Causation, Mind, and Psionics

[genkaus]

I did mention that the idea deals primarily with epistimology, or as you say gaps in our knowledge. I'm looking beyond that focus, to see if the idea could be extended in the metaphysics of causation. The cause-effect relationship seems easily taken for granted without much reflection on why causes are linked with effects. On this forum proofs that begin with the proposition "everything has a cause" presuppose that causation is a fully resolved problem. I do not think that is the case.

And I'm saying that any such extension is both overreaching and unnecessary for what you intend to show. The probabilistic cause theories - as far as I understand them - are fully compatible with determinism. The presumption of causation as a resolved problem is inherent in that as well.

I completely agree. I did not mean that probablistic cause entailed the other forms or cause as well. Instead, I think it supplants deterministic cause-effect relations in such a way that in operates in conjunction with other types of cause, which I'll clarify next.

Disagreed - for the reason given above.

You are correct in as much as the Aritotelian nomenclature needs updating. I stuck with those terms because a little research and any forum reader will learn their meaning. That said, I do not think the terms you chose fully capture the original concepts.

Material cause traditonally means indefinite primal matter - below quarks, below strings, all the way down at the bottom. I think, the best modern equivelent is "stuff", but that doesn't capture the idea of its infinite potency.

Formal cause seems best translated as essence, because a thing can change its structure and still retain its formal cause, like when an acorn becomes a fully grown oak tree. Formal cause, or essence is that which preserves its identity as a distinct entity throughout its existence.

Final cause is a bit more difficult to pin down. My understanding is that final cause serves as the motivating principle for all change. We know that things in the universe change, but why is there change at all and not perfect stasis? If I had to choose, I would call it 'intention' even with the connotation of consciousness.

If you are talking about capturing the original concepts then you should understand that Aristotle posited them within the context of his view of physics. He did not know about quarks or strings. He did not know about the operation of biology at cellular level. His theory of causation presumed a hypothesis about how these things worked and, as it turns out, his hypotheses were wrong. Which is why trying to capture the original concepts these things referred to is meaningless.

The 'primal matter' Aristotle talked about were the elements - fire, water, air, earth and aether - which he regarded as the basic things that formed all other matter. Since we know this not to be the case, re-interpreting material cause as 'composition' does capture his intended meaning quite well.

Similarly, essence refers to fundamental properties of the object and that is the functions of its structure. For example, the material cause of the oak tree would be the elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen etc. but in order for them to constitute an oak tree they need to have a specific structure - a specific arrangement of the matter - which ends up differentiating it from other things made of the same matter.

The final cause refers to 'what it does'. Here, understanding what Aristotle meant by 'cause' becomes more important. By cause, he means "why is it so?" - and in some cases - some, not all - the function of the object plays a role in its being. Ignoring that distinction and assuming that all the four causes are applicable to everything in existence is incorrect.

Psi is just a name for the phenomena not the explanation of it. It referes to facts that cannot be explained within a standard naturalistic paradigm. It seems to me the only assumption being made is that the results must have a physical explanation. It may be telepathy, or it could be something else. The point of serious psychical research, like the kind to which I point, is not about proving the existence of a specific means, like telepathy, but to narrow in on the source of the small but significant lab results, in the hopes that it may shed light on what is actually happening during unusual anecdotal events.

I disagree. 'Psi' implies more than the phenomena.

Suppose the explanation for the significant statistical deviation was discovered to be the fluctuations in the ganzfeld field. The display of the targets shown to subject B is connected to the same system producing the Ganzfeld effect in subject A. A every display results in a minor, nigh undetectable, change in the field which leaves the subject a certain impression of the target. In case of such a discovery, the phenomenon would no longer be referred to as 'psionic'.

Most of these variables have been eliminated to conform to objections by skeptics. For example, many of the experiments put the 'receiver' in a Faraday cage.

That's debatable - as you'd see from the experimental setup.

I do not say that dualism is a natural conclusion of my points. Instead it eliminates one of the most persistent objections to it. That objection is the interaction problem: how can an immaterial mind interact causally with material brain.

Unfortunately, all it would establish is that the immaterial mind does interact causally with the material brain - a presumption present in dualism from the beginning. The question of 'how' remains unanswered.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

For the psychically minded posters here, I propose a simple test.

