Is there really Cause and Effect?

[Me Myself]

I'm not well versed in the philosophy of cause and effect. Growing up it seemed like a rather easy to grasp. I do X and I'll get Y. Much of what we do rely on cause and effect, and religion itself especially in Christianity positions God as a Cause and the Universe as an effect.

I've been trying to read up on causality lately and I'll admit it flies over my head, but it seems that the way we "perceive, think, or accept" causality may not be how it actually operates. I've also learned that a lot of things deal more with correlations rather than a singular known cause.

I was hoping someone could clear this up for me, and if a good debate comes out of it as well, the better

There is no "cause" "and" "effect" there is causes that are also effects and effects that are also causes. Nothing singular about it.

It a pen falls to the floor it does so for many causes. Because I dropped it, becuase There was no table or chair in the way, because gravity is there, because the pen exists, because I exist, because the pen started out on my hand, because etc

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There is no "cause" "and" "effect" there is causes that are also effects and effects that are also causes. Nothing singular about it.

It a pen falls to the floor it does so for many causes. Because I dropped it, becuase There was no table or chair in the way, because gravity is there, because the pen exists, because I exist, because the pen started out on my hand, because etc

If only it were that simple.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If only it were that simple.

There is no spoon.

 

[idea]

Does time exist?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

There are an enormous set of causes (including factors of which we have little awareness) which interact to varying degrees and produce an enormous set of effects (including factors of which we have little awareness) which can in turn become the causes of other effects (you get the idea); sometimes this production is quite direct and with little interference, sometimes it is more indirect and involves significant interdependence. There is nothing to suggest that a strictly mechanical approach to existence is insufficient to explain reality as we perceive it provided we accept that especially at the most minute level - our comprehension of the interaction of states of matter/energy is incomplete, thus we do not fully comprehend the causes (nor indeed effects) thus divergence from our expectations in such regards can be consistent with a mechanistic approach to existence simply by acknowledging ignorance (this is particularly true when we examine QM).

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hume's point essentially boils down to two things- first, that there is nothing more to causation than conjunction/correlation. We never experience such things as causes, or causality, as a force, principle, or object; for instance, we see the billiard ball hit the other, and the second go rolling across the table, and so we say, "the one was the cause of the other". But causality was not given in the experience. What we refer to as causation- such as a billiard ball striking and imparting motion to another- is simply the constant/consistent conjunction of certain events- i.e. every time we see A, we see B.

The second point is that causal connections are not logical or necessary connections- one cannot validly infer the cause from an effect. For instance, it is not logically necessary that the second ball move upon being struck by the first- logically speaking, it could remain in place, explode into bits, or sprout a rocket-pack and fly to Mars. This is, in essence, the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning; whereas from the argument "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man" the conclusion "Socrates is mortal" follows necessarily (logically), an argument involving causality (induction), does not logically guarantee the conclusion. For instance, the following is not a valid argument-

Every time the billiard ball strikes the other, it goes rolling across the table.
The billiard ball struck the other, therefore it went rolling across the table.

So our inferences or conclusions about causality, or which involve induction, are not deductively valid, and cannot be justified on deductive grounds. But they cannot be justified on inductive grounds either, as this would beg the question. This dilemma is known as "the problem of induction".

Okay, I remember this in a philosophy course i took back in my undergrad years, but unfortunately I didn't really pay attention to it, though a part of it stuck out to me.

My professor had said that our idea of cause in effect is a result of us assuming that the past is a good indicator of what will happen in the future. However that is not actually logical.

 

[Willamena]

My professor had said that our idea of cause in effect is a result of us assuming that the past is a good indicator of what will happen in the future. However that is not actually logical.

There's nothing illogical about inference, unless one tries to squeeze truth from it.
Inference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

There's nothing illogical about inference, unless one tries to squeeze truth from it.
Inference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But don't we do exactly that though? Isn't saying "the sun will rise tomorrow" an inference that we take as truth?

 

[Willamena]

But don't we do exactly that though? Isn't saying "the sun will rise tomorrow" an inference that we take as truth?

It doesn't have to be. But if you see that train racing down the railway tracks towards you, please do jump out of the way.

Inference is about relations. The relationship between morning/night/the earth revolving and the "sun coming up" is valid as long as we acknolwedge the uncertainty inherent in it. Inference comes with uncertainty, but it also comes with probability.

That's a good thing.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It doesn't have to be. But if you see that train racing down the railway tracks towards you, please do jump out of the way.

Inference is about relations. The relationship between morning/night/the earth revolving and the "sun coming up" is valid as long as we acknolwedge the uncertainty inherent in it. Inference comes with uncertainty, but it also comes with probability.

That's a good thing.

Gotcha

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My professor had said that our idea of cause in effect is a result of us assuming that the past is a good indicator of what will happen in the future. However that is not actually logical.

Reason is usually far more useful and applicable in day-to-day life than logic.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

The past being an indicator of the future is both logical and consistent throughout history.

Free will is an illusion, we are our past.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The past being an indicator of the future is both logical and consistent throughout history.

But how do we know the future will continue to resemble the past? (hint: you can't say "because it has done so in the past", as that would be begging the question)

 

[PolyHedral]

Short Answer to title thread: No.
Long answer:
Causality is inconsistent with modern physics

That second source seems to involve a type error: assuming that "experience" is somehow qualitively different than lots of small changes in the neurons.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That second source seems to involve a type error: assuming that "experience" is somehow qualitively different than lots of small changes in the neurons.

You can call it whatever you like- experience or something else- but the point remains the same. In a reductive model, causation is due to local interactions that are bottom-up. Top-down causation cannot be explained by a reductive model. So either it doesn't exist and we are observing something which isn't happening, or reductionism is dead in the water. As it is dead in the water regardless, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a bottom-up model of functional emergence in line with 19th century physics.

 

[gnostic]

Why must the CAUSE be a supernatural, invisible, intelligent and all-powerful being?

I suffer from hayfever; should I naturally assume that a god is to blame for my allergy?

 

[PolyHedral]

You can call it whatever you like- experience or something else- but the point remains the same. In a reductive model, causation is due to local interactions that are bottom-up. Top-down causation cannot be explained by a reductive model. So either it doesn't exist and we are observing something which isn't happening, or reductionism is dead in the water. As it is dead in the water regardless, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a bottom-up model of functional emergence in line with 19th century physics.

But saying that "experience is a global concept and causes these changes in the micro-objects in the brain" contradicts the premise of reductionism: global concepts are actually built of local objects. There is surely no problem with local objects affecting each other, is there?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But saying that "experience is a global concept and causes these changes in the micro-objects in the brain" contradicts the premise of reductionism

It does.

There is surely no problem with local objects affecting each other, is there?

Just the little problem that it can't explain global phenomena. That's a central reason for abandoning reductionism and for why it [reductionism] has failed.

 

[adi2d]

I hit my finger with a hammer, and it hurt. So, yes, there is cause and effect.

All the posts get all philosified about your pain

Allow me to tell a tale from a practical man

My dad and I were building a deck when I was still living at home. Everything was going fine until I smashed my finger

#### I said. That hurt

Hurt when you hit your finger. Says my dad

Simple. Don't miss. Says the wise man


I think of him every time I'm looking for a bandaid

All the needless pain would not be there if I would just heed his words




Thanks for the excuse to think of that without the throbbing

 

[PolyHedral]

It does.


Just the little problem that it can't explain global phenomena. That's a central reason for abandoning reductionism and for why it [reductionism] has failed.

Why not? Have you actually worked out how the global concept maps into small-scale changes?