist. But they probability that THIS is that universe, is so small as to be zero. Which means the probability that the world is not zero is effectively 100.

>>22539441
There is no theory. You just say things.
>nothing uncaused can be perceived
Nothing but cheese can be perceived therefore everything is cheese and no non cheese things are needed.

>>22539461
ok. I have no evidence to think that you have read past the first sentence of any of my posts.

>>22539466
You're lying again.

What caused causality? Has anyone ever once addressed this?

>>22539475
Where did I lie before? When I didn’t accept that what you though I meant was what I meant? I can see how you think I might be lying when you literally did not even read my explanation of what I actually meant.

>>22539480
See>>22538895
>>22538874
Causality is absolute but only applies within existence, it does not cause entities to come into or out of existence and it doesn’t cause existence itself. Also, it isn’t that there is a cause, it’s that everything is caused by everything else.

>>22539480
Causality caused causality
The question is a direct relationship of form not sequential

What force caused acceleration? Force is acceleration times mass.

>>22539420
What you’re describing is necessarily some thing incomprehensible so I can’t exactly argue against it other than to say that it’s nonsense

>>22539482
>When I didn’t accept that what you though I meant was what I meant?
You're still trying to avoid facing the confusion that post represents, whether it's confusion about your words or your thinking.
The "theory" itself is an attempt to lie to yourself that simple lego brick models encompass more than they do.

>>22539455
First of all, like I said, there are infinite other similar causal universes. So the probability is not exactly 0. But even if there were infinitely more non-causal universes than causal universes, this would be irrelevant for the reason that I already explained. Sure, in one universe, a dragon flies by you as I type this message. So you ask “then what are the odds that I am in this boring universe?”

BUT THE BORING UNIVERSE EXISTS NECESSARILY AND SOMEONE MUST EXPERIENCE IT. THE PROBABILITY IS NOT 0, BUT 100.

>>22539504
Whatever allows coherent logic is necessarily incomprehensible. That you wish the world was simpler doesn't make it so.

>>22538758
Nirvana is like that of the unmoved mover the unborn undead
The philosophical zombie blackhole

>>22539508
What you think that post represents. I didn’t avoid it, I explained exactly what it meant.
>>22539512
> there are infinite other similar causal universes
I disagree, according to causality there is only one thing that can follow from something else because everything is fully determinate. And even if it only has to resemble causality, it still isn’t infinite because it can only consist of slight deviations from one universe
> this would be irrelevant for the reason that I already explained
But here is what I know.
1. I am in a causal universe.
2. If causality is law, there is a one hundred percent chance I’m in. A causal universe.
3. But if causality is not law, there is an extremely small if not zero chance I’m in a causal universe
4. Therefore, even if it’s possible I’m in a non causal universe, it’s still more likely and more reasonable to believe that it is causal

>>22539537
>I explained exactly what it meant.
But what you say it meant is not what it means in English. You may have really meant something different which means you're parroting words you don't understand or you may be the type that copes with saying retarded shit by lying to themselves, which seems to be the case. Either way the things you say are based in confusion about basics not any kind of coherent model of anything. There's no "theory" here.

>>22539557
Dude. Saying that causality is prior to thought is not the same thing as saying that thought about causality is true because causality is. It just isn’t.

>>22539572
>Saying that causality is prior to thought
Is not relevant to the limits of logic except in my original interpretation where you're saying the limits of logic don't apply because your model is reality itself, not a model.
>Your points about logic are irrelevant because causality is prior to logic. As I’ve already said, causality is in the essence of existence itself, not merely our epistemological models of it.
We don't know how accurately our ideas of causality reflect the whole reality and if you mean temporal causality instead of logical causality that's not even very fundamental, it's already described in terms of other elements of reality.

>>22539613
I didn’t fucking say my model was reality itself, I said that causality was reality, you are simply assuming that causality doesn’t exist outside my model. Also what the fuck are you talking about my model when you just said that I had no theory?
> We don't know how accurately our ideas of causality reflect the whole reality
I fucking know and a I’ve been saying that the entire time but you wouldn’t know that.
> and if you mean temporal causality instead of logical causality that's not even very fundamental
I have a more general understanding of causality than both of those.

>>22539537
> Therefore, even if it’s possible I’m in a non causal universe, it’s still more likely and more reasonable to believe that it is causal
That’s exactly the conclusion that would be reached in the causal universe among the non-causal universes, and it would be wrong.

>>22538758
but everytime I rewind time, people perform different actions even though the state of their brain and surroundings was reset.

>>22539646
It’s also the same conclusion that would be reached in the causal universe, which is the one you’re more likely to be in if you observe causality.

