Not necessarily. During periods when the 'ego' is not 'coloring' awareness (during some meditations, for example), there is no "your own" as there is no longer an individual autonomous 'I'.



Only if you insist on accepting an illusion based on an illusion. Science is supporting the 'obsolescence' of 'cause and effect linearity'. It is only an 'ugly head' due to it's darkly fantastic nature.


Always a dangerous thing to assert, as it is so easy to refute asserted 'universals'. But, from a cartain perspective, you can certainly assert that, from 'your' perspective. (Whats with the 'need' for universality?)
Sorry, I have no choice...
Peace

nameless,

It is quite simple nameless, give me one example of a human action, context inclusive, which is not in reality, reaction.

Nameless, If there is philosophy written about this folly of cause and effect would you direct me to it. I have looked but found nothing that really deals with this, there is apparently something of this nature in Hinduism but I have found nothing else.

It is simply semantical perspective. If you conceed 'motion' in the first place, one can, mentally, using the notion of 'cause and effect', attribute any and all 'motion' as 'reactive'.
"An object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by an outside force." One can translate the "acted upon" as a 'stimulous' and all 'action' can be seen as a 'reaction' to some stimulous, somewhere. So, from that perspective, you are correct, all 'action' would be 'reaction', a response to something (action, force, etc...)
It IS "in 'reality', reaction", but a small perspectival 'reality'.
Physicists Who Know That Nothing Can Move in Spacetime is an interesting read.
If you have a mathematical bent, perhaps you can understand this; On the Impossibility of Motion
Theres lots of reading matter on the subject.
No 'motion' = no 'action' or 'reaction'.
Only in (some of) 'our' dreams...


Start with science, it is more 'their' area of examination. Philosophy must deal with science's findings...
The first time that I heard the new definition of 'cause and effect' to be called 'clumsy at best', and revised as "mutually arising features of a single 'event'" was from K.C. Cole. Written for the layperson, I forgot the name of the particular book, but a search will find her works. Well written and cogent...

Do a search on 'cause and effect' and you will find all sorts of works in evidence of it's obsolescence. Evidence is also exhibited by quantum's 'finding' that 'space/time' is quantised. Little 'Planck' moments, all existing synchronously. If quantum is correct here, and the evidence is that it is correct, so far; 1/4 of the US economy is based upon the quantum theory, and everything that qm has predicted has manifested!
Think, if every moment is so 'small' that there is no 'time' for anything to 'move', then 'movement' is an illusion of perspective. That which is based on an illusion, in this case the linear notion of 'time' and 'cause and effect', is just as 'illusory', ultimately, unreal. Within the perspective of linearity, 'time' and 'cause and effect' are inherent, and have sole 'validity' within that Perspective. It it not 'universal', as you claim, nor is it 'true' of the basic nature of existence.


Try a search for the 'impossibility of motion' and 'motion is impossible' for starters. If you find that 'motion' is impossible (but by perspective), then, I'm sure that you'll feel differently about your 'universal assertions'.
Peace

Boagie, I just found this in my notes. You might find it helpful in understanding what I am saying. Apologies for the length;

The Nature of Time
AS ALREADY STATED, OUR CONCEPT OF TIME DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO HIGHER REALITY. TIME IS AN ASPECT OF 4-D SPACE-TIME). FOLLOWING OUR HOLISTIC LOGIC: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE ARE PARTS OF SPACE-TIME. THEY EXIST IN IT SIMULTANEOUSLY. PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE ARE PRESENT IN SPACE-TIME, NOW AND AT ANY OTHER MOMENT OF OUR TIME. WE EXPERIENCE SEQUENTIALLY IN OUR TIME WHAT EXISTS ACTUALLY SIMULTANEOUSLY IN TRANSCENDENT REALITY.
THIS CONCEPT OF SPACE-TIME IS EMERGING FROM MODERN SCIENCE. JOHN GRIBBIN DESCRIBES IN HIS BOOK THE HYPOTHESIS THAT MANY WORLDS EXIST IN PARALLEL TO, AND INTERSECT WITH OURS, WITH OPTIONS TO BRANCH OUT. GRIBBIN ALSO DESCRIBES THE WORK OF FEYNMANN, WHO SHOWED MATHEMATICALLY THAT SUBATOMIC PARTICLES CAN TRAVEL BACKWARD IN TIME.
HOLISTIC LOGIC TELLS US ALSO THAT TIME HAS NO BEGINNING AND END. THE LIMITATIONS THAT WE PERCEIVE IN OUR ORDER DO NOT EXIST IN HIGHER DIMENSIONAL ORDERS. A BEGINNING OF TIME IMPLIES A SEPARATION FROM NON TIME.
On the Past Present and Future and the One Way Direction of Time
Eric Lerner perfectly explains THIS IS ONE OF THE DEEPEST PARADOXES OF CONVENTIONAL PHYSICS TODAY. ACCORDING TO ALL THE LAWS OF PHYSICS THERE SHOULD BE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST AND FUTURE, NO DIRECTION TO TIME.
IN RELATIVITY THEORY, FOR EXAMPLE, TIME IS SIMPLY THE FOURTH DIMENSION - THERE IS NO MORE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAST AND FUTURE THAN BETWEEN LEFT AND RIGHT. THERE IS NO FLOW OF TIME: ALL THE EQUATIONS WOULD LOOK THE SAME IF TIME WERE REVERSED.

Why does time move forward? Is there a difference between past and future, or is it, as Einstein believed, merely a persistent illusion?
The importance of the answers extends far beyond their role at the center of a consistent cosmology. They strike at the heart of some of the greatest mysteries faced by science, philosophy and religion - the questions of the nature of human consciousness, the relation of mind and body, and free will. The distinction between past, present, and future is basic to our experience of consciousness - we are conscious in the now, we remember the past, but we cannot know the future. It also is central to our idea of free will, for it implies that our actions in the present affect the future, that the past is fixed but the future can be changed. How can these ideas be reconciled with a concept of physical laws in which past, present and future all exist equally and cannot be distinguished?


IN A HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE, EVEN TIME AND SPACE COULD NO LONGER BE VIEWED AS FUNDAMENTALS. BECAUSE CONCEPTS SUCH AS LOCATION BREAK DOWN IN A UNIVERSE IN WHICH NOTHING IS TRULY SEPARATE FROM ANYTHING ELSE, TIME AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL SPACE, LIKE THE IMAGES OF THE FISH ON THE TV MONITORS, WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE VIEWED AS PROJECTIONS OF THIS DEEPER ORDER.
AT ITS DEEPER LEVEL REALITY IS A SORT OF SUPERHOLOGRAM IN WHICH THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE ALL EXIST SIMULTANEOUSLY. THIS SUGGESTS THAT GIVEN THE PROPER TOOLS IT MIGHT EVEN BE POSSIBLE TO SOMEDAY REACH INTO THE SUPERHOLOGRAPHIC LEVEL OF REALITY AND PLUCK OUT SCENES FROM THE LONG-FORGOTTEN PAST.

No doubt the idea of motion backward in time makes a grievous assault on common sense. The world just does not seem to operate that way, as our ever-aging bodies testify. However, to a particle physicist raised on a diet of Feynman diagrams, motion backward in time is not all that disturbing. All fundamental particle interactions work backward as well as forward and, with rare exceptions, do not distinguish between directions of time. Feynman used the idea of motion backward in time when he invented his famous diagrams in the late 1940s. Dirac had developed his fully-relativistic quantum theory of the electron in 1928, and discovered that it contained negative energy solutions. These solutions were identified as anti-electrons or positrons. Positrons were observed as predicted in 1932. Following St?ckelberg and Wheeler, Feynman re-interpreted positrons as electrons moving backward in time [Feynman 1948, 1949a, 1949b, 1965b].
Feynman's idea grew out of his earlier work at Princeton as a graduate student of John Wheeler. Together they had developed a theory of electromagnetic waves involving solutions of Maxwell's equations that travel both ways in time, the so called retarded and advanced waves. The advanced waves travelled backward in time, that is, they arrived at the detector before they left their source. Despite their presence as valid solutions to Maxwell's equations, advanced waves had been previously ignored by less bold thinkers [For an amusing anecdote concerning Feynman's first talk on the subject, given before Einstein, Pauli, and other physics greats, see Feynman 1986, pp. 77-80]. Feynman later extended the idea to quantum field theory, in which waves are particles and vice versa, associating antiparticles with the advanced waves [Feynman 1948. See also St?ckelberg 1942].
Feynman noted that whether you say you have a particle moving forward in time with negative energy, or its antiparticle moving backward in time with positive energy, is really quite arbitrary at the fundamental level. Energy conservation and the other laws of physics remain intact. By reversing the charges and momenta of the backward particles, charge and momentum conservation are unaffected.


Nastavak:
1844-1906)
But the problem did not become acute until the statistical approach to the
thermodynamic laws was begun by Boltzmann, because previously no one was faced with the comparison between the reversible character of the elementary law and the irreversibility which had to be explained on its basis. Boltzmann, of course, actually introduced a new law in order to produce the irreversibility, namely a statistical element governed by a parabolic equation. It is only when the statistical element is combined with the mechanical laws that we get the irreversibilty of the second law. (L. Rosenfeld) (3:189)
Boltzmann believed that the two directions of time are indistinguishable. (2:6)
It is quite obvious that the Boltzmann equation, far from being a consequence of the laws of classical mechanics, is inconsistent with them. (Bergmann) (3:191)
Albert Einstein
(1879-1955)
What is new in Einstein's relativity is the complete separation between past and future. ... Einstein assumed time-symmetry in his theories, but this assumption was superimposed and not needed. It simply does not play any role, because of the complete distinction between past and future. (L. Brillouin) (4:108)
The Ritz and Einstein Agreement to Disagree ( 1909)
The electromagnetic arrow was the subject of a lively discussion by Einstein and Ritz in 1909.

Einstein (1909) argued that the retarded and advanced descriptions of radiation processes occurring in any finite region are equivalent, since the equations of wave propagation are symmetric with regard to time, but that the auxiliary conditions giving the precise circumstances of emission and absorption are very different. In the retarded description it is sufficient if all the macroscopic sources are known whereas in the advanced description all the absorption processes must be known, but unlike the former they must be fully specified in microscopic detail. In
practice, we do not have this information concerning the absorption processes and so we are obliged to use the retarded description. On the other hand,

Ritz (1909)
asserted that only the retarded waves have any physical significance, since advanced waves are not experimentally observed. The initial conditions characterizing the source (or sources) of the radiation are the causes of its transmission and consequently are responsible for the special role played by retarded waves. [According to Brillouin (1964), Ritz was the first to make this
point.] (L. Brillouin)
(2:339-340)
Lewis (1930) Winford Lewis ( 1787 - 1953? )
(Claimed that nearly everywhere in physics and chemistry the ideas of
unidirectional time and unidirectional causality have been purged. These ideas have been used to support some false doctrine, for example, that the universe is actually running down. Predecessor of absorber theory.(2:7-8) No satisfactory quantum electrodynamics could be developed until the retarded and advanced potentials were used simultaneously and symmetrically. (2:8-9)
Wheeler & Feynman
J. A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman attempted to derive the ordinary irreversibility of radiation from the time-reversibility of Maxwell's equations. They argued that the observed properties of an electric charge, that it radiates energy and suffers damping of its motion can be explained in terms of an "absorber theory of radiation ". They used the Schwarzschild- Tetrode-Fokker equation for a flat space and found
that they had to postulate both "advanced" (future) and "retarded" (past) fields; the divisions of time seemed to be "inextricably mixed".

...Wheeler and Feynman assumed that (a) time-asymmetry is initially present; and (b) persists on a purely statistical basis. J.E. Hogarth(5) showed that assumption (b) is inconsistent with any realistic absorber theory of radiation. Heand D.W. Sciama argued that the Wheeler-Feynman theory of rad iation holds in the Steady-State cosmologies of Hoyle and Narlikar, but not in general, in the Einstein-de Sitter models. (C.T.K. Chari)
(4:216)
The dependence of the electromagnetic arrow of time on the thermodynamic arrow was a feature of the absorber theory formulated by Wheeler and Feynman (1945).
In an attempt to produce a theory of charged elementary particles which avoided the difficulties that had beset previous theories of their interaction with electromagnetic fields, they introduced the hypothesis that every photon has an absorber as well as an emitter. In their theory an accelerated charged particle emits radiation equally into the past and future. In other words, retarded and advanced waves are generated symmetrically. If the radiation is confined to an opaque enclosure, so that all of it is absorbed, the waves striking the walls will cause the charged particles therein to radiate likewise into both the past and the future.
Wheeler and Feynman showed that if the enclosure is fully opaque, the advanced waves emitted by the walls will just cancel those from the source particle and only the retarded waves will be left. ... Moreover, since all attempts to produce a quantum-mechanical version of the absorber theory lead to the same difficulties as previous theories of the interactions of charged particles with the electromagnetic field, there is no strong argument in its favour and in fact its original proponents have abandoned it. (2:341-342)
Rabbi Heschel wrote that the Sabbath is like a temple in time.
Levinson elaborates the idea.
"The Temple is to space as the Sabbath is to time."
Harry Belafonte
Time is illusion!

The Holographic Universe
by Michael Talbot
Universe is formed of electromagnetic waves which are interconnected (intercepting each other). With respect to this definition, we may understand that in the space, every point is full. There is no emptiness. The famous physician David Bohm, as a result of his research on subatomic particles, reached the conclusion that the Universe is a giant hologram. One of Bohm’s most important findings is that in reality, our daily life is an holographic image. According to him, the Universe is an endless, limitless one "WHOLE" holographic structure. It is meaningless to speak of parts.
The most important quality of the hologram principle is:- Each point in the hologram is able to give the image of the whole unit. Every point of the hologram receives and records the light waves coming from all over the object. Therefore, if the hologram plate is torn off or broken into pieces EVERY SINGLE PARTICLE IS LOADED WITH THE INFORMATION OF THE WHOLE AND WHEN NECESSARY CAN GIVE THE IMAGE OF THE WHOLE BY ITSELF.

Aristotle (384-322 BCE)
Time is basic to world structure. Every change requires a cause. Everything that is in motion must be moved by something. (2:1)
Archimedes (287?-212 BCE )
Time flow is not an intrinsic feature of the ultimate basis of things. Author of first important treatise on statics laws of equilibrium (2:1)
Saint Augustine (354--430)
Remarks that time is at once familiar and deeply mysterious. "What is time?" he asks. "If nobody asks me, I know; but if I were desirous to explain it to one that should ask me, plainly I know not."
Confessions, Book XI.14. Augustine, p. 239 (1912
Galileo Galilei
(1564-1642)
First to introduce time in dynamical considerations. Used his heart pulse as a time standard. (L. Rosenfeld, 3:188)
Isaac Newton
(1642-1727)
His mechanics dealt with ideal planets with no frictional, electrodynamic, or tidal, braking effects.
...the time variable does not appear explicitly in the mathematical formulation of the fundamental laws of physics. Indirectly, it is also associated with the fact that the laws of classical mechanics are reversible and do not distinguish between past and future. (2:20,21)
Newton assumed all forces acted at finite distances in an infinitely small time. This was indenspensible for the proof of his third law of equal action and reaction.
(L. Brillouin, 4:107) Old classical mechanics assumed an absolute time, that corresponded to the idea that actions could be propagated at any distance instantaneously (meaning infinite velocity). (L. Brillouin, 4:108)
Of course the LAW OF INERTIA, which was also formulated by Galileo and Newton, was thought by them to be an idealization, a limiting law which was introduced only in order to get a simple situation. Surely they thought that actual motions are irreversible, as are all observable motions. Newton was very much concerned about whether the orbits which he had calculated on the basis of the LAW OF INERTIA were adequate approximations to the actual planetary motions, which he thought
were retarded by friction.
(L. Rosenfeld) (3:188)
"We must...believe that there exists an even flow of time." (Newton, as quoted by
Gold) (3:188)
But at the same time he unwittingly introduced a paradox, by the fact that the laws of dynamics which he formulated turned out to be reversible in time. That was an unintended accident in his analysis. But this did not worry people much because they still had the notion of causality, implying a succession in time, namely that the effect follows the cause. Yet even that possible basis for keeping an irreversibility of the direction in the physical laws was undermined by Newton himself, who introduced the force of gravity as an instantaneous action at a distance. Surely he
was aware of the paradoxical character of this assumption, but he still insisted that it was the correct description of the actual law
of gravitation.
(L. Rosenfeld) (3:188-189)
Joseph Lagrange
(1736-1813)
By regarding physical time as a fourth dimension of space, Lagrange all but
eliminated time from dynamical theory. (2:3)
Nicolas Carnot
(1796-1832)
Then in subsequent developments, when people began to analyze and
formulate the laws of thermodynamics, the idealization of quasistatic phenomena was introduced by Carnot and his followers. This removed from causality the reference to time. Causality...became completely timeless. (L. Rosenfeld) (3:189)
Rudolf Clausius
(1822-1888)
Introduced observable irreversibility as a part of the second law of thermodynamics.
(L. Rosenfeld) (3:189)
[In this time frame people apparently began believing that Newton's approximations" of nature were "Laws" of nature and that nature was thus reversible. [rsf]
Physics was inconsistent: Newton's laws of motion were symmetrical, and the entropy law was asymmetrical to the direction of time. This difficulty was solved thanks to the illuminating work of many talented scientists,... (I. Szumilewicz) (4:182)
Ludwig Boltzmann

Nameless,

:)Very interesting, I am not entirely new to the idea of a holistic approach, it seems this theory though is breaching what has been called ultimate reality, fascinating!! I cannot say that I understand it however, but some of the discoveries are indeed mind blowing. We however have to continue to function in what might be called apparent reality or the illusion if you like. I think you will agree that both cause and effect and my premise of an utterly relational world both fall under this concept of illusion. Even if we become aware of just what this ultimate reality is, the chances are that we will still have to function within the illuison. Nietzsche touched on this, when he suggested that our adaptation just may be adaptation to our own illusions. At anyrate I wish to thank you for your efforts, they were not futile.

:)So, for the functionality of it I still think it is a better approach this relational world than the linear understanding of cause and effect. Perhaps I can reciprocate in introducing relevant material. I noticed in our dialogue that you did not seem familar with the concept of and open and a close system. I think you might find the following delightful reading, "General systems theory, systems theory also cybernetics, or holistic science. These are the new science as oppossed to the reductionism of traditional science. Again thanks for the info, I shall attempt a greater understanding of said materials and perhaps we could have future dialogues on the topic.

You're welcome. Thank you.


As far as 'functionality' within this 'dream', I find that the better understood the 'dream' (our apparent reality) the greater the (apparent) ability to 'control' (yes, ego) it, vastly improving on the 'experience'. With common understanding, one can work and earn ten dollars. With some understanding of the 'dream mechanics of our dream reality', we can 'find' that ten dollars falling from the sky at our feet! No 'work' today. 'Magic' (quantum applications) is a deeper understanding of the true basic nature of existence, and dealing from that level. It is still a 'dream', but a new and 'powerful' one. A joy to 'play' and behold, but a 'dream' nontheless.


open system
Definition: a changeable and alterable set of doctrines, ideas, or things; a system that is affected by outside influences

closed system
Definition: a complete and seemingly unchangeable set of doctrines, ideas, or things; a self-contained system that is unaffected by outside influences

I am familiar witht the concepts, though, I do not see/acknowledge any such 'belief' in 'outside influences'. No 'outside' has ever been evidenced but via 'naive realism', much less it's 'influence'.

Thank you, though, for the references. I have 'brushed by them' in my travels, but I'll take another look next time i'm in the neighborhood.
Peace

Come on my fellow associates,

Just on a common sense basis, give me an example of cause and effect which is most definately NOT a reaction. Even in your personal interactions, they are not interactions, they are inter-reactions.

Maybe God does actions, you, you do reactions.

I finally read this thread, though I skipped the holistics because some people can't think hard enough to enjoy that fancy stuff when its midnight.
Firstly, in terms of self conscious and conscious, I always thought that being conscious was implying self awareness.

Also, "Freedom is the ability to act independently of the will, or at the best develop your own will" - somebody from the start of forum.

Yeah well developing my own will is the most freedom that I want. Life would not be interesting without something thrown at me.

Edit: Also, what is that linearality thing you were all discussing earlier in the thread.

Holiday,

One cannot react to the world without a will behind it, behaviour is dependent upon the will. Linear simply means one directional as far as I know, the arrow of time, the process of cause and effect ect..,.Your question about selfconscious and consciousness I leave to nameless.

The arrow implies that causality 'flows', the flow of time right? So the premise gives reason for the action or reaction, whatever you want to call it.
What if, the smaller the pieces of matter, the less of an effect causality has on it. Say leptons and quarks being less effected by causality and planets and stars more effected by causality. More randomness in the smaller scope, and more causality, reason, for the broader scope of things. Never though would pure randomness or pure reason exist through the 'scope'. Causality is like gravity, they both have less of an effect on the smaller scope, but a larger effect on the broader scope.
Causality is to reality as gravity is to its actuality.

So there is no arrow, it is all relative to your perspective. The conscience just allows for perception, making the illusion of an arrow, because we are able to piece together events being forced through causality.

What I want to know is what was the start of causality, the beginning of time, why was there a beginning. If there is a cause for every effect then the start or beginning must have happened by a complete random occurrence, because then causality was not of influence upon the beginning. Causality would imply the need for a constant prelude for an instance in time. So I could say that time's beginning was by a purely random instance, or time did not always exist. If time did not always exist then nor would causality. But causality is linked to gravity and Einstein saw time and gravity as linked, so perhaps at one point gravity and time or causality and time were separated. Therefore making time not a force upon reality at all because time's force depends on causality which depends on the actuality of gravity.
Say time requires gravity to have causality. Then we could say that the two were once separated, perhaps due to gravity being separated or combined with a different force.
So if the two were separated then that could account for the beginning of the universe because that would explain the pure randomness once existing if need be.:painting:


:deep-thought: :confused: :depressed:

Relation to conscience and reaction.

So if you understood my post here, basically reaction only exists with perception, but action which has no causal basis does not require conscience. We as a conscious being are reactions to the surroundings just as Boagie suggested.

:a-thought:Whatever reaction we perceive the reasoning to is conscience. We do 'act' but that is not to be construed with conscience, because an action does not require control.
[CENTER]:popcorn:
[/CENTER]

Time, Time, Time:dots: I think its time I got some sleep! I can't think sanely anymore. :sleeping:

Holiday,

Sorry if my response to you was simplistic, guess I was a little tired too.

No I wasn't implying that, just sort of went on a rant about causality and other such matters. Hopefully you can interpret what I just wrote (post) with the painting smilie in it.

Holiday,

I reread your post on gravity, time and causation, but I must admit I do not understand it quite, that gravity is essential to causation? I remmember thinking at one time that time itself was dependent upon consciousness, that it is not in fact something substantial. Now however it seems that time travel is considered a possiable reality, well, it would then need be substantial would it not? At anyrate you are saying that cause is not a necessity in this scheme, or is not dependent upon consciousness, yet reaction is dependent upon consciousness? Without understanding fully the above I would say, for living things this is true, as consciousness is reaction, but there is also reaction in the physcial world, thus indicating where the seed or spark of consciousness is utterly common to the living and inanimate world in degrees.

Basically, I had a thought that occurred to me. What if consciousness alters the nature of time itself. I mean think about it.. if every bit of matter and energy was conscious what causal (causality) state would we the universe be in. Maybe there is a proportional relationship between the ratio of potential energy of conscious matter and potential energy of unconscious matter to that of the flow of time. Time perhaps doesn't actually flow, and all actions are 'actions', not reactions, until you construe actions with conscious beings, then they become reactions. The nature of the universe has the fundamental forces of nature; singularized as a being)
The more an action is a reaction the more time flows during the duration of the cause and effect. The more an action is an 'action' the less time flows during the duration of the cause and effect.
[relativistically to the universe (defined by the limits of Olber's bubble of course)]

I believe that in order for time to exist the universe must be closed in some way, perhaps Olber's bubble is the answer.

What would be interesting is once beyond the bubble, perhaps time is no longer linked to gravity. It would be interesting to prove.

Consciousness is like a force driven by intellect, the more intellect we have the more conscious we become, in a sense, I'm speculating here so I'm probably wrong. It could mean the application of action to reaction. But perhaps there's a more actual side to it.

The movement of matter, it's organization is affected by the fundamental forces right? Gravity, strong, etc.

So while I feel it would be insane to imply that without a conscious being present the universe would be in utter chaos perhaps the fundamental forces of nature only allow for that, but I had another less apt conclusion that I can't seem to piece together, dang brain.. WORK, 12:30 am. ... stupid:brickwall:.

Oh yes back to the essential point, connecting causation to gravity, knew there was a link to the web I was missing.

Causality, cause and effect; principle between cause and effect.



Critical explanation tomorrow, plz :asleep: tired.

Holiday,

Marvelous spectulations Holiday, but I am afraid you are losing me. I thought to discuss the problem of consciousness as reaction in the relatively familar territory of what now occupies the common understanding of cause and effect. However I have learn with starting these threads that one cannot control always where others wish to take the topic, but it does seem entirely theoretical and little in the way of a common sense understanding.

Well let me push your buttons further by mentioning to Holiday that I had the thought that conscious beings keep the order of the earth before. While looking for reasons to explain the innate feeling that we are in control (I think it is universal that humans want to control.) What I ended up describing was a world which we built in our heads though with us at the center.

Here is what I concluded that reminds me of ...



The chaos which existed before consciousness, still does exist, but just beyond our perception. We draw and convert choice information from the chaos via our senses; we create our own world of order- order only for our perspective, hence why quantum mechanics only works in probability to us, and perhaps why unifying theories are so vastly abstract and confusing. But still, yes we create this world of light, form, matter, forces, distance and time and then start to categorize this world into objects, differentiating between them when there values vary (e.g distance, color, texture.)

Is it possible that we have created a human only world- apparent-reality, by extracting and converting information from actual-reality; this apparent-reality allows the stability for consciousness, and consciousness allows the mental stability and learning potential for the categorization, which goes on to allow self-conscience.

We filter and manipulate the information of chaos via a complex chain of conversions (e.g. the pivot of our elbow and biceps reading the effect of gravity on objects, giving rise to a new invented value- weight.)

So without a conscious being the universe is in utter chaos, and with it- still is! We build our world around our minds giving the illusion of order.

Dan.

The first axiom of triunity is that knowledge of anything requires at least three elements.

The concept of a cause as an existent with no other existents is meaningless at best. To identify an existent cause requires, at the very least, the identification of a (potentially) existent effect.

Note: I included the parenthetical modification (potentially) to avoid a
discussion of first cause(s) at this time.

The conception of both a cause and an effect is still inadequate to provide any meaningful understanding of either. What's missing is the third element of understanding: i.e., the relationship between the two.

Corollaries:
1) The conception of cause necessarily includes an implicit or explicit
understanding of a relationship, or process, that produces, or creates,
an effect. As simple as 1 2 3.

2) The conception of an effect necessarily includes an implicit or explicit understanding of a relationship, or process, it was produced by, or created by, a cause. As simple as 3 2 1.

3) The conception of a relationship, or process, necessarily includes an
implicit or explicit understanding of a cause, or stimuli, as part of the relationship, or process, that is producing or creating an effect or a response. As simple as 2 1 3 or as 2 3 1.

Also:
1) There could be no stimulus without a mechanism or process that could
produce a response.

2) There could be no response without a mechanism or process that receives some stimuli.

3) The could be no observable mechanism or process that does not have input and output.

Cor ad cor loquitor.

_____________________
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/

So many misconceptions, so little time.

Sorry, I never actually read the forum:o, I was speculating without your influence. Also, I don't mean just the Earth but as far as perception can go.




I don't think that humanity wants to control the universe, it seems to me that a lot of people in the world allow the figure of God or an omniscience to control them rather. People just want to know the universe, it is in our nature to want to know why, sometimes there is simply no reason; or perhaps its all about rationalizing all things that interact with our perception.



Isn't it better that we can establish patterns and give it cogency to our perception, meaning that chaos is below our perception:lol:




I haven't taken quantum mechanics yet, do we get to do that sort of thing in highschool? So is quantum mechanics like a theoretically understandable to any perception's cogence?



But the values of the mind of a different intellect would still remain the same. It is perception that changes, not the universe.




I still don't understand why you wish to catagorize a difference between self conscience and conscience.




What if perception was so keen, so apt to understanding the universe the way it is that to that person the universe would appear very much in a single pattern, easily discerned; as if the universe is 'fated' because it became potentially just a linear display. All anomalies accounted for as part of the discernable pattern due to the perception's high understanding, perhaps due to great intellect or whatever you may want to call it. :rolleyes:


By comparison we realise that the universe has unlimited potential, as if it were 'meant' for conscious beings contained in it. But that would imply that the container has a conscious, thats something I can't accpet, so perhaps the universe only exists through experience, and that conscious beings add some actual force to its entropy just as a society must reach entropy at one point or change its structure. The universe can only be gauged by conscious beings present in actuality, the delineation would contempt the universe to an end that parallels that of conscience, but also of the inevitable.The end justify's the means thus leading back to causality, and intentions that only exist as reactions.