Brain in a vat

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by James R, Nov 22, 2016.

  1. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    Are you deliberately ignoring where I stated that the verification was an add-on process after discovering that both processes were in use, that there were two sufficient causes to the one effect?
    Are you deliberately failing to address where the two processes were leading to the same action?
    Why are you concentrating on the verification aspect which I acknowledged turned the two sufficient conditions into necessary conditions (the very purpose of the verification process) rather than the existence of there initially having been two sufficient conditions to the one effect?
    Why are you inserting "own" result into the definitions you gave?
    There is no mention of "own", simply of the effect being caused by the sufficient condition.
    Even with the definition you gave, a different sufficient condition might be that they get A's in 80% but also attend and pass a work-placement.
    Both sufficient conditions (this and the one given in your definition) would result in the same effect.
    So yes, it does accomplish that.
    Or do you intend to alter the definition and add in other words to suit your purpose?
    They could, yes.
    Any OR gate in an electronic system would attest to that.
    The same result would be obtained if both conditions are satisfied at the same time, or if just one of them is satisfied.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    No, two causes with the same outcome is not one effect. They may share the same abstract value, by the two do not obtain in the same space and time (the definition of an event...and what Sarkus said). Are you claiming that your two processes happen at the exact same time and space?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You seem to be making assertions about cause and effect, but ignoring that the outcome value is not the same as the effect event. Causality is about events, not values. Otherwise, we could say that all basketball games that end with the same score all caused the same (or each others?) win...even though they occurred in different cities and at different times and the effect was a win for completely different teams. So are you saying an LA win could cause the win of a game in NYC?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I understand that the two processes are done to the same thing and arrive at the same value. But being separated even just in time makes them two separate effect events.

    Sufficient causes guarantee their effect. Why are you leaving out "guarantee"? This literally means that every sufficient cause must produce its own effect. Otherwise, by some magic, a sufficient cause didn't have an effect event simply because another had already obtained. Are you at all starting to see the difference between the value of an event and the event itself? The event of you reading a value is not the same as the value. No one can read that value later and magically know how and where it was produced. Because values are abstractions, like all of mathematics.

    And? Different sufficient causes must still always obtain. Or do you really think you can get two final scores in the same class for the same term? Sure, there could always be an alternative sufficient cause, but that means they do not both obtain at the same time and place.
    If you get all A's, you pass.
    If you get 80% A's and pass work-placement, you pass.
    In what world would it be possible to do both for the same class and term?
    That is the only way you would get the same effect (same class, same term) from both sufficient causes.

    Or do you intend to ignore the definition and omit other words to suit your purpose?

    Again, you're equivocating result value with effect event. Only events determine causation.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    When the outcome is an effect, it is.
    Yes they do.
    No, just their effect.
    No I'm not, I am talking about the effect, being the same regardless of which sufficient cause drives it.
    And eggs are tasty.
    Any chance you can stick to what was actually written?
    It might help.
    Again, please stick to what is written rather than create your straw men.
    The processes are of course separate; they are the sufficient causes.
    The effect is the same.
    Because it's implicit in "sufficient".
    If A occurs, B is guaranteed to happen.
    If C occurs, B is guaranteed to happen.
    B has two sufficient causes: A and C.
    No it doesn't.
    It means that every sufficient cause must produce the effect for which it is conditional.
    You are, for whatever reason, inserting the requirement for the effect to be its own.
    You thus seem to be affirming the consequent.
    A sufficient cause is simply modus ponens/tollens: If P then Q; P; therefore Q, or If P then Q; not-Q; therefore not-P.
    But there exists the possibility of alternative sufficient causes for Q (e.g. If R then Q; R; therefore Q etc)
    If you want something to produce it's own effect then you must argue that Q can only happen due to P - i.e. that P is not just sufficient but necessary.
    It did have an effect - the same effect.
    Why is this such a struggle for you?
    I'm sure you think this has a bearing.
    But it's a straw man.
    You mean other than getting all A's and doing a work-placement?
    And before you ask, yes, satisfaction of both conditions could be achieved at exactly the same time.
    Indeed.
    I was comfortable with "guarantee" being implicit in the term "sufficient".
    Inclusion or not of the term in my post does not alter the argument, so your accusation holds no water.
    Care to try again?
    Again, I'm not.
    But thanks for playing.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,506
    Nice to see another speaking logically and sensibly, rather then philosophically adding his own agenda.....
    Good stuff Baldee!
     
