What proves causation?

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Yeah, I know about induction, I'm just saying that you cannot ultimately prove that that is the case for the fire (for example), but we enter onto solipsism stuff, so it's pointless.

There's no debating or arguing with solipsists.
Their position is fundamentally retarded.
The fact that different languages exist is enough to debunk solipsism. If someone writes or speaks in a language you don't understand, it means that there exist languages that the solipsist doesn't know. Hence the foreign language or its speaker can't be a product of the solipsist's mind.

 

[Cemetery Support]

You listening to rap music increases your urge to enact violent crimes. True or false?

If groovin' and jammin' are violence in this day and age, so be it.

 

[The Evil Midnight Bomber]

Causation is a fundamental feature of reality, so obvious that it's self-evident.
The notification of you creating this thread caused me to write this reply and submit it.

Yeah but maybe it's all been an infinite list of coincidences that just lined up perfectly with no rhyme or reason.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Yeah but maybe it's all been an infinite list of coincidences that just lined up perfectly with no rhyme or reason.

If your worldview depends on causality not existing (and "the appearance of causality" would be a "there is no causality") it is fundamentally incompatible with reality. You would be unable to confidently do anything. Whether it's drinking water and food to keep yourself alive, nor taking steps or moving your limbs. Or even your brain sending the impulses to make these things happen.
If everything is a coincidence, there would be no reason to act and make decisions. But from inaction comes death, so there is a causal relationship there too.
It simply is unreasonable to dismiss causality in this reality.

 

[We Are The Witches]

There's no debating or arguing with solipsists.
Their position is fundamentally retarded.
The fact that different languages exist is enough to debunk solipsism. If someone writes or speaks in a language you don't understand, it means that there exist languages that the solipsist doesn't know. Hence the foreign language or its speaker can't be a product of the solipsist's mind.

That's not entirely what I was going for, I was thinking more of the brain in the vat theory.

On another note (unrelated to my point), I don't think what you said disproves what I believe you're referring to. The solipsist doesn't need to know that language for it to be the product of their mind. It would be like a dream of some sort, they also do not know about what the chemical reaction of x entails, yet it happens, but that's neither here nor there as I'm not arguing in favor of it, I just think that what you said about languages does not impact that solipsist view in any major way.

 

[The Last Stand]

Yeah, I know about induction, I'm just saying that you cannot ultimately prove that that is the case for the fire (for example), but we enter onto solipsism stuff, so it's pointless.

I disagree. If the burn occurred AFTER the contact with the fire, then you can safely conclude that the burn WAS caused by the fire. I shouldn't say this, but it is proven that fire can cause skin burns through unsafe contact.

 

[We Are The Witches]

I disagree. If the burn occurred AFTER the contact with the fire, then you can safely conclude that the burn WAS caused by the fire. I shouldn't say this, but it is proven that fire can cause skin burns through unsafe contact.

We're not talking about the same things right now.

You can prove beyond reasonable doubt, 99.9...9% (add whatever many 9s you want) that that's the case, but you cannot ultimately prove (100%) that fire will react like that next time, nor that your mother exists.

Again, this is a good example of pointless discussion in philosophy, but it's there.

 

[Cemetery Support]

There's no debating or arguing with solipsists.
Their position is fundamentally retarded.

Theres no getting over the horror that comes with just showing up on this plane of existence with a consciousness capable of self-awareness. Solipsism is a natural response to one's inability to answer the questions of what the fuck is going on, and why am I here?

The path out of solipsism is simple, too. Just accept it, man. Theres no real way out. You have to look at the world around you, you have to come to grips that its not going away, and you just have to accept that even if you can't prove that the world around you is real, its the realest thing you deal with.

Even a solipsist is afraid of death -- thats the exit chute. Thats when it's over. Even a solipsist knows he can die. The only real way out of this plane is death, and solipsists don't want that either. They can't or won't escape their fear and confusion through death, so they bitch about it instead.

The fear of death is enough to motivate a solipsist to stay here in this confusing as fuck world. Eventually, they get over it.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Maybe I should give a more concrete objection against the specific question posed by OP.

Causality, like existence itself, is not a derivative or restricted truth, but an axiom. Axioms are fundamental, primary, self-evident truths that are implicitly contained in all knowledge.
Axioms cannot be proved. And this is not a weakness or subjectivity. Axioms are better than proved, they are self-evident.
Causality does not need to be proved, it is directly perceived.
A demand to prove causality fails to grasp what proof is. "Proof" is an advanced, not a primary concept. Proofs depend on the prior concept of "causality" and on an immense body of other knowledge. Young children and savages have no concept of proof.
All ideas must be shown in order to be valid, but "validation" is a wider idea than "proof". Broadly, there are two forms of validation, proof and direct perception.
Proof is a process of inference, deductive or inductive. In either form, inference is a process of moving in thought from something known to something else logically related to it. An inference is made with causality in place, not without any. Consequently, there must be a starting point and an end point. Causality can be perceived directly and without inference.

Even Aristotle observed that it is illogical to posit that absolutely everything has to be proved. On the basic information on which all knowledge is based, proof is neither necessary nor possible, it is perceptual data. It's the secondary, not the primary means of validating ideas. The primary means is direct awareness.

And why does a proof prove? Proof establishes an idea by connecting it to the directly perceived, the self-evident. Demanding a proof of the self-evident is an absurd reversal.

cf. H. Binswanger, How We Know - Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation, ch. 1

 

[The Last Stand]

We're not talking about the same things right now.

You can prove beyond reasonable doubt, 99.9...9% (add whatever many 9s you want) that that's the case, but you cannot ultimately prove (100%) that fire will react like that next time, nor that your mother exists.

Again, this is a good example of pointless discussion in philosophy, but it's there.

What?

It's not philosophy, it's a blunt statement of fact. Being exposed to fire can cause skin burns. I think you're way off the rails on another planet from the original question.

Is causation fundamental or a human created concept? I say it's fundamental with understanding cause and effect, but human beings can misunderstand the concept of causation with false equivalencies as ONE example.

 

[Mnutu]

What?

It's not philosophy, it's a blunt statement of fact. Being exposed to fire can cause skin burns. I think you're way off the rails on another planet from the original question.

Is causation fundamental or a human created concept? I say it's fundamental with understanding cause and effect, but human beings can misunderstand the concept of causation with false equivalencies as ONE example.

Lay on your back, kick your legs up on the wall, and aim for your mouth when you finish. Then and only then will it make sense.

 

[The Last Stand]

Proof is a process of inference, deductive or inductive. In either form, inference is a process of moving in thought from something known to something else logically related to it. An inference is made with causality in place, not without any. Consequently, there must be a starting point and an end point. Causality can be perceived directly and without inference.

Exactly: your causality is that tariffs are bad because of X, Y, and Z. In essence, you'd need to provide deductive "proof" of your statement. It is not 100%, as you'd need inference to support your claim. Like that?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Exactly: your causality is that tariffs are bad because of X, Y, and Z. In essence, you'd need to provide deductive "proof" of your statement. It is not 100%, as you'd need inference to support your claim. Like that?

By using the word "because" in a proof, the very activity of proof itself presupposes causality.

 

[Yezidi Fan Club]

Hey guyth, correlation is not causation. Can you listh your sources? Thank you. I am a homosexual.

 

[cigint]

We can't prove that reality isn't actually just a series of completely independent events and phenomena that randomly happen to resemble various cause-and-effect relationships. We choose to believe what we were programmed to believe that we are observing actual causal relationships because this supposition leads to the ability to make many useful predictions.