3 ms·

According to Hume, causality is a habit of mind all humans have from experiencing many situations where A always follows B. And according to Kant, causality is

According to Hume, causality is a habit of mind all humans have from experiencing many situations where A always follows B. And according to Kant, causality is one the categories the mind imposes on the world of sensory impression, like space and time, to make sense of the world. Early childhood studies should be able to answer the question as to whether humans are wired to expect causal relationships. My understanding is that all children do develop that expectation, as do animals.

cma 7y ago
People getting umbrellas ready causes it to rain? We take into account models of minds of others etc. into a much more rich understanding of causality than A follows B in time.
- n4r9 7y ago
  However sophisticated it gets, it ultimately boils down to a notion that the exitence of A is somehow responsible for the existence of B.
  - tabtab 7y ago
    Let's break it down into sub-categories: 1. There is a time-based relationship between A and B: they tend to happen close together in time 2. There is a time-based relationship between A and B such that B often happens shortly after A. 3. When I (or bot) creates condition A, then B usually happens. 4. When I (or bot) creates condition A, then B usually does not happen. 5. Science or simulations explain how A triggers B, if #2 is observed. A bot can be programmed to conclude there is a potential causal relationship if #2 happens. If not problematic, the bot can then do experiments to see whether #3 or #4 is the case. If #3 happens, the bot can label the relationship as "likely causal". If #4, label it "probably not causal, but puzzling". #5 would probably be needed to conclude "most likely causal", and is probably an unrealistic expectation for the first generation of "common sense" AI, although they may have a simple physics simulator built in. The highest "causal" score would be #2, #3, and #5 all true.
    - n4r9 7y ago
      I think Hume might respond that #5 is somewhat self-referential or recursive, since science effectively reduces to a set of causal principles.
- tabtab 7y ago
  An AI bot could test that theory by opening bunches of umbrellas. It's not too different from something a toddler might try. A parent would see that, chuckle, and explain that clouds cause rain, not umbrellas. It's a "fact" (rule) a parent instills in their child.
- imtringued 7y ago
  Reasoning about cause and effect works both ways. A causes B also implies B can caused by A. Your example is actually strengthening the idea of a simplistic view of cause and effect. People getting their umbrellas ready is caused by the expectation of rain. "Why are they taking their umbrellas out?" "Oh it must be because it is about to rain." "Why do they have an expectation of rain?" "Because they saw the weather report and clouds are visible"

cma 7y ago

People getting umbrellas ready causes it to rain? We take into account models of minds of others etc. into a much more rich understanding of causality than A follows B in time.

n4r9 7y ago
However sophisticated it gets, it ultimately boils down to a notion that the exitence of A is somehow responsible for the existence of B.
- tabtab 7y ago
  Let's break it down into sub-categories: 1. There is a time-based relationship between A and B: they tend to happen close together in time 2. There is a time-based relationship between A and B such that B often happens shortly after A. 3. When I (or bot) creates condition A, then B usually happens. 4. When I (or bot) creates condition A, then B usually does not happen. 5. Science or simulations explain how A triggers B, if #2 is observed. A bot can be programmed to conclude there is a potential causal relationship if #2 happens. If not problematic, the bot can then do experiments to see whether #3 or #4 is the case. If #3 happens, the bot can label the relationship as "likely causal". If #4, label it "probably not causal, but puzzling". #5 would probably be needed to conclude "most likely causal", and is probably an unrealistic expectation for the first generation of "common sense" AI, although they may have a simple physics simulator built in. The highest "causal" score would be #2, #3, and #5 all true.
  - n4r9 7y ago
    I think Hume might respond that #5 is somewhat self-referential or recursive, since science effectively reduces to a set of causal principles.
tabtab 7y ago
An AI bot could test that theory by opening bunches of umbrellas. It's not too different from something a toddler might try. A parent would see that, chuckle, and explain that clouds cause rain, not umbrellas. It's a "fact" (rule) a parent instills in their child.
imtringued 7y ago
Reasoning about cause and effect works both ways. A causes B also implies B can caused by A. Your example is actually strengthening the idea of a simplistic view of cause and effect. People getting their umbrellas ready is caused by the expectation of rain. "Why are they taking their umbrellas out?" "Oh it must be because it is about to rain." "Why do they have an expectation of rain?" "Because they saw the weather report and clouds are visible"