One of the things I can never get away from in my travels is a constant push to have reasons for the things I do. I have no idea why people constantly ask me why I do things; though, not so much as I have no understanding of why I am really doing them. I have some idea of why I moved to Utah, but I really don't know at all why. Yet that is the question I hear most.

I do not think causes and effects, or reasons, exist in reality. It is all just a sea of events that we force our pathetic understandings of on. I think all of those things exist only in our mind. Take a glass for instance. Imagine taking your hand and sweeping it across the table, knocking the glass on to the floor, breaking it. At first blush, it would appear that you have caused the glass to break and the water to spill. Well, what actually caused the glass to break was the glass actually falling, after gravity took hold of it. Gravity caused the glass to break. But that is not true either. The same gravity existed when the glass was on the table, and the glass did not break. Gravity could not have caused the glass to break. If you had performed the same motion on the glass, but it was on the floor instead, it would not have broken.

Our entire system of rules and mechanics and forces and work that we call classical physics is a cover-up for the absolute fact that there are no causes and no effects.

Think about a rock star. A high school dropout who smokes pot and plays guitar all day with his stoner buddies, one of which happens to be a bassist, another can eek out a beat with his drums. One gig at the local pub runs into another, and pretty soon these boys have a record deal. They make a ton of cash. There are no causes and no effects when it comes to making music and getting rich. These things just happen, and more often than not, all we can attribute it to is pure dumb luck. Nothing but sheer coincidence. Going to school and studying music might help you, it might not. Having a job might hurt you, it might not. We never really know.

We like to think we have an idea of how these things work. We call those ideas statistics, or probability, usually as a front for a purely emotional appeal to what we think is "right" about the world. We like to think that if we work hard, we will be rewarded. In fact all of our reasons, our causes and effects, as well as our logic and rationality, boils down to pure, raw, irrational emotion. But the universe does not care, and goes about its work without even skipping a beat.

You raise the issue of conscience and most of all, free will. Is what we perceive as our will and the possibilty to affect the world around us an illusion ?
Neurobiological experiments have shown that, when scanning people asked to do a certain move, some neurons actually commanded the move before they felt they "decided" to make the move. That would support your point.
Another interpretation though is that our conscience is slower than our deep-rooted will …

I'm not so certain that we don't have free will, but I am not sure that we have it, either.

I think it is all illusion. Even the aforementioned glass is an illusion, provided to us by our brain which thinks a glass is there, based on the photons entering your eye. The glass may be there, it may not be. When you look at a picture of a blue sky on a computer monitor, it has the same effect on the brain as if you were looking out the window, even though the sky outside is real, and the sky in your monitor is an illusion. The brain doesn't know or care what the difference between reality and illusion is. We merely think we do. Some experimentation with optical illusions will easily show you that the brain often makes up information that doesn't exist in reality. I have found that the brain is constantly making up information that just flat out doesn't exist.

Take for example, two people which have a sexual attraction to one another, but are too shy to actually take the initiative and ask each other out. They are constantly making up reasons why they should not ask the other out, reasons with no basis in reality. That is a good metaphor, in my opinion, for the whole concept of the "human condition." Anybody, with a little observation, can discover countless times throughout the day when he makes information up about the world out of whole cloth, with nothing supporting those ideas but pure, base emotion.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Napsterbater
... When you look at a picture of a blue sky on a computer monitor, it has the same effect on the brain as if you were looking out the window, even though the sky outside is real, and the sky in your monitor is an illusion. The brain doesn't know or care what the difference between reality and illusion is.
======================================

Nap, glad to see that you possibly comprehended some of the things we discussed previously about the reality that one chooses to accept. :p

Nap, glad to see that you possibly comprehended some of the things we discussed previously about the reality that one chooses to accept.

The funny thing is, I've known this for a few years now. You aren't the first to talk about this sort of stuff with me. You were just too on guard against me "shaking" you, that you never saw it. :P

Our entire system of rules and mechanics and forces and work that we call classical physics is a cover-up for the absolute fact that there are no causes and no effects. A cover-up implies a deliberate conspiracy, which I am sure is not what you mean.
I do not think causes and effects, or reasons, exist in reality.The ontology of cause and effect certainly is up for debate. The universe is a highly complex, multi-variable entity. To pick out two events such as a glass pushed and then the glass breaking is being selective in order to make sense of the world. However it is a reasonable selection as demonstrated by the fact that it does indeed help us to make sense of things.
We call those ideas statistics, or probability, usually as a front for a purely emotional appeal to what we think is "right" about the world. We like to think that if we work hard, we will be rewarded. In fact all of our reasons, our causes and effects, as well as our logic and rationality,
Cause and effect thinking comes naturally to us humans as it is grounded in our perceived experience. Things happen in sequence, with correlation, and noticing this serves us very well very often. (It also fails very often e.g. cause: sin; effect: natural disaster is a common myth).

