I am not sure how questions about the supernatural can ever by part of Philosophy. Philosophy by default is our attempt to construct Wise claims about our world that could help us expand our understanding. I don't really see how supernatural concepts that can't be evaluated for their truth value can contribute anything to our Wisdom or our Epistemology.

Complexity Science or complex system science is the study of interactions of large collections of components which give rise to high level features. (self organization, Emergence, Structure , Function etc).
I first heard about it in a great book by Carolyn Merchant "Autonomous Nature - Problems of Prediction and Control from Ancient Times to the Scientific Revolution".
Theories like "Chaos Theory", Scientific Emergence, Quantum Biology, Mechanics, Chemistry and many methodologies that use statistical probabilities are part of Complexity Science.
https://complexityexplained.github.io/

One of the things I quickly noticed about this topic is that a person would really need to be a scientist to make any pronouncements, and scientists are usually busy doing other things — frank

-You are correct. After all we can not do meaningful Philosophy without up to date Scientific Epistemology and we can not arrive to a Scientific Conclusion (theory) without Philosophizing about what the results of our research really mean.
Credible Scientific Epistemology is absolutely necessary for out theoretical foundations even for Philosophical questions of Meaning and Value, questions that we can not do science to answer them.

"Real" is nothing more than an evaluation term we humans use to identify which existential claims are in agreement with objectively verified facts. When people try to reject objective facts verified inour environment by pointing to facts observed in smaller scales of our world they are just ignoring the Emergent characteristics of systems in nature.

In Methodological Naturalism (science), reductionism has a different meaning. Reductionism is just one out of many tools science has to describe systems. Its great when we attempt to establish strong correlations between elements of a system(cause/effect) but in smaller scales we prefer other tools like Complexity Science and Emergence.
In my opinion changes in theories due to the reductive approach show how epistemically efficient and useful this methodology is in describing the mechanisms of specific systems.
The second meaning of the term is more of a failed philosophical attempt to oversimplify the above "success story of science" but that has nothing to do with the goals of science or the emergent characteristics found in Nature.

I admit I am lost about what Banno is saying. I don't think it is a red herring, i.e. a rhetorical device. Seems like he sees what Austin has to say as ontology, while I don't see it. He's talking about a different kind of "real" than I am. — T Clark

Its more of an element of distraction than misleading so I will agree its not a rhetorical device but still an logical error according to the following definition: "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question."
I found myself trying to keep his feet on the fire(on the topic) while he keeps insisting in merging an irrelevant meaning of the term.

I'm with Tom Storm on this. Your way of formatting, as opposed to using the quoting mechanism provided by the forum, often makes it hard to follow your posts which are, as he noted, interesting and useful. — T Clark

As I said, I am with him on that too! Its just a habit and have to work on that and it needs time, especially when there are people interested in what I have to share with them !

if by Objective reality we mean that External Empirical Regularities and limitations are objectively observed and verified (by us the observers) in processes all around us, then yes, we can accept and trust claims as objectively descriptive of reality.

I didn't address your statements because I am in agreement with you. IYou presented a Normative view of what members should acknowledge as reality and I posted a Descriptive view on what members usually assume about what reality is..

I have tried this approach before it appeared to helpful to some people.

I don;'t agree. Austin is certainly addressing the ontological question. I am sorry that you appear nto to understand this. Perhaps if you read the article. — Banno

-Red herring. Austin Normative Philosophy on Ontology is irrelevant to our Epistemic Approach on what is real.

-"It's mere pretence to claim this is a scientific definition."
- Soft Ad Hominem due to personal incredulity. Learning the Auxiliary principles of Methodological Naturalism will help you to understand why this is a scientific definition.

-" It is as "vague and general" as any thing else on offer, since it fails to set out what counts as an element."
- Again, Science defines what an element is.... from quantum scale to chemistry and biology. My definition is not vague just because people ignore a basic scientific use of the term. The proper thing to do is to ask for additional info, not to reject the definition all together.
"Throwing the baby with the bathwater" is a logical error.


-"As I did explain earlier, what counts as a simple is dependent on what one is doing."
-Red Herring. What counts as simple is not part of our discussion.

