Religion III

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I just laid out number 3 for you earlier.

The 1 oz. paper alone did not top the see saw. To tip the see saw, it took that 1 oz. paper + one man on one side and + one man on the other side.

As I said earlier, this discussion is way above your pay grade. Give it a rest.

No, only the paper tipped it.

The advent of electronics took advantage of upsetting an equilibrium. The principle of amplification originally appeared with the vacuum tube, later upgraded to transistors and solid state devices. They allow a small amount of current to modulate a much larger amount. Originally when radio signals were first broadcast the original radio receivers with basic antennae, would pick up very low strength signals and when early headphones were attached, a low signal might be heard.

Electronic amplification allowed those minute signals to control enough power to run loudspeakers. And detect very faint signals. The modern radio telescope may amplify barely detectable distant objects radio, and microwave signals, billions of times.

To simplify, a lever does that as well. It is a way to control large objects with small forces. Where is your so-called "principle of proportionate causation"

Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.

Archimedes

From me and Archimedes, cut your idiotic insults.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

No,. only the paper tipped it.

The advent of electronics took advantage of upsetting an equilibrium. The principle of amplification originally appeared with the vacuum tube, later upgraded to transistors and solid state devices. They allow a small amount of current to modulate a much larger amount. Originally when radio signals were first broadcast the original radio receivers with basic antennae, would pick up very low strength signals and when early headphones were attached, a low signal might be heard.

Electronic amplification allowed those minute signals to control enough power to run loudspeakers. The modern radio telescope may amplify barely detectable distant objects radio, and microwave signals, billions of times.

To simplify, a lever does that as well. It is a way to control large objects with small forces. Where is your so-called "principle of proportionate causation"


From me and Archimedes, cut your idiotic insults.

Take your stupid non sequiturs and stick 'em in your ear. You're such a dishonest equivocator!

The paper on the see saw alone could not tip the see saw. And you know this because otherwise you wouldn't have included two men also on the see saw.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Take your stupid non sequiturs and stick 'em in your ear. You're such a dishonest equivocator!

The paper on the see saw alone could not tip the see saw. And you know this because otherwise you wouldn't have included two men also on the see saw.

You do not understand something, it's ramifications and you blame others.

Bye bye ignorant fool.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You do not understand something, it's ramifications and you blame others.

Bye bye ignorant fool.

You don't understand anything!

[hcap]

Originally Posted by blockhead

Take your stupid non sequiturs and stick 'em in your ear. You're such a dishonest equivocator!

The paper on the see saw alone could not tip the see saw. And you know this because otherwise you wouldn't have included two men also on the see saw.

Btw, you are woefully ignorant that the computer you at one point implied you programmed, is based on minuscule small bits of code that control a good deal of the output to your computers display and establishes the program to pick your losing horses. And much of that code that connects you to the racing form arrives in minuscule signals over the internet.

Entire industries, financial, entertainment, scientific and technological are only possible because of all those things you cannot understand, and think are non sequiturs control vast amounts of wealth and power.

All for want of a minuscule nail, bunky.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Btw, you are woefully ignorant that the computer you at one point implied you programmed, is based on minuscule small bits of code that control a good deal of the output to your computers display and establishes the program to pick your losing horses. And much of that code that connects you to the racing form arrives in minuscule signals over the internet.

Entire industries, financial, entertainment, scientific and technological are only possible because of all those things you cannot understand, and think are non sequiturs control vast amounts of wealth and power.

All for want of a minuscule nail, bunky.

We weren't talking about computers, you deceiver! We were talking about see saws and Ben Franklin's loss of a kingdom for the want of a nail.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

We weren't talking about computers, you deceiver! We were talking about see saws and Ben Franklin's loss of a kingdom for the want of a nail.

We were talking about your asinine claim that the cause must bee greater than it's effect.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Effects can never be in their causes. Why? Because effects are not greater than their causes! Therefore, the opposite must be true!

See a good memory specialist.
Then go back to school

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

We were talking about your asinine claim that the cause must bee greater than it's effect.


See a good memory specialist.
Then go back to school

And you haven't forgotten YOUR own two very specific examples which was supposed to disprove my claim!? And neither one had anything to do with computers!

Quit projecting your shortcomings unto me and for your own safety commit yourself into the nearest insane asylum.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

You are not serious are you? A tiny cause can produce a larger effect. Happens all the time. Can think of dozens of examples.

