[MD] Causation

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Steve]
> that same cosmology that puts
> inorganic patterns historically before intellectual ones itself is an
> idea which shows that ideas come before inorganic, biological, and
> social patterns in the MOQ's _epistemology_ which is also its
> ontology.

If it were correct that inorganic patterns could come historically before
intellectual ones only if there were first a cosmology that holds that
inorganic patterns come historically before intellectual ones, then you'd be right.
But as that assumption is incorrect, the conclusion does not follow.

[Steve]
> In the MOQ, experience is reality, so its
> ontology is pretty much its epistemology (at least as far as DQ/sq)
> and cosmology gets demoted to being mere "ideas about reality" as
> distinct from direct experience (except perhaps for asserting the four
> types of patterns as a moral order since it seems to have ontological
> status in the MOQ).)
> Once we make that distinction, we see that ontologically, causality
> exists in the MOQ only as an intellectual pattern rather than as an
> extra term in addition to subjects and objects (i.e., rules about how
> they interact with one another written into the fabric of reality).

Yes, but experience is not just human experience.
There is the experience of interaction between/amongst inorganic & biological patterns
not dependent on intellectual ones.

[Steve]
> We don't
> need an extra ontological category for causal laws since Value does
> just fine in explaining a basis for causality.

True.

[Steve]
> Causality is then only
> an epistemological concern for making predictions rather than a clue
> to what is REALLY going on in the universe (i.e., reading the mind of
> God and learning the rules with which he runs things.)

This doesn't follow.
Why isn't causality just the "interaction between/amongst inorganic & biological patterns
not dependent on intellectual ones."
Craig