Anyone who would want to set up regulations on their funds without having to pay banking or wiring fees. It doesn't specifically helps an industrial domain, it just empowers you to do what you ask your bank to do. More or less. — Akanthinos

Right, except that it's very risky. If your Bitcoins get stolen, that's it, you're finished - they're not backed by anything.

The only case where it makes sense really is for illegal activities. Drugs, arms trading, etc.

Okay, so how does this translate into economic value? Who exactly, in what industry, would be helped?

A fad that can be easy money. — Michael

And also easy losses of money.

Trading of fictive commodities without much underlying value is always a zero-sum game.

My point is that extended childhoods are typical in advanced societies as are laws protecting children from sexual and economic abuses. — Hanover

Yes, I do notice that, but there's no necessity for it. Part of that, seems to me, to be due to the parents. The parents encourage the child to keep being a child, usually for far too long. They do that since they generally can provide for the child for longer. That means that they're not willing to let the child hold responsibilities, and treat him or her like a child. As a result of that, the child goes on to perceive him/herself as a child.

The parents also have another "defect" in my opinion. They outsource the education of the children to society for the most part, which I believe is a great mistake. I was lucky to have managed to find myself in the right circumstances which allowed me to educate myself. Had I not educated myself through vast reading and study, I would have likely been an idiot today. My parents could have prevented that had they assumed some sort of responsibility for educating me - apart from sending me to school, teaching me manners, and checking that I had good grades. I learned precious little in school that was relevant to life actually. University was more useful though.

Child labor laws are a protection, not an impediment — Hanover

Okay, but I view that as a problem. I think the child should start working as soon as possible. I don't really see any value in an extended childhood, but quite the contrary, you're delaying the time it takes someone to become an active participant in the world and its affairs. I don't understand why you'd want to do that.

As you would expect, however, if children are going to extend their dependence economically, you will liklely see laws reflective of that reality that keep them to some extent disenfranchised. — Hanover

Yeah, but that's precisely the problem. I think children need to be given responsibility from early on, and the family should try to integrate them in whatever the family is doing. If the father is a doctor, for example, he should take the kids with him to hospital, and start teaching them the very basics while they watch him. One of the kids may show an interest in it, in which case the father can start preparing him to be a doctor. And so on.

In other words, I disagree with the OP that today's youth are earlier equipped for adulthood than yesterday's. — Hanover

They are equipped, they're just not willing to use the equipment they have. If you have a university graduate, for example, sitting in his parents' basement and smoking weed all day with his friends while playing video games, you can't really tell me that you have someone who isn't equipped. They are amply equipped, it's just that they're not willing to apply their intelligence to a profession, or to making money, or something productive. That they are intelligent and capable is amply illustrated by the fact that they completed schooling and higher education in that case. What they lack is the adequate moral education and discipline, which parents did not give them because they always treated them like a child.

The ability to make goals for oneself, and make plans to reach those goals is extremely important, and it is parents that must foster it in children. School just stuffs a bunch of information in your head and carries everyone along - but they don't make people independent, nor help them think for themselves.

You were claiming that the two, the efficient cause, and the effect, are simultaneous. That seemed very odd to me, so I thought I'd bring this to your attention. Now you seem to agree with me, they are not simultaneous, one is temporally prior to the other. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I don't agree with you. I've just rephrased:

The cause is the movement of the pencil, and the effect is the creation of the line. — Agustino

The cause is the movement of the pencil, and the effect is the creation of the line, not its being. This is because its being depends on other - indeed temporarily posterior - causes relative to its creation. Of course, those causes, relative to its being, will also be simultaneous.

But now I see that you are still trying to argue otherwise. "The pencil touching the paper" is a description of an activity, and this activity is necessarily prior in time to what is referred to as "a point appearing on the paper". They are not simultaneous. Try it yourself. You will never get the point to appear simultaneously with the pencil touching the paper, because until the pencil moves out of the way you will not see a point on the paper. — Metaphysician Undercover

They are simultaneous. The fact that I don't see the point on the paper without moving the pencil out of the way does not indicate that there is no point that has appeared there, only that I do not see the point. Those are two different things. I don't need to see the point for it to be there.