However probablistic & statistical thinking is something quite different that does not come naturally to us - it is an abstraction that not all achieve even as adults. People think that a dice behaves randomly. For a single throw it does, but for a thousand throws it will obey a predicatble probability distribution to a high degree. When it comes to random behaviours such as dice, cause-and-effect thinking goes out the window, probablistic thinking rules.

I'm not so certain that we don't have free will, but I am not sure that we have it, either.
Yeah I give up on that too. I have no idea.

The brain doesn't know or care what the difference between reality and illusion is. We merely think we do. Some experimentation with optical illusions will easily show you that the brain often makes up information that doesn't exist in reality.
You realise the flaw in that argumentation, don't you? If the brain cannot determine an illusion then how is it possible to reflect, using one's brain, and say "ah yes. I see now that that was an illusion." This reflection must come with further sense data (such as having the illusion demonstrated or explained) so how do I know the new data (and evoked reflection) is not an illusion too? Your argument, then, is that the brain can discriminate between reality and illusion - the opposite of what you intended.

A cover-up implies a deliberate conspiracy, which I am sure is not what you mean.

Perhaps I should have used covering?

The ontology of cause and effect certainly is up for debate. The universe is a highly complex, multi-variable entity. To pick out two events such as a glass pushed and then the glass breaking is being selective in order to make sense of the world. However it is a reasonable selection as demonstrated by the fact that it does indeed help us to make sense of things.

Isn't it strange, how the entire basis of determinalistic science is up for debate? If cause and effect were to not exist, then science would almost be categorically useless.

But, of course, science is not useless.

Things happen in sequence, with correlation, and noticing this serves us very well very often.

Certainly. It makes that pattern of thinking very hard to break. But, I think, that, for the majority of Americans, breaking that pattern, and looking at the emotional causes of thought-patterns, can only help them.

Take this as an example. A husband and wife are fighting over something silly, like, oh, say, washing dishes. The real argument isn't about dishes. That is just an excuse to argue. They are really dissatisfied with one another emotionally. There are thousands of reasons why they could be dissatisfied with one another, it never boils down to just one thing. If they would get out of the destructive thought-pattern that "He doesn't help out around the house!" or "She really is a bitch to bring this up just as I got my new raise!", and look at the emotions surrounding it, they could work it out. Whereas if they didn't, the argument probably won't get anywhere.

Why are they dissatisfied with one another? There really is no reason why. That is the jist of what I am trying to communicate. One can think of any number of reasons why, but the human animal is first and foremost an irrational one, even if the universe is rational.

You realise the flaw in that argumentation, don't you?

Certainly. But then, I would argue that the conclusion that the brain is coming to that, "this is an illusion," is itself an illusion, so to speak. One could say that the new illusion is better than the old one. One could spend an entire lifetime trying to improve your illusion. Is there a point? Who knows...

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Isn't it strange, how the entire basis of determinalistic science is up for debate? If cause and effect were to not exist, then science would almost be categorically useless.The fact that cause-and-effect is a mental construct does not render deterministic science useless anymore than the fact that the number 2 is a mental construct renders mathematics useless. Both acknowledge an "as if attitude" regarding ontology. So, although determinstic Newtonian mechanics has been superceded by non-deterministic (probablistic) quantum mechanics at the small scale, ships are still built "as if" the laws of Newton and the number 2 really exist.

Much of cause-and-effect type thinking in science has been superceded by other types of thinking from relativity theory through to string theory. No one claims these things have ontological existance - that is why they are called theories. They are socio-mental reflections and constructions on human experience. The only people I can think of who cling to simplistic notions of logic and so on existing outside of human minds are those theists who argue "everything has a cause so the universe must have had a cause" etc.

Certainly. It makes that pattern of thinking very hard to break. But, I think, that, for the majority of Americans, breaking that pattern, and looking at the emotional causes of thought-patterns, can only help them.I thought causes don't exist? Anyway, I don't see how emotions or people's silliness has any bearing on the existence (or not as we both seem to agree) of abstract entities such as cause and effect.

Certainly. But then, I would argue that the conclusion that the brain is coming to that, "this is an illusion," is itself an illusion, so to speak. One could say that the new illusion is better than the old one. One could spend an entire lifetime trying to improve your illusion. Is there a point? Who knows...Life may well be an illusion. My point was only that you would be well advised to avoid the "optical illusions" example as it contradicts your contention.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
The funny thing is, I've known this for a few years now. You aren't the first to talk about this sort of stuff with me. You were just too on guard against me "shaking" you, that you never saw it. :P
====================================

One has no reason to be on guard against an impossibility.

