Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - What is Causation?

Follow us on Instagram for new content, giveaways, and more: shorturl.at/rwC16
In a ‘billiard-ball world’ of Newtonian science, causation was obvious-things had to touch each other in space and a cause always had to precede an effect. But quantum mechanics destroys such notions. What then is causation? Moreover, must causes always be physical? Is ‘mental causation’ a coherent concept? What about ‘top-down causation’?
For subscriber-only benefits, register for a free account today: shorturl.at/ajRZ8
Watch more videos on the metaphysics of the cosmos: shorturl.at/fgyLW
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is a philosopher specializing in ethics, epistemology, neuroethics, the philosophy of law, and the philosophy of cognitive science. He is the Chauncey Stillman Professor of Practical Ethics at Duke University.
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast with new episodes every Wednesday: shorturl.at/hwGP3
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@dbwstein]

Isn’t this a discussion about semantics when the physics is quite clear: ones’s body and brain chemistry and wiring are interrelated physical systems. They have evolved to gather nutrients so they can better pass on certain molecules and patterns of molecules. We’re all just Mesa optimizers.

[@A.--.]

The causation of saying "thank you" in your example was not the dollar....it was the ACCESS to the Coke. He would have said thank you even without a dollar if you had given him that coke (or the affect coke has on his senses). If you had activated the same exact sensors in his body that Coke does he would have thanked you as well. In essence ge is thanking you for ACCESS to that experience.

[@squatch545]

Except nothing caused Robert to say 'thank you'. He said 'thank you' out of social convention, for which he had a reason to say thank you. In other words, reasons are not causes.

[@markuslepisto7824]

Yeah,and that fucking Dollar didn't cause anything rather it's a fucking bunch of physical particles hammered in the form of coins that caused coke bottle to get out of the machine..🤷‍♂️

[@mattd2641]

This guy isn’t discussing the nature of causation or what it is, rather he’s just saying that people don’t often attribute every effect to its exact and specific cause. Best I can tell, at least. The moon causes tides which is a physical process-we don’t have to have the moon reach down some rocky arm and directly touch the oceans and wash them around in order to describe the effect the moon has on tides as physical. Heat is a physical process-just bc we can’t see the excited atoms causing what we call heat, doesn’t mean it isn’t physical or that heat is merely an abstraction. The coke machine has a series of electrical inputs, or conditions, that, when satisfied by certain physical processes, operates to dispense a coke. There is no abstraction of a dollar necessary for the coke machine to operate in this way, it is simply a combination of physical processes triggering a defined operation-the coke machine has no conception of a dollar, nor does it have any clue that it is dispensing a coke. It’s a fancy electrical yet still very much mechanical machine responding to physical processes.

[@frankfowlkes7872]

Correct. He didn't really answer the question. People have a problem saying "I don't know"!

[@attilaszekeres7435]

Well, you clearly missed the entire point of the analogy. The point is that the meaning or value of the dollar is the cause, not the four quarters or the $2 half-dollar or the 10 dimes or the 20 nickels. The dollar is an abstract concept, not a physical object. The dollar is represented by physical objects, but the dollar itself is not a physical object. It's an abstract concept that we use to represent value. Also, is it the Moon that causes the tides? Or is it the Earth that keeps the Moon in orbit? Perhaps it's the geometry of spacetime in which all massive bodies are embedded? Separating the mental and physical is a false dichotomy. The physical is a representation of the mental. The mental is not separate from the physical. It's a continuum. Where there seems to be a gap in causation, we find correlation, i.e., spatiotemporally delocalized coherence. It is evidence for an underlying reality that we can call mental, non-physical, or whatever. It is the cause of physical phenomena.

[@mattd2641]

@@attilaszekeres7435 The dollar is not the cause--the coke machine doesn't have an idea of what a dollar is. It doesn't know that when someone puts in a dollar, or 20 nickels, or 10 dimes, that it dispenses a coke. It's a machine. When a coin is deposited in the coke machine, certain mechanical processes occur which are kept track of until they reach a certain point (a dollar's worth of coins is inserted) at which point another mechanical process is triggered and a coke is dispensed. The coke machine need not have any understanding of the abstract concept of a dollar. It doesn't care what a dollar represents and it doesn't have a perspective or opinion on what a dollar is worth. Again, it's a machine. Also, I don't know what you're questioning about the moon causing the tides, or whatever, but regardless that isn't the point, the point is that in the speaker's example, the effect he's discussing is a physical effect with a physical cause.

