.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 11:21 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:27 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:31 am

A quality is a localization of one phenomenon existing across many thus necessitates a connection amidst these seemingly separate phenomenon. As a localization it is a part of the whole and exists as the point of change from one phenomenon into another. For example to observe the quality of "red" results in the phenomena of "brick", "blood", etc. with this quality of "red" tying together "brick", "blood" under the singular phenomenon of "red" in itself.

In these respects qualities exist as generalizations and as generalizations are causes in the respect they change into further phenomena which in turn are the effects of said quality. Cause and effect is the observation of some relationship where one phenomenon changes into another. The quality is the localization of one phenomenon, from many, with this localization being a generality.
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.]
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The A=A

Post by Terrapin Station »

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.]
Which all means that you're not actually disagreeing with there being causes and effects, you're disagreeing with particular notions, particular things said about that, at least per your understanding of what you read (for example, where you took Hume to be suggesting that there could be literally identical items/contexts multiply instantiated).
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:26 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.]
Which all means that you're not actually disagreeing with there being causes and effects, you're disagreeing with particular notions, particular things said about that, at least per your understanding of what you read (for example, where you took Hume to be suggesting that there could be literally identical items/contexts multiply instantiated).
No, I mean something much more profound than that. I mean that every idea of cause generally accepted in philosophy and science today is not only wrong, but detrimental to any understanding in either field, and that the consequence of every wrong view of cause is an endless parade of bad ideas in both fields.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The A=A

Post by bahman »

Eyeon wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:16 am What is the absolute truth of everything? I propose it is the A=A.
The absolute truth is the truth for underlying reality, such as we are interacting minds.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:12 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 7:12 am
Your use of 'perception' is too rhetoric.
I was referring to human minds individually and collectively.

Whatever is a Principle do not exists by itself but is abstracted as universal from particular experiences.
Humans observed many 'roundish' things in nature and abstract from all these similar experiences a Principle of a Circle [the ideal circle].
Then later observations of particular roundish things are matched against this Principle of a Circle which in the first place was derived and decided by human minds.
This may be an absolute relative to particular roundish things but it is not absolutely absolute.

Therefore your Principle of a Circle is merely a relative absolute.
1. False, if all things occur through perception, and this is a truth, then perception is the grounding of truth. This is a principle as it is absolute, absolute given all truths are mere variations of this one truth. Thus absolute absolutes not only exist but necessitate a principle, ie "way of being", which guides perception itself as existing beyond it.

2. The principle is the unity of particulars. It is multiple particulars united under a common bond, much in the same manner gravity determines the behavior of all of physical being.

3. One cannot say the perfect circle was derived only from particulars given the perfect circle is not observed empirically. The perfect circle exists in itself independent of physical phenomenon and is absolute given there is no change in it.
3. The perfect circle is NEVER observed since its existence is an impossibility, rather it is abstracted and inferred from particulars given roundish things.

A. Since the perfect circle [impossible to be empirically real] is abstracted and inferred as a universal, its grounding is based on human conditions.
Thus it cannot be absolutely absolute but merely a subjective absolute.

B. Note when you insist the perfect circle exists in itself independent of physical phenomenon you are claiming that as a philosophical realist. Thus you cannot deny you are not a philosophical realist.

Can you counter the above points specifically?

Here is an interesting take from Kant in that what is a perfect triangle [ same with circle] is never absolutely absolute but merely a relative absolute constructed by humans.
Kant on CPR wrote:But the fact that Diogenes Laertius, in handing down an account of these matters, names the reputed author of even the, least important among the geometrical demonstrations, even of those which, for ordinary Consciousness, stand in need of no such proof, does at least show that the memory of the revolution, brought about by the first glimpse of this new path, must have seemed to mathematicians of such outstanding importance as to cause it to survive the tide of oblivion.

A new light flashed upon the Mind of the first man (be he Thales or some other) who demonstrated the properties of the isosceles triangle.
B xii - 2nd Edition
The true method, so he found, was not to inspect what he discerned either in the figure, or in the bare Concept of it, and from this, as it were, to read off its properties;
but to bring out what was Necessarily implied in the Concepts
that he had himself for meet a priori,
and had put into the figure in the Construction by which he presented it to himself.
If he is to know anything with a priori certainty he must not ascribe to the figure anything save what necessarily follows from what he has himself set into it in accordance with his Concept.
You get the point above??
1. To say the perfect circle is abstracted from particulars is to make a relative statement: particulars --> universals. But considering it is relative the statement may be revervsed and therefore state: Universals ---> Particulars. This leads to absolute forms and the negation of relativity under the statement: "All is relative including this statement that all is relative".

2. Abstraction and inference is observation. Abstractions are thoughts. Thoughts exist. Thus abstractions exist. The perfect circle exists as an abstraction and considering abstractions exist so does the perfect circle.

3. To say all exists through human observation is to make a human observation thus a loop occurs where the observation exists "through" a loop. This loop guides human observation, specifically through the act of self reflection, therefore exists as an entity.

