Status Updates From Investigación sobre el cono...

Note 5/n:
system, custom alone can create an internal impression that imprints an idea.

Finally, Hume maintains that a cause = if the 1st object had not been, the 2nd never had existed. This jives exactly with that Goodfellows episode 'The counterfactual show' that I watched in 2024, where I learned the profound concept from Stephen Kotkin that all causal explanations are counterfactual arguments BY DEFINITION.

Note 4/n:
capital which caused its trade deficit? I thought that the temporal priority of many events in real life are highly ambiguous but no one can doubt that they are causally intertwined. Thus I concur with Hume to drop this condition of temporal priority.

Millican's commentary that Hume had 'finally tracked down the impression of necessary connexion' also confuses me: I did not know that, within Hume's ...

Note 3/n:
I see from my review of the 'Abstract' that my June 2025 self had thought that priority in time is a pretty weak condition: I used the example of the US's strong trade deficit and corresponding capital surplus. Which one was prior in time? Did the US's relentless import purchases over the past several decades fuel its capital surplus, or did the US's highly attractive financial markets attract global ...

Note 2/n:
'necessary connexion'.

A further thought on Hume's 2 famous definitions of a cause (also refer to page xlv in the intro). Millican teaches me that in the Treatise, Hume had insisted that a cause must be contiguous with its effect as well as temporally prior, but he had dropped the latter condition from the Enquiry. (The 2 definitions in the Enquiry both concern themselves only with contiguity in space.)

Note 1/n:
Revisiting my review of the 'Abstract' this morning was so annoying - it revealed how many details I had forgotten and had missed in the Enquiry. Firstly, Hume had mentioned the terms 'power' and 'force' (in relation to necessary connexion) multiple times in the Abstract, so I should NOT have found those terms foreign in my current reading of the Enquiry, nor should I have not known what he means by ...

Note 5/n:
that this constant conjunction stops completely.

Again, Hume leaves his metaphysics of causation unclear: whether he thinks there ARE underlying causes at all, or just that the mind can never directly observe underlying causes.

Note 4/n:
to and thus harvest the long-run US equity risk premium was initially borne out of a presumably deep understanding on the underlying causes of the equity premium (e.g. systematic market risk, disaster risk, risks to human capital, the longer I play the higher my chances of winning etc), but now Hume is telling me that all those causal inferences are merely post-hoc narratives. I can conceive of a state ...

Note 3/n:
of causation (which I do not understand, because I clearly find within myself an idea of causation). All causal inferences can only be assigned AFTER observing constant conjunction - the mind can never have an insight into the underlying causal forces with no prior experience. This is deeply unsettling to me (not to say that I have not been unsettled by Hume for years now): my decision to gain exposure ...

Note 2/n:
Berkeley lie on the instrumentalism spectrum - just that Berkeley was a strict/ hard instrumentalist - but Berkeley pushed this philosophy to a completely opposite view on God, compared to Hume. Berkeley's instrumentalist view of God's laws is very exciting to me.

Finally, Hume is basically saying that all our ideas of causation are post-hoc! We never directly observe causation, so we don't have an idea...

Note 1/n:
So, this 'instrumentalism' philosophy as embraced by Hume (who was deeply influenced by Newton) is exactly just the pool-player analogy advanced by Friedman in 'The methodology of positive economics', then. (It's also quite funny that both Friedman and Hume alluded to pool and billiards.) Note that Hume is generalizing instrumentalism to ALL causes in the world.

It is interesting that both Hume and ...

Note 2/2:
great danger of the abstruse philosophy: that it can stray far from the logic of real life, cuz it has no common sense to rein it in. So this must mean that Hume thinks that his empiricism is not remote from common life and experience, then! Indeed, this is slightly disingenuous of Hume imo: for he is a champion of the abstruse philosophy himself, and his doctrine of skepticism is hardly common-sense.

Note 1/2:
Hume's first refutation of Malebranche's occasionalism is telling - it tells me that he thinks that common sense is a sufficient argument to refute a philosophical argument (Malebranche's philosophy being, if I understand it correctly, that God is constantly creating, willing, and moving all objects in the universe - not an unappealing theory to me).

Indeed, Hume had warned in Section 1 that this is a ...

Note 6/n:
situate my lack an idea of necessary connexion within Hume's epistemology. Millican explains to me that Hume often replaces the term 'necessary connexion' with just 'connexion', indicating that the key idea whose source he is seeking is not strictly necessary connexion, but the broader notion of connexion in general.

Note 5/n:
etc. Necessary connexion does NOT occur in the economic and social world, e.g., inflation from an expansion of the money supply, mean-reversion to intrinsic value of mispriced securities, default of a borrower with a shit DSCR, etc. Hence I certainly don't have an idea of necessary connexion in the latter world - my thoughts on this are very vague, but in a hazy sense, I was wrestling with how to ...

Note 4/n:
of dementia, or the simple observation that I cannot direct the organs in my body. The mind takes a convenient cognitive shortcut by forgetting this last point.

Also, Millican somewhat addresses 1 of the lingering thoughts I have. I observe that necessary connexion nearly always only occurs in the natural world, e.g. the collision of billiard balls, the free-fall of objects, heat resulting from a flame,...

Note 3/n:
NO! Again, we merely observe contiguity in space and priority in time. We only observe 2 constantly conjoined events: i) The order of my will, ii) The subsequent obedience of my body. We never observe the causal glue between i) and ii). I, of course, can certainly conceive of a state where ii) does not follow from i): which is obviously observed in reality! - in the case of a paralysed man, or a patient ...

Note 2/n:
also the essence of the universe - this essence flows through and directs all things in the universe. It is a reasonable hypothesis that this consciousness of the will - that when my will directs my limbs, they immediately move accordingly; when my will organizes the faculties of my mind, it obeys - may very well be the impression that grants us the idea of necessary connexion.

But according to Hume, ...

Note 1/n:
This exploration of whether our idea of necessary connexion originates from our intimate consciousness of our will/ inner sentiment is ... unbelievably Schopenhauerian, and I am surprised that no one, not even Millican's notes, points this out. (According to Schopenhauer's exciting philosophy) It is a universal experience that, when we look deep within ourselves, we discover not only our own essence, but...

Note 2/2:

certainly doesn't state clearly anywhere in the Treatise or the Enquiry, whether he thinks i) or ii), and idk why. I would've thought it a tremendously important point to make clear.

Note 1/2:
As of now, I still don't know whether Hume thought: i) that necessary connexion does NOT exist AT ALL, ii) he allowed for the existence of necessary connexion, it's just that we can never know the necessary connexion of a cause and its effects, because we never directly observe necessary connexion. Due to the copy principle, whatever we never experience, we never have an idea of.

To my knowledge, he ...

Note n/n:
rigorous work that WAS available in the 18th century, namely, the labourious, borderline autistic analysis of corn prices that Smith later did. All of Hume's economics was just a priori reasoning.

Note 5/n:
I also find it unpalatable that Hume, the great empiricist, devoted no empirical evidence to support his economic essays. No signs of even basic empirical economic analysis were present, e.g. simple observations of the inflation rate, the unemployment rate, or the size of the money supply. These aggregate statistics did not exist in Hume's time, to be fair, but he did not even take the effort to do the ...