I hope this list helps you see your errors in your argumentation.

I don;'t agree. Austin is certainly addressing the ontological question. I am sorry that you appear nto to understand this. Perhaps if you read the article. — Banno

-Good for him but it is irrelevant to the OP which I decided to address. Only I can decide for myself what to talk about. I respect the structure of this forum and I choose to post my comments on a specific subject under a relevant OP.
Your disagreement won't change something. We are talking about the fundamental aspect of ontology (what's real) while you are addressing categories and labels. "Is a tree real" is a far more essential question than the criteria something should obey to be categorized as a tree.
I would read Austin's opinions if the act of categorizing things was part of the thread and if I was interested in it.

-"Reality and what is real are defined by the ability of elements and their structures to interact with each other and being registered by our observations."
-That is not "my approach". That is how we define reality in Methodological Naturalism(science). Our methods and their limitations are what allow us to describe our world. its not a matter of personal preferences, but what we can objectively demonstrate to be the case.
The True philosophical meaning of reality includes everything we can observe and verify around us. The idealistic (Pseudo philosophical) approach is to speculate about realms we are unable to demonstrate.

-"It's mere pretence to claim this is a scientific definition. It is as "vague and general" as any thing else on offer, since it fails to set out what counts as an element. As I did explain earlier, what counts as a simple is dependent on what one is doing. Basic stuff."
-If you know the principles of Methodological Naturalism you should be able to understand that our Descriptive Frameworks are the product and limited by our Methods of Observations and Investigation. So by definition the things we perceive and verify objectively with our senses and technical apparatus is what we identify as reality. Any claim beyond them is Metaphysics. Any worldview based on those metaphysics is Pseudo philosophy.
Nothing mentioned above is vague or general. The criteria and definitions are pretty specific.


-" but if you post on a philosophy forum there is a presumption that you are open to critique."
-Red Herrings are not critique but fallacies. I posted a definition and you criticized it for not including irrelevant additional meanings. I proved that I am open to critique by asking you again and again "why" you think my definition has issues. Instead you keep posting "what" you think not why you think that.

Again science can verify the existence of a process or entity by detecting its interactions with other observable entities/processes. This characteristic is what allow us to accept something as real. Undetectable entities can not be distinguished from nonexistent so we can not include undetectable/non existent entities/process in what we call "reality". I don't know how one can disagree with that.

Just to understand this weird experience I am having with you. Did we have any conversations before? Is this a pay back time type of interaction?

I mean you have my definition and I have posted you a list of questions relevant to this thread. Why aren't you addressing the issues you find in them and lets just keep out the irrelevant concepts I didn't include in my definition for now.(Unless you can demonstrate their essential role in it).

I put the questions in the wrong order. the correct order is the following.
"- Its philosophically null to talk about whether "is that tree real" instead of "that is a real tree".
Its not odd. The first question is what his OP was addressing and the second is essentially what you are attempting to address by using a different meaning of the word ''real".

-"The rest of your post is in the main mere diatribe. It wasn't my intent to piss you off. Folk are so touchy. But I don't see anything of value in your approach. "
-I am not piss me off, I am pointing out that you are wasting both our time on a meaningless aspect of the word real, that's all. Folks are not "so touchy", Folks just expect honesty and meaningful discussions.

-"But I don't see anything of value in your approach."
-What is my approach? T Clark posted an OP. I provided a definition on what we mean by the term real/reality in Science and your only criticism was that my definition was clear and specific , not vague and general because it didn't include irrelevant definitions!
Then you criticized my definition of real as "having issues" but you never explained those issues.
I don't get what your goal is.

People often make mistakes by projecting an idealistic quality to abstract concepts. They do it by "silently" adding the concept of "absolute"/"ultimate" as a qualifier.
i.e. Ultimate reality, Ultimate Knowledge, Ultimate truth, etc. By doing so they assume they can bring idealism in a philosophical discussion and assume things under the label of "metaphysics". The truth is that we have zero epistemology supportive for such idealistic concepts, so its impossible to have a meaningful philosophical discussion. Neither these assumptions or their potential conclusions can make us wiser which is the main goal of Philosophy.