>>22539654
The point is that causality isn’t an absolute law but derived, selected from infinite universes. There necessarily exists a universe that nevertheless has causal patterns. And in that universe, a human thinks to himself,”Causality must be absolute, or else crazy things would happen,” and blinks.

>>22539622
>I said that causality was reality
See you're still doing it. Causality is an idea that reflects elements of reality to some degree. That it works does not mean you have mastered reality. Causality is not reality, it's an idea. You made a thread claiming causality is reality and when challenged you say "causality is reality".
Your model as in your idea of causality, which should be the same as mine since it's a basic subject but apparently not.
>I fucking know and a I’ve been saying that the entire time but you wouldn’t know that.
You still don't act like you know that. I read your posts. Try it.
>I have a more general understanding of causality than both of those.
If it's comprehensible it's logical causality, that is the abstract "general" form. That's the entire point of it.

>>22538758
Refuted by Nietzsche

There's no rational reason to believe in causality. Human perception is extremely limited. We know it for a fact. We perceive only the tiniest fraction of light and sounds, we cannot discern individual molecules, we do not feel the gravity of every single object in the Universe constantly affecting us, we think that we stand still while in reality we are hurtling through the cosmos as breakneck speed. There's no reason to believe that our picture of temporal flow would be complete. We see events as causal because our brains make us so for our convenience. The simplest hint at the imcompleteness of causality is the paradox of uncaused source. For christcucks the unmoved creator is the proof of god, but for less crossbrained people its a sign that human rationality with its basis in causal chains is flawed in the same way Newtonian model is flawed despite predicting large scale events correctly.

Causality is not absolute.

>>22538758
Causality is incidental. It lacks the necessity of Destiny, the driving force of all living beings. All Causality is subject to the understanding of living beings and therefore subject to the pole-star of the Soul. All that happens only occurs because there are temporal beings present to observe it. Causality is the Anti-christ, the supremacy of limitation. Destiny is the Future Christ, the procession of the Spirit. God is the Absolute Life creating itself with the tool of Causality. It can only create as it is commanded to, materialist seething notwithstanding.

>>22539115
No, Hume was literally not answered by Kant, that is why Maimon uses Hume again to contradict Kant’s application of categories to particular phenomena. I am not aware of Schopenhauer’s argument against Hume but I suspect it is just some form of what Kant already had said.

>>22539144
By causality you are referring to what your idea of it represents. What it represents? Phenomenal relations? Kant’s point was that the idea of causality does not represent things from experience but molded them, the idea that causality refers to what is observed is Hume’s point. Kant thinks causality is an active concept, Hume thinks it is passive.

>>22538758
Causality isn't necessarily deterministic though. Just because x can cause y doesn't mean that x will cause y, under and overdetermination of effects is well demonstrated in the physical sciences, and genetics in particular. See: the one to one and one to many problems.

is causality absolute?

>>22538758
Causality IS ABSOLUTE but...
Particles are beta bitch bois in a world that belongs to the mighty tumbleweed

The ABSOLUTE CAUSE
The monad is only visible as we approach absolute zero kelvin

>>22538816
Gotcha. So why doesn’t matter itself drive behavior if it is said to simply mediate the causes in their doing so?

>>22540992
But HOW does the cookie crumble?

>>22541013
HOW?

>>22538758
I fell in love with a ghetto girl who did every drug on this planet but the good ones. Causality? No. Not in common parlance. In final analysis, yes. Point is I overlooked it. She had holiness still. She was redeemed. She was loyal. She was kind and dutiful. She never did me wrong for many years. But an external cause ruined it and I have no one to tell about it because people believe in a happily ever after determined solely by your character. Such is the complex character. Flawed beyond visible redemption yet redeemable. Redeemed beyond memorable flaws yet overlooked and taken for granted. A deep soul is the most subtle cause beyond the minds of man and words of tongue and pen only in flesh and blood can the final testament be written just as that which is given can just as easily be taken.

>>22539000
>How do you know it doesn’t only appear that way?
Something cannot "appear" to be self-evident, it either is self-evident or it isn't. Something that appeared to be self-evident would simply be self-evident.

>>22538758
Pretty sure that the inventor of causality later admitted it's a scam

>>22541091
Blame the british

>>22540992
I knew I should have taken diff eq, goddamn Plato takin up my headspace, I coulda been an engineer...

>>22541024
IT WAS THE COOKIE MONSTER, I SAW IT

>>22541024
>>22541013
IT WAS THE COOKIE MONSTER, I SAW IT

>>22542084
>>22542091
Goddamn 4 chan fucking my posts up again, IT ISN'T THE GIN I SWEAR