.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:09 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:42 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:47 am
Sorry you have such a short attention span you cannot digest anything longer than a sound-bit or one or two paragraphs. It's a symptom of a mind crippled by modern education. Don't worry about it. I'll not press you to over-extend your intellectual ability.
Your inability to create a short summary is a projection of a short attention span crippled by modern education.

If you cannot argue against the simple statement of "cause and effect is the emergence of consciousness" using all that you "learned" from the source you claim as true...then do you really understand said source?
You are right, I cannot explain the calculus in twenty words or less, fit for those whose attention spans and ability to follow a logical explanation has been arrested by their education. I really don't care if you are not interested in learning anything that requires a lot of intellectual effort. Most people aren't.
Strawman, I am not asking you to explain math but given a summary of a written work. All books have summaries behind them.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:28 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:09 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:42 pm

Your inability to create a short summary is a projection of a short attention span crippled by modern education.

If you cannot argue against the simple statement of "cause and effect is the emergence of consciousness" using all that you "learned" from the source you claim as true...then do you really understand said source?
You are right, I cannot explain the calculus in twenty words or less, fit for those whose attention spans and ability to follow a logical explanation has been arrested by their education. I really don't care if you are not interested in learning anything that requires a lot of intellectual effort. Most people aren't.
Strawman, I am not asking you to explain math but give a summary of a written work. All books have summaries behind them.

In short, cause and effect is the emergence of consciousness....this is a one sentence and you are free to disagree with it using a paragraph or more.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:28 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:09 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:42 pm

Your inability to create a short summary is a projection of a short attention span crippled by modern education.

If you cannot argue against the simple statement of "cause and effect is the emergence of consciousness" using all that you "learned" from the source you claim as true...then do you really understand said source?
You are right, I cannot explain the calculus in twenty words or less, fit for those whose attention spans and ability to follow a logical explanation has been arrested by their education. I really don't care if you are not interested in learning anything that requires a lot of intellectual effort. Most people aren't.
Strawman, I am not asking you to explain math but given a summary of a written work. All books have summaries behind them.
I suppose that's true of most books, but a summary is just that, an incomplete attempt to so say what the book is about, not a "briefer," version of the content. If a briefer version were possible the author would have written a shorter book. Summaries and other forms of pre-digested pap is as far as most people ever get, confusing it with erudition, which is fine if they are satisfied with that, and reading a whole book is beyond their ability to sustain an intellectual effort. If you are not reading at least 50 whole books a year, you are ignorant. Sorry you couldn't manage an article that would have taken a whole ten minutes for a normal reader.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:57 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:28 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:09 am
You are right, I cannot explain the calculus in twenty words or less, fit for those whose attention spans and ability to follow a logical explanation has been arrested by their education. I really don't care if you are not interested in learning anything that requires a lot of intellectual effort. Most people aren't.
Strawman, I am not asking you to explain math but given a summary of a written work. All books have summaries behind them.
I suppose that's true of most books, but a summary is just that, an incomplete attempt to so say what the book is about, not a "briefer," version of the content. If a briefer version were possible the author would have written a shorter book. Summaries and other forms of pre-digested pap is as far as most people ever get, confusing it with erudition, which is fine if they are satisfied with that, and reading a whole book is beyond their ability to sustain an intellectual effort. If you are not reading at least 50 whole books a year, you are ignorant. Sorry you couldn't manage an article that would have taken a whole ten minutes for a normal reader.
That is because I am reading other books.....currently the Tibetan Book of the Dead and a book on argumentation whose writings are that of Cicero's...so yes a summary is necessary.

You are ignorant if you have to read 50 books a year in order to understand reality.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:25 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 11:21 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:27 pm
There is no such thing as, "cause and effect."
That seems like a curious view to me. Do you explain why you think that in another post somewhere on the board (that you can recall)?

So when, say, a glass falls onto concrete and shatters, why do you think it shatters?
I'll answer the last question first. The glass shatters because it's glass. If it were a plastic container ("plastic glass," seemed oxymoronic) it would not shatter. It's not the event A (falling) that "causes" the event B (glass shattering), it is the nature of the entities that determines their behavior in any given context that is the, "cause," of events. The answer to your first question will explain.

The idea of, "cause," is a sound one, so long as it means nothing happens without an explanation or reason. There are no miracles, there is no magic, and nothing is serendipitous. Unfortunately, philosophers have completely corrupted that concept and have substituted two baseless ideas that have made the modern notion of cause absurd. The two wrong ideas are, "cause and effect," and the notion that cause means, "that which makes something happen."

