Humes Theory of Cause and Effect

Humes Theory of Cause and Effect Poyan Keynejad When discussing Humes account of cause and effect, various influences are interpreted in this relationship. Hume explains how cause and effect tend to come in sequences, as in trains of thought consisting of ideas, necessity, and skepticism. These three ideas explain the pinnacle of Humes cause and effect theory. When discussing ideas, one must consider the fact that ideas range from death-defying to enlightening. For example, when Hume discusses ideology, he mentions a golden mountain. When we think of a golden mountain, we only join two consistent ideas, gold and mountain. All of our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions or more lively ones. (Hume 212) Hume only says that whenever there is an idea, there will be a compounded thought process which reflects whether this idea is beneficial or negligible. (Hume 214) For example, when a mastermind robber, plans to rob a bank, he refers to a process in which his ideas are portrayed physically or visually, then le ads to a scenario of what ifs? These ideas or What ifs? are usually derived as a cause and effect of certain ideas. When referring to the bank robber, what if a meticulous layout of laser security or armed forces? What would happen if he was apprehended? These are usually questions that are asked when ideas when associating ideas with cause and effect. When referring to necessity, one must understand the definition of necessity: a condition or set of circumstances, such as physical laws or social rules, that inevitably requires a certain result. Hume addresses the problem of how liberty is intertwined with metaphysical necessity Hume believes that arguments on necessity and liberty are based on a lack of prior agreement on definitions. Necessity contributes to Humes thought processes in which human nature springs from a certain regularity that we observe in human behavior in all sorts of circumstances. (Hume 222) For example, when referencing a need, some may introduce nourishment and shelter, while others require love and understanding. With necessity, Hume assumes liberty as actions acted upon necessity (Hume 230). So with liberty, how can one differentiate the difference between liberty or necessity? This argument creates a conundrum which Hume himself creates an ideal that necessity may drive an individual to a cause and effect state. Last, when referring to skepticism, one must understand that it is in every possible situation that creates a state of anxiety or nervousness. This quote clearly explains skepticism, We need only ask such a skeptic, What his meaning is? And what he proposes by all these curious researches? He is immediately at a loss, and knows not what to answer a Pyrrhonian cannot expect, that his philosophy will have any constant influence on the mind: or if it had, that its influence would be beneficial to society. On the contrary, he must acknowledge, if he will acknowledge anything, that all human life must perish, were his principles universally and steadily to prevail.(Hume 226) Hume discusses the purpose of the situation. Along with that, he implicates that there should be a definite answer: Simply a cause and effect with proof. Another quote explains When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? (Hume 238) For example, if there cause of an incident, should there be a solution? Humes refers to havoc as an analysis of a problem, referring to its cause and effect, and introducing a solution. When referring to cause and effect, skepticism plays a significant role due to any actions made. Group II: Churchland Eliminative materialism is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist (Churchland 287). In short, Churchland believes that humans were wrong about a lot of situations, that there is no plausible reason to believe it. One might also gripe that the theory is over optimistic about future of eliminative materialism. Churchland critically plays the role of hypocrite to his own belief, but in reality, eliminative materialism is farfetched idea which compares to witch-craft. The theory has a high sense of doubt not because the prospects for a materialist account of our mental capacities were thought to be poor because it seemed to disorient the logic of those who believe in this theory. Churchland in his article summarizes how common-sense psychological framework is a false and radically misleading conception of the causes of human behavior and the nature of cognitive activity. The initial plausibility of this rather radical view is low for almost everyone, since it denies deeply entrenched assumptions (Churchland 288). Churchland reinforces these statements by quoting, Eliminative materialism does not imply the end of our normative concerns. It implies only that they will have to be reconstituted at a more revealing level of understanding, the level that a matured neuroscience will provide. Thus, we must be careful not to indulge in the denial of the antecedent of a conditional (Churchland 289). Essentially the explanation is whittled down to where if folk psychology is true, then human obey certain ideal; if folk psychology is falsified; humans do not obey these ideals (Churchland 290). This logic is very skewed and creates a very confusing thought process. Essentially there is no questioning process, only a cut-and-dry thought process. Therefore the point of eliminative materialism is that categorization of mental states according to our ordinary, everyday understanding is illegitimate, because it is not supported by the best scientific taxonomies that deal with mental life, such as neuroscience. Some eliminative materialist authors add the further claim that future neuroscience will, in fact, eliminate all non-scientific vocabulary related to the domain of mental states (Churchland 289). When contemplating how eliminative materialism is actually viable, and someone provides low-quality proof, there must be some doubt. Churchlands article was very inconsistent and produced contradictions and a skewed sense of logic. Group III: Parfit Derek Parfit proposed that we separate the notions of identity and survival. In regards to identity he questions the how personal identity must have a definitive answer. He may sometimes explain how some of have an insufficient amount of personal identity, which would present a problem given certain criteria. Along with that, he explains how personal identity is of critical importance; When referring to the previous statement, one must have an established state of personal identity. (Parfit 353) His idea of importance toward an individuals identity makes complete sense, yet compromises a number his thoughts with illogical ideals. When regarding survival, he explains how survivability does not depend on an identity. While his ideas on identity make sense, he is not very persuasive when it comes to survivability. When an individual develops an identity, they usually have a certain stigma that follows them; i.e educator, enforcer, nurturer. Parfit indicates how the question of personal identity is not really that critical to an individuals lifestyle. (Parfit 354) To establish his theory on identity Parfit asks the reader to imagine a case of fission, where a mans brain is split into two and both halves are separately transplanted into two waiting, brainless bodies, On the assumption that both resulting people have my character and apparent memories. (Parfit 355) When thinking about this situation, brain removal usually means tantamount death on both sides of the human, but when speaking metaphorically Parfit believes that two individuals are conclusively different. In regards to the splitting of the human brain he summarizes If all the possible answers are implausible, it is hard to decide which of them is true, and hard even to keep the belief that one of them must be true. (Parfit 356) Parfi t indicates how the implications of personal identity are far ranging, and there is no definitive answer, post-experiment. It seems proper that if Parfits hypothesis is correct on self and identity, our inherited metaphysical schemes collapse. (Parfit 360) In regards to survival, Parfit believes that survivability can be possible without a personal identity. He states that, You could be two bodies with a divided mind. (Parfit 353) Essentially he implies that if the brain is split into two different entities, with a proven stream of conscious, that there are two separate identities. When incorporating these entities into survival, Parfit believes that these entities do not attribute to the success into survival, but the relation to a degree. (Parfit 354) When identifying survival, Parfit approaches the situation in a third person perspective. He doesnt account for someones life, abilities, identity, hopes, or dreams. Parfits theory of survivability incorporates some logic, but the line is crossed when survivability is not accounted for. Parfit needs to supplement his account by saying to what degree these psychological connectedness must obtain in order to count as survival, or his theory predicts that one can survive as another person without dying. His idea on survivability retains a very inconclusive point of view, which remains to be unpersuasive.