You remind me of a story Terry Eagleton tells. He was lecturing about Clarissa in China. He was being asked some very odd questions. In the end, he realised the students thought he was Samuel Richardson. He was old, he was English, he was talking about Clarissa - why not?
In The Philosophy of David Hume (2005) Norman Kemp Smith argues that Hume is a skeptic about our knowledge of causality (sense experience does not properly ground the claim that there is a necessary connection between causes and their effects), but an ontological realist about causation (yes Virginia, there really is causation between events).
There is a way to reconcile this: demonstrate that physical reality is connected to fundamental logical precepts. In which case, "B" didn't merely follow "A", it necessarily follows "A" because there is no logical alternative. The difficult part is maintaining that the demonstration I mentioned qualifies as proof and evidence. For it requires a kind of recursive logic whereby it explains itself via itself. In a "set of all sets" kind of sense.
@@holm81 Not exactly. Wittgenstein came closest to this attempt with the tractatus, but there has never been an attempt to actually connect reality to logic directly, or anything really. Which is understandable, because reducing it completely in such a way would be incorrect imo. That said, if there is a way to demonstrate certain logical scenarios/circumstances/events with strong predictive power whereby B follows A by no alternative, it's at least a path to apply what we as humans already rely on to survive to physical reality in a reliable way.
@@jeremycull8876 Wittgenstein built on Russell who built on Frege. The project was basically to give an accurate description of the world by reducing it to logic. The Tractatus ends by saying that the only true possible statements (about the world) are logical. Somehow showing that the world = logic, which does not consist of things but of human words, would be absurd from the get go, so I think you're right in saying that such a thing would be incorrect. On whether or not it would be possible to demonstrate something with no alternative, this is forgetting the point by Popper that hypotheses are never actually verified, only falsified. No matter what theory you come up with, there will always - and by necessity - be an alternative, which might prove to be the better alternative in the long run (untill it gets replaced and so on). Unfortunately - or fortunately - induction is just an imperfect tool that has to be constantly refined by experience.
@@holm81 By your logic, you're refuting your own premise; it's not the only way of understanding the dilemma. Either way, I'm not trying to create an absolute dogma by what I suggest, only merely demonstrating that there is a way out, and that the only grounds for the truth in Hume's principle is a burden of proof. Are there things that are in principle impossible to falsify? Sure there are. In which case, so long as B follows A by no alternative (at least no known alternative yet) with "very strong predictive power", there is no reason to suggest that in principle it is impossible to achieve in an ideal sense. But one step at a time. As for your point about the situation Wittgenstein, Russel and frege ultimately avoided whereby logic = world, which then (according to you) implies world consists of words... I'm not so sure. I understand why you come to this conclusion, but a more synthetic application of the concept of identity would resolve the issue of a representation being separate (and thereby different) from a thing it is representing. Still, I am not here to say the task is easy at all. Only that we don't fully comprehend the nature of the "dead end" as simply as it is deceptively stated.
@@jeremycull8876 1. "By your logic, you're refuting your own premise; it's not the only way of understanding the dilemma." What premise are you talking about? Care to demonstrate? 2. "Things that are in principle impossible to falsify". Which are they? The concept "very strong predictive power" or just "prediction" alone presupposes probability. i.e. predicting something which may be otherwise. If it is possible to predict, then it already follows that there are alternatives. Therefore, it seems you are guilty of what you just accused me of without grounds. 3. "A more synthetic application of the concept of identity would resolve the issue of a representation being separate (and thereby different) from a thing it is representing". Excuse me? Why are you performing these sort of mental gymnastics to argue that words = things? Even semantic externalists like Putnam and Kripke never thought of such a senseless idea. 4. If you are interested in the attempted ways of posing and solving the Humean predicament, I recommend looking up Quine's response to Nelson Goodman in his article "The New Riddle of Induction".
You have the ball. You have the potential energy of the ball in the air a certain height above ground. But you also have the particular property of the ball of elasticity that is linking cause and effect in this instance. They're not mentioning that. Maybe I'm missing something but I find that to be important.
The potential energy and the elasticity of the ball is an abstract concept developed after our observation. Any Scientific theory results from our observation and not the other way round. No theory is perfect, and it is merely a model to explain reality. According to Newton, every 2 objects in the universe are attracted to each other. On the other hand, Einstein says the objects just follow their natural path through the twisted space-time continuum. Who is correct? Causation is a tool that humans use to make sense of the world!
according to Hume, scientific knowledge is nothing but a habit of the mind to provide some sort of explanation and order in understanding the world according to him, science is not based on objectivity This is philosophy... so don't expect everything philosophers say to be proven by science/maths ahah
Everything in Hume stems from nominalism, i.e., the rejection of any generalization as invalid on grounds that all we actually know are particular observations. So he would reject notions like "potential energy" and "elasticity" as mere words, appeals to mysticism, or habits of thought that may correspond to past observations but that need not comport with future observations.
Could we say that Hume said that the power of the human mind for habituation caused us to associate the various perceptions? Would this be a weak point is his account of what causation is and how mind relates with reality? Would this be a weak point of his dismissal of intellectual concepts? Would his conception of concepts make him closer to Plato, even if in a subtle way, than to Locke? Saying "I can't find a natural cause for causes" isn't like saying that he can't find any Demiurge and, yet, expecting one to be there shall we cosider concepts real?
If were going to question the notion of fidelity of the mind why stop at the ability to apprehend an impression and doubt too of any power of cogitation, since cogitation itself relies on concepts which ultimately come from experience? Skepticism defeats itself.
In a nutshell: We often jump to conclusions based off of our ability to recognize patterns without truly deepening our understanding of processes that make up any given event.
No, in fact, deepening our understanding doesn't do anything in this case. We are discussing causality and the thing is - you can't pick it up from anything that you observe, as you are merely observing actions coming one after another. No matter how deep is your understanding of a concrete process, what we need is precisely the opposite - the understanding of the simplest process of "a causing b". Now it's up to you how will you go from there.
