3
   

More about cause and effect

 
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 03:30 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
You don't understand how cause and effect works... Ok that's cool... and you don't want to admit it because it would shake your personal worldview... I understand... no problem Wink
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 03:39 pm
@igm,
In fact I have posted about both views how Cause n effect can be reasoned to work and how cause n effect can be properly questioned and doubted. It seams to me you didn't understood neither. Wink
igm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Nov, 2013 04:39 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,

Still waiting for a yes or no Fil...

igm wrote:

Is the cause, the energy package and the effect... are all three existing at the same time i.e. the cause, the energy package and the effect (they are all named by you as part of cause and effect)?

Answer my question Fil... yes or no? It's in blue above. Or just say you can't answer yes or no. Don't say anything other than yes, no or neither yes or no.

Or admit that you are avoiding answering a straightforward question.


0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2013 05:58 am
@Rickoshay75,
It could be argued that cause and effect are in the eyes of the beholder.

What constitutes "an event"?
In our effort to categorize the world in terms of causes and effects we are the ones who separate one event from another, and this selection seems to be arbitrary and based on individual motives.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Dec, 2013 12:59 pm
@Cyracuz,
Definitely in the eyes of the beholder. The general dualism practiced by common thought (and transcended by mysticism and quantum theory) is perhaps essential for normal human functioning. This is especially so for the bifurcation between self and other, the inside and outside realities referred to with the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. As an aside let me suggest that even beauty and ugliness both reside in the mind of the beholder.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Dec, 2013 09:54 pm
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Dec, 2013 01:24 am
0 Replies
 
void123
 
  0  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2014 07:52 am
@fresco,
your wrong
http://youtu.be/ZnqUAsyOTv4
im not sure what you mean by # 2
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2014 09:09 am
@void123,
No. Anthropomorphic descriptions of animal behavior do NOT imply that animals can form human concepts like "cause" and "effect" even if we find it useful to talk in those terms. That experiment lacks a control situation of a say, a neutral object such as a a box entering and leaving the hide, with a machine moving the stick.

What I mean by 2 is obvious to anybody who has read up on Hume, or on the status of "causality" in physics. Which brings me to a general point that I have seen little evidence of value in your belated/one liner contributions to these philosophy threads relative to the level of the previous contributors. I have therefore put you on "ignore" but will review the situation from time to time.
void123
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2014 09:54 pm
@fresco,
its not a personification its a study.
and its more than a baseless presupposition.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Nature of gun laws - Discussion by gungasnake
Reality - thing or phenomenon? - Question by Cyracuz
Atheism - Discussion by littlek
Is Reality a Social Construction ? - Discussion by fresco
Do you See what Eye See?? - Discussion by NoName77
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 08:52:09