Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

There is no cause and effect.

toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 11:15:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A recent Omegle conversation I had (I cut out the start and the end):
...
Stranger: The present affects the future!
Stranger: Or better yet, the present is affected by the past!
Me: Time goes backward.
Me: The last note in a song changes the melody.
Stranger: Actually time is an internal construct. Therefore, we can only perceive time, not observe it.
Stranger: Whether it goes forward or backward is superficial.
Me: Saying it goes backward is just the necessary antithesis of saying it goes forward.
Stranger: Indeed, but if it were to go backwards, we wouldn't perceive it as such.
Stranger: It would still go "forward"
Me: Well, if I were to see a cat walk by a slit in a fence
Me: I might assume the head of the cat is the cause of the tail.
Me: But that's not true at all.
Stranger: Indeed it is not.
Me: That throws out any supposition that current events are caused by past events.
Stranger: I was more inclining towards since you know what a cat looks like.
Stranger: You would know that the head is not the cause.
Me: Yes, but If I didn't...
Me: And we don't know what the cat looks like - not when the cat is time.
Me: Why do we see a flame and assume it was caused by a spark?
Stranger: Because of our experience with fire.
Stranger: Every time there was a spark, flames would arise.
Me: Every time the cat's head went by, it's tail would follow.
Stranger: So we can deduce that when we see a head, a tail shall follow.
Me: Yes, but does the head cause the tail?
Stranger: I suppose not.
...
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 11:24:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Would you happen to be Socrates?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 12:19:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As Thomas Reid noted in reply to Hume, constant conjunction of events in no way shapes our view of causality. After all, few two events happen more commonly together than day and night, but no one would think of either as the cause of the other. I think you'd have to do more than a simple argument that our conception of causality is a simple misunderstanding that correlation implies causation. That seems a little weak, at least if it's purpose is to disregard causality altogether. I think everyone knows correlation doesn't imply causation and I don't think correlation forms our view of causality, but rather that given an antecedent state of affairs, the next state that follows must arise. It's the properties of one state that give rise necessarily to the next. That is causality. It's not simply that both states are observed to be together. Now perhaps you could raise more epistemic questions on causality, but I wouldn't think any of them would entail we disbelieve in causality. Hume himself, most say, did believe in causality. His arguments were just addressing the epistemological problems in reaching it. I just mention that since your argument seems very similar to his.

Either way, I guess you have no hope of causing me to change my mind :P
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 1:21:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You rape my daughter. This "causes" me to kill you. The "effect" is you are dead. I don't care what "caused" you to rape my daughter.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 2:15:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just because one thing very often, or even always precedes another thing, doesn't mean that the preceding action caused the latter action. Although that doesn't mean cause and effect doesn't happen.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 12:34:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 2:15:16 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Just because one thing very often, or even always precedes another thing, doesn't mean that the preceding action caused the latter action. Although that doesn't mean cause and effect doesn't happen.

If you can think of an argument for cause and effect that doesn't involve the succession of events, go ahead and bring it up , and I can respond.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 12:40:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 12:34:19 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 2:15:16 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Just because one thing very often, or even always precedes another thing, doesn't mean that the preceding action caused the latter action. Although that doesn't mean cause and effect doesn't happen.

If you can think of an argument for cause and effect that doesn't involve the succession of events, go ahead and bring it up , and I can respond.

cause: meteor hits the moon effect: a crater
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 12:47:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 12:40:15 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/13/2013 12:34:19 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 2:15:16 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Just because one thing very often, or even always precedes another thing, doesn't mean that the preceding action caused the latter action. Although that doesn't mean cause and effect doesn't happen.

If you can think of an argument for cause and effect that doesn't involve the succession of events, go ahead and bring it up , and I can respond.

cause: meteor hits the moon effect: a crater

lol
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 12:47:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 12:34:19 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 2:15:16 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Just because one thing very often, or even always precedes another thing, doesn't mean that the preceding action caused the latter action. Although that doesn't mean cause and effect doesn't happen.

