I just broke your toys :(

[average]

So we say that causality as a principle of nature or reality or whatever requires that nothing happens without a cause. First of all, sadly, good old Hume argued that, “we have no experience of any causal event. We always observe temporal conjunction, and then infer necessary connection.” Which is a logically baseless inference, and no one can prove a necessary logical connection between events -- therefore no causality has ever been demonstrated or theoretically been proven. Causality is thus more of a habit than a principle.

Secondly, causality requires a mental game of distinction; discrimination between the whole and its parts. Between this and that. Do you follow? Well this is an arbitrary game, where we set up imaginary boundaries between things. And then we have to set up temporal distinctions, A followed B which then came after C...etc. But the only distinctions exist in the eye of the beholder and the only boundaries that are real, are the ones you imagine. Which is all nice and wonderful if you really think about. But this leaves serious philosophical pondering broken down, in some ditch where a bunch of drunks are sleeping and rolling in their own vomit. Because how could you take such fiction seriously after realizing its just a product of your daydreaming? You can't, but you can treat it as fiction and still have fun with it.

And lastly, to put the nail in the coffin, “the principles we use in deriving knowledge cannot derive themselves.” Hooray!
So all your toys are broken.

[Cory Duchesne]

So we say that causality as a principle of nature or reality or whatever requires that nothing happens without a cause.

Do you agree that a 'happening' must appear, or else it doesn't happen?

[average]

So we say that causality as a principle of nature or reality or whatever requires that nothing happens without a cause.

Do you agree that a 'happening' must appear, or else it doesn't happen?

no.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Would someone with patience for foolishness be willing to explain how grossly average just misinterpreted Hume? I'm getting tired of listening to people who don't know how to read philosophers.

I believe there was a thread just a little while back where someone was going into Hume in quite a bit of detail. That was quite pleasant, especially since he knew that Hume was not somehow magically disproving causality.

[average]

Would someone with patience for foolishness be willing to explain how grossly average just misinterpreted Hume? I'm getting tired of listening to people who don't know how to read philosophers.

Well if you are that tired, best to take a nap, and come back when you can support your baseless claims.


edited for great justice.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Click, click.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

My suggestion for you average: read Hume again. And read him again. And read him again. And keep reading him until you actually understand what he's talking about.

Otherwise, your ideas only merit tongue-clicks.

[average]

My suggestion for you average: read Hume again. And read him again. And read him again. And keep reading him until you actually understand what he's talking about.

Otherwise, your ideas only merit tongue-clicks.

Come back when your nap is finished, it seems you're still floating around in dream land with nothing much to say.



Bang, bang, you're dead again.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

You are being childish. The only toys you have broken are your own, but I'm not going to act like your over-protective father.

You broke your toys. I'm telling you where to go to learn how to fix them. If you don't care to fix them, you aren't worth my time.

So: click, click. I'm through with you until you grow up.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

[As a footnote: it's very telling that you thought "click, click" meant a childhood game, and replied with "bang, bang."

It's actually me clicking my tongue at you, because you are being immature.]

[Boyan]

So we say that causality as a principle of nature or reality or whatever requires that nothing happens without a cause.

Do you agree that a 'happening' must appear, or else it doesn't happen?

no.

You just contradicted yourself average.

When we don't see the necessary connection between cause and effect doesn't mean it's not there, and you just agreed with that.

Trevor, I believe it was my post you were thinking about regarding simple explanation of Hume's view on cause and effect, but because of the brake down of the forum recently, I don't know where it is. I'll write the nutshell here -


Hume stated there is no impression of the necessary connection between cause and effect.

We have the impressions of time succession and space time continuity(touch). We do not have experience of the necessary connection, which can be a logical or a physical one.

I.E. a logical is a brother is of male sex. You can't even imagine brother not being of male sex.

A physical one would mean there is experience of it, that it originates in an impression, but there is no impression on the base of which we could explain the origin of the idea of the necessary connection.

This still does not mean that things are uncaused, just that we don't see the connection, but only that one thing follows the other, and even then, why wouldn't we use induction just because we can not certainly know that something that happened million times will happen again?

That we can not know with certainty that Sun will rise tomorrow is an example of Hume's negative thesis. That it is acceptable for us to accept that the Sun will rise tomorrow is an example of his positive thesis which he used to make.

So, yes, we have no impression of the necessary connection maybe, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist. You agreed with this stance earlier.

[average]

You just contradicted yourself average.