-"What is?"
- Its philosophically null to talk about whether "that is a real tree" instead of "is that tree real". Classification is essential but not interesting in the case of an apple, a tree,a table etc.
Your comment to T Clark can not change the philosophical weight of this question. People's view of ontology is irrelevant to whether a question is on topic or not.

-"Your post needs a good edit."
-You need to avoid logical fallacies in your arguments! You keep making vague statements like this one, or like "your definition of real has problems" but you avoid being specific. Why do you insist in talking about language instead of philosophy?

-"I've noted previously how folk seem to adopt a narrow view of ontology and then suppose that "that's not ontology" constitutes an argument."
-Again people's narrow view of ontology doesn't make an argument from Ambiguity Fallacy part of this conversation. The question about Genuineness doesn't address the fundamental ontological question about what is real...plus its a boring one since most people usually promote Category Mistakes that valid arguments.

Starting with a definition was my attempt to avoid wasting time on conversation about a different usage of the word...but here we are I guess.

So do you think its possible to proceed to a more interesting topics like i.e. what is the fundamental nature of existence? What are the criteria of "being real"? Why my definition has problems?

I know how it works but I am an old "fart" and my habits define my typing!
My eyes are trained to search for this pattern (-"bla bla bla ") and all those(

) get in my nerves! lol
After all I doubt there is anything interesting in my writings to read. I won't be offended if you ignore my posts Tom, seriously. (maybe I could use B or I) — Tom Storm

Sure, I have no issues as long as it isn't used as a red herring allowing others to avoid addressing the "problems" in my definition on " what qualifies as real."

The problem with that specific definition of the term real(as you stated is that a real tree) is that it has a huge spread, meaning that different entities in existence have different characteristics and most probably the answer can be gained by doing science(not philosophy). What is there to gain when our conclusion on i.e. what makes a real apple will not apply to any other entity of this world. How the "gained knowledge'' of such study can add to our our wisdom?

The power of Science and Philosophy is their ability to produce Law like Generalizations and Theoretical Frameworks descriptive of processes found in this world. Classifying entities(real from fake) is also a great tool for our Philosophy, but its a Scientific tool that enables us to philosophize. In any case its not the goal of philosophy.
There is a philosophical aspect in that question (what makes something a real "something".) but it can either be a very short conversation or an endless one with nothing important to gain.

Τhat's irrelevant and philosophically null. Listing all the different meanings of a word is just meaningless and the subject of an other discipline.

-" "Is that tree real" is a different question than "Is that a real tree." Seems to me the first causes more philosophical agita."
-The first is a philosophical/scientific question while the second is a purely scientific question.
I don't really know why you insist wasting time on an irrelevant topic(2nd question) when we can discuss the standards and criteria by which we can identify real entities in our world.

-"Austin is addressing ontology. The stuff I cited comes from one of his articles on the ontology of other minds."
-Its not fundamental, It comes way after the essential question "what exists" and its irrelevant to T CLark's OP. We could address that question on i.e. what distinguishes a real apple from a wax replica or a plastic one or a painted one or a pear that looks like an apple, or a red Christmas ball, or an apple that tastes like a banana....etc etc etc. I don't know why one would ever be interested in a discussion like this, but we could try it.

-"And there are other problems with your definition. I was merely surprised that ↪jgill
found it satisfactory. "
-My definition is scientific, so it can only appear "problematic" to specific ideologies, not to a pure Philosophical inquiry based on our current Epistemology on how we define and identify existence.

Btw
-''Neither Austin nor I defining real as genuine."
- I never accused you for doing so. I just pointed out that your remark was out of topic. Whether the definition we examine is this thread doesn't serve to sort fakes from masterpieces is irrelevant.

Ι am not sure we are compatible as interlocutors.
You wrote "Nickolasgaspar is considering only a restricted use of "real". This definition does not serve to sort a fake masterpiece from real Picaso, a counterfeit from a real bank note. These might be physically indistinguishable."

