Imagine a brick hitting a window...

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.

I agree with much of this, but for now focusing on the brick and window -- Would it be fair to say under your Idealism the brick and the window are within consciousness but not conscious themselves?

And what are the atoms observed in consciousness within Idealism - is it akin to the ideas in the essay Berkeley's Suitcase?

I am curious myself if the varied aspects of causation "cash out" in a particular way under Idealism vs, say, Physicalism, but I don't want to jump the gun. I am revisiting some stuff on non-human causation as I want to try and see what people think of causation that has nothing to do with free will.

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 think "directed-ness" might be a more general way to look at it. For the brick and window, the window has a directed-ness toward breaking.

I'm looking into whether it makes sense to use the word Disposition as a synonym to Final Cause.

Would it be fair to say under your Idealism the brick and the window are within consciousness but not conscious themselves?

Oh boy. That's a difficult one to answer in this context. Broadly speaking, I think that the brick and the window and the physical universe as a whole are manifestations of consciousness: the same consciousness that we - the "conscious" beings of that universe - are also part of. So I can't separate them. All I can do is compare what I've just suggested with a dream. In the dream there is no doubt that I have (my mind has) created all that occurs in the dream (we might call it a configuration of consciousness). The guy chasing me down that flight of stairs is my own conscious creation, as are the stairs. Are the stairs conscious or are they imagined props? I'd guess at the latter but I don't know enough about their nature. A more interesting question might be: can the dream self being chased make decisions? Can the guy in pursuit? But then we stray back into free will again.

I don't think I'm getting close to what you are looking for but I don't think I can answer the question you posed directly.

Oh boy. That's a difficult one to answer in this context. Broadly speaking, I think that the brick and the window and the physical universe as a whole are manifestations of consciousness: the same consciousness that we - the "conscious" beings of that universe - are also part of. So I can't separate them. All I can do is compare what I've just suggested with a dream. In the dream there is no doubt that I have (my mind has) created all that occurs in the dream (we might call it a configuration of consciousness). The guy chasing me down that flight of stairs is my own conscious creation, as are the stairs. Are the stairs conscious or are they imagined props? I'd guess at the latter but I don't know enough about their nature. A more interesting question might be: can the dream self being chased make decisions? Can the guy in pursuit? But then we stray back into free will again.

I don't think I'm getting close to what you are looking for but I don't think I can answer the question you posed directly.

What if the guy chasing you in the dream was a brick, and the stairs were a window? 

I realize in Idealism everything to do with causation likely has to cash-out to Mind (so arguably just final causes) but I'm thinking of something the Idealist Hoffman said about causation...I'll try to find it...while the "Ground Level" would be different I can see similarities between causation in a dream (even dream of God) and a virtual world. In both cases there is the observed world but it's all taking place due to some underlying sub-strata.

Mathematics/Code also seems to be a parallel in the cases.

What if the guy chasing you in the dream was a brick, and the stairs were a window? 

I'm not sure how the stairs being a window differs from the stairs being stairs. They are both dream objects or "props", as I called them.  I guess you are asking, what if I dreamed the guy crashing through a window and whether the cause of that event was his inevitable trajectory or my mind playing out the dream story? Again, just an assumption but that would be the latter. He might follow the trajectory because my dream is conditioned by the laws apparent in my waking life or he might take off and fly.

As I said, I don't know if the characters in my dream are endowed with consciousness but I am sure that in the waking world I, as a living character, am so endowed. We could get into some kind of Brahman-Atman discussion but I don't think that's what you are looking for in this discussion.

I'm not sure how the stairs being a window differs from the stairs being stairs. They are both dream objects or "props", as I called them.  I guess you are asking, what if I dreamed the guy crashing through a window and whether the cause of that event was his inevitable trajectory or my mind playing out the dream story? Again, just an assumption but that would be the latter. He might follow the trajectory because my dream is conditioned by the laws apparent in my waking life or he might take off and fly.

As I said, I don't know if the characters in my dream are endowed with consciousness but I am sure that in the waking world I, as a living character, am so endowed. We could get into some kind of Brahman-Atman discussion but I don't think that's what you are looking for in this discussion.

Oh I just meant what if you dreamed of a brick hitting a window, so two objects we'd take as non-conscious entities (at least to start with).

In that case everything related to cause in the scenario is "cashed out" by you being the dreamer. But there would be a difference between you as a dreamer and Mind@Large as a dreamer - in the latter case there is no memory of a waking world informing the one conjured during sleep. So the dreaming would be of a different character.

Why I mentioned mathematics - does Mind@Large think in mathematics when producing the brick & the window? If so it could be like a Virtual Simulation [in the Mind of God], like the physicist Bernard Haisch suggests. 

Just ruminating really...that's actually the first time I understood Haisch's argument. I've long wondered why Mind@Large would need to express reality as a simulation and now I see I didn't really get Haisch's ideas.

In that case everything related to cause in the scenario is "cashed out" by you being the dreamer. But there would be a difference between you as a dreamer and Mind@Large as a dreamer - in the latter case there is no memory of a waking world informing the one conjured during sleep. So the dreaming would be of a different character.

I'm nor sure about Bernard Haisch's virtual reality but I think that M@L would have to endow the virtual reality with a high degree of independence. Again we are back to free will and the freedom to make choices. M@L could then learn from allowing the dramas to play out. Learn from the experience of the restricted conscious viewpoint of the non-omniscient, vulnerable, fearful, confused and ignorant individual conscious beings. 

A lawful (mathematical), linear-time, cause and effect based (virtual) reality would probably be essential for such dramas. The creations of M@L, being free to fail and learn from such failure, would provide essential feedback impossible without that freedom.

I'm nor sure about Bernard Haisch's virtual reality but I think that M@L would have to endow the virtual reality with a high degree of independence. Again we are back to free will and the freedom to make choices. M@L could then learn from allowing the dramas to play out. Learn from the experience of the restricted conscious viewpoint of the non-omniscient, vulnerable, fearful, confused and ignorant individual conscious beings. 

A lawful (mathematical), linear-time, cause and effect based (virtual) reality would probably be essential for such dramas. The creations of M@L, being free to fail and learn from such failure, would provide essential feedback impossible without that freedom.

It's interesting to think in terms of iterations and the Dreaming God learning.

I was thinking the mathematics behind the brick hitting the window, not to mention everything else in the "physical world", would be how Mind@Large creates stability and causal regularity.

Which would then be very akin to a running program. That's what I think Haisch's intention was, that dreaming up the world is different for the Dreaming God / Mind@Large that doesn't have a waking life to serve as its [palette]. Then add in the necessary stability and it makes sense this would be like a video game.

Of course this kind of causation is very specific to Idealism and Simulation Theories. They might be quite different from other ways of looking at the brick & the window.

What, can we say, is going on?



edit: "Mod Plus" in that this is not meant to trigger a new discussion about human free will. Though we might end up talking about mental causation (b/c Idealism, Panpsychism, Theism) let's just stick with the brick and the window as the focal point thanks.

I'll attempt to once again supply the pseudo-profundity that Malf was looking for.

Changes are happening at varying rates in various dimensions. Change implies that there is diverging similarity and difference. A trained neural network can associate the slower rates of change with labels like "brick" and "window" based on an arbitrary degree of similarity that was set to make the neural network maximally useful. A trained neural network can also explore other similarities and differences to assign properties to the identifiers and make probabilistic predictions because this event shares many similarities with other events.

Why is anything similar to anything else? And why does anything change? Similarity without difference is One thing and without any differentiation it is also Nothing. One thing and No thing are conceptual impossibilities. They repel the mind and so like the poles of a magnet in a motor this drives the Creation. The interface between Chaos and Oneness or the interface between similarity and difference is the engine that drives change which produces mathematics and all of its geometric and physical manifestations. An increase in entropy is an increase in chaos (disorder or difference) but also a reduction in defining features which increases similarity or a movement towards Oneness.

So the poles of Order and Chaos or Similarity and Difference drive all change and identity including such scenarios as a brick flying through a window.

This thread is in Philosophical Discussions. I don't think it is meant to refer to things like empirical experiences, or what you and I think of as facts, or reality. (Said without sarcasm.)

I realize that metaphysical discussions get heavy traffic here, but there are many areas on the forum for other kinds of discussion to take place. And given that there seems to be many proponents who don't engage with metaphysical discussion either, it shouldn't be a problem.

Linda

I believe it's a pragmatically relevant to understand why a brick will break glass. Understanding that "why" can, if one is interested, lead to those deeper mysteries. Materials science is a interdisciplinary science involving chemistry and physics, properties of matter... . I don't know if the lay philosopher takes science into account.