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

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

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"

This is where I am pivoting around a bit I think. You better captured it in words. 

It feels fundamentally unresolved.

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

4 hours 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.

This is not what I am questioning.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, AION said:

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.

Can you elaborate on this? 

Do you view causation occuring in your direct experience of concrete reality? 

Edited 14 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Mellowmarsh]

4 hours ago, Hojo said:

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.

Bingo.

Knowing that is a knowledge that can only point to the illusion of knowledge.

Not-knowing is the highest form of knowledge.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I feel stuck reconciling time, how it works. As a dimension of reality. 

One thing happens. Then another. Totally seperate. But I can use my intellect and pattern recognition to infer causation. Progression through time.

Time can't exist - but it does? Or I make it up to create and make sense of reality.

Time itself feels created by conscious awareness through a series of memories. But the universe itself does not appear to be "becoming" moment to moment.

Nothing is bloody happening haha

Edited 13 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[AION]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Can you elaborate on this? 

Do you view causation occuring in your direct experience of concrete reality? 

I believe in quantum indeterminism which is  more about probability rather than causation but it is too deep to explain here

Edited 12 hours ago by AION

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@AION do you have any resources to link, if it is too much to write?

[Jirh]

This topic is so cool and mind-fucking! 

If you press the power button on your laptop, did you actually cause it to work? I think probably yes.

I think maybe you can argue about the dog yelping, but you cannot argue against a system of our own making.

[Jirh]

3 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I feel stuck reconciling time, how it works. As a dimension of reality. 

One thing happens. Then another. Totally seperate. But I can use my intellect and pattern recognition to infer causation. Progression through time.

Time can't exist - but it does? Or I make it up to create and make sense of reality.

Time itself feels created by conscious awareness through a series of memories. But the universe itself does not appear to be "becoming" moment to moment.

Nothing is bloody happening haha

I don't have any answers.

I'm just appreciating and enjoying the consecutive mind-fucks haha 🤯😵

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I feel stuck reconciling time, how it works. As a dimension of reality. 

One thing happens. Then another. Totally seperate. But I can use my intellect and pattern recognition to infer causation. Progression through time.

Time can't exist - but it does? Or I make it up to create and make sense of reality.

Time itself feels created by conscious awareness through a series of memories. But the universe itself does not appear to be "becoming" moment to moment.

Nothing is bloody happening haha

The consistency, notions like time and space, is accessed through a tiny tube called the 7±2 rule working memory. It divides things into "tiny" pieces so you can fit them through the tube. In reality, it's all just a big blob of immense complexity, and even the distinction between one moment and the next does not capture its immensity, then you're already passing it through the tube.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

25 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The consistency, notions like time and space, is accessed through a tiny tube called the 7±2 rule working memory. It divides things into "tiny" pieces so you can fit them through the tube. In reality, it's all just a big blob of immense complexity, and even the distinction between one moment and the next does not capture its immensity, then you're already passing it through the tube.

This is my first introduction to this rule 😜

Does it allow for "chunking" - IE these 7 items can be bundles of stuff? I've been using this chunking thing to recall more info for work as a practice for a couple of months to great effect (sidetrack I know)

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Jirh when I feel like I am close to some certainty it all unravels again just as rapidly as I weave it together 🤯😜

[Sincerity]

If you're interested in this topic from a slightly more technical (but still totally understandable) side, check out The Book of Why by Judea Pearl. It's a great intro book to causality and its history.

Edited 6 hours ago by Sincerity

[AION]

6 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@AION do you have any resources to link, if it is too much to write?

I don't know any specific resources on the topic but I guess I could recommend Joe Dispenza. His book Super Natural is good. In that book he talks about the regular cause and effect versus quantum leap.

 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This is my first introduction to this rule 😜

Does it allow for "chunking" - IE these 7 items can be bundles of stuff? I've been using this chunking thing to recall more info for work as a practice for a couple of months to great effect (sidetrack I know)

Yes. "Chunking" is actually a term used, mostly for chunking together new information (e.g. numbers from a telephone number you haven't learned before) live in working memory.

The long-term memory is technically a big chunking mechanism (memories are stored and linked to other memories; that's why learning through "depth processing", i.e. actively creating associations with existing memories, increases recall). That's how you can give a lecture from your mind where each concept is linked to tons of other concepts, without keeping them all in mind at once (and rather you go through them sequentially at the rate that your working memory allows). (And intuition or insight can give a low resolution glimpse of the structure, that can guide where you want to go before you have explicated all of it. I touched on this in my thread on feeling vs thinking).

Nevertheless, when you compare a past moment to now, you're bringing it into working memory, and those would be two chunks you're comparing (your memory of the past moment and your experience or memory of the "now"). We usually do this compulsively every time we think (which is usually very often, every second or so), and it creates a persistent sense of past becoming a present.

When you stop thinking, no space, no time. Or to quote a sample of a spoken word from a child in a song I know (said in Swedish): "When you stop thinking, then you become dead". "You" — the long-term memory self fed through the 7±2 rule working memory tube, dies.

Edited 5 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

Actions have certain consequences.

 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by UnbornTao

[integral]

@Natasha Tori Maru

the only alternative to the "yes" answer: you never observe a necessary connection between two events, you just see one thing, then another (ball moves, window breaks), and your mind supplies the "cause." So causation is just a habit of associating things.

but thats just one metaphysics out of any number you can imagine.

so the question is how to know what metaphysics is true? Will any experiment tell me what is true? Can observation and intuition tell me what is true or is that a self-deception? Can i know what is true by rational thought and logic, is it reliable? ... epistemology 🌈

 

Edited 2 hours ago by integral

[Natasha Tori Maru]

4 hours ago, Sincerity said:

If you're interested in this topic from a slightly more technical (but still totally understandable) side, check out The Book of Why by Judea Pearl. It's a great intro book to causality and its history.

Good sir.

I will 🙏🏻