Am I totally inferring the link between two events? Causation question...

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I do shit (shit#1) - then shit (shit#2) occurs afterwards.

Shit#1 and Shit#2 appear to be associated.

But in reality, all I can say is one shit is happening then another.

I am making a connection between the two shits - via inference - up in my head?

I got to this based on determinism / free will and reviewing this thread:

Confused with free will

I don't think I can say anything else other than "I observe some pattern of shit, some regularities of said shit, and some sequences of shit"

Correct me if I am wrong - but I am making this connection up?

Edited yesterday at 02:56 AM by Natasha Tori Maru

[Jodistrict]

See David Hume's critique of causality.  Our minds are hardwired to project the feeling of anticipation onto nature, mistaking an internal association of ideas for an objective law of the universe.

https://philosophyalevel.com/posts/hume-causation-problem-of-induction/

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Jodistrict appreciated 💫🙏🏻

[Joseph Maynor]

I'm not a skeptic as to causation.  

[Jirh]

That's a juicy one, for sure!

Here are my thoughts after years of deep contemplation:

Causality is an illusion; a perfectly solid and convincing one. But still ultimately an illusion.

An illusion is something that seems there while it isn't actually there.

Same goes for free will. We feel we are conscious agents doing stuff freely, but when we examine it deeply, we don't choose our motivations or capabilities or circumstances or anything, even our breath, so where's the freedom and agency?

Determinism, on the other hand, is the truth that we refuse to accept, no matter how we try not to. We always seek change through causation. We aren't aware of our lack of free will. We feel capable of making a difference. But what difference are we making if the script is already written? From the moment we decided that we want to create change, to the moment our endeavour is over.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

52 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I'm not a skeptic as to causation.  

Tell me your thoughts - most welcome.

@Jirh How so you operate in the world, in terms of agency? I view myself as simply taking action when the highest probability for a certain outcome arises, to possibly affect a desirable outcome. I move as if I have no ultimate control, and I am at the mercy of any possibility that may arise. I aim to accumulate the wisdom to know when to act, and this is all. Lower stress because there isn't an attachment to outcome. Surprise when things go my way.

But to conceptualise cause is my own inference, and that 'happenings' just occur. WHAT. I realise all I have been doing is noticing sequences, patterns and trends/regularity/frequency. And acting based on my accumulated feedback from experience in reality.

I don't want to think about it too much because I feel as if it is just... MAGIC. Everything just. HAPPENS.

Edited 23 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Joseph Maynor]

@Natasha Tori Maru  Causation is an aspect of creation.  Or the creator.  So in a way we create our own lives.  But this doesn't mean that others don't have a role.  But this gets into the self vs. other duality.

[Jirh]

@Natasha Tori Maru I think you're nailing it. Good for you! I don't think you can top magic. It's just the best state to be.

I do the same mostly. Sometimes, more intellectually, and other times more intuitively, depending on context. And generally, I try to balance my thinking with my feelings and vice-versa.

You seem well-balanced.

[Joseph Maynor]

 

[Carl-Richard]

We say the association is causation when A occurs before B and we have a very compelling reason ("->") for why the association exists. A -> B. The reason is referred to as a causal mechanism.

Why does water vapor eventually fall down as rain after rising to the sky? Usually because the temperature drops and it initiates condensation.

If you lower the temperature of water vapor in the sky, you would usually expect it to fall as rain. If it didn't, you would have to have a causal mechanism that could explain that discrepancy.

For example, if the air pressure increases somehow at the same rate as the temperature drops (which is unusual if you go from a low to a high point in the atmosphere), then you would have the water vapor remain as vapor despite lowering the temperature (as air pressure is also involved in condensation).

Temperature is how much the particles are moving in the medium, air pressure is how many particles or the mass of the particles you have (and also their temperature). So perhaps a more comprehensive causal mechanism would be the total "velocity minus mass" of the particles in the air decreases (which we can coin the "condensation capacity"; I made that up, the analogue in the literature is called the Psychrometric ratio).

"Rain falls because of the decrease in the Psychrometric ratio 🤓"

But yes, David Hume's critiques still apply in that any causal explanation relies on past observations and that we can't be certain that they hold in the future.

Edited 6 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Jirh]

 

I would ask Hume, though, what about the causation of causation?

Did infinite complexity actually cause us to create the concept of causation?

If so, then we have a clear and direct causation relationship between infinite complexity and the illusory concept of causation.

It's fun contemplating this stuff, especially the mind-wrecking aspect 

[Leo Gura]

If you step on a dog and the dog yelps, you are not making that up, dogs really don't like being stepped on. You can use your intelligence to comprehend why stepping on a dog causes a yelp.

Edited 50 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[Jirh]

37 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If you step on a dog and the dog yelps, you are not making that up, dogs really don't like being stepped on. You can use your intelligence to comprehend why stepping on a dog causes a yelp.

But this requires an infinitely complex and regressive system to occur.

We take the infinite complexity for granted and reduce causality down to a few number of comprehensible reasons that we probably can control, for simplicity.

The dog has to have an intact neural system, and gravity should work with its current settings, just to name two variables in order for the dog to feel the pain and yelp. If you do the same experiment on the moon, it will not work.

[Hojo]

@Jirh I think it works like a cartoon.

Like a kid can know that stepping on a dogs tail hurts it without knowing about the internal mechanisms.

The intelligence is the kid knowing that.

 

Edited just now by Hojo