Imagine a brick hitting a window...

I don't think I'm seeing where you are taking this, Sci. Steve001 and malf had their obligatory sneer while assuming that you are looking for something profound in a thoroughly mundane event, easily described by classical mechanics. Then nbtruthman described those mundane mechanics and added a little quantum mystery. If you remove human causation from the discussion we do seem to be left with the mundane mechanics.

I suspect a hint may be with the fanciful allusion to butterflies in the other thread. i.e. why does something predictable happen at all? The laws governing the mundane mechanics are taken for granted but why are there laws? I'll stop there because I may be on the wrong track entirely.

I mean at some point we can revisit the laws and such, I assume that will come up. 

I think it is obvious I have particular views on causation that I've brought up in different places, and so naturally that will come up.

But if I have an agenda, it's the one I've said before - people talking about free will have different assumptions about causality so it's best to start with an example that has nothing to do with free will at all and see what people think. If you look at all the varied free will threads on here and Skeptiko, they all read the same [even the latest one has the first and last pages looking disturbingly similar] so obviously that's the wrong starting point.

I also just think Causation is a fascinating topic as the more I thought about it the more I saw how much I was taking for granted.

I mean at some point we can revisit the laws and such, I assume that will come up. 

I think it is obvious I have particular views on causation that I've brought up in different places, and so naturally that will come up.

But if I have an agenda, it's the one I've said before - people talking about free will have different assumptions about causality so it's best to start with an example that has nothing to do with free will at all and see what people think. If you look at all the varied free will threads on here and Skeptiko, they all read the same [even the latest one has the first and last pages looking disturbingly similar] so obviously that's the wrong starting point.

I also just think Causation is a fascinating topic as the more I thought about it the more I saw how much I was taking for granted.

I think the similarity between the initial and latter pages of that thread is, in part, due to the fact that Paul insists on repeating the same question over and over. From what I can gather, Paul is the only one who has a clue what he's actually asking, judging by the pages of answers that he summarily dismisses as not answering his question (or it is a question that has no answer and he's just dicking with us). I'm just afraid that you might be in danger of posing a similar kind of question but that could easily be my own inability to grasp the meaning.

I think the similarity between the initial and latter pages of that thread is, in part, due to the fact that Paul insists on repeating the same question over and over. From what I can gather, Paul is the only one who has a clue what he's actually asking, judging by the pages of answers that he summarily dismisses as not answering his question (or it is a question that has no answer and he's just dicking with us). I'm just afraid that you might be in danger of posing a similar kind of question but that could easily be my own inability to grasp the meaning.

Ideally somewhere in this conversation the question that Paul is asking becomes clear to me, but I don't want to dwell on that here.

I really have all my cards on the table. I do think looking at causation apart from free will is interesting, and I do think it can lead to some interesting places.

I also think we might have much more interesting conversations about Causation itself apart from mental causation b/c the latter - as it concerns free will - inevitably seems to be a conversation about Everything. Not unexpected or unwarranted, but I'd like to just talk about causation without worrying about human minds at the outset.

So by causation, I gather you really mean final cause? Otherwise, we can describe those mundane laws and mechanisms (maybe Steve can quote from that course he recommended) which might be interesting to engineers but not particularly to me.

So by causation, I gather you really mean final cause? Otherwise, we can describe those mundane laws and mechanisms (maybe Steve can quote from that course he recommended) which might be interesting to engineers but not particularly to me.

I'm sure Final Cause would come up. I do think something about physics and such would come up too.

I don't have a definitive plan, at most was thinking of reading a bit more on the subject before saying a lot.

I think the similarity between the initial and latter pages of that thread is, in part, due to the fact that Paul insists on repeating the same question over and over. From what I can gather, Paul is the only one who has a clue what he's actually asking, judging by the pages of answers that he summarily dismisses as not answering his question (or it is a question that has no answer and he's just dicking with us). I'm just afraid that you might be in danger of posing a similar kind of question but that could easily be my own inability to grasp the meaning.

I think you're being unfair here. If there are pages of answers that address my question, why won't someone post a link to the answer when I keep asking the question? Or when fls asks the same question? What I get is "You haven't done enough homework; go back and read everything again." It's more like a conversion attempt than an answer.

So finally I did reread a bunch of pages and posted this:

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-n...4#pid26664

On the other hand, if you really don't understand my question, then I guess you can't post a link to the answer.

~~ Paul

I think you're being unfair here. If there are pages of answers that address my question, why won't someone post a link to the answer when I keep asking the question? Or when fls asks the same question? What I get is "You haven't done enough homework; go back and read everything again." It's more like a conversion attempt than an answer.

So finally I did reread a bunch of pages and posted this:

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-n...4#pid26664

On the other hand, if you really don't understand my question, then I guess you can't post a link to the answer.

~~ Paul

I don't think you're at fault to reply - that'd be unfair since you were mentioned by name - but I don't want this thread to become a continuation of the free will thread.

Perhaps both of you can agree to delete your posts and the mods can be petitioned if any additional clean up in necessary?

Why would I consider anything from fls when she has said that she doesn't read the posts because she thinks metaphysics is dumb and she doesn't care? As far as I'm concerned, that should disqualify her from the discussion and, probably, from the forum too (metaphysics is practically all we discuss so she's clearly hanging around for purposes of mischief). I don't think I'm being unfair either. I pointed out that you did the same thing on that Skeptiko discussion. I think that is rather you who is being unfair by dismissing all the attempts to answer you and repeating the question endlessly. I'm not the only one who has no clue what you are asking. The pages of answers are actually attempts to answer, all of which you dismiss and immediately re-state the question.

I am not trying to dismiss the attempts to answer my question. I've reread countless posts in an attempt the find the answer. But don't you think it's a little odd that I just keep being told to reread because surely the answer is there and I just won't accept it? Wouldn't it be easier to post the paragraph with the answer and then ask me to respond? A couple of paragraphs have been posted and I pointed out that they seem to name the players but not answer the question.

I suppose I could just decide the question is meaningless or there is no answer, but I guess that's not my habit.

~~ Paul

So by causation, I gather you really mean final cause? Otherwise, we can describe those mundane laws and mechanisms (maybe Steve can quote from that course he recommended) which might be interesting to engineers but not particularly to me.

I'll try to get into the spirit of this thread.

Could someone give the official definition of Final Cause for these threads? Because I'm not hearing a definition that matches what I read. For example, from Wikipedia and the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy:

"End or purpose: a change or movement's final cause, is that for the sake of which a thing is what it is. For a seed, it might be an adult plant. For a sailboat, it might be sailing. For a ball at the top of a ramp, it might be coming to rest at the bottom."

That doesn't sound like a cause to me, but rather a purpose.

~~ Paul

I mean at some point we can revisit the laws and such, I assume that will come up. 

I think it is obvious I have particular views on causation that I've brought up in different places, and so naturally that will come up.

But if I have an agenda, it's the one I've said before - people talking about free will have different assumptions about causality so it's best to start with an example that has nothing to do with free will at all and see what people think. If you look at all the varied free will threads on here and Skeptiko, they all read the same [even the latest one has the first and last pages looking disturbingly similar] so obviously that's the wrong starting point.

I also just think Causation is a fascinating topic as the more I thought about it the more I saw how much I was taking for granted.

I agree that there are assumptions on all sides. I think that it was made clear that physicalists take physicalism to be axiomatic - and why wouldn't they? They wouldn't be physicalists if they didn't. So cause has to be assumed to be of a physical nature - movement of particles, energy and forces. If consciousness exists then it must also be physically caused. The assumption is that consciousness is, if anything, an epiphenomenon.

I, on the other hand, go with the idealist view that all is mind therefore all causes are born of mind. That opens up the possibility of intelligence, intent and purpose. So we can now posit teleology. I don't, however, make the leap to divine determinism. In my view, any argument for determinism of any kind is an argument against free will and, as I have made clear in the other thread, I do believe that free will is operating within a ground of consciousness. If that also proves to be an assumption, then so be it.