What is the Relationship Between Causality, Time and Consciousness?

[JackDaydream]

Solomon's starting point is the premise that, 'Time does not exist objectively'.

Mere assertion contradicting everyday life. Appropriate reply 'Time exists objectively'.

He goes on to suggest that, 'If time does not exist, it is certain that physical causality does not exist.'

"If I can utter a mere assertion, why should I not add another mere assertion?" *lol

My own understanding of the nature of objectivity of time is that there are shared aspects of the experience of time. For example, if I am due to meet someone at 2pm there are objective clock measurements of time, to ensure that I and the other person arrive at the specific time. The problem with objectivity is that time cannot be seen directly, but only in relation to aspects of physical reality. But, on the basis of this, it doesn't follow that physical causality does not exist. I am a little uncertain what point Solomon is making here because even if some aspects of causality are based on intention, the actions leading to outcomes are likely to have some physical basis or tangible aspects of events, even if only in terms of words spoken in conversation. I would say that speech is a major aspect of causality in life because so much of experience is based on the exchanges of human persons in relationships.

[3017Metaphysician]

This question was one which I began thinking about after reading an article, 'Time and Causality', by Robert Solomon (in, 'Nexus: The Alternative News Magazine (June- July 2022). I began discussing it with 3017Metaphysician in another thread but to avoid going off-topic in that thread it seemed better to create a specific one based on the ideas in the article.

Solomon's starting point is the premise that, 'Time does not exist objectively'. He states that 'conscious beings in our physical, three-dimensional world can only be aware of single states of physical reality in each "now" - or current instant, which consequently have to emerge separately. He goes on to suggest that, 'If time does not exist, it is certain that physical causality does not exist.' He draws upon the ideas of Liebniz, who suggested that, 'there is no real influence of one created substance upon another.'

Solomon's understanding of causality is based partly on Donald Hoffmann's theory of the interface of perception, in which, 'consciousness itself, not space , time and physical objects is the the fundamental reality from which all else is derived.' Solomon argues that,
'For the past 300 years or so, scientists have been avidly studying space; time and physical objects_ and with great success. They thought that they were studying reality, but, by analogy with virtual reality games, they were merely studying the behaviour of the images displayed on the headset, far removed from reality itself.'

I could go further in quoting from the article but I am trying to keep my outpost fairly concise. Solomon's viewpoint on time is accepted by many but his overall argument is unorthodox, in its interpretation of causation. However, there is recognition of the influence of the observer effect in scientific experiments, suggesting that consciousness does have an active role in causation. The question is to what extent is consciousnes the centre of the process of causality? Where does the concept of time fit into the nature of consciousness itself and, is causality a linear sequence of events, or is it more complex, beyond space and time as categories of experience?

Jack!

Just a quick sound bite on the basics first:

In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects, such as why different observers perceive differently where and when events occur.

Until the 20th century, it was assumed that the three-dimensional geometry of the universe (its spatial expression in terms of coordinates, distances, and directions) was independent of one-dimensional time. The physicist Albert Einstein helped develop the idea of spacetime as part of his theory of relativity. Prior to his pioneering work, scientists had two separate theories to explain physical phenomena: Isaac Newton's laws of physics described the motion of massive objects, while James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic models explained the properties of light. However, in 1905, Einstein based a work on special relativity on two postulates:

The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference)
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.


Apparently, one cannot separate space with time much like the concepts of up/down. With respect to causation basics:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Not that this is the direction you should lean towards, but perhaps to TB's point, he may be thinking something outside time caused time (and space) to exist. Otherwise, we have a sort of necessary 'thing' that is caused by itself (for reasons only itself knows), associated with the notion of a thing called father time. Metaphorically, father time (temporal time/eternal time) is a necessary being, for which his existence is necessary for the reasons he himself/itself only knows. The question would be, who outside of time caused father time to exist. So, much like you cannot separate up from down, time from space, you have temporal and eternal time.

I think more importantly, for consciousness to have emerged, the way we understand consciousness, as philosophers, it's easy to understand Schop's world as Will from the standpoint of propagation. These automatic wheels set in motion that caused consciousness/sentient beings to exist in the way of changing inert matter into animate objects, seems to infer a metaphysical will that wills some things into existence. And it seems consciousness arrived later in the game of evolution, for some reason hence: It took 13. 8 billion years of cosmic history for the first human beings to arise, and we did so relatively recently: just 300,000 years ago. 99. 998% of the time that passed since the Big Bang had no human beings at all; our entire species has only existed for the most recent 0. 002% of the Universe.

Perhaps in Multiverse theories, we are just a baby universe to another universe that is somehow more advanced in terms of conscious existence.

Consciousness:

Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence.[1] Despite millennia of analyses, definitions, explanations and debates by philosophers and scientists, consciousness remains puzzling and controversial,[2] being "at once the most familiar and [also the] most mysterious aspect of our lives".[3] Perhaps the only widely agreed notion about the topic is the intuition that consciousness exists.[4] Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied and explained as consciousness. Sometimes, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition.[5] Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not.[6][7] There might be different levels or orders of consciousness,[8] or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features.[9] Other questions include whether only humans are conscious, all animals, or even the whole universe. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises doubts about whether the right questions are being asked.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

One aspect of the issue of causation which I have been reading about is the question of correlation or causation. In an article called 'Coronavirus, Correlation & Causation', Martin Jenkins ('Philosophy Now', October-November 2021) looks at this, using the example of the time of the pandemic to explore the question. He speaks of the linear understanding of causality. He draws upon an argument from C. S. Lewis: 'A signal sounds in a quarry to announce an explosion. Does the signal cause the explosion? Of course not. But does the explosion cause the signal? Well, yes, in a sense...the human intention of the explosion causes the signal; and it is in this sense that the explosion causes the signal.'

