/lit/ - Literature

it doesnt

>>11524755
So what now?

OK

>>11524750
*blocks your path*

Reality doesn't exist. ;)

>>11524884
Neither you nor I exist ;)

>>11524755
This post caused me to think

>>11524894
No it didn’t

>>11524895
nuh-uh

why do tings happen den?

Someone please explain Hume's debunking of causation and necessary judgments and synthetic a priori truths to me like I'm fucking retarded because I think I am

>>11525010
Yeah I second this.

t. literal nigger

"The causal-nexus is superstition because I don't believe in it!"
-Wittgenstein

How do you even do philosophy if you deny causation?

>>11524750
care to extrapolate

>>11524750
>read Hume
>his level of processing is obscured by syntax
>decode puzzle
>the guy is a lazy neet with too much free time and far too much pussy on his mind

>>11525096
By supposing the possibility that humans might not actually be able to understand the nature of the universe and that causality may only be a human construct.

>>11525096
>correlation is a better way to avoid being BTFO'd by people like Neetche

There is no kind of relation that is like the concept of causation, everything is just the same kind of relationship that is not causual, but relative.
Change my mind.

>>11524765
>>11525096
Pragmatism. Acknowledging that you cannot know anything for sure, you nonetheless carry on making practical, non-certain assumptions about the world in accordance with philosophical systems and scientific discoveries. The difference is that you do not make Platonic-Kantian-Hegelian-Christian absolute truth claims.

>>11525010
>>11525085
He essentially argued that we only "know" that things will always happen a certain way (e.g. a billiard ball moving a certain way due to contact from another ball at a certain speed and angle) because we have seen things happen in this way before many times. This is not something that is known with certainly, only the product of "habit" in Hume's terms, or in modern terms, correlation. It could be that the ball's movement is actually decided by God, and God could change his mind tomorrow; it is not certainly known that one thing causes another, it only appears so.

>>11524977
They only appear to happen.

>>11525149
>He essentially argued that we only "know" that things will always happen a certain way

There's a bit to it as well. It ultimately boils down to the problem of induction which Hume made significant contributions to.
Simply because things have happened a certain way in the past says nothing about what will happen in the future. Yet the form of empirical reasoning is to accept the past as the model of the future.
The sun rises in the morning and falls at night, but one day that may not be the case. In which case the problem of induction rears its head. If empiricism only derives knowledge from tracing out patterns of regularity in the world, that knowledge is bound to the senses and therefore skeptical.

>>11525291
And pragmatism is the best response to phenomenological skepticism.

>>11524884
>>11524887

>Causality only exists because we have an overactive imagination
>implies that things do not follow according to their nature
>implies that causality isn't the law of identity applies to action
Aristotle already answered this idiocy millennia ago. Hume just BTFO Locke's theory of perception that he and others before him believe in by pushing it to its logical extreme. By creating a body-mind dichotomy, you essentially negate both from even existing.
:^)

>>11525967
he denies identity in that you only see appearances

if appearances were the actual object hey may grant you they would always have the same effect

>>11525967
>implies that things do not follow according to their nature
>implying things have a nature
>implying things
>implying natures

>>11526330
Seeing appearances is not sufficient grounds to deny identity itself simply because they exist. It, at most, just argues that when we feel sensations, we make no abstraction from reality. Hume's Bundle theory just argues that there are a lot of 'appearances' and that's it. All you have to do is compare 'appearances' with other 'appearances' to find differences and form classifications to identity universals..
The core problem of Hume stems from other philosophers before him regarding the mind-body dichotomy and pushing it to its extreme. It's fun to imagine that humans are unable to see reality but it's wrong. The solution is that you understand reality in a hierarchy: first from sensing bundles of appearances, then understanding all the appearances (perception) pertaining to an entity, then you form abstractions of that entity to differentiate it from others to use. Similar to how children learn reality. You feel a pointy object that hurts you. You understand the appearances (perception) of a knife and what it is. You understand the basic abstraction of why a knife cuts and reduce it for your own usage. Hume just thinks that all perceptions we see is the same as sensations, and therefore we form no abstraction. Causality exists and it follows the law of identity applied to motion; entities only follow their nature in as far as their potentiality.