If you can think of an argument for cause and effect that doesn't involve the succession of events, go ahead and bring it up , and I can respond.

See my first post.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 1:21:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 12:19:10 AM, phantom wrote:
As Thomas Reid noted in reply to Hume, constant conjunction of events in no way shapes our view of causality. After all, few two events happen more commonly together than day and night, but no one would think of either as the cause of the other. I think you'd have to do more than a simple argument that our conception of causality is a simple misunderstanding that correlation implies causation. That seems a little weak, at least if it's purpose is to disregard causality altogether. I think everyone knows correlation doesn't imply causation and I don't think correlation forms our view of causality, but rather that given an antecedent state of affairs, the next state that follows must arise. It's the properties of one state that give rise necessarily to the next. That is causality. It's not simply that both states are observed to be together. Now perhaps you could raise more epistemic questions on causality, but I wouldn't think any of them would entail we disbelieve in causality. Hume himself, most say, did believe in causality. His arguments were just addressing the epistemological problems in reaching it. I just mention that since your argument seems very similar to his.

Either way, I guess you have no hope of causing me to change my mind :P

"It's the properties of one state that give rise necessarily to the next."

How is it that you know the properties of one state necessarily give rise to the next? Presumably, because every time you've seen state A, state B arose. What other reason is there?
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 1:23:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 12:34:19 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 2:15:16 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Just because one thing very often, or even always precedes another thing, doesn't mean that the preceding action caused the latter action. Although that doesn't mean cause and effect doesn't happen.

If you can think of an argument for cause and effect that doesn't involve the succession of events, go ahead and bring it up , and I can respond.

I'm not saying cause and effect doesn't involve a succession of events, I'm saying a succession of events doesn't necessarily entail cause and effect.

If a car alarm often went off when the sun set, it doesn't mean the sun setting caused the car alarm. There could be something else that happens at that time that causes the car alarm.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 1:30:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 1:23:02 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 12:34:19 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 2:15:16 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Just because one thing very often, or even always precedes another thing, doesn't mean that the preceding action caused the latter action. Although that doesn't mean cause and effect doesn't happen.

If you can think of an argument for cause and effect that doesn't involve the succession of events, go ahead and bring it up , and I can respond.

I'm not saying cause and effect doesn't involve a succession of events, I'm saying a succession of events doesn't necessarily entail cause and effect.

If a car alarm often went off when the sun set, it doesn't mean the sun setting caused the car alarm. There could be something else that happens at that time that causes the car alarm.

I know. But we're talking about events that follow necessarily now. A car alarm does not necessarily follow sunset.

Say someone hits the car with a baseball bat and the alarm goes off. You say that the baseball bat hitting the car is the cause of the alarm going off, but why?
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 1:32:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 1:21:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
You rape my daughter. This "causes" me to kill you. The "effect" is you are dead. I don't care what "caused" you to rape my daughter.

Best quote ever.
Tsar of DDO
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 1:45:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 1:21:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
You rape my daughter. This "causes" me to kill you. The "effect" is you are dead. I don't care what "caused" you to rape my daughter.

What if raping your daughter was the only way to stop her from being raped by 100 men?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 1:50:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 1:30:08 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/13/2013 1:23:02 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 12:34:19 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 2:15:16 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Just because one thing very often, or even always precedes another thing, doesn't mean that the preceding action caused the latter action. Although that doesn't mean cause and effect doesn't happen.

If you can think of an argument for cause and effect that doesn't involve the succession of events, go ahead and bring it up , and I can respond.

I'm not saying cause and effect doesn't involve a succession of events, I'm saying a succession of events doesn't necessarily entail cause and effect.

If a car alarm often went off when the sun set, it doesn't mean the sun setting caused the car alarm. There could be something else that happens at that time that causes the car alarm.

I know. But we're talking about events that follow necessarily now. A car alarm does not necessarily follow sunset.

Say someone hits the car with a baseball bat and the alarm goes off. You say that the baseball bat hitting the car is the cause of the alarm going off, but why?