One thing I learned from Indian people I've met, is the importance and strength of an extended family. I almost couldn't believe some of the things I heard from those people. And when I talked to them, I realised that that's the kind of family I want to have for myself and my kids, and that the way we do things over here in the West is actually harmful.

That is to say, if kids are so mature and independent, why do they stay in their parents's basement into their 20s? — Hanover

What does one have to do with the other? If you're independent you should go live in the forest all alone to prove it, or what? :s That seems more of an ego thing than anything realistic.

If someone is mature and independent, they're not trying to prove things to anyone. As for why kids stay in their parents' home into their 20s, it may be because they don't want to pay rent, or they haven't found another place, or there really is no benefit to moving out, or they just don't have any initiative and are lazy.

Regardless of whether people live with their parents or not (there's nothing wrong living with your parents even into your 30s if the place is big enough, and your parents are okay with you coming or living with a girl home, etc.), they should make themselves useful. That means they should do the dishes, help with cleaning, contribute to paying the bills, maybe contribute to money parents need for medication, etc.

If you have a kid who lives at home with you the parent, but he's not doing any of these, and is a lazy sloth, then you do indeed have a problem. Sending him to the forest may or may not be the best way to resolve the issue. But the problem is that they are lazy and slothful, not that they're living with you.

This idea of parents pushing kids out of the home is actually extremely destructive to both themselves and the kids - it weakens the family. The parents lose the youth and strength of the kids, and the kids lose the wisdom of the parents. By weakening the family, both parents and children are more easily controlled by other forces of society.

I should also add that from my experience, it is the most immature that want to move out of their parents' home quickly, so that they can be free to do drugs if they want to, etc.

I did lack the capacity at that moment in time because I was dependent on others and had very little understanding of consequences — TimeLine

What does being dependent on others (we're always dependent on others to some extent, btw) have to do with lacking cognitive capacity?

And with regards to having very little understanding of consequences... in what ways did that show? I mean if you could solve quadratic equations, follow directions at school, not put your hand in the fire, etc. it seems to me that you did understand consequences more than well enough. Could you follow the train of thought of the likes of Nietzsche, etc.? That shows to me great cognitive capacity already.

Time for a small anecdote. When I was around 13 I saw two guys indecently touching a girl around the toilet, who was telling them to stop, so I shouted at them, and when they heard they all ran away, including the girl. Naturally, after that I had an interesting story to tell, which I told other people around the school, and soon the news spread. Suddenly one day the principal came in class and picked me out of there, and said "given your actions, I don't think you should really be in our school anymore" and he took me in a room alone with himself, questioning me on what I had done. Instinctively, I knew to be as vague as possible, and give as few clear answers as possible. So he got tired of interrogating and threatening me at one point, and brought the girl and the two guys in the room. That's when I first realised what this was all about. Then they started to say - all of them, even the girl (probably cause she was embarrassed) - that I started spreading false rumours about them through the school about this and that. So I was very angry at that point, but I instinctively understood that I had to lie to escape, since there was no possibility of convincing the principle that two guys actually tried to rape the girl in school, when even the girl wasn't admitting to it. I also knew I had my youth on my side, so if I only apologised and admitted to fabricating the whole thing, even if it was true, I would be let go of. So I said that I was very stupid, that I thought it would be a funny joke, that I'm dearly sorry and will never do a similar thing in my life, basically begging everyone to forgive me. My aim was to (1) not be expelled, and (2) avoid getting the principal to contact my parents. And I succeeded. If I had chosen a different strategy, my life would probably have been very different today.

So clearly at that young age, I already had the political acumen to realistically understand my situation, and in a few minutes sketch out and execute a set of moves that allowed me to obtain my objectives. And I also understood that a little bit of humiliation was nothing compared to the other consequences -
as the Chinese say, even the great General Huan Xin had to crawl between the legs of two vagabonds. So I see evidence that quite the contrary, I was extremely cognitively capable at even 13.

Nevertheless, I understand you and I agree; that is why I am telling you that I support the functional approach, which can determine whether the child understands the action and the consequences of that action. There is current talks as mentioned in the international arena on children' rights and that we should stop taking that 'they are a child and therefore don't know any better' paternalism because we fail them in someway as individuals. We should learn - though ambiguous - to adopt an approach that identifies their capacity rather than simply assume them to be incapable — TimeLine

Okay, I see.