>>11526372
>implying implications
>implying thinking that implying implications means reality doesn't exist
>implying we don't perceive reality directly
>implying things can randomly become something else at will
>implying that maybe a tree could turn into a human at random tomorrow
>implying Heraclitus Flux
:^)

>>11526446
>heh. look at me, i'm prancing into the same river twice ;`3
Faggot.

>>11526446
>implying that maybe a tree could turn into a human at random tomorrow
That's exactly what does happen retard, given a certain definition of 'tomorrow'

>>11526468
>look at me, I point and laugh and nothing else
:^)

>>11526476
>That's exactly what does happen retard
lol no, changing it around, do you believe you might wake up tomorrow and become a incest? Things change according to their potentiality but that does not imply that reality is chaotic to the point where literally anything can happen tomorrow.

>>11526535
>besmirching pointing
>"become a incest?"
*snap*

>>11526535
>does not imply that reality is chaotic to the point where literally anything can happen tomorrow.
dude, donald trump is the current president of the United States of America.

>>11526547
You're conflating metaphysics with politics. Idiot.

>>11526535
>lol no, changing it around, do you believe you might wake up tomorrow and become a incest? Things change according to their potentiality but that does not imply that reality is chaotic to the point where literally anything can happen tomorrow.

It could happen; how do you know their potentiality? You just don't. You believe in what the past taught you.
We could have the potentiality to become a "incest". Who knows?

>>11526574
I meant insect but whatever. The point is that, following the law of identity, things do not become something else at random. By looking at reality and forming classifications to underline universals, we know that things do not randomly turn into other things randomly. Reality is not chaotic to the point where nothing exists and anything can happen. A human does not randomly turn into an insect tomorrow. Saying 'who knows' is just claiming ignorance and being smug about it but only insofar as you do not need to think. If I point a gun to your head, do you think I can kill you? If you understand the nature of thermodynamics, and how the entity of a bullet travels, and the nature of consciousness ends the moment you lose the capability of your mind, does that mean that you will claim that causality isn't real just because you're too stupid to understand the nature of entities and reality?

>By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”

>>11524750
David Hume doesn't exist

>>11524750
not in my experience :-)

>>11526671
If causality does not exist, then how do people learn that causality does not exist come from David Hume? How do they know that causality existed in the past and won't exist in the future? What if everything in the past was chaotic and everything after Hume's death made things orderly again? I mean, who are we to know?

go touch a stove, you fat scottish fuck

>>11526617
>I meant insect but whatever. The point is that, following the law of identity, things do not become something else at random. By looking at reality and forming classifications to underline universals, we know that things do not randomly turn into other things randomly. Reality is not chaotic to the point where nothing exists and anything can happen.

Your classifications are based on a few millennia (less...): you don't know what things are, you just know how they were. And this doesn't give us any informations, any insights on the nature of things. It could be in the nature of things to turn into something completely different in 2043. Once again, who knows? No one.
To know how things work in the past is just to know how things work in the past. Nothing else. We will never be close to any kind of identity.

I won't say that causality isn't real, I'll just say that I don't know if it is real or not. I don't think we will ever know. But the point is: you can't be sure of anything.

>>11524750
Causality does not exist ontologically you brainlet. The “problem of induction” is a thought experiment in the casuistry of human reason. We can very much so trust causality in everyday life (excluding science)

>>11526787
You're misunderstand the process of finding universals and dismissing it as impossible. Rather than claim the law of identity exists and that we can reach to an understanding of reality, you just dismiss absolute ignorance only so far as you don't need it.

Again, if I point a gun to your head, will you claim that you don't know whether you will die? Maybe all of reality will change between the time I pull the trigger and the bullet squashes your brain. Can you be sure that I won't kill you?

>By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”

One should not assume the philosophy of David Hume as nothing more than a subjective conclusion.

>>11524887

i wish

you guys ever hear of
e-prime?
foundations based off of this very notion
leads me to believe that Hume wasnt talking about the nature of reality
but rather how we should talk about it.

>>11526807
>Again, if I point a gun to your head, will you claim that you don't know whether you will die? Maybe all of reality will change between the time I pull the trigger and the bullet squashes your brain. Can you be sure that I won't kill you?

Many people survived from gunshots to the head, so yes I would say that I don't know whether I'll die or not. But if a star were to fell on me, I believe I would die; although nothing is certain. We'll know that I was mortal when I'll be dead. Until then we cannot say anything on this matter. But I'd rather not take a bullet to the head please (probabilities ≠ certainty).

