Article View: comp.ai
Article #8499Causality (was: Re: Can Machines Think?)
From: David H. West
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1989 16:29
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1989 16:29
16 lines
1440 bytes
1440 bytes
In article <5610@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> miken@rice-chex.WISC.EDU (Michael N. Nitabach) writes:
>metaphysical tradition, beginning with the British Empiricists, e.g. Locke
>and Hume. This is the view that causation is not an aspect of the world
>which our mentality can recognize, but rather a schema which our mind imposes
^^^^^^^^^
>on events with appropriate spatiotemporal relations. A conceptually
>opposite--Realist--stance would be that causation exists as an actual
>attribute of certain pairs of physical events.
What, in this view, is "recognition"? Is it fallible? If so,
how is it different from imposing (perhaps unconsciously) a schema
which may need to be revised to accommodate later sense-data?
If it is not fallible, why are we still doing science? [hint: this
is a rhetorical question :-) ]
-David West dhw@iti.org
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4678@itivax.iti.org>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!shadooby!umich!itivax!dhwReferences:
<6724@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> <5767@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <5610@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!shadooby!umich!itivax!dhw From: dhw@itivax.iti.org (David H. West) Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Causality (was: Re: Can Machines Think?) Message-ID: <4678@itivax.iti.org> Date: 20 Dec 89 16:29:19 GMT References: <6724@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> <5767@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <5610@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> Reply-To: dhw@itivax.UUCP (David H. West) Followup-To: comp.ai Organization: The Forgotten Legions of ... um ... er ... Lines: 16