I am sorry but at age 14 even though I had the cognitive capacity to understand what sex involved, there is NO way that I could have EVER understood the lifelong consequences. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Nobody can really understand consequences though. When I started my business, you think I understood consequences of all that I was doing? No, I was clueless about so many things. I learned along the way, and there are still many things I'm clueless about. That's just the nature of the beast. Nobody, except very very few people, are wise. The challenge in life is to learn how to make do with the little that you do have in terms of knowledge and understanding.

So if I was your daughter at age 15 and you saw a 23 yr old man courting me, would you condone our relationship? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well, it depends on who the 23-year-old man was, whether he obeyed what I told him and showed that he bought into my own ideal of having a large family, and wanted to marry my daughter, not just date her. I would also want him to be religious or otherwise convert to Christianity.

My ideal is to have a large family with all members being involved in the same work over time. I dislike the ideal of the nuclear family that is prevalent today, since it is destructive to the stability and strength of individuals. It actually weakens everyone, both the family, which loses the strength of the children, and the children, which lose the support and the wisdom of the family.

What I may be at 14 is irrelevant but honestly I had no clue at all about sex at that age, even though I was great at a number of intellectual pursuits that made me far more intelligent than people much older then me. — TimeLine

That's because you didn't direct your intelligence towards understanding it, not because you lacked the cognitive capacity to understand it.

I was sexually immature well into 21-22 — Benkei

What do you mean "immature"?

I was mature in finances and could function without support from my parents when I was 17 (eating healthy, cooking myself, cleaning, work, study, locking doors etc.) — Benkei

Well, if you were mature at all those things, I really really can't see what you mean by the fact that you were immature when it came to sex, apart from things like you were laughing when you heard the word penis or something of that nature.

At the same time, research in the Netherlands showed that 75% of women who consented to sex between the ages of 16 and 18 still regret it afterwards (when asked in their mid twenties). — Benkei

I didn't say that people ought to have sex at that age, I just said that they should be allowed to decide on it.

Even though kids can make rational decisions (my 2.5 year old daughter manages at times!),that doesn't make children wise or capable enough to consider all the consequences. — Benkei

Nobody is wise enough to consider all consequences. That's just a fact of life. People need to deal with it though. It's part of learning.

Children, including teenagers, are more susceptible to developing addictions as well, which is another reason not to meddle with ages of consent especially where it concerns drugs (alcohol and cigarettes included). — Benkei

Right, so they need to be educated on those subjects too. But the right education involves both theory and practice.

Think of yourself at 14. Do you honestly say that you lacked the cognitive capacity to understand what sex involved and the consequences?

the "causality" Kant is talking about is not an empirical state. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Does Kant ever say it is? No. He agrees with Hume that causality is added by the mind. And in some sense, Kant absolutely has to be right. Modern neuroscience does back up the idea that we do create a model of the world, which is what we actually perceive. For example, phenomena such as the phantom limb, etc. illustrate precisely this, that causality (at least to a certain extent) is added by the mind.

How can you demonstrate that they can? — TimeLine

The first quote that you quote me as saying refers to what lawyers can demonstrate with regards to mentally disabled people. We don't know much about mentally disabled people, but we certainly know that their handle over language isn't that great.

How can you demonstrate that they can? — TimeLine

Their actions demonstrate it. I mean they solve quadratic equations at 14. Most people in history haven't been able to solve quadratic equations even at 40. These are clearly people who can follow a line of reasoning, understand consequences, and do things. They do it all the time at school, with their friends, etc. It's so obvious actually that I think it's ridiculous to think they lack cognitive capacity.

So you and @unenlightened haven't yet shown that Euclid's first postulate isn't a priori, since its absolute necessity is still there, unshaken. And as indicated above, Kant thought that either universality or necessity are sufficient, by themselves, to indicate a priori nature.

