Causality is Absolute

>Experience and matter are just the same thing looked at differently.
Matter can be accounted for using logic, we have a causal account back to a more fundamental part of reality but the fundamentals can't be accounted for, we can only arrange the blocks we have.
>nothing uncaused can be perceived
Except everything. Everything is an exception to your rule.

You're saying everything is made of the kind of blocks you're familiar with. I'm pointing out that can't be the case because you can't arrange the blocks in a way that makes blocks like this suddenly exist in the first place. Saying everything is matter is pretending the elements you're familiar with are the totality while obvious examples to the contrary stare you in the face. This is the instinct of a slave that wants to limit his own ability to explore reality.

The issue is that you think there are objective rules that govern reality. There aren't. The type of person that makes up these rules (priest/ philosopher/scientist) wants you to believe in them absolutely because that makes him more important.

go ahead and prove matter exists, I'll wait

As I already said here

By which I meant causality is “mere” and morally neutral, and that good and evil do not exist outside the causal interactions leading to their conception. Also, more deeply, it men and morals cannot transcend the Matter that acts as the medium of causality. Obviously “causality” does not drive behavior, it is particular causes that drive particular behaviors, that was just a way of speaking.

when I say “causality” I am not indicating any universal rule for why things Happen, I’m only indicating that every particular thing is a rule for something else. It is the individual things that are causes, not the abstract rule itself.

>it’s just another experience
Says nothing.
Matter is something like a form of energy bound in complex interactions we label quarks or whatever. Eventually any account of a thing uses some fundamental elements we can't account for. Logical models can't do any more, ever, it's how they work.
In the case of experience itself you can't even begin to account for any part of it, you have nothing at all. It's a complete mystery which you work hard to ignore so you can pretend our very limited models of very limited phenomena that you don't even understand yourself have more weight than they really do.

I didn’t say that. You’re the one evidently using a new age understanding of what “consciousness” actually is.
[...]
I’m not confusing them, I’m saying the mind is simply a type of quality, and that your insistence that they are ontologically different is mere dogmatism.

>I’m not confusing them
Then account for the phenomena of experience itself. I roughly understand how a brain works, no matter how detailed that description will be it will never account for why the thing experiences anything. It can't be modeled because it's not subject to the same kind of logic the things you like to focus on are.

>causality is in the essence of existence itself, not merely our epistemological models of it
How would you know that? You can only describe your ideas about reality, you have no clue how well the encompass the truth, just how practical they are for specific human-centric goals.
>I stated
You stating shit means nothing. You don't even understand the absolute basics of the things you're making statements about. You don't know physics but appeal to fricking "matter".
>causality is prior to logic
Another good example of not having the slightest clue.
>x is merely a [braindead metaphor based on conditioned assumptions]
Great, now this is cleared up and nobody has to think ever again.

>I can clearly state the fact that you have already decided what I believe beforehand
There's no virtuous goal that leads down the road of making these posts. You're not interested in thinking.
>causality is in the essence of existence itself, not merely our epistemological models of it
This is proof of that. You want to claim your ideas are reality, to lie to yourself that you have it all figured out.
>I haven’t found any reason not to believe them
Which is the exact same thing as saying you find them practical.
>None of this is relevant to my goals
How do you not know you're a moron? Surely there have been some kind of clues in your life.

>By “causality” I am not referring to my idea of causality but what I think my idea represents
There is no fricking difference moron. You have a map of a territory, other people disagree and say your map is wrong. Your replies, over and over are "my map is right therefore my map is right". You don't even try to support the idea.

>You also repeatedly assume that mind is not a qualia because it just can’t be
I'm desperately asking for any account, there's no attempt at an explanation even given. Just that your map is right because it accurately reflect the territory and is therefore right. It's the same as when I dig deeper into anything you say like when you talk about "matter". You have no clue what matter is, don't even bother to look it up before making moronic statements about it.

>Yes there is,
>causality is in the essence of existence itself, not merely our epistemological models of it
This is stating that your map is the territory and therefore your map is correct. It's braindead. It's the foundation of every word out of your mouth so you can justify anything. You're right because you're right because you're right.

>causality and essence
Causality and existence*

Are you saying memory gives them identity or that identity is transcendental inexplicable non-causal thing? If you are saying that memory gives them a sense of identity, you’ve answered yourself for me. It’s a qualia caused by memory.

I thought you were asking me why identity Is possible and getting mad that I instead answered why qualia Is possible. Now you are getting mad that I haven’t explained how to scientifically test my theory for why qualia is possible. Do you want me to scientifically test your theory that memory causes a sense of identity to be attached to phenomena? First of all that was never my theory, my theory was that identity arose from social interaction. This has been tested by, for example, the mirror test, and you can use the mirror test to guess that at some point babies develop a sense of identity, indicating that it is not a transcendental subject but another learned concept. The inference that there is a self creates the experience of a self.
> Does computer memory with 8 bytes have qualia? Why? Why not?
Talking about computers and qualia is a bit pointless because we, as humans, have a noumenal insight into ourselves, but when it comes to things that are non-human, we only have representations of them. If matter produces qualia then there must be something external to us that has qualia. But whether that external entity is organized like the computer in our representation is not easily knowable. There is something which produces the representation of the computer which has qualia, that is all I can say to that.

> I want causes that account for the phenomena. Parameters that dictate its behavior.
Then I refer you back to

I thought you were asking me why identity Is possible and getting mad that I instead answered why qualia Is possible. Now you are getting mad that I haven’t explained how to scientifically test my theory for why qualia is possible. Do you want me to scientifically test your theory that memory causes a sense of identity to be attached to phenomena? First of all that was never my theory, my theory was that identity arose from social interaction. This has been tested by, for example, the mirror test, and you can use the mirror test to guess that at some point babies develop a sense of identity, indicating that it is not a transcendental subject but another learned concept. The inference that there is a self creates the experience of a self.
> Does computer memory with 8 bytes have qualia? Why? Why not?
Talking about computers and qualia is a bit pointless because we, as humans, have a noumenal insight into ourselves, but when it comes to things that are non-human, we only have representations of them. If matter produces qualia then there must be something external to us that has qualia. But whether that external entity is organized like the computer in our representation is not easily knowable. There is something which produces the representation of the computer which has qualia, that is all I can say to that.

[...]
Also, the idea of “me” is an empirically constructed idea. If no one else existed, I couldn’t see my body from the outside, and I was not a social animal, I would never have created the idea of me.

Your points about logic are irrelevant because causality is prior to logic. As I’ve already said, causality is in the essence of existence itself, not merely our epistemological models of it. And anyway, I already stated that realizing that matter is merely the shape of experience and that experience is caused by matter already gets rid of the need to “explain” anything. But if you still want to explain why for Example experience is continuous while the brain is discrete, there are many ways to explain that. For example, using hylomorphism to state that the shape of the matter produces the noumenal essence that corresponds to it, ie the soul is the act of the brain. This doesn’t violate anything u e said. You can also use something like. Whiteheads category of the ultimate or really most things in whiteheads philosophy, you just have to make it coherent without creativity to make it consistent with what I’ve said.

> What elements can we arrange together to make qualia emerge?
Literally everything that happens has some kind of qualia somewhere out there. I already said this. Arrange together any fricking elements you want. You just won’t be able to predict what kind of qualia or where it is as Is aid here.

I thought you were asking me why identity Is possible and getting mad that I instead answered why qualia Is possible. Now you are getting mad that I haven’t explained how to scientifically test my theory for why qualia is possible. Do you want me to scientifically test your theory that memory causes a sense of identity to be attached to phenomena? First of all that was never my theory, my theory was that identity arose from social interaction. This has been tested by, for example, the mirror test, and you can use the mirror test to guess that at some point babies develop a sense of identity, indicating that it is not a transcendental subject but another learned concept. The inference that there is a self creates the experience of a self.
> Does computer memory with 8 bytes have qualia? Why? Why not?
Talking about computers and qualia is a bit pointless because we, as humans, have a noumenal insight into ourselves, but when it comes to things that are non-human, we only have representations of them. If matter produces qualia then there must be something external to us that has qualia. But whether that external entity is organized like the computer in our representation is not easily knowable. There is something which produces the representation of the computer which has qualia, that is all I can say to that.

Anyway I think you are a bit confused here, I was never trying to do empirical science and never claimed I was. Even when I said “matter” I was not referring to anything described in physics. I have always been talking about metaphysics.

Dude… I did give account for the phenomena, you just keep saying that I am a moron so my explanations dont count. Until you actually address some of my explanations you are just repeating yourself. Explain why my explanations are bad without saying that I am a moron.
>matter is spooky
Yes, that’s why I said literally at the beginning of this conversation that I don’t think matter as currently understood is the final conception.

I equated existence with experience. I equated the essence of existence with causality. And I explained why existence doesnt require a cause despite causality being absolute here

Besides the answer I gave here[...]
There is another way of looking at it, causality is absolute means all existence is causal. It also means nothing uncaused can be perceived. But that means non-existence cannot be conceived, and hence, to ask what caused existence is nonsensical, as non-existence would be non causal, and to ask what caused existence (causality being the essence of existence) is to ask why there Is not non-existence.

I’m not confusing them, I’m just stating that the mind is an entity created by causality, that delusively believes it is above the matter which it analyzes.
> If we fully model the brain it doesn't account for qualia because it's not part of the causality.
Experience and matter are just the same thing looked at differently. Every material conglomeration has a corresponding experience and vice versa because they are not fundamentally opposed. Perhaps it’s true that you can’t get a full picture of experience by examining matter simply because the concept of matter is an incomplete construct, but that doesn’t mean whatever the complete concept is isn’t subject causality.
> The fundamental elements of the causal rules themselves also can't be causal
Causality is not a rule, it is the essence of experience and matter. And even if existence itself has no cause, all existence is causal, so that’s what is meant by causality is absolute.

so if existence is “uncaused” I’m that asking what it’s cause is incoherent, and existence is merely whatever is common to matter and experience, then I’ve already explained why qualia can be “fundamental”. This whole time I’ve only been explaining what The causes of particular qualia are because qualia itself is merely existence.

We went over this

> You said this mindless shit
You want me to own up not to what I said but to your bizarre interpretation of what I said. The idea that something exists which is prior to any theory can be part of a theory stating it within the theory is not the same as stating that the theory is correct.

and it’s still not relevant to what I just said. You are vascillating between what you want me to do. At first you just want me to explain a phenomenon within my theory. But the when I do, you immediately shift the goalpost to me proving my whole theory from first principles.

ok. I have no evidence to think that you have read past the first sentence of any of my posts.

Where did I lie before? When I didn’t accept that what you though I meant was what I meant? I can see how you think I might be lying when you literally did not even read my explanation of what I actually meant.

What you think that post represents. I didn’t avoid it, I explained exactly what it meant.

First of all, like I said, there are infinite other similar causal universes. So the probability is not exactly 0. But even if there were infinitely more non-causal universes than causal universes, this would be irrelevant for the reason that I already explained. Sure, in one universe, a dragon flies by you as I type this message. So you ask “then what are the odds that I am in this boring universe?”

BUT THE BORING UNIVERSE EXISTS NECESSARILY AND SOMEONE MUST EXPERIENCE IT. THE PROBABILITY IS NOT 0, BUT 100.

> there are infinite other similar causal universes
I disagree, according to causality there is only one thing that can follow from something else because everything is fully determinate. And even if it only has to resemble causality, it still isn’t infinite because it can only consist of slight deviations from one universe
> this would be irrelevant for the reason that I already explained
But here is what I know.
1. I am in a causal universe.
2. If causality is law, there is a one hundred percent chance I’m in. A causal universe.
3. But if causality is not law, there is an extremely small if not zero chance I’m in a causal universe
4. Therefore, even if it’s possible I’m in a non causal universe, it’s still more likely and more reasonable to believe that it is causal

Dude. Saying that causality is prior to thought is not the same thing as saying that thought about causality is true because causality is. It just isn’t.

I didn’t fricking say my model was reality itself, I said that causality was reality, you are simply assuming that causality doesn’t exist outside my model. Also what the frick are you talking about my model when you just said that I had no theory?
> We don't know how accurately our ideas of causality reflect the whole reality
I fricking know and a I’ve been saying that the entire time but you wouldn’t know that.
> and if you mean temporal causality instead of logical causality that's not even very fundamental
I have a more general understanding of causality than both of those.

> Therefore, even if it’s possible I’m in a non causal universe, it’s still more likely and more reasonable to believe that it is causal
That’s exactly the conclusion that would be reached in the causal universe among the non-causal universes, and it would be wrong.

The point is that causality isn’t an absolute law but derived, selected from infinite universes. There necessarily exists a universe that nevertheless has causal patterns. And in that universe, a human thinks to himself,”Causality must be absolute, or else crazy things would happen,” and blinks.

> You said this mindless shit
You want me to own up not to what I said but to your bizarre interpretation of what I said. The idea that something exists which is prior to any theory can be part of a theory stating it within the theory is not the same as stating that the theory is correct.

No lmao, your point about logic was that logic required unexplained object. The reason I said that that was irrelevant was because causality was not a logical system and therefore doesn’t require unexplained objects to derive things from. As I said, I am not squirming away from what I said but from your interpretation of what Insaid

>Not if my reasons are purely philosophical?
It's still about practicality like being able to test things. I can't model things without logic, in practice I have to rely on it. That's not evidence for or implying nothing else exists.

I love how people always act like human behavior is just totally chaotic and not subject to material conditions, or that the brain is this special entity that operates outside of our understanding.

Humans don't even do anything special. We eat, We frick, we cry and fight, build hives and dwellings.

I hate how every scientific mind that ever debunked the concept of fatalism relies on this extremely emotional appeal to the divine or enigmatic processes of the brain. The brain is literally just a hunk of meat in a bone sphere, everything that you think of or imagine is just based on shit that happened before, or substances and chemicals affecting it.

wow you ate a special mushroom and saw....colors and like the universe maaaaannnn congrats, you and every other person that ingested that same shit.

I still don’t understand your point, I am not looking for some spook that will stop you from killing me, I don’t need an imaginary concept to deter you from killing me. If you kill me, that doesn’t change whether it was morally wrong to kill me or whether it was morally neutral inevitable causality.

What do you mean by morally culpable?

I literally don’t know what you mean.

Ok. Then don’t s8impify it. Just say it without using the words morally and culpable. Then I might understand it.

>But it’s only one out of infinity, effectively zero probability of happening
It's selected by the process that already started, creating emergent causal chains.
>You realize it doesn’t make any sense to say that causality evolves when causality isn’t a law to begin with?
Our form of cause and effect like billiard ball style causality is emergent from the small scale probability waves that collapse in a chain that can be traced to macro processes like the energy from the big bang. Within our current science we're already beyond the billiard ball causality, who knows how much more complex it gets. There are some kind of fundamental rules but not necessarily any kind of direct causality we're familiar with, beyond that is something beyond all forms of logic.

Whatever allows coherent logic is necessarily incomprehensible. That you wish the world was simpler doesn't make it so.

[...]
IT WAS THE COOKIE MONSTER, I SAW IT

Goddamn 4 chan fricking my posts up again, IT ISN'T THE GIN I SWEAR