The first bad idea came from Hume. He formulated it as, "the same cause always produces the same effect," supposedly meaning some event, "A," causes event, "B," and every, event, "A," will always cause an event, "B." Hume's exact words were: "From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects. This is the sum of all our experimental conclusions," Hume wrote, and used the illustration, "We only find, that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second."

Of course Hume handily refuted that cause in the sense of, "same cause, same effect," could ever be established and, since the world of philosophy accepted Hume's formulation of cause, without question, both philosophy and science have suffered from the resulting fallacy that no cause can ever be proved.

The other wrong idea of cause is that cause is some kind of "creative," or "motive force," or a "power that makes things exist or happen," a much older idea with roots in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle. The origin of this idea of cause being some kind of efficient or motivating force is a hold-over from religion and mystic philosophies, which attribute everything to gods, spirits or mystical forces. It is a kind of animism or anthropomorphism, borrowing the idea from the fact the animals and human beings make things and make things happen. Cause does not mean what, "makes something happen." Cause is an explanation of the nature of those things, the behavior of which, "are what happens."

Hume's perversion of the concept, "cause," together with the assumption the science is, "inductive," made science as useless as religion. The view of, "cause," as that which explains, "why," things happen or exist, makes reality contingent on some inexplicable ineffable thing.

[Note on Humean cause and effect: The idea that cause (event A) always produces effect (event B), or that every existent in context A always behaves in manner B, is meaningless. Since events are only the behavior of entities, and since an entity's behavior is determined by its own response to its entire context, including all its relationships, identical "causes" would require identical entities in identical contexts, which is impossible. In the entire history of the world, there have probably never been two identical causes, or two identical effects.

It is true that every existent has its unique nature that determines how it will behave in any context but no context is ever identical with any other. Everything that happens is caused, but the cause is all that pertains to each event, which is always a unique combinations of elements and unique circumstances.

The principles by which the events of the world can be understood are not, "cause and effect," but the principles that define the nature of existents and their relationships to each other. From the behavior of the chemical elements to the behavior of human beings, the cause of the behavior is determined by the nature of those existents and their context (circumstances), that is, their relationship to all other existents, which will almost certainly never be repeated, ever. The idea of, "same cause same effect," cannot be salvaged, nor should it be.]
"....Because it's glass" is to point to a "cause"....your language contradicts your stance.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:40 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:25 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 11:21 pm

That seems like a curious view to me. Do you explain why you think that in another post somewhere on the board (that you can recall)?

So when, say, a glass falls onto concrete and shatters, why do you think it shatters?
I'll answer the last question first. The glass shatters because it's glass. If it were a plastic container ("plastic glass," seemed oxymoronic) it would not shatter. It's not the event A (falling) that "causes" the event B (glass shattering), it is the nature of the entities that determines their behavior in any given context that is the, "cause," of events. The answer to your first question will explain.

The idea of, "cause," is a sound one, so long as it means nothing happens without an explanation or reason. There are no miracles, there is no magic, and nothing is serendipitous. Unfortunately, philosophers have completely corrupted that concept and have substituted two baseless ideas that have made the modern notion of cause absurd. The two wrong ideas are, "cause and effect," and the notion that cause means, "that which makes something happen."

The first bad idea came from Hume. He formulated it as, "the same cause always produces the same effect," supposedly meaning some event, "A," causes event, "B," and every, event, "A," will always cause an event, "B." Hume's exact words were: "From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects. This is the sum of all our experimental conclusions," Hume wrote, and used the illustration, "We only find, that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second."

Of course Hume handily refuted that cause in the sense of, "same cause, same effect," could ever be established and, since the world of philosophy accepted Hume's formulation of cause, without question, both philosophy and science have suffered from the resulting fallacy that no cause can ever be proved.

The other wrong idea of cause is that cause is some kind of "creative," or "motive force," or a "power that makes things exist or happen," a much older idea with roots in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle. The origin of this idea of cause being some kind of efficient or motivating force is a hold-over from religion and mystic philosophies, which attribute everything to gods, spirits or mystical forces. It is a kind of animism or anthropomorphism, borrowing the idea from the fact the animals and human beings make things and make things happen. Cause does not mean what, "makes something happen." Cause is an explanation of the nature of those things, the behavior of which, "are what happens."