When we don't see the necessary connection between cause and effect doesn't mean it's not there, and you just agreed with that.

No, I didn't. I wish I had though, since I am a fan of contradictions, but just to clear your mind -- I said I don't agree with the statement that 'a happening must appear, in order to happen'.

This still does not mean that things are uncaused, just that we don't see the connection, but only that one thing follows the other, and even then, why wouldn't we use induction...

And an invisible unicorn is controlling the weather, and God created the earth in 6 days...why don't we just use induction and...blabla yawn.

[Boyan]

You just contradicted yourself average.

When we don't see the necessary connection between cause and effect doesn't mean it's not there, and you just agreed with that.

No, I didn't. I wish I had though, since I am a fan of contradictions, but just to clear your mind -- I said I don't agree with the statement that 'a happening must appear, in order to happen'.

This still does not mean that things are uncaused, just that we don't see the connection, but only that one thing follows the other, and even then, why wouldn't we use induction...

And an invisible unicorn is controlling the weather, and God created the earth in 6 days...why don't we just use induction and...blabla yawn.

Yes you say that happening does not need to appear in order to happen, which means that you agree that even though we don't see the necessary connection between cause and effect it doesn't mean it isn't there, and you claimed that since we don't see the necessary connection between cause and effect, there is no causality, in your opening post.

That is how you contradicted yourself.

Explain yourself better lazy man. I'll say that a rock thrown from a building will not stay in mid air until proven otherwise.

[average]

Yes you say that happening does not need to appear in order to happen.

Yes I agree, in most cases this is true.
Unless that which is happening is an appearance itself...

which means that you agree that even though we don't see the necessary connection between cause and effect it doesn't mean it isn't there, and you claimed that since we don't see the necessary connection between cause and effect, there is no causality, in your opening post.

No, I claimed there is no logical reason to infer such a connection exists, regardless if it is seen or not. Which is also what Hume was getting at.

That is how you contradicted yourself.

Lies and slander! :]

Explain yourself better lazy man. I'll say that a rock thrown from a building will not stay in mid air until proven otherwise.

It will stay in mid air, for quite some time, probably until the ground picks it up from mid air or some other thing gets in its way...who knows what will happen.

[Boyan]

It will stay in mid air, for quite some time, probably until the ground picks it up from mid air or some other thing gets in its way...who knows what will happen.

Why should we care about that possibility until it actually happens? It would be foolish to do so.

Why should we not use a perfectly usable paradigm if it has not failed us yet?

[average]

Why should we care about that possibility until it actually happens? It would be foolish to do so.



Why should we not use a perfectly usable paradigm if it has not failed us yet?

So we don't begin to stink and stagnate.
Plus, its much more fun to think outside the sandbox.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Logic is the only way out of the sandbox. That you don't know this is evidence that you are still in the sandbox, and are just imitating a metaphor that others like to give yourself a false sense of being "all growed-up".

As I just suggested in another thread, maybe another forum and interest would be more suitable for you. You don't seem to have any interest in philosophy.

[average]

Logic is the only way out of the sandbox. That you don't know this is evidence that you are still in the sandbox, and are just imitating a metaphor that others like to use to feel grown up.

As I just suggested in another thread, maybe another forum and interest would be more suitable for you. You don't seem to have any interest in philosophy.

No this forum is fine, thanks for the recommendation though.

The most logic will tell you, is what you already know.
Thats why it is the sandbox, dull, stagnant, trivial.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

You have it backwards. Sandboxes are fun. Logic is not the sandbox because it's not fun. It solves things, and is "dull" to kids who like to play in sandboxes.

[David Quinn]

average wrote:

So we say that causality as a principle of nature or reality or whatever requires that nothing happens without a cause. First of all, sadly, good old Hume argued that, “we have no experience of any causal event. We always observe temporal conjunction, and then infer necessary connection.” Which is a logically baseless inference, and no one can prove a necessary logical connection between events -- therefore no causality has ever been demonstrated or theoretically been proven. Causality is thus more of a habit than a principle.

There are two separate issues here. Affirming the logical truth that nothing can arise without cause is different from affirming that two successive events are causally linked together in an immediate sense. One can affirm the former while recognizing the impossibility of affirming the latter.

In other words, causality can be affirmed as the principle of all creation in a general sense, even though we do not have the means to affirm particular instances of causation.

