On The Contrast Between Appearance And Reality

@Pythagorean,

your karma- that may seem like a cheap answer, and not everything has an answer, but there are certainly tendencies and certain concepts we can do to enhance how we navigate consciousness & life experience

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;135704 wrote:

But how is intentionality intrinsic to the idea of cause if there are non-intentional causes? The other day, the windshield of my car broke because of the extreme cold. Wasn't that a non-intentional cause of the breaking of my windshield?

A bit of a language game here?
Dont all events have causes?
Not all events are intentional or non intentional but all have causes?
Is not cause neutral with respect to intentions or lack thereof?
It might have been intentional; in might not; but it was clearly caused.
It is hard to tell intention even in human behavior much less the events of nature.

My dad used to say there was no such thing as an "accident". Accident was just an excuse for being careless. He was tough.

@prothero,

your father is correct; there are no accidents, only extents of consciousness & God

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;135704 wrote:

But how is intentionality intrinsic to the idea of cause if there are non-intentional causes? The other day, the windshield of my car broke because of the extreme cold. Wasn't that a non-intentional cause of the breaking of my windshield?

I agree there are causes that act without any intention, such as the one you mentioned. But in another sense that if I carry out an intention, the aim is usually to cause something to happen or bring something about. In moral theory, there is a distinction between intentional and unintentional actions, which is mirrored in the idea of 'not guilty by reason of insanity' verdicts.

Perhaps this is one reason why Aristotle distinguished different levels or types of causality.... Say I caused a rockslide with the aim of deliberately injuring a person downhill. The fact that the rocks were arrayed in such a way that they could be easily dislodged by me would be one type of cause. But surely the more signficant one is that I caused them to happen. I suppose Aristotle would say that the arrangment of the rocks was the efficient cause, but my pushing them was the final cause.

What do you think?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;135722 wrote:

I agree there are causes that act without any intention, such as the one you mentioned. But in another sense that if I carry out an intention, the aim is usually to cause something to happen or bring something about. In moral theory, there is a distinction between intentional and unintentional actions, which is mirrored in the idea of 'not guilty by reason of insanity' verdicts.

Perhaps this is one reason why Aristotle distinguished different levels or types of causality.... Say I caused a rockslide with the aim of deliberately injuring a person downhill. The fact that the rocks were arrayed in such a way that they could be easily dislodged by me would be one type of cause. But surely the more signficant one is that I caused them to happen. I suppose Aristotle would say that the arrangment of the rocks was the efficient cause, but my pushing them was the final cause.

What do you think?

I think this thread contains five threads... but also that the word intent should be limited to conscious interaction and conscious action.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;135582 wrote:

That is more like saying, If Cause is Caused by mind...
The question is what is mind if not Law of aggregation...
Mind is Dialectics...and Mind in the broader sense is everywhere...
Cause is caused by everything and everything is the result of Cause...

Yes, and this is actually the sort of conclusion I am drawing. If the transcendental subject or ego is a fiction, then so, in a way, is the appearance-reality distinction.

But the "self" and the appearance-reality distinction are necessary for practical life, and therefore not much dwelt upon.

If nature can only exist in the full sense as the consciousness of qualia under a system of causality and unity, then consciousness, reality, and causality are one. The real is rational, for only the conscious (structure qualia) is the human real (and the only real), and human consciousness is structured for causality and unity.

The mind-matter distinction becomes absurd, in a logical sense, no matter how necessary for practical life.

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 10:47 PM ----------

Is it possible to reduce the transcendental analytic to one function? that of unity?

Perhaps "causality" is nothing but what Hume suggested it was, induction? And perhaps induction is nothing but the unity function, synthesizing memory into "causal concept" which is actually based on coherence, or unity.

This single concept, unificiation or synthesis, possibly explains the generation of logic, math, and concept. Perhaps this is what was meant by "nous."

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;135529 wrote:

But stating that the human mind is due to evolution, isn't saying much about the mind, is it? When I say that humans are the result of evolutionary processes, I am not disregarding what humans are capable of, whether it be intellectual or otherwise. In fact, I'm not saying anything about the details of humans at all, whether it be positive, negative, or neutral.

Just what is it that you believe biology is attempting to subsume?