Event B is followed by event A. Suppose with deep scientific understanding we find another event C is followed by event A, and another event D is followed by event C, and ultimately event B is followed by event D. Without the scientific understanding only evets A and B is seen, but with more understanding we find additional ecents C and D, in between! Humes brilliance is, if we go deep, we will find events E and F in between C and D! And there will be no end how much we come to know about nature scientifically!
One way I always think about this is the idea that cause and effect can only happen in any abstract world of past and future that is actually created by human consciousness. To me, if you do believe in causality, the only way to logically carry through that theory is to bring it all the way back to the Big bang and say that there is only one initial cause for everything that we know in the universe. This is the basis for determinism in a lot of other empiricist ideas about the nature of reality and causality. But when you really think about it, doesn't having a single first cause and then an entire universe of chain reaction splitting into more chain reactions splitting into more chain reactions completely leave out the possibility of any alternatives to the current measurable reality? And if that's the case, doesn't this completely throw a giant wrench into all probability theory and statistics? Because as we said, in order to measure probability we need to assume that there are alternatives. If causality is real then there can't possibly be any alternatives to anything and the entire universe is mechanically deterministic. I do not agree with this take. I know it sounds mystical and woo woo, but it is a fact that our consciousness has to slice up the progression of time and change into discrete quanta in order to study the world. And within these quanta is where cause and effect appears. Science does not tend to allow for the constant state of present becoming that we actually live and breathe in. But there are a few things in physics that actually point toward this blind spot. One are the probability functions of quantum physics and the idea that we cannot predict the movements of subatomic particles and also the idea that time is closely interconnected with space and is relative, meaning that the way we perceive it is not necessarily how it works in the universe as a whole. Also the idea that we could never create a set that contains itself in the whole incompleteness philosophy I think is an important element of this as well.
First, there is no such thing as "how it works in the universe as a whole", there is nothing beyond your perception. i.e. you cannot refer to anything but through your mind. You cannot think, speak, or do anything about anything existing outside your mind. The moment you try, you are already conceptualizing. Second, if you understand the role of free will in a deterministic universe, you understand how change comes to be.
I never really got this argument against causation, because if causation *did* exist, what exactly could it look like to human eyes other than the constant conjunction of A and B?
@@theeskatelife how? it seems to me he's implying that we cant prove causation even with the constant conjunction of A and B, but I do fail to understand it, I mean, for the example of the ball, its not just the correlation here, we no have physics that explain the causal link and effect between the ball and the ground and tells us exactly how the energy transfer causes the bounce
@@NourEldin_z3r0 Yeah, physics has come a long way since Hume, but that doesn't negate the point. At root, we'd still be dealing with the same type of thing, no? Regularity theories are complicated by seeming to imply a direction to causality.
@@Khuno2 No physics did NOT come along way since hume (in the case of classical physics that is). Hume was well aware of Newtonian physics and how a ball could bounce. But it is still that 'causation' is a matter of 'habit', the bouncing is not caused by gravity but by a set of events interacting and just by 'looking' at the ball or the ground we dont infer the 'cause'. Hume view opened the door for probabilistic views and ''correlation is not causation'. It is very important in Hume philosophy that it is rooted in the idea that every thing come from experience (rather than innate in the mind), and hence it follows that if 'causation' is from experience, then when did u experience it? We experience the ball, we experience the ground ... but the connection??? 🤯 p.s. im no expert, just thinking out loud. Its quite possible that im completely off.
disproved by Emanual Kant. How can one make sense of sensory information only if the mind in prerequisite does not impose structure of the capability of viewing sensory information in the context of unity in 3d in space and time and time and hence causality. without these innate structures that our mind imposes we cannot make sense of raw sensory data. Our minds are not blank states, we would not be able to make sense out of only sensory information to bring about abstraction, subjectivity or even discernability inductively, inductively you get only mereological nihilism . These cognitive structures are a prerequisite for experience. no innate structure to make sense or process of sensory information cannot give experiences.
Why do western philosophers conclude that causality is mysterious when a rather well known Indian thoroughly explained the matter 2500 years ago? The same cause cannot produce the same effect unless in a strictly controlled/isolated environment. Why? Because everything is interconnected in a deterministic universe and therefore in constant flux and therefore all causes are impacted by countless other causes, which are forever changing.
Source? No, really, if there is an Indian Philosofer that is ignored by "the west" and has achieved better understanding of causality i'm all for it, really, this is THE question for scientist, and researchers of any kind.
@@wolfpytlak2786 I am going to assume that you have heard of the word karma. Causality is a fundamental tenet of both Hinduism and Buddhism. The Indian philosopher I was referring to was Siddhartha Gautama, you might have heard of him, he is also known as the Buddha:) In Hinduism and Buddhism, causality is not one of many areas of philosophy as it is in the west, causality is the core of their philosophy. So, whenever I hear a western philosopher speak on the subject and not reference others who have studied the phenomena for 1000s of years, I can only come to the conclusion that the western philosophers are small-minded humans, regardless of their credentials.
Quantum mechanics In 1993, Karen Harding's paper "Causality Then and Now: Al Ghazali and Quantum Theory" described several "remarkable" similarities between Ghazali's concept of occasionalism and the widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. She stated: "In both cases, and contrary to common sense, objects are viewed as having no inherent properties and no independent existence. In order for an object to exist, it must be brought into being either by God (al-Ghazali) or by an observer (the Copenhagen Interpretation)." She also stated: In addition, the world is not entirely predictable. For al Ghazali, God has the ability to make anything happen whenever He chooses. In general, the world functions in a predictable manner, but a miraculous event can occur at any moment. All it takes for a miracle to occur is for God to not follow His ‘custom.’ The quantum world is very similar. Lead balls fall when released because the probability of their behaving in that way is very high. It is, however, very possible that the lead ball may ‘miraculously’ rise rather than fall when released. Although the probability of such an event is very small, such an event is, nonetheless, still possible. Continuing from philosopher Graham Harman's work on occasionalism in the context of object-oriented ontology, Simon Weir proposed in 2020 an alternate view of the relationship between quantum theory and occasionalism opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation, where virtual particles act as one of many kinds of mediating sensual objects.
