Causality is Absolute

>but muh free will!
Nope, sorry. Causality is Absolute.
>But muh transcendence of Being!
Nope, sorry. Causality is Absolute.
>But muh divine creativity!
Nope, sorry. Causality is Absolute.
>But muh potentiality!
Nope, sorry. Causality is Absolute.
>But muh irrational Will!
Nope, sorry. Causality is Absolute.
>But muh subjectivity!
Nope, sorry. Causality is Absolute.
>But muh Ding an sich!
Nope, sorry. Causality is Absolute.
>But muh das Absolute!
Nope, sorry. Causality is Absolute.
>But muh indeterminacy!
Nope, sorry. Causality is Absolute.
>But muh Nothingness!
Nope, sorry. Causality is Absolute.
>But muh Nitrums Brahman! Muh unconditioned atman!
Nope, sorry. Causality is Absolute.
>But muh Nibbana! Muh escape from samsara!
Nope, sorry. Causality is Absolute.
>But muh Will to Power!
Nope, sorry. Dependent/posterior on/to Causality.
>But muh morality!
Nope, sorry. Causality drives behavior, not good and evil.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Voluntary Fool
  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    whoops, I forgot
    >But muh Heisenberg uncertainty!
    Yeah, sorry. Causality is Absolute.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >causality is absolute
      Your causality can't touch my randomness. I may not have free will but you also can't predict me.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        > Your causality can't touch my randomness
        I don’t have to predict you when you’ll probably just randomly explode or teleport to another dimension or something if we got into a fight. Of all the infinite random things that could happen to you, only a small fraction of them lead to my death, so I’m likely to win.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    How does causality drive behavior?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Gotcha. So why doesn’t matter itself drive behavior if it is said to simply mediate the causes in their doing so?

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    How does saying "Causality is Absolute" debunk half of these? Terrible thread, 4/10 because the bait actually angered me

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Which one do you not understand how causality debunks?

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The phenomena that perceives, the thing you identify as yourself even before you're aware of your body is not dependent on any causal phenomena you can come up with.
    Therefore "you" are a spirit/daemon not meat. You were on earth before your body and you'll be there after, in the volcanoes L. Ron Hubbard described (this part is a humorous addition not meant to be taken too seriously, merely a jest in the style I have become accustomed to).

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >muh subject object distinction
      Nope. The subject is just a particular type of entity produced by causality, same as all objects. You only think that it is different because it has the illusion of volition.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're confusing the mind and the phenomena that perceives. If we fully model the brain it doesn't account for qualia because it's not part of the causality.
        The fundamental elements of the causal rules themselves also can't be causal. If something caused causality that's causal, causality was already there without a cause.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Existence should be the only “block” you need.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I’m not claiming matter as I understand it is the elements of everything. Matter is simply one of our best guesses at what existence might be. There is a substance like experience and like matter the conditioning of which by causality which is its essence causes the emergence of the things that I am familiar with.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >muh subject object distinction
      Nope. The subject is just a particular type of entity produced by causality, same as all objects. You only think that it is different because it has the illusion of volition.

      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.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    What causes the cause?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Besides the answer I gave here

      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.

      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.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Acceptable. You're trending very close to some nondualist philosophies.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Dostoevsky debunked this in Notes from Underground

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      With what? More muh subjectivity or muh morals cope? Dostoevsky removed himself form philosophic discourse by declaring Christ is superior to truth anyway. At least Kierkegaard denies objective truth exists rather than opposing it outright.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Of course God is above truth, which is merely an instrument of social control. What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Isn’t this Nietzsche? It doesn’t refute causality anyway, it only implies that our conception of causality is merely an analogue to what causality really is, which I never denied as I’ve clearly left open how exactly causality and existence so relate to produce the universe we occupy.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Bro what if real life was fake
            Can we please just not with this childish bullshit.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            go ahead and prove matter exists, I'll wait

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you must participate in my fiction
            This is no different than trannies forcing everyone to believe they're women. Your position is clearly unfalsifiable, I don't know what you were expecting.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    "If a quantity of force determines and conducts itself in a certain way in every particular case, it does not prove that it has 'no free will'" - Fred Nitzsch