Its not hard to deduce a progressive state of awareness and Conscience in the development of Life so far...survival of the fittest has been the means to this end. Consequently acknowledging this constant is therefore natural and acceptable in rational terms...why should not be ? Is there good reason to think otherwise ?

@Pythagorean,

Reality is a Rational Spirit, as experienced by humans. But they must ignore this to function socially, in other words to survive. Reality-appearance distinction is developed by the mind as logos. Perhaps only Kant's unity function is transcendental and the rest is learned lingual-conceptual social practice, or gestated by errant metaphysicians.....

This dissolves the mind-body subject-object appearance-reality self-nonself dualisms, but is utterly impractical.

humans don't make conceptual art, they are conceptual art? conceptual art that frames itself?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;135722 wrote:

I agree there are causes that act without any intention, such as the one you mentioned. But in another sense that if I carry out an intention, the aim is usually to cause something to happen or bring something about.
What do you think?

I think that is an intentional cause. A cause that is intended. If I cause the waiter to trip by intentionally putting my foot in his way. that is an intentional cause. If the waiter trips because he slips on the wet floor, that is a non-interntional cause. All causes are either intentional or non-intentional causes. If the waiter trips because my foot is in his way, but I never intended to trip him, then that is an unintentional cause. I did not intend to trip him, but he tripped on my extended foot. It is also, of course, a non-intentional cause.

If I meant to trip the busboy, but instead happened to trip the waiter, then the waiter was tripped by an intentional cause, but he was not tripped by accident, he was tripped by mistake. I intended to trip someone (the busboy) but I tripped the waiter by mistake, so it was no accident that the waiter tripped, but it was a mistake, since it was not the waiter I intended to trip, but the busboy.

@Sean OConnor,

Sean O'Connor;135705 wrote:

your karma- that may seem like a cheap answer, and not everything has an answer, but there are certainly tendencies and certain concepts we can do to enhance how we navigate consciousness & life experience

I don't think it is cheap at all. It is important. The recognition that intentional actions have moral consequences might be the single most important ethical teaching. If everyone acted as if this were true - and I personally accept that it is - then the world would certainly be a better place.

@Pythagorean,

How about this? Causality is built on the logical operators of being and negation? Kant's Analytic would be reduced to unity and negation, and this alone is enough to build up not only math, as Wittgenstein implies, but also an invented concept of causation, reinforced by its successful descriptions of patterns in nature.

It now seems that a transcendental causality would be paradoxical. How would we turn it from superstition to science? Is induction just association of stimuli refined which is refined into causality by determinate negations?

We know that day follows night because the world turns. But one might induce that either was the cause of the other. It's not causality that is transcendental but negation?

Quote:

3.02 A thought contains the possibility of the situation of which it is
the thought. What is thinkable is possible too.

3.03 Thought can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we
should have to think illogically.

3.031 It used to be said that God could create anything except what
would be contrary to the laws of logic. The truth is that we could not
say what an 'illogical' world would look like.

Quote:

5.542 It is clear, however, that 'A believes that p', 'A has the thought
p', and 'A says p' are of the form '"p" says p': and this does
not involve a correlation of a fact with an object, but rather the
correlation of facts by means of the correlation of their objects.

5.5421 This shows too that there is no such thing as the soul--the
subject, etc.--as it is conceived in the superficial psychology of the
present day. Indeed a composite soul would no longer be a soul.

Is the transcendental subject just a fiction useful for human interactions? Religious symbolism? The construction of still imperfect transcendental philosophy? Is causality just a useful confusion?

Quote:

6.363 The procedure of induction consists in accepting as true the
simplest law that can be reconciled with our experiences.

6.3631 This procedure, however, has no logical justification but only a
psychological one. It is clear that there are no grounds for believing
that the simplest eventuality will in fact be realized.

6.36311 It is an hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow: and this
means that we do not know whether it will rise.

6.37 There is no compulsion making one thing happen because another has
happened. The only necessity that exists is logical necessity.

6.371 The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the
illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of
natural phenomena.

6.372 Thus people today stop at the laws of nature, treating them as
something inviolable, just as God and Fate were treated in past ages.
And in fact both are right and both wrong: though the view of the
ancients is clearer in so far as they have a clear and acknowledged
terminus, while the modern system tries to make it look as if everything
were explained.

