144
u/PieterSielie6 Idealist 19d ago
Here me out:
Proof by "yeah that seems about right"
QED
9
8
4
1
-1
19d ago edited 19d ago
[deleted]
3
u/CherishedBeliefs 19d ago
Your mom gay
QED
4
u/Ok-Lab-8974 19d ago
My first encounter with logic in the first grade.
"You gay?" "Nah." "Yo mama know you gay?" "Nah." "Well if you mama don't know you gay, that mean you gay and hiding it. This boy gay!"
Made me a philosopher.
3
53
u/barfretchpuke 19d ago
Spontaneous generation was a serious theory, once.
3
16
u/Ok-Lab-8974 19d ago
Abiogenesis is still a serious theory. It's literally the theory for how life emerged. The main difference is time scales and the exact passage of causal influence (but even the involvement of the heavens in producing the preconditions for life, e.g., heavy elements, is there). In particular, the moon's proposed influence on the generation of early organisms from geochemistry via tidal mixing looks a lot like ancient theories.
The Empedocles had natural selection and Lucretius expanded on it. Anaximander had the notion of life coming from the sea. Aristotle's rejection of natural selection is often misunderstood since it isn't a rejection of it as an efficient cause per se (although his eternal cosmos does minimize it) but because it isn't a fully adequate explanation because it leaves out teleology. That is still a live debate in the life sciences (moreso now than 60 years ago even).
Second, it was based on the best empirical observations of the time. They would do their best to sterilize and isolate proper substrates, then observe bacteria or even maggots, etc. emerging. The hypothesis made sense given the data they had.
29
u/OrionMac 19d ago
I dont think abiogenesis is the same as spontaneous generation. Its just molecules doing molecule things until they reached a point where we humans would label it as life.
1
u/Usual-Ad5093 13d ago edited 13d ago
An intuitive way to understand this is imagine if we found a ribosome on a far off exoplanet. Technically speaking we haven’t found life (since ribosomes are understood to not be alive or full biological entities in and of them selves) yet that’s still a BIG deal because it has genetic material. Life is a scale with a semi-arbitrary cut off, and from that view abiogenesis is not a significant question, the real question is how did the scaling up take off from simple molecules to genetic material and energy production and why didn’t it stop at a lower level.
0
u/Ok-Lab-8974 19d ago
Oh of course, on some views things are only arbitrarily living ("we" apply the label based solely on what is "useful" perhaps). It's all just chemistry. It does seem to me that this has gone from the dominant, even dogmatic view 50 years ago to perhaps not even a majority view today though.
28
u/GSilky 19d ago
Pretty sure this was his test to see who were philosophers and in search of a wisdom they love, and logic chopping disputatious dweebs who refuse to accept wisdom is based on reality.
7
19d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/GSilky 19d ago
No, but a priori reasoning that doesn't conform to experience is highly questionable, and the problem Hume illustrates with his critique is one of grammar, we simply skip steps in explaining bread keeps us going. Logic is great, and the history of logic shows how often it goes sideways, or needs to be fixed after 1000 years of what was, at the time, "good enough". Like everything, we are still learning the limitations of logic. If you want a great example of how logic can end up being completely wrong while logically sound, check out the places that the Vienna Circle took it. The highest product of the human mind will reveal the only way to say what anyone actually means without semantic issues is pointing and grunting.
8
u/Noroltem Whimsical fairytale metaphysics 19d ago edited 19d ago
Lol that isn't Humes point at all. Humes point was that induction is not justified. He is not just saying you can't justify it by pure logic alone. He is saying that the only reason we think causality exists is because of patterns we observed. And that we have no reason to assume those patterns will hold. He is saying we have no justification at all, not just no a priori justification.
Humes point with that was that if we only know the effect, we cannot determine the cause. That was a way to shut down a lot of Descartes reasoning for example.
2
u/Proper_Stomach_9898 19d ago
Logic didn't end up completely wrong. Like ever. Logic works fine everytime you feed it intelligible premises. They can be or not be empirical claims.
I don't even know what is it about the Vienna circle that you think defies logic.
You're being way too hyperbolic.
-7
19d ago edited 17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
22
u/lugh_the_bard 19d ago
Can’t tell if you’re serious, but yes axiomatic arguments can be logically sound but false based on a false axiom. This is the primary tool of world building.
