2. 2. Causality in the Mind: Hume and Kant

Brief introduction to the conceptions of causality of Hume and Kant.

[jamestagge]

That by which Hume was able to formulate his proposition and the context in which it functioned and was considered, defines certain necessities that he could not deny OR HE COULD NOT HAVE FORMULATED IT TO BEGIN WITH. Either it is, or it ain’t.

1. He chose to employ in his proposition the concepts of billiard balls specifically to the exclusion of all other things. This cannot be questioned. This means by definition that he had to have recognized and acknowledged the (“physical?” or “sense impression”) characteristics of all of those entities from which he chose the billiard balls or how could he have decided on the billiard balls as opposed to something else such as crochet balls? So the assertion of the form and function of all of those entities in material reality that he had to have perceived (or again, he could not have made the distinct choice he did) was that by which he was able to choose. That he claimed to recognize only sense impressions does not alter the point. There is no escaping this.
2. In that he had to have recognized the physical characteristics of the billiard balls or the sense impressions of them, again, the only means by which he could have chosen them to the exclusion of all else, he had to have known that motion was not one of those characteristics. First, motion is not tangible as is all of that by which the billiard balls were defined in their physicality or the sense impressions which were drawn from them. Secondly, were motion a characteristic of billiard balls, both not just one would have been moving. That the one ball was moving (and not the other) then has to have been the effect of a cause of that motion having been imparted. There is no escaping this.
3. Then, that he had to have known that motion had to have been imparted to the moving ball, he had to have understood that that which imparted that motion was itself a moving entity for which motion was also not a characteristic. I am sorry but this is cause and effect, like it or not.

What Hume did in the formulation of his theory was akin to “appealing to truths to formulate a position which denied truth”. He doesn’t get to have done that any more than the rest of us.

That entities are distinct, they are that by their characteristics. That they are distinct, they are chosen for their characteristics because each imposes a specific quality (“effect”?) from which to choose. The balls were chosen because they would roll, the reality of that to which he had to have surrendered, a given because they were his choice. He did not choose bricks or the like because they wouldn’t roll, necessary to the purpose of the analogy. That recognition in part defeats his theory of no cause and effect.

A final point…..the proposition that ball 1 hitting ball 2 would cause it to move, is inductive only in the most general context of consideration. However, in a sub-context where we consider that motion had to have been imparted to the moving ball, it is deductive. His theory makes no sense.

What do you think?

[kallianpublico]

Kant asserts that the category of causation exists in the mind prior to observation? Then why is everything not caused? In other words does observation confirm causation; or does causation confirm observation: nothing that we observe is uncaused?
There are no conscious perceptions that aren't caused, according to Kant, it's just that we have to correctly identify the causes? Observation only sees things that are caused but, at the same time, does not reveal those causes? Then what does confirm the cause? The mind? Isn't that the same position as Hume? No.
So, according to Hume, observation hints at causation but it is the mind that imposes causation. Causation is really constant conjunction of observations being assumed by the mind as having necessary connection- causation. The mind imposes causation by assumption, not necessary connection. The mind imposes causation by short circuiting expectations and imposing necessary connection where none exists. Causation, according to Hume, is an illusion based on a lazy mind trying to save energy by imposing order on a chaotic Nature trying to kill it. Causation is a survival strategy of a being with limited energy and abilities. A necessary assumption for a being with limited means.
Whereas, according to Kant, observations are entirely necessarily connected- caused. The mind's role isn't to impose causation but to expose the causal links. Instead of "assuming" causation the mind deduces causation by experiment in order to narrow down the causal relationships that most matter. Causation isn't an assumption of a lazy, evolutionary burdened, mind but a deduction of a rational, evolutionary burdened, mind.
So, according to Hume, observation doesn't confirm causation. It can never confirm causation. It can only assume (impose) causation based on limited means trying to conserve energy.
According to Kant observation does confirm causation, it cannot help but do so because it is inherent in everything that can be observed. However the causal "relationships" must be sussed out, and this is done by the mind through experimentation and reasoning. Instead of an assumption by a mind with limited means it is a deduction/induction by a mind with time for experiments.

[Ballr]

What does it mean to say that there is a necessary connection between causes and their effects? Why does Hume think that we cannot justify our belief that there is a necessary connection between causes and their effects? Does Hume think that causality does not occur in reality, or does he just think that we cannot justify our belief in causality? Was Hume's skeptical point about induction really just that induction cannot guarantee certain knowledge? That seems like an obvious point, because no inductive inference that I make is guaranteed to be true. If a moving billiard ball collides with a stationary billiard ball, the stationary one is not guaranteed to move (it could be glued to the table, for example). Is that really all Hume was saying?

[grantbartley]

contiguity does not mean close to, it means touching

[Google_Censored_Commenter]

What would Hume and Kant say if you proposed a combination? That our early ancestors did not have this a priori knowledge of causality, and had to learn it the hard way.

And then eventually after millions of years, this knowledge would restructure our brains and neurons such that as our brains develop into adulthood, we "innately" already have this pattern recognition built in.

[edwardlawrence]

Crisis of absolutism. Hume was on his way to relativity thinking, a pre-Einstein if you will. In the world there are connections all the time, and knowledge is based on this. Our language describing Nature’s workings is the issue here. Hume’s theory of causality is bad logic. And doesn’t understand how our brain works. Once you abandon “necessary” and “guarantee” logic, we move forward. Just observe and describe then share and discuss the descriptions.

[lorigulfnoldor]

Seems like Kantian "schema" is a lot like Jungian archetype, then!