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      This assumes there is an aseptic essence called “force” that is the cause of its own behavior by its nature. But by causality, everything gets its essence only from conditioning by other entities. Thus the force is not the reason the force always behaves the same way, it is the other causes of the force that make it the force.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >aseptic
        Aseitic*

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >assumes
        He observes the same phenomena you do and their apparent causal relationships but notes the surface appearance of causality doesn't prove anything about "free will". The appearance of will is happening to the phenomena that experiences which apparently sits outside all our rules. You haven't accounted for it at all so you can't say you have any kind of proof related to how it operates.

        I’m not claiming matter as I understand it is the elements of everything. Matter is simply one of our best guesses at what existence might be. There is a substance like experience and like matter the conditioning of which by causality which is its essence causes the emergence of the things that I am familiar with.

        >causes the emergence of the things that I am familiar with.
        Except everything, including your experience itself and matter. You're trying to make the limited models that I already accept as working to predict physical things more authoritative and all-encompassing despite clearly not being up to the job.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          > The appearance of will is happening to the phenomena that experiences which apparently sits outside all our rules. You haven't accounted for it at all so you can't say you have any kind of proof related to how it operates.
          How have I not accounted for it?it’s just another experience. You’re simply being dogmatic in your insistence that will and the subject are not subject to causality. We can easily study and empirically test and predict people’s will, behavior, decisions, etc. we can and have found biochemical causes of people’s behavior, regardless of whether they think that behavior was “willed.”

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Now you make it beyond obvious that you have not really been engaging with my posts. I could have pointed this out earlier but didn’t want to assume the worst and wanted to maintain discourse. But now that you’ve broken it yourself I can clearly state the fact that you have already decided what I believe beforehand and have only been selectively reading my posts for things that you can fit into this idea of what I think.
            > How would you know that?
            Obviously I have other epistemological thoughts if you really want me to get into that
            > You can only describe your ideas about reality
            And what are the ideas descriptions of? Reality.
            > you have no clue how well the encompass the truth
            I haven’t found any reason not to believe them
            > just how practical they are for specific human-centric goals.
            None of this is relevant to my goals

            >CAUSALITY IS ABSOLUTE x 1000
            >A wild Humechad appears!
            >Well, acktchually he didn't completely destroy causality because hem haw hem haw backtrack retreat kick up dust prevaricate x1000
            Inductionlets, when will they learn? Leave this thread immediately or I will be forced to post Wittgenstein

            I didn’t backpedal at all lmao. Hume was answered already by philosophers that came after him.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > You want to claim your ideas are reality
            By “causality” I am not referring to my idea of causality but what I think my idea represents. I already said the same thing with regard to matter.
            > You're not interested in thinking.
            Then I would just be posting soijaks against you like

            >CAUSALITY IS ABSOLUTE x 1000
            >A wild Humechad appears!
            >Well, acktchually he didn't completely destroy causality because hem haw hem haw backtrack retreat kick up dust prevaricate x1000
            Inductionlets, when will they learn? Leave this thread immediately or I will be forced to post Wittgenstein

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > There is no fricking difference moron
            Yes there is, I even have precedents for stating that terms in predications refer to the thing and not to the idea of the thing. If you take the term to refer to the idea it makes everything more confusing.
            >my map is right therefore my map is right
            You also repeatedly assume that mind is not a qualia because it just can’t be. And anyway this debate hasn’t been about me proving that causality is real from first principles. it’s mainly been me defending the positions from your attacks of it. So there was never any onus for me to explain why my Map was right, obviously I’ve only been explaining why its not wrong. The only real onus you wanted to put on me was to explain how mind comes from matter. When I offered some explanations you chipped out and reverted to this “well how do you KNOW that?” Skepticism as a last resort. It would obviously be much more difficult for me to prove that causality is accurate rather than simply showing how it can be accurate which is what I’ve been doing. True, causality is just one theory among many, and perhaps I can’t directly prove that it is true without great difficulty. But I can argue that it is superior to other theories and that no good argument can be leveled against it, which is what I have been doing.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You’re just repeating yourself and not even reading my posts. I already gave some explanations here

