— The Emergence and Development of Causal Representations by Xiang Chen in Philosophy and Cognitive Science II — Πετροκότσυφας

The question here is whether human beings could learn a concept like causality just from experience, or whether the brain is wired to develop along those lines in response to experiences. A similar argument has been made for language learning. You could apply it to math as well. Of course we learn basic math, but we also have the capacity for learning math somehow, which most animals don't (some birds and apes demonstrate siimple arithmetic abilities).

Whatever work you want this point to do, if you accept it you just argue against your own view. — Πετροκότσυφας

I'm not accepting Kant's version of causality. Rather, I'm critiquing Wittgenstein & Hume's.

Right, but the point was that Kant saw a big problem with Hume's view of causation, which was that it led to widespread skepticism, and made science impossible. — Marchesk

Hume's view does not lead to skepticism and it does not make science impossible. Hume's view is merely a very accurate description of what was already there. In other words, he merely described how science works. You, and many other people, on the other hand, are mystics.

Or to show how correlation differs from causation. — Marchesk

There is a difference between the two but it's not the kind of difference that you think it is. A simple way to put it is that every causation is correlation but not every correlation is causation.

It's not that there are brute particulars that happen to always behave a certain way, it's that all the particulars are related in a way that necessitates their common behavior. And that's why physics has been so successful in unifying phenomena, such as electricity and magnetism. — Marchesk

It's precisely that there are only "brute particulars that happen to always behave a certain way". Laws are merely human inventions that are based on a selection of these brute particulars. Any other way of thinking is already a form of dogmatism and absolutism.

In short, there are fundamental underlying relationships to the cosmos that explain the observed regularities. — Marchesk

No. There are events that happen in a certain order. Each one of us is aware only of a selection of these events. Based on that selection of events, we invent laws. The purpose of laws is to allow us to go beyond what is known to us. This makes it possible for us to predict what's going to happen in the future and to take preventive measures.

History does not constrain possibility other than in the epistemological sense... — Magnus Anderson

Of course the past constrains the future in terms of what is possible. If you break your leg, you won't be running any races. History is the accumulation of a whole lot of events that limit the scope of the future in a definite way.

That's exactly how I feel about what you're saying. — Magnus Anderson

OK, now for your counter-argument....

Hume's view does not lead to skepticism and it does not make science impossible. — Magnus Anderson

It does, because you have have no justification for coming up with predictive models. Nothing happens for any reason. Just because the sun's always shone doesn't mean we have any reason for coming up with a mechanism for it shining tomorrow. And as such, there's no reason to apply predictive models to the past before human experience. Maybe the universe was entirely different. Maybe the sun popped into existence along with human beings.

It's precisely that there are only "brute particulars that happen to always behave a certain way". Laws are merely human inventions that are based on a selection of these brute particulars. Any other way of thinking is already a form of dogmatism and absolutism. — Magnus Anderson

Then scientists are dogmatists and absolutists, because they certainly go beyond brute particulars just happening to behave a certain way to overarching theories explaining how living things came to exist, or stars formed, or how stellar fusion results in heavier elements, which gravity acts upon to form rocky planets and so on.

Of course the past constrains the future in terms of what is possible. If you break your leg, you won't be running any races. History is the accumulation of a whole lot of events that limit the scope of the future in a definite way. — apokrisis

The future is under no obligation to mimic the past. It can but it does not have to. The important thing is that the future is not compelled, forced, obliged, caused or otherwise constrained by what happened in the past to be a certain way. Rather, it is how our method of reasoning -- and reasoning is a process by which we guess the unknown -- works. It is based on the premise that the future will be maximally similar to the past. The reason our method of reasoning proves to be successful is because the environment we live in is sufficiently stable.

Then scientists are dogmatists and absolutists, because they certainly go beyond brute particulars just happening to behave a certain way to overarching theories explaining how living things came to exist, or starsy formed, or how stellar fusion results in heavier elements, which gravity acts upon to form rocky planets and so on. — Marchesk

The two aren't mutually exclusive. The fact that the universe is a mass of particulars, and not a mechanism that generates these particulars, does not mean that there is no reason to create theories.

The problem you have is that you cannot accept that predictions and theories are fallible. You cannot live with this fact. You think that if something is fallible that it is necessarily useless. That's not true.

