Hi Steve,
Are you suggesting ALL ideas are intellectual patterns, 'cause somewhere I believe RMP suggested that ideas associated with science, theology, philosophy, mathematics, &etc. are indicative of intellectual patterns? Marsha On Oct 6, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Steven Peterson wrote: > Hi Craig, > > Craig: >> If it were correct that inorganic patterns could come historically before >> intellectual ones only if there were first a cosmology that holds that >> inorganic patterns come historically before intellectual ones, then you'd be >> right. >> But as that assumption is incorrect, the conclusion does not follow. > > Steve: > I don't follow your point above. > > > Craig: >> Yes, but experience is not just human experience. >> There is the experience of interaction between/amongst inorganic & >> biological patterns >> not dependent on intellectual ones. > > Steve: > Only human beings use the word "cause" to describe their experience. > If you are invoking a hypothetical about animals predating humans, I > would say that if they had the idea of causality they could have > applied it to many of their experiences. But animals as far as I know > don't have ideas (intellectual patterns). > > >> [Steve] >>> Causality is then only >>> an epistemological concern for making predictions rather than a clue >>> to what is REALLY going on in the universe (i.e., reading the mind of >>> God and learning the rules with which he runs things.) >> > > Craig: >> This doesn't follow. >> Why isn't causality just the "interaction between/amongst inorganic & >> biological patterns >> not dependent on intellectual ones." > > Steve: > I don't know what you mean here. > > Let's consider what we are talking about with an example: > > Does drinking red wine cause a reduction in the risk of heart disease? > Suppose we find that people who drink wine have a lower incidence of > heart disease than those who do not drink wine. Is the relationship > causal? Not necessarily. Causality is not merely one thing changing > with another. As James put it, we are looking for a deeper sort of > belonging where someone who does not already drink wine would have a > lower risk of heart disease if they started drinking wine, and > further, it is the wine rather than something else that is associated > with drinking wine that is the key ingredient responsible for lowering > the risk. It may be, for example, turn out that people who drink wine > tend to get a headache and take aspirin for their headaches. It may be > the aspirin that is responsible for the reduction in incidence of > heart disease. > > The above is what I call "playing the causality game." We can of > course do this game in a backward looking way to talk about causal > relationships existing before their were humans (we can think that if > pre-historic proto-humans had drunk wine they would have had less > heart disease), but it is only humans with intellectual patterns who > play this game. The causality game is _our_ tool for predicting and > controlling, for doing things like lowering our risk of heart disease. > This game did not exist before there were humans to play it any more > than football existed before there were humans to play it. > > See also Newton's Laws of Gravitation in ZAMM. Causality is a "ghost" > like gravity is. > > Best, > Steve > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