            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.

            which you have ignored.
            > This is stating that your map is the territory and therefore your map is correct
            no lol , that is simply stating the relation of causality and essence within my theory. I didn’t say my theory is correct, I said that based on my experience of causality it exists prior to epistemology.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >causality and essence
            Causality and existence*

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is no attempt at explaining anything, you just told me you're right, appealed to "matter" again and dropped names you apparently don't understand a word from since you can't express anything coherent.
            You tried to answer some question you read somewhere and didn't understand that I already fricking answered.
            >you still want to explain why for Example experience is continuous while the brain is discrete
            I already explained this and any explanation doesn't give an account for the actual phenomena. Physical memory gives the phenomena a sense of identity. Humans since cavemen times understood this.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It’s a qualia caused by memory.
            You're just revealing over and over that you can't put together a thought on any subject. All you know how to do is parrot things you don't understand.
            How do we reproduce the effect and what are the practical parameters? Does computer memory with 8 bytes have qualia? Why? Why not?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I thought you were asking me why identity Is possible
            You can't be honest with yourself about anything, not even posts you made a few minutes ago.
            The only time I mentioned identity was to explain the observable difference between the meat and the phenomena. Qualia was mentioned many posts before.
            >I instead answered why qualia Is possible
            You said nothing. You seem to not understand how to despite talking about causality. I want causes that account for the phenomena. Parameters that dictate its behavior. The things we can do with every phenomena that's actually subject to what we model with causal logic.

            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

            >No lmao, your point about logic was that logic required unexplained object.
            A requirement is a limitation. You are illiterate, likely an actual woman or child. Please work on the absolute basics.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > 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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I already went through all of those posts, every word is dumber than the last. Read them yourself and the replies. Try to understand why you can't put together anything approximating a thought.
            I gave an example of a rough account of matter, referencing physics.
            What elements can we arrange together to make qualia emerge? What common axioms can you build a model on that describes when qualia is expressed and when not? I'm not asking for a full model, just hints at a rough one like I gave for matter in a single sentence.
            You have no clue what the thing is but just pretend you do for some reason. Nobody who values finding things out would ever behave like this, you're trying to accomplish something different, some kind of manipulation of your own psychology.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > 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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Literally everything that happens has some kind of qualia somewhere out there.
            I agree it's the most reasonable model when we have no other information but you didn't give any account for the phenomena, it's apparently fundamental and beyond your causal models like the rules that allow causality. It's just there apparently. So there's more than causality.
            >when I said “matter” I was not referring to anything described in physics
            I understood you're basically using pre-physics language of philosophers you're parroting. There was a sense of "matter" not being spooky, it was the definite reality and "dualism" was considered an actual thing but matter is spooky as frick, everything is.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Explain why my explanations are bad without saying that I am a moron.
            There are multiple posts above explaining the basics of how models work including an example of a short model accounting for matter.
            The most obvious model for qualia is that it is fundamental. You've said you agree with that. That means it has no causal mechanism explaining it, you can't explain it and neither can anyone else. Your premise that causality is absolute and everything is invalidated by the existence of anything that does not rest on casuality.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I explained why existence doesnt require a cause despite causality being absolute here
            In that post you said the equivalent of
            >given that I'm right that means x
            But x is not something we observe or is bolstered by anything else except assuming you're right.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is no theory. You just say things.
            >nothing uncaused can be perceived
            Nothing but cheese can be perceived therefore everything is cheese and no non cheese things are needed.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

