williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (08/17/84)
> Or, putting it slightly differently, the traditional view of > cause-and-effect is that one action causes another action; an > alternative viewpoint is that actions result from entities > being subject to particular environmental conditions and > responding according to their natures. This avoids the > endless backward causal chain problem (and the "prime mover"). > (Hume avoids the problem by reducing causality to correlation, > which makes it a very uncertain proposition; see following.) I would like to expand on this further. The ``endless causal chain'' problem is not intimidating when one considers tracability. An objects characterisics are determined by it's history. The difficulty is trying to measure that object in order to learn it's history. It is only possible to obtain information to a limited degree of resolution. The further away something is, the less you are able to articulate the details. An important feature of our memory is that we refresh the concepts that we consider important. This is in fact a willingness to forget. Our memories do not follow any sort of linear interpretation. We expand and contract experiences as we see fit. Absolute tracability would flood us in complexity. > Kant's analytic-synthetic dichotomy amounts to a declaration that > reality is inherently unknowable and that the things we can be > certain about do not express anything about reality. Even if one > is not fully up on this stuff he should be able to appreciate > that acceptance of such a dichotomy would hamper one's ability to > function effectively in the "real world" (whatever that is). To me, ``knowing'' implies a level of confidence in your recollections. It assigns a level of probabilty that falls within a window of typographical symbols. It is an intuitive guess at the probability that you are correct. This is part of the protocol, that which establishes a means of verifying validity. To say that absolute knowledge doesn't exist is to cut off the top part of our vocabulary, and leave us with less words with which to articulate. In arguments, one can only compare similarities. First I must understand the symbols you wish to connect, then use my experience in order to determine what the exact differences are, and then resolve them. I must convince myself that my interpretation is very similar to yours, similar enough so that I would choose the same words to express that idea, only then being able to make a valid comparison. I must understand the limitations of this communications channel if I wish to use it effectively. > Glad to hear that there is someone else out there who does not > swallow the conventional philosophical "wisdom" whole. Well, isn't reality the game with no rules? ( only exaggerating ) < this ain't doin' a thing for my penmanship > (DEC E-NET) KIRK::WILLIAMS (UUCP) {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams (ARPA) williams%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA williams%kirk.DEC@Purdue-Merlin.ARPA -------------------- Please note that this mail message is likely to be incomplete. The sender aborted the transmission. RHEA::MAILER-DAEMON --------------------