Jenkins suggests that,
'once we decide to take action, then in respect of our behaviour we create a nonlinear understanding of causation. So, we can draw a line from Coronovirus to blue skies_ but it will not be a straight line, and will have to take some other things on the way.'

So; the argument is that there are such complex interrelationships from events, making it hard to determine what led to what in the ripples of occurrences as nothing happens in isolation from everything else. He also refers to Aristotle's description of material causes, formal or causes of design, efficient or action causes, as well as purpose, which is the final cause. He specifies,
'The biggest problem with Aristotle's four "causes" is that the theory makes no allowance for the most basic principle in causation the Law of Unintended Consequences (sometimes expressed as you can never do only one thing.'
What this seems to be saying is that the effects of all actions are part of a web leading to events which occur in life. What this seems to indicate for thinking about consciousness is that it is hard to break down the sequences in time, and the states of mind or intention within the chains of events which occur.

One other aspect which I have been thinking about in relation to seeing relationships or correspondences is Jung's idea of synchronicity. Here, he is speaking of meaningful connections and does emphasise the way in which the synchronicities are acausal. It is about human meanings and consciousness, in being able to make links and see patterns.

Jack!

Of course! The explosion analogy is much like the mind-body problem. There you have a mind that thinks it wants to move the arm. Once the subject will's his mind to moving his arm, it moves. Of course, there are physical properties from consciousness that allow for this movement, but there are also metaphysical qualities of consciousness that take primacy in that action. And in this case, it is the metaphysical will (or intentionality if you prefer).

In that instance, my feeling of need is to move my arm first, then it moves. So back to one aspect of your OP, what is that correlation...the metaphysical qualities of the Will?

[The Beast]

Besides the stochastic quality of the standard causality there is also the random component. The way it works is there is a stochastic probability of an accident. That is, it happens at certain frequency. The random part is where it happens.

[3017Metaphysician]

Besides the stochastic quality of the standard causality there is also the random component. The way it works is there is a stochastic probability of an accident. That is, it happens at certain frequency. The random part is where it happens.

TB!

Indeed. Now that we've identified the 'causality of conscious states of Being' (the primacy of one's metaphysical Will to do something/intentionality-what causes one to act), you bring another component into the mix. Are you thinking this stochastic quality is part of one's interminable stream of consciousness? And/or, are you thinking we alone determine which ideas the intellect turns to... ?

"St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know."

[JackDaydream]

This question was one which I began thinking about after reading an article, 'Time and Causality', by Robert Solomon (in, 'Nexus: The Alternative News Magazine (June- July 2022). I began discussing it with 3017Metaphysician in another thread but to avoid going off-topic in that thread it seemed better to create a specific one based on the ideas in the article.

Solomon's starting point is the premise that, 'Time does not exist objectively'. He states that 'conscious beings in our physical, three-dimensional world can only be aware of single states of physical reality in each "now" - or current instant, which consequently have to emerge separately. He goes on to suggest that, 'If time does not exist, it is certain that physical causality does not exist.' He draws upon the ideas of Liebniz, who suggested that, 'there is no real influence of one created substance upon another.'

Solomon's understanding of causality is based partly on Donald Hoffmann's theory of the interface of perception, in which, 'consciousness itself, not space , time and physical objects is the the fundamental reality from which all else is derived.' Solomon argues that,
'For the past 300 years or so, scientists have been avidly studying space; time and physical objects_ and with great success. They thought that they were studying reality, but, by analogy with virtual reality games, they were merely studying the behaviour of the images displayed on the headset, far removed from reality itself.'

I could go further in quoting from the article but I am trying to keep my outpost fairly concise. Solomon's viewpoint on time is accepted by many but his overall argument is unorthodox, in its interpretation of causation. However, there is recognition of the influence of the observer effect in scientific experiments, suggesting that consciousness does have an active role in causation. The question is to what extent is consciousnes the centre of the process of causality? Where does the concept of time fit into the nature of consciousness itself and, is causality a linear sequence of events, or is it more complex, beyond space and time as categories of experience?

Jack!

Just a quick sound bite on the basics first:

In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects, such as why different observers perceive differently where and when events occur.

Until the 20th century, it was assumed that the three-dimensional geometry of the universe (its spatial expression in terms of coordinates, distances, and directions) was independent of one-dimensional time. The physicist Albert Einstein helped develop the idea of spacetime as part of his theory of relativity. Prior to his pioneering work, scientists had two separate theories to explain physical phenomena: Isaac Newton's laws of physics described the motion of massive objects, while James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic models explained the properties of light. However, in 1905, Einstein based a work on special relativity on two postulates:

The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference)
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.


Apparently, one cannot separate space with time much like the concepts of up/down. With respect to causation basics:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Not that this is the direction you should lean towards, but perhaps to TB's point, he may be thinking something outside time caused time (and space) to exist. Otherwise, we have a sort of necessary 'thing' that is caused by itself (for reasons only itself knows), associated with the notion of a thing called father time. Metaphorically, father time (temporal time/eternal time) is a necessary being, for which his existence is necessary for the reasons he himself/itself only knows. The question would be, who outside of time caused father time to exist. So, much like you cannot separate up from down, time from space, you have temporal and eternal time.