6.373 The world is independent of my will.

6.374 Even if all that we wish for were to happen, still this would
only be a favour granted by fate, so to speak: for there is no logical
connexion between the will and the world, which would guarantee it, and
the supposed physical connexion itself is surely not something that we
could will.

6.375 Just as the only necessity that exists is logical necessity, so
too the only impossibility that exists is logical impossibility.

Causality is pragmatic induction. Kant did not reduce to lowest terms.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;135826 wrote:

I don't think it is cheap at all. It is important. The recognition that intentional actions have moral consequences might be the single most important ethical teaching. If everyone acted as if this were true - and I personally accept that it is - then the world would certainly be a better place.

But it is not true that all intentional actions have the consequences they were intended to have. They may have unintended consequences too. Are we morally responsible for the unintended consequences as well?

---------- Post added 03-04-2010 at 07:46 AM ----------

Reconstructo;135828 wrote:

Causality is pragmatic induction.

What do you think that means? I mean, of course, in any sense that it might be true? I can think only of the sense in which it is clearly false.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;135696 wrote:

If I stumble, and I tread on your toe, and cause you pain, isn't my treading on your toe a non-intentional cause of your pain? I certainly did not intend to cause you pain, but my treading on your toe caused you the have pain.

I understand your point, so there's no point discussing this further.

But, how does this apply to the universe, in general, again? For a non-intentional or intentional cause to have existed, doesn't that mean something must have existed which had volition, and could intend, or not intend? Or, are all causes not human (or any other animal with volition)related, non-intentional? Suppose a tree falls in the middle of some woods simply because the base wood had been eaten away by terminites. Is the cause of the tree falling intentional or non-intentional?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;135893 wrote:

I understand your point, so there's no point discussing this further.

But, how does this apply to the universe, in general, again? For a non-intentional or intentional cause to have existed, doesn't that mean something must have existed which had volition, and could intend, or not intend? Or, are all causes not human (or any other animal with volition)related, non-intentional? Suppose a tree falls in the middle of some woods simply because the base wood had been eaten away by terminites. Is the cause of the tree falling intentional or non-intentional?

For a non-intentional or intentional cause to have existed, doesn't that mean something must have existed which had volition, and could intend, or not intend?

No. Why would anyone think so?

Not unless termites intended for the tree to fall.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;135906 wrote:

For a non-intentional or intentional cause to have existed, doesn't that mean something must have existed which had volition, and could intend, or not intend?

No. Why would anyone think so?

Not unless termites intended for the tree to fall.

Pyth., I believe, is asking if the causes of evolution are non-intentional. How could they be non-intentional? I don't understand.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;135907 wrote:

Pyth., I believe, is asking if the causes of evolution are non-intentional. How could they be non-intentional? I don't understand.

Why couldn't they?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;135909 wrote:

Why couldn't they?

What is the thing which did not intend? You say if a waiter slips on a wet floor, that is a non-intentional cause. It is the waiter who did not intend to fall. But, if there is nothing of volition which can intend, or not intend, how do we know if a cause is intentional or non-intentional?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;135913 wrote:

What is the thing which did not intend? You say if a waiter slips on a wet floor, that is a non-intentional cause. It is the waiter who did not intend to fall. But, if there is nothing of volition which can intend, or not intend, how do we know if a cause is intentional or non-intentional?

You asked (rhetorically) how could evolution be the effect of a non-intentional cause? (Suggesting that it could not be). I replied by asking why it could not be? I did not say we knew it could be, or that we knew it could not be? I asked only why you suggested it could not be. How we know whether the cause is intentional or non-intentional is a different issue.

@Pythagorean,

If we can't know precisely what the contrast is between appearance and reality, what's to say there's any contrast at all?

@Khethil,

Khethil;135920 wrote:

If we can't know precisely what the contrast is between appearance and reality, what's to say there's any contrast at all?

There are certainly instances of that contrast. For example, something may appear to be an oasis, and it turns out that it is only a mirage. Appears to be an oasis, really is a mirage. Or, some person appears to be very honest, but he really is a crook. And so on.

Philosophy Forum

On The Contrast Between Appearance And Reality

Quick Links

My Account

able2know