From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 19 2002 - 20:38:21 GMT
>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>>ERIN 1:
>>"Well I put it as acausal because something way
>>out there in the universe is supposedly affecting
>>my behavior. Acausality is not the opposite of causality.
>> +
>>ERIN 2:
>>"Acausal there is a connection, relationsip but its not A -B causality."
>>
>>not =s
>>
>>GLENN's rephrasing:
>>'In other words "acausal" is causal, except when it's A -B causal.'
>>
>
>OH! You are right. I said it wrong. I should have said
>'In other words "acausal" is causal, except it's not A -B causal.'
>Which is what I meant to say but it came out, er, backwards. Sorry,
>my mistake.
Erin: just because i use words like affecting, relationship,
connected it doesn't automatically mean causal.
Acausal is the idea there is a relationship but you don't know how they are
related.
Plus I sent a post correcting myself about the putting astrology
as acausal only. After reading a few chapters I see Jung
would use I Ching to be the best example.
>When you describe acausal as something way out there in the universe,
>supposedly affecting behavior, I take this to mean that you think
>the behavior is caused, but just by unknown agents. As far as I'm
>concerned you are still postulating causality, and so a separate
>category seems superfluous. This is why you need a limited kind of
>causality called AB or linear causality to make room for acausality.
>
I don't think so. Causal with unknown agents does not equal
unknown relationship.
>The acausal cases you sited are probably false-positives. That is,
>they can be simply understood as non-causal chance happenings. The
>thing that compels you to believe in meaningful but unknown
>causes is a surprising effect, but once you realize that surprises
>are to be *expected* on a statistically random basis, many of the
>stories proffered as acausal lose their punch.
>
>
>LOL. So I didn't coin "linear causality" afterall? Now my
>day is really ruined.
>
>You say you don't like "linear causality" because it
>sounds like some special kind of causality, but when you
>try to pass off a plain old vanilla definition of causality,
>you find one by searching on the web for "linear causality".
>Isn't that special :)
No because I was searching to see if anybody used the word linear
to describe causality (linear + causality not "linear causality")
Most of the sites that came up distinguished linear and nonlinear causality.
But I have no idea if nonlinear causality is the same as acausal because
I didn't read the 40,000+ sites that came up.
>>I thought the quote made sense but the title
>>even alerted my crap detector so you can imagine
>>how silly it was..
>
>There's hope for you?
Oh don't worry.. my crap detector goes is working fine. It goes off
all the time reading posts from scientific cult members:-P
As the quote I just didn't want to throw out the baby with the
bathwater.
>>So can you give me the opinion without knowing
>>the source first then i will go try and find it.
>
>The definition has to serve what *you* mean by
>causality and has to provide room for a notion of
>acausality as you've described it, and I guess it does,
>but it's really up-in-the-air. The unknown causes may
>not be on the same chain as the one the definition allows,
>but this begs the question, "how do you know which chain
>they're on if you don't know the cause?".
>
>If you allow the second paragraph into the definition (as
>the author seems to admit should be done, but doesn't), it
>closes the gap by allowing multiple chains, and chains
>linked to other chains, and now your unknown causes have no
>place to run and have to be considered causal.
>
>I have a few other problems with the definition but
>they are a little off topic. Anyway are we on the same page now?
>And again I apologize for my gaffe.
"Chain" sounds linear to me buddy.
erin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 20:31:57 GMT