T Clark OP was about "real" or "reality" so I guess he intended to address the ontology of what is real....not the genuineness of a "masterpiece".
He even listed a list of definitions of "real" addressing different aspect of Ontology.
I quote.
" Having objective independent existence
Having existence independent of mind
Occurring or existing in actuality
Existing in fact and not imaginary
Of or relating to practical or everyday concerns or activities"

I never addressed Austin's posts.
If Austin's addresses other meanings of the term outside of Ontology, then he is out of topic.

-"That's how to deal with language effectively, in contrast to mere stipulation"
- Introducing usages having nothing to do with the specific branch of Philosophy is not an effective use of language...far from it. Again this thread is about Ontology, not language.

Sure, but I am pretty sure that T Clark was addressing the ontological aspect of the word, not the aesthetical aspect of it. (Maybe I am wrong)
.

One does not define a common usage, one observes it — Banno

- In any dictionary almost every word has more than one definition ! As you pointed out , the world "real" can be used to address "Genuineness" too (not just state of existence/non existence).
So in order to avoid talking past each other we all need to inform our interlocutors on the meaning of the word we are using.

-"One does not define a common usage, one observes it. If one begins by defining one's terms, one is in danger of not addressing the common usage. Indeed, that is what you have done here, with "real", by limiting your sample. "
-No, no , no. Its essential to limit your sample (of common usages) or else you are in danger of having a vague conversation about anything....not a specific something.
We define the term by pointing TO the "common usage" we use. ITs impossible to ignore it since its our starting point.
i.e. your definition of "real" (being genuine) doesn't challenge the existence of a "mental apple" but another quality (of genuineness) we project on physical objects that we don't question their existence. By defining the ontological aspect of the term, I remove this specific common usage from the conversation.

most philosophical discussions go on forever either because people don't bother to define which common usage of the word they use, or they commit an argument from Ambiguity fallacy by jumping from one definition to another.
I think we are in a good path with the people I interacted so far!

Since this is a philosophical forum I am only considering the use relevant to philosophy (ontology). Fine art art appraisal or Verification Of Genuineness do not challenge the ontology (existence) of a painting and they are technical not philosophical fields of evaluation.

IF we agree that existence has physical qualities,things that are real should share those qualities. An imagined apple , by definition, is not an existing entity in our reality. The mental state responsible for this concept is what's real, the produced concept is not, its how our brain interprets that specific state and produces an image. Sure its a stimuli that can affect our biochemisty and behavior (make us hungry and motive us to grab one and eat it), but its contingent to our brain state without attributes on its own . A real apple is not just an image, its has nutrients and physical qualities while an imagined apple is just a chemically stored image of a previous visual experience.

Its a logical fallacy to equate the ontology of two different things (Map/Territory).
We can't go anywhere by walking on a map,like we can not satisfy our appetite or receive nutrients by eating a mental impression of an apple.
All boils down to the meaning of the concept of "real" and how useful our usage is to avoid fallacies of ambiguity.

-" I think this definition is a good one. It gets at some of the confusion about the reality of quantum events. What's real is what's "registered by our observations."
- I share the same opinion. After all what is real or not, what is true or not, what is knowledge or not, etc are our personal evaluations limited by our our empirical nature and our current methods/technology of investigation. So I find reasonable to avoid absolute or ultimate claims on aspects of the world that we a. don't have access and b. can't verify if those aspects even exist.

-"This makes sense, although I'm not sure it answers all the questions. I think for some, it is not only the mental state that is real, the imagined apple is too."
-Yes, I have interacted with people who make that claim. I think its an ambiguity issue. In my opinion they should identify the differences between a Real physical apple and an mental representation of a "real" apple. By identifying their properties we wil be able to justify or not the use of the term real for both cases.

-"First up, I meant causation was a thing in a very broad sense such that qualities, ideas and states can be things too, but no matter."
-Yes this is exactly what abstract nouns describe! So I think we can agree on that. Causation is a real phenomenon with specific characteristics.

-"I’m just trying to get a sense of where your ideas map onto other thinkers and traditions."
-That would be a difficult thing to do since we haven't talked about any ideas yet . We are still struggling to define the word. In that aspect you can check the work of Philosophers stressing the importance of clear and precise definitions (Wittgenstein, Rand etc).

