Plasmism - Get Shit Done

[caspex]

17 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

By the way, "properties" here would be "mechanisms" (or processes) in the causality language framework. For example, object A increases the temperature of object B through the mechanism/process of heat transduction. To infer causal relationships in science, you often have to point to a causal mechanism (a way that explains the causal relationship), or else you're simply stuck with correlation. That's essentially the problem of consciousness in the materialist framework (not the idealist one of course): how does neurons firing cause colors, sounds, tastes, to be experienced? If you can't point to a mechanism there (in a way that links the two phenomena in a satisfactory way; i.e. it must actually feel like it explains the relationship, or else you feel like the mechanism is incomplete and needs a second mechanism to explain it further), then you're stuck with a correlative relationship (i.e. when A increases, B increases).

Also, interesting how the definition of causality on Wikipedia actually contains the word "influence":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Hm. I was under the impression that 'Cause' denotes a factor that the effect is dependent upon while 'Influence' being a factor that may not be the sole determinant. Which is why I used the word Influence and not Cause.

I do think these things will be important in developing a framework for effectively engineering influences or predicting outcomes in the context of cognition and behavior and I am sure a lot of the specific research is already conducted in fields of psychology and such. However for now I am trying to thaw out the definitions, goals and philosophy of Plasmism.

Thing is Plasmism is something that unexpectedly popped into my head during Upasana as an insight and I am trying to thaw it out since then. I can see it but can't quite put it into words.

Until I can properly define what Plasmism really is I can't decide on whether it should be given a separate name instead of something like 'Determinism with a focus on personal development'.

I think it is worth it, at least personally, to see this through.

Edited 4 hours ago by caspex

[caspex]

2 hours ago, Stick said:

Can I join this religion?

If there's enough influence, you won't have a choice 

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, caspex said:

Hm. I was under the impression that 'Cause' denotes a factor that the effect is dependent upon while 'Influence' being a factor that may not be the sole determinant. Which is why I used the word Influence and not Cause.

Nope, it doesn't have to be a sole determinant. That would simply be a perfect 1-to-1 causal relationship (or a collinear correlation which is causal). Very few causal relationships are like that. In the heat transduction example, it's often the case that the heat is tranduced from (and to) other objects as well not currently under consideration.

[caspex]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

Nope, it doesn't have to be a sole determinant. That would simply be a perfect 1-to-1 causal relationship (or a collinear correlation which is causal). Very few causal relationships are like that. In the heat transduction example, it's often the case that the heat is tranduced from (and to) other objects as well not currently under consideration.

Aside from the Wikipedia article, can you tell me any good resources to learn more about causality?

[Carl-Richard]

13 minutes ago, caspex said:

Aside from the Wikipedia article, can you tell me any good resources to learn more about causality?

I'm simply going by what I remember from my statistics courses in psychology (and Bernardo Kastrup talking about it as a side note in various videos). So essentially a statistics book (maybe specifically inferential statistics). They go through the bare minimum of concepts like causality vs correlation (and related concepts like mediation, moderation, perhaps less relevant in this case).

Edited 4 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

Is thinking about doing something, or talking about it, the same activity as doing it?

The action is what shows that intention was present.

Oftentimes we confuse desiring something with having intended to carry it out.