Cause-effect or Effect-cause? (mystic, beliefs, doom, translation, creation)

[doppelgänger]

Nietzsche in a nutshell: We've got it all backwards - "effects" are the cause of "causes," and not the other way around.

"God" doesn't cause the "Universe." The creation of the Universe in our inner phenomenology as an "effect" is actually the cause of "God."

Yes or no?

From Book Three of Will to Power:

The phenomenalism of the "inner world." Chronological inversion, so that the cause enters consciousness later than the effect. We have learned that pain is projected to a part of the body without being situated there - we have learned that sense impressions naively supposed to be conditioned by the outer world are, on the contrary, conditioned by the inner world; that we are always unconscious of the real activity of the outer world. The fragment of outer world of which we are conscious is born after an effect from outside has impressed itself upon us, and is subsequently projected as its "cause".

In the phenomenalism of the "inner world" we invert the chronological order of cause and effect. The fundamental fact of "inner experience" is that the cause is imagined after the effect has taken place. The same applies to the succession of thoughts: we seek the reason for a thought before we are conscious of it; and the reason enters consciousness first, and then its consequence - Our entire dream life is the interpretation of complex feelings with a view to possible causes - and in such way that we are conscious of a condition only when the supposed causal chain associated with it has entered consciousness.

The whole of "inner experience" rests upon the fact that a cause for an excitement of the nerve centers is sought and imagined - and that only a cause thus discovered enters consciousness: this cause in no way corresponds to the real cause - it is a groping on the basis of previous "inner experiences," i.e., of memory. But memory also maintains the habit of the old interpretations, i.e., of erroneous causality so that the "inner experience" has to contain within it the consequences of all previous false causal fictions. Our "outer world" as we project it every moment is indissolubly tied to the old error of the ground: we interpret it by means of the schematism of "things," etc.

"Inner experience" enters our consciousness only after it has found a language the individual understands - a translation of a condition into conditions familiar to him; "to understand" means merely: to be able to express something new in the language of something old and familiar. E.g., "I feel unwell"; such a judgment presupposes a great and late neutrality of the observer - the simple man always says: this or that makes me feel unwell - he makes up his mind about his feeling unwell only when he has seen a reason for feeling unwell. I call that a lack of philology; to be able to read off a text as a text without interposing an interpretation is the last developed form of "inner experience"- perhaps one that is hardly possible.

There exists neither "spirit," nor reason, nor thinking, nor consciousness, nor soul, nor will, nor truth: all are fictions that are of no use. There is no question of "subject and object," but of a particular species of animal that can prosper only through a certain relative rightness; above all, regularity of its perceptions (so that it can accumulate experience).

Knowledge works as a tool of power. Hence it is plain that it increases with every increase of power.

The meaning of "knowledge": here, as in the case of "good" or "beautiful," the concept is to be regarded in a strict and narrow anthropocentric and biological sense. In order for a particular species to maintain itself and increase its power, its conception of reality must comprehend enough of the calculable and constant for it to base a scheme of behavior on it. The utility of preservation - not some abstract theoretical need not to be deceived - stands as the motive behind the development of the organs of knowledge; they develop in such a way that their observations suffice for our preservation. In other words: the measure of the desire for knowledge depends upon the measure to which the will to power grows in a species: a species grasps a certain amount of reality in order to become master of it, in order to press it into service.

[Guitar's Cry]

With this information, yes. But I would be more honest in stating that both "cause then effect" and "effect then cause" are probably true.

As stated in the quote, we experience the effect first. The cause is determined later. Since it is only through our perception that we experience the universe - all data recorded through instrumentation is also perceived through our senses - the universe is essentially our "inner world." Its causes are determined by our effects.

However, Nietzsche also wrote, "'Inner experience' enters our consciousness only after it has found a language the individual understands..."

Our world (inner experience) is determined by the causes of the objective world. Logically, the effects we perceive are colored by the effects of previous outside causes. So while we experience the effect first, the experience is influenced by a cause.

What I find fascinating about this, is his concept of "Will to Power." He states
"There exists neither "spirit," nor reason, nor thinking, nor consciousness, nor soul, nor will...," yet there is this instinctual drive to become better; indeed, to ascend to the Superman (Overman). It is almost operatic. We are under the control of deterministic forces, but are crescendoing to a greater being.

