I'm not sure if you are suggesting that the situation is the same with the intimation of unseen landscape in the Mona Lisa as is it when looking at an actual landscape? — John
Past experience is an excellent guide, assuming contiguity past to future. But the challenge was to support this assumption. — Mongrel
Logic is not the basis of this faith. Obviously it isn't observation. So what is the basis of it? — Mongrel
The logic is that past experience is the best (in fact the only) guide that is backed up by any systematic reasoning that is consistent with our overall experience. — John
Again, there's wisdom in pragmatism, assuming contiguity past to future. — Mongrel
Embracing this assumption is a fine, upstanding thing to do. All the cool kids do it. That was never in question. — Mongrel
The problem of induction zeroes in on our faith in contiguity past to future. Even if we knew that X has always been true until now, that knowledge would not logically support the conclusion that X will be true five minutes from now. — Mongrel
Or maybe Bayes? — Brainglitch
I don't know. Is there?But is there some "logical" reason to doubt that the past acts as a constraint on future events such that repetition becomes so likely that it approaches the status we grant "a causal law"? — apokrisis
There is a suppressed premise in you argument - that causation is a matter of direct control rather than indirect limitation. But a pragmatist need only presume that the past weighs heavy on the freedoms of the present and so future outcomes can become reasonably assured. — apokrisis
I didn't present an argument. — Mongrel
The problem of induction zeroes in on our faith in contiguity past to future. Even if we knew that X has always been true until now, that knowledge would not logically support the conclusion that X will be true five minutes from now.
Logic is not the basis of this faith. Obviously it isn't observation. So what is the basis of it?
Past experience is an excellent guide, assuming contiguity past to future. But the challenge was to support this assumption. — Mongrel
I don't mean to be pedantic or picky, but I'm not sure what 'contiguity' is supposed to mean in this context. Do you mean 'connection between', 'continuity from' or something else? — John
But, to repeat again, I do think we have practical rational justification to believe such a thing and that it is not merely a matter of irrational habit, as Hume claims. — John
If temporal and spacial extension are apriori knowledge about objects, could we relate that in some way to this confidence? — Mongrel
This reminds me of the Truman Show.But is this really the case? Let's consider a couple of examples. The ancient Hebrew cosmological schema was the following:
Jewish-Universe2.jpg
Perhaps they would change rapidly if a UFO arrived.It would seem then that conceptual schemas are fluid, and subject to revision or replacement after checking the world.
Perhaps we can be taught to see the clues to the reality in the world we perceive. Surely the clues are there, were we to posses the eyes to see them.TGW would point out that we don't even need to bring science into. Human beings learn conceptual schemas as they grow up, depending on one's culture and education, and change them as needed. We also often don't agree on what concepts are the right ones. You can see this from endless disagreements in philosophy, politics, religion, etc which tend to have their roots in fundamentally different ideas.
You're willing to stake your life on contiguity. The question is: why? — Mongrel
I hypothesize that moods fulfil the Janus principle of bringing the past into the future for the infant... — Tronick
The Janus principle states that we use the past to anticipate the future; that we look backward in order to look forward. Looking back requires that there be some form of representation that carries the past and the present into the future in a meaningful way to guide thought, action and emotions. — Tronick"
'm a little baffled that you don't seem to know what the problem of induction is. — Mongrel
The problem of induction zeroes in on our faith in contiguity past to future. Even if we knew that X has always been true until now, that knowledge would not logically support the conclusion that X will be true five minutes from now.
Logic is not the basis of this faith. Obviously it isn't observation. So what is the basis of it? — Mongrel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.