-"I wouldn’t disagree with most of your intuitions. There are processes, when causation happens a new process starts, that’s all perfectly fine."
-I have to clarify. I am offering a description not an intuitive take on the phenomenon.

Yet philosophy is not settled on what causation IS at bottom (see that link). It might not exist at all for instance, we might not need the notion. — invizzy

-Well there are philosophers that argue against causality...but that doesn't make their objections "philosophical material".
Now Causality "doesn't exist" , at least like other physical entities do but it a descriptive label of a real phenomenon. It is Observable, Verifiable, Quantifiable that occurs in physical interactions. We can study the phenomenon and Produce technical Applications and Accurate predictions.
I don't really know a reasonable philosophical argument against causality but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Maybe you are aware of one and we can discuss it!

-"It might have something to do with counterfactuals (which might in turn mean thoughts about possible worlds)''
-Parsimony and Demarcation render such speculations irrational and place them outside the philosophical realm. The moment to speculate about anything (Metaphysics) is when you have data in hand and you can rationally project them beyond our current epistemology. Making up a mechanism and assuming it qualifies as an answer when in fact its unnecessary, that is more of a pseudo hypothesis than philosophy.

You might think it’s about raising probabilities (after all not all instances of smoking result in cancer). — invizzy

No, because we can not talk about probabilities without first verifying "possibilities". Probability is a mathematical concept and it demands a sample of verified and unverified cases for any calculations to be made !!!! Without a single verified case how can we even start talking about probabilities?

-"You might think that’s there nothing over and above causes and effects just being adjacent in some sense."
-I don't even have to go their. As a methodological Naturalism I am only concerned with what I can register and verify. The burden is on the claim the moment to take such claims seriously is only after some type of objective verification occurs.

I’m just finding it a little hard to see which ideas you support. Do you have a thinker or a theory which resonates with you? Or is this, as with my ideas, a novel theory? — invizzy

-Well I don't follow any ideas or theories. I obey the rules of logic and the Principles of methodological Naturalism(the best and only way to do philosophy).

I don’t think the idea of “real” has any meaning except in relation to the everyday world at human scale. — T Clark

.
All ideas, if we want them to be useful to us, should be used in relation to human understanding and limits of investigation. If not then we are dealing with an idealistic version of the idea,which is pseudo philosophy and epistemically useless.
Reality and what is real are defined by the ability of elements and their structures to interact with each other and being registered by our observations.
There is nothing we can say, hypothesize or theorize beyond that "ability" of "real things". Of course we can drink a beer or two while suggesting things about it but no serious Philosophical discussion can be held without having a robust, epistemic , starting point. (So I agree with your guidance to avoid metaphysics).

-" A memory of an apple, an imagined apple, or the taste of an apple may or may not be real. "
-A brain state is real and can be observed. If you imply that the "apple" isn't real, I will agree because there is no physical object (apple) involved in those scenarios. The claim "the apple isn't real is a "strawman" related to the statements "a memory, image, taste of an apple" since none of those mental representations are contingent of a physical apple during that experience.
So the mental experience of an apple is real, but a physical apple doesn't exist in there.

"The map is not the territory”according to Alfred Korzybski and that is a common mistake we do. In our case physical objects are "the territory" and the map is our mental representations of them.

so I am not mistaken?

Well atheism on its own is just a position on a supernatural claim.But you are right Atheism is the conclusion of a long philosophical inquiry (for centuries). Philosophy gave us Atheism while Superstition gave us Theism and Theologia is our attempt to justify this superstition.

I am not. This is why Major Universities study Theology within the Discipline of Anthropology, as a way to study human behavior, beliefs and their impact on our societies.
Theology is not based on Credible Epistemology and it can not deliver wise claims about our world or expand our understanding of it..so by definition it can not be Philosophy. Can you see the problem their. Its in direct conflict with the Definition of the term "Philosophy" and its goals.

changing our perspective on theology could never render it part of a true philosophical inquiry. What defines a philosophical inquire is wisdom and no one has ever become wiser about the the world by studying theology. On the contrary....