Does our understanding of entropy and probability not factor into a solution here? We know certain things are likely to happen, e.g., we put a glass of water in the refrigerator and it gets colder over time. This will happen almost certainly every time, but entropy allows for the probability of the glass getting warmer, our physics allow it, it is just highly highly unlikely.
ONE MORE TIME BUT SIMPLER...........Hume defined an analogy employing two billiard balls and claimed our inability to know unequivocally via induction that a second stationary ball, ball 2 would be made to move if struck by a moving ball, ball 1. Both balls were on a level billiard table. Hume chose the billiard balls for his analogy to the exclusion of all other possible objects, e.g., crochet balls, bricks, rocks, apples, etc. How was he able to do this? Because all of those objects are distinct in their physicality/characteristics and in that, different from each other in some measure. If then he made that choice it was by his recognition of his ability to distinguish between them, the characteristics consequent of their form and function. So, there can be no claim by anyone that he did not or could not know of or respect their physicality, i.e., their physical characteristics. Hume also defined one of the balls, ball 1 as moving and ball 2 as stationary (initially). By definition then, he knew of the phenomenon of motion and that it effected an object’s physical status in a given context of consideration. He then claimed that we could not know via induction that should ball 1 strike ball 2 that it would cause the latter to move, that we could only expect that it would but due only to our experience in witness to such. So, again, Hume knew of the characteristics of the billiard balls which he would have had to, to have chosen them as opposed to all other objects. He also acknowledged his understanding of the phenomenon of motion (of ball 1) for it is structural to the analogy and since he knew of the physical characteristics of the balls (by which he chose them), he would have had to have known that motion was NOT part of those characteristics for it is intangible and only “of concern for” or “about” the physicality of the ball. He knew that ball 1 was moving and though exactly the same in all physical respects to ball 2, ball 2 was NOT moving but stationary. Why? because motion had been imparted to ball 1. In other words, motion was connected in some way to the ball which was moving (there cannot be motion without its object (without the object moving)) and motion was an effect of the progressive change of the physical status of the ball in a particular context. If then the motion was NOT a physical characteristic of ball 1 and was a phenomenon which was not present in a ball being itself (as with ball 2 which was stationary before being struck by ball 1), in and of itself. Absent some imposition upon ball 1 which was otherwise in its natural state, or stationary, BY DEFINITION, motion has to have been imparted to ball 1 (motion was not there otherwise). By our understanding of this in all that stated above, we know that the motion of ball 1 would have had to have been imparted by another object which struck it (so that object was moving before it struck ball 1), imparting that motion. Remember that ball 1 could not have merely started moving by itself with no interaction of other objects because motion is a phenomenon not part of the physicality of the ball but rather “about it”. The motion had to have come from somewhere and something. After being struck, the motion was there. The only source of the motion was the object which struck it which possessed the phenomenon of motion prior to the strike. Thus we know unequivocally that ball 1 striking ball 2 would cause it to move as with the striking of ball 1 by the unnamed object (a pool cue perhaps). Any comments would be very welcome.
@@OngoGablogian185 that's fine of course, but did you think that such discussions are composed of two sentences? I thought i was rather succinct. I do think I made it clear with sufficient proof that Hume was very wrong.
The ball bouncing has multiple causes. It's inherent property, gravity, a person dropping it if that is the case. I'm not sure i get the point here. Don't we know that these are a few of the causes that the bouncy ball being dropped bounces? So the child doesn't know and is surprised by lack if experience. The adult isn't. So what? Should i be surprised that a bycicle rides most of the time if i ride it and that one of the causes is its properties and myself. Why is this important?
A MORE SUCCINCT CRITIQUE................................ANY THOUGHTS. ?...............................1. Hume surrenders to the understanding that entities are distinct in what they are and by that, that which they are not. A square is distinctively that which it is for its characteristics (squareness) and that which it is not, possessing no characteristics of a circle (circleness). 2. That an entity can be that which it is distinctively and not other things is due to its “distinctive” physical characteristics or physicality. E.g., the billiard ball in his analogous refutation of the deterministic nature of cause and effect is distinctively just that, a billiard ball and not an apple or beach ball or the like. 3. He thus, by definition, accepted that entities are that which they are by the assertion of their form and function (characteristics) into materiality (quantum mechanics validates this unequivocally). Were this not so, he could not have appealed to them that they would be employed in his propositions. 4. He also, by definition, accepted that entities are material, i.e., physical, defined by their physical characteristics (a ball is round and not square, etc.) or they could not be considered at all and could not be participants in his propositions. That he specifically chose billiard balls for the players in his analogy demonstrates his acceptance of this (above) as a recognition. 5. By this he submitted to the understanding that motion for being intangible, could NOT be a characteristic of the billiard ball which is moving but a phenomenon in the context of consideration, it moving toward a stationary billiard ball that it might cause it to move when struck. Motion of the billiard ball in this context is only a phenomenon of concern with the billiard balls physicality or characteristics. 6. Given the above, we know analytically that the motion of the billiard ball had to have been imparted to it by the force of another entity of which it was concerned when it struck the billiard ball. 7. Thus, by that same means by which the motion of the billiard ball was imparted to it by a prior entity also effected by motion, it would be imparted to the stationary billiard ball by the moving billiard ball. 8. We are able then to induce that the stationary billiard ball would in fact move if struck by the first because of the nature of motion as opposed to that of the physicality of the billiard balls for we know analytically that motion cannot be a part or characteristic of the physicality of the billiard balls but only an imparted phenomenon. So if it was imparted to the first billiard ball by it being struck, so too would it be imparted to the second when being struck.