>>11526830
Nice. It could be.

>>11526874
>nothing is certain
You're conflating a potentiality (either you die or you don't depending on the event) with probability. Is there a chance that if I shoot you, your might change into a tree? How 'probable' is that, do you think? I mean, nothing is certain, right?

>>11524750
Here is someone who has never seen a cat. He is looking through a narrow slit in a fence, and, on the other side, a cat walks by. He sees first the head, then the less distinctly shaped furry trunk, and then the tail. Extraordinary! The cat turns round and walks back, and again he sees the head, and a little later the tail. This sequence begins to look like something regular and reliable. Yet again, the cat turns round, and he witnesses the same regular sequence: first the head, and later the tail. Thereupon he reasons that the event head is the invariable and necessary cause of the event tail, which is the head's effect. This absurd and confusing gobbledygook comes from his failure to see that head and tail go together; they are all one cat.

The cat wasn't born as a head which, sometime later, caused a tail; it was born all of a piece, a head-tailed cat. Our observer's trouble was that he was watching it through a narrow slit, and couldn't see the whole cat at once.

The narrow slit in the fence is much like the way in which we look at life by conscious attention, for when we attend to something we ignore everything else. Attention is narrowed perception. It is a way of looking at life bit by bit, using memory to string the bits together-as when examining a dark room with a flashlight having a very narrow beam. Perception thus narrowed has the advantage of being sharp and bright, but it has to focus on one area of the world after another, and one feature after another. And where there are no features, only space or uniform surfaces, it somehow gets bored and searches about for more features. Attention is therefore something like a scanning mechanism in radar or television, and Norbert Wiener and his colleagues found some evidence that there is a similar process in the brain.

>>11526897
>You're conflating a potentiality (either you die or you don't depending on the event) with probability. Is there a chance that if I shoot you, your might change into a tree? How 'probable' is that, do you think? I mean, nothing is certain, right?

The thing is: we don't know the potentiality, we only know the probabilities based on our previous experiences. There could be a chance that "if you shoot me, I might change into a tree" but no one knows. You're right when you say that nothing is certain.
So shoot me; maybe it will happen.

>>11526921
No, you don't know the absolute likelihood, but you do know its potentiality. You know that if a bullet hits your brain, following its nature, it will either stop working or it won't.

>There could be a chance that "if you shoot me, I might change into a tree" but no one knows. You're right when you say that nothing is certain.
Hilarious. It's nice to see you at least admit that nature is unfixed to such an insane degree where shooting you might turn you into a tree, going against the law of identity. But no, it is certain that you will either live or die depending on where the bullet hits your head/bain. But it is absolutely certain as well that you will not turn into a tree because of the nature of human entity and its components (brain, head, bullet, etc).
So for example, I can clearly say for certain that if I am to shoot you in a very specific way, I can know its potentiality, whereas you claim from ignorance that 'hey, maybe I won't die, so go ahead and shoot, I might turn into a tree'.

The point is that by dismissing reality and causality outright, you've become a nihilist.

>>11526947
>The point is that by dismissing reality and causality outright, you've become a nihilist.

Not the one you're responding to, but how is that a problem? "nihilist" isn't a derogatory term.

>>11527272
A person that doesn't care about knowledge, reality, or their own life is a less than human, and might as well be dead. To be smug at being a nihilist is nothing more than to be anti-life. It becomes a bigger problem if everyone starts believing that causality is impossible, thereby nothing can be known, and there is no reason to believe your life matters. Your life becomes the standard of value by which everything else precedes. If you can't even bother to assert your will, you've condemned yourself to death, with the rest of humanity along with it. Nietzsche bitched endlessly about why that was horrible and he was right. Ayn Rand just corrected him by going further and arguing that if you deny the mind itself and reality, you deny your life.
Which is why he >>11526921 was indifferent about whether he should be shot, under the irrational pretense that maybe reality will change before he gets shot. Typically, if you put a gun to a person's head and give them the choice between living or dying, most people value living over dying, recognizing that reality is real, that causality is true (the bullet will likely kill them), and that if they do not care whether they live or die, they essentially forfeit their life. By that admission, everything follow accordingly. Hume takes the extreme and denies the self, rationality, causality even existing, etc and ends with nihilism. That's why denying causality shouldn't be taken as a joke but an attack on life itself.
Pragmatism is the natural end result >>11525149 where you can't know anything for sure. So hey, maybe murdering a bunch of people works, because who are we to know? Maybe there is no such thing as truth? Is human life even worth anything? Maybe rights are completely arbitrary?
The endpoint is people being nihilistic and murdering you for nihilistic reasons.
.
>[The Pragmatists] declared that philosophy must be practical and that practicality consists of dispensing with all absolute principles and standards—that there is no such thing as objective reality or permanent truth—that truth is that which works, and its validity can be judged only by its consequences—that no facts can be known with certainty in advance, and anything may be tried by rule-of-thumb—that reality is not firm, but fluid and “indeterminate,” that there is no such thing as a distinction between an external world and a consciousness (between the perceived and the perceiver), there is only an undifferentiated package-deal labeled “experience,” and whatever one wishes to be true, is true, whatever one wishes to exist, does exist, provided it works or makes one feel better.

