For the umpteenth time, What does it mean to be "material" as opposed to "mental"? — Harry Hindu

Material is made up of atoms that we can empirically measure. Mental states produce thoughts and ideas which cannot be empirically measured. We do not know how the brain works, all we know is which parts of the brain are working when we are thinking.

Materialists are gambling that one day they will have advanced enough equipment to actually 'see' our thoughts. Idealists are gambling that science will never be able to so.

Consciousness does not appear to be material. No one can be sure what the mind is about. We will find out with AI if we can create a consciousness in which case a lot of philosophy will be debunked.

The materialist just says that the mind is matter and there you go, now mind is just a process of matter and we have immediate access to matter. — Harry Hindu

Which is a claim with no immediate proof. Many scientists, especially in neurosciences are having a hard time with materialism and cannot rule out some form of dualism. We understand less about our own minds than we do about matter, note I said minds not brains.

Philosophy of mind is one of the most active departments where ll the modern 'rock stars' of philosophy are making names.

For all of those not in the Nazi party it was anarchy.

I don't know what Hume had in mind but I think he wants to say that causation is a mental construct rather than something real. A constant conjunction of events is very tempting to humans whose minds are pattern seeking.

There is no logical necessity in the pattern but there is one and we see it and think of it as causation. — TheMadFool

Exactly what Hume means when he defines causation as 'an event followed by another , where the appearance of the former always conveys the thought of the latter. '

Of course one could question Hume's view on this based on the fact that we can, after understanding a causal chain, fine-tune the results. Isn't that what science is all about.

The fact that we can do that seems to favor a view that causation is real and not just a mental construct. How else can we explain our ability to guide and modify causality? — TheMadFool

Science would love to make an equation for causality if it could, it still believes that one day it will be able to. If we had such an equation we could then accurately predict events on the first experience of them, a priori. We also feel some sympathy with objects under causal influence. We build machines and form sentiments to them because they 'do' something. Big machines that do more are assigned gender, usually the female, but again machines are inert and any personality they have is projected on them from ourselves.

fixed

We can only do philosophy from the first person perspective. We can never independently observe ourselves and so we cannot 'step outside' of this perspective that traps us. All you ever experience from objects is the idea of the object, never the thing in itself.

The debate here is whether materialism as a theory has a stronger foundation that immaterialism. If we can prove this as so then we don't need to worry about our acceptance of the theory. If it turns out that the argument against materialism is more robust than the one in favour of it, we can be justified in searching deeper.

There is a basic problem with Newton's assertion of the independent, absolute existence of matter, force, space and time. Berkeley picks up on this abstraction of ideas that allows such ideas. For these things to have an absolute existence and for us to be able to understand it entails being able to conceive of a material object without secondary qualities. To conceive of a force with out anything to act on, to consider space without there being something in it and time without of lives passing by.

These are things that we cannot really do, we can form an abstract idea of a tree but it is not separate as Locke proposes. We imagine a tree from memory and 'mute' out the other details. So we take the tree in our back yard and try to forget when and where and how it is. We cannot actually conceive of that tree's existence independently of our minds.

Big business owns and controls all the media in the west today as much as the Soviet government controlled 'state media' in the USSR. The foundations for plutocracy / oligarchy are here already, hence a CEO as the US president.

My reply to this will be much the same as my reply to Wayfarer. Masterful prose? Perhaps. A very clever piece of writing? May well be. But are the key arguments plausible? No. What's more important? Are you a truth seeker or something akin to an admirer of exotic artifacts? — S

His key arguments are as plausible as materialism and just as well supported. That is the problem, he cannot provide better support that materialism has, he basically uses the same support that he demolished in materialism.

Please take some time and actually read his theory and dialogues before engaging in a meaningful discussion about them.

1. Yes indeed the Quantum theory upsets causation as it does everything else. It does look like the effect can come before the cause, but we can forgive Hume on this one.

2.There is no causation at a distance. I may not hold you responsible at 1200 miles distance because the explanation of the event is not the cause of the event.

3.Hume puts the major emphasis on constant conjunction, it is the regularity and uniformity of events that lead us to conceive of necessary connections and causal powers.

Is that really such an impressive feat in light of the consideration that Berkeley was the puppet master pulling all the strings behind the scenes? He wasn't exactly going to refute his own arguments, was he? — S

In fact he debates every possible weakness in his argument and overcomes each one (not always satisfactorily). Find one objection to his theory that he hasn't already discussed.
His prose are masterful, only bested by Hume IMO. For much of the dialogues he actually gets Hylas to defend the refutation of matter, it really is a very clever piece of writing.

You are all missing the point (well most of you anyway). Destroying the thesis of materialism is easy. Berkeley just applies a sophisticated form of Cartesian doubt and 'poof' materialism crumbles away. Hume does the same thing afterwards aimed at all forms of knowledge.

The theory that Berkeley replaces materialism with does seem to be 'better' than Descartes at least in instrumental terms. It also competes with Locke's theory and if you accept God then it is also 'better' instrumentally.