I enjoyed your video but Hume is clearly wrong about causation. We all observe causation everyday. I'm a Newtonian and Hume is an opponent of Newton's philosophy. I would suggest you read the paper "Hume's Attack on Newton's Philosophy" by Eric Schliesser. In the Treatise, Hume sought to undermine Newton by attacking all of the tools Newton used: observation, reason, causation and geometry. If Hume had actually conducted any experiments, he might have changed his mind earlier on these subjects. The problem for Hume is that he did not have the advantage of a full education. He dropped out of University of Edinburgh before completing classes in natural philosophy and geometry. Hume learned about geometry by reading the lectures of Isaac Barrow, but he never had the advantage of a geometry professor who could grade his tests and papers and show him his errors. And the same is true in natural philosophy. When Hume wrote his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he left out some of his errors and did not claim that geometry was imprecise. He only said it could not be used to demonstrate anything, but he never supported the claim. I'm thankful people are still using geometry to prove things. Hume also showed awareness of objects having causal powers: food can nourish, water can suffocate, fire can consume, gunpowder has chemical energy, and yet Hume still taught that we cannot observe causation. That's a bizarre and ridiculous notion. We all observe causation hundreds of times a day. So, Hume was uneducated and was a bad philosopher. But you are correct that Hume has an entertaining writing style.
Ah yes, because a producer of a 1970’s educational programme centred on Philosophy really should think about how the couch might be thought of by a vapid modern mentality 40 years in the future.
@@booklearn4487 Well obviously there can't possibly be an audio or a video recording of the actual David Hume disserting about causation. However, I was aiming more at a humorous celebration of the variety of interests that RUclips promotes, which brought us (a minority of the world's population) to this video attracted by its title and a picture of an old white man dressed in a suit and sitting on a couch. Regardless of the negative connotations of the word "clickbait", I didn't mean any offense either since I was pleased with its contents. Thank you for your time
A Greek philosopher I have known well enough, used often a very precise sentence, that I will use to say what I want. I do not say argue or give an opinion, as it is very hard to do that, with anyone that knows in terms of a measured time the beginning of universe, more to that, if challenged on the validity of the date, they will even present a picture. The sentence is this! ( I am tired of teaching monkeys how to eat a banana.) This very deep philosophical sentence has a myriad of meanings. I will stick only with the racist one, and the "causality" other. The structure of the sentence is very old, as old as the universe itself, the actual sentence most probably originated in the minds of anyone, living in any location of the world where monkeys and bananas exist on their own merits, without any human or any other types of beings interference. Meaning!! At some point through "causality" human beings arrived at such locations of origin's not of theirs, and began the most absurd in the beginning, latter through repeating it, soon to be realised as the most dangerous game, that the people originating from such locations, had ever witnessed and were about to live it in full reality. And all of this could be very well imagined as a thought experiment, although never witnessed physically, by the Greek philosopher I got to know personally, which made full use of it, any moment he could. Meaning!!! Anyone can imagine people living in locations where monkeys and bananas exist on their own natural merits, being a bit taken by surprise, when other people just like them, (with the only difference, that of originating from a different location) trying not once, not twice but continuously and repetitively to teach monkeys how to eat a banana. At the beginning, the whole ordeal (as it did predict the future by being an ordeal) would have looked a bit funny and strange, but the wise soon would have understood that the most dangerous existence was about to manifest itself in and on it's full (orbit). All of this through "causality" This phenomenon comes (alive) in existence, only through one very specific attribute that makes humans, human and not just beings. This attribute is the ability to think, find, develop then make it (a reality) in order to see, hear, feel, touch, taste it, an orbit of anything in the universe that is false, none existent, on terms of the natural existence of the universe. Commonly known as an illusion. Better explained but the complete misunderstanding of the sentence!!! (Every action has an equal reaction.) This sentence is not meant to explain the existence of "causality", but the fact that trying to teach monkeys how to eat a banana over and over again is an action that has it's equal reaction. That of taking a false, none existent orbit of anything and making it a reality, fully existing with your very own hands and mind. A very real, painful, unjust, and fully lived reality by all people, over and over again on different sides of "cause and effect" of your beloved "causality" Even the explanation of God has not escaped such madness, let alone that of nature. It is the only way that a measure of anything can be justified, including time. God, nature and any being in such merits has no causality, it is a stupid question, to explain or know, what you already are in being. If you don't know, then anyone can easily begin to teach monkeys how to eat a banana, and even reasonably explain it's "causality". Or as in the case of the Greek philosopher I got to know well enough, even imagine it.
Bunch of childish adults outside of the discipline of mathematics and science comfortable that they won’t study mathematics and physics because they cannot experience energy outside of heat and light. Lmao.
I thought this was an interview with Hume
I was confused as to why i can't recognize him based on his photographs.
@@halwest7106 Hume has been dead for 250 years...
for my ignorance, me too
wrong channel mate 😃
You remind me of a story Terry Eagleton tells. He was lecturing about Clarissa in China. He was being asked some very odd questions. In the end, he realised the students thought he was Samuel Richardson. He was old, he was English, he was talking about Clarissa - why not?
This was probably the most interesting 5 minutes and 38 seconds of my life. 🇬🇧
Thank you very much for uploading and best regards from Switzerland.
In The Philosophy of David Hume (2005) Norman Kemp Smith argues that Hume is a skeptic about our knowledge of causality (sense experience does not properly ground the claim that there is a necessary connection between causes and their effects), but an ontological realist about causation (yes Virginia, there really is causation between events).
There is a way to reconcile this: demonstrate that physical reality is connected to fundamental logical precepts. In which case, "B" didn't merely follow "A", it necessarily follows "A" because there is no logical alternative.
The difficult part is maintaining that the demonstration I mentioned qualifies as proof and evidence. For it requires a kind of recursive logic whereby it explains itself via itself. In a "set of all sets" kind of sense.
Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein basically tried that without success.
