Q&A: Causality in Thought or External to Us
Causality in Thought or External to Us
Question
With God’s help,
Hello,
If we see two events, A and immediately afterward B, then one can say that A caused B to occur.
The point is that with our eyes we always see a temporal relation and not a causal relation. And therefore, as far as I know, the Rabbi innovated that we see with our mind’s eye an idea in the realization of its appearance here among us, which coordinates between the person (the picture seen by the eyes) and the event that indeed occurs in the world.
But I wanted to ask: insofar as we never actually identify a causal relation of causing, then we also can never see a causal relation between the idea that we observe and the appearance of things here in the world. After all, one must assume that the idea is connected to the appearance of things. And therefore, one must also say that our mind is “built” in a way that identifies patterns of causality. But if so, according to the Rabbi’s approach, that itself would require an idea. So what have the sages gained by their enactment?
Answer
I didn’t understand any of that. Let me just clarify that I’m not talking about ideas. I argue that through seeing with the mind’s eye (which is called eidetic seeing, but this is not necessarily meant as a specifically Platonic claim), one can discern a causal relation.
Discussion on Answer
This is not about an entity but about a relation between events. When you see the speed of a body, you see the body and that it has speed (that it is moving). Is its motion an entity? In the same way, you see a causal relation between two events.
I didn’t understand, but in the end, from a materialist view of reality, as you say, you can’t derive the concept of causation from reality. So if you assume it exists, how can you see it with the mind’s eye? If there is no dimension at all that the mind’s eye can see… you have to assume at least that there is an additional dimension to reality. Otherwise, why do you need to use this concept? And in any case, this dimension contains entities, and those are the ideas, no?
Actually, speed is defined as change of position per unit of time, and that can be grasped by the eyes together with thought. But a causal relation cannot be grasped in broad daylight, can it?
So what do you see, if not certain entities (=ideas)? After all, we’re talking about something behind it, no?
I’ll try to explain briefly with a parable. The claim is very simple: since a relation of causing cannot be seen, but only temporal change, then even if we observe an entity that describes a relation of causing (say, an idea), we still have to assume that there is causation between that entity and the phenomena in the world. And if so, apparently it hasn’t helped at all.
An analogy: suppose we could display the Platonic ideas on our phone. And for example, a “relation of causing” would be represented by a flashing red screen on the phone.
And so, when we see two balls colliding, we get a red flash. And when we see the log burning in the fire, again we get a red flash. We still assume that the collision of the balls is what caused the flash. But how do we know that itself? Only because of a temporal relation. So what do those flashing ideas in our mind’s eye actually help with?