Incomprehensible

[untermensche]

So again, if all I look at are your behaviors I don't have the slightest clue what those constituents are or what they are doing.

Which is nothing but ignorance.

Again, it isn't ignorance.

I already know that your behavior is the result of the working of many constituents.

I know this.

Ignorance has nothing to do with this logical point.

The point is: If all I look at is behavior I don't understand the reasons for that behavior.

In the case of a person the reasons for behavior are all the constituents that make up the behavior. In the case of the phenomena of charge the reasons for it's behavior are not simply a description of it's behavior.

Behavior in itself is not an explanation of behavior.

 

[Juma]

Behavior in itself is not an explanation of behavior.

Yes it is. Behavior is ALL there is.

 

[untermensche]

Behavior in itself is not an explanation of behavior.

Yes it is. Behavior is ALL there is.

That is conclusion from ignorance.

 

[Juma]

Yes it is. Behavior is ALL there is.

That is conclusion from ignorance.

No. Its a truism.

 

[untermensche]

That is conclusion from ignorance.

No. Its a truism.

Since it isn't true it can't be a truism.

Behavior and the cause of behavior are two separate things.

 

[Juma]

No. Its a truism.

Since it isn't true it can't be a truism.

Behavior and the cause of behavior are two separate things.

That which is seen as a cause from one viewpoint is behavior from another.

 

[untermensche]

Since it isn't true it can't be a truism.

Behavior and the cause of behavior are two separate things.

That which is seen as a cause from one viewpoint is behavior from another.

An effect can be a cause of some other effect but it can't be the cause of itself.

A behavior can't be the cause of itself either even if it can cause other behaviors.

 

[Juma]

That which is seen as a cause from one viewpoint is behavior from another.

An effect can be a cause of some other effect but it can't be the cause of itself.

A behavior can't be the cause of itself either even if it can cause other behaviors.

The world doesnt consist of causes and effects, they are only the result of how we describe it. There is just one big cause: the current state, and the effect: the current behavior.

 

[another1]

Definitely Roomba cats. Asking why triggers a technology that exists outside our impression of real. Confusion happens. Incomprehensibility is a necessary component of a grand machine. Like the Feds using software to catch terrorists and pervs online, the situation is probably very similar. The word incomprehensible ty spellcheck equates to software in my opinion. Antiviral in nature to be more accurate. It is apparently very advanced and we will never understand it. The profundity of awareness is probably played up a little too much. Things may not be as important as we seem to think, and there is a little bit of peace in just accepting that we're not allowed to think past a certain point. Please tell me you understand that is possible.

 

[untermensche]

An effect can be a cause of some other effect but it can't be the cause of itself.

A behavior can't be the cause of itself either even if it can cause other behaviors.

The world doesnt consist of causes and effects, they are only the result of how we describe it. There is just one big cause: the current state, and the effect: the current behavior.

Ultimate causes can't be known.

But immediate causes can.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ultimate causes can't be known.

Not so fast. Maybe it just happens we know it but we don't know it is the ultimate cause.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Ultimate causes can't be known.

Not so fast. Maybe it just happens we know it but we don't know it is the ultimate cause.
EB

Whoa. Way too fast. Slow down.

Maybe is a speculation without a cause.

Why would we so speculate unless we knew or suspected something other than we don't know whether ultimate causes can be known beyond what we know we know.

Let me start. Why do we know ultimate causes can't be known?

Or maybe we can use what we know to address the OP?

Why not apply thermodynamic optimization principle to the problem? Given neurons are more efficient movers of metabolism what are the attributes of neurons that need be examined to determine their optimum function? Is it integration, differentiation, inhibition, excitation, branching, transmission, accumulation, or some other aspect of neural organization and processing that is driven in this thermodynamic optimization process? Are neurons the best mechanism for optimizing metabolism in biological things? Are biological things the most effecient process that can advantage unused heat in material systems?

IOW lets get back to natural science here.