[doppelgänger]

Thanks GC for your very intruguing observations.

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

With this information, yes. But I would be more honest in stating that both "cause then effect" and "effect then cause" are probably true.

I agree, but with the limitation, explained in the excerpt, that what we will perceive as the "cause" of an effect is limited by the purpose for which we have sense faculties by which to investigate it - we understand cause through its useful reality to us. We understand cause only to the extent of our ability to predictably produce a perceived effect. Two additional conclusions follow:

(1) What we can perceive as "cause" is not nearly the same thing as appreciating the the intricate web of relationships that bring about an identified phenomenon and, indeed, identifying a discreet phenomenon itself is a taint of our limited faculties that makes such an understanding impossible;

(2) The means by which we can approach our limited understandings of cause is through observation, repeatability and falsifiability - i.e. the scientific method.

While I agree with you that ordinarily a cause brings about a perception of an effect that causes a perception of the cause for that perceived effect, absent a means to deduce even a perception of cause, all that remains is a perceived effect. And a perceived cause is not the same thing as a cause. So in our inner world all we really have is a "perceived effect," and maybe a "perceived cause" if we can use science to approach a sufficient level of predictability to make that perception useful to us.

So going back to the question in the OP, by what means do we measure "God" to be the "cause" of "the Universe?" We cannot observe, repeat or falsify creation ex nihilo because our faculties for acquiring such knowledge are predicated by their very nature on there being no such thing. All we have is a perceived effect.

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

However, Nietzsche also wrote, "'Inner experience' enters our consciousness only after it has found a language the individual understands..."

And therein lies the secret. We tend to acquire a social reality through acquisition of language, and match our individual experiences to the pieces in the social template for reality that we acquire. There can be no experiences of "God" without a spot on one's interpretive template for reality that can be interpreted to correspond to the experience.

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

Our world (inner experience) is determined by the causes of the objective world.

Not quite though. Our world (inner experience) is determined by the acquisition of symbols (including "objective world" and "thinking" and "reason" and "humanity" and even (gulp) "I" ) by which we can organize it and create its meaning and purpose.

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

What I find fascinating about this, is his concept of "Will to Power." He states
"There exists neither "spirit," nor reason, nor thinking, nor consciousness, nor soul, nor will...," yet there is this instinctual drive to become better; indeed, to ascend to the Superman (Overman). It is almost operatic. We are under the control of deterministic forces, but are crescendoing to a greater being.

What is the Crescendo though but a new beginning, a self-rolling wheel that comes back around to the child? And what is the significance of the child in mythology? What is the innocence of the child? The child knows nothing.

The greatest common error I perceive in adopting what we now commonly call "faith" as a substitute for entering a mythology is that we don't really become the child. We use the child-like trust to accept whatever reality is given to us by authority that in-and-of-itself erases the child. When one accepts symbols as any sort of knowing, one is no longer the child.

Faith is not trust in "beliefs" as a knowing. Such faith spells the child's doom. Faith is the awakening to the wonder of life without the need to know.

As Albert Einstein wrote, in The World As I See It:

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle.


It was the experience of mystery--even if mixed with fear--that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms--it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

[Sunstone]

Some years ago, I read of a fascinating experiment. People were wired with electodes in their brains and arms. They were then told to pick up an apple. The electrodes in their arms picked up signs of muscle movement before the electrodes in their brains picked up the signs of conscious thought. These people were reaching for the apple nanoseconds before they consciously "decided" to reach for the apple.

While the experiment strongly suggests that some decisions are not made consciously, it also suggests that consciousness might, in the case of some decisions, be no more than a commentor on decisions. Consciousness comments, "Yes, I want the apple and I'll grab it", but only after the decision to reach for the apple has already been made at some other level of the brain.

So, we have some evidence that we live in a world where our consciousness will at times posit itself as the cause of actions it does not cause.

Again, Julian Jaynes noted in his book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, that consciousness only works as an inhibitory factor in actions. That is, it only decides to inhibit actions, but does not decide to prompt actions (except such acts as are actually inhibitory).

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

So, we have some evidence that we live in a world where our consciousness will at times posit itself as the cause of actions it does not cause.

