Hume 2: The Problem of Induction

[@rej4166]

Wow this was fantastic. 20 years since my college philosophy class and trying to refresh my understanding. Thank you for putting this up on KZbin

[@bryansphere6359]

I instantly subscribed to your channel once I saw that you were addressing the “law of induction”. I look forward to listening in!

[@bradspitt3896]

Is this related to the claim of "no causation with correlation"? The unidentifiable "connection" Hume is talking about is the potentially unknown variable we did not control for?

[@mikeh7593]

Yes, yes. You articulate very well. Thank you.

[@hyperduality2838]

Deduction (a priori) is dual to induction (a posteriori) Noumenal (rational, universal) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, localized) Causation (measurement) leads to effect (optimized prediction) -- Bayesian logic. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics. Syntropy = association of ideas -- David Hume. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Alive is dual to not alive -- Hegel's or Schrodinger's cat.

[@shelleyharris2850]

Powerful stuff🙏😇😎🌍🕊➕🙌💛

[@pierre-victorriquet9400]

+Richard Brown I struggle with Hume's thoughts. For instance if we take the sentence "it's raining outside" which seems to me a MoF; I don't understand how can I NOT infer that it is actually raining if I can see, feel or smell the rain. Does it mean that every time I feel water falling down from the sky I infer that it is raining even though it could be someone upstairs pouring water out of a bucket. Is the effect "water+outside" inducing the necessary cause "raining" in my brain?

[@Eitankahane]

Great video!

[@Lifeistransitory1]

Yes, excellent presentation. Thank you.

[@MsTommyknocker]

What's the difference between Popper's and Hume's ideas???

[@11889music]

So, how does Kant reply to the problem of induction and Hume's observations on causality? Does he address this issue in any direct manner?

[@humeanrgmnt7367]

Yes, the 'the categories of the mind.' We have a cause and effect lens that we are born with. However, the categories of the mind can easily be refuted using Humean arguments. One can never 'sense' these categories, so 'commit the idea to the flames.'

[@gorazdcosic]

Dear Mr. Brown this may sound a bit crazy but I can offer you the answer how, we can conclude that based on the same cause we will get the same consequence. This is possible if we make a deduction from the induction, that is, if we understand why it happened for the first time. Then we will understand why this will happen every time it is repeated. And why in these circumstances nothing else can happen. Take for example that you walk towards a wall and your body stops when you are in contact with a wall. The first question is why did that happen? And not something else ... When we divide the whole case into "all" factors that make it up, we will get: you who move, the floor, the space you pass through, the wall ... What we must understand is that every factor that exists has its own identity and cannot be different at the same time. So, just as in the identity of the body as well as in the identity of that wall there is no transience through each other due to the structure of those identities, it is not possible for those identities. That is why it happened, what is only possible, which can only happen through the contact of these identities. Therefore, in each repeated case, the same consequence will occur, stopping the body in contact with the wall. And for the first time, what was only possible in the contact of these identities happened. It is impossible for nothing to happen, and the only thing that can happen depends on the identities involved in the process. Every identity can react only according to what it is and in no other way. This limits the consequence and therefore only what each identity brings to the process for itself can always happen. Now try to imagine any other possible consequence, without having to change the identities we had in the first case, any different consequence will require some change of some identity in the process, and that implies a change of what Hume call the cause. Each repeated case will end the same if the same identities are present because each factor from that process has its own identity which at the same time cannot be different and therefore cannot react differently. A wall cannot have the identity of transience and non-transience for the body at the same time, the same goes for the space you walk through ... An identity is one that limits the possibility of a consequence to the identity it possesses. This is a simplified example of necessity in causality and I don’t think it provides a deeper understanding of necessity in causality but it is a powerful example that points to necessity that is indisputable without changing any identity in the process itself, and if we do, change something in the process itself, then we have changed the cause itself, so we should not expect the same consequence. I apologize if the translation is not perfect everywhere, I am dyslexic. That’s part of my charm.

[@humeanrgmnt7367]

A deduction from the induction? lol

[@RobJess]

Great video

[@Jazzywho]

Just realized you teach at LaGuardia CC. If I didn't move out to NJ and if I had stayed in Queens, you most likely would have been my Professor and I wouldn't be on you tube looking for answers. So ironic.

[@coreycox2345]

A MoF?

[@adamsimon27]

Excellent!!

[@alvaropedreiro]

Thanks Dr.

[@Forkroute]

Excellent. thank you.

[@kenching1437]

VERY USEFUL !

[@tokinking]

i enjoy your videos except for the occasional beep from the smoke detector lol

[@paulvandall1363]

Sythamesc i was hearing that thinking it was one of mine! trying to figure out where it was before i got up and looked for it

[@LucisFerre1]

What you're missing is the "...and nothing being different" part.

