Vegetarian Discussion: On The Reason Of Animals Mr. Hume

On The Reason Of Animals Mr. Hume
Posts: 14

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Immortalist
2006-04-23 00:41:21 EST
Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason of
Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding. He
identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do children,
and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers. We infer effects
from causes not by means of human reason, but through a species of
belief, whereby the imagination comes to perceive some sort of
necessary connection between cause and effect. We often admire the
innate instincts of animals that help them get by, and Hume suggests
that our ability to infer causal connections is a similar kind of
instinct.

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/understanding/section9.rhtml


Kamerynn
2006-04-23 06:42:59 EST

"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145767281.093650.281670@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason of
> Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
> causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
> human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
> something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding. He
> identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
> just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
> connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
> make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do children,
> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.

Kam:
Of course we do - but we also do it without reason, as Hume
suggests. We use reason when we, for example, compare the
results obtained from a control group and relate them to the
results obtained from a study group. We can then say something
like "the group of smokers [study group] has a higher incidence
of cancer than the general population [control group - a representative
portion]. Therefore, smoking is somehow causally related to cancer.

We realize that there must be some cause of the extra incidence of
cancer, and assuming other variables are controlled, we can use reason
to conclude that smoking must be the cause (or at least, in the causal
chain).

> We infer effects
> from causes not by means of human reason, but through a species of
> belief, whereby the imagination comes to perceive some sort of
> necessary connection between cause and effect.

Kam:
Of course, we do that as well and far more often.

> We often admire the
> innate instincts of animals that help them get by, and Hume suggests
> that our ability to infer causal connections is a similar kind of
> instinct.
>
> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/understanding/section9.rhtml
>




Sean
2006-04-23 09:17:32 EST

"Kamerynn" <noemailforme@thanksanyway.com> wrote in message
news:124mmhppun6mnb4@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1145767281.093650.281670@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason of
>> Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
>> causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
>> human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
>> something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding. He
>> identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
>> just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
>> connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
>> make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do children,
>> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
>
> Kam:
> Of course we do - but we also do it without reason, as Hume
> suggests. We use reason when we, for example, compare the
> results obtained from a control group and relate them to the
> results obtained from a study group. We can then say something
> like "the group of smokers [study group] has a higher incidence
> of cancer than the general population [control group - a representative
> portion]. Therefore, smoking is somehow causally related to cancer.
>
> We realize that there must be some cause of the extra incidence of
> cancer, and assuming other variables are controlled, we can use reason
> to conclude that smoking must be the cause (or at least, in the causal
> chain).
>

That's not a scientific reason it's a guess about things a simple "study" of
statistics can not know.

Such a 'study' could also be interpreted as reflecting that humans destined
for the experience of cancer & heart disease or pre-mature death, have a
higher liklihood of taking up cigarette smoking when younger than the
control group who are not destined for the same experience.

A further study would also show that those who were destined to the cancer
expereince were also born into homes where one or both parents either smoked
or were in some way extremely neurotic and unloving as parents.

The reason the studies come out like they do is because that is the way that
the 'researchers' are looking at the problem, its how they see it & define
it, what they already "believe" the underlying cause is ... and as such that
is how they design the study.

Of course, the study "brilliantly" confirms their belief and expectations.

Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms that
physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have mental
causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual problems
have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back to where the
wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.

That's my story anyway. I don't expect anyone will accpet it, but that
doesn't bother me in the least. Opinion polls don't define truth. ;-))

Trust your own instincts!!!




>> We infer effects
>> from causes not by means of human reason, but through a species of
>> belief, whereby the imagination comes to perceive some sort of
>> necessary connection between cause and effect.
>
> Kam:
> Of course, we do that as well and far more often.
>
>> We often admire the
>> innate instincts of animals that help them get by, and Hume suggests
>> that our ability to infer causal connections is a similar kind of
>> instinct.
>>
>> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/understanding/section9.rhtml
>>
>
>
>



Brian Fletcher
2006-04-23 10:36:34 EST

"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nJOdnePQ7dTz49bZRVn-qA@inspired.net.au...
>
> "Kamerynn" <noemailforme@thanksanyway.com> wrote in message
> news:124mmhppun6mnb4@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1145767281.093650.281670@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms
> that physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have
> mental causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual
> problems have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back
> to where the wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.
>
> That's my story anyway. I don't expect anyone will accpet it, but that
> doesn't bother me in the least. Opinion polls don't define truth. ;-))
>