4. To state that human observation is the foundation for truth is to make a relative absolute statement. Yet this statement as a relative absolute may, under a different context, therefore be false. Under these terms human observation is not always a foundation for truth.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:44 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:13 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:27 pm
There is no such thing as, "cause and effect."
That is an assertion, not an argument or definition.

Cause and effect is change. One phenomenon changes into another. The original phenomenon, as preceding the later, is a cause. The phenomenon which occurs after the former is the effect. Change exists.
As you say, "That is an assertion, not an argument."

"One phenomenon changes into another," says nothing. Are you referring to some kind of mystic nonsense like transubstantiation or magic like turning water into wine. Bah!
Hence the following to build off one assertion and form an argument: The original phenomenon, as preceding the later, is a cause. The phenomenon which occurs after the former is the effect. Change exists.

And to build off this further. The inversion of the cause into an effect in turn results in another cause. Causality is thus the inversion of one state into another state with this inversion being the differentiation of one phenomenon from another. Differentiation is the lacking of one set of qualities in one phenomenon with that of another. This differentiation is thus observed as the voiding of properties therefore cause an effect is voiding. Cause and effect exists through voiding, all phenomena are voided by further phenomena, therefore cause and effect exists.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:53 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:44 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:13 pm

That is an assertion, not an argument or definition.

Cause and effect is change. One phenomenon changes into another. The original phenomenon, as preceding the later, is a cause. The phenomenon which occurs after the former is the effect. Change exists.
As you say, "That is an assertion, not an argument."

"One phenomenon changes into another," says nothing. Are you referring to some kind of mystic nonsense like transubstantiation or magic like turning water into wine. Bah!
Hence the following to build off one assertion and form an argument: The original phenomenon, as preceding the later, is a cause. The phenomenon which occurs after the former is the effect. Change exists.

And to build off this further. The inversion of the cause into an effect in turn results in another cause. Causality is thus the inversion of one state into another state with this inversion being the differentiation of one phenomenon from another. Differentiation is the lacking of one set of qualities in one phenomenon with that of another. This differentiation is thus observed as the voiding of properties therefore cause an effect is voiding. Cause and effect exists through voiding, all phenomena are voided by further phenomena, therefore cause and effect exists.
There is no such thing as, "cause and effect." That is Humean nonsense.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 11:44 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:53 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:44 pm
As you say, "That is an assertion, not an argument."

"One phenomenon changes into another," says nothing. Are you referring to some kind of mystic nonsense like transubstantiation or magic like turning water into wine. Bah!
Hence the following to build off one assertion and form an argument: The original phenomenon, as preceding the later, is a cause. The phenomenon which occurs after the former is the effect. Change exists.

And to build off this further. The inversion of the cause into an effect in turn results in another cause. Causality is thus the inversion of one state into another state with this inversion being the differentiation of one phenomenon from another. Differentiation is the lacking of one set of qualities in one phenomenon with that of another. This differentiation is thus observed as the voiding of properties therefore cause an effect is voiding. Cause and effect exists through voiding, all phenomena are voided by further phenomena, therefore cause and effect exists.
There is no such thing as, "cause and effect." That is Humean nonsense.
1. Choice necessitates a cause and effect paradigm as something builds off of the choice made...the choice is the cause of the actions which follow and without cause and effect choice cannot occur.

2. If a ball is hit at x speed the ball travels at y distance in proportion to x speed. The effect is the cause in a new form. This can dually be observed within the number line as the whole numbers are 1 reflecting itself in a new form. 2,3,4,5 etc is the reflection of number 1 in a new form. Thirdly this can be observed within the universals. The form of "Y" can be observed in lightning, rivers, veins, cracks, etc. where the "Y" results in variations of itself.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: The A=A

Post by RCSaunders »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 9:55 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 11:44 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:53 pm

Hence the following to build off one assertion and form an argument: The original phenomenon, as preceding the later, is a cause. The phenomenon which occurs after the former is the effect. Change exists.

And to build off this further. The inversion of the cause into an effect in turn results in another cause. Causality is thus the inversion of one state into another state with this inversion being the differentiation of one phenomenon from another. Differentiation is the lacking of one set of qualities in one phenomenon with that of another. This differentiation is thus observed as the voiding of properties therefore cause an effect is voiding. Cause and effect exists through voiding, all phenomena are voided by further phenomena, therefore cause and effect exists.
There is no such thing as, "cause and effect." That is Humean nonsense.
1. Choice necessitates a cause and effect paradigm as something builds off of the choice made...the choice is the cause of the actions which follow and without cause and effect choice cannot occur.

2. If a ball is hit at x speed the ball travels at y distance in proportion to x speed. The effect is the cause in a new form. This can dually be observed within the number line as the whole numbers are 1 reflecting itself in a new form. 2,3,4,5 etc is the reflection of number 1 in a new form. Thirdly this can be observed within the universals. The form of "Y" can be observed in lightning, rivers, veins, cracks, etc. where the "Y" results in variations of itself.
It doesn't matter how many times you say a wrong thing, it is still wrong. Check the link:

There is no such thing as, "cause and effect."
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:11 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 9:55 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 11:44 am
There is no such thing as, "cause and effect." That is Humean nonsense.
1. Choice necessitates a cause and effect paradigm as something builds off of the choice made...the choice is the cause of the actions which follow and without cause and effect choice cannot occur.