  8. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,518
    This thread is philosophical , has nothing to do with logic .
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,506
    Well at last I can agree with you!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    So you didn't say: "I don't see much of a functional difference between accepting something and accepting the possibility for something (aside from present versus future)" (post #676)?
    Backtrack much? Maybe you forgot you said it, maybe intellectual dishonesty. Surprisingly easy to tell.

    I think Baldeee has adequately dealt with this, so I won't rehash.
    You don't think "processing" is covered under "do"?
    I think Baldeee has adequately dealt with this, so I won't rehash.
    Definitions don't seem to matter to you, which is why the words aren't as important as the actual meaning conveyed and extracted.
    Where have I stated that? Oh, I see! I've gone beyond the boundaries of what you think the gedanken states, because of your misunderstanding of sufficiency. Oh, right. Got it! If it's not according to your rules then it's not allowed. Got it. Thanks.
    Oh, okay, again, I've got it, Syne: your false dilemmas are actually the only possible alternatives. Got it!
    If that's all you can assume... (here's a Jan-shrug for you: :shrug

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You wanted an example, and I have given one, and now you reject it because you think it doesn't violate sufficiency? Am I only to give you an example that does???
    Discussions move on, Syne. That previous discussion has run its course for me. If it hasn't for you, feel free to raise it again and I'll happily ignore it.
     
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    Yes, that is what I am exploring.
    Sort of, although one could argue that the "patterns of activity" that the sets produce are different: in colour, hue, saturation etc. But if one goes to the information that is being displayed, yes, that information is the same, irrespective of what telly it is being shown on.
    Exactly, thus seemingly negating the need for any duality within the BIV. Which was how this arose.
    Therefore one can still reject the possibility of duality, if that is one's intention, even if we accept we may be a BIV.
    Sacrilege!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    If their effect is the exact same thing, what are you comparing? One effect to itself? You certainly don't need two processes for that.
    You're equivocating causal effect with outcome or result. I've already said it is trivial that two causes can obtain the same result value. That doesn't make then the same causal effect.
    What, you can't keep up with simple analogies?
    Or you just don't like that the analogy proves you wrong?
    What's the difference between your test results being the same and basketball game scores being the same?
    After all, you were just arguing that different sufficient causes could produce the exact same effect.

    Are the two processes not done to the same thing and arrive at the same value? Are the tests not separated even just in time?
    If you refuse to clarify your own argument, I can only guess at what you may mean...if you even know.
    What, specifically, is the effect you're talking about? Seems you're just playing keep away with your vague equivocations.

    That's not how sufficient works. Show me ONE credible definition that explicitly says that.
    If A occurs, B obtains.
    If C occurs, B obtains.
    B obtains twice.

    If A doesn't occur, B doesn't obtain.
    If C occurs, B obtains.
    B obtains once.

    It doesn't magically become one effect from two sufficient causes. You seem to be conflating necessary causes, where more than one cause contributes to the same effect.

    Nope, you're all kinds of confused. I'm not claiming:
    If P then Q; Q; therefore P
    You're right, that is both necessary and sufficient.

    How you're managing to wring that out of anything I've said, I have no clue. What I am saying is:
    If P then Q; P; therefore Q

    Sufficient does not mean:
    "If P then Q; not-Q; therefore not-P"
    Again, that would be both necessary and sufficient. Compare:
    If P then Q; Q; therefore P
    And:
    If P then Q; not-Q; therefore not-P
    See the same form?

    Just because P is sufficient for Q does not mean that R isn't equally sufficient for Q. But you seem to be claiming that:
    If P then Q; P; therefore Q
    If R then Q; R; therefore Q
    P and R; therefore Q

    I have no idea what you think the relationship between P and R is that allows them to collectively cause Q, without both being necessary to Q. They're not collectively necessary for Q. So what relationship do you imagine allows for P and R to result in one Q?

    The truth is that:
    If P then Q; P; therefore Q
    If R then Q; R; therefore Q
    P; therefore Q, and R;therefore Q
    Or:
    P and R; therefore Q and Q

    It obtains twice. You're adding Q+Q and still getting Q, when 1+1≠1.

    Still can't handle any analogies buy your own? Pity.

    Wow, really? You can get only 80% A's AND 100% A's "at exactly the same time", in the same class?
    That's amazing!! How can you do that?!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You're comfort and simple logic apparently don't jive.
     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,822
    I think you mean something like "conflating" don't you?
     
    Syne likes this.
  14. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    You're absolute right! I did say that!
    I just made the mistake of assuming your were intellectually honest.
    I didn't notice the original straw man you erected, and I was still speaking from the original context.
    You made a straw man, and you apparently forgot the context.
    So my examples somehow don't "do the same things, react in the same way to the exact same stimuli at the same time"?
    So, not going to bother to support your own argument. Figures.
    So what do you mean by "real" and "simulation"? Show me your special definitions that make them the same.
    I'm the one who provided you a definition of sufficient. I can only lead a horse to water, I can't make him drink.
    If one sufficient cause obtains, and then another obtains but does not produce a new effect, it directly follows that a sufficient cause must not obtain if another already has. Saying the second sufficient cause causes the first effect literally means it doesn't produce an effect. The first effect was already caused.
    I keep asking you to tell me otherwise...crickets.
    Illogical nonsense may satisfy you, but some of us require more.
    So holiday was just an excuse to avoid it. Got it.
     
  15. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    The only real difference would be whether they are doing it intentionally.
    So yeah, I'd have to agree. They don't seem to have any clue they're conflating the two.
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  16. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    Yet you can have two processes.
    When the result is an effect... go figure.
    The analogy does need to have some bearing to what was said though.
    Perhaps you should concentrate on that.
    If that's what you think it does.
    If the scores of the basketball games both had causal connection to an effect, with both being sufficient causes... then none.
    I was.
    Hopefully.
    Sometimes, but not always.
    Perhaps you could, hmmm, I don't know, be civil and actually ask questions, you know, in a civil manner?
    Alas, I am not able to say.
    Confidential and signed disclosures 'n' all.
    Proprietary information.
    So you don't think that "if A then B" means that A is a sufficient cause of B?
    Or is it that you don't think that "if C then B" means that C is a sufficient cause of B?
    So what is it from those two statements that prevents A and C both being sufficient causes of B?
    So if you disagree, you show me ONE credible definition that explicitly says that there can not be multiple sufficient causes for an event.
    Or once, depending upon the system in play.
    Correct.
    I'm not conflating anything, and you seem to be simply throwing around accusations.
    When I want to talk about multiple necessary causes then I will do, and have done - as per the process that converted the two sufficient causes to necessary ones.
    Again - please stick to what is written, not what you want the other person to be arguing.
    Then I'm glad we agree.
    No, this is just P being sufficient... drinking a glass of water is sufficient (but not necessary) to quench my thirst; if my thirst is not quenched then I have not drunk a glass of water.
    In no case is drinking a glass of water a necessary condition of quenching my thirst.
    The first is the invalid form of affirming the consequent.
    The latter is the valid form modus tollens.
    I therefore wouldn't call them the same form.
    Or are you saying that the same form can be both a valid form and an invalid form?
    So... the past waste of my time has been for what??
    For example, you don't always get sicker if you have two sufficient causes for your symptoms.
    According to you, I'm sure it is.
    Yes, double death beats single death every time.
    Still can't see why it doesn't have a bearing?
    Pity.
    If you get 100% A's then you do, by definition, have 80% A's as well as a further 20% A's.
    Maths not your strong subject?
    Edit: I've noticed you snuck in "only 80%" when that wasn't part of the original sufficient condition.
    Shame on you, Syne.
    Shame on you, you utter hypocrite.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2017
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,506
    Just as you are avoiding me?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    Yes, I go on holiday just to avoid you and your arguments, Syne. You're that important to my world.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And just so you know: I'm not on holiday at the moment, so when you think I'm ignoring you, I actually am.
     
    paddoboy and DaveC426913 like this.
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,506
    Sounds like another I know who likes to mouth off incessantly in self grandeur tones.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No points for guessing who!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    You can compare two processes without two results? How do you manage to do that?
    You keep saying that, but I do not think you know what that means.
    Its bearing is just lost on you.
    So two basketball games which are sufficient to end up with a score, cause the same win for two different teams, if the score is the same? Got it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Tone policing to avoid justifying your own assertion.
    Cop out.
    A can be sufficient for B, AND C sufficient for B. What you utterly fail to grasp is that they are individually sufficient to independently guarantee the effect C.

    As usual, you completely failed to provide ANY citation or definition to support your argument.
    You have yet to concretely demonstrate any such system.
    Then get around to demonstrating your claim one of these days.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I was wrong about the sufficient relationship to modus ponens/tollens. No excuse.
    Sufficient condition
    In the proposition "If P then Q", the occurrence of 'P' is sufficient reason for the occurrence of 'Q'. 'P', as an individual or a class, materially implicates 'Q', but the relation of 'Q' to 'P' is such that the converse proposition "If Q then P" does not necessarily have sufficient condition. The rule of inference for sufficient condition is modus ponens, which is an argument for conditional implication:

    Premise (1): If P, then Q

    Premise (2): P

    Conclusion: Therefore, Q

    Necessary condition
    Since the converse of premise (1) is not valid, all that can be stated of the relationship of 'P' and 'Q' is that in the absence of 'Q', 'P' does not occur, meaning that 'Q' is the necessary condition for 'P'. The rule of inference for necessary condition is modus tollens:

    Premise (1): If P, then Q

    Premise (2): not Q

    Conclusion: Therefore, not P
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)#Sufficient_condition
    So:
    If P then Q; not-Q; therefore not-P modus tollens/Q necessary for P
    And:
    If P then Q; P; therefore Q modus ponens/P sufficient for Q
    Part of the problem seems to be conflating logical statements with causal statements.
    Unlike the English construction "if...then...", the material conditional statement  →  does not specify a causal relationship between and . It is merely to be understood to mean "if is true, then is also true" such that the statement  →  is false only when is true and is false.  The material conditional only states that is true when is true, and makes no claim that causes .
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional
    The first step in establishing causation is temporal order (not expressed in a logical statement). If A causes B and then C causes B, C cannot have caused the first B, otherwise you have the wrong direction fallacy, where an effect occurs prior to its cause. Hence you must show that A and C at least occur in the exact same space and time.
    Come on, certainly you can come up with some concrete example, if you're so certain.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    That's a pretty broad bare assertion to make, especially without specific examples.
    Again, do two sufficient causes simultaneously kill? Or are multiple possible causes just individually necessary but not jointly sufficient? After all, people survive causes that others die of all the time. If it were sufficient, no one would survive it (death must obtain), but if it is only necessary, they could always die from some other necessary cause.
    You said, "Even with the definition you gave [100% A's], a different sufficient condition might be that they get A's in 80% but also attend and pass a work-placement." So now you're suddenly claiming these aren't "different sufficient condition{s}"? Make up your mind. Causally, the first one that obtains means you pass the class. If you get 80% A's and work-placement, you pass. If you then go on to get 100% A's (as would only be possible upon finishing the class), you do not magically pass the class again and get another credit. The exact same result cannot obtain for both at once, no matter how naively you want to play at math.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    So the "only" was immaterial, because of the temporal element of causation alone.
     
  21. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    LOL! Persecution complex? I didn't even imply you went on holiday to avoid my argument. Only that you're now using it as excuse. It's okay, just put your head back in the sand.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,506
    Yes Mr Ostrich!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    I'm sure you say the same to those that don't want to rob banks with you.
    Wow, can you honestly not see how those different sufficient conditions could both be satisfied at the same time? Seriously? I guess you're not even up to the speed of naive math play. Hey ho.
     

Share This Page