[@attilaszekeres7435]

@@mattd2641 "The dollar is not the cause--the coke machine doesn't have an idea of what a dollar is. It doesn't know that when someone puts in a dollar, or 20 nickels, or 10 dimes, that it dispenses a coke. It's a machine. " It does the biddings of its creators. It's a time delayed causation, the same way as you do what your respective environment and teachers have programemd you. Also, depending on your definition of sentience and its necessity for understanding and value formation, many would say that for all means and purposes, the coke machine does indeed "understand" that a certain amount of value has been inserted, and it "knows" what it means, because it has been programmed to react to such an event in a specific manner. Its behavior is designed to be indistinguishable from a human hiding insidethe machine, reacting to the inserted value. "Also, I don't know what you're questioning about the moon causing the tides, or whatever, but regardless that isn't the point, the point is that in the speaker's example, the effect he's discussing is a physical effect with a physical cause." The coke machine was assembled by and does the bidding of its creators. It represents a time-delayed causation mechanism set up by its programmers the same way as you have been indoctrinated in physicalism and social constructs by your environment and educators. Does your hand understand when it deals a card? Does your brain? Whose brain is that? Depending on one's definition on sentience and its role in understanding and value formation, one could argue that for all practical purposes, the coke machine "understands" the value of the coins inserted. It has been programmed to respond in a specific way to this event, and its actions are designed to be indistinguishable from a human hiding inside with access to the same input machanism and output tools. Cause can be decoupled from the immediate present. Depending on your ability to track and comprehend the chain of causation, you may arrive at an entirely different idea of what constitutes the "true cause" of any given effect. In my previous comment, I was essentially arguing that, taking this approach to its logical conclusion, we can conclude that the physical realm is a limited subset of a greater reality, which some prefer to call the mental.

[@medhurstt]

@@attilaszekeres7435 Re: Well, you clearly missed the entire point of the analogy. The point is that the meaning or value of the dollar is the cause, not the four quarters or the $2 half-dollar or the 10 dimes or the 20 nickels. The dollar is an abstract concept, not a physical object. The dollar is represented by physical objects, but the dollar itself is not a physical object. It's an abstract concept that we use to represent value. So he's trying to convey that an abstract concept can be a cause but his example mapped to physical objects that genuinely did have a causal relationship. Is there an example (not an analogy) where that happens in reality? Is this an attempt at claiming that consciousness is causal on...well anything?

[@marcusbruzzo]

he is talking about emergence bottom-up causation, in a popular manner. Really good.

[@avi2125]

Why is time sequence/directionality in causality not addressed early on...? Prior/Later? Is the time factor taken for granted? Thoroughly unsatisfied by this discussion...

[@keithraney2546]

What about Non-Linear causation?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

human body is like a machine that mental thoughts or emotions can operate? what might be the mechanism for mental thought or emotion to operate physical body?

[@rishabhthakur8773]

You cannot think beyond space, time and causation . ~upanishad

[@cashbuyer4221]

It all comes down to the essence of why anything at all occurs, which is to achieve or move toward equilibrium, so from no matter what level of analysis you examine from, bottom-up processes along the continuum of organizational hierarchy, everything is guided by discrimination and selection of that which will achieve balance for the organizing state of a given system at a given time, contingent on given conditions.

[@wolfbenson]

Right. Good. But who, or what discriminates? Who or what selects? Is the discrimination made conscious or unconscious? How did the bottom-up process start? Can we freely interrupt, stop or change the process? Asking because I seriously don't know and would love to understand this!!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

causation, time more than space equation, produces physical nature, in the process brings about consciousness?

[@A.--.]

All causations have to "activate the mechanism of change" in the subject. This may be a better definition of causation. Causation is that affect which brings about the activation of the mechanism of change in its subject. The mechanism is a property of the subject while the entitity inducing causation catalyzes that mechanism.

[@r2c3]

as an abstraction, cause points towards an infinite possibility that we're not capable of processing...

[@jameshudson169]

Blast! I thought I was finally gonna understand causation. I wasn't holding breath though.

[@simonhibbs887]

Keep breathing. This guy has such a poor grasp of causation that he thinks temperature being an average means that there is no physical cause for him sweating on a hot day.

[@Minion-kh1tq]

Keep it up, guys. The world needs more levity.

[@sonarbangla8711]

Cause and effect are related by the complex number i, which is defined as the ratio of effect by cause, i= effect/cause.

