HUME

[my_real_name]

Sure. And pretty much everything they did was challenged by Hume. Not just challenged, challenged isn’t strong enough a word, it was all made meaningless. Not just in Philosophy, mind you, but everything up to the most blind, mindless sorts of religion. And not just everything that came before him, but Hume set the table that everything after him would be challenged as well. What Hume held (actually I think he proved this) is that everything you do, everything you see, is the result of a bundle of assumptions you make, and none of them are provable by the faculty of reason…, nor the mechanisms of perception you use every moment of your waking life.

My resolution of the Hume dichotomy on causality is simple and as follows. Let me know what you think of it.

When we are children, we pick thinks up and we move them. We have the experience that we can be causers as well as the effected from youth. This experience of causing we transfer onto the external world when we see one thing move and another follows. We have done this causing ourselves so we know what it is to do such a thing. And this we call experiential knowledge.

Now I’m sure there must have been objections to this before in the last 300 years – it seems so simple.

Next, would you like to hear my resolution of the “Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle”? It’s apparently obvious too. (i.e. It is a statement about the conditions of the test, not universally applicable to the outside world.)

?

[Impenitent]

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … sc&start=0

pay particular attention to the dialouge between Membrain and myself.

Hume remains unrefuted

-Imp

[Future_Man]

i think what imp wishes he had the time to say is that you have no proof that the interaction between your hand molecules and the balls is what caused the motion, or that it wasnt caused by your dad farting from across the room.

you might be able to say the elctromagnetic force did it (which i dont think you can) but then you cant prove that every particle accelerator experiment ever done proving the existence of such a force wasnt just a bunch of freak occurences. and you certainly cant say what that fundamental force is, only what it is called.

[Pinnacle_of_Reason]

Imp

I read your dual with membrain, I like the way you guys quote each other. hehe, a mini-quote war. I feel like a bit of hypocrite reply to this post for I was once on Hume’s side. In fact, I once used Hume’s argument against PFloyd.

I reckon logically this should be the case. Assuming everything remains the same, the same outcome can and will be derived from the same situation. So, A lead to B will always be true so long as A is always A and B is always B.

When Ball A hits Ball B and moves Ball B under Situation C, assuming situation C remains constant, Ball A will when it hits Ball B will always move Ball B.

In the above situation, we say Ball A ‘caused’ Ball B to move under situation C.

how’s that?

[Impenitent]

we say “caused” but it is an error…

-Imp

[Logo]

@my real name

When we are children, we pick thinks up and we move them. We have the experience that we can be causers as well as the effected from youth. This experience of causing we transfer onto the external world when we see one thing move and another follows. We have done this causing ourselves so we know what it is to do such a thing. And this we call experiential knowledge.

Hume never tries to account for the way we learn to interpret the world in terms of cause and effect; he simply says that we do. It is our “custom or habit.” Even if you’re right about the development of causal reasoning, it has no bearing on the validity of Hume’s skepticism. Just because I learn to view myself as a cause does not logically entail that I am, and that’s Hume’s point.

Happy new year btw.

[Pinnacle_of_Reason]

If Hume thought using ‘Caused’ is an error then he has erred, because if event A only happens if and only if event B happens under condition C. Then event A is ‘caused’ by event B, under condition C.

Under similar conditions, we expect similar outcome. Hume’s skepicism is not logical, because the repetition of any experiement under the same condition will ALWAYS yield the same result. Under similar conditions, the experiment will yield a different, but similar result.

I think what Hume was really trying to say is that things are all predetermined. We are just watching things happen. But I do not see how that skepticism has anything to do with ‘cause’. Logically speaking, B will always cause A under C, if A, B, C are the same. 1+1 will always = 2 in this universe. Even if we are dreaming, that equation will always remain true.

[Impenitent]

@Pinnacle of Reason

If Hume thought using ‘Caused’ is an error then he has erred, because if event A only happens if and only if event B happens under condition C. Then event A is ‘caused’ by event B, under condition C.

Under similar conditions, we expect similar outcome. Hume’s skepicism is not logical, because the repetition of any experiement under the same condition will ALWAYS yield the same result. Under similar conditions, the experiment will yield a different, but similar result.

I think what Hume was really trying to say is that things are all predetermined. We are just watching things happen. But I do not see how that skepticism has anything to do with ‘cause’. Logically speaking, B will always cause A under C, if A, B, C are the same. 1+1 will always = 2 in this universe. Even if we are dreaming, that equation will always remain true.

not at all… as I explained in the other thread… there is no necessary connection between events

1+1=2 is an analytic statement that tells you nothing about the world only about the definitions of 1, 2, +, and =…

to say B will occur because it has always done so in the past begs the question and is a logical fallacy, an error

not true, but an error.