That's what happens when you deny universals and causality altogether.
You need to accept that reality is real and you are able to perceive it. Denying either leads you to nihilism.

>>11527347
I want to kill myself and I want life to disappear

>>11524750
Flip 4chan GOODBYE YOU CLOD
OH IF ONLY YOU'D LET ME POST OR AT LEAST EXPLAIN WHY I CAN'T!
at least you gave the option to recaptcha

>>11527708
Sounds very spooky.

Occasionalism was always right

The whole point is that the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature is unfounded.
Causality is what we call stable sensory patterns which result when certain conditions precede others at a reliable rate. Give certain actions get the predicted results:

"I have found that such an object has always been attended with such an effect, and I foresee, that other objects, which are, in appearance, similar, will be attended with similar effects."

But what about unobserved phenomena? The causal nexus is always imposed on the threshold between unobserved and observed. When we see something for the first time, the logic of causality is already present to the senses. If we drop a glass, it will break, and that is true whether we remain holding the glass or drop it or put it down on the table. If this, then that.
But the appearance of that causality may simply be a schema in the mind (vis a vis Kant).
It's unclear how to distinguish whether causality emerges from outside or is imposed on the senses by the mind.

Let's assume causality exists.
If you cover someone's eyes and they get in a car accident, did you cause it to happen?
At first glance it may appear to be so, but you never exerted a force upon the person or car, so the causation is not physical.
So is it a mental causation by influencing the other person's mind? If you think about it, you didn't influence the person to turn the wheel the way they did, they had complete control over their actions and they chose to act in the way they did.
If anything causation appears to be an abstraction.

Caucasian doesn't exist ;)

>>11526547
hehehehHEHE DRUMPF BTFO
seriously dude kill your self

>>11527347
>You need to accept that reality is real and you are able to perceive it
The whole point is you are unable to confirm either. You can take it on faith if you like, but you can't know for certain. No matter how many white swans you count, you still can't say for certain 'all swans are white'. Just because things have happened in the past, doesn't mean they will happen in the future. This should be very understandable, I don't know why people get butthurt about it. You don't have to live your life accordingly, any more than you change your lifestyle based on the inevitable heat death of the sun.

>>11525149
>The difference is that you do not make Platonic-Kantian-Hegelian-Christian absolute truth claims.

heh, an ironic statement

>>11526807
I would believe with reasonable certainty that I'd die, yes, but I wouldn't -know- it. Humefags are really pedantic but it's true. Gun might misfire, I might survive through a medical miracle, god might intervene etc. Point is that I won't know in the true sense of the word

>>11528959
what nigga?
you obscure light from entering the driver's eyes, light which is necessary for the driver to maintain the vehicle in a safe manner. You prevent light from entering the driver's eyes, and the driver crashes.

>>11524750

He never said that it does not exist, but that we infer causal link by repeated observation of correlated events which may as well not be related. He thought we cannot know whether it exists or not, not that it does not exist in general.

>>11528940
Actually studies show that infants are wired to perceive things causally even when no such causal link obtains in reality.

The perception of causality is hard wired neurological construct. Which has epistemic but no meta/physical implications.

>>11525149
>This is not something that is known with certainly, only the product of "habit" in Hume's terms, or in modern terms, correlation. It could be that the ball's movement is actually decided by God, and God could change his mind tomorrow; it is not certainly known that one thing causes another, it only appears so.
So basically it's a completely stupid argument that is only acceptable because he lived during a time in which probability and stochastics were so poorly understood that you could get away talking like this.