[@brianlebreton7011]

Please elaborate your hypothesis

[@sonarbangla8711]

@@brianlebreton7011 This isn't a hypothesis, but a proved theorem, proved by Tristan Needham in VISUAL COMPLEX ANALYSIS, page 207.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@sonarbangla8711 I don't have the book, but an index. That page is the start of an explanation of the the Cauchy-Reimann equations, which define the conditions necessary for a complex function to be complex differentiable. So firstly Needham isn't proving anything there, that's a textbook teaching complex analysis, not a theorem paper. None of the mathematics is original to Needham. Secondly, how does the complex differentiability of a complex function have anything to do with the relationship between cause and effect in physics? What quantities do these complex numbers represent, and how are they derived from physical processes?

[@sonarbangla8711]

@@simonhibbs887 The complex number z=x+iy Is shown by Tristan as increase in effect y due to increase of x, when mapped of to the w-plane defines i as the ratio of effect y/cause x.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@sonarbangla8711 The cause and effect of what? To show this, it would have to robustly correlate to experimental observations, what were they?

[@nealsilver3772]

Any way you slice it, these are all forms of causality. You can’t get around it. Perhaps the difference s are inconsequential if not illusory.

[@Kritiker313]

I'd considered that "causation" (for saying thank you) might result primarily from a need to show oneself as polite and kind.

[@kylebowles9820]

I would use reductionism to understand causation and not ask that last question about how something we don't understand could somehow describe something we understand better. Guy basically said he wants philosophers and neuroscientists to stop getting lost in details. I thought his analogies were shallow and pressed as well.

[@MrGabrucho]

Trying to say a mind is abstract is really weird, since minds are the "things" doing abstractions...

[@ruskinyruskiny1611]

Cause and effect is a fact. The 1st cause was stranger than we can think. Just be kind.JBS Haldane, Kurt Vonnegut.

[@rodrigolabarre]

His paradigm sounds like what would happen if memetics were actually about abstract objects instead of genes. I would expect him to be a platonist where patterns of the tangible world follow abstract objects instead of mathematics and logic being tools to predict the tangible world. I think the real discussion is nominalism vs platonism.

[@InventiveHarvest]

To have causation, you need three things: the cause and effect must be correlated, the cause proceeds the effect in time, and without the cause the effect will not occur.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"To have causation, you need three things: the cause and effect must be correlated, the cause proceeds the effect in time, and without the cause the effect will not occur."* ... I agree with everything you've written except for one assertion. The cause doesn't necessarily have to proceed the effect in time. If the causal act is a *mathematical assessment,* then no time is involved nor required. It's an instantaneous / simultaneous event happening between "cause" and "effect."

[@InventiveHarvest]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC ok. We can revise it to say that the effect cannot precede the cause. But without the temporal constraint, we would not know which phenomenon was the cause and which was the effect.

[@brothermine2292]

You're making an unproven assumption that nothing can travel backward in time. Take a look at the Transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, or at Sabine Hossenfelder's Future Input Dependence.

[@InventiveHarvest]

@@brothermine2292 I don't agree that 'cause' is the right term for those circumstances. Simply a mere 'correlation'.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

​@@InventiveHarvest *"We can revise it to say that the effect cannot precede the cause."* ... Perfect! I agree with that because I believe time to be exclusively forward-directional. *"But without the temporal constraint, we would not know which phenomenon was the cause and which was the effect."* ... Would it really matter? In the equation (1 + 1 = 2) there is a sequential order of operation which mimics the forward movement of time. You *start* with 1, and *then* you add another 1 to it, and the *end result* is that you have 2. That's "beginning, middle and end" all encased in a mathematical equation, but technically speaking, all mathematical equations are instantaneously executing events.

[@deadweaselsteve3262]

Field gradients. 50 people live on one side of a river, with a wilderness on the other side. Each month, each person has a non-zero chance of crossing the river. What will happen, given sufficient time? A population equilibrium, due to the population density gradient between regions. Once equilibrium arrives, the gradient drops to zero, and causation ceases to exist.

[@simonhibbs887]

Equilibrium is a derived statistical concept. It has considerably less information that the actual system it describes. People will still actually move from one bank to the other, the number of people on each side will still vary over time, which people are on each side will still vary, and the number of people on each side will not always be equal. In fact given sufficient time all the people would end up back on the first bank, except that they probably wouldn't live that long.