-Imp

[Logo]

@Pinnacle of Reason

I think what Hume was really trying to say is that things are all predetermined. We are just watching things happen. But I do not see how that skepticism has anything to do with ‘cause’. Logically speaking, B will always cause A under C, if A, B, C are the same. 1+1 will always = 2 in this universe. Even if we are dreaming, that equation will always remain true.

Wow. You think you know what Hume was trying to say? And you just base this on what…the posts in this thread?

I know I’m just repeating what everyone’s telling you in the Kant thread, but in philosophy there are no shortcuts. You read the author–preferably more than once–then you critique the author. Or you just ignore the author altogether. There’s really not another way to do it.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/david_hume/human_understanding.html

Hume’s easier than Kant, don’t worry.

p.s. I have a hunch that mrn should check this link out too.

[my_real_name]

@Impenitent

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=142468&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

pay particular attention to the dialouge between Membrain and myself.

Hume remains unrefuted

-Imp

Membrain wrote:

Impenitent wrote:

Membrain wrote:

I voted “yes”.

My beliefs are based upon physics: the belief that they objectively exist.

The evidence: science.

yes, the inductive fallacy is a great proof…

-Imp
Science doesn’t prove the existence of physics? So physics might not exist? Is that the argument?

language doesn’t prove the existence of dictionaries. so dictionaries might not exist. … same circular arguments… science is based on an error, that’s all…

-Imp

If any form of science proves physics, it is one of the philosophical branches.

I don’t understand this bit about disproving the existence of dictionaries–they are so ubiquitous.

Logo: I’m not sure Hume handles my argument. I am re-defining (more realistically) what it means to know.

mrn

[Impenitent]

@my real name

If any form of science proves physics, it is one of the philosophical branches.

I don’t understand this bit about disproving the existence of dictionaries–they are so ubiquitous.

no, science is based on an error in reasoning, it proves nothing

dictionary proofs don’t tell you anything about the world

keep reading the thread

-Imp

[my_real_name]

@Impenitent

keep reading the thread

-Imp

…With interest!

mrn

[Pinnacle_of_Reason]

Imp

Please define the meaning of the word ‘cause’. I read your dialogue with membrain, I don’t think membrain took the correct approach.

“there is no necessary connection between events” - I think you need to define ‘connection’.

I want to hear your comment on this

“Under similar conditions, we expect similar outcome. Hume’s skepicism is not logical, because the repetition of any experiement under the same condition will ALWAYS yield the same result. Under similar conditions, the experiment will yield a different, but similar result.”

The application of the above to the billzard ball goes as follows.
Snapshot 1 When billzard ball A bits ball B under Environment C. ball B moves
Snapshot 2 When billzard ball A bits ball B under Environment C. ball B moves
…
If the situation remains the same, and Ball A and Ball B are the same. Ball B MUST move regardless. Now if everything is the same. Ball B will ALWAYS and MUST move, so we say Ball A caused Ball B.

logo

"Wow. You think you know what Hume was trying to say? And you just base this on what…the posts in this thread? - tell me, what was Hume trying to say.

I know I’m just repeating what everyone’s telling you in the Kant thread, but in philosophy there are no shortcuts. You read the author–preferably more than once–then you critique the author. Or you just ignore the author altogether. There’s really not another way to do it. - I think Imp knows what he’s talking about, so I’m basing my refutation on his understanding of Hume.

infidels.org/library/histori … nding.html

Hume’s easier than Kant, don’t worry. - No, I just don’t want to waste time reading Shakespeare when there are better things to do.

p.s. I have a hunch that mrn should check this link out too."

Logo, this is a discussion forum. I enjoy discussing Hume with Imp. I am beginning to wonder whether you have read Hume yourself. If you have, why not explain Hume to us. Explain to us what we have missed. I really do not need you or others to tell me to read Hume. If I feel like it, I will do that myself.

[Impenitent]

@Pinnacle of Reason

Imp

Please define the meaning of the word ‘cause’. I read your dialogue with membrain, I don’t think membrain took the correct approach.

“there is no necessary connection between events” - I think you need to define ‘connection’.

once again… "Hume did ask the question of causality:
“x causes y” where x is the event of billiard ball a striking billiard ball b and y is the event of ball b moving after being struck…
is the sentence “x causes y” analytic? no, because it is possible to conceive of a striking b, and b not moving…
is the sentence “x causes y” synthetic? one may claim it is, but Hume analyzed the concept further, breaking it into 3 parts, priority, contiguity and necessary connection… priority could be traced to sense impression, x preceeded y; same with contiguity, x contacted y… but no matter how many times Hume observed ball a strike ball b, he could not find any NECESSARY CONNECTION… the fact that if x happens, y MUST happen… without this necessary connection, causality made no sense… Hume demonstrated that when we claim that one thing a causes another b, we are only reporting on our EXPECTATION that a will be followed by b… this is a psychological fact about us and not a fact about the world… this is the problem of induction… what makes us so certain that the future will behave like the past? because it has always happened that way in the past begs the question… Must it do so in the future just because it has always has in the past? what guarantees that the “laws of nature” will hold tomorrow? there is no analytic or synthetic guarantee of this… "

@Pinnacle of Reason

I want to hear your comment on this

“Under similar conditions, we expect similar outcome. Hume’s skepicism is not logical, because the repetition of any experiement under the same condition will ALWAYS yield the same result. Under similar conditions, the experiment will yield a different, but similar result.”