The occurrence of the bat hitting the car created the necessary parameters for the car's alarm to be turned on. The necessary inputs for the logic gates were fulfilled and the output triggered the alarm.

You could always argue that everything that happens is an amazing coincidence, but in that sense it does seem that one thing causes another. And if we make that assumption, it seems to be very beneficial for us.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 2:02:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 1:50:05 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 1:30:08 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/13/2013 1:23:02 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 12:34:19 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 2:15:16 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Just because one thing very often, or even always precedes another thing, doesn't mean that the preceding action caused the latter action. Although that doesn't mean cause and effect doesn't happen.

If you can think of an argument for cause and effect that doesn't involve the succession of events, go ahead and bring it up , and I can respond.

I'm not saying cause and effect doesn't involve a succession of events, I'm saying a succession of events doesn't necessarily entail cause and effect.

If a car alarm often went off when the sun set, it doesn't mean the sun setting caused the car alarm. There could be something else that happens at that time that causes the car alarm.

I know. But we're talking about events that follow necessarily now. A car alarm does not necessarily follow sunset.

Say someone hits the car with a baseball bat and the alarm goes off. You say that the baseball bat hitting the car is the cause of the alarm going off, but why?

The occurrence of the bat hitting the car created the necessary parameters for the car's alarm to be turned on. The necessary inputs for the logic gates were fulfilled and the output triggered the alarm.

You could always argue that everything that happens is an amazing coincidence, but in that sense it does seem that one thing causes another. And if we make that assumption, it seems to be very beneficial for us.

I'm not arguing that everything is coincidence. I'm just saying that when it comes to the bat hitting the car and setting off the alarm, we are looking at events pass by as the parts of a cat through a slit in a fence. All we know is that the bat hitting the car and the alarm going off "go-with" each other. You don't know that one part of the event causes the other.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 2:34:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 1:21:43 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 12:19:10 AM, phantom wrote:
As Thomas Reid noted in reply to Hume, constant conjunction of events in no way shapes our view of causality. After all, few two events happen more commonly together than day and night, but no one would think of either as the cause of the other. I think you'd have to do more than a simple argument that our conception of causality is a simple misunderstanding that correlation implies causation. That seems a little weak, at least if it's purpose is to disregard causality altogether. I think everyone knows correlation doesn't imply causation and I don't think correlation forms our view of causality, but rather that given an antecedent state of affairs, the next state that follows must arise. It's the properties of one state that give rise necessarily to the next. That is causality. It's not simply that both states are observed to be together. Now perhaps you could raise more epistemic questions on causality, but I wouldn't think any of them would entail we disbelieve in causality. Hume himself, most say, did believe in causality. His arguments were just addressing the epistemological problems in reaching it. I just mention that since your argument seems very similar to his.

Either way, I guess you have no hope of causing me to change my mind :P

"It's the properties of one state that give rise necessarily to the next."

How is it that you know the properties of one state necessarily give rise to the next? Presumably, because every time you've seen state A, state B arose. What other reason is there?

There is no necessity involved when one state follows another. Again, causality does not follow from correlation. We have an understanding of energy, force, mass, and gravity. When I observe a bat hitting a baseball, my understanding of energy, force, mass and gravity all come in to play when considering that the batter and the bat and the forces at play, caused the ball to subsequently act in such a way after it makes contact with the bat. Denying causality is denying that reactions take place in nature. That seems absurd and there's no reason to hold that belief. That the ball is reacting with the forces and objects in the scenario, is by far the most simple and logical deduction. Far more reasonable than positing the ball is simply acting independently of the bat and forces. How are all these seemingly linked events in nature, actually independent? Please explain that to me.