[@MarkLeBay]

If Nature is Nature ( law of identity ) and there is nothing outside of Nature or more fundamental than Nature (premise that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes ), then there is justification to believe that Nature will continue to be Nature, and therefore the future will be like the past. What’s wrong with that argument which rests upon the premise of the law of identity and the lack of an infinite regress of causes?

[@zeeenno]

I recommend setting speed to 1.25 haha (really good lecture, though)

[@Palmerageddon]

84Juliet84 I have it on ×2. And can still understand it.

[@artlessons1]

It only diminishes philosophy when one uses a religious metaphor, most often Adam and Eve, only to look at it through the lens of a philosopher ( reason and logic) that misunderstands ( ironic as that is the intent of the metaphor )rather than as spiritual.

[@coreycox2345]

Distinguishing MoFs can be a Mofo. Inference can sometimes be regarded as "gut feeling." I have spent much of my life not trusting these, yet they do have value. Regardless of the fact that we do not know if these things are true. They can lead one toward knowing new MoFs. I may be missing something because this seems obvious.

[@madalena9392]

Very good video

[@hyperduality2838]

Causes are dual to effects implies optimized prediction or probability = 1, absolute truth, reality, target tracking or teleology. Optimized prediction = Bayesian logic.

[@joshuakloppers5024]

Thank you

[@ceylondugas]

Go richard brown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@tele68]

26:24 "has rang" should be "has rung". Sorry, but this is school, after all.

[@LucisFerre1]

"But I can imagine sticking my hand in the fire and feeling no pain...and nothing being different". That's nonsense. There is nothing contradictory about sticking your hand in the fire and felling no pain if there IS a difference, as in the fire is an illusion this time, or you've lost your ability to sense pain, etc.

[@shelleyharris2850]

39 gave birth C-cection

[@hyperduality2838]

Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- this is immanent or innate. The laws of physics are universal or innate, independent of the observers perspective. Causation (measurement, experience) leads to effects or the laws of physics. Randomness (change) is dual to order (optimized prediction, constants)! "The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order" -- The duality of Alfred North Whitehead. The laws of physics are absolute or fundamental truths which we are born with or God given truths hence they are not "matters of fact" but belong to the "relation of ideas". Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton! Relative truth is dual to absolute truth, duality creates reality! Uncertainty is dual to certainty -- Heisenberg Certainty or probability = 1 connects causes with effects, optimized prediction. The future is dual to past -- time duality. The conservation of duality leads to causes correlating with effects or probability = 1. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). The future meets or intersects the past in the present reality. Duality = two sides of the same coin! The glass of water is either half full or half empty depending on your perspective. Optimist = the glass is half full, pessimist the glass is half empty. Optimism is dual to pessimism.

[@shelleyharris2850]

I see 999

[@LucisFerre1]

How anyone can take Hume seriously, I find ridiculous.

[@humeanrgmnt7367]

Would you like me to list all the great thinkers who take Hume very seriously? As you should too... Russell, Wittgenstein, Kant, Popper, on and on...

[@drsayyadmasthanvali2774]

there is nothing we can learn from HUME'S PHILOSOPHY. HOW could anyone call him an empiricist. he just made fun with his intelligence and language. i felt he was misguiding ,,,,

[@NOODLEDOC1]

I agree. You would have to be pretty superficial to not be able to sense, "the self." It's is a feeling, the same feeling we have felt our whole life. Who do you talk to in your mind if not, the self?

[@drsayyadmasthanvali2774]

thank you very much for your concern. i am not a philosophy student. i am just trying to understand what philosophy is. we might see a GREEN SWAN after another billion years, it doesn't mean that we completely leave behind the experimental sciences. if we find new facts or evidences, no problem, we have to start again from zero level to rebuild. Anyway, thank you very much.

[@NOODLEDOC1]

That is funny (the green swan analogy) Dr. I to am not a philosophy student, but rather one who is blessed with ability to study the works of such great thinkers, all at our finger tips. When I was in college, there was no internet, and the most you could hope for was a good library. I watched this video as a primer to Dr. Brown's lectures on Kant, which is really deep stuff. I am glad to see more people out there in search of the good, the true, and the beautiful. Good luck on your journey.

[@qigong8862]

Perhaps you objections are based on a lack of historical context. So You think you have nothing to learn from Hume because you have grown up in a world that has been profoundly effected by him and are already accustomed to taking for granted his main themes.

[@drsayyadmasthanvali2774]

i am very sorry to post that comment. yes really. without deep thinking and second thought i reflected harshly.i must read one or two more time to deeply understand his inner meanings of all of his ideas. thank you for reminding me about HUME.