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

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're lying again.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >When I didn’t accept that what you though I meant was what I meant?
            You're still trying to avoid facing the confusion that post represents, whether it's confusion about your words or your thinking.
            The "theory" itself is an attempt to lie to yourself that simple lego brick models encompass more than they do.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I explained exactly what it meant.
            But what you say it meant is not what it means in English. You may have really meant something different which means you're parroting words you don't understand or you may be the type that copes with saying moronic shit by lying to themselves, which seems to be the case. Either way the things you say are based in confusion about basics not any kind of coherent model of anything. There's no "theory" here.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Saying that causality is prior to thought
            Is not relevant to the limits of logic except in my original interpretation where you're saying the limits of logic don't apply because your model is reality itself, not a model.
            >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.
            We don't know how accurately our ideas of causality reflect the whole reality and if you mean temporal causality instead of logical causality that's not even very fundamental, it's already described in terms of other elements of reality.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I said that causality was reality
            See you're still doing it. Causality is an idea that reflects elements of reality to some degree. That it works does not mean you have mastered reality. Causality is not reality, it's an idea. You made a thread claiming causality is reality and when challenged you say "causality is reality".
            Your model as in your idea of causality, which should be the same as mine since it's a basic subject but apparently not.
            >I fricking know and a I’ve been saying that the entire time but you wouldn’t know that.
            You still don't act like you know that. I read your posts. Try it.
            >I have a more general understanding of causality than both of those.
            If it's comprehensible it's logical causality, that is the abstract "general" form. That's the entire point of it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > 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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s also the same conclusion that would be reached in the causal universe, which is the one you’re more likely to be in if you observe causality.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no lol
            If you believe this you don't even understand the words you use. You regurgitate this bullshit so mindlessly that you'll deny your own words.
            >cheese is the essence of existence not merely our epistemological models of it.
            You said this mindless shit. Own it, recognize how fricked in the head you are and get better.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > 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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the pathetic worm squirms away from any hint of honesty
            Here's your post:

            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.

            >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.
            The point about logic is about the limits of models. You say that's irrelevant because your model isn't just a model, it's the essence of existence itself because.. just because ok.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Which is the exact same thing as saying you find them practical.
            Not if my reasons are purely philosophical? I could eilt believe that I am beyond causality and it would change nothing about my practical life. I don’t believe that ideas affect actions very much,

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, Hume was literally not answered by Kant, that is why Maimon uses Hume again to contradict Kant’s application of categories to particular phenomena. I am not aware of Schopenhauer’s argument against Hume but I suspect it is just some form of what Kant already had said.

            > You want to claim your ideas are reality
            By “causality” I am not referring to my idea of causality but what I think my idea represents. I already said the same thing with regard to matter.
            > You're not interested in thinking.
            Then I would just be posting soijaks against you like [...]

            By causality you are referring to what your idea of it represents. What it represents? Phenomenal relations? Kant’s point was that the idea of causality does not represent things from experience but molded them, the idea that causality refers to what is observed is Hume’s point. Kant thinks causality is an active concept, Hume thinks it is passive.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Matter and causality are empirical and cannot be conclusively proven to exist. Consciousness is self-evident.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >consciousness is self-evident
      How do you know it doesn’t only appear that way? You may also think that it is self evident that 5 + 5 = 10, but you forget that this has to be drilled into your head as a child and that some humans on earth don’t even understand numbers past 5reel you have the privilege of being an adult entrenched in his ideas. You may think that it is now “self evident” that sound and color are different, but as a fetus and a newborn you most likely had a lot more trouble separating out and processing your senses. Consciousness is simply another one of these mental ideas or operations or conceptions or whatever that you have become accustomed to so much you think it is “self evident”.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're keep confusing the mind with qualia. One thing is roughly modeled the other is not at all, we have no clue how to begin.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >like, how can you know for sure you exist, bro
        Stop smoking weed and go do your middle school homework, mr philosopher

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I didn’t say that. You’re the one evidently using a new age understanding of what “consciousness” actually is.

          You're keep confusing the mind with qualia. One thing is roughly modeled the other is not at all, we have no clue how to begin.

