BothAndBlog Forum

The First Concept
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... concept/p1


"What could we call it" refers to the first cause? First causes are typically called prime mover or unmoved mover in English. In Greek, it is/was typically called arhí (ἀρχή), meaning beggining, rule, even empire, and discussions about it predate Aristotle. — Lionino

No, "it" refers to the name of this thread. Don't overthink "it".

Aristotle's summation of causation was not presented as the first attempt to make sense of incessant change in the world. It was just an example of a well-reasoned approach to the metaphysical question of why the world just won't stand still. Reality might be easier to deal with if today was just like yesterday, no unexpected events to anticipate. But if there was no change from time to time, how did Philosophy Forum posters come to be? Are philosophical arguments eternal & infinite, as questioned in the OP?

After a long desultory dialog on the ancient First Cause question, I thought it might be fun (philosophically) to turn the reasoning around, and instead of assuming that there must be an original act of causation --- raising the possibility of an act of creation of something from nothing --- let's try to work backwards (timewise) from Now to the time-dated emergence of Sentience in a material world.

However you define physical Causal Evolution, follow the chain of Causation back, not to the absolute beginning of everything, but merely toward a reasonable explanation for the age-old Consciousness conundrum*1. Imagine a day without a thought, then due to some mechanical physical process, a day with an idea emerges. This tactic would avoid any supernatural "First" presumptions, by arbitrarily defining space-time as eternal & infinite. Hence, there would be no First, and no Final Cause, just consecutive differences in being, for no purpose that rational philosophy could reason out, but that empirical science can demonstrate.

Since the earlier FC thread, not the First or Last, had exhausted most arguments in favor of, or opposed to, the notion of a First Cause (creator?), maybe looking for a First Concept (knower) would give us a fresh angle of attack. That's why I entitled this thread "The First Concept", and not the First Act of Causation. If the primitive universe was totally mindless, at what point along the way did conceptual abstractions emerge from concrete reality? On the other hand, if Consciousness was intrinsic to the physical world from the beginning (Panpsychism), why did it take so long (14BY) for sentient beings to emerge?

Was the first Concept born in the brain of an upright ape, or was Awareness inherent in the universe from the beginning of Time (however you define that word)? Discuss amongst yourselves.


*1. The physical state of conscious conception :
The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious.
https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-concio

Quoted from the A first cause is logically necessary thread :


Is there no end to dialogs about First Cause? Can these threads become infinite? — Gnomon

Ha ha! Its good to have a sense of humor about this. Always appreciate your contributions Gnomon. — Philosophim

Ho, ho, ho! Apparently, the final answer to my rhetorical endless-dialog weary-query is "42?". Some philosophical questions, once borne into being, just won't go away. I just found a new thread*1, on the same old timeless subject --- the beginning of beginnings --- asserting that the emergence of cause-effect-space-time from Nothing (i.e. no space, no time) is logically impossible. But others take issue with that inductive*2 assumption, which Hume destructed. Some seem to postulate that the idea of "eternity-infinity" is thinkable, therefore logically plausible. So, brandishing our ironic swords, back to the cyclical-beginning we go again, once more, encore!

Since the assumption of incessant causation is of interest to posters on this forum, why not do like the astronomers in the 1950s did : from repeated observations of expanding space, they traced the evidence back to a point of no-further-evidence, leaving the Original Cause of expansion as an open question for feckless philosophers to waste spare-time on. So "once more unto the breach!", let's work backwards from the current observation of expanding-natural-sentience-into-artificial-intelligence, keeping our rational eyes peeled for evidence of the elusive space-time origin of thinking beings, from whatever source. Who wants to go first?

PS___I'm proposing a new thread with similar implications but different presumptions : a First Cause implies a Final Cause, produced by the operations of an Efficient Cause, working in the medium of a Material Cause. What could we call it? The First Concept? The god-who-shall-not-be-named inquiry? Oooops, I did it begin.!

*1. Creation from nothing is not possible :
This means that {in space-time} time is required for the act of creation. There is no time in nothing therefore the creation from nothing is impossible. {my bracket}
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... t-possible

*2. Induction :
"assumes that the future will resemble the past"
Philosophy Magazine, Feb-Mar 2024

It has seemed to me that the effort involves supposing that an(y) artifact of language (e.g., about so-called first causes) has anything to do with physical reality. Recognize that it doesn't and the problem of reconciling irreconcilables evaporates. — tim wood

Along with any reason for doing philosophy.

↪tim wood
It is the classical drawing empirical conclusions from a priori premises.
Gnomon is asking what title should be affixed to this conversation. — ucarr
:chin: I guess the thread answered its own question? — Lionino

What empirical conclusion do you infer from the open-ended question of First Concept? Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to provide the empirical evidence to support your personal conclusion to the question of "where did ideas come from?". Did storks drop them down the chimney?

No, the title is still open to suggestions. I could have simply put a question mark in the Title register. But I can change the title if someone comes up with a better one. However, the question of "First Concept" is what I had in mind (a priori) for this discussion, as noted in my reply to Lionino above. Was there a First Idea, or was Ideation always a component of the material world? So many titles, so little time.

Question: if the future need not resemble the past, why did you say a first cause needs a final cause. Your post seemed contradictory to me — Gregory

Not I, but the estimable David Hume*1, said that Cause & Effect is based on an unprovable assumption that there is a causal connection between Before & After. It's a non-empirical universal principle, that humans believe-in without hard proof, because past-experience-based-arguments allow philosophers & scientists to make predictions of the future, that would otherwise require prophetic powers. That faith in the reliable & predictable laws of causation is the basis of Aristotle's argument for a necessary First Cause. I'm pretty sure he was not aware of our 21st century notion of logical mathematical Natural Laws, but he seemed confident that Prior & Posterior are causally related. Are you?

However, Thomas Bayes showed that Past & Future are only Probabilistic related. So he devised a method for updating our beliefs with additional evidence*3. I suppose that we could now say that our Natural Laws are only statistically predictable within a margin of error

*1. Hume's Problem of Induction :
"A key issue concerning the plausibility of scientific arguments, which are inductive arguments (since they generate scientific laws from a limited number of observations) is whether we can prove the Future Will Resemble The Past Principle."
Philosophy Now magazine, feb-mar 2024.

*2. Natural Law :
Aristotle (384–322 bce) held that what was “just by nature” was not always the same as what was “just by law,” that there was a natural justice valid everywhere with the same force and “not existing by people's thinking this or that,” and that appeal could be made to it from positive law. . . . In contrast, the Stoics conceived of an entirely egalitarian law of nature in conformity with the logos (reason) inherent in the human mind.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/natural-law

*3. Bayesian Inference :
Bayesian inference . . . is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

Along with any reason for doing foolish philosophy. But one place a fool never sees a fool is in a mirror. I attest to this from my personal experience with mirrors. — tim wood

Who you callin a fool, fool? :joke:

Mirror reversal. That's why the famous philosopher Michael Jackson advised us to "talk to the man in the mirror".

Man in the Mirror
I'm starting with the man in the mirror
I'm asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you wanna make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself and then make a change
https://genius.com/Michael-jackson-man- ... ror-lyrics

What empirical conclusion do you infer from the open-ended question of First Concept? — Gnomon
What do I infer? That lacking a lot of preliminary groundwork, mostly in establishing working definitions - though they be provisional and subject to change, pace Banno! - the question remains a non-sense question. That is, an attempt to make sense where there is no sense to be made. — tim wood

Are you inferring that there is no beginning or end to causation . . . or just to argumentation? On what basis? Did you participate in the First Cause thread referred to in the OP? Did you critique the "working definitions" that were presented there, to allow the postulators to make a change?

Are the causal assumptions of Empirical Science (natural laws) also non-sensical?*1 Are you assuming that a First Cause, at least 14B years before the invention of empirical Science, is an evidence-based, rather than reason-based question? If so, you missed the point of asking non-sensical hypothetical questions.

I agree with your assumption that First Cause is not a viable scientific question. But this is not a scientific forum. In any case, this thread is explicitly not about the First Cause question, but about the questioner. The one who conceives of such "open-ended" queries.


*1. The Assumptions on Which Causal Inferences Rest :
Statisticians commonly make causal inferences from the results of randomized experiments, but usually question causal inferences from observational studies on the grounds that untestable assumptions are required.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2346206

*2. Open-ended question :
An open-ended question is a question that cannot be answered with a "yes" or "no" response, or with a static response. Open-ended questions are phrased as a statement which requires a longer answer. They can be compared to closed questions which demand a “yes”/“no” or short answer. ___Wikipedia

Assuming one accepts the law of causality --i.e. every effect has a cause-- trying to find the First Cause is simply a vain effort. The chain of cause and effect is infinite. And trying to find the start of infinity --or anything that infinite-- makes no sense. — Alkis Piskas

The premise that "the chain of Cause & Effect is infinite" is also an ungrounded assumption. Where's the empirical evidence for Infinity? "Vanity of vanities" : to count infinity on an abacus*1.

Anyway, the point of this thread is to avoid infinities, and to trace Cause & Effect only back to the First Concept within space-time. When & where & how did Matter become self-conscious enough to ask about its own origin? This is only a thought experiment, no material evidence required.


*1. Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has been already
in the ages before us.

There is no remembrance of former things,
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be
among those who come after.
___Ecclesiastes 1:2-11

Aristotle thought the world was eternal in the past and future. A constant loop. But something kept the whole from falling into its parts or losing all its parts and hence ceasing. Some way the world can be understood rationally, however that is. But why does this imply there was a First reason or a Final reason for the whole? Again the loop. Reality keeps the world alive — Gregory

Yes. Aristotle, with no telescopes, had no reason to imagine a Big Bang beginning of the material world, so he assumed it was eternal. But then, his "substratum" (substance, matter) was known to be changeable & perishable. Hence, he concluded that it was not likely eternal itself, and must have been created from some sub-substratum (fundamental element). Anyway, he went on to postulate an un-caused First Cause to stop the infinite regression of causes.

But this thread is not about First Causes, or Final Effects. It's about the First Concept : the original light bulb in the chain of mindless material evolution. Do you have any ideas about when, where, & how that Initial Inkling emerged from Material Reality?


Eternal World vs First Cause :
Aristotle asserts that all things must come into existence from an underlying "substratum", which is a sort of essence of being. Then he argues that matter itself (the Aristotelian concept of matter) is the substratum of all things, so it must have either created itself, or been eternal.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... -was-estab

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSSlKCsKcy_8xlJUz-FAPRm1hXRqNBGAZVOhQuHsi3X-w&s

What empirical evidence could there be? Can anyone experience infinity?
It can be only conceived or deduced rationally. — Alkis Piskas

Infinity is not an empirical feature of reality. Like the concept of Zero, it is a sort of imaginary anti-reality. That's why scientists try to weed-out infinities in their calculations. It's also why I chose to eliminate discussions of unreal First Causes in this thread. The topic is First Concept. Do you have any philosophical bon mots to offer on that notion?

Is infinity rational? :
If infinity were rational, it could be written in the form a/b, where a and b are integers. But, no matter what a and b are, a/b will always be finite. So, you could say infinity is irrational.
https://mathematics.science.narkive.com ... irrational.

But, as I showed, infinity is necessarily involved in the cause and effect chain. You cannot avoid it! — Alkis Piskas

I must have missed that showing. Probably because it is off-topic. But I'll accept that First Cause and Infinity/Eternity are related concepts, where FC defines a finite world of reason, and IE is an undefined imaginary notion beyond reason.

Infinity again. All roads lead to Infinity! — Alkis Piskas

Which is why forum threads about First Causes (infinity stoppers) inevitably lead to never-ending arguments about unknowable roads to nowhere, "world without end".

Do you mean that matter can be self-conscious? It is not even established that animals can be.
You really surprised me here, Gnomon! — Alkis Piskas

Now we're getting back to the topic of this thread! The implicit assumption of many posters --- not Gnomon --- is that Mind naturally evolved from Matter in accordance with the known laws of physics. If so, when, where & how did the First Concept emerge?