Cracking the Code to Human Interactions. Part 3: Cause

With passing days, our world is quickly becoming a mix of conflicting ideas, creeds and thoughts. The results of this are not always beneficial. Quickly the political and social borders around the world are blurring out which has led to several clashes of civilizations and creeds.

The purpose of this series of articles is to make an attempt in understanding the sources of this conflict by making a deep dive into a core aspect of human existence: how we interact with each other.

Types of interactions

In the previous article, we went a bit into the details of different types of interactions which humans experience throughout our lives, broadly categorized as Logical, Emotional, False and Violent. We also looked into some terms which are relevant to the understanding of the types of interactions.

A brief summary of the four types of interactions from the previous article:

Logical (or rational)

Interactions which are based on sound facts and methodologies.

Axiom: Self evident realities which do not require any proof or evidence and the acceptance of which is necessary for any rational interaction. For example belief that the universe, time and space exist; belief that 1 + 1 = 2, etc.

Premise: Any statement which is assumed to be true, while making another statement or deriving a conclusion.

False premise: Any premise which has been proven to be false. Related article: Lie Detector…!

Wrong questions: Any question which is based on false premise(s).

Argument: Drawing a conclusion based on some premises.

Deductive arguments: The structure of reasoning where two premises are used to make a conclusion.

Inductive arguments: This structure of reasoning where probability is used to arrive at a conclusion.

More on this…

Emotional (or irrational)

Interactions which are based on human emotions and cognition.

Subconscious emotional interaction: Any emotional interaction which bypasses our conscious decision making process.

Conscious emotional interactions: The often seemingly logical interactions, which in reality are based upon our conscious emotional judgement instead of deductive/inductive arguments.

More on this…

False

Interactions which are based on unsound premises and methodologies.

False premise: Any premise which has been proven to be false. Related article: Lie Detector…!

Wrongly structured arguments: Improperly constructed arguments where the premises do not lead to the conclusion in the way it is presented (either deductively or inductively).

More on this…

Violent

Interactions which are based on uni-directional communication, where “the other” is not allowed to interact.

More on this…

Types of interactions

In this article we will discuss a bit on Cause and how it dichotomizes the four types of interactions.

Cause

A cause is something which deterministically brings about an effect or a result. This is an aspect of logic which is used to formulate premises in arguments to arrive at conclusions, and misused in false interactions for false and wrongly structured arguments.

A cause is something which deterministically brings about an effect or a result.

For example, if we say “I ate today because I was hungry” then in this statement the effect is “I ate” and the cause behind this effect is “I was hungry”.

Usage of Cause in logic

This statement “I ate today because I was hungry” may be expressed in a deductive argument as such:

Premise 1: Whenever anyone is hungry they eat

Premise 2: I was hungry today

Conclusion: I ate today

In Premise 1, “anyone is hungry” is the cause of the effect “they eat”. And Premise 1 is a part of the argument to conclude “I ate today”.

Usage of Cause in falsehood

This statement “I ate today because I was hungry” may be false. Lets look at the following scenarios.

If the premise “I was hungry” is false, then the statement “I ate today because I was hungry” is a also false. Here “I was hungry” is the falsely ascribed cause of the effect “I ate today”.

If someone presents the seemingly deductive argument

Premise 1: Whenever anyone is hungry they eat

Premise 2: I was hungry today

Conclusion: I ate today

If the premise “Whenever anyone is hungry they eat” is false then the argument above is also false. So in Premise 1, “anyone is hungry” is the falsely ascribed cause of the effect “they eat”. And Premise 1 is a part of the false argument to falsely conclude “I ate today”.

The statement “I ate today because I was hungry” may also be expressed in a wrongly structured argument:

Premise 1: Every hungry person eats

Premise 2: I am a hungry person

Conclusion: I ate today

This is a wrongly structured argument because of one of the two (or more) reasons:

  1. the meaning of the first premise is ambiguous in the context of this argument, since the frequency in which every hungry person eats is not mentioned and frequency is within the context of this argument. The first premise can mean “Every hungry person eats continuously”, “Every hungry person eats daily”, “Every hungry person eats every other day”, “Every hungry person eats every week”, etc. Hence the first premise is a fallacy of ambiguity, thus making the argument false or wrongly structured.
  2. the frequency in the first premise is agreed upon but the frequency is lower than “daily”. In that case it cannot be deterministically said that “I ate today”, since it is not conclusive that every hungry person eats daily. It can also not be said inductively that “I ate today” since none of the two premises are sufficient to make that induction.

Either way, in Premise 1 “any person is hungry” is the falsely ascribed cause of the effect “they eat on the same day that they got hungry”. And Premise 1 is part of the false argument to falsely conclude “I ate today”.

