Reply
Sat 24 Mar, 2007 03:16 pm
Causality is a concept argued over by many very important philosophers.
Cause is a determining factor in a situation. A prototypical causation is when a force is applied to something thereby moving it. Causes are temporally prior. Causes are sources of events. Cause is the agent of event. We conceptualize causes in terms of locations and in terms of objects. Motion in space is fundamental to all creatures and this is our source of much of our experiential knowledge. Cause is force and causation is forced movement.
A critically self-conscious individual has a very different attitude toward the world and the self than does the non-critical thinking individual.
In our everyday experiences we encounter numerous ideas regarding causation.
Domino: Start a proper first change and like dominos others will follow.
Thresholds: A barrier must be overcome. Once that initial hurdle is carried then change will occur.
Plate tectonic: The change takes much time because of the vast inertia that must be overcome.
Path: The path taken determines the events caused. Some might argue that Iraq has been "set on the path' to democracy. Being on the path means that eventually the goal will be reached.
These are causal models with a different logic for each. "In domino logic, but not in causal path logic, the change is stopped by the application of force. In domino logic, a change is to be prevented. In plate tectonic logic, a change is to be effected. In domino logic, just enough force is necessary to keep the domino from falling. In causal-path logic, just a little push now and then is necessary. But, in plate tectonic logic, a huge amount of force is necessary over a long time."
There are philosophical widespread views.
Causes are:Question for your judgment
If I were a moderator I would put this in the "trivia and word games" section.
Not to be a critical thinker, but I would like to know what makes a person start so many topics, even when they know that few will pay attention.
As one who very rarely starts threads I think we should commend Coberst for his efforts to keep us moving in interesting directions.
Coberst, you note that we think of causes as temporally prior to causes. Actually, as we noted in another thread. We see something the occurence or presence of which we may want to explain or repeat. The causal model is generally used. We call it an "effect" and look for its necessary and/or efficient ANTECEDENT conditions or cause. Note, however that the cause is prior only in the causal MODEL. Historicallly, we encountered the "effect" first and pursued the "cause" afterwards.
Also, we might consider Hume's notion that we THINK causes and effects, we do not actually SEE them. A billiard ball moves up to another and stops. THEN, the other ball begins to move. We THINK that the first ball acted as an agent or force for the movement of the second ball, but what we actually SAW was one ball stop and another move.
I think he likes to see his name and his milandering spew of nothing of importance. The proof would be how many words he need to explain that of which has no importance.
How does he keep anything going if few people read what he writes?
The Buddhist Law is all about causality. But the Law is so profound it is defined at "mystic" or beyond the comprehension of even the best brains to comprehend. We can only understand causality through faith and through our experience.
Nickfun, I imagine that Causality, in the karmic sense, is different from that of deterministic thinking.
Snookered, I take Coberst's offerings seriously; I rarely take yours seriously.
JLNobody wrote:Nickfun, I imagine that Causality, in the karmic sense, is different from that of deterministic thinking.
Snookered, I take Coberst's offerings seriously; I rarely take yours seriously.
That's interesting because you have never posted on this one. Probably none of the rest either. I will see.
I think you just like to try and start arguments that lead everyone off what ever topic it is. See, your so transparent I already have you figured out...easy.
All you have to do is count his post and county the responses and you will have an answer of how many give a **** to what he has to say. I believe that you two like to fantasize about what it would be like being a intellectual. Must be frustrating, but it's funny to see.
You go ahead and take this offerings seriously...just try to stay on point.
snookered wrote:Not to be a critical thinker, but I would like to know what makes a person start so many topics, even when they know that few will pay attention.
Essay writing is an important part of my learning process. Curiosity and caring drive me to seek understanding. Understanding and caring drives me to a desire to communicate, i.e. to share my understanding with others. Ergo I post on these forums.
My message to all who will pause and listen is that not only is an intellectual life fulfilling for the individual but it has great relevance to the success of a democracy.
