|
1+1=2 is as much an example of cause and effect as any and every example one can make. Mathematics itself is defined by cause and effect. Mathematics is controlled by logic and logic is the study of cause and effect.
Further I would disagree that abstract thinking is not defined by cause and effect. The action of Thinking, whether it is an act of observation or one of creativity, is controlled by completely biological factors. At the heart of my original question is really this. Please bear with me again as I unfold my idea.
The body is made up entirely of living cells(individual life forms, mind you) selfishly trying to replicate and survive. These cells take advantage of symbiotic relationships with both like and unlike cells in order to facilitate replication and survival. The Effect of these symbiotic relationships is that over millions of years of evolution layers and webs of these concurrent relationships between cells makes a higher organism. Our bodies are made up of an emalgamation of selfish individual life forms whose personal survival depend upon cooperation with other cells. Going further with this idea; "Thinking" whether it be abstract or observational can be defined as the act of nerve cells, individual life forms themselves, cooperating with each other for survival. We now know this to be the truth, though few of us like to admit it. These are scientific certainties.
Now you may deny, and rightly so, that human conciousness is much more than the sum of its parts. The question is, can it be that conciousness arose through millions of years of evolution, as an holistic adaptation of cooperating nerve cells. What if conciousness itself is only a far reaching bi-product of this cooperation. If so, then I would put forth the proposition that miraculous as this conciousness might be, it still must be controlled by the logical conclusions of cause and effect.
|