@@holm81 Not exactly. Wittgenstein came closest to this attempt with the tractatus, but there has never been an attempt to actually connect reality to logic directly, or anything really. Which is understandable, because reducing it completely in such a way would be incorrect imo. That said, if there is a way to demonstrate certain logical scenarios/circumstances/events with strong predictive power whereby B follows A by no alternative, it's at least a path to apply what we as humans already rely on to survive to physical reality in a reliable way.
@@jeremycull8876 Wittgenstein built on Russell who built on Frege. The project was basically to give an accurate description of the world by reducing it to logic. The Tractatus ends by saying that the only true possible statements (about the world) are logical. Somehow showing that the world = logic, which does not consist of things but of human words, would be absurd from the get go, so I think you're right in saying that such a thing would be incorrect. On whether or not it would be possible to demonstrate something with no alternative, this is forgetting the point by Popper that hypotheses are never actually verified, only falsified. No matter what theory you come up with, there will always - and by necessity - be an alternative, which might prove to be the better alternative in the long run (untill it gets replaced and so on). Unfortunately - or fortunately - induction is just an imperfect tool that has to be constantly refined by experience.
@@holm81 By your logic, you're refuting your own premise; it's not the only way of understanding the dilemma.
Either way, I'm not trying to create an absolute dogma by what I suggest, only merely demonstrating that there is a way out, and that the only grounds for the truth in Hume's principle is a burden of proof. Are there things that are in principle impossible to falsify? Sure there are. In which case, so long as B follows A by no alternative (at least no known alternative yet) with "very strong predictive power", there is no reason to suggest that in principle it is impossible to achieve in an ideal sense. But one step at a time.
As for your point about the situation Wittgenstein, Russel and frege ultimately avoided whereby logic = world, which then (according to you) implies world consists of words... I'm not so sure. I understand why you come to this conclusion, but a more synthetic application of the concept of identity would resolve the issue of a representation being separate (and thereby different) from a thing it is representing. Still, I am not here to say the task is easy at all. Only that we don't fully comprehend the nature of the "dead end" as simply as it is deceptively stated.
@@jeremycull8876 1. "By your logic, you're refuting your own premise; it's not the only way of understanding the dilemma." What premise are you talking about? Care to demonstrate?
2. "Things that are in principle impossible to falsify". Which are they? The concept "very strong predictive power" or just "prediction" alone presupposes probability. i.e. predicting something which may be otherwise. If it is possible to predict, then it already follows that there are alternatives. Therefore, it seems you are guilty of what you just accused me of without grounds.
3. "A more synthetic application of the concept of identity would resolve the issue of a representation being separate (and thereby different) from a thing it is representing". Excuse me? Why are you performing these sort of mental gymnastics to argue that words = things? Even semantic externalists like Putnam and Kripke never thought of such a senseless idea.
4. If you are interested in the attempted ways of posing and solving the Humean predicament, I recommend looking up Quine's response to Nelson Goodman in his article "The New Riddle of Induction".
You have the ball. You have the potential energy of the ball in the air a certain height above ground. But you also have the particular property of the ball of elasticity that is linking cause and effect in this instance. They're not mentioning that. Maybe I'm missing something but I find that to be important.
Science does not always explain everything. This is a philosophy channel, so mostly everything is explained in philosophical terms and idioms.
The potential energy and the elasticity of the ball is an abstract concept developed after our observation. Any Scientific theory results from our observation and not the other way round. No theory is perfect, and it is merely a model to explain reality.
According to Newton, every 2 objects in the universe are attracted to each other. On the other hand, Einstein says the objects just follow their natural path through the twisted space-time continuum. Who is correct?
Causation is a tool that humans use to make sense of the world!
according to Hume, scientific knowledge is nothing but a habit of the mind to provide some sort of explanation and order in understanding the world
according to him, science is not based on objectivity
This is philosophy... so don't expect everything philosophers say to be proven by science/maths ahah
Yea it’s inherent properties
Everything in Hume stems from nominalism, i.e., the rejection of any generalization as invalid on grounds that all we actually know are particular observations. So he would reject notions like "potential energy" and "elasticity" as mere words, appeals to mysticism, or habits of thought that may correspond to past observations but that need not comport with future observations.
Could we say that Hume said that the power of the human mind for habituation caused us to associate the various perceptions? Would this be a weak point is his account of what causation is and how mind relates with reality? Would this be a weak point of his dismissal of intellectual concepts? Would his conception of concepts make him closer to Plato, even if in a subtle way, than to Locke? Saying "I can't find a natural cause for causes" isn't like saying that he can't find any Demiurge and, yet, expecting one to be there shall we cosider concepts real?
If were going to question the notion of fidelity of the mind why stop at the ability to apprehend an impression and doubt too of any power of cogitation, since cogitation itself relies on concepts which ultimately come from experience? Skepticism defeats itself.
Just stop talking.
@@OngoGablogian185 why? :o
Love me some Hume
In a nutshell:
We often jump to conclusions based off of our ability to recognize patterns without truly deepening our understanding of processes that make up any given event.
No, in fact, deepening our understanding doesn't do anything in this case. We are discussing causality and the thing is - you can't pick it up from anything that you observe, as you are merely observing actions coming one after another. No matter how deep is your understanding of a concrete process, what we need is precisely the opposite - the understanding of the simplest process of "a causing b". Now it's up to you how will you go from there.
@@АклызМелкенды Thank you for comment.
It's hard to see how regularity theorists distinguish between genuine causal links and accidents.
Event B is followed by event A. Suppose with deep scientific understanding we find another event C is followed by event A, and another event D is followed by event C, and ultimately event B is followed by event D. Without the scientific understanding only evets A and B is seen, but with more understanding we find additional ecents C and D, in between! Humes brilliance is, if we go deep, we will find events E and F in between C and D! And there will be no end how much we come to know about nature scientifically!
