Christoffer and Discussion
12 Jan.: Re. Causation.
> And I wonder why. ( I don't have the time to read through Lila again
> right now, and what I really want is your interpretations of it
> anyway).
Here's what LILA says:
A third major platypus handled by the Metaphysics of
Quality is the "causation" platypus. It has been said for
centuries that, empirically speaking, there is no such thing
as causation. You never see it, touch it, hear it or feel it.
You never experience it in any way. This has not been a
minor philosophic or scientific platypus. This has been a
real show-stopper. The amount of paper consumed in
dissertations on this one metaphysical problem must equal
whole forests of pulpwood. In the Metaphysics of Quality
"causation" is a metaphysical term that can be replaced by
"value". To say that "A causes B" or to say that "B values
precondition A" is to say the same thing. The difference is
one of words only. Instead of saying "A magnet causes
iron filings to move toward it," you can say "Iron filings
value movement toward a magnet." Scientifically speaking
neither statement is more true than the other. It may
sound a little awkward, but that's a matter of linguistic
custom, not science. The language used to describe the
data is changed but the scientific data itself is unchanged.
The same is true in every other scientific observation
Phædrus could think of. You can always substitute "B
values precondition A" for "A causes B" without changing
any facts of science at all. The term "cause" can be struck
out completely from a scientific description of the universe
without any loss of accuracy or completeness. The only
difference between causation and value is that the word
"cause" implies absolute certainty whereas the implied
meaning of "value" is one of preference. In classical
science it was supposed that the world always works in
terms of absolute certainty and that "cause" is the more
appropriate word to describe it. But in modern quantum
physics all that is changed. Particles "prefer" to do what
they do. An individual particle is not absolutely committed
to one predictable behavior. What appears to be an
absolute cause is just a very consistent pattern of
preferences. Therefore when you strike "cause" from the
language and substitute "value" you are not only replacing
an empirically meaningless term with a meaningful one;
you are using a term that is more appropriate to actual
observation.
As you will see this is the "ordinary" - in SOM-speak - physical
causation Pirsig talks about, iron filings caused into a particular
pattern by a magnet, and although his observation may be
philosophically valid it sounds a bit contrived No causation
because ...."we don't see it, touch it, hear it or feel it". By such
criterions a lot of phenomena become paradoxical.
As said I don't believe that value versions of the scientific
disciplines (f.ex. a Q-physics where "B values precondition A")
has a future. The SOL presents a more elegant solution by saying
that intellect's S/O has created all paradoxes (while SOM) as
MOQ's 4th. static level they all dissolve witout a trace.
Chris:
> And this hit's closely to what the philosophers I'm studying right now
> are talking about (Jaegwon Kim and a few others). For Kim, there seems
> to be no problem in reducing psychological explanations to
> physiological causal reactions - and the only reason we don't do, for
> him, seems to be that it wouldn't be practically possible to identify
> all the physical causal agents and events that would explain a
> behaviour or an action.
This, however, is a different issue concerning SOM's master-
platypus: What is the determinative factor, mind or matter? As the
Western world is intellect-steeped all are SOMists (except this
small group) it's just what camp they belong to. Kim sounds a
materialist and sees ".... no problem in reducing psychological
explanations to physiological causal reactions" but I bet there are
surely as many who see "... no problem in reducing physiological
explanations to psychological causal reactions".
This quandary will never be resolved from the premises that S/O is
reality's deepest split. MOQ's dynamic/static premises must be
applied and in this context all S/Os are STATIC intellectual
patterns - included psychological/physical - and only valid at that
level. No need to look for SOM problems that has been solved by
the MOQ.
Bo
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