I think more importantly, for consciousness to have emerged, the way we understand consciousness, as philosophers, it's easy to understand Schop's world as Will from the standpoint of propagation. These automatic wheels set in motion that caused consciousness/sentient beings to exist in the way of changing inert matter into animate objects, seems to infer a metaphysical will that wills some things into existence. And it seems consciousness arrived later in the game of evolution, for some reason hence: It took 13. 8 billion years of cosmic history for the first human beings to arise, and we did so relatively recently: just 300,000 years ago. 99. 998% of the time that passed since the Big Bang had no human beings at all; our entire species has only existed for the most recent 0. 002% of the Universe.

Perhaps in Multiverse theories, we are just a baby universe to another universe that is somehow more advanced in terms of conscious existence.

Consciousness:

Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence.[1] Despite millennia of analyses, definitions, explanations and debates by philosophers and scientists, consciousness remains puzzling and controversial,[2] being "at once the most familiar and [also the] most mysterious aspect of our lives".[3] Perhaps the only widely agreed notion about the topic is the intuition that consciousness exists.[4] Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied and explained as consciousness. Sometimes, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition.[5] Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not.[6][7] There might be different levels or orders of consciousness,[8] or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features.[9] Other questions include whether only humans are conscious, all animals, or even the whole universe. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises doubts about whether the right questions are being asked.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

One aspect of the issue of causation which I have been reading about is the question of correlation or causation. In an article called 'Coronavirus, Correlation & Causation', Martin Jenkins ('Philosophy Now', October-November 2021) looks at this, using the example of the time of the pandemic to explore the question. He speaks of the linear understanding of causality. He draws upon an argument from C. S. Lewis: 'A signal sounds in a quarry to announce an explosion. Does the signal cause the explosion? Of course not. But does the explosion cause the signal? Well, yes, in a sense...the human intention of the explosion causes the signal; and it is in this sense that the explosion causes the signal.'

Jenkins suggests that,
'once we decide to take action, then in respect of our behaviour we create a nonlinear understanding of causation. So, we can draw a line from Coronovirus to blue skies_ but it will not be a straight line, and will have to take some other things on the way.'

So; the argument is that there are such complex interrelationships from events, making it hard to determine what led to what in the ripples of occurrences as nothing happens in isolation from everything else. He also refers to Aristotle's description of material causes, formal or causes of design, efficient or action causes, as well as purpose, which is the final cause. He specifies,
'The biggest problem with Aristotle's four "causes" is that the theory makes no allowance for the most basic principle in causation the Law of Unintended Consequences (sometimes expressed as you can never do only one thing.'
What this seems to be saying is that the effects of all actions are part of a web leading to events which occur in life. What this seems to indicate for thinking about consciousness is that it is hard to break down the sequences in time, and the states of mind or intention within the chains of events which occur.

One other aspect which I have been thinking about in relation to seeing relationships or correspondences is Jung's idea of synchronicity. Here, he is speaking of meaningful connections and does emphasise the way in which the synchronicities are acausal. It is about human meanings and consciousness, in being able to make links and see patterns.

Jack!

Of course! The explosion analogy is much like the mind-body problem. There you have a mind that thinks it wants to move the arm. Once the subject will's his mind to moving his arm, it moves. Of course, there are physical properties from consciousness that allow for this movement, but there are also metaphysical qualities of consciousness that take primacy in that action. And in this case, it is the metaphysical will (or intentionality if you prefer).

In that instance, my feeling of need is to move my arm first, then it moves. So back to one aspect of your OP, what is that correlation...the metaphysical qualities of the Will?

I do see what you mean about moving your arm. If someone wishes to lift it that is bound up with the power of conscious intention whether it is to wave to someone or lift an item from a shelf. Part of the issue, may be about degrees of subconscious intent as well. For example, in the few instances where I had accidents, leading to physical injuries, my reflection on these were they were often related to a need for a break from the things which I was doing, such as when I had to stay at home mostly after fracturing my collar bone through falling on a pile of wooden planks. But, it also seemed that it was about future plans or intent in the picture. I got a letter for a job interview and didn't go to it because I didn't feel able to go with the fracture. If I had gone for the interview and had been successful it would have altered my course of life in the future entirely.

So, it is like the various aspects of the course of life are plotted in some way. I am not sure that this follows the arrow of time completely. It sometimes appears as if aspects which are going to be apparent in the future are in some kind of plan which is outside time itself. Of course, it is hard to know for sure and there is a danger of magical thinking, as if there is some underlying destiny. Of course, people can try to choose against certain pathways. However; in my own sense of experience I often find that I keep trying to go in one direction and meet the same obstacles.

Some people, even in Western society have a sense of karma, which is about the law of cause and effect, or the principle, 'As you sow, so shall you reap'. This understanding of causation is based upon a picture of causality which is not separate from the physical basis but does also take into account deeper aspects of consciousness in the process of events which take place in life.

[The Beast]

Obviously, the basics.
If there is an accident planned by consciousness, it also might be that there is no random location as well. Therefore, the proponent bimodal causal methodology. It may happen that planned and unplanned get added and the random function may show a bias trend. Still, the dominant reality is substance

[JackDaydream]

Obviously, the basics.
If there is an accident planned by consciousness, it also might be that there is no random location as well. Therefore, the proponent bimodal causal methodology. It may happen that planned and unplanned get added and the random function may show a bias trend. Still, the dominant reality is substance

The issue of randomness or some underlying purpose related to the development of consciousness is an extremely difficult but important question. Even within chaos theory the argument was that there was some underlying order within the background of chaos. Within Darwin's theory of evolution the survival of the fittest is seen as some inherent law, rather like the laws of nature. But the underlying patterns within evolution, do seem to be with some inherent development, even if there do appear to be cycles as well as linear aspects of progression. The Hindus saw everything in the universe as linear development whereas the picture of history and evolution is based on a linear process. From the limited human perspective it is hard to know whether the overall scheme is of cycles within a linear framework of time, or linear developments within a larger cycle. The Hindus also sometimes saw there being no beginning whereas the Big Bang is fairly widely accepted. Of course, the idea of there being no beginning may be more of a symbolic truth about the nature of eternity, beyond space and time.