I just posted an OP about play is fulfilling to humans. What I find interesting about this matter is that I have been a self-learner for 25 years and have always wondered just why I found this activity to be so satisfying. Now I know, it is play.
snookered wrote:Not to be a critical thinker, but I would like to know what makes a person start so many topics, even when they know that few will pay attention.
Perhaps it is because someone still is paying attention even if it's just to ask why this person keeps going? (hehehe just kidding snookered) Honestly though I think probably the best way to get rid of someone you don't want around is to ignore them completely. After all if the only thing they are after is attention... well eventually they'll get bored and go away. However even if they don't you've fixed your problem in that you are no longer paying attention to them anyway, right? So they can go on... you can go on... it's all good.
I rarely read any of the threads posted by coberst myself. Not because I don't think they could be interesting, but mainly because I've tried to read a few and for the most part they are very lengthy and sometimes a bit confusing. Nothing against coberst of course. But I do think I've learned a little bit from this person, even if I haven't read a whole lot of their stuff. As far as I'm concerned though... it's live and let live. If this is how coberst is, well more power to him I guess. At least he hasn't given up just because people sometimes come down on him.
I respect that about him.
One should never be surprised to learn that Coberst is confused.
Ignoring Coberst won't change a thing. It has been demonstrated that Coberst posts the same drivel at a great many web sites. At one of them, a thread was started which was entitled: "I hate Coberst." The thread's author suggested that Coberst be banned from that site for being an idiot.
Oh I'm not surprised at all. We're in an open forum where just about anyone can say just about anything at just about any time without much consequence. So I guess it's to be expected to a certain extent. Sometimes more from some than from others. So, maybe it won't help in the efforts to get rid of him, but it may at least help the person ignoring him in that they aren't wasting any time on such "drivel".
That's a reasonable enough way to look at it. I confess that i enjoy occasionally "jerking his chain."
It's always a little fun to jerk someone's chain once in a while. I know there have been times I've enjoyed it as well.
Coberst doesn't have to justify himself to anyone. We all write drivel at times. My only complaint is that his offerings are often too long. But that's true of just everyone except Fresco, Osso, Dys, Gus and me. :wink:
Oh no... not I... "I've" never written any drivel... most definitely not any loooooooong drivel.... Everything "I've" written is perfectly clear, concise, to the point... without any wasted words. Absolutely... positively...
NOT.
Re: Causality can cause confusion
coberst wrote:Causality can cause confusion
Lack of causality can also cause confusion.
IMO The issue on this thread..."causality" IS a signficant philosophical issue but it is raised by coberst's latest bit of reading... NOT HIM ! Consequently, as with many other issues he raises second hand, coberst has no eqipment to handle it himself. Coberst is an intellectual kibbitzer, not a participant.
fresco wrote:IMO The issue on this thread..."causality" IS a signficant philosophical issue but it is raised by coberst's latest bit of reading... NOT HIM ! Consequently, as with many other issues he raises second hand, coberst has no eqipment to handle it himself. Coberst is an intellectual kibbitzer, not a participant.
I think that opinions are OK for chatting about. But for serious matters we must rely on educated opinion or better still upon good judgment.
Tradeing opinions with fellows is an interesting way to spend the time but on occassion adults must give way to an intellectual attempt to solve world problems. Such activity does not lend it self to empty exchanges of opinion.
As they say opinions are a dime-a-dozen. In order to engage on an adult level about serious matters one needs to have learned some bits of knowledge. Better still is if the adult has understood some of these things learned.
Quote:Question for your judgment
You are missing parts of the equation and how a TV show is created, which will help to answer your question.
The producer makes the show before there ever is an audience or advertisers. Think about the TV shows done for Showtime and HBO, there is no advertising even when the show is a hit. The money is made from subscribers. The TV show is often created and first episode shot before the producer attempts to sell the show to any buyer. Networks buy the shows to produce revenue. In the case of broadcast it is ad revenue but advertising is not the only revenue source.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace