norm@ariel.UUCP (N.ANDREWS) (08/12/84)
> Ahem. Cause and effect may exist, and indeed, in order to function as > human beings, we seem to need to behave as if it exists, but I don't > think the principal of cause and effect can be *proved* to exist. The > association of two events in time does not imply a connection between > the two. > > (For a more detailed argument, read Hume and Kant) > > --Ray Chen The concept of proof depends upon the concepts of cause and effect, among other things. Even the ideas "anything" and "functioning" depend upon the idea of cause and effect. All of these concepts depend on or are rooted in the concepts of identity and identification. Here's why: To be is to be something in particular, to have a specific identity, or having specific characteristics. What does it mean to have specific characteristics or a specific identity? It means that in a particular context, the entity's existence is manifested in a particular way. An entity IS what it can DO (in a given context). So what's causality? The law of identity applied to action. Things do what they do, in any given context, BECAUSE they are what they are. "What they are" includes or consists of "what they can do". This is true irrespective of our ability to identify what they are. Hume's and Kant's arguements re causality are the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. For the original presentation of the views that smash this false dichotomy, see Leonard Peikoff's article "The Analytic- Synthetic Dichotomy" in the back of recent editions of Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology". For the epistemological basis of Peikoff's article, read Rand's Intro. (I almost posted this to net.cooks, but GOOD cooks know this already...) -Norm Andrews, AT+T Information Systems, (201) 834-3685
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (08/14/84)
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.) 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). Glad to hear that there is someone else out there who does not swallow the conventional philosophical "wisdom" whole.
kissell@flairvax.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (08/14/84)
(Norm Andrews challenges Ray Chen's agnosticsm on cause and effect) > The concept of proof depends upon the concepts of cause and effect, among > other things. This is simply not true. The notion of logical proof involves implication relationships between discrete statements in discourse. This is an agreed upon rule of the game. Causality assumes implication relationships between discrete events in the world. The universe may or may not argue like a philosopher, and it is not always clear what constitutes a "discrete" event. > So what's causality? The law of identity applied to action. Things do > what they do, in any given context, BECAUSE they are what they are. This is a denial of causality, not a definition. If things do what they do because they are what they are, then they certainly can't be *caused* to do anything by something else. Unless, of course, the only *thing* is everything. uucp: {ihnp4 decvax}!decwrl!\ >flairvax!kissell {ucbvax sdcrdcf}!hplabs!/
yba@mit-athena.ARPA (Mark H Levine) (08/18/84)
Now and then I feel so fine, Now and then I don't feel lonely. Now and then, but only in my mind.... (It's a song) -- yba%mit-heracles@mit-mc.ARPA UUCP: decvax!mit-athena!yba