Is this evaluation free from epistemic problems? No. There are problems in reaching causality, but that in no way means we should disbelieve in causality. Causality is by far the best view to hold. We just don't happen to have a best understanding of it. Skeptical arguments that apply here don't completely undermine belief. They just entail ignorance. My argument is merely that the problems in deducing causality are not enough to free ourselves from belief in it altogether.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 2:49:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 2:34:59 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/13/2013 1:21:43 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 12:19:10 AM, phantom wrote:
As Thomas Reid noted in reply to Hume, constant conjunction of events in no way shapes our view of causality. After all, few two events happen more commonly together than day and night, but no one would think of either as the cause of the other. I think you'd have to do more than a simple argument that our conception of causality is a simple misunderstanding that correlation implies causation. That seems a little weak, at least if it's purpose is to disregard causality altogether. I think everyone knows correlation doesn't imply causation and I don't think correlation forms our view of causality, but rather that given an antecedent state of affairs, the next state that follows must arise. It's the properties of one state that give rise necessarily to the next. That is causality. It's not simply that both states are observed to be together. Now perhaps you could raise more epistemic questions on causality, but I wouldn't think any of them would entail we disbelieve in causality. Hume himself, most say, did believe in causality. His arguments were just addressing the epistemological problems in reaching it. I just mention that since your argument seems very similar to his.

Either way, I guess you have no hope of causing me to change my mind :P

"It's the properties of one state that give rise necessarily to the next."

How is it that you know the properties of one state necessarily give rise to the next? Presumably, because every time you've seen state A, state B arose. What other reason is there?

There is no necessity involved when one state follows another. Again, causality does not follow from correlation. We have an understanding of energy, force, mass, and gravity. When I observe a bat hitting a baseball, my understanding of energy, force, mass and gravity all come in to play when considering that the batter and the bat and the forces at play, caused the ball to subsequently act in such a way after it makes contact with the bat. Denying causality is denying that reactions take place in nature. That seems absurd and there's no reason to hold that belief. That the ball is reacting with the forces and objects in the scenario, is by far the most simple and logical deduction. Far more reasonable than positing the ball is simply acting independently of the bat and forces. How are all these seemingly linked events in nature, actually independent? Please explain that to me.

Is this evaluation free from epistemic problems? No. There are problems in reaching causality, but that in no way means we should disbelieve in causality. Causality is by far the best view to hold. We just don't happen to have a best understanding of it. Skeptical arguments that apply here don't completely undermine belief. They just entail ignorance. My argument is merely that the problems in deducing causality are not enough to free ourselves from belief in it altogether.

"Far more reasonable than positing the ball is simply acting independently of the bat and forces."

Not what I'm saying. You must be a fan of assumption.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 2:57:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 2:49:18 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/13/2013 2:34:59 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/13/2013 1:21:43 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 12:19:10 AM, phantom wrote:
As Thomas Reid noted in reply to Hume, constant conjunction of events in no way shapes our view of causality. After all, few two events happen more commonly together than day and night, but no one would think of either as the cause of the other. I think you'd have to do more than a simple argument that our conception of causality is a simple misunderstanding that correlation implies causation. That seems a little weak, at least if it's purpose is to disregard causality altogether. I think everyone knows correlation doesn't imply causation and I don't think correlation forms our view of causality, but rather that given an antecedent state of affairs, the next state that follows must arise. It's the properties of one state that give rise necessarily to the next. That is causality. It's not simply that both states are observed to be together. Now perhaps you could raise more epistemic questions on causality, but I wouldn't think any of them would entail we disbelieve in causality. Hume himself, most say, did believe in causality. His arguments were just addressing the epistemological problems in reaching it. I just mention that since your argument seems very similar to his.

Either way, I guess you have no hope of causing me to change my mind :P

"It's the properties of one state that give rise necessarily to the next."

How is it that you know the properties of one state necessarily give rise to the next? Presumably, because every time you've seen state A, state B arose. What other reason is there?

There is no necessity involved when one state follows another. Again, causality does not follow from correlation. We have an understanding of energy, force, mass, and gravity. When I observe a bat hitting a baseball, my understanding of energy, force, mass and gravity all come in to play when considering that the batter and the bat and the forces at play, caused the ball to subsequently act in such a way after it makes contact with the bat. Denying causality is denying that reactions take place in nature. That seems absurd and there's no reason to hold that belief. That the ball is reacting with the forces and objects in the scenario, is by far the most simple and logical deduction. Far more reasonable than positing the ball is simply acting independently of the bat and forces. How are all these seemingly linked events in nature, actually independent? Please explain that to me.

