Causation in subjective distinctions
-
- Posts: 251
- Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am
Causation in subjective distinctions
I have classified subjectively defined labels and their applicability to be thought of causally, recently I questioned whether others would agree and wanted some clarification on this. So when we label someone as rude or ugly, in that the cause of our thinking this way can be clearly defined, in that the individual meets our criteria for the classification, could we define this to be cause and effect? Despite that the classification relies on interpretations and definitions that are subjectively defined, which make the classification what it is?
Where do you draw the line as far as describing causation in these kinds of subjective classifications? While I think of these things causally, I believe that distinctions need to be made between indisputable causation and causation that relies on subjective categorisation and interpretation.
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Causation in subjective distinctions
- Albert Tatlock
- Posts: 183
- Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm
- JamesOfSeattle
- Premium Member
- Posts: 509
- Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm
Re: Causation in subjective distinctions
The difficulty arises when you try to compare your concepts with other people's concepts. It's hard to be certain that the concepts were created (caused) in the same way.
*
[wags finger at Albert]
-
- Posts: 513
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm
Re: Causation in subjective distinctions
What if the reason that you decide to label someone as being "rude" or "ugly" is a consequence of the fact that you are afflicted with some species of severe delusional psychosis that renders your higher cognitive processes irrational and nonsensical relative to those of a typical, average healthy adult? For you, cause and (verbal) effect are not rationally/ logically connected to one another in any reasonably determinate manner. In your case, that is, the cause of your thinking and utterance cannot, in fact, be clearly defined or elucidated in any comprehensible manner at all; because the fact is that, frankly, your are legally insane ( or medically speaking, "barking mad"), and the person you just labelled as rude and ugly was is in actual fact , well known to be a polite and quietly spoken, famous fashion model who is universally regarded by millions of average Americans as being a great beauty. Same goes for the giant, flying, pink -and- blue- striped elephant you insist on telling me is hovering dangerously just below the ceiling of the room we are both now seated in ? What elephant, I say ? I can't see one ! "Are you blind, man " !! you shout back, in reply, "I can see it up there as plain as the nose on your face" !!Judaka wrote: ↑January 31st, 2018, 11:42 pm Hi All
I have classified subjectively defined labels and their applicability to be thought of causally, recently I questioned whether others would agree and wanted some clarification on this. So when we label someone as rude or ugly, in that the cause of our thinking this way can be clearly defined, in that the individual meets our criteria for the classification, could we define this to be cause and effect? Despite that the classification relies on interpretations and definitions that are subjectively defined, which make the classification what it is?
Where do you draw the line as far as describing causation in these kinds of subjective classifications? While I think of these things causally, I believe that distinctions need to be made between indisputable causation and causation that relies on subjective categorisation and interpretation.
Regards
Dachshund
-
- Posts: 251
- Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am
Re: Causation in subjective distinctions
This is how I would normally think of causation too and I agree that the creation of a classification like "rudeness" would be fairly straight forward to explained causally but then using then proceeding to actually use the label creates a situation where causation is no longer just occurring but it's being sorted into classifications and then being used to form subjective distinctions. So many subjective particulars come into play, such as how much rude behaviour is needed to make someone rude, whether some rude actions are more impactful than others on the classification, consistency vs magnitude and then deciding whether intent matters or not and so on. All of these things which aren't really to do with either the cause or the effect of the actual distinction.I think of all cause/effect situations in terms of a process that looks roughly like input -> agent -> output, where I assign causation to the agent and effect to the output. One such output could be the creation of a class, say, "rudeness".
I think of these things causally but I guess I don't feel that the cause necessarily leads to the effect, maybe it's simply our opinion that it ought to. I'm not sure whether it deserves to be called causation or not but it's definitely not the same thing as standard causation.
I agree and that's part of the point I was making. There's causation all over the place and much of it is more about the individual making the distinction than the actual causation involved with a person being classified as rude or ugly. Clearly there's causation in a mad man being mad but that doesn't appear as though it should be involved in the process between an individual being classified as rude if it's causal. I generally thought of causation as demonstrable and repeatable so can something so biased and subjective really be considered causal? I don't know, I thought though that the word describing standardized causation and causation in social situations shouldn't be the same.What if the reason that you decide to label someone as being "rude" or "ugly" is a consequence of the fact that you are afflicted with some species of severe delusional psychosis
It seems to me that when people approach issues like what they "deserve" and what they're "worth" causally and it can cause a lot of grief and perhaps if they viewed it as being the result of their interpretations and biases - they would be more able to construct a more positive image of themselves. Just one example of why I think this kind of conflation is harmful.