Secondly, causality requires a mental game of distinction; discrimination between the whole and its parts. Between this and that. Do you follow? Well this is an arbitrary game, where we set up imaginary boundaries between things. And then we have to set up temporal distinctions, A followed B which then came after C...etc. But the only distinctions exist in the eye of the beholder and the only boundaries that are real, are the ones you imagine. Which is all nice and wonderful if you really think about. But this leaves serious philosophical pondering broken down, in some ditch where a bunch of drunks are sleeping and rolling in their own vomit. Because how could you take such fiction seriously after realizing its just a product of your daydreaming? You can't, but you can treat it as fiction and still have fun with it.

The truth that all boundaries in Nature are imaginary arises out of the truth that all things are causally connected.

This is where Hume's arguments on causality break down. They depend on the false perception that successive events are discrete entities with beginnings and ends.

And lastly, to put the nail in the coffin, “the principles we use in deriving knowledge cannot derive themselves.” Hooray!

In the end, the only principle we need to make use of is A=A, which is beyond question.

-

[average]

The truth that all boundaries in Nature are imaginary arises out of the truth that all things are causally connected.

This happens if you think about it artificially, backwards, you split everything up and then assume its all connected.
If you see it for real, there is nothing to be connected in the first place, there are no objects and there is no time, there is only one large picture, one now. And causality has no place in this picture.

This is where Hume's arguments on causality break down. They depend on the false perception that successive events are discrete entities with beginnings and ends.

That has nothing to do with Hume, but if you are to imagine boundaries then you imagine causality, both are delusions in their own ways.

In the end, the only principle we need to make use of is A=A, which is beyond question.

-

Maybe you can't question it, but some of us can.

Besides, A=A can't tell you anymore than you already know, its superfluous, but if it satisfies your obviously limited imagination then subscribe to it! Be my guest :)

[Trevor Salyzyn]

So not only do you apply unlimited thought, you also apply unlimited imagination?

Average, no wonder I find you so tedious. I have patience for philosophy, but not for arrogant madmen. I think a few months in a psych ward could do you well, and help you distinguish your imagination from fact.

In hopes to bring some sanity to this thread, does anyone know of the origin of the insane mind's belief in its own divinity?

[Steven Coyle]

average,

Ahh! J/K.

Use your imagination and think about what David's philosophy is about.

A=A is at the very heart of reality, and knowing that, with a little imagination, one has solved a very important philosophical problem.

[David Quinn]

average,

DQ: The truth that all boundaries in Nature are imaginary arises out of the truth that all things are causally connected.

A: This happens if you think about it artificially, backwards, you split everything up and then assume its all connected.
If you see it for real, there is nothing to be connected in the first place, there are no objects and there is no time, there is only one large picture, one now. And causality has no place in this picture.

That's perfectly true. Causality only has meaning when there are "things". When it is realized that things don't really exist to begin with, the concept of causality becomes meaningless.

However, this doesn't mean that non-causality - i.e. things popping into existence without cause - is real. Causality is real to the degree that things are real.

Causality is like a conceptual glue which joins together what has been artificially split apart.

DQ: This is where Hume's arguments on causality break down. They depend on the false perception that successive events are discrete entities with beginnings and ends.

A: That has nothing to do with Hume, but if you are to imagine boundaries then you imagine causality, both are delusions in their own ways.

Hume's argument concerning successive events depends on the perception that there are events to begin with.

DQ: In the end, the only principle we need to make use of is A=A, which is beyond question.

A: Maybe you can't question it, but some of us can.

You can't meaningfully question it, though. This is because the very act of questioning involves the utilization of A=A, and thus is dependent upon the validity of A=A. Because of this, the very attempt to question A=A automatically confirms A=A.

Besides, A=A can't tell you anymore than you already know, its superfluous, but if it satisfies your obviously limited imagination then subscribe to it! Be my guest :)

On the contrary, for those who are without mental blocks, it is the key to everything.

-

[ExpectantlyIronic]

David,

This is where Hume's arguments on causality break down. They depend on the false perception that successive events are discrete entities with beginnings and ends.

No they don't. They only depend upon the fact that it makes sense to say something like "a man will die if he's hit by a train". Will he die? Experience and inductive reasoning says yes. Deductive reasoning is out having tea, and has nothing to say on the matter at the moment. Claims as to particular causal connections are inductive. That's the whole of it. This whole idea that there aren't particular events strikes me as entirely misguided anyways. I think Average and yourself are ignoring what we actually mean when we speak of such things. You're trying to understand what an 'event' might be, and not looking at how the word itself is used.