[MD] Causation

[david buchanan]

Steve said to Andre:
Pirsig says that the word "cause" _can_ be replaced with the word "value." ..Pirsig of course still uses the word ['cause'] just as dmb does who recently accused me of being the "cause" of confusion.


dmb says:
As I already explained, you are improperly using the term. You are conflating two senses of the word "cause", conflating two ideas that are approximately the opposite of each other. If I say you are the cause of confusion, it means you are responsible for the confusion. If the confusion is the effect of causal laws then you are as responsible as a cog in a machine, which is to say not at all. This is the kind of conflation which causes confusion but I'm certainly NOT saying your misuse of terms is the effect of mechanical laws. I'm just saying the confusion is your bad, your fault. And you're still doing it, as I just explained.

Steve continued:
We don't have to think that use of the word "cause" implies that one is stuck in SOM since it can be understand pragmatically (without metaphysics) and metaphysically (in the MOQ) as preference, as Value.

dmb says:
Like I said several times already, it's okay to think that billiard balls and rockets act according to fixed mechanical laws but when it comes to the actions of human beings the idea of causality is, pragmatically speaking, a very, very bad idea. Causality is rejected and replaced for pragmatic, practical and empirical reasons. But, Steve, you keep bringing the compatibilism of scientific materialists to the table and then bizarrely expect Pirsig's and James's compatibilism to answer to their formulations. The result is more confusion about yet another crucial term. You're trying to retain causality even though Pirsig's reformulation is predicated on rejecting and replacing exactly that. Unlike causal determinism, Pirsig does NOT "say chemistry professors smoke pipes and go to movies because irresistible cause-and-effect forces of the cosmos force them to do it". He rejects the logic that says, "if atoms follow only the laws of cause and effect, then chemistry professors must follow the laws of cause and effect too". Pirsig reverses this reductionist logic. "If chemistry professors EXERCISE CHOICE, and chemistry professors are composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that ATOMS MUST EXERCISE CHOICE TOO." You won't hear Smart, Strawson, Dennett or Harris saying anything like that. 

Steve said:
Does smoking cause lung cancer? Does SOM cause philosophical Platypi? Are dirty plugs in the motorcycle the cause of the richness? Did Platt cause a lot of misunderstanding of the MOQ over the years? (Perhaps we ought to only say that misunderstanding valued Platt?)

dmb says:

You're conflating "cause" as the responsible agent with "cause" as mechanical law again. Your misuse of the term is far from a single, isolated event or a slip of the tongue. It's a conceptual error that is almost certainly going to result in confusion. It'll inevitable lead you to the wrong conclusions and other distortions, for example...

Steve said:
...There is no need to strike the word "cause" from the language (even though we could) because (1) we can understand the word pragmatically without the metaphysical baggage, and (2) if we feel that we need a metaphysical basis, Value is all we need to understand causality based on Pirsig's formula (A causes B amounts to B values A).

dmb says:
I think you're just using a different equation to describe the same fixed, mechanical laws but the whole point is to get rid of exactly that. Here's your value-determinism again. It's the same old determinism with a bad paint job. It's ugly and superficial. It doesn't work at all. AND - as usual - your position cuts against the grain of the main point, which is to get rid of causation precisely because it's so fixed, law-like and mechanical. Pirisg says, "the word 'cause' implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning of 'value' is one of preference...Therefore when you strike çause' from the language and substitute 'value' you are not only replacing an empirically meaningless term with a meaningful one; you are using a term that is more appropriate to actual observation". (LILA, p 107) You've defied this premise the whole time, Steve, and just look at how well it has worked out for you. 

It's been one big train wreck after another, dude. It works in no sense of the word.