19 Jun 06
Originally posted by whodeySo are you arguing that because you find something incomprehensible then it cannot be true?
One of the definitions of time is the an interval seperating two points on this continuum, measured essentially in terms of occurance. The thought of time never having a begining is incomprehensisble, or at least it is for me. Perhaps you would like to share your thoughts on the matter?
It was nice reading the article about Hawkins poking fun at the Pope ...[text shortened]... he begining of the universe. That is if he believes the science that says there was a Big Bang.
19 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour alternative is also riddled with problems, if you are saying that some non-physical substance (mind? soul?) is able some physical object (the brain).
But that's the consequence of assuming that everything has a material or bio-chemical basis - it leaves us in a universe where free will simply doesn't exist. It's just a macro-level manifestation of atomic-level laws of physics. Even those things that we think are voluntary are not really so - they stem from the same physical laws that drive the invo ...[text shortened]...
Consider for a moment what this means for such things as morality and moral responsibility.
What exactly is the relationship between the non-physical substance and the physical object? Clearly not identity, or supervienience. Some kind of separation? So how could they interact? Why should stimulating specific activity in the brain have a specific effect on the mind? Is this a causal relationship? Have you any evidence of spontaneous, "non-caused" events occuring in the human brain? Is the mind identical with the soul? Why does the mind, and its capacities, develop in tandem with the brain?
You have absolutely no model for this. It is mysterious and inexplicable.
Hume is, in this context, seen as the father of compatibilism which is probably still the orthodoxy in philosophical circles. His philosophy has been enormously influential in other areas as well. Dismissing it as the product of alcohol, even as a joke, is rather foolish.
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHow nice of you to resort to stereotypical barbs!
I disagree. "Deserving" is of course an individual opinion, so you can disagree if you like. I know Christians think everyone deserves hellfire, but I disagree.
Not only do the majority of the world's Christians believe (as a matter of doctrine) that everyone does not deserve hellfire, but they also believe that non-Christians can, indeed, go to heaven.
Your comment was either a result of ignorance or a deliberate ploy to score brownie points in the discussion. Either way, it does not constructively contribute to (what I thought was) the reasonably polite discussion we were having.
19 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellAs I said earlier, if Hume's philosophy had any influence on science, we could've kissed technology goodbye then and there. Do you disagree? Do you think science would make any progress when the idea of causality is thrown out the window?
Hume is, in this context, seen as the father of compatibilism which is probably still the orthodoxy in philosophical circles. His philosophy has been enormously influential in other areas as well. Dismissing it as the product of alcohol, even as a joke, is rather foolish.
EDIT: How can Hume be the "father of compatibilism" when he rejects the one thing compatibilism depends on - causation?
19 Jun 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis is not a thread about Hume and science. But I will answer your question if you answer mine first.
As I said earlier, if Hume's philosophy had any influence on science, we could've kissed technology goodbye then and there. Do you disagree? Do you think science would make any progress when the idea of causality is thrown out the window?
EDIT: How can Hume be the "father of compatibilism" when he rejects the one thing compatibilism depends on - causation?
19 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellYour questions presume the Cartesian distinction of substance between mind and physical substance. I don't use that model (for reference, I'm using the Thomistic model). I'm saying that the physical is not substance at all - but just one aspect of the entire being/substance. You cannot separate the physical aspect from the non-physical aspect in reality (though you can do it conceptually) just as you cannot separate the form of a horse from the matter of the horse in reality.
Your alternative is also riddled with problems, if you are saying that some non-physical substance (mind? soul?) is able some physical object (the brain).
What exactly is the relationship between the non-physical substance and the physical object? Clearly not identity, or supervienience. Some kind of separation? So how could they interact? Why should st m with the brain?
You have absolutely no model for this. It is mysterious and inexplicable.
19 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by dottewellWhy are you beating around the bush? I say that Hume's criticism of causation destroys the very foundation of experimental science. Do you agree or disagree? It's a simple binary question.
Can we establish that you are aware of Hume's (sceptical) solution to the problem of causation? And aware of what he wrote about the problem of free will?
I had assumed so, given your caustic remarks to someone you judged had not read Hume so carefully.
My "caustic" remarks to scottishinnz were a response to a completely pointless and un-constructive barb thrown in to score brownie points.
And yes, I am aware of what Hume wrote about the problem of free will and I simply cannot see how he can talk about determinism when he's rejecting causation. Can you?
EDIT: So far, all you're doing is asking questions. Time to start putting forward some answers.
19 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerTo answer your question - experimental science can proceed perfectly well on the basis of Hume's sceptical solution to the problem of causation.
Why are you beating around the bush? I say that Hume's criticism of causation destroys the very foundation of experimental science. Do you agree or disagree? It's a simple binary question.
My "caustic" remarks to scottishinnz were a response to a completely pointless and un-constructive barb thrown in to score brownie points.
And yes, I am aware So far, all you're doing is asking questions. Time to start putting forward some answers.
There's no point discussing this as long as you continue to baldly assert - as you have done several times - that Hume "rejected" causation. I think you she reacaquaint yourself with what he actually said.
Did Hume answer "Nothing!" to the question, "What is causation?"
19 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by dottewellHume answered "constant conjunction of ideas". To reject causation is not the same as answering "nothing" to the question "What is causation?" - that's a strawman argument you're throwing at me. To reject causation is to reject (in this case) the knowability of causation. Without knowing causation, one cannot make a prediction as to what would happen in an unprecedented situation and one cannot enquire into what might be causing a particular effect. If one cannot do that, then one cannot do experimental science.
To answer your question - experimental science can proceed perfectly well on the basis of Hume's sceptical solution to the problem of causation.
There's no point discussing this as long as you continue to baldly assert - as you have done several times - that Hume "rejected" causation. I think you she reacaquaint yourself with what he actually said.
Did Hume answer "Nothing!" to the question, "What is causation?"
What is Hume's "sceptical solution"?
EDIT: Here's a reasonably good essay on the point I'm making:-
http://www.friesian.com/hume.htm