          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.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          You think that because I don’t accept your notion of what mind is, I must not understand it. This is typical of Kantians and Copenhauergays who are so entrenched in their subject object distinction way of thinking. Many others have had trouble grasping it when I deny subject object distinction.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not a subject having an experience, I just think that I am
            But who is the one that is being fooled into this illusion?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >How do you know it doesn’t only appear that way?
        Something cannot "appear" to be self-evident, it either is self-evident or it isn't. Something that appeared to be self-evident would simply be self-evident.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    *ruins your thread*

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Firstly he didn’t refute causality, but only a particular understanding of induction. But Kant and Schopenhauer have already made plenty of arguments for why causality is a condition of experience. All I have to do is deny ding an sich and say that the reason causality is a condition of experience is that it was causality which produced the brain to begin with, prior to any representation by the brain.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The brain is not really relevant to the question. Physical memory gives the phenomena a coherent identity but like everyone who ever thought about this for thousands of years pointed out, the phenomena itself exists whether it's perceiving itself as having an identity or not.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >CAUSALITY IS ABSOLUTE x 1000
        >A wild Humechad appears!
        >Well, acktchually he didn't completely destroy causality because hem haw hem haw backtrack retreat kick up dust prevaricate x1000
        Inductionlets, when will they learn? Leave this thread immediately or I will be forced to post Wittgenstein

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Causality is Absolute
    refuted 1500 years ago (picrel)

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      On the contrary - AUM is itself merely a symbol of causality, as it indicates the continuity of creation.

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    *shoots you with a gun and kills you*
    whoa, look what causality did!

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      How does this refute me? Causality indeed caused you to kill me.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        so i'm not morally culpable for it at all?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I mean, the state or other people might still do something against you for breaking their rules or something. I don’t know what moral culpability means or implies.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I mean, the state or other people might still do something against you for breaking their rules or something.
            that won't deter me. i am an impoverished vagrant with no hope for the future, and prison would be preferable to my current lifestyle. the only thing stopping me is my belief that it would be wrong to blow you away with the saturday night special i have tucked in my waistband
            >I don’t know what moral culpability means or implies.
            yes you do, and i don't find your feigned ignorance cute

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            i'm not "making a point", i'm asking you a question. am i morally culpable for my actions?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What do you mean by morally culpable?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN
            STOP PRETENDING THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
            JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I literally don’t know what you mean.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'M USING PLAIN ENGLISH
            THERE IS LITERALLY NO WAY TO FURTHER SIMPLIFY THE QUESTION

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

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

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            i refuse, because i know for a fact you already understand the question

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >i deny causality vaguely and emotionally
        >for the implicit cause of I have something to hide and I want something from you and this pattern itself though inarticulate is my habitus
        >i appeal to your denial of causality
        >for the cause of making you happy
        >because I can predict our happiness because I know the adage ignorance is bliss even if I am ignorant of that adage I am not unconditioned from stupifying experiences having popular appeal
        >i simp therefore I am

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hating causality itself is causal

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Causality is derived from non-causality in the same way that order arises from chaos. Causality is not absolute, we just happen to be in one of the infinite universes in which causality seems to be a “law.”

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The problem with this theory is that even if by random chance the universe I’m in got to be regular for all the time up until now, the chance that it will continue to be regular in the next moment after this is zero considering there are I finite random things that could happen only one thing that could happen according to causality.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        One of the infinite random things that happens is causally consistent with the previous state and the mechanism that allowed life to evolve traverses that chain of collapsing probabilities to allow the consistency needed to copy information.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          > One of the infinite random things that happens is causally consistent with the previous state
          But it’s only one out of infinity, effectively zero probability of happening
          > the mechanism that allowed life to evolve traverses that chain of collapsing probabilities to allow the consistency needed to copy information.
          You realize it doesn’t make any sense to say that causality evolves when causality isn’t a law to begin with? What you’re saying here is incoherent.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What you’re describing is necessarily some thing incomprehensible so I can’t exactly argue against it other than to say that it’s nonsense