Related article: Lie Detector…!

Types of interactions

Cause is not present in emotional interactions

Emotional interactions are not based on causes. Although they may sometimes seem to have causes, in reality they do not. Whatever seems to be the cause is actually part of a logical interaction or a false interaction which has been combined with the emotional interaction, and in Part 2: Types of Interactions we mentioned that human interactions hardly ever follow a single type and that they almost always are a combination of multiple types.

Emotional interactions are not based on causes. Although they may sometimes seem to have causes, in reality they do not. Whatever seems to be the cause is actually part of a logical interaction or a false interaction which has been combined with the emotional interaction…

For example, the statement “We should take the bus because I have a good feeling about it” is an emotional statement and seems to have the cause “I have a good feeling about it” for the effect “We should take the bus”. However, this is not strictly just an emotional statement, but rather is a combination of emotion and logic or is a combination of emotion and falsehood, and the cause is part of that logic or falsehood, in actuality. Lets look a bit deeper into this example.

Having a good feeling about taking the bus is the emotional part of the statement.

There may be an implied premise(s) which can form a deductive argument to prove the statement, and that argument is the logical part of the statement and the cause belongs to that logical part. E.g. if the premise If I feel good about something we should do it” is true then consider the following argument:

Premise 1: If I feel good about something we should do it

Premise 2: I feel good about taking the bus

Conclusion: We should take the bus

The above argument is a possible logical part of the statement “We should take the bus because I have a good feeling about it”. In Premise 1 “I feel good about something” is the cause of the effect “we should do it” And Premise 1 is a part of the argument to conclude “We should take the bus”.

Inversely, there may be an implied false premise or wrong structure which is used to present the statement. Then that becomes the false part of the statement and the falsely ascribed cause belongs to that falsehood. E.g. if the premise “If I feel good about something we should do it” is false then “I feel good about something” is the falsely ascribed cause of the effect “we should do it”. And thus the above argument “If I feel good about something we should do it; I feel good about taking the bus; we should take the bus” also becomes false.

Types of interactions

Cause is not present in violent interactions

Similar to emotional interactions, violent interactions too are not based on causes. Although they may sometimes seem to have causes, in reality they do not. Whatever seems to be the cause is actually part of a logical interaction or a false interaction which has been combined with the violent interaction, and in Part 2: Types of Interactions we mentioned that human interactions hardly ever follow a single type and that they almost always are a combination of multiple types.

Similar to emotional interactions, violent interactions too are not based on causes… Whatever seems to be the cause is actually part of a logical interaction or a false interaction which has been combined with the violent interaction.

For example, if person A hits person B because A was angry on B, then there may be multiple types of interactions here:

  1. Emotional: A was angry on B (the actual emotional expression of anger)
  2. Logical/False: If anyone is angry on someone else, the former hits the later; A was angry on B; A hit B (the rationale; true or false depending on the validity of the argument)
  3. Violent: A hit B (the actual physical blow)

Hence A was angry on B (second premise of 2) is not the cause of the violent interaction (3), but rather “someone is angry on someone else” is the correct/falsely-ascribed cause of “the former hits the later” in the first premise of the argument in the logical/false interaction (2).

Violent and emotional interactions, in and of themselves, do not deal with causes. Nor do they deal with purpose.

It should be mentioned however, if not obvious, emotional and violent interactions may have physical/physiological causes, e.g. the mechanics of the human arm or the adrenaline in the body. Cause, in our discussion, needs to be disambiguated from physical/physiological causes to argumentative causes.

Cause, in our discussion, needs to be disambiguated from physical/physiological causes to argumentative causes.

Conclusion

Thus Cause dichotomizes the four types of interactions:

  1. Logic and Falsehood have Cause
  2. Emotion and Violence do not have Cause

And we also saw how Causes may be wrongly ascribed to Emotion and Violence when in actuality Cause belongs to the Logical or False interactions which are combined with Emotional and Violent interactions.

In the next article, we will discuss purpose and how it too creates a dichotomy between the four types of interactions.

--

--

--

Muslim, Software Engineer, Average person

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

Søren Kierkegaard On What It Means To Be A Poet

The Universe May Be Someone’s Dream

Is Human Civilization Suffering From a Lack of Spirituality?

Nationalism Individualism and the Internet

On the Importance of Enemies

42 Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’s answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and…

Is the Simulation Theory a modern, 21st-century religion?

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Ishtiaque Khan

Ishtiaque Khan

Muslim, Software Engineer, Average person

More from Medium

Social Media Influence of ‘That Girl’

Listening to Nature

Spontaneous Advice

The bug that proved nothing!