What would it mean for an event to make sense, be logical, not make sense or not be logical? In my usage of language, it's statements that are logical or not logical. Events aren't. If an event happened without a prior cause, it would be (in my usage) a category error to call that event illogical. It might be surprising, sure. But it's not illogical for surprising things to happen. It just doesn't fit with a pattern I thought I'd seen. Different thing.RJG wrote:[To GE Morton] GE, I understand your point that making the claim "X may have no cause" seems very 'rational' since we don't know if there truly is a cause or not. But my point is that if it truly has no cause, then it (a non-caused event) can't "make-sense"; it can't be rational or logical (as it lacks any causal connective-ness). So, as I see it, an "event that is not-caused" is 'irrational'; there is no causality, or rationality/logic, to it whatsoever!
Does Causality Come First?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Does Causality Come First?
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Does Causality Come First?
For an event to "make sense" (be logical/rational), it needs causality; a causal connection.Steve3007 wrote:What would it mean for an event to make sense, be logical, not make sense or not be logical?
I don't think it really matters what we humans are trying to "make sense" of. Making sense of statements, or events, or anything, all requires some "causal connective-ness". Without this causal connective-ness there can be no "making sense" (no rationality; no logic).Steve3007 wrote:In my usage of language, it's statements that are logical or not logical. Events aren't. If an event happened without a prior cause, it would be (in my usage) a category error to call that event illogical. It might be surprising, sure. But it's not illogical for surprising things to happen. It just doesn't fit with a pattern I thought I'd seen. Different thing.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Does Causality Come First?
OK. So your argument seems a tad circular then. You seem to be saying that the reason it's illogical to propose that an event can happen without a cause is because it's illogical to propose that an event can happen without a cause.RJG wrote:For an event to "make sense" (be logical/rational), it needs causality; a causal connection.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Does Causality Come First?
I understand what you're saying here. If there were no causal connections then there can be no people to make arguments to doubt the existence of causal connections (back to the Descartes-esque stuff). But as I said I wasn't proposing that the principle "there are no causal connections" is logical. I was proposing that "some events don't have causes" is logical. i.e. it's not logically necessary that it is false.RJG wrote:I don't think it really matters what we humans are trying to "make sense" of. Making sense of statements, or events, or anything, all requires some "causal connective-ness". Without this causal connective-ness there can be no "making sense" (no rationality; no logic).
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Does Causality Come First?
Well, if you mean the four events: "It grows dark. I see a light switch. I flick the switch. The light comes on." then there would be a whole complex sequence of events in between those four. And some people (not me, but TS for one) would argue that the human action involved in deciding to turn on the light had no prior cause. I'd dispute that while acknowledging that it's not illogical to claim it.Sculptor1 wrote:Describe the causality of this event.
It grows dark. I see a light switch. Describe the causality which leads to the light coming on.
What's the purpose of your question? Is it to illustrate that some chains of cause and effect are very complex and difficult to figure out? If so, we've already covered that.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Does Causality Come First?
"Synthetic a priori truth" is not quite correct. Per Kant, cause and effect is a synthetic a priori postulate (one of several) from which any attempt we make to understand something will necessarily begin. But calling it a "truth" is a step too far. We have no means of determining whether it is true or not; we just have to (meaning "we're compelled to") assume it is if we wish to understand anything.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Does Causality Come First?
Maggots and other beasts of decay, such as funghi were said to spontaneously generate. Even mice were said to spontaneously generate from rubbish heaps or in piles of old cloth.
Experiments in which lumps of meat were placed into sealed containers were found to produce no maggots.
When we learned to seek more carefully into the causes of things, and to unpack the series of events that could lead to various consequences, a revolution in thinking occured.
Science moved from a position of stagnantion that existed from the time of Aristotle to the times of Boyle, and Bacon.
Upon taking up the assumption that all things have a cause has led us to the information super highway, space exploration, and medical science that would see magical to people living just a couple of generations ago.
In all that time there has no been a single unabiguous phenomenon for which no cause sould easily be attributed.
The argument against induction so well expressed by the likes of Hume is still valid, but really, only as an academic exercise.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Does Causality Come First?
Ok. Thanks for pointing out the distinction. It seems to me that RJG's position is broadly similar to Kant's in that both think that in order to even be able to think about these problems (or to think anything) we need to take causality (as a universally applicable principle) as a given.=GE Morton wrote:"Synthetic a priori truth" is not quite correct. Per Kant, cause and effect is a synthetic a priori postulate (one of several) from which any attempt we make to understand something will necessarily begin. But calling it a "truth" is a step too far. We have no means of determining whether it is true or not; we just have to (meaning "we're compelled to") assume it is if we wish to understand anything.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Does Causality Come First?
Logical and rational are not the same. I agree that "X has no cause" is irrational, in the sense that if it is true, then X is mysterious and inexplicable. But there is no logical problem with it, i.e., it violates no logical rules. "Connective-ness" is not a logical rule or requirement.RJG wrote: ↑October 11th, 2021, 8:10 am
GE, I understand your point that making the claim "X may have no cause" seems very 'rational' since we don't know if there truly is a cause or not. But my point is that if it truly has no cause, then it (a non-caused event) can't "make-sense" to us humans; and therefore it can't be rational or logical (as it lacks any causal connective-ness).
Yes. Only because there are no logical or empirical grounds for ruling them out. But, of course, I'd be highly skeptical of a claim that any given X was such an event.So, then do you believe "uncaused events" (and magic, and true randomness) are actually possible?
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Does Causality Come First?
