Causal Determinism:

The causality of determinism is a physical game of Newtonian billiards on a Euclidian table.

Mind and consciousness are not physical and as such are outside of the realm of the causal chain.

However the mind is still involved in the game.

The mind, though independent of the physical, is both conscious of and influenced by the physical; and the mind, through volitional action, influences the physical.

It takes[Edit per Marcuss] energy to influence the causal chain.

It is best to go with the flow of causality and when a change is warranted, any changes in direction should be attempted in a way that maximizes the benefit of the natural flow. Those who oppose the natural flow of the causal chain do not last very long and eventually all such effort is futile.

It sounds like you are saying it is never worth getting out of bed in the morning.

I would only question one line.
This one: "It takes a considerable amount of effort and energy to influence the causal chain."
That seems in error, sometimes the merest wisp can alter nations, to put it poetically, that is why the causal chain can only be seen clearly in the rear-view mirror, and not always even then.

Agree, the far-reaching effects of seemingly trivial random things is really fascinating to me.

The only reason I get out of bed in the morning is to pee; and then as long as I am up anyway...

Vodkafan: It sounds like you are saying it is never worth getting out of bed in the morning.

Erimitus: No, that is not what I am saying.

A chain of events, a cause, its effect, which then becomes a cause, will continue ad infinitum unless a volitional action of a conscious entity interferes with it.

Maybe an analogy will help me explain. It is not a perfect analogy but then what analogy is perfect.

I am out of bed, I have emptied my bladder as needed, and I decide to swim across a river to get some breakfast. The river flows east to west. I want to cross the river north to south. I jump into the river and the current (the flow) of the river carries me west. My breakfast is south. If I go with the flow of the river I will not expend any energy, but I will not get any breakfast either. If I swim directly against the current (the flow) I will expend a great deal of energy. If I swim directly across the river, north to south, I will expend much less energy and if I swim at an angle with the flow I maximize the benefit of the natural flow and get to the other side expending the least amount of energy. The smaller the angle the less energy I will expend. And then I can have my breakfast. In order to remain alive, which we may in most cases assume is desirable; we have to have enough energy left over after getting our breakfast to maintain our metabolism and if we expend more energy than we have then we tend to not remain alive.

Those who swim against the current of causality will use up all of their energy and then end up where they started from; their efforts were futile.

It is best to go with the flow of causality and if a change is warranted it is best go with the flow as much as possible. Those who oppose the natural flow of the causal chain do not last very long and eventually all their efforts are futile and their life expectancy decreases markedly.

Marcussextus: I would only question one line.
This one: "It takes a considerable amount of effort and energy to influence the causal chain."
That seems in error, sometimes the merest wisp can alterations, to put it poetically, that is why the causal chain can only be seen clearly in the rear-view mirror, and not always even then.

Erimitus: Yes, you are correct. I will edit my post. The whole point of posting is to elicit, additions and corrects. Thank you for your help.

Marcussextus: I would only question one line.
This one: "It takes a considerable amount of effort and energy to influence the causal chain."
That seems in error, sometimes the merest wisp can alter nations, to put it poetically, that is why the causal chain can only be seen clearly in the rear-view mirror, and not always even then.


Lili: Agree, the far-reaching effects of seemingly trivial random events are really fascinating to me.

Erimitus: Me too. The mere flap of small butterfly?s wings or an infinitesimal change in angle at the point of origin of a volitional action will have a considerable effect in the future. And even if all the causes and all of the natural laws could be known it would still be impossible to accurately predict the future because any unpredictable volitional action outside of the causal chain would change everything. The best that can be hoped for is a reasonable accurate probability estimate. Possibly the past could be experience to a reasonable accurate degree if enough myopic perspectives were combined. This has given me an idea for travel into the past without any of those nasty paradoxes. I suppose I will be off on one of my tangents now and forget all about this thread. So it goes. Oh, and thank you for your help.

Hi erimitus,

although granted you did say it was an imperfect anology, I am still not quite convinced. I don't think that concerning humans you can relate things solely to energy expenditure.

Agreed, it would be foolish and against self-preservation to embark on something that would use more physical energy than we would gain by doing it.

But, I suggest that the individual is impelled to struggle against the flow. It is in our nature.

