David Hume's 'Senseless Child'

David Hume was an empiricist. That is, he believed that all knowledge is derived exclusively from the senses. The scientific method of experimentation is a good example of carefully controlled empiricism. So what? you may ask. Well, don't you see where this line of thinking takes you? Let us look at a child that was born without any senses whatsoever, a 'senseless' child so to speak. A child unable to receive any information from his senses. What would be the mental state of the child? The mental stae of the adult that he becomes? Would he have any thoughts? Hume believed that he would have no thoughts whatsoever. Senseless = Thoughtless. If you think about it, it's very interesting. We assume that as a human, we instinctively have thoughts. But what do we have thoughts about?? Things we see, things we hear, things we touch, smell, taste. What if we had none of our senses? What then would be think about? Our entire lifetime of experience is built up of data we glean from the use of our senses - 'sensory data'. And this is the basic line of thought of Hume and other empiricists. Pirsig noted 2 problems with this reasoning. Firstly, considering the question: what is this substance which gives off this sensory data?? If all knowledge is obtained from sensory impressions, and if there is no sensory impression of substance itself, then it logically follows that there is no knowledge of substance. That is, it is all in our minds. I can imagine that many of you who read my blog would be appalled at the very thought that the world we live in, our lives, are anything other than solid, and concrete, outside of and out of the control of our subjective selves. And yet... well I digress. Secondly, Pirsig considered the issue of causation. If all knowledge comes through our senses, then we must ask the question: from what sense data is our knowlege of causation received? That is, what is the scientific empirical basis of causation itself? Hume was of the opinion that, simply, we imagine causation when one thing repeatedly follows another, because to consider otherwise would be out of line with empiricism, as there is no evidence for causation in our sensations.
Hume believed that our idea of causation is little more than expectation; expectation for certain events to result after other events that precede them. For this Hume coined the term 'constant conjunction'. That is, when we see that one event always 'causes' another, what we are really seeing is that one event has always been 'constantly conjoined' to the other. The reason we do believe in cause and effect is not because cause and effect are the actual way of nature; we believe because of the psychological habits of human nature (Popkin & Stroll, 1993). Hume believed that 'Nature' and 'Nature's laws' are creations of our own imaginations. To an extent, I would agree with this last statement. I say to an extent, because at some point I begin to wonder what the situation would be if humans were not around. Would there be no cause and effect simply because we would not be here to identify it?? Surely we can assume that animals have basic concepts of cause and effect. I believe Popkin and Stroll should not have limited their reasoning to human nature, and instead have referred to the nature of all living organisms. An experiment I learned about so many years ago comes to mind; that of a sea slug being prodded with a finger and then blasted with a jet of water. Over time, the simple prodding of the finger brought about the recoil that was its instant reaction when squirted with water. The slug had identified the connection between the initial prodding and the final squirt of water. Cause and effect. And yet, we're back to the question of what would happen if the slug had no senses? If it could not feel the prod of the finger or the squirt of water? A senseless slug? Is cause and effect a by-product of our sensory observations?

Immanuel Kant said that it was David Hume who caused him to write his 'Critique Of Pure Reason'. In it and through it, Kant effectively tries to save empiricism from the consequences of its own self-devouring logic. He said "That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt...But though knowledge begins with experience, it doesn't follow that it arises out of experience." He identified aspects of reality not supplied immediately by the senses. Such as space, and time. We do not sense time; that it, it is not present in our sensory data. And yet, we do not ask ourselves if time exists! We do not ask for sensory data to confirm its existence. Such 'a priori' concepts are neither caused by the sensed object nor bring it into being, but provide a kind of screening function for what sense data we accept. We apply these concepts of space and time to the impressions we receive. Otherwise, the world would be unintelligible. I am not sure who to attribute this quote, but it was said that, in fact, "Reality is a continuous synthesis of elements from a fixed hierarchy of 'a priori' concepts and the ever changing data of the senses."

So is that what reality is?? I don't know. In fact, I really should not be posting about this, as I am in no way an expert on this. I don't think I could even be called a beginner; That is, I know that little about it all. I need to read more; understand the points of view of those before me, before I can make my own conclusions, offer my own opinions, or indeed, speak about their theories. What I know of their thoughts is not worth talking about. It's the tip of the iceberg, and I know that. So, I'm off. I'm going to the bookshop. Enjoy.