Using my definitions (Cause: the conscious act of a rational being OR a handle we can manipulate) most people would say that flipping the switch "caused" the light to come on. In fact, I think that most people would say that, and that's how the word "cause' is normally used. True: the light bulb manufacturer might say the light came on because when the filaments were heated blah, blah blah.... The electrician might say the light came on because I connected the wiring to the bulb, etc. etc. That's because those are handles THEY (but not the rest of us) can manipulate.
This is how the word "cause" is generally used, I think. If some want to argue that everything is caused (and must be in order to make sense), then I could argue that if everything HAS a cause, everything IS a cause. If all coincidences are causes, then "cause" becomes meaningless, because there are infinite causes to every event, or (depending on one's world view) because there is one cause (the big bang or God's creation) for every event.
MOrton's dfinition of "cause' as the last satisfied condition runs into these same difficulties (as I explained earlier).
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Does Causality Come First?
Pattern-chaser wrote: While I accept what you say, I would simply add that we humans have no rational reason to accept its truth.
For practical purposes, yes, of course it is. It appears to be the case in most/all cases. But to accept it as a formal, philosophical, universal truth is going beyond the evidence. Causality is derived by inference, not deduction.
No, I don't think so. It is not anti-rational, or opposed to rationality, but your claim, once again, goes beyond available evidence. You seem to think, in a very binary way, that if causation weren't the case, all events must be random. "If it's not black, it must be white!" Not so. There are all kinds of possibilities, but I won't muddy the waters by inventing examples.
I have always been taken with Pirsig's idea that instead of saying "A causes B", we could say - with equal validity - "B values pre-condition A". [Quoted from memory.] This particular idea is just taking a different perspective on causality, not offering an alternative to it. But I quite liked the idea anyway, and still sympathise with it today.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Does Causality Come First?
Pattern-chaser wrote:[Talking to RJG] I see your point(s). But I think it is reasonable to paraphrase your argument as "Causality must be true because humans cannot make sense of the universe if it is not"?
That causality is something-close-to unavoidable for us, in practice, I accept.
That it is therefore true/correct, I find difficult to accept.
Fair enough.Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 11th, 2021, 4:17 am If your last sentence was "That it is therefore a necessary truth..." then I would agree. I think the key difference between causality as an inductively or abductively derived principle and causality as an a priori first principle is that in the latter case the proposition "all events have a cause" is seen as necessary truth. In the former it isn't.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Does Causality Come First?
Persig? Is that a "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" thing then? All I can really remember about that is the whole Romantic/Classical people division that he talked about a lot.Pattern-chaser wrote:I have always been taken with Pirsig's idea that instead of saying "A causes B", we could say - with equal validity - "B values pre-condition A". [Quoted from memory.] This particular idea is just taking a different perspective on causality, not offering an alternative to it. But I quite liked the idea anyway, and still sympathise with it today.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Does Causality Come First?
If the bulb manufacturer and electrician said that they would be mistaken . . . because the light is not ON (by hypothesis) when only the conditions they cite are satisfied. It does not come on until the switch is flipped. Flipping the switch is the last of the necessary and sufficient conditions for activating the light to be satisfied, and hence its cause.Ecurb wrote: ↑October 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Using my definitions (Cause: the conscious act of a rational being OR a handle we can manipulate) most people would say that flipping the switch "caused" the light to come on. In fact, I think that most people would say that, and that's how the word "cause' is normally used. True: the light bulb manufacturer might say the light came on because when the filaments were heated blah, blah blah.... The electrician might say the light came on because I connected the wiring to the bulb, etc. etc. That's because those are handles THEY (but not the rest of us) can manipulate.
I'm not sure how that follows. ??This is how the word "cause" is generally used, I think. If some want to argue that everything is caused (and must be in order to make sense), then I could argue that if everything HAS a cause, everything IS a cause.
Why do you suppose all coincidences are causes? A coincidence is merely two or more events which happen simultaneously, of which there are millions occurring every second. We only note them if they occur in our presence and find them suspicious.If all coincidences are causes, then "cause" becomes meaningless, because there are infinite causes to every event, or (depending on one's world view) because there is one cause (the big bang or God's creation) for every event.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Does Causality Come First?
I was making a point about the vast uncharted wildernesses of causality.Ecurb wrote: ↑October 11th, 2021, 11:20 amUsing my definitions (Cause: the conscious act of a rational being OR a handle we can manipulate) most people would say that flipping the switch "caused" the light to come on. In fact, I think that most people would say that, and that's how the word "cause' is normally used. True: the light bulb manufacturer might say the light came on because when the filaments were heated blah, blah blah.... The electrician might say the light came on because I connected the wiring to the bulb, etc. etc. That's because those are handles THEY (but not the rest of us) can manipulate.
This is how the word "cause" is generally used, I think. If some want to argue that everything is caused (and must be in order to make sense), then I could argue that if everything HAS a cause, everything IS a cause. If all coincidences are causes, then "cause" becomes meaningless, because there are infinite causes to every event, or (depending on one's world view) because there is one cause (the big bang or God's creation) for every event.
MOrton's dfinition of "cause' as the last satisfied condition runs into these same difficulties (as I explained earlier).
I flip a switch and that causes the light to work. What about when it does not work?
Why do you want the light?
Where does the electricity come from?
What is actually happening at a molecular level, an atomic level, an energetic level?
Where is the ultimate source of the energy?
The chains of causality go in a multitude of directions, from light energy from the sun stored in fossil fuels to make electricity, to the motivations and needs of people to light their homes, to stuff about electrons in copper.
How much more might be going on that we cannot understand yet?
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