I sincerely hope no modern student finds this line of reasoning anything other than nonsense.

>>11525010
Read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance it's an A1 introduction to Kant and Hume

Caucasians don't exist.

>ask people why they don't believe in causality
>they begin their response with "because"

>>11526446
Rand anon what did Rand think of figures like Aristotle and Aquinas when it came to their arguments of Gods existence based on causation?

>>11530570
>anon solves the problem of induction by calling it 'completely stupid'

bump

>>11526547
Donald Trump is the peak of American political genius.

>>11525148
>everything is just the same kind of relationship that is not causual, but relative.

You want to read Whitehead and into process philosophy:

>Process philosophy is characterized by an attempt to reconcile the diverse intuitions found in human experience (such as religious, scientific, and aesthetic) into a coherent holistic scheme. Process philosophy seeks a return to a neo-classical realism that avoids subjectivism. This reconciliation of the intuitions of objectivity and subjectivity, with a concern for scientific findings, produces the explicitly metaphysical speculation that the world, at its most fundamental level, is made up of momentary events of experience rather than enduring material substances. Process philosophy speculates that these momentary events, called “actual occasions” or “actual entities,” are essentially self-determining, experiential, and internally related to each other.

>>11531185
To give a large view of the implications of this, Whitehead's process philosophy can be described as pancreativism, that creativity is intrinsic to all happenings. The broad view is that of the universe as self-creating art, and while Whitehead describes this as "God" (in a very non-typical sense, as the God of process theology is as much creation of the universe as creator of it) such a concept offers the atheist a perspective which avoids the "orphaned creation" of reductionist materialism, unifying the creator-creation dichotomy to truly transcend God, which mainstream atheism has failed to do. The history of modern science ever since Darwin has described natural processes that are creative without requiring conscious agency, and the metaphysical extension of this is to describe all of reality as being a creative process in itself. Where is our place in this? We are the process of creativity that has found a way to fold on itself and self-create, language and self-representation giving it the flexibility to engage in such a bending. Douglas Hofstadter's work "I am a Strange Loop" is implicitly a work of process cognitive psychology, describing human consciousness in such a way that closely mirrors Whitehead's metaphysics.

>>11531308
Compare this quote from "I Am a Strange Loop:
>I Host and Am Hosted by Others... In contrast to the caged-bird metaphor, the idea I am proposing here is that since a normal adult human brain is a representationally universal “machine”, and since humans are social beings, an adult brain is the locus not only of one strange loop constituting the identity ofthe primary person associated with that brain, but of
many strange-loop patterns that are coarse-grained copies of the primary strange loops housed in other brains. Thus, brain 1 contains strange loops 1, 2, 3, and so forth, each with its own level of detail. But since this notion is true of any brain, not just of brain 1, it entails the following flip side: Every normal adult human soul is housed in many brains at varying degrees of fidelity, and therefore every human consciousness or “I” lives at once in a collection of different brains, to different extents. There is, of course, a “principal domicile” or “main brain” for each particular “I”, which means that there remains a good deal of truth to simple, commonsensical statements like “My soul is housed in my brain”, and yet, close to true though it is, that statement misses something crucial, which is the idea, perhaps strange-sounding at first, that “My soul lives to lesser extents in brains that are not mine.”
To this description of Whitehead's metaphysics by Elizabeth Kraus in "The Metaphysics of Experience:"
>Objectivity, facticity, is the permanent aspect of reality - immortal achievement immortally realized; subjectivity, immediacy, process, is its changeable aspect - its advance towards novelty. But subjectivity is not the result of an underlying subject's activity of relating objects to itself, of a one weaving a many into the pre-existent unity of its oneness. It is, rather, the "growing together" (con-crescence) of objects of create a novel subject which enriches the many from which it springs. "The many become one, and are increased by one." The entire world finds its place in the internal constitution of the new creature, and the new creature lays an obligation upon the future: that it take into account the value achieved by the new creature. Thus every creature both houses and pervades the world.