That's an issue for Kant because his position ascribes the universal quality to it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't think so. This is what Kant says:

"Now, in the first place, if we have a proposition which contains the idea of necessity in its very conception, it is a if, moreover, it is not derived from any other proposition, unless from one equally involving the idea of necessity, it is absolutely priori [...] Necessity and strict universality, therefore, are infallible tests for distinguishing pure from empirical knowledge [...] But as in the use of these criteria the empirical limitation is sometimes more easily detected than the contingency of the judgement, or the unlimited universality which we attach to a judgement is often a more convincing proof than its necessity, it may be advisable to use the criteria separately, each being by itself infallible."

I mean, the danger is that if you don't allow the mentally disabled to pursue sexual relationships, get married, etc. you're really cutting off their possibilities and abusing them. They become treated like some objects to be thrown around and obey what others ask them to, instead of free human beings. They end up more like prisoners in an Auschwitz like environment, where they're not allowed to reproduce, others get to decide for them etc.

It depends on the laws of your country, but one could be charged with statutory rape - such as if the parents of the girl make a case of it - and in the case of a minor, consent is not a defense for sexual crimes. — TimeLine

Okay, but let's leave that to the side and discuss what the law ought to be, not what it is.

Hence, why I initiated the discussion of cognitive capacity and not consent, to ascertain whether there is a free agreement there or whether it is merely acquiescence — TimeLine

I think that 14-year-olds really do have sufficient cognitive capacity to consent to things. They're clearly capable to follow instructions at school, to make decisions about how to answer questions on tests, how to study, how to manage their free time, whether to play football, etc.

comparatively, can those with intellectual disabilities be allowed to pursue a sexual relationship? — TimeLine

I think they should be allowed if they seek this themselves. If they can pursue a sexual relationship that seems to tell us that their intellectual disabilities are not so severe that they don't understand what they're doing.

she demonstrably lacked the capacity to understand the consequential aspects to sexual intercourse — TimeLine

How is this demonstrably shown? Lawyers have lots of tips and tricks to "demonstrate" things which are actually never really demonstrated. And most people aren't very careful with their language unless they are trained philosophers, lawyers themselves, etc. It's relatively easy for a smart lawyer to get an uneducated person whom they're prosecuting to agree to whatever they want them to agree if they're smart. It's not so easy to capture or corner a philosopher on the other hand, who is one of the most slippery of creatures.

And if someone has intellectual disabilities, they clearly have even less control over the precision of their language, etc. So it's not difficult for a smart lawyer to get them to agree to anything - or to show that they're not capable to understand consequences, etc.

consent was not a real or true consent because she was not mentally capable of giving her consent — TimeLine

That may be true, but I think it's speculative. Maybe it should be illegal for someone to pursue a relationship with a mentally disabled person, but not the other way around, for the mentally disabled to pursue a sexual relationship with others.

They are still legally a minor until they are 18, but afford a certainly flexibility so that should they consent to sexual intercourse at, say, aged 17 with a 20 year old who may possibly be convicted of statutory rape, can be assessed as having the capacity to make that decision. — TimeLine

I think I've seen several guys in their late teens or early 20s dating 14-16 year old girls over my life. So... I don't think that should count as rape if the girl consents and is okay with it. The law should be modified to take into account the fact that people above 14 can generally pretty much make decisions for themselves. In some countries, the laws already allow for this. I think in the UK one can give their consent with regards to sex if they are 16, or something similar. Can't remember for sure.

Is it time we revised our traditional 18-years boundary between childhood and adulthood? — TheMadFool

Yes. I would set the boundary at 16 or 14. I think there is a lot of oppression by parents and society of young people in that age group, 14-18. And that's because young people are very dangerous to society. I think people should be allowed to drink and smoke from 14 for example.

There is no point living from 14 to 18 in a straightjacket, as if you weren't living in the real world anyway. People should also be allowed to work, and do so easily from 14, without tons of paperwork. In fact, work should be encouraged for this age group. There is no time to lose.

So, I wouldn't be wrong in saying children are maturing faster nowadays. Some under-18s even have their own business ventures and outdoing even more experienced adults. — TheMadFool

It's not that they are maturing faster. They've always matured faster, society just didn't acknowledge it. For example, my thinking at 14 wasn't much different than my thinking today. Sure, it was more raw and stuff, I had different opinions, etc. but fundamentally I'm as developed as I was back then in terms of pure, raw intelligence.

Is it right to restrict the autonomy of a mentally mature human being? — TheMadFool

No.