The fact that cause-and-effect is a mental construct does not render deterministic science useless anymore than the fact that the number 2 is a mental construct renders mathematics useless.

Ahh, I see, I see.

I thought causes don't exist? Anyway, I don't see how emotions or people's silliness has any bearing on the existence (or not as we both seem to agree) of abstract entities such as cause and effect.

Precisely, but we have to have a model for conversation. As pointed out earlier, human beings gravitate towards cause and effect-type thinking. Much of our conversation would be useless if we did not admit that that form of thinking has at least some merit. Certainly, if I knock a glass over onto a hard floor, most times it will break. The fact that we did or did not cause the breaking is a purely philisophical notion. The language structure just doesn't seem to exist for probabalistic or statistical thinking in the vernacular.

I see it like this. We cannot divorce emotional reality from physical reality, and expect to get a whole picture of the universe. Both are just as real for human beings. Belief in cause and effect in one realm bleeds over into belief in the other. While the determinalistic model works well for things like building airplanes, it is markedly less so for social dynamics, where emotions rule. Emotions are some of the least determinalistic things we can find. Yet most people seem to try to fit it into that model. They think that they are unhappy because of *this*. There is no because there, they are just unhappy. They think they are happy because of *this*. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are merely happy, or unhappy. And the words themselves are only an approximation. There is no one emotion called "happy".

Now, one can have a determinalistic model for their emotions, and it might work, for a little while at least. But it's like drawing a map in the sand.

My point was only that you would be well advised to avoid the "optical illusions" example as it contradicts your contention.

I made the statement, not to support my main point, but to argue that our brains often make information up. I can see what you mean concerning the main idea, though, even if I don't see where the contradiction lies. We might look at one reality and say it is better than another, and it might even work for awhile, but both models are flawed. We can look at two things and say, one is reality, and one is an illusion, but we are still making the information up in our heads.

One has no reason to be on guard against an impossibility.

Human beings are not reasonable creatures.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
One of the things I can never get away from in my travels is a constant push to have reasons for the things I do.

It is a human disease of sorts, we look for meaning and question everything...sometimes in the wrong places, or at the wrong times. When in reality much of human behavior often can arise from spontaneity, the causes may be unexplainable twitches and imbalances in our chemical workings of our brain that cause us to do things or decide things beyond our comprehension. Perhaps we spend not enough time working or too much and these questions arise out of our deep-seated need for purpose. Humans have trouble coping with their insignificance, others with their beauty, and act out accordingly. But i ramble, on to more...

I have no idea why people constantly ask me why I do things; though, not so much as I have no understanding of why I am really doing them. I have some idea of why I moved to Utah, but I really don't know at all why. Yet that is the question I hear most.

Out of naturally inherent curiosity we are propelled to learn about others, and the reasoning behind things. It has propped up much of scientific achievement in the past, as well as many discoveries. That would explain why they asked, in a very simplified and vague way, that is.

As for your relocation to SLC, there had to have been reasons or motivations, perhaps they do not surface in your mind...but they are indeed there, otherwise you would not have moved.
Causality governs the physical world, everything has reason or purpose of existance or birth, otherwise it would never have occurred or appeared.

I do not think causes and effects, or reasons, exist in reality. It is all just a sea of events that we force our pathetic understandings of on. I think all of those things exist only in our mind.

That depends on our concept of what is reality. This sea of events in our perceived physical realm have in fact, causes and effects, because there is space and time, as well as the magnetic and other forces that govern physics of the here and now.

These things do also, only exist in our mind. But we are bound to fall prey to these possible fallacies because of how our simple brain works. Our perception is what forces us to see a difference between a sea of events with a ball hitting a net and the forces that caused the ball to hit the net. How it occurred and why are present to us, so we cannot forgo the fact that of what the human mind currently is capable of, so we must accept this explanation of our world.

Take a glass for instance. Imagine taking your hand and sweeping it across the table, knocking the glass on to the floor, breaking it. At first blush, it would appear that you have caused the glass to break and the water to spill. Well, what actually caused the glass to break was the glass actually falling, after gravity took hold of it. Gravity caused the glass to break. But that is not true either. The same gravity existed when the glass was on the table, and the glass did not break. Gravity could not have caused the glass to break. If you had performed the same motion on the glass, but it was on the floor instead, it would not have broken.

The momentum and forces of the glass falling from that altitude caused it to impact the floor and break, as a result of the gravity of the air and motion of your hand. There is method to the madness, i am no physicist, but the world can always be explained...whether humans will be able to grasp the explanation is another matter.

Our entire system of rules and mechanics and forces and work that we call classical physics is a cover-up for the absolute fact that there are no causes and no effects.

You have decided to spruce up the forums by adding this thread, i have responded as a result of it, and you may very well respond to this. You've triggered a causal stage of events, cause and effect is quite evident.