Is this evaluation free from epistemic problems? No. There are problems in reaching causality, but that in no way means we should disbelieve in causality. Causality is by far the best view to hold. We just don't happen to have a best understanding of it. Skeptical arguments that apply here don't completely undermine belief. They just entail ignorance. My argument is merely that the problems in deducing causality are not enough to free ourselves from belief in it altogether.

"Far more reasonable than positing the ball is simply acting independently of the bat and forces."

Not what I'm saying. You must be a fan of assumption.

1) I said more than just that. 2) I hope you didn't anticipate that this response wasn't going to annoy, because you left most of what I said and also didn't even clarify your stance after saying I misrepresented it...If the ball's movement is dependent on the bat and forces, that implies necessity and that one state necessarily follows from the previous state. The balls not reacting according to you, so what is it doing?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 3:19:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 2:57:25 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/13/2013 2:49:18 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/13/2013 2:34:59 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/13/2013 1:21:43 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 12:19:10 AM, phantom wrote:
As Thomas Reid noted in reply to Hume, constant conjunction of events in no way shapes our view of causality. After all, few two events happen more commonly together than day and night, but no one would think of either as the cause of the other. I think you'd have to do more than a simple argument that our conception of causality is a simple misunderstanding that correlation implies causation. That seems a little weak, at least if it's purpose is to disregard causality altogether. I think everyone knows correlation doesn't imply causation and I don't think correlation forms our view of causality, but rather that given an antecedent state of affairs, the next state that follows must arise. It's the properties of one state that give rise necessarily to the next. That is causality. It's not simply that both states are observed to be together. Now perhaps you could raise more epistemic questions on causality, but I wouldn't think any of them would entail we disbelieve in causality. Hume himself, most say, did believe in causality. His arguments were just addressing the epistemological problems in reaching it. I just mention that since your argument seems very similar to his.

Either way, I guess you have no hope of causing me to change my mind :P

"It's the properties of one state that give rise necessarily to the next."

How is it that you know the properties of one state necessarily give rise to the next? Presumably, because every time you've seen state A, state B arose. What other reason is there?

There is no necessity involved when one state follows another. Again, causality does not follow from correlation. We have an understanding of energy, force, mass, and gravity. When I observe a bat hitting a baseball, my understanding of energy, force, mass and gravity all come in to play when considering that the batter and the bat and the forces at play, caused the ball to subsequently act in such a way after it makes contact with the bat. Denying causality is denying that reactions take place in nature. That seems absurd and there's no reason to hold that belief. That the ball is reacting with the forces and objects in the scenario, is by far the most simple and logical deduction. Far more reasonable than positing the ball is simply acting independently of the bat and forces. How are all these seemingly linked events in nature, actually independent? Please explain that to me.

Is this evaluation free from epistemic problems? No. There are problems in reaching causality, but that in no way means we should disbelieve in causality. Causality is by far the best view to hold. We just don't happen to have a best understanding of it. Skeptical arguments that apply here don't completely undermine belief. They just entail ignorance. My argument is merely that the problems in deducing causality are not enough to free ourselves from belief in it altogether.

"Far more reasonable than positing the ball is simply acting independently of the bat and forces."

Not what I'm saying. You must be a fan of assumption.

1) I said more than just that. 2) I hope you didn't anticipate that this response wasn't going to annoy me, because you left most of what I said and also didn't even clarify your stance after saying I misrepresented it...If the ball's movement is dependent on the bat and forces, that implies necessity and that one state necessarily follows from the previous state. The ball's not reacting according to you, so what is it doing?

Two typos....Fixed
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 3:39:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A causal view of time has utility in its predictability, but we mustn't lose focus on the present. It's easy to imagine that the comet causes the tail, for example, but we must keep in mind that both the comet and the tail exist simultaneously. In each moment, the tail is its own cause.

On another note, this was the first time I've ever typed the word "mustn't" and it tripped me out because I couldn't tell if I'd spelled it right or not.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 6:19:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At its most basic it is a correlation, as soon as the correlation fails we question if we have the cause.