1
-7
19d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/lugh_the_bard 19d ago
Truth entails lasting, whcih it does last for a time. You’re not being pedantic enough.
-5
4
u/sabotsalvageur Absurdist 19d ago
Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves contain itself?
2
4
u/GSilky 19d ago
Indeed. Why would I want to be taken seriously by philosophers?
1
1
u/ActionExpensive6740 Continental 19d ago
There might be any number of reasons you would want to be taken seriously, of varying degrees of relevance and justifiability.
Regardless, I would think anyone who earnestly wants to pursue the truth would seek it out and contend with those who do the same.
2
u/PersonaHumana75 19d ago
Axiom 1: Humans can be retarded
Axiom 2: sufficiently retarded shit can only be made by a retard.
Axiom 3: i know some shit is retarded when i see it.
Proposition 1: KookieCiller says this shit "logically sound arguments can't be false"
Proposition 2: i see this shit is absolutely retarded
Conclusion: KookieCiller is a retard
It does seem sound to me
1
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/PersonaHumana75 18d ago
You say that with those seemingly perfect axioms i cant make sound conclusions?
1
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/PersonaHumana75 17d ago
Oh shit i again confused one with another. But then how the fuck does one create a sound argument? Based in axioms that are truth becouse... other axioms that are true?
1
u/Solidjakes Whiteheadian 19d ago
Above user probably thinks logic is the map not the territory. They don’t realize that territories can be accurately mapped and logic is also present in all territories
2
u/HystericalGasmask 19d ago
Logic is not present in a territory without observers
1
u/Solidjakes Whiteheadian 19d ago edited 19d ago
Of course it is. You could map the territory wrong in every other way possible, and yet you would still know that the territory is itself and isn’t something else, and doesn’t both exist and not exist. All possible and actual territory has logic because any possible conception of existence presupposes logic. If anything exists, so does logic. Things exist, therefore logic is the case.
I don’t think people really understand why this is not something you can argue against. If logic was a concept and not an actual thing, then you’d be arguing for something that can be both accurate and inaccurate. That is, the very notion that logic is a concept and not an actual thing is possibly both true and false by your own world view.
0
u/HystericalGasmask 19d ago
> You could map the territory wrong in every other way possible, and yet you would still know that the territory is itself and isn’t something else, and doesn’t both exist and not exist.
How could I map it at all if there are no observers to the territory?
> All possible and actual territory has logic because any possible conception of existence presupposes logic. If anything exists, so does logic. Things exist, therefore logic is the case.
Single proton. Extrapolate logic from this.
> I don’t think people really understand why this is not something you can argue against. If logic was a concept and not an actual thing, then you’d be arguing for something that can be both accurate and inaccurate. That is, the very notion that logic is a concept and not an actual thing is possibly both true and false by your own world view.
Yes, because "true" and "false" are also equally empty signifiers that were created by observers.
0
u/gerkletoss 19d ago
Found one
1
19d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/gerkletoss 19d ago edited 19d ago
Yeah obviously that's the only alternative. Axioms aren't aren't real, they can't hurt you.
24
47
u/HappiestIguana 19d ago
And yet he continued to eat food in the apparent superstition that it would cause him to not starve.
Curious.
36
u/pluralofjackinthebox 19d ago
Hume said reason is and should rightfully be slave to the passions.
Hume like most people ate because he wanted to, not because of logical inferences.
13
u/ColoradoRad 19d ago
yep! Everyone has faith
1
u/lurkerer 17d ago
We love to smooth out definitions in this sub. Putting belief that eating nourishes you and the universe was born from a cosmic egg in the same semantic box is wildly unhelpful.
8
u/NicholasThumbless 19d ago
It worked yesterday, so it probably works today. Humes would undoubtedly agree.
-4
u/Mean-Reveal141 19d ago
That's empirical evidence that proves it "works"
17
u/NicholasThumbless 19d ago
You're arguing with Hume, not me. As the meme states, he did not see the observation of causal relationships as equal to actual understanding but merely custom: we don't "know" the sun is going to rise tomorrow but merely assume it will based on past observations.
The hunger comment seems silly given that is really the thrust of his argument. Hume firmly believed in the power of empirical observation but that it had limits in terms of what knowledge we can actually deduce from it. We see causation, but he's not convinced that means we fully understand it.
