Causality and the Universe

[Akashic_Librarian]

Ok so I have been cogitating the nature of Causality and it seems that one way is to say it is the dominoes of life toplling over, I push one domino, another falls, then another. Cause and Effect yes. Well I was considering A spiritual approach to Cause and Effect and it seems many people hold the belief that the Universe is conscious in one form or another. Thus Cause and effect can no longer be concievable right? If I punch a conscious being, there is no way to predict the response. But If I punch a brick wall hard, 100% of the time, its going to hurt. Cause and Effect. Now to say the Universe is conscious is giving it free will. Or in the words of Nietzsche Will to power. Now the universe is Conscious ok. If I "Punch" the Universe, is there no way to predict what will happen to me? Do I get punched back? Does the Universe even have the abiltiy to respond?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

If I punch a conscious being, there is no way to predict the response.

I think this statement is false.

And why are you punching yourself?

[The Universal Call]

Michael:
Whilst inanimate objects can be theoretically and scientifically concluded what response will occur - they lack something that conscious being have..
FREE WILL

Of course you can't predict the response, because the response is not up to anything but a free mind. And the mind does whatever it chooses to do (of course this does not apply to those silly subjective reality folks who think THEY, yes they, choose what the "free" mind does).

It's very interesting to hear you "think the statement is false" when you fail to give any argument whatsoever as to why you think that. It's like you're trying to boost your post count or something else silly, but why should you be doing that when you already got 1k posts as of this date, true, makes no sense...
At least try and engage the topic. If all the other 1k posts you've made are this linear I wouldn't want to be reading the threads you've replied in. Posts such as "I think food is not healthy for your body", is not an argument or even remotely interesting for others, I don't go spoiling every thought I have because there are a billion of them.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

Michael:
Whilst inanimate objects can be theoretically and scientifically concluded what response will occur - they lack something that conscious being have..
FREE WILL

Of course you can't predict the response, because the response is not up to anything but a free mind. And the mind does whatever it chooses to do (of course this does not apply to those silly subjective reality folks who think THEY, yes they, choose what the "free" mind does).

It's very interesting to hear you "think the statement is false" when you fail to give any argument whatsoever as to why you think that. It's like you're trying to boost your post count or something else silly, but why should you be doing that when you already got 1k posts as of this date, true, makes no sense...
At least try and engage the topic. If all the other 1k posts you've made are this linear I wouldn't want to be reading the threads you've replied in. Posts such as "I think food is not healthy for your body", is not an argument or even remotely interesting for others, I don't go spoiling every thought I have because there are a billion of them.

So what you're saying is that because MC didn't write a 600 word essay stating and asking valid points and questions (like he did) his opinion doesn't count? It's rude to insult someone because they don't need to feel good about themselves by posting long winded pointless self indulgent observations and don't call me silly, stupid

Enjoy!
Max Power
"One of those silly SR folk"

[The Universal Call]

Writing three sentences yet having to copy my entire post is another example of being...whatever.. Considering that you were only talking about my last paragraph you could have just simply quoted that. It's sort of like when someone write a nice long introductory opening post - then the second poster quotes that entire reply and adds: "I agree."
It's annoying. Agree? ...

I've read many of MC's other replies, some of them are longer than others, some of them are short like this one, but it's just that, it's just a "I agree/disagree", it adds nothing... Valid points and questions? Maybe it was valid and I would have agreed that it written itself as a reply would be enough. What MC did now however I disapprove of, it's bad quality. Of course his opinion "count", would an Internet forum ever survive without opinions? But there are two sides now, an agree (Akashic) and a disagree (MC), Akashic managed to explain his point, MC didn't. So you mean that MC's "point" or "opinion" is of worth when in reality it's just one of his thoughts and not even an argument to say anything about the topic? It's not in any way teasing my intellect as to why he thinks that, hence I find it utterly unnecessary.

I was born and raised in another community where posts that were unintelligent, or incoherent, or anything of the like was frowned upon. If you feel like being insulted upon MC's behalf, then so be it, I'm simply just telling him however that his reply was unnecessary unless he have something to back it up. If he would reply now stating his arguments that would be the ideal (stating them at the first place is of course THE ideal), I'm not insulting him - I'm insulting his reply.