[@alfreddaniels3817]

I was waiting for the admittance that “causation” is dependent on satisfaction.

[@aren8798]

I’m glad that Lawrence called out the guy for his neurological example. Here’s an example of another intelligent person who is not very wise and doesn’t understand Causation. How many of you also see what’s wrong with his example? I do

[@gregsmith80]

I can't believe this has to be said: No, a vending machine does not respond to an abstract idea of a dollar. Coins physically interact with machinery in a billiard ball chain of causation in ways that we fully and completely understand. Coin machines have to prevent people from activating it without giving it coins, so clearly it's not the mere notion of a dollar at work. Even if we lived in a world where we controlled machines with non-physical causes, we would need to explain how the non-physical affects the physical. Dualists cannot answer the question without analogies, thought experiments, or sophistry - how could your model of the universe possibly work?

[@AlexandreHefren]

House is a concept that had to be thought about before come to the physical world. It was not out there before us. A concept that is not material but have been causally affecting our lives in the physical world. The idea of the dollar goes on these lines, ofc at some point in time the idea of house has to be put in bricks, and sand, etc before it is completed in its material form. The machine is already checking the physical meaning of a dollar

[@gregsmith80]

@@AlexandreHefren what is the mechanism by which the concept of a house can have a causal effect? How does that work?

[@AlexandreHefren]

@@gregsmith80 I do not know how to define causality outside of the physical word, because the traditional formulation happens in space-time, but I do see a clear influence (causing consequences, thus generating causal effects) of the concept "house" on the physical world.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@AlexandreHefren Environmental conditions cause physical discomfort, which we take action to avoid. This resulted in our ancestors finding and making shelters, which developed in sophistication. The concept of a house is a description of an advanced form of such a shelter. It is possible for the concept for a thing to exist before the thing though, but for a concept to exist it must be instantiated physically. That's what it means to say that someone has a concept, imagined a concept or created a concept. It distinguishes hypotheticals that do not exist from actuals that do. Concepts are created through the combination of more primitive concepts, and the most primitive concepts originate from the perception of states of affairs.

[@AlexandreHefren]

@@simonhibbs887 I completely disagree. What is the physical realisation of some very abstract mathematics? I will give just a very simple example. Did we find prime numbers "instantiated physically" out there and create the concept afterwards? You just need to know a bit of history of mathematics to know this is not true. We can look at something in the physical world and do a thought process that creates something entirely different as an idea. You should not say that prime numbers were found in nature first, they were discovered as consequence of rules of mathematics first, and then, just after their concept was discovered, we are able to identify patterns in nature that obey prime distribution. If you want to look at the first cause of something, then this is a different question. In a situation where A killed B, someone might say that the cause of the death was heart attack, but you can argue it was A actually the reason, because A poisoned B. Then, you want to go further and say the cause of B's death is due to A, but A exists because his/her parents decided to give birth to him/her. Regarding living beings, you can go all the way to innate causes, namely, genetics. I do not think one has always (depends on the problem) to find the first cause to explain some action in a distant future from any primary cause. Your explanation would imply something like: the reason why we discovered prime numbers is because we think, and we think because we exist, and we exist because there is a physical world that accommodate us... Fine, but it gives no insight about how prime numbers came about.

[@ItsEverythingElse]

The action is what caused the person to say thank you, not the abstract dollar (which isn't really abstract anyway).

[@deanodebo]

“A” dollar. That is a unit. 1. So what is 1 made of?

[@simonhibbs887]

It’s 1 of something. It’s the ‘of something’ that does all the work, and makes things happen. The 1 is just descriptive of the actual phenomenon.

[@deanodebo]

@@simonhibbs887 descriptive how?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@deanodebo Descriptions relate to each other through physical correspondence. The number 1 can be encoded on an abacus, in writing on paper, in the memory of a computer, in an artificial neural network, in a biological neural network. These are all different representations but they relate to each other through physical correspondences. The correspondences are the procedure for using ababacus, the rules of written english or mathematical expressions, the program in the computer, the agreements we have about money. These rules, which are physical processes for how these representations are transformed, define how these representations relate to each other.

[@deanodebo]

@@simonhibbs887 what do they have in common?

[@billpowers4688]

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…

[@sharpsheep4148]

Seems like he is drawing from the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. All paths are considered so there is no single cause to the event.

[@simonhibbs887]

I think he has no clue what physics even is, hence his completely incoherent, nonsense account of temperature and heat.