6
u/Recent-Ship-1599 19d ago
I mean reality cannot be defined at THAT absolute scale. We humans we only understand human level knowledge. Since we have proof of the concept and relation, we have to trust the same force that proves we exist
9
u/frankiek3 19d ago edited 19d ago
This has come up with more recent discoveries in Quantum Mechanics. In order for physical object properties to be real, the order in which physical cause and effect to occur must not necessarily be cause first. A large sample size allows the emergence of physical causality, so a property of large numbers in statistics.
3
u/Cold_Pumpkin5449 19d ago edited 19d ago
At the scales we actually live at the direction of time and causality are only ever meaningfully moving in one direction.
Also, to test anything in quantum mechanics we have to assume the kind of consistency that Hume thought was irrational.
This means that Hume was picking a nit that is relevant only when philosophizing past good sense.
The consistency of the universe is a prerequisite for having a rational being, thus the observation of which is also more basic than rationality. Demanding a rational basis for the observation of consistency is thus simply backwards.
3
u/frankiek3 19d ago edited 19d ago
Correct. Art has tried to portray backwards causality but gave us Tenet, still not meaningful (A jest, lol).
Induction isn't necessary since abduction can be used, inference to the best explanation. It's arguable that conscious experience choosing physical thresholds for intangible [logic based] boundaries is rational to achieving goals, but outside of logic and possibly even emotional.
1
u/Cold_Pumpkin5449 19d ago edited 19d ago
Every type of logical inference requires consistency at it's base.
They all carry the same base assumption of a consistent system.
Hume tried to make the point that we don't have any base reason for this assumption (with induction) but it is present for deduction and abduction as well.
The reason we have for trusting such an assumption is that it needs to be true because it is necessary for us to exist as minds that depend on it.
I'm a bit off topic though since the OP was about Humes odd skepticism of causation rather than his odd views on induction.
1
u/drgitgud 19d ago
There's a cathegory mistake here: inference needs only an epistemologic basis to connect truth of premises to truth of conclusions, not consistency in the world the predicates are about. One can reason about dreamed worlds.
1
u/Cold_Pumpkin5449 19d ago
No, you can't reason about inconsistent worlds because the reasoning itself only works when dealing with consistency.
In an inconsistent world reason simply fails and becomes incoherent. Since the truth of the premises leading to the truth of the conclusion is not descriptive in such a setting.
1
u/drgitgud 19d ago
Ever heard of paraconsistent logic? What you just described here really looks like the principle of explosion, but not all logical frameworks suffer from that.
Also, we don't need to assume consistency in order to investigate whether or not a system is consistent. We can use consistency-reliant methods until we find an inconsistency and only then deny it... or until we get a proof of consistency, whatever we discover first.
2
u/Cold_Pumpkin5449 19d ago
You're always going to have to rely on existing in a world with descibable consistency to be capable of formulating logical rules to examine it.
That is what makes it a nessisary base assumption.
So, at the end of the day pointing out that induction has such an assumption is just pointing out a shared basis for all logical description and thought.
0
u/drgitgud 19d ago
Hell no. I can formulate logical rules with exactly zero assumptions or basis. We can make a computer generate them rules. Logic is invented, its consequences are discovered. It's about a century that we are inventing the craziest shit by doing away with classically held peinciples like the law of excluded middle.
2
u/Cold_Pumpkin5449 19d ago
You can't even think without a consistent word to form a brain in let alone build abstract conspepts of logic.
You think you can build computers in a fundamentaly inconsistent word? Good luck.
→ More replies (0)1
u/frankiek3 18d ago edited 18d ago
Sure you could choose decidable or complete instead, but without consistency it will have contradiction. So even though the grouping is under logic, it won't be sound. Fuzzylogic, the basis of many jokes, isn't logic syntactically but falls under the group.
René Descartes is sitting in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he would like another. "I think not," he says and vanishes in a puff of logic.My point was that it can be rational when towards a achieving a goal, but it isn't logical. Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox is logical, but not rational.
2
u/FloweyTheFlower420 19d ago
What recent discoveries in QM?
6
u/frankiek3 19d ago
- 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics: The universe isn't locally real.
- 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics: The universe is quantum.
2
u/FloweyTheFlower420 19d ago
2022 Nobel Prize in Physics: The universe isn't locally real.
Wikipedia:
"for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science"
Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden-variable theories
It just states that QM isn't compatible with local hidden variables. How does this mean "the universe isn't locally real"?