Think about a rock star. A high school dropout who smokes pot and plays guitar all day with his stoner buddies, one of which happens to be a bassist, another can eek out a beat with his drums. One gig at the local pub runs into another, and pretty soon these boys have a record deal. They make a ton of cash. There are no causes and no effects when it comes to making music and getting rich. These things just happen, and more often than not, all we can attribute it to is pure dumb luck. Nothing but sheer coincidence. Going to school and studying music might help you, it might not. Having a job might hurt you, it might not. We never really know.

There are always reasons, as i have stated before. You can discover algorithms and study the human brain, as well as music and the how the three tie in. Then you can create music that will be successful and you will benefit from it based on the economic systems present. Going to school, studying music, working hard, writing music, having the coincidental talent...all these things play into it and there are biological reasons in humans for it. We never really know, but we could were we to pry into the supposed mysteries of how such events play out.

We like to think we have an idea of how these things work.

Human flaw perhaps...or a great strength.

We call those ideas statistics, or probability, usually as a front for a purely emotional appeal to what we think is "right" about the world.

We can use mathematics to explain how everything, no matter how fundamental or insignifcant, works. What is "right" and what is "truth" or "real" are different matters.

We like to think that if we work hard, we will be rewarded.

You will in some form or fashion, always, whether tangible or otherwise.

In fact all of our reasons, our causes and effects, as well as our logic and rationality, boils down to pure, raw, irrational emotion.

What of the emotionless world of nature, beyond humans there is indeed cause and effect apparent, and void of emotion as well.

But the universe does not care, and goes about its work without even skipping a beat.

Indeed it does, and my response may have been vague and unclear, or improperly expressed my views. But it is an interesting post Napster, it is just that with the basic nature of the human mind, we are forced to accept these "realities" of the physical world, and effects always have causes, and vice versa, in this realm. Just a thought.

You guys are really getting complicated in here. Of course you need to do something to contribute to your survival so, yes, it does matter if you have a job or not. If you have to push yourself for a reason to explain your actions
maybe you're re-acting too much and not being yourself. Relax Nap, life can be simple for a simple kinda man.

As for your relocation to SLC, there had to have been reasons or motivations, perhaps they do not surface in your mind...but they are indeed there, otherwise you would not have moved.

When I lived in Atlanta, I had a girlfriend who just could not relax and allow things to flow. She was continuously over-analysing everything to do with me and the relationship, to the point where without my gentle yet firm reframing of the situation, we never would have had any fun together. She just couldn't have any fun until I kept telling her to stop searching for the damn reasons for everything, and to quit trying to be right all the time.

Life would be oh so much more fun if we were to quit the constant search.

There are always reasons, as i have stated before. You can discover algorithms and study the human brain, as well as music and the how the three tie in. Then you can create music that will be successful and you will benefit from it based on the economic systems present. Going to school, studying music, working hard, writing music, having the coincidental talent...all these things play into it and there are biological reasons in humans for it. We never really know, but we could were we to pry into the supposed mysteries of how such events play out.

The first statement contradicts the rest. If the ontology of cause and effect were to be believed, then there would be a set formula that worked all the time. One does not exist.

We can use mathematics to explain how everything, no matter how fundamental or insignifcant, works.

Not so. There is a growing area of physics called complex systems, where all the mathematics in the world won't help you predict much past a certain point.

Euclidian geometry is very useful, but it doesn't exist in space, to provide another example. Mathematics is useful, but it is not the be-all and end-all of the universe.

You will in some form or fashion, always, whether tangible or otherwise.

You will be rewarded, but not necessarily due to your hard work. We just like to think so.

What of the emotionless world of nature, beyond humans there is indeed cause and effect apparent, and void of emotion as well.

You can say that only because you have a human perspective. Animals do not have a sense of cause and effect. That is still an observation coming from humans, it does not reflect the rest of reality.

You guys are really getting complicated in here.

That's what we do in here!

If you have to push yourself for a reason to explain your actions
maybe you're re-acting too much and not being yourself.

I do not. It is a push from others. When they ask me, "Why did you come back?" I have to answer them. Being myself, to me, means to coming up with the best answer that I can. Which means pushing myself. Now, my preferred explanation is, "No reason at all."

Relax Nap, life can be simple for a simple kinda man.

For the most part it is. I can pick and choose how complex I live my life, something most people don't have. When I come onto these boards, it is an exercise for me to use my brain in new and novel ways. I often choose to get down and dirty with simple phenomena that everybody else takes for granted, like causality. I like to pretend that I don't have all the answers on it and dig for some better ones.

When it comes to relaxing, as anybody that knows me in person can tell you, I know how to relax. *smug tone to convey that I know more about this than everybody else*