The model here needs tuning, it hasn’t managed to mimick coherent human language yet.
Maybe expand on your point if you want some discussion, your statement doesn’t really make any sense.
But underlining the obvious is so much work on a cellphone.
Ok, I expounded elsewhere in this thread. Look for the big one.
If you don’t want to engage in discourse, why even start a thread?
But ok, you think that events don’t happen because they’re instigated by something else. If I push a domino over, it falls. If I didn’t cause it, what do you think did?
Well I was hoping that we would jump straight to discussing the idea instead of spending time explaining it.
I think that attributing ultimate cause, or authorship, or ownership, when it comes to things as serious as money, to be built upon shakey ground
If you’d explained things more articulately to begin with it would have saved you a lot of time!
Ok, you’re not dismissing cause and effect as a whole (i.e. You believe if I pushed a domino over and it fell, I caused it to fall) but don’t believe cause and effect necessarily applies when the effect is the result of a transaction. There are often circumstances where multiple causes result in an effect. e.g. I hadn’t been sleeping well, hadn’t been eating properly and caught a cold, with the effect of failing an exam.
Causality, like entropy, is an emergent property that’s hard to pin down formally, but is a critical element of any narrative. I’m with you that far, but how do price tags and double breakage figure in?
Given a number of equally plausible narratives we will choose the one in which we profit the most. And argue for it. That’s the second breakage.
we will choose the one in which we profit the most
I think we’ll choose the narrative most consistent with our existing worldview, even if it hurts our own interests.
Sometimes your worldview will offer several equally plausible narratives. With no clear “truth”.
Sometimes the temptation to squint is powerful. A paycheck can do that.
I don’t think we’re usually conscious of the availability of multiple narratives to the point that we can mentally simulate each one and compare their potential utility.
The choices we consciously make are the ones that arise inside of narratives, not between narratives themselves.
I think that we are attracted to the profitable narratives, choosing them automatically and habitually, working out our case for choosing them on a semiconscious level.
Rationality here is a justifying tool, applied after the fact.
What is an alternative to causality? I’m not like trying to argue but I genuinely can’t imagine an alternative way things could work so I’m curious what you’re thinking of
Random events is one, mapped in various useful ways, none of those ways deserving to be treated as gospel.
I’m simply undermining the pedestal upon which certain narratives sit. Specifically, the narratives of “creator” and “owner”.
Do you have an example of an effect preceding a cause?
I hesitate to assume cause and effect. I mean it makes a nice story but I wouldn’t marry it.
Also, it’s like talking to medieval fundamentalists in here. You don’t see it because you all agree with each other.
But you’re not even willing to provide an example of what you mean…
You didn’t provide examples either, actually.
But you’re the one positing a claim! The one making a claim is obliged to back it up, not the readers…
But you aren’t demanding that I defend my claim, you are asking for clarification, right?
How so?
The link between cause and effect is specious at best.
The desire for profit inspires fiction.
Um, if you punch me, I’m gonna be in pain. That’s a directly caused effect, so how is that “specious?”
But you seem to be talking about something money-related, so an example of what you mean would be very helpful.
Maybe I was inspired to punch you by a YouTube video. So it could be said that the creator of the video punched you.
Consider a painting. A piece of art.
We say the artist made it. But we could also argue that the manufacturers of the canvas, paint and brushes are owed credit. And the artist’s parents of course. And the society in which the artist was raised. And every source of inspiration.
This could be said of every work, product, pile of amassed wealth… Cause is uncertain therefore ownership is uncertain.
But there are certain stories that we prefer. Stories of domination , security etc. Therefore, given the option, we choose them.
Therefore given the option to claim ownership, to assert that narrative where I profit, even though that narrative isn’t really relatively strong, I will.
Okay, finally, this makes more sense; I think you mislabeled the post as “cause and effect” when you’re really talking about ownership of property. Now this we could talk about endlessly, since it’s been such a hot topic with AI’s copyright-dodging.
A good ethical example I think of is Adobe InDesign (if I recall correctly), which only trains its “AI” models on content that is specifically AI-crawl-approved. I personally think the only other ethical approach to “AI” is open-source models like Meta’s Llama. All others are thievery.
Another example of endless debate is publishing houses or boards of companies, particularly of AAA games, as in how much money middle and upper management and the C-Suite should get for the hard work done by the developers. It’s been tearing apart the video game industry over the years on an exponential basis.
Generally speaking, though, for physical media like the artwork you describe, the workers get their dues, though probably disproportionately (especially when it comes to apparel made overseas, phones…). This stuff is very relevant in today’s politics with the tariffs going on; while they’re unpopular and could certainly be executed in better, alternative ways (like providing subsidies to make things at home instead), overseas workers in China, India, etc. are tremendously, objectively overdue on their wages.
given the option to claim ownership, to assert that narrative where I profit, even though that narrative isn’t really relatively strong, I will.
So you don’t care to help fight this mindset and right wrongs?
Yes, I think that the concept of cause-effect is inherently broken (tho useful, yes) and therefore the concept of ownership is broken. The game is broken.
I demand greater rigor from the latter because it is the system by which we run our society etc.
What is the proper approach to winning a broken game?
Put down the bong for a minute and make sure you drink plenty of water
You appear to be a true believer.