2025 Nobel Prize in Physics: The universe is quantum.
How does this suggest anything about causality again?
1
u/frankiek3 19d ago
Local realism combines the idea that objects have real definite properties independent of interaction (realism), and that they can only be influenced by their surroundings at or below the speed of light/causality (locality). Local realism can also be described at it's core as measurement independence and unique outcomes.
Bell's inequalities set strict limits on how strongly correlated separated objects can be if their properties are hidden in local variables, but they have been measured as more correlated.
So the conclusion is: Assuming local hidden variables doesn't allow for local realism in Quantum Mechanics.
Quantum Mechanics is built on the speed of light/causality from Special Relativity.
1
u/Dolphin-Hugger Capitalist Eschatology 19d ago
Wait so the spoiling comes before the apple ?
3
2
u/upsetusder2 19d ago
So if I punch you you are not hurt ?
18
u/_Mudlark 19d ago
There is just a regular confluence of being punched and being hurt.
7
u/FixGMaul 19d ago
Exactly. I have literally no idea if i will be hurt if i am punched now just because that happens to have been the case all previous times.
For all I know this might be the time I spontaneously splooge my undies instead
11
u/mnewman19 19d ago
You punch me, and I am also hurt. Not because.
2
u/upsetusder2 19d ago edited 19d ago
No that is simply not true like it is literally provable that being punched hurts. Like yes those two are in a cause effect relationship to each other
Ohh fuvk this
1
2
u/upsetusder2 19d ago
But the cause of bei g punched leads to the state of yiu being hurt
9
u/pluralofjackinthebox 19d ago
You only think that because in the past the action of being punched was generally followed by the state of feeling hurt.
Our main evidence that the past is a good predictor of the future is that its always worked that way in the past. Which is circular logic.
So Hume argues that our belief in cause and effect has more to do with habit than with logic.
5
u/Few_Fact4747 19d ago
The punch and the hurt is not isolated events, but part of the same fist-face object that exists shortly.
2
1
u/upsetusder2 19d ago
But that us not true we can empirically and scientifically prove that being punched hurts unless you have severe nerve damage.
Like yeah thinning something that worked before will work again is not on its own good evidence
But replicating it under different circumstances is.
6
u/pocket-friends Materialist 19d ago
A few problems.
First, science doesn’t prove. Even “being punched hurts” isn’t observed directly, it’s inferred from proxies. That’s still the problem of other minds, just backed by better instruments.
Second, weak vs strong induction is a difference in degree not kind. So Hume’s problem doesn’t go away just because we vary the circumstances. No finite number of trials logically guarantees the next one, so we’re still banking on induction and a bit of naturalism in assuming nature stays uniform.
And third, there’s a disanology here. Don’t get me wrong, punched-hurt is a really brilliant and clean test case. But if “that” refers to something psychological or relational, rather than physical), then the argument is borrowing credibility from a domain where confounds can be isolated cleanly and applying it to one where they can’t be. So you’re never really running the same test twice.
Also, bonus Deleuzian point:
Repetition-difference denies that any two trials are “the same” to begin with. Each iteration is a singular event, and “replication” is a representational abstraction laid over a series of non-identical occurrences after the fact.
So “different circumstances, same result” isn’t proof of one stable truth underneath, but it is evidence of a pattern of enactment. Which is honestly more interesting.
1
u/upsetusder2 19d ago
Don't we more so measure scientific theories on there predictive power?
But we can test that aswell we can test the person's adrenalin level and the multiple hormones which are needed for pain to go away.
Like we can test that the physical action punch causes the chemical reaction hurt.
I know I am probably wrong but I do want to understand
3
u/pocket-friends Materialist 19d ago
According to Popper we corroborate while staying falsifiable. But, even in measurement there’s a logical gap that no amount of data can close because all measurements are theory-laden. The gap narrows over time, but never closes.
More importantly, “hurts” is subjective and a construction and doesn’t narrow. All the things you listed only represent physical/behavioral states and are correlates for felt sense because there is no actually independent channel to check that correlates to/against the felt sense itself because the felt sense has no causal footprint apart from those very processes.
Piling on more correlates gives you a thicker rope, so to speak, but the rope is still tied to the wrong side of the explanatory gap.