Yes, the creation of the line is simultaneous with the movement of the pencil, the two are the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yep, exactly. The cause is the movement of the pencil, and the effect is the creation of the line.

However, the creation of the line is necessarily temporally prior to the existence of the line. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but the creation of the line does not cause the (continued) existence of the line. There are other happenings which ensure that the line's existence continues, and these don't have to do with its creation. The line must be sustained into being, and that's different from being created.

So yes, the becoming of the thing is temporarily prior to its being. So what? :s

It can be demonstrated quite easily. Try it yourself. There is no line until after the pencil moves. Prior to movement the pencil is at a point and there is no line. After the pencil moves there is a line. The line does not appear until after the pencil moves. — Metaphysician Undercover

Take it another way. The pencil is the cause of a point on the paper. The pencil touching the paper, and a point appearing on the paper are simultaneous, not temporarily separate.

In the case of the latter, if you have a logical argument which demonstrates that there is a type of priority which is not a temporal priority, then produce it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, there is a priority in terms of potency and act. The line (or point or whatever) is a potency of the pencil which actually exists. This logical asymmetry between the two is what guarantees the logical priority of one over the other. That is why the pencil can cause the line, but the line cannot cause the pencil.

We can argue about it. In a sense you are right, because the centre would be postulated to exist in 'another (higher) dimension', outside the geometric space. But I think the point is already made, that what is conceivable or inconceivable varies according to how daring one's thinking is. — unenlightened

Okay, but then we've just moved the problem one step further no? I mean from the POV of this higher dimensional space that contains the geometric space we're talking about, any point can be connected to any other point by a line no? The only way this wouldn't be possible is if we're dealing again with a non-Euclidean space stuck in a higher dimension space. But at some point, we would obviously have to stop with adding dimensions no? Otherwise, we'd have an infinite regress. So when we do that, it seems to me that the postulate still holds absolutely true, no?

So I think Kant's point still holds. I see that the judgement does have absolute necessity, though it may lack universality.

For example, in spherical geometry, there is a point (the centre) to which no line can be drawn, because the geometry is of the surface of the sphere or hypersphere. — unenlightened

Hmmm...

In spherical geometry, assuming we're talking about an intrinsic as opposed to an extrinsic curvature of space, there would be no point at the centre of the sphere would there? I mean, if space itself is in the shape of a sphere, then there is no other space to contain that point in the centre of it, is there? Or am I wrong?

He's admitted there's something fundamental in our thought processes which we use to make sense of the world that doesn't come from sensory experience. — Marchesk

Indeed, and this is precisely Kant's point. Kant thinks that Hume is right about this:

"That which effects that the content of the phenomenon can be arranged under certain relations, I call its form. But that in which sensations are merely arranged, and by which they are susceptible of assuming a certain form, cannot be itself sensation. It is, then, the matter of all phenomena that is given to us a posteriori; the form must lie ready a priori for them in the mind, and consequently can be regarded separately from all sensation."

So indeed these forms, Kant would say, cannot come from sensory experience, they are the forms of sensory experience, and as such its conditions of possibility. But they are not, as Hume would say, merely psychological habit associations. Why?

Because "the conception of a cause so plainly involves the conception of a necessity of connection with an effect, and of a strict universality of the law, that the very notion of a cause would entirely disappear, were we to derive it, like Hume, from a frequent association of what happens with what precedes"

And also because without such forms existing a priori, sensory experience itself would be impossible. That follows from these forms being required for experience and these forms not originating from experience itself.

But as far as I can see "synthetic a priori judgements" are just a long-winded way of saying "sentiments". — unenlightened

Why do you say that?

And have you read Kant's first Critique?

Let's take a simple synthetic a priori judgement. Here it is. It's Euclid's first postulate.

"A straight line can be drawn from any point to any other point"

The definitions involved are:

1) A point is that which has no part.
2) A line is a breathless length.
3) The extremities of a line are points.
4) A straight line is a line which lies evenly with the points on itself.

The definition and the postulate are from Euclid's Elements Book I (I paraphrase the first postulate to clarify its meaning).