Hume's perversion of the concept, "cause," together with the assumption the science is, "inductive," made science as useless as religion. The view of, "cause," as that which explains, "why," things happen or exist, makes reality contingent on some inexplicable ineffable thing.

[Note on Humean cause and effect: The idea that cause (event A) always produces effect (event B), or that every existent in context A always behaves in manner B, is meaningless. Since events are only the behavior of entities, and since an entity's behavior is determined by its own response to its entire context, including all its relationships, identical "causes" would require identical entities in identical contexts, which is impossible. In the entire history of the world, there have probably never been two identical causes, or two identical effects.

It is true that every existent has its unique nature that determines how it will behave in any context but no context is ever identical with any other. Everything that happens is caused, but the cause is all that pertains to each event, which is always a unique combinations of elements and unique circumstances.

The principles by which the events of the world can be understood are not, "cause and effect," but the principles that define the nature of existents and their relationships to each other. From the behavior of the chemical elements to the behavior of human beings, the cause of the behavior is determined by the nature of those existents and their context (circumstances), that is, their relationship to all other existents, which will almost certainly never be repeated, ever. The idea of, "same cause same effect," cannot be salvaged, nor should it be.]
"....Because it's glass" is to point to a "cause"....your language contradicts your stance.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem. I never doubted, "cause." I'm explaining exactly what it is. It is the absurd view of, "same cause same affect," or, "events cause events," invented by Hume that has corrupted both science and philosophy I showing is wrong. So long as that nonsense is swallowed the true and important nature of cause will never be understood.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:40 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:25 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 11:21 pm

That seems like a curious view to me. Do you explain why you think that in another post somewhere on the board (that you can recall)?

So when, say, a glass falls onto concrete and shatters, why do you think it shatters?
I'll answer the last question first. The glass shatters because it's glass. If it were a plastic container ("plastic glass," seemed oxymoronic) it would not shatter. It's not the event A (falling) that "causes" the event B (glass shattering), it is the nature of the entities that determines their behavior in any given context that is the, "cause," of events. The answer to your first question will explain.

The idea of, "cause," is a sound one, so long as it means nothing happens without an explanation or reason. There are no miracles, there is no magic, and nothing is serendipitous. Unfortunately, philosophers have completely corrupted that concept and have substituted two baseless ideas that have made the modern notion of cause absurd. The two wrong ideas are, "cause and effect," and the notion that cause means, "that which makes something happen."

The first bad idea came from Hume. He formulated it as, "the same cause always produces the same effect," supposedly meaning some event, "A," causes event, "B," and every, event, "A," will always cause an event, "B." Hume's exact words were: "From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects. This is the sum of all our experimental conclusions," Hume wrote, and used the illustration, "We only find, that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second."

Of course Hume handily refuted that cause in the sense of, "same cause, same effect," could ever be established and, since the world of philosophy accepted Hume's formulation of cause, without question, both philosophy and science have suffered from the resulting fallacy that no cause can ever be proved.

The other wrong idea of cause is that cause is some kind of "creative," or "motive force," or a "power that makes things exist or happen," a much older idea with roots in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle. The origin of this idea of cause being some kind of efficient or motivating force is a hold-over from religion and mystic philosophies, which attribute everything to gods, spirits or mystical forces. It is a kind of animism or anthropomorphism, borrowing the idea from the fact the animals and human beings make things and make things happen. Cause does not mean what, "makes something happen." Cause is an explanation of the nature of those things, the behavior of which, "are what happens."

Hume's perversion of the concept, "cause," together with the assumption the science is, "inductive," made science as useless as religion. The view of, "cause," as that which explains, "why," things happen or exist, makes reality contingent on some inexplicable ineffable thing.

[Note on Humean cause and effect: The idea that cause (event A) always produces effect (event B), or that every existent in context A always behaves in manner B, is meaningless. Since events are only the behavior of entities, and since an entity's behavior is determined by its own response to its entire context, including all its relationships, identical "causes" would require identical entities in identical contexts, which is impossible. In the entire history of the world, there have probably never been two identical causes, or two identical effects.

It is true that every existent has its unique nature that determines how it will behave in any context but no context is ever identical with any other. Everything that happens is caused, but the cause is all that pertains to each event, which is always a unique combinations of elements and unique circumstances.