[3017Metaphysician]

Jack!

Just a quick sound bite on the basics first:

In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects, such as why different observers perceive differently where and when events occur.

Until the 20th century, it was assumed that the three-dimensional geometry of the universe (its spatial expression in terms of coordinates, distances, and directions) was independent of one-dimensional time. The physicist Albert Einstein helped develop the idea of spacetime as part of his theory of relativity. Prior to his pioneering work, scientists had two separate theories to explain physical phenomena: Isaac Newton's laws of physics described the motion of massive objects, while James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic models explained the properties of light. However, in 1905, Einstein based a work on special relativity on two postulates:

The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference)
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.


Apparently, one cannot separate space with time much like the concepts of up/down. With respect to causation basics:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Not that this is the direction you should lean towards, but perhaps to TB's point, he may be thinking something outside time caused time (and space) to exist. Otherwise, we have a sort of necessary 'thing' that is caused by itself (for reasons only itself knows), associated with the notion of a thing called father time. Metaphorically, father time (temporal time/eternal time) is a necessary being, for which his existence is necessary for the reasons he himself/itself only knows. The question would be, who outside of time caused father time to exist. So, much like you cannot separate up from down, time from space, you have temporal and eternal time.

I think more importantly, for consciousness to have emerged, the way we understand consciousness, as philosophers, it's easy to understand Schop's world as Will from the standpoint of propagation. These automatic wheels set in motion that caused consciousness/sentient beings to exist in the way of changing inert matter into animate objects, seems to infer a metaphysical will that wills some things into existence. And it seems consciousness arrived later in the game of evolution, for some reason hence: It took 13. 8 billion years of cosmic history for the first human beings to arise, and we did so relatively recently: just 300,000 years ago. 99. 998% of the time that passed since the Big Bang had no human beings at all; our entire species has only existed for the most recent 0. 002% of the Universe.

Perhaps in Multiverse theories, we are just a baby universe to another universe that is somehow more advanced in terms of conscious existence.

Consciousness:

Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence.[1] Despite millennia of analyses, definitions, explanations and debates by philosophers and scientists, consciousness remains puzzling and controversial,[2] being "at once the most familiar and [also the] most mysterious aspect of our lives".[3] Perhaps the only widely agreed notion about the topic is the intuition that consciousness exists.[4] Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied and explained as consciousness. Sometimes, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition.[5] Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not.[6][7] There might be different levels or orders of consciousness,[8] or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features.[9] Other questions include whether only humans are conscious, all animals, or even the whole universe. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises doubts about whether the right questions are being asked.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

One aspect of the issue of causation which I have been reading about is the question of correlation or causation. In an article called 'Coronavirus, Correlation & Causation', Martin Jenkins ('Philosophy Now', October-November 2021) looks at this, using the example of the time of the pandemic to explore the question. He speaks of the linear understanding of causality. He draws upon an argument from C. S. Lewis: 'A signal sounds in a quarry to announce an explosion. Does the signal cause the explosion? Of course not. But does the explosion cause the signal? Well, yes, in a sense...the human intention of the explosion causes the signal; and it is in this sense that the explosion causes the signal.'

Jenkins suggests that,
'once we decide to take action, then in respect of our behaviour we create a nonlinear understanding of causation. So, we can draw a line from Coronovirus to blue skies_ but it will not be a straight line, and will have to take some other things on the way.'

So; the argument is that there are such complex interrelationships from events, making it hard to determine what led to what in the ripples of occurrences as nothing happens in isolation from everything else. He also refers to Aristotle's description of material causes, formal or causes of design, efficient or action causes, as well as purpose, which is the final cause. He specifies,
'The biggest problem with Aristotle's four "causes" is that the theory makes no allowance for the most basic principle in causation the Law of Unintended Consequences (sometimes expressed as you can never do only one thing.'
What this seems to be saying is that the effects of all actions are part of a web leading to events which occur in life. What this seems to indicate for thinking about consciousness is that it is hard to break down the sequences in time, and the states of mind or intention within the chains of events which occur.

One other aspect which I have been thinking about in relation to seeing relationships or correspondences is Jung's idea of synchronicity. Here, he is speaking of meaningful connections and does emphasise the way in which the synchronicities are acausal. It is about human meanings and consciousness, in being able to make links and see patterns.

Jack!

Of course! The explosion analogy is much like the mind-body problem. There you have a mind that thinks it wants to move the arm. Once the subject will's his mind to moving his arm, it moves. Of course, there are physical properties from consciousness that allow for this movement, but there are also metaphysical qualities of consciousness that take primacy in that action. And in this case, it is the metaphysical will (or intentionality if you prefer).

In that instance, my feeling of need is to move my arm first, then it moves. So back to one aspect of your OP, what is that correlation...the metaphysical qualities of the Will?