Oh, I noticed too: "they don't need to feel good about themselves by posting long winded pointless self indulgent observations"... What's there to feel good about? I don't feel good about myself for writing long posts. Heck, there's nothing wrong in writing two sentences if you just get your arguments across. Adding nothing to the conversation, well, then you shouldn't feel good about yourself. If one has nothing to say, one shouldn't say it, in that sense his "I disagree" is but a thought and his own observation, if it's nothing more than that then why post it? That makes no sense to me since MC clearly knows how to write otherwise.

And please, I thought it was common that SR folks was called silly. I think Steve P even once verified that it's considered a bit wacko to believe in it. If it's true or not I cannot speak of. I can however say that I am conscious and that you're not. In your case (if there is a conscious you :O) it's the other way around. I feel no regret in calling you silly if I'm only calling a part of my consciousness silly.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

Whilst inanimate objects can be theoretically and scientifically concluded what response will occur - they lack something that conscious being have..
FREE WILL

One: What is consciousness?

Two: Scientifically or theoretically show that inanimate objects are not conscious.

Three: What is free will?

Four: Scientifically or theoretically show that non-conscious beings do not have free will.

Five: Scientifically or theoretically show that conscious beings have it.

Six: Don't ask me to do something you don't yourself do.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

It's like you're trying to boost your post count or something else silly, but why should you be doing that when you already got 1k posts as of this date, true, makes no sense...

Maybe you should look at my other posts. You can start with this one and then move on to this thread, which is on a topic you might find familiar.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

At least try and engage the topic.

I've noticed that people really hate the fact that I let the other person speak first. It's like they want something to attack, and its lack is somehow wrong. I mean, I actually stated my position this time! But no, that's not good enough for The Universal Call.

Why don't you ask Akashic Librarian to back up his baseless statement with an argument? To actually think about what he's saying rather than to blindly parrot an argument supplied first by theologians who could not explain the presence of evil in the face of a just God--or more succinctly, stuff they didn't like but happened anyways; and then piggybacked by philosophers who felt a need to humanize the Aristotelian causal universe with frou-frou feel-good notions? I mean, he references Nietzsche for absolutely no discernible reason, but you're okay with that. He posits causality in the first place, which you don't question despite the fact that his entire point is the existence of causality creates a problem with the idea of free will, in that it sets up a dichotomy where, if the universe is conscious, then either it is causal or it is free. However, the grounding of this question lies in the assumption behind that assertion, which is that a conscious being is unpredictable because they are free and that is the statement I disagree with and if he wants to back it up, then he is more than welcome to.

And I predict that you will feel pain if I punch you for saying I'm long-winded.

Now, in previewing my post, I notice you've responded to Max Power.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

So you mean that MC's "point" or "opinion" is of worth when in reality it's just one of his thoughts and not even an argument to say anything about the topic? It's not in any way teasing my intellect as to why he thinks that, hence I find it utterly unnecessary.

First, simply because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. If you have previously noted that I'm not stupid, then perhaps you should have looked deeper. On a message board, one is not writing for a faceless audience: in replies, one is replying. I wasn't speaking to you, and it's not surprising that you didn't understand the depth of my reply.

So, I'll explain it.

The first sentence was explained above. AL's post is grounded on an assumption that's grounded on an assumption. I am disagreeing with that assumption, as revealed by his post, and thus questioning his entire post. Think: if the statement quoted is false, what does that mean for the rest of his post? Of course, I have already told you.

The second sentence was a reference to his own belief in subjective reality. In hypothesizing punching the universe, he is separating his perception of self from his perception of the universe, violating the central principle of SR. Thus, pointing out that he'd be punching himself causes the re-establishment of that principle, which opens up a new doorway for discussion.

So, you want my argument?

Simple:

1. Free Will, as defined as choice made free of all external influence, exists if and only if You are the Universe.

2. The Universe, in this case, is defined as total inclusion, thus making the existence of external influence definitionally impossible, thus making any and all choices absolutely and necessarily free.

3. If You are not the Universe, then the Universe acts as an external influence on any choice you make. Why? Because You are inextricable from the Universe, even if you do not perceive yourself to be it. Thus, your choice cannot exist outside the context of the Universe, and is thus necessarily influenced by it.

4. This influence takes the form of understanding the past and predicting the future. Thus, a conscious being's reaction to a stimulus can be predicted simply because consciousness, whatever that may be, does not exist independent of the Universe, and its choices are thus predictable due to the fact that all processes that give rise to it are also predictable, given sufficient information.