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Causation in subjective distinctions
If classification requires interpretation, we are dealing with semantics. How does semantics function causally? How can something that requires interpretation function causally? If a person acts in the form of a decision, that act functions causally, but the thought itself doesn't cause the act of decision since it was the agent that acted.Judaka wrote: ↑February 1st, 2018, 3:19 am This is how I would normally think of causation too and I agree that the creation of a classification like "rudeness" would be fairly straight forward to explained causally but then using then proceeding to actually use the label creates a situation where causation is no longer just occurring but it's being sorted into classifications and then being used to form subjective distinctions. So many subjective particulars come into play, such as how much rude behaviour is needed to make someone rude, whether some rude actions are more impactful than others on the classification, consistency vs magnitude and then deciding whether intent matters or not and so on. All of these things which aren't really to do with either the cause or the effect of the actual distinction.
- Albert Tatlock
- Posts: 183
- Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Causation in subjective distinctions
How do you get from the physics to the semantics and back again?
- Albert Tatlock
- Posts: 183
- Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm
Re: Causation in subjective distinctions
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Causation in subjective distinctions
There is no way to get from the physics to the semantics and back again in purely physical causal terms.Albert Tatlock wrote: ↑February 1st, 2018, 5:19 pmThat's just another question, Frost, I was rather hoping for an answer.
-
- Posts: 251
- Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am
Re: Causation in subjective distinctions
Where do you draw the line though? What about involuntary thoughts? Or thoughts which are the result of reactions to certain stimulus? Or the influence of suggestion? And so on.Frost wrote: ↑February 1st, 2018, 11:09 amIf classification requires interpretation, we are dealing with semantics. How does semantics function causally? How can something that requires interpretation function causally? If a person acts in the form of a decision, that act functions causally, but the thought itself doesn't cause the act of decision since it was the agent that acted.Judaka wrote: ↑February 1st, 2018, 3:19 am This is how I would normally think of causation too and I agree that the creation of a classification like "rudeness" would be fairly straight forward to explained causally but then using then proceeding to actually use the label creates a situation where causation is no longer just occurring but it's being sorted into classifications and then being used to form subjective distinctions. So many subjective particulars come into play, such as how much rude behaviour is needed to make someone rude, whether some rude actions are more impactful than others on the classification, consistency vs magnitude and then deciding whether intent matters or not and so on. All of these things which aren't really to do with either the cause or the effect of the actual distinction.
I think that generally in this case, the causation doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion but it's still a causal argument. To get into other examples we can say "why does the fat kid have no friends" is it because he's fat, rude, anti-social and whatever or because people are too superficial to get over his shortcomings (Assuming that's the reason for him having no friends). So while it's subjective, they're both still causal arguments: He has no friends because he is unlikable and/or because others are biased against him. Or is there no causation as far as you are concerned, within social circumstances?
So would you define arguments like "I don't deserve happiness because I killed someone while drunk driving" without talking about causation? Clearly it's entirely subjective and therefore wrong/invalid as an actual argument but it seems to still be a causal argument.
- Frost
- Posts: 511
- Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm
Re: Causation in subjective distinctions
-
- Posts: 251
- Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am
Re: Causation in subjective distinctions
Causality as an influence, causality in subjective distinctions and causality existing even when being held hostage to interpretation. I don't think that causality in these areas ought to be called the same thing as demonstrable causation but alas, I want to know whether people agree they currently are.
-
- Posts: 513
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm
Re: Causation in subjective distinctions
I agree and that's part of the point I was making. There's causation all over the place and much of it is more about the individual making the distinction than the actual causation involved with a person being classified as rude or ugly. Clearly there's causation in a mad man being mad but that doesn't appear as though it should be involved in the process between an individual being classified as rude if it's causal. I generally thought of causation as demonstrable and repeatable so can something so biased and subjective really be considered causal? I don't know, I thought though that the word describing standardized causation and causation in social situations shouldn't be the same.What if the reason that you decide to label someone as being "rude" or "ugly" is a consequence of the fact that you are afflicted with some species of severe delusional psychosis
It seems to me that when people approach issues like what they "deserve" and what they're "worth" causally and it can cause a lot of grief and perhaps if they viewed it as being the result of their interpretations and biases - they would be more able to construct a more positive image of themselves. Just one example of why I think this kind of conflation is harmful.
[/quote]
Yes, I see what you're saying. It's an interesting point.
PS: You realise, I expect, that not all natural/physical processes we observe are part of a chain of determinate, point-to-point (Newtonian) mechanistic type cause and effect relationships. When a radioactive element like (210 ) Polonium, say, decays by emitting alpha particles, the emission of alpha particles from the radioactive Polonium nucleus is a totally random -( totally/purely indeterminate) - process. That we are currently unable explain this basic phenomenon scientifically is a humble fact which, nevertheless, demands strictly speaking) that we must scrap our entire current body of physical theory immediately and go back to the "drawing board" to re-start "Physics" again from scratch (!)
Regards
Dachshund
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023