I do see what you mean about moving your arm. If someone wishes to lift it that is bound up with the power of conscious intention whether it is to wave to someone or lift an item from a shelf. Part of the issue, may be about degrees of subconscious intent as well. For example, in the few instances where I had accidents, leading to physical injuries, my reflection on these were they were often related to a need for a break from the things which I was doing, such as when I had to stay at home mostly after fracturing my collar bone through falling on a pile of wooden planks. But, it also seemed that it was about future plans or intent in the picture. I got a letter for a job interview and didn't go to it because I didn't feel able to go with the fracture. If I had gone for the interview and had been successful it would have altered my course of life in the future entirely.

So, it is like the various aspects of the course of life are plotted in some way. I am not sure that this follows the arrow of time completely. It sometimes appears as if aspects which are going to be apparent in the future are in some kind of plan which is outside time itself. Of course, it is hard to know for sure and there is a danger of magical thinking, as if there is some underlying destiny. Of course, people can try to choose against certain pathways. However; in my own sense of experience I often find that I keep trying to go in one direction and meet the same obstacles.

Some people, even in Western society have a sense of karma, which is about the law of cause and effect, or the principle, 'As you sow, so shall you reap'. This understanding of causation is based upon a picture of causality which is not separate from the physical basis but does also take into account deeper aspects of consciousness in the process of events which take place in life.

Jack!

I think you're so-called existential/humanistic story speaks volumes to human causation and one's own metaphysical will to be (intentionality).

I have similar anecdotal evidence regarding the phenomenon of consciousness. With respect to one's Will and feelings to be (in this case to feel connected), years ago I experimented with the tenets of law of attraction. I tested the theory by purposely putting a big smile on my face and walked around all day with a smile. I ended up attracting strangers who wanted to get to know me and help me in the various stores I was in ... . Of course as you alluded, this also ties with old testament antiquity/the wisdom books relative to basic pragmatic Christian philosophy (which also borrowed from early Greek philosophy in the OT...).

Empirically, this proves that if our Will is to have good intentions (or bad), it becomes the cause (or a causational force) of subsequent conscious correlation.
That somewhat pragmatic-humanistic phenom speaks to the further reaches of human nature.

The law of attraction is a universal principle that states you will attract into your life whatever you focus on. Whatever you give your energy and attention to is what will come back to you.

When you focus on the abundance of good things in your life, you will automatically attract more positive things into your life. But if you center yourself on negative thoughts and only focus on what you lack in life, then you will ultimately attract negativity into your life... .
Simply put, it’s because like attracts like. If you are feeling excited, enthusiastic, passionate, happy, joyful, appreciative, or abundant, then you are sending out positive energy to the universe.

In turn, that positive energy will attract people, resources, and opportunities that resonate on the same energetic wavelength.

On the other hand, if you are feeling bored, anxious, stressed out, angry, resentful, or sad, you are sending out negative energy. That negative energy will repel positivity and attract pessimistic people and events into your life.

You have probably noticed the law of attraction in your own life. For example, a person who complains all the time typically attracts friends or followers who also have a bad attitude. Or happy and energetic people will attract other motivated go-getters into their circle.

[JackDaydream]

One aspect of the issue of causation which I have been reading about is the question of correlation or causation. In an article called 'Coronavirus, Correlation & Causation', Martin Jenkins ('Philosophy Now', October-November 2021) looks at this, using the example of the time of the pandemic to explore the question. He speaks of the linear understanding of causality. He draws upon an argument from C. S. Lewis: 'A signal sounds in a quarry to announce an explosion. Does the signal cause the explosion? Of course not. But does the explosion cause the signal? Well, yes, in a sense...the human intention of the explosion causes the signal; and it is in this sense that the explosion causes the signal.'

Jenkins suggests that,
'once we decide to take action, then in respect of our behaviour we create a nonlinear understanding of causation. So, we can draw a line from Coronovirus to blue skies_ but it will not be a straight line, and will have to take some other things on the way.'

So; the argument is that there are such complex interrelationships from events, making it hard to determine what led to what in the ripples of occurrences as nothing happens in isolation from everything else. He also refers to Aristotle's description of material causes, formal or causes of design, efficient or action causes, as well as purpose, which is the final cause. He specifies,
'The biggest problem with Aristotle's four "causes" is that the theory makes no allowance for the most basic principle in causation the Law of Unintended Consequences (sometimes expressed as you can never do only one thing.'
What this seems to be saying is that the effects of all actions are part of a web leading to events which occur in life. What this seems to indicate for thinking about consciousness is that it is hard to break down the sequences in time, and the states of mind or intention within the chains of events which occur.

One other aspect which I have been thinking about in relation to seeing relationships or correspondences is Jung's idea of synchronicity. Here, he is speaking of meaningful connections and does emphasise the way in which the synchronicities are acausal. It is about human meanings and consciousness, in being able to make links and see patterns.

Jack!

Of course! The explosion analogy is much like the mind-body problem. There you have a mind that thinks it wants to move the arm. Once the subject will's his mind to moving his arm, it moves. Of course, there are physical properties from consciousness that allow for this movement, but there are also metaphysical qualities of consciousness that take primacy in that action. And in this case, it is the metaphysical will (or intentionality if you prefer).

In that instance, my feeling of need is to move my arm first, then it moves. So back to one aspect of your OP, what is that correlation...the metaphysical qualities of the Will?

I do see what you mean about moving your arm. If someone wishes to lift it that is bound up with the power of conscious intention whether it is to wave to someone or lift an item from a shelf. Part of the issue, may be about degrees of subconscious intent as well. For example, in the few instances where I had accidents, leading to physical injuries, my reflection on these were they were often related to a need for a break from the things which I was doing, such as when I had to stay at home mostly after fracturing my collar bone through falling on a pile of wooden planks. But, it also seemed that it was about future plans or intent in the picture. I got a letter for a job interview and didn't go to it because I didn't feel able to go with the fracture. If I had gone for the interview and had been successful it would have altered my course of life in the future entirely.