Now, is the judgement synthetic or analytic? Since it cannot be derived from the definitions alone, it must be synthetic, as it adds something that isn't contained in the definition (as opposed to analytic, which merely explains something already contained in the definitions). And is it a priori or a posteriori? It is a priori. Why? Because it is universal and absolutely necessary, you cannot conceive it being otherwise. That means you don't have to appeal to experience to know it, and hence it must be a priori.

Where am I wrong?

This doesn't seem right. Efficient cause is necessarily temporally prior to the effect. If they were simultaneous, then there would be no temporal progression between the thing which is said to be the cause, and the thing which is said to be the effect, and one cannot be claimed to be the cause of the other without a temporal progression. — Metaphysician Undercover

There doesn't need to be a temporal progression. The cause is logically, though not temporarily, prior to the effect. Why logically? Because the cause must contain the effect within it, and not the other way around.

For instance, the line on the paper is not simultaneous with the moving of the pencil, it follows from it, as the moving of the pencil is necessary for the existence of the line, but the existence of a line is not necessary for the moving of the pencil. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that doesn't tell me that it's not simultaneous, that just tells me that one is cause and the other is effect. You're talking of one being logically prior to the other one. The pencil can move without creating a line - if it doesn't move while in contact with, say, a page. A line cannot move a pencil, since it doesn't have that potency. Only a pencil has the potency of creating a line when moved on a paper. But the creation of the line and the movement of the pencil are simultaneous temporarily, though not logically, as explained above.

Interesting. So objects on the Earth cannot but be pulled at the rate of 9.81 m/s, because that is simultaneous with the Earth's gravitational field. — Marchesk

I would say that's close, but if you want to be really accurate, you'd say that the universal constant of acceleration G is a property of all gravitational fields (why? - cause that's just the nature of gravitational fields, ie formal cause, due to the effects of mass (material cause) on spacetime curvature - if you ask another why now, it would be answered with the final cause, which directs the other causes towards their particular ranges of effects), and that objects on Earth experience a pull (effect) that is simultaneous with the efficient cause of being present within a gravitational field. Indeed, that's why it's called instantaneous acceleration :P

That's why it's hard to take Humean skepticism seriously outside of a philosophy discussion. — Marchesk

I don't think Hume's skepticism is taken that seriously even in philosophical discussions, to be honest. Or at least, it ought not to. I mean it's difficult to read and understand Platonic/Aristotelian philosophy especially in the later Scholastic synthesis OR to read and honestly study Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and still take Hume's skepticism seriously.

I can somewhat understand the appeal of Hume's skepticism today given the prevalence of postmodernism and different forms of positivism and scientism, but from the coherence of the arguments, I really think it is sorely lacking. I really can't take Hume very seriously anymore.

For me, the two competing worldviews that are worthy of attention are Kantianism as developed by Kant and Schopenhauer, and the Platonic-Aristotelian philosophy as developed by the Scholastics. Everything else seems children's play, though other philosophers do sometimes make important, but lonely (as opposed to systematic) points (Heidegger, Wittgenstein, etc.).

The main difficulty, of course being that, because of the prevailing cultural climate, even most professional philosophers do not seriously study Scholasticism, preferring instead to read summaries and history of philosophy type of books. Nor do most philosophers, even amongst the professionals, seriously study Kant's Critique of Pure Reason - most read through it sometimes, or parts of it, as part of their university course, and then forget about it. Or they read through it through certain lens, either those of their professor, etc. They don't seriously think about the arguments made, and Kant is difficult to read because he makes like 10-15 subtle distinctions on every page between different concepts, so if you're not really really concentrating and re-reading segments multiple times, you don't really get it.

I mean I can see how, if you read the wiki summary, or the SEP page, or some history of philosophy book that you cannot see how, for example, Kant refuted Hume. But if you would spend the time properly doing it, I think the refutation is as definite as anything can ever get in philosophy.

1. The constant-conjunction of A and B refers to the sampled correlation of A and B over a finite history of observations, that happens to equal 1. — sime

Is the only difference between constant-conjunction as described above and correlation the fact that correlation presumably involves the added necessity to continue into the future? I don't think that's the standard notion of correlation, but I may be wrong. So please clarify what is the difference between your notion of constant-conjunction and correlation.