>>11531308
Compare this quote from "I Am a Strange Loop":
>I Host and Am Hosted by Others... In contrast to the caged-bird metaphor, the idea I am proposing here is that since a normal adult human brain is a representationally universal “machine”, and since humans are social beings, an adult brain is the locus not only of one strange loop constituting the identity ofthe primary person associated with that brain, but of many strange-loop patterns that are coarse-grained copies of the primary strange loops housed in other brains. Thus, brain 1 contains strange loops 1, 2, 3, and so forth, each with its own level of detail. But since this notion is true of any brain, not just of brain 1, it entails the following flip side: Every normal adult human soul is housed in many brains at varying degrees of fidelity, and therefore every human consciousness or “I” lives at once in a collection of different brains, to different extents. There is, of course, a “principal domicile” or “main brain” for each particular “I”, which means that there remains a good deal of truth to simple, commonsensical statements like “My soul is housed in my brain”, and yet, close to true though it is, that statement misses something crucial, which is the idea, perhaps strange-sounding at first, that “My soul lives to lesser extents in brains that are not mine.”
To this description of Whitehead's metaphysics by Elizabeth Kraus in "The Metaphysics of Experience:"
>Objectivity, facticity, is the permanent aspect of reality - immortal achievement immortally realized; subjectivity, immediacy, process, is its changeable aspect - its advance towards novelty. But subjectivity is not the result of an underlying subject's activity of relating objects to itself, of a one weaving a many into the pre-existent unity of its oneness. It is, rather, the "growing together" (con-crescence) of objects of create a novel subject which enriches the many from which it springs. "The many become one, and are increased by one." The entire world finds its place in the internal constitution of the new creature, and the new creature lays an obligation upon the future: that it take into account the value achieved by the new creature. Thus every creature both houses and pervades the world.

>>11531315
Carl Sagan's famous quote "we are a way for the universe to know itself" reflects this pancreativist perception of the world, and is found in many other nonreligious thinkers. Pop Atheism is dominated by negation and at best active nihilism (a dominative philosophy where one places themselves as a creator of all meaning, to impose meaning onto a passive, meaningless existence) but following the intellectual trend lines strongly suggests that a post-atheism that is beginning to emerge is a pancreativist worldview that has a real chance of confronting the problem of nihilism that defined modern society. What respects our most human intuitions than a view of the universe as art continually re-creating itself, and what more wondrous a thing that this ongoing work not have one author, but has shared co-creation among all that comprises it?

>>11525148
What kind of causation? I assume, post nominalism, meaning aristotle's formal and final causes do not apply.
Then causation means the collision of material entities, one infringing on the current arrangement of another entity, so as to change that arrangement.
The relation is the collision of both entities, and the change in state produced.

>>11526914
>muh Allan Watts
>muh all of reality is a continuous stream
>muh buddhism
get fucked

>>11530400
Ah yes, but obscuring the driver's eyes does not necessarily influence the vehicle in a physical way, nor does it necessarily influence the driver's mind (he could have made accurate assumptions of where he was on the road and drove accordingly). The necessary cause you find is in the abstract concept of driving safe, in which one would have to invent the natural(or god-given) right of vision and the usage there of.
If one had the right to vision, and someone caused a loss of that then the person(who blinds them) should be responsible for the way the driver used that loss of vision to control the car. A moral causation if you will.

>>11531716
You are assuming the 'laws' of physics will remain the same throughout which you have no basis other than faith for doing. Just because all our observations about the physical world have been consistent so far is no reason for believing they will remain consistent.

>>11531756
Ah yes but my assumptions are rational as they can be. The problem of induction has to do with the fact that one can not form a deductive argument for the truth of the appearance of phenomena. However, one can form an inductive argument where one option is more likely than the other, and leading hypothesis can be refined through abductive reasoning.
The fact that "an absolute causation exists" seems much more likely proposition than other options, as one would strive to imagine a world without causation. Let's say, one day it is revealed the laws of nature are not immutable and change in a spontaneous and sporadic way. Well, even then, leading up to that point we can trace back all of the evidence and it produces a coherent picture of reality. It would seem very unlikely that nature could produce the appearance of a consistent reality while in truth being very chaotic.

>>11531327
you brought Carl Sagan and Hofstadter but somehow /lit/ approved, must be an alien

>>11525148
Hope/Desire is like causation. It involves the relating of things across time, except instead of a person existing and causing their hope to be fulfilled, the fulfillment of hope exists in the future and draws a person to it's completion.