So, it is like the various aspects of the course of life are plotted in some way. I am not sure that this follows the arrow of time completely. It sometimes appears as if aspects which are going to be apparent in the future are in some kind of plan which is outside time itself. Of course, it is hard to know for sure and there is a danger of magical thinking, as if there is some underlying destiny. Of course, people can try to choose against certain pathways. However; in my own sense of experience I often find that I keep trying to go in one direction and meet the same obstacles.

Some people, even in Western society have a sense of karma, which is about the law of cause and effect, or the principle, 'As you sow, so shall you reap'. This understanding of causation is based upon a picture of causality which is not separate from the physical basis but does also take into account deeper aspects of consciousness in the process of events which take place in life.

Jack!

I think you're so-called existential/humanistic story speaks volumes to human causation and one's own metaphysical will to be (intentionality).

I have similar anecdotal evidence regarding the phenomenon of consciousness. With respect to one's Will and feelings to be (in this case to feel connected), years ago I experimented with the tenets of law of attraction. I tested the theory by purposely putting a big smile on my face and walked around all day with a smile. I ended up attracting strangers who wanted to get to know me and help me in the various stores I was in ... . Of course as you alluded, this also ties with old testament antiquity/the wisdom books relative to basic pragmatic Christian philosophy (which also borrowed from early Greek philosophy in the OT...).

Empirically, this proves that if our Will is to have good intentions (or bad), it becomes the cause (or a causational force) of subsequent conscious correlation.
That somewhat pragmatic-humanistic phenom speaks to the further reaches of human nature.

The law of attraction is a universal principle that states you will attract into your life whatever you focus on. Whatever you give your energy and attention to is what will come back to you.

When you focus on the abundance of good things in your life, you will automatically attract more positive things into your life. But if you center yourself on negative thoughts and only focus on what you lack in life, then you will ultimately attract negativity into your life... .
Simply put, it’s because like attracts like. If you are feeling excited, enthusiastic, passionate, happy, joyful, appreciative, or abundant, then you are sending out positive energy to the universe.

In turn, that positive energy will attract people, resources, and opportunities that resonate on the same energetic wavelength.

On the other hand, if you are feeling bored, anxious, stressed out, angry, resentful, or sad, you are sending out negative energy. That negative energy will repel positivity and attract pessimistic people and events into your life.

You have probably noticed the law of attraction in your own life. For example, a person who complains all the time typically attracts friends or followers who also have a bad attitude. Or happy and energetic people will attract other motivated go-getters into their circle.

Within philosophy it seems that the law of attraction is not given much credibility because it doesn't fit into the scientific mechanistic model of Westeŕn materialism. It is often seen as magical thinking or folk wisdom. However, I have read a number of books on it, including the writings of Esther and Jeremy Hicks, and on an experiential level it does seem to work and I know many people who find this too.

I grew up with an anxious mother, who would often be thinking of all the possible things which could go wrong in so many scenarios. So, my thinking was based on that angle but I have definitely found that the more I worry about things going wrong they really do. Also, I definitely find that if I get into a negative mood I often seem to attract misfortune, lose things or go out and get on the wrong transport and get lost. It can be like being dragged into a black hole or whirlpool.

So, on the basis of the law of attraction I do try to watch my thoughts and moods, to try to avoid going into a black hole. I don't find it easy and I know that if I am out there are some people I know who seem to lead me down negative trails of thinking. It seems that I am more likely to meet them when I am not great. But, if I am starting to have a 'black hole day', if possible it is better to go home and rest. Even the choice of music on such a day can be important. It may not work to play really 'up' music when one is feeling 'down'. But, even so it may be important to get some kind of balance. I may have spent too much time listening to the Doors at times and got into a really strange state.

It may be hard to put on a smile at times but it does seem that mood is like a vibrational frequency of energy. It seems to make sense on a scientific level as a form of magnetism. Even animals seem to be able to sense moods and intention in some rudimentary ways. It may also be relevant for the idea of self-fulfilling prophecies which may be about expectations and frames of mind within group and social dynamics.

[The Beast]

A hypothesis of a generated magnetic field by a ritualistic attitude is congruent with a two-state system. This can be achieved by cell quorum sensing in the method invoked by the ritual. It could be of the form of two state formalism such as time and space. It is in the interpretation where the hypothesis may have new elements never described before. That is moving back and forth in time while in a plane of reality. The input into the personal space may be one of imagery, dream state, or revelation.

[JackDaydream]

A hypothesis of a generated magnetic field by a ritualistic attitude is congruent with a two-state system. This can be achieved by cell quorum sensing in the method invoked by the ritual. It could be of the form of two state formalism such as time and space. It is in the interpretation where the hypothesis may have new elements never described before. That is moving back and forth in time while in a plane of reality. The input into the personal space may be one of imagery, dream state, or revelation.

I am not sure of the specific rituals you are speaking about although they could be those in religion or cultures, including those of the Native Americans or the Aborigines. However, what does seem possible is that morphogenic fields may be formed, in the way in which Rupert Sheldrake describes in his biological theory of morphic resonance. The principle which he speaks of within nature, for example, in bird behaviour is that once new patterns develop in a few it gradually becomes possible for this extend to increasingly wider patterns within the bird population. It may be that this occurred within evolution. It may exist at the level of biology but, also, in consciousness and culture.

[3017Metaphysician]

Jack!