The weakness I am trying to expose is Berkeley's reliance on the same 'insufficient empiricism' he accuses Locke of using, Berkeley admits this but says that his 'notions' of minds and God are immediate to us in a way that matter is not.

Is he right?

What about when a criminal confesses to a crime? The evidence is the effect and the criminal's actions is the cause. Is the criminal desribing an inference or an actual experience when he recounts the crime in detail which explains the evidence perfectly? — Harry Hindu

The criminal has provided the explanation of the event not the cause.

What about your own intent being the cause of changes external to you. In essence you are a power of cause and directly experience your will moving your hands to type a post. Or are you inferring that your will, or intent, is causing your hands to move? — Harry Hindu

Agent causation means that I do x, the problem is that there will be as many if not more external, deterministic factors going on to make me do x. So when I raise my arm it is my mind telling me to do so, however my mind has been pre-influenced to already do it.

Wouldn't Hume say that the mind is the cause of ideas? Can ideas exist without a mind? Think of a cause as the prerequisite conditions for some emergent property. — Harry Hindu

I don't think so. Hume says that our ideas come from impressions of the senses or from associations of ideas, so I need to have seen an apple to have an idea of one but once I have the idea I can play around with it in my imagination.

Using Nazi Germany as an example is extreme. It was a one off thing and does not represent anything but insanity.

Religion is good for war and war is good for religion. — Athena

This sums it up for me,

"And the madmen all say they hear voices
God tells them what to do
The wars are all about money
They always were
And the money's dressed up in religion
And when it's not showing off, the money's hiding."

That is a really poor understanding of democracy and it is not worth defending people who believe that. — Athena

The democracies we have in the west these days mostly return governments / Parties that spend the most on the campaign and promise tax cuts. The last US election decided on the quality of the candidates was when Kennedy won.

The SS functioned as a state within a state and an army within an army.

Britain is a Christian country as is France, Germany etc. If a Muslim population becomes the majority then they will rule and change the nature of the country. In the US it is the Latin minority. I am not racist I am merely pointing out that I believe the UK will suspend democracy before Westminster Abbey becomes a Mosque.

The war between Christianity an Islam has been going on for hundreds of years, this is just the latest installment.

The demographic time bomb of immigration will force sovereign states to rethink their voter eligibility.

I have no ideas what you or Hume are talking about. — Harry Hindu

We witness the cause happening before the event - temporal priority, we witness a physical proximity between the two objects - spatial contiguity, and we witness these things happen the same way all of the time - constant conjunction.

Those are the three things we observe in what we conceive to be some necessary connection between events or some 'hidden power' in the objects that causes events to happen. We don't actually observe anything else so when we attribute cause we do so by means of inference alone. Hume believes that all forms of knowledge from induction is suspect.

Nazi Germany was the very definition of state anarchy. The criminal elements took over all positions of power and they took responsibility very seriously, most top Nazi's were extreme animal lovers.

Say that A causes B, which causes C. Well, if A caused B but B didn't subsequently produce C, then A is irrelevant to C, even though A causing B might be identical in both cases. — Terrapin Station

Say that A causes B, which causes C. Then we can say that A causes C just as easily a A causes B.

Does A always cause B?

Hume claimed causation is Temporal priority, spatial contiguity and constant conjunction. All “immediately temporal” means is that the cause comes before the effect.

In my view, yes, since I don't believe there are any nonphysical things. — Terrapin Station

So how do you explain ideas, thoughts and mental processes? Is an idea physical?

Society without responsibility is anarchy.

He meant Temporal.

The immediately temporarily antecedent action(s) or event(s) that produce a particular subsequent event. — Terrapin Station

Why only the immediate ones?

If this thread is strictly about Hume’s notions of causation, I’ll likely abstain. No biggie. — javra

I am working on Hume's two definitions of causation so I would prefer not to leave Hume out of it completely.

So what in your opinion is causation?

And if we change the wording from social animals to social mammals would that make it clearer for you?

Aristotle s causes are a bit different. Hume doesn't deny causation as a concept he just denies we can know anything more about it that constant conjunction.

but surely you see that there is a chain of events?

So are you saying that causation is multiple simultaneous causes? How does that work if the cause must come before the effect?

Democracy is rule by popularity, our species faces some very hard decisions about our survival. This will not be popular with anyone and so democracy will fail to make such decisions. Also you must remember that democracy is part of the cycle of society, it works until the we start voting to give us more money......

Could you please elaborate?

Democracy is on the way out. I actually think that only a totalitarian world government can save our civilization.

I can see too many exceptions to your rules. Culling the sick to ensure the survival of the species would be a reason for killing. Being jealous of those who cheat society and create their own elite is also needed in order to make laws for a more just society.

I had been considering the forms as "real" in the same way mathematical concepts are real. — vulcanlogician

I also think that there is a physical side to the Forms.

There is just causation, or maybe a better term is "relationships". — Harry Hindu

Hume says it is constant conjunction. The mental relationship that happens when you see something always happening in the same way.