However, let me take a crack at your mishmosh.....
Pretty much as Ben Franklyn said...

The nail has the "power" to loosen the shoe. The shoe has the "power" to stumble the hoof. The hoof to unbalance the leg, tjhe leg to down the horse, etc, etc, etc. Cause and effect runs both ways, there is no rule, law, principle requiring one to be greater or smaller than the other. However we can describe exactly what happens when a smaller object hits a larger one, and a larger a smaller one. To both mathematically.We hafve known this since Newton

You never told me what the "principle of proportionate causation" is?

If you ever ran a business, or built something, in terms of practicality and profitability, you would soon realize "less is more" Will never forget how necessity spurred a cheaper simpler solution. Ask any businessman if accomplishing a task easier and simpler is preferable to a more expensive way? See what happens. Can you spell "efficiency"? A backbone of capitalism is "efficiency" Even a liberal like me knows that.

30 years ago, I needed a method of cementing three parts together quickly and easily in a semi-production line operation. Using materials I was not very familiar with. I was told by an equipment salesman, I needed a "precision gluing machine" they were introducing on the market. For one worker to use with "super glue." Costing $ 2500+ including a supply of that glue. It was only for a run of less than 2,000 items, each retailing at only $4.00 a pop. Not exactly cost effective. Did not foresee it's use again for other items.

Can you spell "cost effective"?

One of our enthusiastic acquaintances convinced my partner to try it out. At the time they bought it I was on vacation. The first day I returned I discovered it was very slow, even though it used instantaneous super glue, since it clogged up frequently and was difficult to use. A lemon. A kluge.
Over a minute and 1/2+ each overall, to do that operation. We projected a much much faster rate. Super glue? Yeah, right?

My partner was pretty annoyed he got talked into it. I had a foreman who was extremely familiar with the chemicals, cements and materials. Told him to contact our cement supplier and get a viscous glue that was relatively quick drying, and would work with the materials we were working with. I constructed 6 or so wooden trays to support dozens of these items at a time while setting, about 10 minutes, (much slower than the super glue), and asked on of my worker to run out to the dollar store to buy a squeeze ketchup/mustard bottle.

Had the guy assembling the items fill up the ketchup bottle (cost under $1 ) with the viscous glue, $10 for a gallon, maybe 1/2 a penny an item glued), and begin to assemble. He applied a squirt of the glue, inserted the parts to be glued in each little compartment in each drying tray. Completed a tray in minutes. Took another tray as the previous was completed, and so on.

Finished the run 2,000 piece run in under a day. Over 180 an hour.

Less is more, way more.

I simply named the overarching principle that Boxcar was working from--whatever is in an effect must in some way be in its cause.

For those who accept it, it flows from a philosophy of nature, rather than the physical properties of this or that physical object. The nail has the capacity to affix the shoe, in a way that the shoe does not, i.e., a greater/perfect way.

Of course smaller objects/events can cause greater objects/events. A microscopic gene precedes your caterpillar eating a leaf in the casual chain that leads to metamorphosis. I thought I bracketed off each efficient cause, but of course fighting to preserve the kingdom was a greater "cause" than nailing a shoe. Platonic and Aristotelian traditions understood that "what is first in time is last in causality".

Sure, the nail, etc. has the potential to cause various effects. But the nail has the intrinsic capacity to affix things, when the intention of the blacksmith is to assist in preserving the kingdom. It has the incidental capacity to cause a detrimental effect. Depends on the mind and the intent of the agent, which is why the Early Moderns tossed out final causes, perceived as subjective and more importantly, not quantifiable.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I simply named the overarching principle that Boxcar was working from--whatever is in an effect must in some way be in its cause.

For those who accept it, it flows from a philosophy of nature, rather than the physical properties of this or that physical object. The nail has the capacity to affix the shoe, in a way that the shoe does not, i.e., a greater/perfect way.

Of course smaller objects/events can cause greater objects/events. A microscopic gene precedes your caterpillar eating a leaf in the casual chain that leads to metamorphosis. I thought I bracketed off each efficient cause, but of course fighting to preserve the kingdom was a greater "cause" than nailing a shoe. Platonic and Aristotelian traditions understood that "what is first in time is last in causality".

Sure, the nail, etc. has the potential to cause various effects. But the nail has the intrinsic capacity to affix things, when the intention of the blacksmith is to assist in preserving the kingdom. It has the incidental capacity to cause a detrimental effect. Depends on the mind and the intent of the agent, which is why the Early Moderns tossed out final causes, perceived as subjective and more importantly, not quantifiable.

Well said! But also, the nail is only the "ultimate" cause -- and only then if one doesn't want to inquire as for the "want of a nail" in the first place. In either case, the loss of the kingdom was attributed to many causes.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well said! But also, the nail is only the "ultimate" cause -- and only then if one doesn't want to inquire as for the "want of a nail" in the first place. In either case, the loss of the kingdom was attributed to many causes.

You may need to accept that in a secular forum, you're only going to get a recognition of material, efficient causation. That is, there is no "ultimate" cause among your interlocutors. If you mean 1st "instrumental" cause...(I think you have been using the term "secondary" which for modern ears is more familiarly "instrumental") ...then you need to consider the whole sequence as a "per se" causal series, where a cause does not have the power on its own to bring about change, but requires an external agent. So the nail requires a mind--the ultimate cause--to not only shoe the horse, but initiate the goal of saving the kingdom.

It's my understanding that Ben wasn't too keen on metaphysics.

I think you ruled out all infinite regress, and the "per se" series such as Ben conceived of requires a terminating cause that has the power intrinsically to cause the chain, but an "accidental" series (a father "causes" his son even though his own father may no longer exist) could conceivably regress infinitely.

[Track Collector]

Originally Posted by MDCnorthlands

If your religion prescribes that you spend your whole life with one woman, that religion isn't for me.

When it comes to relationships and marriage, I'm betting our Intelligent and loving Creator who put us together and breathed life into us knows best as to what will bring us happiness, joy, and contentment.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

It's my understanding that Ben wasn't too keen on metaphysics.

Ben was a deist. I don't think he ever made any statement or wrote anything to that effect but that seems to be the judgement of history.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Ben was a deist. I don't think he ever made any statement or wrote anything to that effect but that seems to be the judgement of history.

I'd always heard that too. This source describes his monism...

https://books.google.com/books?id=LV...causes&f=false

...complete with repulsive processes (gravity?) and light having some sense of literal fluid. On pg. 44 he disses his previously held metaphysics.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I simply named the overarching principle that Boxcar was working from--whatever is in an effect must in some way be in its cause.

For those who accept it, it flows from a philosophy of nature, rather than the physical properties of this or that physical object. The nail has the capacity to affix the shoe, in a way that the shoe does not, i.e., a greater/perfect way.

Of course smaller objects/events can cause greater objects/events. A microscopic gene precedes your caterpillar eating a leaf in the casual chain that leads to metamorphosis. I thought I bracketed off each efficient cause, but of course fighting to preserve the kingdom was a greater "cause" than nailing a shoe. Platonic and Aristotelian traditions understood that "what is first in time is last in causality".

Sure, the nail, etc. has the potential to cause various effects. But the nail has the intrinsic capacity to affix things, when the intention of the blacksmith is to assist in preserving the kingdom. It has the incidental capacity to cause a detrimental effect. Depends on the mind and the intent of the agent, which is why the Early Moderns tossed out final causes, perceived as subjective and more importantly, not quantifiable.

My objection was to you saying this, afrer I criticized boxcar for somehow trying to invalidate evolution on shoddy metaphysical grounds...
This....
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...postcount=5003

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

If one accepts the principle of sufficient reason (intelligible world) and the principle of causation (act/potency) then what's being attempted here is the principle of proportionate causation. But it must be separated into formal (the effect shares the same nature as the cause--man causes a man, tiger causes a tiger), eminent (the effect is significantly different than cause (caterpillar/butterfly), or virtual (a painter [or brush?] causes a painting).

You guys really should explain proportionate causation. And how causes are IN effects. Physically?

I never denied within a causal chain, within a practical subset, like an organism, (no need to go back to the origin of life), one may trace earlier causes. So what?

I am annoyed evolution is the target of convoluted metaphysical munbo jumbo trying to disprove it.

1)_Starting with boxcar's claim evolution violates the fallacy of composition.

2)-His claim causes must be greater than it's effects.

3)-And your nebulous something or other, you are saying disproves evolution. Or are you?

What is the principle you said "Boxcar was working from--whatever is in an effect must in some way be in its cause." Is that the same as "the principle of proportionate causation"?

What is he principle of sufficient reason?

And what does this mean?

Platonic and Aristotelian traditions understood that "what is first in time is last in causality".