2. If a ball is hit at x speed the ball travels at y distance in proportion to x speed. The effect is the cause in a new form. This can dually be observed within the number line as the whole numbers are 1 reflecting itself in a new form. 2,3,4,5 etc is the reflection of number 1 in a new form. Thirdly this can be observed within the universals. The form of "Y" can be observed in lightning, rivers, veins, cracks, etc. where the "Y" results in variations of itself.
It doesn't matter how many times you say a wrong thing, it is still wrong. Check the link:

There is no such thing as, "cause and effect."
To negate cause and effect is to first say cause and effect exists, and as existing, is equivalent to "x,y,z". Cause and effect is the relationship between phenomenon where one event results in another. As a relationship it is thus a measurement given it is a localization of x,y,z phenomena from the totality of all phenomena.

Cause and effect exists as a measurement, measurements emerge from reality through consciousness, thus the observation of cause and effect is the observation of consciousness emerging.
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 07, 2021 7:46 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:11 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 9:55 pm

1. Choice necessitates a cause and effect paradigm as something builds off of the choice made...the choice is the cause of the actions which follow and without cause and effect choice cannot occur.

2. If a ball is hit at x speed the ball travels at y distance in proportion to x speed. The effect is the cause in a new form. This can dually be observed within the number line as the whole numbers are 1 reflecting itself in a new form. 2,3,4,5 etc is the reflection of number 1 in a new form. Thirdly this can be observed within the universals. The form of "Y" can be observed in lightning, rivers, veins, cracks, etc. where the "Y" results in variations of itself.
It doesn't matter how many times you say a wrong thing, it is still wrong. Check the link:

There is no such thing as, "cause and effect."
To negate cause and effect is to first say cause and effect exists, and as existing, is equivalent to "x,y,z". Cause and effect is the relationship between phenomenon where one event results in another. As a relationship it is thus a measurement given it is a localization of x,y,z phenomena from the totality of all phenomena.

Cause and effect exists as a measurement, measurements emerge from reality through consciousness, thus the observation of cause and effect is the observation of consciousness emerging.
I know what you think cause and effect are, Eodnhoj7. It's the same nonse Hume tried to put over and most philosophers bought. It's just wrong.

I explained exactly what cause is at the link I provided. Please consult it and try to understand it before repeating your nonsense here where anyone can see it.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:57 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 7:46 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:11 am
It doesn't matter how many times you say a wrong thing, it is still wrong. Check the link:

There is no such thing as, "cause and effect."
To negate cause and effect is to first say cause and effect exists, and as existing, is equivalent to "x,y,z". Cause and effect is the relationship between phenomenon where one event results in another. As a relationship it is thus a measurement given it is a localization of x,y,z phenomena from the totality of all phenomena.

Cause and effect exists as a measurement, measurements emerge from reality through consciousness, thus the observation of cause and effect is the observation of consciousness emerging.
I know what you think cause and effect are, Eodnhoj7. It's the same nonse Hume tried to put over and most philosophers bought. It's just wrong.

I explained exactly what cause is at the link I provided. Please consult it and try to understand it before repeating your nonsense here where anyone can see it.
Or you can summarize the arguments, if you know it so well, rather than having us read a short book. Even short books fail when they are grounded in improper axioms.

In short, cause and effect is the emergence of consciousness.
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 07, 2021 8:59 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:57 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 7:46 pm

To negate cause and effect is to first say cause and effect exists, and as existing, is equivalent to "x,y,z". Cause and effect is the relationship between phenomenon where one event results in another. As a relationship it is thus a measurement given it is a localization of x,y,z phenomena from the totality of all phenomena.

Cause and effect exists as a measurement, measurements emerge from reality through consciousness, thus the observation of cause and effect is the observation of consciousness emerging.
I know what you think cause and effect are, Eodnhoj7. It's the same nonse Hume tried to put over and most philosophers bought. It's just wrong.

I explained exactly what cause is at the link I provided. Please consult it and try to understand it before repeating your nonsense here where anyone can see it.
Or you can summarize the arguments, if you know it so well, rather than having us read a short book. Even short books fail when they are grounded in improper axioms.

In short, cause and effect is the emergence of consciousness.
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.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The A=A

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:47 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:59 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:57 pm
I know what you think cause and effect are, Eodnhoj7. It's the same nonse Hume tried to put over and most philosophers bought. It's just wrong.

I explained exactly what cause is at the link I provided. Please consult it and try to understand it before repeating your nonsense here where anyone can see it.
Or you can summarize the arguments, if you know it so well, rather than having us read a short book. Even short books fail when they are grounded in improper axioms.

In short, cause and effect is the emergence of consciousness.
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?
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 13, 2021 10:42 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:47 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:59 pm

Or you can summarize the arguments, if you know it so well, rather than having us read a short book. Even short books fail when they are grounded in improper axioms.

In short, cause and effect is the emergence of consciousness.
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.
Post Reply