[@Cafez27]

I love this channel but this daft beyond imagination

[@vics8873]

The dollar as an abstract? Really?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

maybe human brain can interact with time for causation?

[@rovosher8708]

As strong as the mental state would be it can’t get the coke out of the machine without that abstract $1. What you actually thank for is quenching the thirst.

[@simonhibbs887]

Without that physical $1. In order for the machine to vend the coke there must be a transaction, and transactions are physical processes.

[@Agamon]

Just because a system is complex doesn’t mean it contributes less or in a more fussy manner to causation. At least I think that’s what he is saying. Dunno. Seems like a whole lot of reaching.

[@johnterry6541]

I don’t get his arguments. Thoughts are causing actions. Okay. And..what?

[@philflip1963]

Mental states ARE physical states! This guy is way behind on the implications of AI. This is old fashioned dualism. AI's are minds. Dollars IS an abstract, (conceptual symbolic) entity but they are ALSO real things, coins, notes etc.! Physical causality is a valid concept because physical events follow natural laws. Mental causality is a valid concept because mental states are physical states so it's actually also Physical causality. Causality motivated by consciously experienced Qualia are events caused by super-physical events. How about retro-active causality as a result of pre-cognition? The existence of a 'soul' (not psyche) raises the possibility of the existence of free will and therefore non-mundanely physicalist causality. These people have a lot to learn!

[@quackcharge]

AIs are not minds. AIs are stochastic parrots, sitting on their plateau, waiting for next winter.

[@paulhardie5309]

Huh? Makes no sense. No wonder Kuhn looks confused.

[@piruz3243]

Maybe he just got hungry because of the word salad.

[@dixztube]

The show was and I’m sure for some good but it just circles around. Talk china and business

[@Jinxed007]

You say thank you because they enabled you to get what you want. It has nothing to do with the cash combination. Silliest thing I ever heard.

[@patientson]

GIVER OBSERVER DEVELOPER

[@UriyahRecords]

Finally, someone dropped some jewels and not talked around the problem with more questions.

[@robertstan2349]

i didn't get that impression at all. it sounded like word salad that didn't explain anything to me

[@quackcharge]

@@robertstan2349 yeah honestly impressed by how little he managed to say. if I had a dollar for every time he said dollar though, that would be nice

[@UriyahRecords]

@@robertstan2349 he broke down several different types of causal relationships and pointed out how abstract concepts which aren't physical play a role in causality. Pretty impressive.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@UriyahRecords In every case there was a physical causal chain. Sweating is caused by body heat, which is caused by the absorption of thermal energy from light and atmospheric molecules. The vending machine dispensed the coke due to physical coins interacting with it's mechanisms. Robert says thank you due to physical changes in his brain as a result of his perception of the state of affairs. You might claim that Robert's conscious experience is non-physical due to some philosophical commitment you might have, but nothing that occurred in any of these examples is in any way problematic under a physicalist account.

[@UriyahRecords]

@@simonhibbs887 but the minute you ask why to any of those parts of the "chain" if you want to call it that, because everything happens in the NOW, you are back to not knowing. This is why philosophy has its place, because all questions can't be answered strictly with empirical data from the physical world.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

My ToE posits that "Existence" necessarily evolves from _"simplicity to complexity."_ *Information* is the essence of "Existence" and this type of evolution guarantees the generation of *new information.* All information is then used to define "Existence" and aid it in achieving *justification* for being anything other than nothing at all (Principle of Sufficient Reason). ... So, there can be a non-causal beginning of "Existence" when evaluated in this manner. You can have the most minimalistic representation of "Existence" that's conceivably possible in the form of "self-information," but have locked within an inconceivable state forever ... unless it makes a _"first move."_ In a scenario like this, a "first move" will inevitably be made because the only other option is to do nothing at all. Since "Existence" is all about *information,* and doing nothing doesn't generate any new information, then logic states that making that "first move" is the best option. So, in the beginning, the "first move" for "Existence" was to count the amount of "Existence" that was present, ... and that amount was *1.* A mathematical assessment is NOT a physical act, but the instant "Existence" counted itself as 1, it rendered "Existence" conceivable ... and "Existence" was born! All that's left to do from this point is for "Existence" to continue evolving into *new information.* *_"Existence can be counted; therefore, Existence is!"_* would billions of years later evolve into *_"Cogito ergo sum!"_* Your self-aware consciousness is a 14-billion-year-old, highly evolved artifact of that initial mathematical assessment. It's how you know that you exist. This is also why only that which is "conceivable" can exist.

