Conquer Club

At work, I have to record my actions, and the reasons I took for those actions. Like with all things, this immediately leads to an existential crisis.

I can write down things that are "Facts". I can write down what I observe (or perceive) and I can write down the actions I take in response to those observations. However, to provide a reason for those actions would be impossible.

You might be thinking "ok, smartass, those observations are your reason". However, if two people have the same observations, there is slim to no chance of them taking the same actions, proving that if they are "reasons" then they are unreasonable reasons.

This leads down the rabbit hole to cause-and-effect thinking on a broader scale, which is one of those fundamental philosophical questions. What does it mean that a causes b?

I have been considering the alphabet. If I were in the alphabet, I could very well determine that b follows a. Within the context of the alphabet I could never disprove that b follows a. Applying the principle of parsimony makes it likely that some living in that world would suggest that a causes b (or perhaps that c causes b for those contrarians who say you can read an alphabet both ways). So, here is my question - how can you know that a causes b?

Get a new job. One that doesn't involve police work.

DoomYoshi wrote:You might be thinking "ok, smartass, those observations are your reason". However, if two people have the same observations, there is slim to no chance of them taking the same actions, proving that if they are "reasons" then they are unreasonable reasons.

Do elaborate.

How do you know that things fall on the floor because of gravity?

notyou2 wrote:Get a new job. One that doesn't involve police work.

Preferably not as a teacher either. I can already imagine him venting against some crying kid, claiming his emotions don't exist, and that it is unreasonable to do so.

waauw wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:You might be thinking "ok, smartass, those observations are your reason". However, if two people have the same observations, there is slim to no chance of them taking the same actions, proving that if they are "reasons" then they are unreasonable reasons.

Do elaborate.

Example of Observation - the floor was dirty
Example of Action - I mopped it
Other example of Action - I got someone else to mop it
Third example of Action - I ignored it because that's not my job to care about the floor

Both actions come from the same "reason", which is the observation that the floor is dirty. However, the floor being dirty can't in any way be said to be the reason for the mopping of the floor. Some guys decide "I'm going to mop the floor tonight" without even checking whether or not it is dirty (it usually is).

notyou2 wrote:Get a new job. One that doesn't involve police work.

Why do you say that? The police follow the same rules. The other night I had to actually report a drunk in the ditch and the cop showed up and told the tow truck driver to take him (and his car) home. Since he was already in the ditch, he couldn't prove that he was driving. Causality is very important in police work and they probably appreciate how impossible it is. Police deal with both kinds of causality though, motive and cause-effect.

mrswdk wrote:How do you know that things fall on the floor because of gravity?

That's a great example. People didn't know the reason for centuries, they just know that it did. Then Newton figured out a mathematical sense of it. However, they still didn't know the reason. To this day, scientists are still looking for gravitrons or something to explain the reason. That's almost identical to the alphabet example. We know that b "object falling" always follows a "object being dropped". But do we know the reason?

DoomYoshi wrote:

waauw wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:You might be thinking "ok, smartass, those observations are your reason". However, if two people have the same observations, there is slim to no chance of them taking the same actions, proving that if they are "reasons" then they are unreasonable reasons.

Do elaborate.

Example of Observation - the floor was dirty
Example of Action - I mopped it
Other example of Action - I got someone else to mop it
Third example of Action - I ignored it because that's not my job to care about the floor

Both actions come from the same "reason", which is the observation that the floor is dirty. However, the floor being dirty can't in any way be said to be the reason for the mopping of the floor. Some guys decide "I'm going to mop the floor tonight" without even checking whether or not it is dirty (it usually is).

So you're stating the floor is more of a trigger to the reason?

Why do birds suddenly appear...?

waauw wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:

waauw wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:You might be thinking "ok, smartass, those observations are your reason". However, if two people have the same observations, there is slim to no chance of them taking the same actions, proving that if they are "reasons" then they are unreasonable reasons.

Do elaborate.

Example of Observation - the floor was dirty
Example of Action - I mopped it
Other example of Action - I got someone else to mop it
Third example of Action - I ignored it because that's not my job to care about the floor

Both actions come from the same "reason", which is the observation that the floor is dirty. However, the floor being dirty can't in any way be said to be the reason for the mopping of the floor. Some guys decide "I'm going to mop the floor tonight" without even checking whether or not it is dirty (it usually is).

So you're stating the floor is more of a trigger to the reason?

I'd argue in extreme cases the floor is completely incidental. It might be a trigger like you say as well. The real reason is "I don't mind mopping" or "I don't mind telling someone else to mop" or something like that, perhaps a variety of factors.

DoomYoshi wrote:

waauw wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:You might be thinking "ok, smartass, those observations are your reason". However, if two people have the same observations, there is slim to no chance of them taking the same actions, proving that if they are "reasons" then they are unreasonable reasons.

Do elaborate.

Example of Observation - the floor was dirty
Example of Action - I mopped it
Other example of Action - I got someone else to mop it
Third example of Action - I ignored it because that's not my job to care about the floor

Both actions come from the same "reason", which is the observation that the floor is dirty. However, the floor being dirty can't in any way be said to be the reason for the mopping of the floor. Some guys decide "I'm going to mop the floor tonight" without even checking whether or not it is dirty (it usually is).

notyou2 wrote:Get a new job. One that doesn't involve police work.

Why do you say that? The police follow the same rules. The other night I had to actually report a drunk in the ditch and the cop showed up and told the tow truck driver to take him (and his car) home. Since he was already in the ditch, he couldn't prove that he was driving. Causality is very important in police work and they probably appreciate how impossible it is. Police deal with both kinds of causality though, motive and cause-effect.

I say that because police have to sometimes explain their reasons or reasoning for their actions and put it in their report. You seem to have trouble writing why you arrived at a certain conclusion.

I have no problem writing a list of facts, observations and the actions I took. In that regard, my own diary is very similar to a policeman's. I could write the reason for not mopping the floor "I'm a perfectionist and having the floor only kind of clean after mopping it would lead to self-loathing, so I avoid that by just not mopping it". However, putting that in a report as a reason seems like something that nobody actually cares about. People don't want real reasons. They want facts and evidence. Reason exists in a far away place, where the fairies roam.

DoomYoshi wrote:People don't want real reasons. They want facts

wut

DoomYoshi wrote:Example of Observation - the floor was dirty
Example of Action - I mopped it
Other example of Action - I got someone else to mop it
Third example of Action - I ignored it because that's not my job to care about the floor

This type of argument tends to have a significant amount of missing context. It is more than just one observation but all the knowledge base that surrounds it and other observations not mentioned.

For example:
What is your current work situation? Do you have the time to mop the floor? Are their higher priority items on your queue?
Is their a good chance that the floor will become dirty again in the near future?
How critical is it for the floor to be clean?

The police problem is tempered because it is not really the job of the police to determine if a thing has happened but that it can be somewhat proved that a thing happened. If a person can argue reasonable doubt then it's sort of pointless to pass it down the chain to the attorneys for grand jury presentation. Not only is it a waste of time for the attorney but it's also a waste of time for the policeman who has to be at the hearing.

Sounds like you don't have enough actual work to do.

keep it simple Yoshi.

your over thinking,you might as well ponder had I left point "a" 2 mins after I actually did leave point "a" what changes? whats possible to have changed?
why did I leave when I did? on and on.

You do realize that in every black hole in the universe there is someone with a flashlight looking for the light switch.
so who the heck told him to?
does he know what the switch looks like?

KoolBak wrote:Sounds like you don't have enough actual work to do.

Actually, with my bosses adding new systems every other month, and expanding the existing systems I have way too much work to do (and not enough time to do it because I'm a contractor and they won't pay for overtime). It's gotten so insane that this week I actually timed out on my games.

As far as the mopping situation goes. Something that is dirty is only in the eyes of one's perception. What you may say is dirty I may say it's clean.


As far as birds go we really don't know what they are. We just choose to label them birds. You may see something that is very pretty. Like a girl. Now you may label them a girl but in reality they may associate themselves male. Or they may not associate with either.


What came first egg or chicken?


This sounds like an argument of relativism.

DoomYoshi wrote:At work, I have to record my actions, and the reasons I took for those actions. Like with all things, this immediately leads to an existential crisis.

I can write down things that are "Facts". I can write down what I observe (or perceive) and I can write down the actions I take in response to those observations. However, to provide a reason for those actions would be impossible.

You might be thinking "ok, smartass, those observations are your reason". However, if two people have the same observations, there is slim to no chance of them taking the same actions, proving that if they are "reasons" then they are unreasonable reasons.

This leads down the rabbit hole to cause-and-effect thinking on a broader scale, which is one of those fundamental philosophical questions. What does it mean that a causes b?

I have been considering the alphabet. If I were in the alphabet, I could very well determine that b follows a. Within the context of the alphabet I could never disprove that b follows a. Applying the principle of parsimony makes it likely that some living in that world would suggest that a causes b (or perhaps that c causes b for those contrarians who say you can read an alphabet both ways). So, here is my question - how can you know that a causes b?

Congratulations on discovering logical fallacies.

I would say that you can test to see if "a"causes "b".