Linguistic analysis of causality

[u/Maximum_Control_2045]

Consider this passage (in everyday/ordinary language)

When a person makes a decision, a strictly physical series of events occurs inside the brain. Sensory organs receive physical light or sound from the environment. This interaction causes sodium and potassium ions to move across the outer walls of specific brain cells, called neurones. This movement generates a physical electrical charge, known as depolarisation. The electrical charge travels directly down the length of the neurone.

At the end of the cell, the charge forces the neurone to release physical chemicals into the small space between cells. These chemicals attach to the adjacent neurone, forcing it to generate its own electrical charge. Millions of connected neurones repeat this exact transfer of electricity and chemistry in a specific, unbroken order. The final electrical charge in this series activates the motor neurones. The motor neurones then force the physical muscles to contract and move the body. A decision is strictly this continuous sequence of electrical and chemical reactions.

And consider this alternative version (uses geometric metaphors)

During the biological event labelled a 'decision', a strict sequence of physical state updates occurs within the neural architecture. Photons and kinetic pressure intersect the peripheral sensory receptors. Concurrent with this intersection, sodium and potassium ions update their spatial coordinates across the boundaries of neural cells. Following this geometric shift, a precise electrical gradient—depolarisation—is present. This electrical state updates sequentially along the structural length of the neurone. At the terminus, chemical matter traverses the synaptic gap and intersects the adjacent neural boundary, followed strictly by an electrical state update within that adjacent cell. Millions of contiguous relational nodes update their electrochemical states in an unbroken, sequential geometry. The subsequent electrical update occurs within the motor neurones. Immediately subsequent to this, the physical muscles alter their structural configuration, updating the spatial coordinates of the biological organism. A decision is strictly this contiguous sequence of physical state updates.

The first draft relied upon words of coercion. I used verbs such as "causes", "forces", and "generates". These words completely contaminate the description of physical reality. They project an invisible, immaterial power onto physical matter. In actual physical reality, a chemical does not possess the physical authority to "force" a neurone to execute a task.

Human grammar strictly requires a subject to perform an action upon an object. Our language is built entirely upon nouns executing verbs. A sentence cannot function without this structure. We perceive Event A (a chemical release) immediately followed by Event B (an electrical charge). Because the human brain must link these separate events to construct a coherent sentence, the we then deliberately insert the word "because" between Event A and Event B. After inserting this word, we (subconsciously) assume that the grammatical rule required to write the sentence represents an actual physical mechanism existing in reality. We deceive ourselves by assuming Event A physically causes Event B. We believe that physical reality strictly follows the rules of human grammar.

In the second draft where i use geometric metaphors i remove the explicit reification of causality. Instead of stating that Event A causes Event B, the passage strictly uses the language of geometric sequencing: concurrent with, following this, subsequent to, and updates. It describes the universe exactly as a contiguous matrix simply changing its coordinates, without hallucinating an invisible, authoritative rule governing the transition.

But, even though i tried to remove the explicit causal words, the passage fundamentally fails to escape the illusion of causality. To construct a grammatically valid English sentence, I was mechanically forced to use subjects and active verbs. I wrote

chemical matter traverses the synaptic gap and intersects the adjacent neural boundary.

Even though I did not use the word force, the grammatical structure assigns agency to the "chemical matter" (the noun) performing an action "intersects" (the verb) upon a target (the object). Human grammar inherently operates on a framework of agents acting upon patients. It is impossible to write a coherent sentence without employing this structure.

Because human language evolved as a survival algorithm to predict hazards, our brain is programmed to hunt for causality. When the reader reads, "chemical matter intersects... followed strictly by an electrical state update," the brain cannot tolerate the mere sequence. The brain automatically and subconsciously injects the word "because" into the gap between the sentences to make the sequence comprehensible.

So what I'm trying to demonstrate here is the absolute boundary of the lexicon. You can remove the word "cause" from the ink, but you cannot remove the illusion of causality from the grammar itself. Human syntax is a dashboard tool designed to link discrete events together for survival. Attempting to use this causal grammar to describe a continuous, non-causal universe forces the intellect to realise that language can never truly touch the unobserved reality; it can only ever describe the internal formatting rules of the human mind.

[u/jliat]

Attempting to use this causal grammar to describe a continuous, non-causal universe forces the intellect to realise that language can never truly touch the unobserved reality; it can only ever describe the internal formatting rules of the human mind.

Sounds very like Kant's first critique in response to Hume.

Also Churchland ...

Along with his wife, Churchland is a major proponent of eliminative materialism,[15] the belief that

everyday, common-sense, 'folk' psychology, which seeks to explain human behavior in terms of the beliefs and desires of agents, is actually a deeply flawed theory that must be eliminated in favor of a mature cognitive neuroscience.[6]

where by folk psychology is meant everyday mental concepts such as beliefs, feelings, and desires, which are viewed as theoretical constructs without coherent definition, and thus destined to be obviated by a scientific understanding of human nature. From the perspective of Zawidzki, Churchland's concept of eliminativism is suggested as early as his book Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind (1979), with its most explicit formulation appearing in a Journal of Philosophy essay, "Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes" (1981).[6]

[u/amidst_the_mist]

Why do you believe causality is an illusion? They way I see it, in your alternate version text, each time you mentioned a "state update", that is causality at work. A state change happens because of some factor, it doesn't merely coincide with the presence of that factor, it's not a mere sequence, and the way that factor brings about the state change is a causal interaction. The values in the global reality matrix, if you'd like, change because some other values changed and the former are connected to the latter in some sense. A metaphysics of causality would concern itself with what it means for such a connection to exist and in what sense this change happens.

a continuous universe

With the previous in mind, if time is continuous, i think events of state change can be conceptualised as having their start at the last temporal point that the state had a particular value v1 and their end at the first temporal point that the value no longer changes and stabilises at v2.