The argument for cause and effect though. Why does reality seem so organised? If it's not because of cause and effect, then how? Is everything coincidence and random? It doesn't seem that way to me. I'd say that it's more likely that cause and effect is true than not true. Unless you can provide an alternative?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 8:18:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 6:19:44 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At its most basic it is a correlation, as soon as the correlation fails we question if we have the cause.

The argument for cause and effect though. Why does reality seem so organised? If it's not because of cause and effect, then how? Is everything coincidence and random? It doesn't seem that way to me. I'd say that it's more likely that cause and effect is true than not true. Unless you can provide an alternative?

Well said.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 12:24:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't understand the cat walking past a slit analogy and how that relates to cause and effect. The head and tail going past the slit are both effects of the cat walking (cause)
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 11:04:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 12:24:22 PM, slo1 wrote:
I don't understand the cat walking past a slit analogy and how that relates to cause and effect. The head and tail going past the slit are both effects of the cat walking (cause)

I think they're trying to point out that just because something most of the time, or always , precedes something else, doesn't mean that it is the cause of the latter.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 11:19:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, if there were such a thing as winning a thread (not that I'm advocating such a thing), then it's clear Phantom is currently doing that.
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 5:52:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 2:57:25 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/13/2013 2:49:18 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/13/2013 2:34:59 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/13/2013 1:21:43 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 12:19:10 AM, phantom wrote:
As Thomas Reid noted in reply to Hume, constant conjunction of events in no way shapes our view of causality. After all, few two events happen more commonly together than day and night, but no one would think of either as the cause of the other. I think you'd have to do more than a simple argument that our conception of causality is a simple misunderstanding that correlation implies causation. That seems a little weak, at least if it's purpose is to disregard causality altogether. I think everyone knows correlation doesn't imply causation and I don't think correlation forms our view of causality, but rather that given an antecedent state of affairs, the next state that follows must arise. It's the properties of one state that give rise necessarily to the next. That is causality. It's not simply that both states are observed to be together. Now perhaps you could raise more epistemic questions on causality, but I wouldn't think any of them would entail we disbelieve in causality. Hume himself, most say, did believe in causality. His arguments were just addressing the epistemological problems in reaching it. I just mention that since your argument seems very similar to his.

Either way, I guess you have no hope of causing me to change my mind :P

"It's the properties of one state that give rise necessarily to the next."

How is it that you know the properties of one state necessarily give rise to the next? Presumably, because every time you've seen state A, state B arose. What other reason is there?

There is no necessity involved when one state follows another. Again, causality does not follow from correlation. We have an understanding of energy, force, mass, and gravity. When I observe a bat hitting a baseball, my understanding of energy, force, mass and gravity all come in to play when considering that the batter and the bat and the forces at play, caused the ball to subsequently act in such a way after it makes contact with the bat. Denying causality is denying that reactions take place in nature. That seems absurd and there's no reason to hold that belief. That the ball is reacting with the forces and objects in the scenario, is by far the most simple and logical deduction. Far more reasonable than positing the ball is simply acting independently of the bat and forces. How are all these seemingly linked events in nature, actually independent? Please explain that to me.

Is this evaluation free from epistemic problems? No. There are problems in reaching causality, but that in no way means we should disbelieve in causality. Causality is by far the best view to hold. We just don't happen to have a best understanding of it. Skeptical arguments that apply here don't completely undermine belief. They just entail ignorance. My argument is merely that the problems in deducing causality are not enough to free ourselves from belief in it altogether.

"Far more reasonable than positing the ball is simply acting independently of the bat and forces."

Not what I'm saying. You must be a fan of assumption.

1) I said more than just that. 2) I hope you didn't anticipate that this response wasn't going to annoy, because you left most of what I said and also didn't even clarify your stance after saying I misrepresented it...If the ball's movement is dependent on the bat and forces, that implies necessity and that one state necessarily follows from the previous state. The balls not reacting according to you, so what is it doing?