The problem you have is that you cannot accept that predictions and theories are fallible. You cannot live with this fact. You think that if something is fallible it is necessarily useless. — Magnus Anderson

No, the problem is that I don't think you can get from brute particulars to any sort of theory, nor do I think brute particulars would behave in any sort of necessary relationship.

That's hilarious. How else do you think you can form a theory? By simply making shit up? That's what dogmatists do. They invent a theory and then they acknowledge those facts (i.e. particulars) that support it and ignore or deny those that contradict it.

That's hilarious. How else do you think you can form a theory? By simply making shit up? That's what dogmatists do. They invent a theory and then they focus on the facts that support it and ignore those that contradict it. — Magnus Anderson

No, I don't think brute particulars are enough to provide the basis for any theory. That's the fundamental problem with empiricism.

Particulars aren't enough. This is because theory isn't merely a mass of particulars. Theory is an invention that is based on a mass of particulars. The purpose of theory is to go beyond known particulars. Its purpose is to determine the best guess regarding some unknown particular (whether it is in the past or in the future.) Reasoning is fundamentally a process of extrapolation. You have some data set K that corresponds to a mass of particulars that are known to us (i.e. we have experienced them in the past.) Now, to reason means to find some data set U that is a superset of this data set K. Our method of reasoning works by choosing the most similar data set. In other words, it goes through every data set within some category of data sets that are supersets of data set K in order to choose the one that has the highest degree of similarity to K. That's all there is to reasoning. Of course, when multiple data sets have the same degree of similarity to data set K, we speak of randomness.

Now, to reason means to find some data set U that is a superset of this data set K. Our method of reasoning works by choosing the most similar data set. In other words, it goes through every data set within some category of data sets that are supersets of data set K in order to choose the one that is the most similar to K. That's all there is to reasoning. — Magnus Anderson

Can you translate General Relativity into set theory?

Better yet, can you transform Evolutionary Biology into data sets? I'd love to see how natural selection falls out of that.

The future is under no obligation to mimic the past. — Magnus Anderson

Yeah sure. Different argument.

The important thing is that the future is not compelled, forced, obliged, caused or otherwise constrained by what happened in the past to be a certain way. — Magnus Anderson

So now you show you don't get that to be constrained just means to be constrained, not to be determined?

Saying the past shapes the possibilities of the future is quite different from saying the past determines the future.

Rather, it is how our method of reasoning -- and reasoning is a process by which we guess the unknown -- works. It is based on the premise that the future will be maximally similar to the past. — Magnus Anderson

Huh? Sure, reason is about inference to the best explanation. And we find that causal thinking works.

But I was then talking about our ontic commitments. The various ways we can view causality.

My point was that constraints-based causal thinking works better than talk about absolute laws or mechanical determinism. So my stress is on the evidence for a fundamental indeterminism in nature - the quantum facts. And then how that gets resolved by a constraints-based or contextual understanding of why the world seems classically determined on the whole. Classical regularity and predictability emerges due to large numbers and an emergent regularity that is probabilistic.

So are you doing anything other than not understanding that I am talking about a different explanation for the regularity of the Cosmos at the classical scale of observation?

The reason our method of reasoning proves to be successful is because the environment we live in is sufficiently stable. — Magnus Anderson

Well duh. Why is it sufficiently stable? Has change been regulated by a past that is an absolutely stable context?

(Or in fact not absolutely stable if we take into account the retrocausality that seems to apply at the quantum scale of individual events - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser)

Better yet, can you transform Evolutionary Biology into data sets? I'd love to see how natural selection falls out of that. — Marchesk

It's possible. However, it would require a lot of work. One of the reasons we create theories is in order to make knowledge independent from experience. Once you come up with a theory, anyone can use it. It does not matter whether or not they have the experience necessary to come up with. All they have to do is to follow the instructions.

`You are talking and saying nothing.

Humean causation undermines that, which was Kant's concern. — Marchesk

Not at all. Explain how? Show what Kant says.

So now you show you don't get that to be constrained just means to be constrained, not to be determined?

Saying the past shapes the possibilities of the future is quite different from saying the past determines the future. — apokrisis

I understand that. I understand the difference between absolute and relative limits. The thing is that you do not understand my point. My point being that it is strictly speaking incorrect to say that the past constrains the future. It does not. That might be how we speak. But that's not correct.