One way I always think about this is the idea that cause and effect can only happen in any abstract world of past and future that is actually created by human consciousness. To me, if you do believe in causality, the only way to logically carry through that theory is to bring it all the way back to the Big bang and say that there is only one initial cause for everything that we know in the universe. This is the basis for determinism in a lot of other empiricist ideas about the nature of reality and causality. But when you really think about it, doesn't having a single first cause and then an entire universe of chain reaction splitting into more chain reactions splitting into more chain reactions completely leave out the possibility of any alternatives to the current measurable reality? And if that's the case, doesn't this completely throw a giant wrench into all probability theory and statistics? Because as we said, in order to measure probability we need to assume that there are alternatives. If causality is real then there can't possibly be any alternatives to anything and the entire universe is mechanically deterministic. I do not agree with this take. I know it sounds mystical and woo woo, but it is a fact that our consciousness has to slice up the progression of time and change into discrete quanta in order to study the world. And within these quanta is where cause and effect appears. Science does not tend to allow for the constant state of present becoming that we actually live and breathe in. But there are a few things in physics that actually point toward this blind spot. One are the probability functions of quantum physics and the idea that we cannot predict the movements of subatomic particles and also the idea that time is closely interconnected with space and is relative, meaning that the way we perceive it is not necessarily how it works in the universe as a whole. Also the idea that we could never create a set that contains itself in the whole incompleteness philosophy I think is an important element of this as well.
First, there is no such thing as "how it works in the universe as a whole", there is nothing beyond your perception. i.e. you cannot refer to anything but through your mind. You cannot think, speak, or do anything about anything existing outside your mind. The moment you try, you are already conceptualizing.
Second, if you understand the role of free will in a deterministic universe, you understand how change comes to be.
Fundamental is a pure British word
"Fundamental" comes from Latin - no pure British word.
@HASAN ALDHWAEA What do you mean?
Foundation, Founding.
So is fanny, minge, chav, and minger.
@@OngoGablogian185 Gypsies (at least those in the Balkans) say Minga (read as Minger) in their language. It means vagina.
I never really got this argument against causation, because if causation *did* exist, what exactly could it look like to human eyes other than the constant conjunction of A and B?
Its not really an argument against causation. Its an argument that explains why we think there is causation.
@@theeskatelife how? it seems to me he's implying that we cant prove causation even with the constant conjunction of A and B, but I do fail to understand it, I mean, for the example of the ball, its not just the correlation here, we no have physics that explain the causal link and effect between the ball and the ground and tells us exactly how the energy transfer causes the bounce
@@NourEldin_z3r0 Yeah, physics has come a long way since Hume, but that doesn't negate the point. At root, we'd still be dealing with the same type of thing, no? Regularity theories are complicated by seeming to imply a direction to causality.
@@Khuno2 No physics did NOT come along way since hume (in the case of classical physics that is). Hume was well aware of Newtonian physics and how a ball could bounce. But it is still that 'causation' is a matter of 'habit', the bouncing is not caused by gravity but by a set of events interacting and just by 'looking' at the ball or the ground we dont infer the 'cause'. Hume view opened the door for probabilistic views and ''correlation is not causation'. It is very important in Hume philosophy that it is rooted in the idea that every thing come from experience (rather than innate in the mind), and hence it follows that if 'causation' is from experience, then when did u experience it? We experience the ball, we experience the ground ... but the connection??? 🤯
p.s. im no expert, just thinking out loud. Its quite possible that im completely off.
I don't think he's saying that causation DOESN'T exist, only that we cannot prove that it DOES
disproved by Emanual Kant. How can one make sense of sensory information only if the mind in prerequisite does not impose structure of the capability of viewing sensory information in the context of unity in 3d in space and time and time and hence causality. without these innate structures that our mind imposes we cannot make sense of raw sensory data. Our minds are not blank states, we would not be able to make sense out of only sensory information to bring about abstraction, subjectivity or even discernability inductively, inductively you get only mereological nihilism . These cognitive structures are a prerequisite for experience. no innate structure to make sense or process of sensory information cannot give experiences.
Well said. That’s exactly right. Kant did in fact resolve the problem of induction hundreds of years ago.
Descartes- "I think therefore I am"
Hume - "Prove to me you think."
Well, Hume and his followers certainly did prove that they can't and aren't. ;-)
Why do western philosophers conclude that causality is mysterious when a rather well known Indian thoroughly explained the matter 2500 years ago?
The same cause cannot produce the same effect unless in a strictly controlled/isolated environment. Why? Because everything is interconnected in a deterministic universe and therefore in constant flux and therefore all causes are impacted by countless other causes, which are forever changing.
Source? No, really, if there is an Indian Philosofer that is ignored by "the west" and has achieved better understanding of causality i'm all for it, really, this is THE question for scientist, and researchers of any kind.
@@wolfpytlak2786 I am going to assume that you have heard of the word karma. Causality is a fundamental tenet of both Hinduism and Buddhism.
The Indian philosopher I was referring to was Siddhartha Gautama, you might have heard of him, he is also known as the Buddha:)
In Hinduism and Buddhism, causality is not one of many areas of philosophy as it is in the west, causality is the core of their philosophy. So, whenever I hear a western philosopher speak on the subject and not reference others who have studied the phenomena for 1000s of years, I can only come to the conclusion that the western philosophers are small-minded humans, regardless of their credentials.
Quantum mechanics
In 1993, Karen Harding's paper "Causality Then and Now: Al Ghazali and Quantum Theory" described several "remarkable" similarities between Ghazali's concept of occasionalism and the widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. She stated: "In both cases, and contrary to common sense, objects are viewed as having no inherent properties and no independent existence. In order for an object to exist, it must be brought into being either by God (al-Ghazali) or by an observer (the Copenhagen Interpretation)." She also stated:
In addition, the world is not entirely predictable. For al Ghazali, God has the ability to make anything happen whenever He chooses. In general, the world functions in a predictable manner, but a miraculous event can occur at any moment. All it takes for a miracle to occur is for God to not follow His ‘custom.’ The quantum world is very similar. Lead balls fall when released because the probability of their behaving in that way is very high. It is, however, very possible that the lead ball may ‘miraculously’ rise rather than fall when released. Although the probability of such an event is very small, such an event is, nonetheless, still possible.