I've read about those experiments. To me they suggest the possibility that recognized forms can become almost autonomic. I think it would be interesting to perform the study on people who live in some isolated locale who are not familiar with an apple (or use some more obscure fruit that is an accepted part of culture in one place but largely unheard of someplace else). I suspect that the electronic reaching signal is only triggered because the neural process for the "apple" form is so well forged that it operates subconsciously, with the conscious thoughts trailing both the sensory perceptions and the autonomic recognition of the form.

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Thanks GC for your very intruguing observations.

I do what I can.

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

I agree, but with the limitation, explained in the excerpt, that what we will perceive as the "cause" of an effect is limited by the purpose for which we have sense faculties by which to investigate it - we understand cause through its useful reality to us. We understand cause only to the extent of our ability to predictably produce a perceived effect. Two additional conclusions follow:

(1) What we can perceive as "cause" is not nearly the same thing as appreciating the the intricate web of relationships that bring about an identified phenomenon and, indeed, identifying a discreet phenomenon itself is a taint of our limited faculties that makes such an understanding impossible;

(2) The means by which we can approach our limited understandings of cause is through observation, repeatability and falsifiability - i.e. the scientific method.

While I agree with you that ordinarily a cause brings about a perception of an effect that causes a perception of the cause for that perceived effect, absent a means to deduce even a perception of cause, all that remains is a perceived effect. And a perceived cause is not the same thing as a cause. So in our inner world all we really have is a "perceived effect," and maybe a "perceived cause" if we can use science to approach a sufficient level of predictability to make that perception useful to us.

So going back to the question in the OP, by what means do we measure "God" to be the "cause" of "the Universe?" We cannot observe, repeat or falsify creation ex nihilo because our faculties for acquiring such knowledge are predicated by their very nature on there being no such thing. All we have is a perceived effect.

And therein lies the secret. We tend to acquire a social reality through acquisition of language, and match our individual experiences to the pieces in the social template for reality that we acquire. There can be no experiences of "God" without a spot on one's interpretive template for reality that can be interpreted to correspond to the experience.

This is fascinating stuff, epistemologically. It really limits (perhaps even nulls) what we claim to have knowledge of. It in fact challenges logic, as even logic is biased by our "sense" of cause and effect.

I agree with your conclusion about God. Our means for measuring God is based on emotional response (or artistic embellishment, both of which are elements of the "inner world" that are highly molded by our social "acquisitions," as you put it), and social conditioning.

But considering this, how did God first arise in human understanding? Could it have been through a faulty perceived cause colored by an emotional response to our interaction with the universe?

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Not quite though. Our world (inner experience) is determined by the acquisition of symbols (including "objective world" and "thinking" and "reason" and "humanity" and even (gulp) "I" ) by which we can organize it and create its meaning and purpose.

But is our inner world just determined by the acquisition of symbols? I like your " the intricate web of relationships that bring about an identified phenomenon," so I'll use that. Isn't the inner world an "intricate web of relationships" between acquired symbols, natural emotional responses to stimuli, conditioning brought about by effects (even with no perceived cause), and other stuff I can't think of at the moment because Gentoo is pulling at my jacket trying to get my attention? (Or, I am at least perceiving the cause of my body being pulled to and fro as being her pulling on my jacket! ).

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

What is the Crescendo though but a new beginning, a self-rolling wheel that comes back around to the child? And what is the significance of the child in mythology? What is the innocence of the child? The child knows nothing.

The greatest common error I perceive in adopting what we now commonly call "faith" as a substitute for entering a mythology is that we don't really become the child. We use the child-like trust to accept whatever reality is given to us by authority that in-and-of-itself erases the child. When one accepts symbols as any sort of knowing, one is no longer the child.

Faith is not trust in "beliefs" as a knowing. Such faith spells the child's doom. Faith is the awakening to the wonder of life without the need to know.

I like that. That the idealistic child is the paragon of true faith is poetic, as well as allegorical.

How is the "will to power" represented in the child? If it is through curiousity - that feeling that pushes the child towards discovery and growth and enables the desire of mystery - then it becomes the drive for the pursuit of knowledge, which as you said, will ultimately kill the child. But which will also return da capo - back to the child. Total recurrence.