Did I annoy you, or did you annoy yourself?

When you make the bat the cause of the ball's motion, you are left with an infinite regression of cause and effect. What caused the bat to move? What caused that?

Not only that, but now each tiny particle is causing and affecting, so, in a finite moment (if such a thing exists), several billion atoms are causes and effects. The particles that make up the atoms are included, and now there is another infinite regression that goes deeper and deeper into the structure of the bat and ball, as well as the surrounding air.

And it doesn't stop there, because all of these things are profoundly affected by the entire atmosphere and globe, and are at least minutely affected by the sun and other celestial bodies. In fact, without the sun there would be no baseball going on.

So now we have an infinitely large and complex system of regression - but that's all well and good. This way of thinking is very practical, as Ryuu said. However, calling the bat the cause of the ball's motion really tells us nothing. Clearly they move together with everything else, as water in the ocean. They "go-together".
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 4:01:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/17/2013 5:52:20 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
When you make the bat the cause of the ball's motion, you are left with an infinite regression of cause and effect. What caused the bat to move? What caused that?
Actually, not an infinite regression: stops at 1st uncased state. Infinite regression is not a possibility

Not only that, but now each tiny particle is causing and affecting, so, in a finite moment (if such a thing exists), several billion atoms are causes and effects.
So?

The particles that make up the atoms are included, and now there is another infinite regression that goes deeper and deeper into the structure of the bat and ball, as well as the surrounding air.
No infinite regression there either: might go down to the quarks but ends at 1 Planck Length.

And it doesn't stop there, because all of these things are profoundly affected by the entire atmosphere and globe, and are at least minutely affected by the sun and other celestial bodies. In fact, without the sun there would be no baseball going on.
Not so, we only need to consider local casual effects. Regardless, you seem to want to argue from an omniscient point of view all whilst not being omniscient. Not to mention the fact that omniscience (in the scientific sense) is a paradox.

So now we have an infinitely large and complex system of regression - but that's all well and good. This way of thinking is very practical, as Ryuu said. However, calling the bat the cause of the ball's motion really tells us nothing. Clearly they move together with everything else, as water in the ocean. They "go-together".
See above.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 7:51:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 4:01:24 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/17/2013 5:52:20 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
When you make the bat the cause of the ball's motion, you are left with an infinite regression of cause and effect. What caused the bat to move? What caused that?

Actually, not an infinite regression: stops at 1st uncased state. Infinite regression is not a possibility

Can you define "uncased state"?

Not only that, but now each tiny particle is causing and affecting, so, in a finite moment (if such a thing exists), several billion atoms are causes and effects.

So?

You responded to this as if it wasn't a part of the next thing I said.

The particles that make up the atoms are included, and now there is another infinite regression that goes deeper and deeper into the structure of the bat and ball, as well as the surrounding air.

No infinite regression there either: might go down to the quarks but ends at 1 Planck Length.

It's not definitive that 1 Planck length is the smallest possible length.

And it doesn't stop there, because all of these things are profoundly affected by the entire atmosphere and globe, and are at least minutely affected by the sun and other celestial bodies. In fact, without the sun there would be no baseball going on.

Not so, we only need to consider local casual effects. Regardless, you seem to want to argue from an omniscient point of view all whilst not being omniscient. Not to mention the fact that omniscience (in the scientific sense) is a paradox.

So now we have an infinitely large and complex system of regression - but that's all well and good. This way of thinking is very practical, as Ryuu said. However, calling the bat the cause of the ball's motion really tells us nothing. Clearly they move together with everything else, as water in the ocean. They "go-together".

See above.

Even if infinite regression is impossible (which seems like an assumption), we would still be left with a final inexplicable cause, i.e. why are things the way they are?

Everything is vibrating - there is no truly static object. To separate events and objects as causes and effects is an abstraction - it simply doesn't exist in reality. Is a wave in the ocean separate from the next? Where does one begin and the other end?

There is no final answer to be had when it comes to cause and effect. That being said, it is a very useful abstraction for predicting and otherwise interacting in reality.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.