Of course! The explosion analogy is much like the mind-body problem. There you have a mind that thinks it wants to move the arm. Once the subject will's his mind to moving his arm, it moves. Of course, there are physical properties from consciousness that allow for this movement, but there are also metaphysical qualities of consciousness that take primacy in that action. And in this case, it is the metaphysical will (or intentionality if you prefer).

In that instance, my feeling of need is to move my arm first, then it moves. So back to one aspect of your OP, what is that correlation...the metaphysical qualities of the Will?

I do see what you mean about moving your arm. If someone wishes to lift it that is bound up with the power of conscious intention whether it is to wave to someone or lift an item from a shelf. Part of the issue, may be about degrees of subconscious intent as well. For example, in the few instances where I had accidents, leading to physical injuries, my reflection on these were they were often related to a need for a break from the things which I was doing, such as when I had to stay at home mostly after fracturing my collar bone through falling on a pile of wooden planks. But, it also seemed that it was about future plans or intent in the picture. I got a letter for a job interview and didn't go to it because I didn't feel able to go with the fracture. If I had gone for the interview and had been successful it would have altered my course of life in the future entirely.

So, it is like the various aspects of the course of life are plotted in some way. I am not sure that this follows the arrow of time completely. It sometimes appears as if aspects which are going to be apparent in the future are in some kind of plan which is outside time itself. Of course, it is hard to know for sure and there is a danger of magical thinking, as if there is some underlying destiny. Of course, people can try to choose against certain pathways. However; in my own sense of experience I often find that I keep trying to go in one direction and meet the same obstacles.

Some people, even in Western society have a sense of karma, which is about the law of cause and effect, or the principle, 'As you sow, so shall you reap'. This understanding of causation is based upon a picture of causality which is not separate from the physical basis but does also take into account deeper aspects of consciousness in the process of events which take place in life.

Jack!

I think you're so-called existential/humanistic story speaks volumes to human causation and one's own metaphysical will to be (intentionality).

I have similar anecdotal evidence regarding the phenomenon of consciousness. With respect to one's Will and feelings to be (in this case to feel connected), years ago I experimented with the tenets of law of attraction. I tested the theory by purposely putting a big smile on my face and walked around all day with a smile. I ended up attracting strangers who wanted to get to know me and help me in the various stores I was in ... . Of course as you alluded, this also ties with old testament antiquity/the wisdom books relative to basic pragmatic Christian philosophy (which also borrowed from early Greek philosophy in the OT...).

Empirically, this proves that if our Will is to have good intentions (or bad), it becomes the cause (or a causational force) of subsequent conscious correlation.
That somewhat pragmatic-humanistic phenom speaks to the further reaches of human nature.

The law of attraction is a universal principle that states you will attract into your life whatever you focus on. Whatever you give your energy and attention to is what will come back to you.

When you focus on the abundance of good things in your life, you will automatically attract more positive things into your life. But if you center yourself on negative thoughts and only focus on what you lack in life, then you will ultimately attract negativity into your life... .
Simply put, it’s because like attracts like. If you are feeling excited, enthusiastic, passionate, happy, joyful, appreciative, or abundant, then you are sending out positive energy to the universe.

In turn, that positive energy will attract people, resources, and opportunities that resonate on the same energetic wavelength.

On the other hand, if you are feeling bored, anxious, stressed out, angry, resentful, or sad, you are sending out negative energy. That negative energy will repel positivity and attract pessimistic people and events into your life.

You have probably noticed the law of attraction in your own life. For example, a person who complains all the time typically attracts friends or followers who also have a bad attitude. Or happy and energetic people will attract other motivated go-getters into their circle.

Within philosophy it seems that the law of attraction is not given much credibility because it doesn't fit into the scientific mechanistic model of Westeŕn materialism. It is often seen as magical thinking or folk wisdom. However, I have read a number of books on it, including the writings of Esther and Jeremy Hicks, and on an experiential level it does seem to work and I know many people who find this too.

I grew up with an anxious mother, who would often be thinking of all the possible things which could go wrong in so many scenarios. So, my thinking was based on that angle but I have definitely found that the more I worry about things going wrong they really do. Also, I definitely find that if I get into a negative mood I often seem to attract misfortune, lose things or go out and get on the wrong transport and get lost. It can be like being dragged into a black hole or whirlpool.

So, on the basis of the law of attraction I do try to watch my thoughts and moods, to try to avoid going into a black hole. I don't find it easy and I know that if I am out there are some people I know who seem to lead me down negative trails of thinking. It seems that I am more likely to meet them when I am not great. But, if I am starting to have a 'black hole day', if possible it is better to go home and rest. Even the choice of music on such a day can be important. It may not work to play really 'up' music when one is feeling 'down'. But, even so it may be important to get some kind of balance. I may have spent too much time listening to the Doors at times and got into a really strange state.

It may be hard to put on a smile at times but it does seem that mood is like a vibrational frequency of energy. It seems to make sense on a scientific level as a form of magnetism. Even animals seem to be able to sense moods and intention in some rudimentary ways. It may also be relevant for the idea of self-fulfilling prophecies which may be about expectations and frames of mind within group and social dynamics.

Jack!

Two things you touched on resonated with me:

1. The conscious phenomena of music

2. Lower life forms sensing emotion.

This notion of law of attraction takes many forms including the universal language of music. Speaking for myself as a performer, I have felt on many occasions a collective consciousness in the form of metaphysical energy. Almost like the feeling one receives from the phenomenon of love. While the philosophy of music has limited takers (ironically enough Schopenhauer is the only one I know that dared to parse the subject matter, Kant-maybe), the cause and effect that music has on consciousness is yet another mystery in life.