Problems? What problems? :-)

BOfL



Milan
2006-04-23 12:42:21 EST

"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nJOdnePQ7dTz49bZRVn-qA@inspired.net.au...
>
> "Kamerynn" <noemailforme@thanksanyway.com> wrote in message
> news:124mmhppun6mnb4@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1145767281.093650.281670@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason of
> >> Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
> >> causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
> >> human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
> >> something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding. He
> >> identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
> >> just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
> >> connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
> >> make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do children,
> >> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
> >
> > Kam:
> > Of course we do - but we also do it without reason, as Hume
> > suggests. We use reason when we, for example, compare the
> > results obtained from a control group and relate them to the
> > results obtained from a study group. We can then say something
> > like "the group of smokers [study group] has a higher incidence
> > of cancer than the general population [control group - a representative
> > portion]. Therefore, smoking is somehow causally related to cancer.
> >
> > We realize that there must be some cause of the extra incidence of
> > cancer, and assuming other variables are controlled, we can use reason
> > to conclude that smoking must be the cause (or at least, in the causal
> > chain).
> >
>
> That's not a scientific reason it's a guess about things a simple "study"
of
> statistics can not know.
>
> Such a 'study' could also be interpreted as reflecting that humans
destined
> for the experience of cancer & heart disease or pre-mature death, have a
> higher liklihood of taking up cigarette smoking when younger than the
> control group who are not destined for the same experience.
>
> A further study would also show that those who were destined to the cancer
> expereince were also born into homes where one or both parents either
smoked
> or were in some way extremely neurotic and unloving as parents.
>
> The reason the studies come out like they do is because that is the way
that
> the 'researchers' are looking at the problem, its how they see it & define
> it, what they already "believe" the underlying cause is ... and as such
that
> is how they design the study.
>
> Of course, the study "brilliantly" confirms their belief and expectations.
>
> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms
that
> physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have
mental
> causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual problems
> have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back to where
the
> wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.

So "karma" had been invented 20,000 years ago? And you know this how?

regards
Milan



Sean
2006-04-23 19:21:07 EST

"Brian Fletcher" <brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:ShM2g.13854$vy1.4408@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nJOdnePQ7dTz49bZRVn-qA@inspired.net.au...
>>
>> "Kamerynn" <noemailforme@thanksanyway.com> wrote in message
>> news:124mmhppun6mnb4@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1145767281.093650.281670@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms
>> that physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have
>> mental causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual
>> problems have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back
>> to where the wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.
>>
>> That's my story anyway. I don't expect anyone will accpet it, but that
>> doesn't bother me in the least. Opinion polls don't define truth. ;-))
>>
>
> Problems? What problems? :-)
>
> BOfL
>

sorry B an audience orientated text, opportunities wake up calls attention
getters co-incidences synchronisities taps on the shoulder lessons choices
karmic agreements etc etc

<smile>



Brian Fletcher
2006-04-23 19:57:39 EST

"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BYydnWZX_995ltHZnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@inspired.net.au...
>
> "Brian Fletcher" <brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:ShM2g.13854$vy1.4408@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:nJOdnePQ7dTz49bZRVn-qA@inspired.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Kamerynn" <noemailforme@thanksanyway.com> wrote in message
>>> news:124mmhppun6mnb4@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1145767281.093650.281670@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms
>>> that physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems
>>> have mental causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and
>>> spiritual problems have karmic causes THEN medical science might
>>> actually get back to where the wisdom of the ancients left off about
>>> 20,000 years ago.
>>>
>>> That's my story anyway. I don't expect anyone will accpet it, but that
>>> doesn't bother me in the least. Opinion polls don't define truth. ;-))
>>>
>>
>> Problems? What problems? :-)
>>
>> BOfL
>>
>
> sorry B an audience orientated text, opportunities wake up calls attention
> getters co-incidences synchronisities taps on the shoulder lessons choices
> karmic agreements etc etc
>
> <smile>
Ohhh...THOSE problems ;-))