The principles by which the events of the world can be understood are not, "cause and effect," but the principles that define the nature of existents and their relationships to each other. From the behavior of the chemical elements to the behavior of human beings, the cause of the behavior is determined by the nature of those existents and their context (circumstances), that is, their relationship to all other existents, which will almost certainly never be repeated, ever. The idea of, "same cause same effect," cannot be salvaged, nor should it be.]
"....Because it's glass" is to point to a "cause"....your language contradicts your stance.
Already answered this here. You do have a reading comprehension problem. I said, "the cause of the behavior is determined by the nature of those existents, like the nature of a window being, "glass." What things do (all events) is determined entirely (caused) by the nature of the entities acting and how those natures relate to each other. Events do not cause events.

If you choose to continue believing in the Humean view of, "same cause same affect," that's your business. You don't have to agree with me. I'm really not trying to convince you, just explaining how I know your view is mistaken.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:39 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 12:57 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:28 pm

Strawman, I am not asking you to explain math but given a summary of a written work. All books have summaries behind them.
I suppose that's true of most books, but a summary is just that, an incomplete attempt to so say what the book is about, not a "briefer," version of the content. If a briefer version were possible the author would have written a shorter book. Summaries and other forms of pre-digested pap is as far as most people ever get, confusing it with erudition, which is fine if they are satisfied with that, and reading a whole book is beyond their ability to sustain an intellectual effort. If you are not reading at least 50 whole books a year, you are ignorant. Sorry you couldn't manage an article that would have taken a whole ten minutes for a normal reader.
That is because I am reading other books.....currently the Tibetan Book of the Dead and a book on argumentation whose writings are that of Cicero's...so yes a summary is necessary.

You are ignorant if you have to read 50 books a year in order to understand reality.
It's up to you!
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:30 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:40 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:25 pm
I'll answer the last question first. The glass shatters because it's glass. If it were a plastic container ("plastic glass," seemed oxymoronic) it would not shatter. It's not the event A (falling) that "causes" the event B (glass shattering), it is the nature of the entities that determines their behavior in any given context that is the, "cause," of events. The answer to your first question will explain.

The idea of, "cause," is a sound one, so long as it means nothing happens without an explanation or reason. There are no miracles, there is no magic, and nothing is serendipitous. Unfortunately, philosophers have completely corrupted that concept and have substituted two baseless ideas that have made the modern notion of cause absurd. The two wrong ideas are, "cause and effect," and the notion that cause means, "that which makes something happen."

The first bad idea came from Hume. He formulated it as, "the same cause always produces the same effect," supposedly meaning some event, "A," causes event, "B," and every, event, "A," will always cause an event, "B." Hume's exact words were: "From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects. This is the sum of all our experimental conclusions," Hume wrote, and used the illustration, "We only find, that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second."

Of course Hume handily refuted that cause in the sense of, "same cause, same effect," could ever be established and, since the world of philosophy accepted Hume's formulation of cause, without question, both philosophy and science have suffered from the resulting fallacy that no cause can ever be proved.

The other wrong idea of cause is that cause is some kind of "creative," or "motive force," or a "power that makes things exist or happen," a much older idea with roots in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle. The origin of this idea of cause being some kind of efficient or motivating force is a hold-over from religion and mystic philosophies, which attribute everything to gods, spirits or mystical forces. It is a kind of animism or anthropomorphism, borrowing the idea from the fact the animals and human beings make things and make things happen. Cause does not mean what, "makes something happen." Cause is an explanation of the nature of those things, the behavior of which, "are what happens."

Hume's perversion of the concept, "cause," together with the assumption the science is, "inductive," made science as useless as religion. The view of, "cause," as that which explains, "why," things happen or exist, makes reality contingent on some inexplicable ineffable thing.

[Note on Humean cause and effect: The idea that cause (event A) always produces effect (event B), or that every existent in context A always behaves in manner B, is meaningless. Since events are only the behavior of entities, and since an entity's behavior is determined by its own response to its entire context, including all its relationships, identical "causes" would require identical entities in identical contexts, which is impossible. In the entire history of the world, there have probably never been two identical causes, or two identical effects.

It is true that every existent has its unique nature that determines how it will behave in any context but no context is ever identical with any other. Everything that happens is caused, but the cause is all that pertains to each event, which is always a unique combinations of elements and unique circumstances.