Continuing from philosopher Graham Harman's work on occasionalism in the context of object-oriented ontology, Simon Weir proposed in 2020 an alternate view of the relationship between quantum theory and occasionalism opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation, where virtual particles act as one of many kinds of mediating sensual objects.
I had a prior engagement.
Boa sorte pra ele agora deixando o comando do sao paulo e iniciando na seleção brasileira
Does our understanding of entropy and probability not factor into a solution here? We know certain things are likely to happen, e.g., we put a glass of water in the refrigerator and it gets colder over time. This will happen almost certainly every time, but entropy allows for the probability of the glass getting warmer, our physics allow it, it is just highly highly unlikely.
ONE MORE TIME BUT SIMPLER...........Hume defined an analogy employing two billiard balls and claimed our inability to know unequivocally via induction that a second stationary ball, ball 2 would be made to move if struck by a moving ball, ball 1. Both balls were on a level billiard table.
Hume chose the billiard balls for his analogy to the exclusion of all other possible objects, e.g., crochet balls, bricks, rocks, apples, etc. How was he able to do this? Because all of those objects are distinct in their physicality/characteristics and in that, different from each other in some measure. If then he made that choice it was by his recognition of his ability to distinguish between them, the characteristics consequent of their form and function. So, there can be no claim by anyone that he did not or could not know of or respect their physicality, i.e., their physical characteristics.
Hume also defined one of the balls, ball 1 as moving and ball 2 as stationary (initially). By definition then, he knew of the phenomenon of motion and that it effected an object’s physical status in a given context of consideration. He then claimed that we could not know via induction that should ball 1 strike ball 2 that it would cause the latter to move, that we could only expect that it would but due only to our experience in witness to such.
So, again, Hume knew of the characteristics of the billiard balls which he would have had to, to have chosen them as opposed to all other objects. He also acknowledged his understanding of the phenomenon of motion (of ball 1) for it is structural to the analogy and since he knew of the physical characteristics of the balls (by which he chose them), he would have had to have known that motion was NOT part of those characteristics for it is intangible and only “of concern for” or “about” the physicality of the ball. He knew that ball 1 was moving and though exactly the same in all physical respects to ball 2, ball 2 was NOT moving but stationary. Why? because motion had been imparted to ball 1. In other words, motion was connected in some way to the ball which was moving (there cannot be motion without its object (without the object moving)) and motion was an effect of the progressive change of the physical status of the ball in a particular context.
If then the motion was NOT a physical characteristic of ball 1 and was a phenomenon which was not present in a ball being itself (as with ball 2 which was stationary before being struck by ball 1), in and of itself. Absent some imposition upon ball 1 which was otherwise in its natural state, or stationary, BY DEFINITION, motion has to have been imparted to ball 1 (motion was not there otherwise). By our understanding of this in all that stated above, we know that the motion of ball 1 would have had to have been imparted by another object which struck it (so that object was moving before it struck ball 1), imparting that motion. Remember that ball 1 could not have merely started moving by itself with no interaction of other objects because motion is a phenomenon not part of the physicality of the ball but rather “about it”. The motion had to have come from somewhere and something. After being struck, the motion was there. The only source of the motion was the object which struck it which possessed the phenomenon of motion prior to the strike.
Thus we know unequivocally that ball 1 striking ball 2 would cause it to move as with the striking of ball 1 by the unnamed object (a pool cue perhaps).
Any comments would be very welcome.
I'm not reading a book, thanks.
@@OngoGablogian185 that's fine of course, but did you think that such discussions are composed of two sentences? I thought i was rather succinct. I do think I made it clear with sufficient proof that Hume was very wrong.
Hume didn’t know about emergence.
The ball bouncing has multiple causes. It's inherent property, gravity, a person dropping it if that is the case. I'm not sure i get the point here.
Don't we know that these are a few of the causes that the bouncy ball being dropped bounces?
So the child doesn't know and is surprised by lack if experience. The adult isn't. So what? Should i be surprised that a bycicle rides most of the time if i ride it and that one of the causes is its properties and myself. Why is this important?
A MORE SUCCINCT CRITIQUE................................ANY THOUGHTS. ?...............................1. Hume surrenders to the understanding that entities are distinct in what they are and by that, that which they are not. A square is distinctively that which it is for its characteristics (squareness) and that which it is not, possessing no characteristics of a circle (circleness).
2. That an entity can be that which it is distinctively and not other things is due to its “distinctive” physical characteristics or physicality. E.g., the billiard ball in his analogous refutation of the deterministic nature of cause and effect is distinctively just that, a billiard ball and not an apple or beach ball or the like.
3. He thus, by definition, accepted that entities are that which they are by the assertion of their form and function (characteristics) into materiality (quantum mechanics validates this unequivocally). Were this not so, he could not have appealed to them that they would be employed in his propositions.
4. He also, by definition, accepted that entities are material, i.e., physical, defined by their physical characteristics (a ball is round and not square, etc.) or they could not be considered at all and could not be participants in his propositions. That he specifically chose billiard balls for the players in his analogy demonstrates his acceptance of this (above) as a recognition.
5. By this he submitted to the understanding that motion for being intangible, could NOT be a characteristic of the billiard ball which is moving but a phenomenon in the context of consideration, it moving toward a stationary billiard ball that it might cause it to move when struck. Motion of the billiard ball in this context is only a phenomenon of concern with the billiard balls physicality or characteristics.
6. Given the above, we know analytically that the motion of the billiard ball had to have been imparted to it by the force of another entity of which it was concerned when it struck the billiard ball.
7. Thus, by that same means by which the motion of the billiard ball was imparted to it by a prior entity also effected by motion, it would be imparted to the stationary billiard ball by the moving billiard ball.