[@InventiveHarvest]

The axiom of entropy would disagree with the assertion that things move from simple to complex. While we do find local instances of complexity, things overall move the other direction.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"The axiom of entropy would disagree with the assertion that things move from simple to complex."* ... Intelligence can supplant entropy. Every day when you make your bed, you lower its entropic state. *"While we do find local instances of complexity, things overall move the other direction."* ... The universe has evolved from a quark-gluon soup to billions of highly complex, self-aware lifeforms over a 14-billion-year timespan. If you charted this evolution out (based on complexity), it would be a 14-billion-year-long chart that's consistently moving upward.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@InventiveHarvest I've made three attempts to post my reply, and KZbin keeps deleting it. I guess that's as far as we can go on this discussion.

[@InventiveHarvest]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC probably you were trying to link a source

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@InventiveHarvest *" probably you were trying to link a source"* ... No, no links or citations. YT randomly deletes comments for whatever reasons. I've been plagued with this for years. Simon Hibbs suffers the same.

[@phillipebrall9930]

Gosh, the comments clearly show most people so far just don’t ‘get it’. Please keep going on this journey, it is appreciated.

[@KerryJapan1]

I want to know what caused his hair to be like that.

[@Cafez27]

He doesn’t actually say anything does he

[@richardsylvanus2717]

He smokes good weed

[@ErnestoOSAMBELEANGUE]

I am the first person to comment.

[@mabloch2410]

F---->B---->W---->F---->B---->W..... ad infinitum F=being the first commenter. B=brain state. W=writing comment. Some causality right there. After all, the "writing" caused the brainstate even before the writing itself took place.

[@stellarwind1946]

And it contains absolutely nothing of value.

[@nigelmarchant9473]

First to comment ++ so what?

[@helisoma]

that's not a comment sorry too late 😌

[@simonhibbs887]

Note that while he’s throwing shade, he’s not denying that physical causation, including the moon causing tides, isn’t ‘real’, he’s just saying it’s one form of causation. I’ll show how the other forms of causation he claims also reduce to physical causation. BTW it shows that he's not a philosopher of science, none of them regardless of their philosophical or religious commitments would make these basic errors. He claims that temperature as an abstract concept is a different kind of causation, that therefore it’s non-physically causal. Temperature is an emergent property, but we do not rely on temperature to explain humans sweating. Every bit of energy transmitted into a human body by hot air in the environment is transmitted either by an individual atmospheric molecule interacting with his body, or by a photon of EM radiation being absorbed by a molecule in his body. That’s how the energy actually gets there, and we understand these processes perfectly well. We know how that energy gets transmitted through his body, none of this is a baffling mystery unknown to science. It’s just that he doesn’t understand it. We use temperature because it’s a useful abstraction, but being an abstraction doesn’t mean independent of physical causation in the way he incorrectly infers. When we say the temperature was 30 degrees, it was hot, and that’s what caused him to sweat we’re relying on the fact that it doesn’t matter which specific air molecules hit his body, with what energy, in what order. What matters is that the overall energy was above a certain threshold. However we are not saying that the fact air molecules hit his body is irrelevant, or didn’t cause him to sweat. This is the fault in his reasoning. The temperature only exists because there is a 'pool ball' array of air molecules doing their thing. If they didn't, he wouldn't sweat. There's a direct physicaly causal chain. Money is in many ways a similar emergent concept to temperature. It doesn’t matter which coins he gives his friend, as long as he gives him enough. It doesn’t matter which credit card he uses to pay fro something, as long as he has the funds in his account. However the coins being handed over is a physical change. The electrical signals from the bank authorising a credit card transfer is a physical change. No physical change, no purchase. It doesn’t matter which pool table, and which balls we play the game with. It matters that we use a table, use pool balls, and play a game. This principle is called substrate independence, and it’s a general property of information systems. It applies to temperature, money, and games of pool. It apples in all of the examples he gave, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that he is also wrong about mental causation and it also applies there.