BOfL



Brian Fletcher
2006-04-23 20:00:14 EST

"Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4b1pfnFv8725U1@individual.net...
>
> "Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nJOdnePQ7dTz49bZRVn-qA@inspired.net.au...
>>
>> "Kamerynn" <noemailforme@thanksanyway.com> wrote in message
>> news:124mmhppun6mnb4@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> > "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1145767281.093650.281670@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> >> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason
>> >> of
>> >> Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
>> >> causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
>> >> human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
>> >> something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding. He
>> >> identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
>> >> just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
>> >> connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
>> >> make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do children,
>> >> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
>> >
>> > Kam:
>> > Of course we do - but we also do it without reason, as Hume
>> > suggests. We use reason when we, for example, compare the
>> > results obtained from a control group and relate them to the
>> > results obtained from a study group. We can then say something
>> > like "the group of smokers [study group] has a higher incidence
>> > of cancer than the general population [control group - a representative
>> > portion]. Therefore, smoking is somehow causally related to cancer.
>> >
>> > We realize that there must be some cause of the extra incidence of
>> > cancer, and assuming other variables are controlled, we can use reason
>> > to conclude that smoking must be the cause (or at least, in the causal
>> > chain).
>> >
>>
>> That's not a scientific reason it's a guess about things a simple "study"
> of
>> statistics can not know.
>>
>> Such a 'study' could also be interpreted as reflecting that humans
> destined
>> for the experience of cancer & heart disease or pre-mature death, have a
>> higher liklihood of taking up cigarette smoking when younger than the
>> control group who are not destined for the same experience.
>>
>> A further study would also show that those who were destined to the
>> cancer
>> expereince were also born into homes where one or both parents either
> smoked
>> or were in some way extremely neurotic and unloving as parents.
>>
>> The reason the studies come out like they do is because that is the way
> that
>> the 'researchers' are looking at the problem, its how they see it &
>> define
>> it, what they already "believe" the underlying cause is ... and as such
> that
>> is how they design the study.
>>
>> Of course, the study "brilliantly" confirms their belief and
>> expectations.
>>
>> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms
> that
>> physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have
> mental
>> causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual problems
>> have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back to where
> the
>> wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.
>
> So "karma" had been invented 20,000 years ago? And you know this how?
>
> regards
> Milan
>
Dont know about Sean, but I dated a girl called Carbon. She taught me
everything I know.

BOfL



Sean
2006-04-24 00:37:48 EST

"Brian Fletcher" <brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:iyU2g.14018$vy1.9389@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b1pfnFv8725U1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:nJOdnePQ7dTz49bZRVn-qA@inspired.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Kamerynn" <noemailforme@thanksanyway.com> wrote in message
>>> news:124mmhppun6mnb4@corp.supernews.com...
>>> >
>>> > "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:1145767281.093650.281670@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>> >> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the Reason
>>> >> of
>>> >> Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
>>> >> causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
>>> >> human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
>>> >> something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding.
>>> >> He
>>> >> identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
>>> >> just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
>>> >> connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
>>> >> make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do
>>> >> children,
>>> >> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
>>> >
>>> > Kam:
>>> > Of course we do - but we also do it without reason, as Hume
>>> > suggests. We use reason when we, for example, compare the
>>> > results obtained from a control group and relate them to the
>>> > results obtained from a study group. We can then say something
>>> > like "the group of smokers [study group] has a higher incidence
>>> > of cancer than the general population [control group - a
>>> > representative
>>> > portion]. Therefore, smoking is somehow causally related to cancer.
>>> >
>>> > We realize that there must be some cause of the extra incidence of
>>> > cancer, and assuming other variables are controlled, we can use reason
>>> > to conclude that smoking must be the cause (or at least, in the causal
>>> > chain).
>>> >
>>>
>>> That's not a scientific reason it's a guess about things a simple
>>> "study"
>> of
>>> statistics can not know.
>>>
>>> Such a 'study' could also be interpreted as reflecting that humans
>> destined
>>> for the experience of cancer & heart disease or pre-mature death, have a
>>> higher liklihood of taking up cigarette smoking when younger than the
>>> control group who are not destined for the same experience.
>>>
>>> A further study would also show that those who were destined to the
>>> cancer
>>> expereince were also born into homes where one or both parents either
>> smoked
>>> or were in some way extremely neurotic and unloving as parents.
>>>
>>> The reason the studies come out like they do is because that is the way
>> that
>>> the 'researchers' are looking at the problem, its how they see it &
>>> define
>>> it, what they already "believe" the underlying cause is ... and as such
>> that
>>> is how they design the study.
>>>
>>> Of course, the study "brilliantly" confirms their belief and
>>> expectations.
>>>
>>> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that confirms
>> that
>>> physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have
>> mental
>>> causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual
>>> problems
>>> have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back to where
>> the
>>> wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.
>>
>> So "karma" had been invented 20,000 years ago? And you know this how?
>>
>> regards
>> Milan


HUH? who said karma was invented? gee u ask odd questions Milan.