I never made that claim. I am only pointing out that Theology can never produce meaningful philosophy.

Actually human condition is where my argument stands. A quick search of this term provides the following definition "The human condition is all of the characteristics and key events of human life, including birth, learning, emotion, aspiration, morality, conflict, and death".
So philosophical pessimism observes our human and our world's condition from a broader scope based on a more objective evaluation?
How can this be possible without our subjective criteria and preferences? What defines something as inherently negative for example...?

Not really. I am just pointing out that evaluation and meaning are subjective when we address nature. Things just are in Nature without inherent values. Its an agents that introduces such concepts and attempts to evaluate the conditions.
i.e your phrase " the world is inherently negative" can only have a meaning compared to the preferences of an observer, right?

philosophical pessimism — schopenhauer1

Sure. Philosophical pessimism tries to evaluate existence through our attempt to project our values and meaning on nature. So in my opinion this request returns back to our psychological condition.

-"I think you have diagnosed the problem accurately. ‘Causation’ is indeed a noun, presumably because it refers to a thing of some sort."
-well in the case of an abstract noun it refers to (I quote):
"noun: abstract noun; plural noun: abstract nouns
a noun denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object, e.g. truth, danger, happiness."
So the term "quality" if used when we identify abstract nouns.

-"The attributes of physical processes I take you to mean things like the cancer that smoking gives rise to, or the damage to the cells that then give rise to cancer or something like that?"
-By attributes of physical processes I mean the quality/attribute/ability elements of a process have to generate an additional process. One of the qualities of the elements of a process is to form structures and interact with other structures. i.e. a moving cue ball can cause the movement of an other ball by physically interacting with it .

-"The problem with that is that attributes of the processes of those sort I think we call the EFFECTS of causation, not causation itself."
- in the example with the pool balls,the effect of causation is the colored ball rolling on a table.
That was caused by the cue ball bumping on the colored ball. Watching that ball moving we can assume the causation behind that process. The effect is the produced outcome caused by the ability physical processes have to initiate addition processes(effects).

-" Now of course the effects of causation are very real and can go on to cause more effects as you say, but we’re no closer to saying what causation itself is"
-Yes we can...its an abstract noun we made in our need to describe a specific quality of the physical world. Things don't happen all at once but there is an hierarchy of cause and effect.

-"Perhaps you mean to say something like causation occurs when a process leads to an effect?"
-Again causality doesn't occurs. Causality is just an abstract noun, a label of a specific quality where a process forces an effect or an other process to initiate.
The effect occurs and we try to identify the "causal agent" responsible for it.

-" I suppose that’s true as far as things go but then we still need to explain what ‘leading to’ means, does it just mean we often see things of that type go together for instance? Does it mean the process raises the probability of the effect somehow? "
-I don't really find that term useful. What causality examines (as I pointed out above) its the moment in time where a process (causal agent) forced a specific effect to emerge in reality.

Of course it is a quality/ability processes have in the physical world. We can observe it, demonstrate it , predict it and quantify its parameters.
btw Parentheses provide more information in addition to a sentence.

-"Right at the start you even say that qualities that are possessed by things."
-No there are many different usages of the term "quality", this is why I shared the usage I am using and the synonyms you can choose from. Just name the word you like and we can proceed to more useful and interesting things.

-" This means that to be a quality of a process the process should ‘have’ that quality."
-Yes processes have the quality/characteristic/ability/attribute to trigger/cause new processes. Can we agree on that? Causality is what drives the physical world and as I said it is quantifiable, observable and predictable. i.e. Snooker/pool and conversations are based on this quality displayed by physical processes.

-"But that’s not how we talk about causation, processes don’t ‘have’ causation."
-Processes have the ability to cause things to happen. Its one of the quality physical processes have.

-"But this doesn’t support the idea that causation is a quality. "
-I am offering you a definition and numerous words to replace the term quality if you don't like it!
So let me phrase it a bit different. Processes have the POWER to trigger new processes.(i.e.you eat a sandwich and a metabolic processes starts in your digestive track).
Can we agree on that?