[@brothermine2292]

I agree with everything you wrote except the conclusion of your final sentence, which isn't logically implied by his other mistakes. And frankly, I don't know what he was trying to say about mental causation. He tipped off that his point about abstraction is nonsense when he admitted that the coke machine _instantiates_ the $1 abstraction. The $1 abstraction was in the mind of the person who programmed the machine how to respond to various combinations of money (or coin-shaped slugs), and is in the minds of customers who want a coke from the machine. But there's no evidence that abstractions cause anything, since the causes can be attributed to physical instantiations.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@brothermine2292 All I'm saying with that last sentence is that if someone makes a claim that they say is predicated on a set of examples, and those examples all fail to support their claim, we can discount the claim. In this case the claim is that mental causation belongs to this other class. of causation. However if he's failed to show that this other class of causation exists, and his reasoning to think that it does is clearly faulty, then it's reasonable to discount the claim. >"But there's no evidence that abstractions cause anything, since the causes can be attributed to physical instantiations." Exactly.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"He claims that temperature as an abstract concept is a different kind of causation, that therefore it’s non-physically causal."* ... I had problems with his stance, as well, but I think he was arguing that temperature is a conceptual term. His money argument was better than his temperature argument. *"Money is in many ways a similar emergent concept to temperature. It doesn’t matter which coins he gives his friend, as long as he gives him enough"* ... Yah, but you're only focusing on the physical coins. His argument was that he could give you any configuration of coins in an amount matching $1 and have the same causal effect, so it's not the physical quarters, dimes, or half dollars that are causing the effect. it's the nonphysical *information* attached to the specific "amount" that $1 represents in terms of "value" (yet another nonphysical property). *"It doesn’t matter which pool table, and which balls we play the game with. It matters that we use a table, use pool balls, and play a game."* ... But there is *specific nonphysical information* attached to pool balls, pool tables, and how the game is played that is NOT attached to the physical items themselves. Without that nonphysical information there is no game at all. It's all just some random, round structures and a rectangular structure with no interconnectivity. An "8 Ball" can result in a loss or a win depending on when you sink it, but "8" is not a part of the physical structure of the ball. It's just a bunch of polyester resin. So, in reality, the "game of 8-ball" is really just *nonphysical information* using physical items like sock puppets to generate new information.

[@mandelbot5318]

@@simonhibbs887 A simple example of a mental state supports what you’re saying. In the same way that the abstract concept of ‘a dollar’ cannot cause anything until it is instantiated (in whatever form, be it four quarters, a dollar coin, or a card with sufficient funds), the abstract concept of ‘pain’ will also have no causal efficacy unless instantiated in some brain state or other (whether that be ‘c-fibres’ in human beings or some other similar feature in a creature with differing neurophysiology). Of course, if examples could be found of the mental state ‘pain’ existing in the absence of a neural correlate, and thus causing us to say ‘ouch’ etc. without a physical event, then this would have to be reconsidered. But I think we can agree that such examples are unlikely to be forthcoming.

[@dag410]

Who or what is processing all this information?

[@PaulHoward108]

Choices are causation. Physical is an amount of detail. The moon is not a physical thing. The moon's properties are physical, but the moon is an idea and a person. Prāṇa is a force field that adds the information from choices to instantiate meanings from the mind.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

You're designating 'choice' as causation - these are 2 different things. Choice is by the ability to act, therefore assertive, and such action requires something that is passive to it and it must participate in that which is principle and acts upon. Thus, choice is not causation but the agency to act, and such causation is that which participates in the principle that acts upon it - there's first the act, and that which is acted upon, being passive is the action or causation. Too, you're designating 'physical' as an amount of detail, but matter is inert, without qualities, essence, intellect, being. It is quite difficult to argue that physical inert matter has properties such as form, nature(s), essence, characteristics, and such. Physical the Platonists recon as like a mirror, which receives the forms from the intelligibles. Therefore, the physical isn't the detail or Cause of detail even, but a false notion thereof. 'Information' derives from what is already 'in form' or has form and is not from the source. Prana must be the principle if it acts as a giver of nutriment, essence, nature, form, etc. Prana wouldn't give something of itself, thus asundering - as if now dividing itself - and therefore confer it to something else; rather, that which receives something from prana is by its participation in the prana; and prana may not even act, but that which receives anything from prana is most passive to it and receives its image, while prana remains impervious to the lower. Choices can't be information as it's an ability of something principle that is antecedent to action; information deriving from things proceeding after such actions or causation therefore ' in form'. I like your comment. As a student, I am working on Reason and logic.