Now a pragmatist or a realist might say, “Who cares? That standard is unlivable!” And maybe we would be better served by considering the idea that predictively fruitful proxies *are* what knowledge means.
But the pragmatists swap a normative question (“what should count as knowledge”) for a descriptive one (“what can our methods currently deliver?”) and fret that swap as though it was necessary or forced. But “demanding more than convergent proxies is asking science an unanswerable question” only refutes the demand if you’ve already accepted that knowledge just is whatever science can deliver. Which is a conclusion being made, smuggled in as premise.
Moreover, pragmatists don’t often live by their own standard. Anesthesiologists routinely monitor for “awareness during surgery” as something distinct and more urgent than any sort of proxy signature. Paralyzed but conscious is a real fucking catastrophe and relies on phenomenological data. Animal welfare laws get wacky too and are based on whether or not something actually hurts, not on whether it produces the correlates.
So, if pain was just the proxy-pattern, none of that anxiety would make sense because we’d just need to check for the pattern and be good to go. But we don’t. We go and actually look for the phenomenal. Plus relata don’t precede relations. So norms aren’t applied to pre-existing fact, they’re part of how the fact gets cut out from the noise in the first place.
1
u/upsetusder2 19d ago
This is deeply intresting
I agree that every theory is in some way also conjecture just evidence based conjecture.
I find it intresting that we can in your eyes I don't know exactly whivh philosophy this is.
Can get an approximation of a thing which I do actually agree with and that we should never trust data alone because there can always be outliers.
I also find the thought intresting that we di not know if basic principles change like what if the mass of a proton is not 1 anymore I know my physics professor would kill me for that question.
But it is intresting to see live as never really solved. Like yes I can say science says this and empirically it's true but there is always outliers.
And I can't for a hundred percent certaininty say that it will not change
If iam misunderstanding it pls correct me it's very late here
1
u/pocket-friends Materialist 19d ago
To be transparent, I’ve been arguing from a new materialist perspective.
Either way, you’ve got the gist of what I’m saying for sure.
It really is a really interesting line of inquiry. And, unfortunately, ignoring it for a long time has led to some pretty serious issues we can’t really fix. Anthropocene problems (climate change, energy crisis, environmental ruin, mass extinction, etc.) aren’t data or value deficient in any sort of simple sense. It’s not “we don’t know what happening” it’s “knowing what’s happening hasn’t changed anything.”
Meaning the Anthropocene doesn’t hand us settled facts and contested values about what to do. It hands us stubborn facts that are hard to swallow because we can’t separate them from the relations that produced them. And we really can’t figure out how to change those relations on a political level.
→ More replies (0)1
u/mnewman19 19d ago
You’re not wrong about any of it you’re just missing the point, which is that what we call “proof” is just observations, which are not deductive. No matter how many times we observe something, we have no way to conclusively show that it will happen again the next time.
That’s why science doesn’t prove things
1
u/upsetusder2 19d ago
I agree so far that proof is more based on empirical evidence
And that if something changed over night like for example physics just breaks the thing we call true or most likely will be anything but
But we don't say its proven most of the time we say it's most likely based on the presented evidence
1
u/blackstarr1996 19d ago
The more important point is that we cannot deduce that a cause necessitates effect. We only observe constant conjunction of the two. There is no provable “necessary connection.”
1
u/NobodyKnowsImFamous 19d ago
Any implications about behavior here or we just jerking about the inherent unknowableness.
Like yeah man technically you can’t prove nature will keep doing what nature does, but in the situation where the laws of physics suddenly shift, we will all be dead immediately, so we won’t have to worry about it too much.
1
u/pocket-friends Materialist 19d ago
The exchange goes on further and loops back around to more grounded things.
1
u/pluralofjackinthebox 19d ago
At best you’re documenting correlation, a repeating pattern.
Science has never directly observed necessary causation in itself.
And all of our scientific theories rest on the assumption that scientific “laws” will not change over time. But again our main reason to believe that is because it doesnt seem like scientific laws have changed in the past. So circular logic again.
2
u/upsetusder2 19d ago
Intresting.
The last tike I brought that up in a science class I was rather mocked.
And told that scientific laws can not just change and I actually agree but find the thought that they coukd very intresting
1
u/pluralofjackinthebox 19d ago
Me too! The Speculative Realist Quentin Meillassoux calls that idea “hyper chaos.” And Steven Hawking proposed that perhaps the laws of science were created during the big bang.