-"But this doesn’t support the idea that causation is a quality. For one you’re now talking about the ‘properties’ of the process having a quality rather than the process itself. Any even then you all but admit that ‘attributes’ is the word you’re searching for rather that ‘the quality’. And even THEN the attribute IS what is doing the causing rather than being causation itself."
-Causation is a quality/attribute/characteristic of physical processes. There is NO debate there. Again if you have issues with the common usage of the word I use, pls communicate your preference.


-"Any even then you all but admit that ‘attributes’ is the word you’re searching for rather that ‘the quality’"
-No I don't admit anything...I just informed you that those words are used interchangeably by many...and this is why you can find this usage in Dictionaries.

-"And even THEN the attribute IS what is doing the causing rather than being causation itself.""
-Here is the main problem in your argument. As I predicted its bad language mode.
(lady is noun, consciousness is a noun, thus consciousness exist as an entity like ladies do...common mistake).
I guess your thinking is (correctly if I am wrong) "Causality is a noun thus it must exist in addition to the ability of a process to cause an effect."
Causality is an abstract concept labeling the quality/attribute displayed by a process.
You shouldn't assume an external agent in addition to the displayed property/quality/attribute/characteristic of a process.
Are we dealing with Phologiston, Miasma,Consciousness, Orgone energy etc etc all over again?I thought we were done with pseudo philosophy ages ago.

-"I’m not trying to be obtuse but I don’t think ‘quality’ is the word you’re looking for to tell us what causation is. Unless I’m missing something! "
-Common usages are numerous and easy to access/learn about . I defined which one I used, so you have no excuse for "missing something".but again I am willing to use the term you suggest...pls proceed.

First of all let me define the common usage I am using for the term quality.
I quote :"a distinctive attribute or characteristic possessed by someone or something."
Now lets define the term labeled "cancer".
Its a biological process where biological cells divide uncontrollably!


-"is causation really a quality in that way?"
-Well the redness of a ball is caused by a long process(light reflected on the ball, hitting our retina, filtered by eyes' rods and cones, converted in to an electrical signal and interpreted by our brain based on the energy carried by that light wave). So does the properties of a process have the quality(attributes) to cause additional processes? Sure.

-"For example, let’s assume that cigarettes cause cancer. Are you saying causation is a quality of the cancer? So in some sense the cancer HAS causation? That doesn’t seem quite right."
-It doesn't seem quite right because your example is either wrong or you use bad language "mode"!
Cigarettes (can be the cause) cause cancer. The process that causes cancer is the inhaled toxic chemical produced by burning cigarettes creating mutations to our genetic material.
SMOKING causes issues on how our cells reproduce and how our cell reproduces cause health issues. (cancer)
So the process of smoking can cause the process of uncontrollable cell division that can cause a health issue (cancer) .
Different processes have the characteristic/ability/quality to produce/create/realize new process.


-"Is causation the quality of the cigarettes being smoked? "
-Again"Cigarettes being smoked" is not a quality, its a process. Causation is the quality(ability ) processes have(smoking cigarettes,balls reflecting or absorbing light) to trigger new processes.(cause cancer, cause a ball to appear red)

-"Philosophical topics in theology:"
-I find that to be an oxymoron. Theology isn't based on verified knowledge claims so any conclusions can never be wise thus part of a philosophical discussion.
Theology can only be part of Social Sciences discussions analyzing the impact of those ideas on population and their institutions.

Pessimism is an evaluation term on our expectations of an outcome. One can be a pessimist either due to a psychological predisposition or experience and knowledge.
Any well informed optimist can be a pessimist and vice versa but when credible information can't change the way we view a situation then we are dealing with a psychological condition.

I think you are over analyzing something really simple. Causality is not a force or an agent. This is a common error of idealistic thinking.
The abstract concept of causality is a term we use to describe a quality found in physical processes of this world. Physical events are caused in the process we call universe and in turn they produce additional events. In nature there are processes that produce entities which in turn produce new processes. Our universe is a group of processes, we as observers classify processes as entities (i.e. human being=biological process)
Just observe this process we call philosophical thread. Your OP caused others to respond to it.