8. We are able then to induce that the stationary billiard ball would in fact move if struck by the first because of the nature of motion as opposed to that of the physicality of the billiard balls for we know analytically that motion cannot be a part or characteristic of the physicality of the billiard balls but only an imparted phenomenon. So if it was imparted to the first billiard ball by it being struck, so too would it be imparted to the second when being struck.
🍽
Surely there is a better way of explaining this
A rather well known Indian guy did a thorough job explaining it about 2500 years ago.
@@breno2024Buddha?
I watch this video clip, and it causes me to immediately watch something else.
I enjoyed your video but Hume is clearly wrong about causation. We all observe causation everyday. I'm a Newtonian and Hume is an opponent of Newton's philosophy. I would suggest you read the paper "Hume's Attack on Newton's Philosophy" by Eric Schliesser. In the Treatise, Hume sought to undermine Newton by attacking all of the tools Newton used: observation, reason, causation and geometry. If Hume had actually conducted any experiments, he might have changed his mind earlier on these subjects. The problem for Hume is that he did not have the advantage of a full education. He dropped out of University of Edinburgh before completing classes in natural philosophy and geometry. Hume learned about geometry by reading the lectures of Isaac Barrow, but he never had the advantage of a geometry professor who could grade his tests and papers and show him his errors. And the same is true in natural philosophy. When Hume wrote his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he left out some of his errors and did not claim that geometry was imprecise. He only said it could not be used to demonstrate anything, but he never supported the claim. I'm thankful people are still using geometry to prove things. Hume also showed awareness of objects having causal powers: food can nourish, water can suffocate, fire can consume, gunpowder has chemical energy, and yet Hume still taught that we cannot observe causation. That's a bizarre and ridiculous notion. We all observe causation hundreds of times a day. So, Hume was uneducated and was a bad philosopher. But you are correct that Hume has an entertaining writing style.
Most humans observe an infinitesimally small part of causation, enough to know how to build the world, but not enough to know why.
Why this?
Gosh, how could they have been filming on such an ugly couch? I am sure the producers of this show could have afforded a nicer one.
Ah yes, because a producer of a 1970’s educational programme centred on Philosophy really should think about how the couch might be thought of by a vapid modern mentality 40 years in the future.
@@thomasweir2834 Hahaha
see people, there are clickbaits for everyone
How is this clickbait? Just curious no offence meant
@@booklearn4487 It wasn't actually David Hume speaking
@@justinlevy274 Hume lived in the 18th century dipshit.
@@booklearn4487 It's not, unless they actually expected someone from the 18th century come back to life to clarify his views on causation.
@@booklearn4487 Well obviously there can't possibly be an audio or a video recording of the actual David Hume disserting about causation. However, I was aiming more at a humorous celebration of the variety of interests that RUclips promotes, which brought us (a minority of the world's population) to this video attracted by its title and a picture of an old white man dressed in a suit and sitting on a couch. Regardless of the negative connotations of the word "clickbait", I didn't mean any offense either since I was pleased with its contents. Thank you for your time
A Greek philosopher I have known well enough, used often a very precise sentence, that I will use to say what I want.
I do not say argue or give an opinion, as it is very hard to do that, with anyone that knows in terms of a measured time the beginning of universe, more to that, if challenged on the validity of the date, they will even present a picture.
The sentence is this!
( I am tired of teaching monkeys how to eat a banana.)
This very deep philosophical sentence has a myriad of meanings. I will stick only with the racist one, and the "causality" other.
The structure of the sentence is very old, as old as the universe itself, the actual sentence most probably originated in the minds of anyone, living in any location of the world where monkeys and bananas exist on their own merits, without any human or any other types of beings interference.
Meaning!!
At some point through "causality" human beings arrived at such locations of origin's not of theirs, and began the most absurd in the beginning, latter through repeating it, soon to be realised as the most dangerous game, that the people originating from such locations, had ever witnessed and were about to live it in full reality.
And all of this could be very well imagined as a thought experiment, although never witnessed physically, by the Greek philosopher I got to know personally, which made full use of it, any moment he could.
Meaning!!!
Anyone can imagine people living in locations where monkeys and bananas exist on their own natural merits, being a bit taken by surprise, when other people just like them, (with the only difference, that of originating from a different location) trying not once, not twice but continuously and repetitively to teach monkeys how to eat a banana.
At the beginning, the whole ordeal (as it did predict the future by being an ordeal) would have looked a bit funny and strange, but the wise soon would have understood that the most dangerous existence was about to manifest itself in and on it's full (orbit).
All of this through "causality"
This phenomenon comes (alive) in existence, only through one very specific attribute that makes humans, human and not just beings.
This attribute is the ability to think, find, develop then make it (a reality) in order to see, hear, feel, touch, taste it, an orbit of anything in the universe that is false, none existent, on terms of the natural existence of the universe.
Commonly known as an illusion.
Better explained but the complete misunderstanding of the sentence!!!
(Every action has an equal reaction.)
This sentence is not meant to explain the existence of "causality", but the fact that trying to teach monkeys how to eat a banana over and over again is an action that has it's equal reaction.
That of taking a false, none existent orbit of anything and making it a reality, fully existing with your very own hands and mind.
A very real, painful, unjust, and fully lived reality by all people, over and over again on different sides of "cause and effect" of your beloved "causality"
Even the explanation of God has not escaped such madness, let alone that of nature.
It is the only way that a measure of anything can be justified, including time.
God, nature and any being in such merits has no causality, it is a stupid question, to explain or know, what you already are in being.
If you don't know, then anyone can easily begin to teach monkeys how to eat a banana, and even reasonably explain it's "causality".
Or as in the case of the Greek philosopher I got to know well enough, even imagine it.
when you have a conversation with a man who closes his eyes while speaking. punch him in the face. that's cause and effect
Bunch of childish adults outside of the discipline of mathematics and science comfortable that they won’t study mathematics and physics because they cannot experience energy outside of heat and light. Lmao.