The application of the above to the billzard ball goes as follows.
Snapshot 1 When billzard ball A bits ball B under Environment C. ball B moves
Snapshot 2 When billzard ball A bits ball B under Environment C. ball B moves
…
If the situation remains the same, and Ball A and Ball B are the same. Ball B MUST move regardless. Now if everything is the same. Ball B will ALWAYS and MUST move, so we say Ball A caused Ball B.

again, there is no necessity that B must move… it is only our expectation of B moving… to claim that B will move because B has moved before is the logical fallacy of begging the question… you say A must cause B, but there is no logical justification in making that claim…

-Imp

[Pinnacle_of_Reason]

Imp I am afraid you completely misunderstood me.

“the fact that if x happens, y MUST happen… without this necessary connection, causality made no sense.”

X happen, y MUST happen under the same condition. It is logical because identical event = identical event. ball falling at t=a is the same as ball falling at t=b, when the situation or environment is the same. I won’t be able to reply to the post till Monday. Have a happy weekend!

[my_real_name]

@Impenitent

@Pinnacle of Reason

I want to hear your comment on this

“Under similar conditions, we expect similar outcome. Hume’s skepicism is not logical, because the repetition of any experiement under the same condition will ALWAYS yield the same result. Under similar conditions, the experiment will yield a different, but similar result.”

The application of the above to the billzard ball goes as follows.
Snapshot 1 When billzard ball A bits ball B under Environment C. ball B moves
Snapshot 2 When billzard ball A bits ball B under Environment C. ball B moves
…
If the situation remains the same, and Ball A and Ball B are the same. Ball B MUST move regardless. Now if everything is the same. Ball B will ALWAYS and MUST move, so we say Ball A caused Ball B.

again, there is no necessity that B must move… it is only our expectation of B moving… to claim that B will move because B has moved before is the logical fallacy of begging the question… you say A must cause B, but there is no logical justification in making that claim…

-Imp

Okay, now this is interesting. I am saying something different form PoR. I am not saying that ball A necessarily causes B to move: someone could be holding ball B not to move. [But PoR says “under the same conditions”, but that might be hard to ascertain in the real world.]

I am saying that if ball B moved, there was a cause for it…experience tells us that A has done the sort of thing that could have caused this, or could cause this in the future.

[Impenitent]

@Pinnacle of Reason

Imp I am afraid you completely misunderstood me.

“the fact that if x happens, y MUST happen… without this necessary connection, causality made no sense.”

X happen, y MUST happen under the same condition. It is logical because identical event = identical event. ball falling at t=a is the same as ball falling at t=b, when the situation or environment is the same. I won’t be able to reply to the post till Monday. Have a happy weekend!

but it isn’t the identical event… the second time is not identical with the first… (why is it the “second” if it is identical?)

to say the future will resemble the past because of the past begs the question… it is an error in reasoning… it is illogical…

have a nice weekend…

-Imp

[Impenitent]

@my real name

Okay, now this is interesting. I am saying something different form PoR. I am not saying that ball A necessarily causes B to move: someone could be holding ball B not to move. [But PoR says “under the same conditions”, but that might be hard to ascertain in the real world.]

I am saying that if ball B moved, there was a cause for it…experience tells us that A has done the sort of thing that could have caused this, or could cause this in the future.

no, that is your supposition because you expect events to have causes…

to say this is so because it has always done so begs the question…

-Imp

[my_real_name]

@Impenitent

@my real name

Okay, now this is interesting. I am saying something different form PoR. I am not saying that ball A necessarily causes B to move: someone could be holding ball B not to move. [But PoR says “under the same conditions”, but that might be hard to ascertain in the real world.]

I am saying that if ball B moved, there was a cause for it…experience tells us that A has done the sort of thing that could have caused this, or could cause this in the future.

no, that is your supposition because you expect events to have causes…

to say this is so because it has always done so begs the question…

-Imp

Is it your supposition that events do not have causes? Aren’t there more apparently caused events than apparently non-caused? Which is less easily come upon in the world of experience?

[Impenitent]

@My Real Name

Is it your supposition that events do not have causes? Aren’t there more apparently caused events than apparently non-caused? Which is less easily come upon in the world of experience?

no, it is not a supposition… there is no logical, necessary connection between any two events… event A, event B, event C ect ad naseaum ad infinitum… none are logically connected to another… appearance is appearance, not a necessary connection…

no cause, no effect… simply multiple events with no connections or guarantees… dustbowl empiricism at its finest…

-Imp