QED.

Any other requests? Shall I tease your intellect some more, or was the mental lapdance sufficiently arousing?

[The Universal Call]

I see you can talk. I'll go warm the bench for a while but that's mainly because I'm tired and my head is full of homework needed to be done. I think this thread can become worthy of interest, especially considering how you've now managed to conjure up some arguments. I wouldn't blame myself for not noticing your first post had validity, I still find it somewhat vague even after this incredible 2nd post of yours.

Originally Posted by MC

One: What is consciousness?

1. What is consciousness? Consciousness is being. What is being? It simply is. If being wasn't then being wouldn't be perceived by anything hence it wouldn't exist by its very definition, or cause.

Originally Posted by MC

Two: Scientifically or theoretically show that inanimate objects are not conscious.

2. Why persist to try and prove something that is unprovable. I am amazed at how some people actually want to find the answer to that question when in reality it's impossible. Afterall, everything is subjective.

Originally Posted by MC

Three: What is free will?

3. Interesting question. Even the greatest philosophers have had a hard time agreeing on that subject. Like you're already aware of.

Originally Posted by MC

Four: Scientifically or theoretically show that non-conscious beings do not have free will.

4. Scientifically and theoretically doesn't really make it in SR when it comes to this subject. How about logically? No, I'm sure we cannot use that in these forums, that would actually make things not so linear. If they are unconscious they "aren't". If they ain't being, and aren't perceived - they aren't and thus have no free will.
If they ain't being but are perceived - we make their "free will" and thus it isn't theirs, but ours. Makes any sense? -.-

Originally Posted by MC

Five: Scientifically or theoretically show that conscious beings have it.

5. If conscious beings perceive things subjectively. How can someone prove anything scientifically or theoretically that other people have free will? Instead, we can only look on ourselves, have you got free will? And if all we have is the moment, the "now", can we really say we "had free will", maybe it was destiny?

Originally Posted by MC

Maybe you should look at my other posts. You can start with this one and then move on to this thread, which is on a topic you might find familiar.

Referring to your other posts show you know this subject. I haven't read both those links and I probably won't in the near future. Like I've said, you can engage a topic and you do it well, this time you did it more subtly than I could perceive.

Originally Posted by MC

I've noticed that people really hate the fact that I let the other person speak first. It's like they want something to attack, and its lack is somehow wrong. I mean, I actually stated my position this time! But no, that's not good enough for The Universal Call.

Yes, I hate it as well. I admit that I failed to see where your post was taking the discussion but I still don't approve of "I agre/disagree" posts, and then claiming that other persons are supposed to.. what, say "why?" and then have you put out further arguments to back your opinion up? That's what I did actually.
Furthermore, I complained about your post, not you. You complained about me complaining, the sentence "not good enough for The Universal Call" implies that you want to make it about us, when in reality it isn't. Make some arguments as to why my complaining arguments was not sufficient and we would again be talking about eachother posts. Which is what I am looking for. True, you did state your position. But don't make this about us.

Originally Posted by MC

First, simply because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. If you have previously noted that I'm not stupid, then perhaps you should have looked deeper. On a message board, one is not writing for a faceless audience: in replies, one is replying. I wasn't speaking to you, and it's not surprising that you didn't understand the depth of my reply.

1. And I know a vacuum cleaner that takes away invisible dots. It's more expensive but you should buy it. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.
2. Thanks for understanding my lack of understanding you. It has dawned upon me now that I didn't see it. Had I, I would have known it was teasing to my intellect and would bring forth more discussion.
3. But, even if I didn't, and didn't need to understand it - try making your point more visible next time.

Originally Posted by MC

Why don't you ask Akashic Librarian to back up his baseless statement with an argument? To actually think about what he's saying rather than to blindly parrot an argument supplied first by theologians who could not explain the presence of evil in the face of a just God--or more succinctly, stuff they didn't like but happened anyways; and then piggybacked by philosophers who felt a need to humanize the Aristotelian causal universe with frou-frou feel-good notions? I mean, he references Nietzsche for absolutely no discernible reason, but you're okay with that. He posits causality in the first place, which you don't question despite the fact that his entire point is the existence of causality creates a problem with the idea of free will, in that it sets up a dichotomy where, if the universe is conscious, then either it is causal or it is free. However, the grounding of this question lies in the assumption behind that assertion, which is that a conscious being is unpredictable because they are free and that is the statement I disagree with and if he wants to back it up, then he is more than welcome to.