I have a collection of ten objects here on my desk, apart from the normal desk-related objects. I mean to say that I am not including my computer, monitor, printer, pen cup, and so forth. The objects I have in mind are ones that are not normally found on a desk, but neither are they rare or unusual objects.

The test is as follows: Name and describe as many of the objects as you can. Descriptions do not have to be unduly precise, but neither should they be overly general. I would not accept 'coffee mug', but I would accept 'blue coffee mug', for example. There is no need, however, to answer 'blue coffee mug with a chip out of the handle that happened when you bumped it against the edge of the sink in 2011.' This is to prevent a reasonable guess from being judged a 'hit', as well as to unfairly judge 'a miss'.

3 correct out of 10, and I will contact the Randi Foundation on your behalf.

Boru

NB: I don't own a blue coffee mug.

[Captain Colostomy]

For the psychically minded posters here, I propose a simple test.

I have a collection of ten objects here on my desk, apart from the normal desk-related objects. I mean to say that I am not including my computer, monitor, printer, pen cup, and so forth. The objects I have in mind are ones that are not normally found on a desk, but neither are they rare or unusual objects.

The test is as follows: Name and describe as many of the objects as you can. Descriptions do not have to be unduly precise, but neither should they be overly general. I would not accept 'coffee mug', but I would accept 'blue coffee mug', for example. There is no need, however, to answer 'blue coffee mug with a chip out of the handle that happened when you bumped it against the edge of the sink in 2011.' This is to prevent a reasonable guess from being judged a 'hit', as well as to unfairly judge 'a miss'.

3 correct out of 10, and I will contact the Randi Foundation on your behalf.

Boru

NB: I don't own a blue coffee mug.

1. A heavily used male blow up doll.
2. A vinyl repair kit.
3. A tube of ointment for minor cuts and abrasions.


Get calling.

[Chas]

For the psychically minded posters here, I propose a simple test.

I have a collection of ten objects here on my desk, apart from the normal desk-related objects. I mean to say that I am not including my computer, monitor, printer, pen cup, and so forth. The objects I have in mind are ones that are not normally found on a desk, but neither are they rare or unusual objects.

The test is as follows: Name and describe as many of the objects as you can. Descriptions do not have to be unduly precise, but neither should they be overly general. I would not accept 'coffee mug', but I would accept 'blue coffee mug', for example. There is no need, however, to answer 'blue coffee mug with a chip out of the handle that happened when you bumped it against the edge of the sink in 2011.' This is to prevent a reasonable guess from being judged a 'hit', as well as to unfairly judge 'a miss'.

3 correct out of 10, and I will contact the Randi Foundation on your behalf.

Boru

NB: I don't own a blue coffee mug.

A revolver, a knife, and a lead pipe. And you're in the conservatory.

[Jackalope]

For the psychically minded posters here, I propose a simple test.

I have a collection of ten objects here on my desk, apart from the normal desk-related objects. I mean to say that I am not including my computer, monitor, printer, pen cup, and so forth. The objects I have in mind are ones that are not normally found on a desk, but neither are they rare or unusual objects.

The test is as follows: Name and describe as many of the objects as you can. Descriptions do not have to be unduly precise, but neither should they be overly general. I would not accept 'coffee mug', but I would accept 'blue coffee mug', for example. There is no need, however, to answer 'blue coffee mug with a chip out of the handle that happened when you bumped it against the edge of the sink in 2011.' This is to prevent a reasonable guess from being judged a 'hit', as well as to unfairly judge 'a miss'.

3 correct out of 10, and I will contact the Randi Foundation on your behalf.

Boru

NB: I don't own a blue coffee mug.

1. One rubber chicken, in poor condition.
2. One tub of lard.
3. A box of rubber gloves, half full.
4. A large root vegetable, coated with an unknown substance (#2?).
5. A gimp mask.
6. A blowtorch.
7. A bottle of hand lotion.
8. A box of Kleenex.
9. A dead hooker.
10. Two kilos of cocaine.

[Jackalope]

Oh shit, sorry - that's what's on the Captain's desk.

[Angrboda]

I'm not dead yet.

[Captain Colostomy]

Oh shit, sorry - that's what's on the Captain's desk.

Yes it is. And why again did you put your overnight bag there instead of in the sheep paddock, sugar britches?