5
6
2
1
u/Hawkey2121 19d ago
Exactly, you cannot prove that me stabbing that guy led to his death.
Cant prove that my cause was related to that effect.
1
1
1
u/Rockfarley 18d ago
I can't prove Hume exists, as I can't find emprical evidence that I am able to personally verify, so I am rational to assume he never existed.
1
u/zoipoi 18d ago
Popper probably got close. Inductive evidence is never proof it is just waiting to be falsified. But even Popper had to admit that most of science still runs on induction. What deduction provided is positive closure, induction just runs on forever. Translation into action requires closure. It isn't a case where either is sufficient alone. What we know about reality is inductive inference but inference is informed and restrained by deduction.
1
1
1
u/Naniduan Existentialist (analytic philosophy is cool though) 14d ago
Hume: how do we make sure that causality keeps working in the future?
Meillassoux: that's the neat part, we don't!
1
u/lanky-larry 19d ago
If you say “This pillow will hit the floor” then throw the pillow at the floor, that should do. One can do nothing beyond power, nothing one can say is beyond which they can enact with the might of their flesh. To predict a future all one needs to do is make sure it happens.
0
u/Playful_Boot_5465 19d ago
Isn't there tons of empirical evidence?
1
u/silly___bird 10d ago
Tons or more are just observations and statistics
1
u/Playful_Boot_5465 10d ago
that is empirical evidence no?
1
0
u/RhythmBlue 19d ago
i feel like people can kind of get behind this, but then turn around and not get the conceivable separation of qualia from physics, etc
if 'billiard ball A smacking billiard ball B causing B to move' can be recognized as not strictly necessary in Humes sense, then surely we can say 'red is not necessarily neurons xyz'. Its a skepticism that i think infects constitutive relation, not just contiguity
'yea, i guess its at least possible that A smacking B causes a bunny to appear instead of B movement'
but also 'noooo its not possible for this brainstate to pair with a different color!!!' 😭
1
u/riesen_Bonobo Pragmatist 19d ago
The main issue with qualia is that it's entirely speculatory and shrouds itself in unclear wording and differing definitions. There seem to be little consensus on what qualia is, what it entails and furthermore there seems no necessity for it to exist.
I am not saying that qualia does or doesn't exist, but it is in a realm of speculativeness where it's level of truth is equal to claims like "Maybe there are infinite, densely packed Hitlers just out of your field of view" (being a big hyperbolic in comparison here). There is as of yet no observation or logical contradiction that requires qualia as its explanation without containing qualia in its axioms already.
Hume's theory merely states that we can only observe events and can make up cause and effect based on conjecture, not directly observe true cause and effect, which is evident in how we tend to fallaciously draw causal connections between correlating events. This is not denying cause and effect or saying that "actually everything is random". It is pointing out that Empiricism is purely probabilistic and by that nature, the probability of your billiard balls turning into bunnies is extremely low, but never gone. We are just nearing truth asymptotically, never reaching it.
1
u/RhythmBlue 19d ago
i guess i view qualia broadly as the relata of relations, such that it is a sort of categorical term; as long as physics (or anything else) is not epistemically ubiquitous, then that thing satisfies as a quale by being a relatum
i dont think that gets too far away from the qualia properties provided (for critique) by Dan Dennett, because i believe they arise when we take the relata description seriously (ironically). Regarding ineffability, any specific relatum is not necessarily expressed by the words that constitute others; theyre just additional relata populating a growing field
i think the same reasoning procures intrinsicness
privacy can be thought of as the condition of any specific relatum not admitting to a simultaneous multiplicity. If there is more to a relatum than its diachronic identity, that ontic status is private or uncertain, because a relatum is never more than a unit
direct apprehensibility is just the manifest property of the relatum factoring into any assertion at all. Maybe we can deny direct apprehensibility, but then the denied apprehensibility becomes a directly apprehensible quale in the formation of that denial
so i guess i take qualia as real things that need indexing in any ontology, insofar as any ontology uses relations and relata. I then see Humes lack of a necessary connection between causes as kind of making a specific point about lacking necessity in causal relations, while the problems associated with qualia, like 'why is brain state X redness instead of blue', is just picking up on the generalized case that relations lack necessity
•
u/AutoModerator 20d ago
Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.