1. I was at first annoyed at your post. True,

Originally Posted by MC

Six: Don't ask me to do something you don't yourself do.

I didn't look into it too sharply, but I didn't at first really care whether or not AL had a sufficient point or not. I did something wrong, in that sense, the misunderstanding that you didn't have a point but that somehow AL did came forth by that I didn't understand your point and failed to take notice of AL's. In reality you have a better point than him, thus far. And if he has something to back up his point now I'd be willing to listen intently, like you.
2. I'm from Sweden, and you just gave me 5 words I think or so to look up in the dictionary. Wow...
3. If I got this correctly you're trying to say that either:
-A conscious being doesn't have to have free will.
-An unconscious being can have free will.
--The universe, unconscious or conscious, may or may not have free will.
And that's where you want the discussion to head off to? Good questions.
+This is unprovable.
+This is also unprovable.
++This sentence leads us to your arguments:

Originally Posted by MC

1. Free Will, as defined as choice made free of all external influence, exists if and only if You are the Universe.

Would you as a human be able to say that is the truth? Or would you have to be a conscious universe to know that is the truth? A casual universe would simply have free will or lack it (it's not like it could be conscious of what it had). But then again, how can we prove a casual universe having either...

Originally Posted by MC

2. The Universe, in this case, is defined as total inclusion, thus making the existence of external influence definitionally impossible, thus making any and all choices absolutely and necessarily free.

That's interesting. Tell me, if the universe was casual, would it have any choice? And if we come to that: Would free will then be defined as absolute, or void of absolute? I agree with you, if the universe have free will then it is absolute and perfect - there couldn't be any other way.

Originally Posted by MC

Any other requests? Shall I tease your intellect some more, or was the mental lapdance sufficiently arousing?

I don't do lapdances. If you think you're getting any money you're wrong.

[Brutha]

If you keep with Nietzsche term, you would conclude that the universe is the Will of Power.

they lack something that conscious being have..
FREE WILL

Calling a being conscious mean that this being has a certain perception. Free Will is a statement about the ability of acting.
Even when you think that humans have both, I am still able to think up a being that is conscious but has no free will or a being that has free will but isn't conscious.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

I see you can talk. I'll go warm the bench for a while but that's mainly because I'm tired and my head is full of homework needed to be done. I think this thread can become worthy of interest, especially considering how you've now managed to conjure up some arguments.

Your attention is most appreciated, Majesty. Thank you for coming down from the heavens to visit thy gracious glance upon my poor, humble words.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

1. What is consciousness? Consciousness is being. What is being? It simply is. If being wasn't then being wouldn't be perceived by anything hence it wouldn't exist by its very definition, or cause.

What an extraordinary statement.

If consciousness is being, then inanimate objects are conscious, because inanimate objects also exist, do they not?

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

2. Why persist to try and prove something that is unprovable. I am amazed at how some people actually want to find the answer to that question when in reality it's impossible. Afterall, everything is subjective.

Well, if you define consciousness as being, then it's a bit of a moot point, isn't it?

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

3. Interesting question. Even the greatest philosophers have had a hard time agreeing on that subject. Like you're already aware of.

And yet you claim that conscious beings have it. You claim it exists, yet you have no idea what it is.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

4. Scientifically and theoretically doesn't really make it in SR when it comes to this subject.

If you say so.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

If they ain't being but are perceived - we make their "free will" and thus it isn't theirs, but ours. Makes any sense? -.-

I fail to see how this differs from my argument.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

Instead, we can only look on ourselves, have you got free will?

How about you tell me what it is, first?

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

but I still don't approve of "I agre/disagree" posts, and then claiming that other persons are supposed to.. what, say "why?" and then have you put out further arguments to back your opinion up? That's what I did actually.

I don't claim that other people are supposed to. I claim that, if you ask me to, you should do it yourself.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

1. And I know a vacuum cleaner that takes away invisible dots. It's more expensive but you should buy it. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.

Which is fine. Except I don't need invisible dots cleaned away, whereas you have a need for meaning. Again, I was not writing for you. I was not writing for you. And I was not writing for you.