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

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

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        but that universes is guaranteed to exist. And there are infinite other similar causal universes. So the experience that you have, of living your whole life of causality, MUST exist. It is not impossible and its improbability is irrelevant because it exists NECESSARILY. If you imagine that each second, infinite parallel universes are created, then you would actually be living in all those universes, but you can’t be aware of it, because your consciousness in this universes is trapped in… this universe. So from your perspective it seems improbable. But this is like the richest man on earth saying “wow what is the probability that I would be the richest man,” which is dumb, because there MUST be a richest man anyway.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          > u have, of living your whole life of causality, MUST exist
          I grant that the universe that looks like causality must exist. But they probability that THIS is that universe, is so small as to be zero. Which means the probability that the world is not zero is effectively 100.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Random numher generators are not random but just 2smart4human so it's like a randomness simulator for the chalkboard or motherboard

    Causality IS ABSOLUTE

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    These digits ARE ABSOLUTE

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I caused me to flex DEEZ NUTS

    CAUSALITY IS ABSOLUTE

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    What caused causality? Has anyone ever once addressed this?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      See

      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.

      Causality is absolute but only applies within existence, it does not cause entities to come into or out of existence and it doesn’t cause existence itself. Also, it isn’t that there is a cause, it’s that everything is caused by everything else.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Causality caused causality
      The question is a direct relationship of form not sequential

      What force caused acceleration? Force is acceleration times mass.

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nirvana is like that of the unmoved mover the unborn undead
    The philosophical zombie blackhole

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    but everytime I rewind time, people perform different actions even though the state of their brain and surroundings was reset.

  20. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Refuted by Nietzsche

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's no rational reason to believe in causality. Human perception is extremely limited. We know it for a fact. We perceive only the tiniest fraction of light and sounds, we cannot discern individual molecules, we do not feel the gravity of every single object in the Universe constantly affecting us, we think that we stand still while in reality we are hurtling through the cosmos as breakneck speed. There's no reason to believe that our picture of temporal flow would be complete. We see events as causal because our brains make us so for our convenience. The simplest hint at the imcompleteness of causality is the paradox of uncaused source. For christcucks the unmoved creator is the proof of god, but for less crossbrained people its a sign that human rationality with its basis in causal chains is flawed in the same way Newtonian model is flawed despite predicting large scale events correctly.

  22. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Causality is not absolute.

  23. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Causality is incidental. It lacks the necessity of Destiny, the driving force of all living beings. All Causality is subject to the understanding of living beings and therefore subject to the pole-star of the Soul. All that happens only occurs because there are temporal beings present to observe it. Causality is the Anti-christ, the supremacy of limitation. Destiny is the Future Christ, the procession of the Spirit. God is the Absolute Life creating itself with the tool of Causality. It can only create as it is commanded to, materialist seething notwithstanding.

  24. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Causality isn't necessarily deterministic though. Just because x can cause y doesn't mean that x will cause y, under and overdetermination of effects is well demonstrated in the physical sciences, and genetics in particular. See: the one to one and one to many problems.

  25. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    is causality absolute?

  26. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Causality IS ABSOLUTE but...
    Particles are beta b***h bois in a world that belongs to the mighty tumbleweed

    The ABSOLUTE CAUSE
    The monad is only visible as we approach absolute zero kelvin

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      But HOW does the cookie crumble?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        HOW?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          IT WAS THE COOKIE MONSTER, I SAW IT

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

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

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

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          But HOW does the cookie crumble?

          IT WAS THE COOKIE MONSTER, I SAW IT

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I knew I should have taken diff eq, goddamn Plato takin up my headspace, I coulda been an engineer...

  27. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
  28. 5 months ago
    Mr Job

    I fell in love with a ghetto girl who did every drug on this planet but the good ones. Causality? No. Not in common parlance. In final analysis, yes. Point is I overlooked it. She had holiness still. She was redeemed. She was loyal. She was kind and dutiful. She never did me wrong for many years. But an external cause ruined it and I have no one to tell about it because people believe in a happily ever after determined solely by your character. Such is the complex character. Flawed beyond visible redemption yet redeemable. Redeemed beyond memorable flaws yet overlooked and taken for granted. A deep soul is the most subtle cause beyond the minds of man and words of tongue and pen only in flesh and blood can the final testament be written just as that which is given can just as easily be taken.

  29. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty sure that the inventor of causality later admitted it's a scam

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Blame the british

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *