You meet a tiger.
First, a politician sees a hand and infers from inner feeling "It's my hand". He perceives that he points then to himself by his little finger and starts slowly moving it towards his ugly stomach. He sees how his hand is moving. Finally, a politician feels touching within himself.
Those are descriptions and thus they are not causal explanations. For example, moving a hand is not the same as interaction of cells inside of his hand. Similarly, seeing a hand in front of one's eyes is not the same as eyes' moving due to sexual desire. In brief, we report what appear to us. We do not perceive relations between a hand, light and eyes and their optic nerves.
The contra factual analysis of causality may have a form "If not A, then not B". Can we then insist: if there won't be seeing a hand, inferring "It is my hand", pointing by a finger, starting move a hand, seeing a hand's moving, then there won't be feeling touch? A politician sees a hand. However, it does not follow from his seeing he will feel touching soon. He touches his left hand by the fingers of the right hand.That is, he experiences seeing, moving and touching but sees no causality among them. It just seems to him that the hands are over a table appearing round and hard, the walls of a room seems to be yellow, although the surfaces of the walls have no colors, and the form of the hands emerges from the material structures of tiny elements.
Finally,
1) One perceives deciding to move one's own hand and moving it
2) They both are effects
3) One misrepresents that deciding causes moving
4) Nevertheless, there are only two effects because
5) Their cause is one and the same subject: a bodily person with faculties of experience and thinking
6) There are two acts which are effects: I decide and I move my hand (from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
7) These acts have a same cause but
between them there is not a causal connection (from 6, 5, 3)
NOT: One's deciding -> one's moving
BUT
A person -> deciding
AND
A person -> moving
(From experience but I'm not sure about the text above. Please explain.)
You have been meeting a tiger.
 |
| Seeing a hand or an image in front of a mind |
Those are descriptions and thus they are not causal explanations. For example, moving a hand is not the same as interaction of cells inside of his hand. Similarly, seeing a hand in front of one's eyes is not the same as eyes' moving due to sexual desire. In brief, we report what appear to us. We do not perceive relations between a hand, light and eyes and their optic nerves.
The contra factual analysis of causality may have a form "If not A, then not B". Can we then insist: if there won't be seeing a hand, inferring "It is my hand", pointing by a finger, starting move a hand, seeing a hand's moving, then there won't be feeling touch? A politician sees a hand. However, it does not follow from his seeing he will feel touching soon. He touches his left hand by the fingers of the right hand.That is, he experiences seeing, moving and touching but sees no causality among them. It just seems to him that the hands are over a table appearing round and hard, the walls of a room seems to be yellow, although the surfaces of the walls have no colors, and the form of the hands emerges from the material structures of tiny elements.
Finally,
1) One perceives deciding to move one's own hand and moving it
2) They both are effects
3) One misrepresents that deciding causes moving
4) Nevertheless, there are only two effects because
5) Their cause is one and the same subject: a bodily person with faculties of experience and thinking
6) There are two acts which are effects: I decide and I move my hand (from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
7) These acts have a same cause but
between them there is not a causal connection (from 6, 5, 3)
NOT: One's deciding -> one's moving
 |
| Two hands in two different places behind two eyes? |
A person -> deciding
AND
A person -> moving
(From experience but I'm not sure about the text above. Please explain.)
You have been meeting a tiger.