[@samrowbotham8914]

If I give you a dollar and you give me a dollar we only have one dollar each. If I give you an idea and you give me an idea, we now have two ideas. Ideas are in the mental realm, dollars are in the physical they are means of exchange no longer backed by gold so today they are more nebulous than they once were. The first Cause is the unmoved mover of Theism the moment you ask who caused the first Cause i.e. who created God you are making a category error a logical fallacy.

[@simonhibbs887]

That's a nice way to think about it. The concept of a dollar is more complex than it used to be with cash currency, but even digital dollars are still physical. They are entries in databases, which are physical patterns of electrical charge in computers or on persistent storage. Performing a financial transaction is an entirely physical process. On a first cause or unmoved mover, that's contentious. I refer to arguments like this as definitional end-runs. Is god as an un-caused cause a conclusion or an assumption? Even if it's an assumption, do we have reason to accept it? If we do accept it, does it lead to contradictions? These are reasonable challenges, we shouldn't just define one position as correct and then claim all challenges to it as being by invalid as a result of that definition.

[@kimsahl8555]

Causation is always an alternation of potential and realization.

[@clownworld-honk410]

Nope... he lost me there. I feel like a coke now... is that causation or suggestion !? 😊

[@kevinhaynes9091]

Robert is "obsessed with Cosmos, Consciousness and God"... But wants to understand them through material reductionism...!!! Robert, it's not going to happen, and you don't listen to your guests. Many episodes ago, one of your guests, and please excuse me for not remembering, said, and I quote... "The problem with materialism is that it tries to construct the mind out of properties that refuse to add up to mentality". Please, listen to your guests, and your obsession might translate into an understanding that is closer to truth...

[@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523]

That’s funny Kevin, I have been listening these videos for some time and seems to me that Robert is looking for metaphysical answers to those questions and even if his guests gave the most convincing reasons, based in evidence, he seems to not get it and keep hosting philosophers, spiritualists and chiromantics. I suppose he is doing something right since he is annoying you and me.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Even if hundred guests speak the same subject , I would still be watching them all. To understand a subject and it's related developments it is important to observe every source of information. What's the greatness of this channel is that none of the quests can fool Robert... He beats almost every guest. Great.

[@ronhudson3730]

This guy must get paid by the word. Robert desired a Coke. He had no money. He asked for a gift/loan of the money needed to buy a Coke. He was given the money. Because he is a nice fellow and social convention dictated he that he say thank you. He put the money in the machine and a Coke rolled out. Robert has his Coke, he feels good about his friend and his friend feels good that he helped Robert get what he wanted. A sequence of cause and effect events that started in Robert’s mind. We experience events like this every day. They are normal, simple and understandable. Only people who are paid to use a lot of words, make concepts like this unnecessarily complicated

[@Lil_Stomachache]

Makes no sense. Lame explanation

[@S3RAVA3LM]

'Giving somebody a $1 causes them to say thank you.' First awareness is required; Intellect and Reason. And a sense of self relization; a notion of good and bad. And gratitude and kindness. And a conscience for when somebody does a good gesture unto you therefore you appreciate it and give reciprocal in thanking them. But what is this "good"? What are these abstracts? Are they really contigent or one with the whole. What is this very $1 but an abstract notion of imagination with the facultly of measure and activity for trade. How can this guy say something unreal causes something real. Because the "good" is real. A $1 made up in imagonation.

[@dmartin1650]

Very poor arguments made from flimsy and inaccurate analogies.

[@richardharvey1732]

Hi Closer to Truth, every time I hear a speaker make such a basic error I find it very hard to listen to any more!, am I being too critical?. All was going well until he stumbled into an interesting fallacy, about temperature and heat, he is correct when he states that temperature is a conceptual measure of heat but that does not mean they are the same thing!, this means that while temperature is indeed not a physical entity the same does not apply to heat, in much the same way heat and cold are not reciprocals, heat does appear to exist but cold does not!. It might be proper to establish a vocabulary that can be used to discuss nebulous concepts like consciousness but using the same words as apply to physical reality is causing far too much confusion, there are many things happening in the physical universe that we have not yet described effectively but that does not mean they are not real. These nebulous matters of the mind exist only by description!, they have no physical properties of any identifiable sort. Cheers, Richard.

[@circusOFprecision]

Causation is just an abstraction, like the dollar…yet we observe it, like a dollar bill.

[@simonhibbs887]

The concept of a dollar is a description of what a dollar is. Anything that conforms to that description is a dollar. Descriptions are information, which means they are physical, which is why we can have information science and information technology.