He points out the limits of logical deduction. You can't get a will-be from a was, any more than you can get an ought from an is. The gaps are bridged by habit and sentiment. It's only a problem for the philosopher who has a false image of himself as purely rational. — unenlightened

This, of course, would ignore the fact that "oughts" can be factual too (per an Aristotelian worldview). Or, in the case of other so-called problems, it seems to me that Hume just shows a complete lack of awareness of synthetic a priori judgements that Kant discusses at length. So Hume shows a truncated understanding formed only of synthetic a posteriori judgements and analytical a priori ones (which are nothing but a systematisation of synthetic a posteriori ones).

Yes, I know. But they're not real evidence. A mystical experience is evidence of a mystical experience. You had a funny feeling. That's all. — Sapientia

The experiences described are more than just "funny feelings".

As a realist, I would say that if we observe constant conjunction, we're observing causality. — Marchesk

Constant conjunction (also known as correlation) isn't causality. They are two different concepts.

what was the tradition understanding? — Marchesk

Aristotle's 4 causes.

Basically, the 4 causes leave no gaps. Efficient cause and effect are understood to be temporarily simultaneous, so the Humean notion that we could imagine A happening first without being followed by B is false. Since A (the cause) is simultaneous with B (the effect), they cannot but be linked. Like drawing a line on the paper. The line that is drawn (the effect) is simultaneous with the movement of the pencil (the cause).

Might just be. — Marchesk

I think philosophy has already settled this matter. The interesting question now is whether the causality is a priori (presupposed by our experience, and provided by our understanding) or a posteriori, derived from experience. Kant would claim that Hume definitely proved that it's not the latter, while he himself proved that it is the former. I think some Scholastics though would argue that Hume at least didn't understand causality as it had been traditionally understood, and as such was left with an impoverished notion of causality.

Hume explained our tendency to say one thing caused another when we notice constant conjunction between the two events because of habit. — Marchesk

You can say that, but the big problem with it is that the concept of cause is entirely different from the concept of constant conjunction. They are not the same.

Kant explains: "The conception of a cause so plainly involves the conception of a necessity of connection with an effect, and of a strict universality of the law, that the very notion of a cause would entirely disappear, were we to derive it, like Hume, from a frequent association of what happens with what precedes"

Turning to Darwin next, we can further explain our habituation to causation with an adaptive explanation. Animals who came to expect constantly conjoined events to continue their conjoining were better at predicting when and where there would be food, mates or danger, and thus had more reproductive success, passing that psychological tendency on. — Marchesk

This is obfuscation now. You're thinking you solved the problem the same way the man who thinks he solved the problem by saying opium causes sleep because it has sleep-inducing properties.

The question is why, in the first place, do those animals who expect constantly conjoined events to continue to be conjoined in the future are better at predicting when and where the food, mates or dangers would be? Oh, it might be because causality really is a thing out there in the world, hmmm, I see... :-d

Anyway, I'm going out now to meet a friend for lunch. See you later. — Sapientia

Hope you enjoy your lunch.

Merely because one claims their experience is mystical doesn't mean that experience is in fact mystical. — Buxtebuddha

No, of course it doesn't. But you cannot outright reject the testimony of many millions of people without reason. So until some reasons are provided (ex. mystical experiences only appear to be mystical, but are in reality x y z physical process caused by m n b playing itself out), I'm free to reject that claim outright.

I'm talking about real evidence. — Sapientia

Yeah, mystical experiences are real, people experience them, you know :B

I believe that there are no flying pigs based on the evidence, or the lack thereof. — Sapientia

Right good. So we settled that your first assumption that you can disbelieve transubstantiation because there is no physical evidence is silly.

What I want to know is how you think the one can literally change into the other, whilst keeping its original appearance, and leaving no scientific trail of evidence. — Sapientia

To leave a scientific trail or change its original appearance would be to do precisely what the doctrine claims it doesn't do. So you cannot falsify something in this manner. You have to falsify based on the predictions it does make. I outlined before how something can MYSTICALLY - I have no clue what you mean by literarily - change while maintaining its appearance.