The principles by which the events of the world can be understood are not, "cause and effect," but the principles that define the nature of existents and their relationships to each other. From the behavior of the chemical elements to the behavior of human beings, the cause of the behavior is determined by the nature of those existents and their context (circumstances), that is, their relationship to all other existents, which will almost certainly never be repeated, ever. The idea of, "same cause same effect," cannot be salvaged, nor should it be.]
"....Because it's glass" is to point to a "cause"....your language contradicts your stance.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem. I never doubted, "cause." I'm explaining exactly what it is. It is the absurd view of, "same cause same affect," or, "events cause events," invented by Hume that has corrupted both science and philosophy I showing is wrong. So long as that nonsense is swallowed the true and important nature of cause will never be understood.
But the event of the glass existing causes the event of it shattering......an event causes an event.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 1:43 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:40 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:25 pm
I'll answer the last question first. The glass shatters because it's glass. If it were a plastic container ("plastic glass," seemed oxymoronic) it would not shatter. It's not the event A (falling) that "causes" the event B (glass shattering), it is the nature of the entities that determines their behavior in any given context that is the, "cause," of events. The answer to your first question will explain.

The idea of, "cause," is a sound one, so long as it means nothing happens without an explanation or reason. There are no miracles, there is no magic, and nothing is serendipitous. Unfortunately, philosophers have completely corrupted that concept and have substituted two baseless ideas that have made the modern notion of cause absurd. The two wrong ideas are, "cause and effect," and the notion that cause means, "that which makes something happen."

The first bad idea came from Hume. He formulated it as, "the same cause always produces the same effect," supposedly meaning some event, "A," causes event, "B," and every, event, "A," will always cause an event, "B." Hume's exact words were: "From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects. This is the sum of all our experimental conclusions," Hume wrote, and used the illustration, "We only find, that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second."

Of course Hume handily refuted that cause in the sense of, "same cause, same effect," could ever be established and, since the world of philosophy accepted Hume's formulation of cause, without question, both philosophy and science have suffered from the resulting fallacy that no cause can ever be proved.

The other wrong idea of cause is that cause is some kind of "creative," or "motive force," or a "power that makes things exist or happen," a much older idea with roots in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle. The origin of this idea of cause being some kind of efficient or motivating force is a hold-over from religion and mystic philosophies, which attribute everything to gods, spirits or mystical forces. It is a kind of animism or anthropomorphism, borrowing the idea from the fact the animals and human beings make things and make things happen. Cause does not mean what, "makes something happen." Cause is an explanation of the nature of those things, the behavior of which, "are what happens."

Hume's perversion of the concept, "cause," together with the assumption the science is, "inductive," made science as useless as religion. The view of, "cause," as that which explains, "why," things happen or exist, makes reality contingent on some inexplicable ineffable thing.

[Note on Humean cause and effect: The idea that cause (event A) always produces effect (event B), or that every existent in context A always behaves in manner B, is meaningless. Since events are only the behavior of entities, and since an entity's behavior is determined by its own response to its entire context, including all its relationships, identical "causes" would require identical entities in identical contexts, which is impossible. In the entire history of the world, there have probably never been two identical causes, or two identical effects.

It is true that every existent has its unique nature that determines how it will behave in any context but no context is ever identical with any other. Everything that happens is caused, but the cause is all that pertains to each event, which is always a unique combinations of elements and unique circumstances.

The principles by which the events of the world can be understood are not, "cause and effect," but the principles that define the nature of existents and their relationships to each other. From the behavior of the chemical elements to the behavior of human beings, the cause of the behavior is determined by the nature of those existents and their context (circumstances), that is, their relationship to all other existents, which will almost certainly never be repeated, ever. The idea of, "same cause same effect," cannot be salvaged, nor should it be.]
"....Because it's glass" is to point to a "cause"....your language contradicts your stance.
Already answered this here. You do have a reading comprehension problem. I said, "the cause of the behavior is determined by the nature of those existents, like the nature of a window being, "glass." What things do (all events) is determined entirely (caused) by the nature of the entities acting and how those natures relate to each other. Events do not cause events.

If you choose to continue believing in the Humean view of, "same cause same affect," that's your business. You don't have to agree with me. I'm really not trying to convince you, just explaining how I know your view is mistaken.
1. The existence of a phenomenon is an event given all existence is grounded in movement. Events do cause events. You still contradict yourself as the glass is an event in time.

2. There is no solitary nature to a phenomenon which is not dependent upon some other phenomenon. The glass is determined by what it is not, ie the chair, table, tv, etc. This negative limit, ie what the phenomenon is not, is the context which determines the limits of what is. In determining the limits of what is a negative context acts as a spider web of causes considering "not chair", "not table", "not tv" are connected to the event of the glass existing. What something is not causes what something is. Cause is multidimensional and non-linear.
Post Reply