>>
> Dont know about Sean, but I dated a girl called Carbon. She taught me
> everything I know.
>
> BOfL
>

I embraced her mother, Earth, who held me close to her breast! Rocking me
gently with her song ..... <smile>



Milan
2006-04-24 08:05:38 EST

"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:U_KdnYBmseGDy9HZRVn-tQ@inspired.net.au...
>
> "Brian Fletcher" <brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:iyU2g.14018$vy1.9389@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4b1pfnFv8725U1@individual.net...
> >>
> >> "Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:nJOdnePQ7dTz49bZRVn-qA@inspired.net.au...
> >>>
> >>> "Kamerynn" <noemailforme@thanksanyway.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:124mmhppun6mnb4@corp.supernews.com...
> >>> >
> >>> > "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>> > news:1145767281.093650.281670@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >>> >> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled "Of the
Reason
> >>> >> of
> >>> >> Animals." Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
> >>> >> causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
> >>> >> human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
> >>> >> something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding.
> >>> >> He
> >>> >> identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First,
animals,
> >>> >> just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
> >>> >> connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn
to
> >>> >> make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do
> >>> >> children,
> >>> >> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
> >>> >
> >>> > Kam:
> >>> > Of course we do - but we also do it without reason, as Hume
> >>> > suggests. We use reason when we, for example, compare the
> >>> > results obtained from a control group and relate them to the
> >>> > results obtained from a study group. We can then say something
> >>> > like "the group of smokers [study group] has a higher incidence
> >>> > of cancer than the general population [control group - a
> >>> > representative
> >>> > portion]. Therefore, smoking is somehow causally related to cancer.
> >>> >
> >>> > We realize that there must be some cause of the extra incidence of
> >>> > cancer, and assuming other variables are controlled, we can use
reason
> >>> > to conclude that smoking must be the cause (or at least, in the
causal
> >>> > chain).
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> That's not a scientific reason it's a guess about things a simple
> >>> "study"
> >> of
> >>> statistics can not know.
> >>>
> >>> Such a 'study' could also be interpreted as reflecting that humans
> >> destined
> >>> for the experience of cancer & heart disease or pre-mature death, have
a
> >>> higher liklihood of taking up cigarette smoking when younger than the
> >>> control group who are not destined for the same experience.
> >>>
> >>> A further study would also show that those who were destined to the
> >>> cancer
> >>> expereince were also born into homes where one or both parents either
> >> smoked
> >>> or were in some way extremely neurotic and unloving as parents.
> >>>
> >>> The reason the studies come out like they do is because that is the
way
> >> that
> >>> the 'researchers' are looking at the problem, its how they see it &
> >>> define
> >>> it, what they already "believe" the underlying cause is ... and as
such
> >> that
> >>> is how they design the study.
> >>>
> >>> Of course, the study "brilliantly" confirms their belief and
> >>> expectations.
> >>>
> >>> Now when "science " finanlly gets around to doing a study that
confirms
> >> that
> >>> physical problems have emotional causes, and emotional problems have
> >> mental
> >>> causes, and mental problems have spiritual causes, and spiritual
> >>> problems
> >>> have karmic causes THEN medical science might actually get back to
where
> >> the
> >>> wisdom of the ancients left off about 20,000 years ago.
> >>
> >> So "karma" had been invented 20,000 years ago? And you know this how?
> >>
> >> regards
> >> Milan
>
>
> HUH? who said karma was invented? gee u ask odd questions Milan.
>

LOL. I guess it was "discovered", then? But please answer my question.
20,000 years ago, in your opinion, humankind had the concept of karma. Would
you care to provide some sources for this daring statement? I'm sure many
anthropologists out there would be thrilled to know.

regards
Milan


Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron