jupiviv wrote:You're outright ignoring what I say now. Neither have you given your definition of a "cause" and why it is different from mine. I can't see a way in which this discussion can continue.
I already told you I understand what you are saying - which I couldn't do if I were ignoring it. What I am trying to do is broaden the view behind the things you are saying so you can examine the world as it is, not how you sum it up to be.
What does all this have to do with the simple idea that a thing is caused by its parts?
And everything else, according to you - including those things which are not its parts. Or are you saying everything else except the thing itself
are its parts? Can you see how this fanciful definition of causality of yours lacks rigor?
I'll give you another example of atemporal causation - the boundaries of a thing are created by the mind, and the mind can't create those boundaries if the thing doesn't exist. This happens simultaneously, not serially.
So you are saying the thing didn't exist before the mind creates the boundaries, and you are saying the mind could not create the boundaries if the thing didn't exist.
This is false and contradictory - and again neither atemporal nor causation.
A thing must exist prior to a particular mind perceiving it. This is entirely temporal, but again, it is not causation. It is perception - consciousness. If you believe consciousness causes the thing-in-itself, then I suggest you are the closet creationist, since there then would have had to be Consciousness to set the things motion.
You are trapped in your head, jup - and I am doggedly trying to break you free.
Consider this - the earth upon which we stand had to come from somewhere. That is, unless you believe it appeared "simultaneously and atemporally" with the first sentient being's perception of it. I would like to have an idea of the process by which the earth was formed - I am inquisitive by nature. I see a pebble lying on the ground and mentally subtract it from my inquiry. Lo and behold! My inquiry is finished! The pebble caused the earth! I'm done! No more thinking! No more learning and speculation! As a bonus, it turns out that this same pebble caused the sun and moon as well! And the galaxy and every other galaxy! I have become a philosopher!
Can't you see that ideation is greater than perception? Only in Platonic realms are things timeless. We live in an evolving Universe. Things happen which cause other things. Causes segue into effects which segue seamlessly into causes; whether a thing is a cause or an effect is simply a product of the mind's creation - and that happens atemporally, or seems to.
Once you perceive a thing, you can speculate on its causes. This speculation did not appear until you perceived the effect - the possible causes then come into the mind; the mind has simultaneously created the boundary between the cause and the effect. In this particular mind, the effects then came before the cause. This means that it the mind, causation was atemporal. But as I stated above, ideation is greater than perception - for it is not sufficient to say the effect led to its cause - which is what you are claiming. The mind then orders the sequence in a temporal way: not how it appeared to the mind or in the order in which it first appeared to the mind, but rather
how it must have happened out there.
You claim I didn't offer a definition of causality or state why mine would differ from yours. My definition is simple: one thing leads to another. Every thing, every event concerning a thing, had things and events which led up to it and caused it. Some of the causes are proximal, some are distant. But they flow in a temporal fashion.
And that is the difference between my definition and yours. Moreover, things and events determine the arrow of time - and it points one way on the scale of human life.
A car might be caused by its parts, which in turn were caused before that by the manufacture of those parts, and so on. But my car has that car bomb in it. It blows the car into smithereens (just my luck, the insurance doesn't cover that.) Thus the smithereens were caused by the car and the bomb. If there is an atemporal web of causality, one in which time does not exist, then I might expect to see a car suddenly assemble as if out of nowhere. According to you, these smithereens cause the car, since they are parts of the car and therefore its causes. If I do, I will be sure to run - because there will be a car bomb inside it.
You live in your head - my head tells me there is a world out there that is not identical to the one in here. The way things appear before consciousness - the way they arise in the mind - is not the way they independently happen out there. Your causation is describing the way the mind maps in here. Mine is trying to construct a better map (a more useful and reliable one) of what goes on out there.
But if you don't want to discuss, fine. Be that way. Take your marbles and go home. Or should I say, your pebbles.