Let me give you an example that second grade Mike will be able to understand. You're not feeling sexually excited and you look at an attractive girl, but you're not interested in her. After some time you get sexually excited, start feeling horny (sorry but I do have to speak at this level it seems to be understood) and you look at the same girl, who appears the same, and is physically the same, and suddenly you are attracted to her. She means something different to you than she did before. That's a transubstantiation - something maintains the same appearance, but changes its inner significance and meaning. It's not that hard to understand, but I really feel I have to speak at those mundane and philistine levels to make myself understood here. Many of the threads in the forums are also starting to become annoying because everyone speaks so vaguely and incoherently about things, which is part of the reason why I've been participating less in some threads.

"What is it that you find convincing about something so ridiculous, fantastical, and without scientific basis? Or is it just irrational faith?".

"The doctrine says so", isn't a real answer. — Sapientia

That wasn't my answer. My answer was why should I expect a scientific basis for believing in the doctrine? You're asking a stupid question, like me asking why are you still beating your wife? You have to think about what kind of questions you're asking and what presuppositions they make. So please, do some work here if you want to get somewhere to understand those issues on a deeper level.

Make some effort to follow attentively the thread of the discussion, and don't strawman. I'm not avoiding answering you, I'm questioning the presuppositions that you make when trying to question me. If you don't put the work in, then you're wasting my time, and I'm currently busy, so it gets tiring to respond and repeat the same things over and over again.

That's missing the point. You can't rightly answer my question of why you believe what the doctrine claims by saying that that's what the doctrine claims. — Sapientia

So you should clarify your question. Your first question wasn't that. It was telling me how I should disbelieve the doctrine based on what it never claimed. That was indeed missing the point. So now if you rephrase your question on to the right subject, why I personally believe, I may be able to answer it.

So don't be like Mike who still has a first-grade brain (oh sorry, he graduated to second) and thinks he's burned me by saying that Catholics (and Christians) are cannibals and vampires, since being a cannibal and a vampire involves eating physical flesh and blood.

I believe the doctrine because my own understanding and study of religion, combined with understanding of human anthropology and my own experiences (mystical or otherwise) reveal that (1) Christianity is unique amongst the world's religions, (2) mystical experiences of the kind the doctrine speaks about do happen to people, (3) the meaning of the doctrine is transparent, clear and understandable, and (4) transubstantiation fits into the larger scheme of things predicated by other things I know.

So those are my personal reasons for believing. And there probably are more. Now I don't doubt that you'll have further arguments with each one of those, since you are set to try to disprove what I say, not to consider it. That's okay, but realise that I do have reasons for believing it, even if you don't share them.

It means what it says. — Sapientia

What if the doctrine said that a fig will transform into a flying octopus, but would keep the appearance of a fig — Sapientia

In what sense does the fig transform into a flying octopus if it keeps the physical appearance of a fig? You might say in a mystical sense. Well then, I will ask what is a flying octopus in a mystical sense?

I can tell you what the blood and body of Christ are in a mystical sense, I can tell you the significance of that. But not of the flying octopus. So I disbelieve the latter because I don't understand what it means.

I'm a humble boy, unlike the arrogant owl, who admits to not understanding some things, you see.

If you were reasonable, you'd disbelieve it because there is no evidence, besides hearsay, that it has ever happened, or, really, that it ever could happen. — Sapientia

There is evidence. Mystical experience.

No it's not. Have you read the doctrine? Or, rather, is it just that you do not want it to be full of rubbish, because you don't want to believe in rubbish? Sorry, but it is what it is. — Sapientia

:B >:O

I disbelieve it because there is no biological change in the bread and wine — Sapientia

So if I tell you that there are no flying pigs, do you disbelieve because there are no flying pigs? :B

What? That's not a fallacy. That's right. — Sapientia

No, you misread that because you didn't update page. I changed it to isn't instead of is almost immediately.

I don't believe otherwise, so if that's what the doctrine entails, then I don't believe that the doctrine is true. — Sapientia

You can disbelieve it, but not for the reason you gave, namely that there is no biological evidence in the wine and bread that they are the body and blood of Christ - since that's not what the doctrine claims in the first place.

I meant that that's what I'd expect to see if the bread and wine were turned into the body and blood of Christ. — Sapientia

Yes, if they had the appearance of the body and blood of Christ sure. But that's not what the doctrine claims.