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 yesterday at 06:02 AM 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 decreases faster than the temperature drops (which is unusual. as you would expect them to be roughly linearly correlated), 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 1 hour 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 3 hours 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.

Like it just knows from the top down it can watch a cartoon and the dog comes before the internal mechanism.

the internal mechanism is only observed after something is added onto what it is.

Reality is more cartoon like than what science thinks it is.

They are cutting open a cartoon character when they dont have too.

Science is like rape of God. A man digging into something to see whats inside without consent.

They wont find anything the same way you wont find a person in a human being.

You can dig through and find guts and brain and bone but no person.

You can mutilate your cartoon character and God will make up logical reasons for why the person exists but first comes the person and everything else is just an explanation for what it is.

 

The after the fact analysis of whats happening and why is not real and not needed.

Edited 2 hours ago by Hojo

[Leo Gura]

40 minutes ago, Jirh said:

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.

Well, every atom is pulling on every other atoms in the universe so of course all causality is grossly simplified down. However, the simplification does work. You understand that if you step on a dog that you caused it pain, not some random atom on the other side of the universe.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Jirh]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, every atom is pulling on every other atoms in the universe so of course all causality is grossly simplified down. However, the simplification does work. You understand that if you step on a dog that you caused it pain, not some random atom on the other side of the universe.

Yes, that's the illusion caused by relative stability, aka the dream state.

[zurew]

My understanding is that the disagreement between a realist and antirealist regarding causation is not about whether you can observe regularities or not.

The disagreement is about the metaphysics related to what is needed to explain those regularities and whether one needs to posit an objective entity called "causation" that is a feature of the world.

A Humean would say something like : "We observe that stepping on dogs is regularly followed by pain behavior and yelping. We do not observe any further entity, relation, power, or necessary connection called "causation" that binds the events together. Therefore we are not justified in positing one"

Edited 1 hour ago by zurew

[AION]

On the quantum level there is no causation like in this 3d reality where we are in right now. Both paradigms fit into each other but it is too deep to explain right now.

[Jirh]

52 minutes ago, zurew said:

A Humean would say something like : "We observe that stepping on dogs is regularly followed by pain behavior and yelping. We do not observe any further entity, relation, power, or necessary connection called "causation" that binds the events together. Therefore we are not justified in positing one"

The argument is structured as: "Premise A is true, therefore conclusion B follows."

But in using the word "therefore," they are demanding that you accept a necessary, non-arbitrary link between their premises and their conclusion. If causation isn't real, "therefore" becomes a meaningless word. By trying to prove that causation is fake, they are relying on the reality of causation to make their case. They cannot escape the grammar of causality, because grammar is causality encoded in language.

Also, logic itself is a practical application of causation. Causation is in the DNA of logic.

Edited 23 minutes ago by Jirh