My point was that constraints-based causal thinking works better than talk about absolute laws or mechanical determinism. So my stress is on the evidence for a fundamental indeterminism in nature - the quantum facts. And then how that gets resolved by a constraints-based or contextual understanding of why the world seems classically determined on the whole. Classical regularity and predictability emerges due to large numbers and an emergent regularity that is probabilistic. — apokrisis

I can agree with that.

Well duh. Why is it sufficiently stable? Has change been regulated by a past that is an absolutely stable context? — apokrisis

But then you say something like this and I cannot help but think that you're doing something wrong. You need to understand what a "why" question means before you ask one.

You are talking and saying nothing. — charleton

Eh heh.

Tell me the non perceptual source of knowledge of which you speak!

My point being that it is strictly speaking incorrect to say that the past constrains the future. It does not. That might be how we speak. But that's not correct. — Magnus Anderson

OK, I hear your assertion and await the supporting counter-argument. What could be more accurate than saying the past constrains the future?

It is inaccurate to say the past absolutely determines the future - that there is no actual quantum grain of free spontaneity.

And it would be even more inaccurate to say the past leaves the future completely undetermined, or radically free and spontaneous. On the whole - as you agree about stability - the future seems pretty classically predictable.

So why is my constraints-based view of causality incorrect when - strictly speaking - it covers both the classical determinism and the quantum indeterminism?

But then you say something like this and I cannot help but think that you're doing something wrong. You need to understand what a "why" question means before you ask one. — Magnus Anderson

I was hoping you might answer the question rather than question the question format.

But sure, if you think it needs rephrasing, will this pass your test? Will you answer now?

How is it sufficiently stable? Has change been regulated by a past that is an absolutely stable context? — apokrisis

Our brains honed by evolution in conjunction with the causal environment we perceive. Our brains are necessary to make any sense of raw sensory data, but our brains can do this because the environment is causal.

So you accept radical empiricism like me?
OR - you could answer my question "Tell me the non perceptual source of knowledge of which you speak!"

OR - you could answer my question "Tell me the non perceptual source of knowledge of which you speak!" — charleton

Cognition is the non-perceptual source of knowledge.

Let's take gravity as an example. On a Humean account, gravity is just a shorthand for objects behaving in a similar attractive manner, such that bowling balls and feathers fall at the same rate on Earth, or the planets orbit in the same manner around the sun.

But Einstein notices a connection between acceleration and gravity, and posits the acceleration of objects through curved space as the gravitational force. So now you've moved from a shorthand for particulars to a very general principle. And not only are objects part of the principle, but light itself, which we have measured. Large distortions in space result in gravitational lensing. And furthermore, length and time get tied into this, along with frames of references.

That sort of scientific theory, like natural selection in biology, goes very much farther beyond noticing similar behavior among particulars over time. It explains why the particulars behave in a similar manner. That's fundamental to scientific theories.

You are just being ridiculous. Nothing can be conceived unless perceived.
Put a new born baby in a sensory deprivation chamber and see what you get.
You have not really used joined up thinking.

You are just being ridiculous. Nothing can be conceived unless perceived.
Put a new born baby in a sensory deprivation chamber and see what you get.
You have not really used joined up thinking. — charleton

And nothing can be perceived without cognition. Remove a newborn baby's neocortex and see what knowledge they will learn.

That sort of scientific theory, like natural selection in biology, goes very much farther beyond noticing similar behavior among particulars over time. — Marchesk

Not really. All science is based on evidence. We are just getting better at it. Newton gives way to Einstein, who in turn may well be shown to be inadequate. Einstein's work is observable. If not then its not valid.

And nothing can be perceived without cognition. Remove a newborn baby's neocortex and see what knowledge they will learn. — Marchesk

You are making my case for me, if you would but know it.

Not really. All science is based on evidence. We are just getting better at it. Newton gives way to Einstein, who in turn may well be shown to be inadequate. Einstein's work is observable. If not then its not valid. — charleton

You can't ignore the role of theory in science. Positing concepts to explain phenomena is as central to science, as is putting those ideas to the test.

You are making my case for me, if you would but know it. — charleton

Not really, because you need the rational faculties to make sense of the empirical data. How we obtained or develop our ability to reason is a separate matter.