How about this: (I have not thought it through too well so please feel free to pick me up on it)
I might one day make a decision to learn a foreign language , say Polish. I am a lazy person so decide to do it for only half hour a day. So the energy expenditure is minimal and not life-threatening. But I do this everyday and gradually my Polish increases.
Even in the short term I create new cause and effect ripples; I may in the process make a Polish friend or two.
After say a year my Polish may be so good that I have reached a plateau where I have actually created a myriad of new options for myself that were not there before. For instance I get offered a job as an interpreter in the UN or I chat up a Polish woman who wants to be my wife.
So my energy expenditure has not been a significant factor throughout, only my DETERMINATION.

Couple of other things occured to me.

I want to climb a mountain. There is no real gain in doing so; The mountain will be there long after I am dead. I might even die attempting it. It would make much more sense NOT to climb the mountain at all and save the energy.

I feel I want to express myself and want to paint a picture. No matter if I am not a very good painter, it will be MY painting.
Again, it would be far easier to not paint the picture at all.

Why do we do these things?

Not trying to argue for arguments sake Erimitus-but this sort of interests me and wonder if/how you can fit this in to your original premise?

=====

Vodkafan: I don't think that, concerning humans, you can relate things solely to energy expenditure.

Erimitus: energy conservation and expenditure are not the only factors; however, I would argue that they are a major factor.

MY ARGUMENT

IF: you run out of energy
Then: you are dead
If: you are dead
Then: nothing else maters.
So:
IF: remaining alive is a goal
Then: energy expenditure should be a consideration.

Vodkafan: it would be foolish and against self-preservation to embark on something that would use more physical energy than we would gain by doing it.

Erimitus: Yes, if the goal is self preservation.

Vodkafan: But, I suggest that the individual is impelled to struggle against the flow. It is in our nature.

Erimitus: Indeed, a strong compulsion. The wise resist it.



Vodkafan: I might one day make a decision to learn a foreign language, say Polish. I am a lazy person so decide to do it for only half hour a day. So the energy expenditure is minimal and not life-threatening. But I do this everyday and gradually my Polish increases.
Even in the short term I create new cause and effect ripples; I may in the process make a Polish friend or two.
After say a year my Polish may be so good that I have reached a plateau where I have actually created a myriad of new options for myself that were not there before. For instance I get offered a job as an interpreter in the UN or I chat up a Polish woman who wants to be my wife.
So my energy expenditure has not been a significant factor throughout, only my DETERMINATION.

Erimitus: That is how the wise would approach learning.

Wisdom:
Wisdom is knowing what to do, how to do it, when to do it, and then having the testicular fortitude to actually do it.

====
Vodkafan: I want to climb a mountain. There is no real gain in doing so; The mountain will be there long after I am dead. I might even die attempting it. It would make much more sense NOT to climb the mountain at all and save the energy.

Vodkafan: I feel I want to express myself and want to paint a picture. No matter if I am not a very good painter, it will be MY painting.
Again, it would be far easier to not paint the picture at all.

Vodkafan: Why do we do these things?

Erimitus: I do not know. It may have something to do with purpose (reason for being). When an individual has no purpose then life is only Sisyphusian futility and there is no more reason to continue being than not.

Vodkafan: Not trying to argue for arguments sake Erimitus-but this sort of interests me and wonder if/how you can fit this in to your original premise?

Erimitus: Frankly I am not very good at remembering. (Hence my life of menial servitude) And I do not remember what my original premise was. I will reread the thread, think about it, and, if I don?t wander off on one of my tangents, get back to you. If I do not get back to you quickly, I applogise, please give me a little nudge to get my attention.

The original post was in referece to scientifice causl determanism. The thread quickly got off topic, which seems to be the norm rather than the exception, and confirms my suspision that I am not the only one who wanders off on tangents.

OK, fair enough. But you have not really gave me an answer. On the other hand, to be fair I chanced upon your thread at random last week and probably do not understand the question.

I have just looked up determinism and it means everything is predestined and free will is only an illusion. If that is so then I did not chance upon your thread at all and our discussion here is part of a plan.

I choose instead to believe in free will. Maybe at a quantum level anyway. At the physical level science seems to infer that time does not exist and past present and future exist together; it is interesting to think that I WILL succeed in climbing that mountain or painting that picture because I have already done it

I re-read your reply to my "Polish" anology: I don't think you picked up on my main point. Which is:

By my deciding or determining to learn Polish I did incrementally get to a tipping point where I changed the whole parabola my life would follow. Perhaps it is not even necessary to get to a tipping point? Is this not an argument for free will and against Determinism?