Oh, and for the record: all vacuum cleaners take away invisible dots. Or can you see them electrons?

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

2. Thanks for understanding my lack of understanding you. It has dawned upon me now that I didn't see it. Had I, I would have known it was teasing to my intellect and would bring forth more discussion.

I was not teasing your intellect. I did not want to. I was not writing for you.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

3. But, even if I didn't, and didn't need to understand it - try making your point more visible next time.

I was not writing for you. I was not writing for you.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

2. I'm from Sweden, and you just gave me 5 words I think or so to look up in the dictionary. Wow...

Want more?
Check this out: 100 Words Every High School Graduate Should Know published by Houghton Mifflin Company

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

3. If I got this correctly you're trying to say that either:
-A conscious being doesn't have to have free will.
-An unconscious being can have free will.
--The universe, unconscious or conscious, may or may not have free will.

None of the above.

First, consciousness is and remains undefined. I consider it a moot term, though you apparently do not, despite your moot definition (how can a being be not-being?). Thus, by using the words "conscious" and "unconscious", you've already missed my point.

Second, the notion of a "being", as a distinct entity, is erroneous, especially in SR terms. I do not subscribe to SR, per se, and I don't really care what it is called. However, I've long had a liking for Steve Pavlina's choice of "God-consciousness" as a descriptive term.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

Would you as a human be able to say that is the truth? Or would you have to be a conscious universe to know that is the truth?

It is a logical conclusion based on three premises.

One: The Definition of Free Will, as given.
Two: If You are the Universe, then Free Will exists.
Three: If Free Will exists, then You are the Universe.
Conclusion: Free Will, as defined, exists iff You are the Universe.

Premises 2 and 3 are argued in points 2 and 3, respectively. Point 2 is an argument from definition (of the Universe); in point 3, I show "If you are not the Universe, then free will, as defined, does not exist," which, by transposition, is the same statement. And point 4, since I'm explaining all my points, is an extension of point 3 that answers the original problem of predictability, which I explain more fully below.

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

That's interesting. Tell me, if the universe was casual, would it have any choice?

Freedom of Choice has nothing to do with causality.

If I told you that it will rain tomorrow, and then it rains, it does not follow that the weather has no choice but to obey me. All I did was, based on the information at hand, determined the causes and predicted the effect: that there will be rain tomorrow. I did not influence the future: I predicted it.

If someone punched me, I can predict that it will hurt, and that I will, at the very least, pause for a moment while I take in the situation. The fact that I can predict it does not change the fact that I have a choice: I could, instead, lash out in retaliation or turn and run. However, I predict that I would hesitate to do both because neither may be the best solution. Nevertheless, it is nonetheless a choice.

Predictability, as derived from causality, does not affect choice.

The exception to this rule is the observer effect, wherein the gathering of the information used to make the prediction changes the object being observed and predicted, thus making the prediction based on the gathered information useless. However, in the case where You are the Universe, there is no distinct observer, and thus it does not apply, unless you happen to be feeling Augustinian ("The power of the memory is prodigious, my God. It is a vast, immeasureable sanctuary. Who can plumb its depths? And yet it is a faculty of my soul. Althought it is part of my nature, I cannot understand all that I am.").

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

I don't do lapdances. If you think you're getting any money you're wrong.

Maybe it's an American thing, to know the multiple connotations of the word "tease". Here's the connotation you're probably missing: Urban Dictionary: tease

[Brutha]

If I told you that it will rain tomorrow, and then it rains, it does not follow that the weather has no choice but to obey me. All I did was, based on the information at hand, determined the causes and predicted the effect: that there will be rain tomorrow. I did not influence the future: I predicted it.
[...]
Predictability, as derived from causality, does not affect choice.

Causality is something different from predictability.

Let say I know that as long as the sun goes up every morning red apples are red.

Now I see a red apple and predict accurately that the sun goes up every morning.

That doesn't mean that because a red apple is red, the sun goes up every morning.

The fact that red apples are red has no casual relationship with the sun going up every morning.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Causality is something different from predictability.

It's hard to derive the self-same thing from something. Of course they're different.

Predictability is the result of having determined the causal relationships between things. Thus, if you control for all variables but the experimental ones, then you can determine the causal relationship between said variables (in this case, the redness of apples and the rising of the sun), and ergo predict the rising of the sun based on the redness of apples.

Derived.