But with respect to the law of attraction you can see this at work when you see a particular audience supporting death metal versus hip hop versus classic rock versus jazz versus classical and so on... .

2. With respect to animals perceiving emotion from human's there's no doubt that an animal will sense happiness, sadness, anger, etc. from human beings just by way of observation and the senses.... .

Much of this is to say that the metaphysics of consciousness captures the phenomena of all emotion, the Will, intentionality and human sentience.

[snt]

The essay Intentionality and Sensation by French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas may be of interest.

A phenomenon between intentionality and sensation. Levinas and Husserl
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40883394
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... nd_Husserl
https://www.scribd.com/doc/224260714/Le ... -Sensation

"Yet Levinas does exploit a difficulty that beset Husserl’s early phenomenology of time-consciousness, one that would argue in favor of Levinas’ 1974 conception of “diachrony”, or the interruption that he equates with transcendence-in-immanence. This was the paradox of sensation in relation to intentionality that Husserl identified in Appendix 12 of his lectures on internal time consciousness (Hua 10: 130–133).[34]

In his 1965 essay, “Intentionality and Sensation” (DEH: 135–150), Levinas focused on the gap (i.e., diachrony) between bodily sensation entering intentionality and sensation as pre-conscious bodily processes. He recalled the paradox that the sensuous origins of intentionality lay outside intentionality’s field or reach, in the body, even as the ongoing alterations of sensation forge our feeling of ongoing temporal progression. To be explicitly experienced, sensation thus had to intentionalize. Yet much of its prior, bodily existence eludes our consciousness.

Levinas compared this dual, conscious-preconscious status of sensibility to his idea of a pre-intentional “receptivity of an ‘other’ penetrating into the ‘same’, [in sum, to our intersubjective] life and not [to] ‘thought’” (DEH: 144). As already broached by Husserl, this sensuous “other” will support Levinas’ 1974 arguments for the affective interruptions of the even flow of time-consciousness, and his claim that intersubjective affects overflow the framework of all representational consciousness."

The mentioned other that is to precede consciousness and the experience of time is referred to as 'alterity' (Otherwise than Being or infinity).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/

[3017Metaphysician]

The essay Intentionality and Sensation by French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas may be of interest.

A phenomenon between intentionality and sensation. Levinas and Husserl
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40883394
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... nd_Husserl
https://www.scribd.com/doc/224260714/Le ... -Sensation

"Yet Levinas does exploit a difficulty that beset Husserl’s early phenomenology of time-consciousness, one that would argue in favor of Levinas’ 1974 conception of “diachrony”, or the interruption that he equates with transcendence-in-immanence. This was the paradox of sensation in relation to intentionality that Husserl identified in Appendix 12 of his lectures on internal time consciousness (Hua 10: 130–133).[34]

In his 1965 essay, “Intentionality and Sensation” (DEH: 135–150), Levinas focused on the gap (i.e., diachrony) between bodily sensation entering intentionality and sensation as pre-conscious bodily processes. He recalled the paradox that the sensuous origins of intentionality lay outside intentionality’s field or reach, in the body, even as the ongoing alterations of sensation forge our feeling of ongoing temporal progression. To be explicitly experienced, sensation thus had to intentionalize. Yet much of its prior, bodily existence eludes our consciousness.

Levinas compared this dual, conscious-preconscious status of sensibility to his idea of a pre-intentional “receptivity of an ‘other’ penetrating into the ‘same’, [in sum, to our intersubjective] life and not [to] ‘thought’” (DEH: 144). As already broached by Husserl, this sensuous “other” will support Levinas’ 1974 arguments for the affective interruptions of the even flow of time-consciousness, and his claim that intersubjective affects overflow the framework of all representational consciousness."

The mentioned other that is to precede consciousness and the experience of time is referred to as 'alterity' (Otherwise than Being or infinity).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/

SNT!

What is your take on this quote from him:

[t]o think the infinite, the transcendent, the Stranger, is hence not to think an object. But to think what does not have the lineaments of an object is in reality to do more or better than think. (TI: 49)

My interpretation is one of intentionality/the metaphysical Will that seems to be a part of one's own unending infinite stream of consciousness. And if the stream of consciousness flows in time, and both time/infinity itself and consciousness are meta-physical features of the universe, there must be a meta-physical cause to one's own existence.

For instance, we know that the Will causes human behavior to act and feel, and both these qualities of consciousness are meta-physical. Now we are adding time to the equation which by definition is consistent with Being (since the definition of being itself is part of an action verb). This makes me thing of the mind-body problem again.

Just thinking out loud there of course, I'm starting to come away with a definite position of primacy associated with all of those metaphysical features or qualities of conscious existence. I think he is trying to go beyond the "object" in order to rationalize/conceive of a Kantian nuemenal realm of Being?

That's how I'm interpreting his metaphysics. With respect to the OP, here's a quick snapshot in time, no pun intended:

1. Causality: metaphysical
2. Time: metaphysical
3. Consciousness: both physical and metaphysical

One other concern might be, this infinite stream on consciousness, infinite sense of time and causality, exists in the present time, so how do we reconcile all of existence in time? I think I'm back to something that causes something else to exist...a genetically coded emergence and the concept of a noumenal world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

[The Beast]

What is strange is the boundary and its reason. As Kant faced the boundary, he imagined the transcendental logic in the transcendental dialectic definition: “This as the study of the fallacious attribution of objective reality to the perceptions by the mind of external objects”