structure for 'Nature of Minds'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

15. Nature of Minds / C. Capacities of Minds / 9. Perceiving Causation

[instant assumption of causal relations in perception]

6 ideas
An object made by a saint is the best way to produce thoughts of him [Hume]
     Full Idea: One of the best reliques which a devotee could procure would be the handiwork of a saint, because they were once at his disposal, and were moved and affected by him.
     From: David Hume (Enquiry Conc Human Understanding [1748], V.II.43)
Our awareness of patterns of causation is too important to be left to slow and uncertain reasoning [Hume]
     Full Idea: Our inference of like effects from like causes is so essential to the subsistence of human creatures that it is unlikely to be trusted to the fallacious deductions of reasoning, which are slow, develop late, and are liable to error.
     From: David Hume (Enquiry Conc Human Understanding [1748], V.II.45)
We experience causation between willing and acting, and thereby explain conjunctions of changes [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: The only form of causality of which we are aware is that between willing and acting - we transfer this to all things, and thereby explain the relationship between two changes that always occur together.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1872-74 [1873], 19 [209])
     A reaction: This is a rather Humean view, of projecting our experience onto the world, but it may be that we really are experiencing real causation, just as it occurs between insentiate things.
Either causal relations are given in experience, or they are unobserved and theoretical [Sosa/Tooley]
     Full Idea: There is a fundamental choice between the realist approach to causation which says that the relation is immediately given in experience, and the view that causation is a theoretical relation, and so not directly observable.
     From: E Sosa / M Tooley (Introduction to 'Causation' [1993], §1)
     A reaction: Even if immediate experience is involved, there is a step of abstraction in calling it a cause, and picking out events. A 'theoretical relation' is not of much interest there if no observations are involved. I don't think a choice is required here.
It is hard to analyse causation, if it is presupposed in our theory of the functioning of the mind [Psillos]
     Full Idea: There is a problem if causation is the object of our analysis, but is also presupposed (as an empirical principle of human psychology) for the functioning of the mind.
     From: Stathis Psillos (Causation and Explanation [2002], §1.7)
     A reaction: This doesn't sound like a major problem. If it is, it is presumably impossible to analyse the mind, because a mind is presupposed in the process of analysis.
Causation seems to be an innate concept (or acquired very early) [Bird]
     Full Idea: There is evidence that the concept of causation is innate, or that we are primed to acquire it very early in life, within months at most.
     From: Alexander Bird (Causation and the Manifestation of Powers [2010], p.167)
     A reaction: Bird doesn't give any references. This is important for our understanding of induction. Creatures seem to learn from a single instance, rather than waiting for habit to be ingrained by many instances. They must infer a cause.