Ontology

[chasw]

Ever since my undergraduate days, I've been fascinated by ontology, taught by my professors as a branch of metaphysics. Wikipedia defines ontology as the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. In recent years I've come to appreciate four distinct categories of existence, which seem to be layered upon one other in a hierarchy:

1. All matter and energy in the universe, which are subject to the laws of physics
2. All living organisms, which are subject to the laws of biology. Living things are sustained by matter and energy, but operate according to their own purposes.
3. The consciousness of higher order animals, which are subject to the laws of psychology and neuroscience. The mind is sustained by the organism it inhabits, however, it freely decides what to think about and directs much of the organism's behavior.
4. The spiritual dimension of reality, unseen but ever present, and ruled by love of the Creator of the universe. Our perception of this dimension is tenuous at best and not measurable by material instruments.

To support my claim these are actually different modes of reality, with distinct existential qualities, consider that living organisms cannot be created solely from matter and energy, but only from other living organisms. Consider that minds of higher-order animals cannot be entirely explained by the physical characteristics and functions of their host central nervous systems. Similarly, the only correspondence between the spiritual realm and the other three modes of existence is through special application of our minds, specifically our consciences.

Spirit cannot be directly affected by matter and energy, or by living organisms without mediation of a conscience. The fact that humans like me can grasp all four modes does not contradict their separateness.

What do you think? - CW

[Bernard]

Yeh, I think that applies well to humans. Not sure where the mind and consciousness begin and end in the body - brain stem? nervous system? eloctrolytes?
There was a ChazWyman here for a long time, haven't seen him for a while, but thought he lived in England somewhere - and not often someone who would broach such terms as spirit? The avatar rings more true of...

[chasw]

...snip... The avatar rings more true of...

Badhead Records, Bejing. An icon that neatly represents the "Phaenomenologie des Geistes" would be a better choice, but the Badhead image looked about right for my philosophical temperament. - CW

[Andy Kay]

1. All matter and energy in the universe, which are subject to the laws of physics
2. All living organisms, which are subject to the laws of biology. Living things are sustained by matter and energy, but operate according to their own purposes.
3. The consciousness of higher order animals, which are subject to the laws of psychology and neuroscience. The mind is sustained by the organism it inhabits, however, it freely decides what to think about and directs much of the organism's behavior.
4. The spiritual dimension of reality, unseen but ever present, and ruled by love of the Creator of the universe. Our perception of this dimension is tenuous at best and not measurable by material instruments.
[...]
Spirit cannot be directly affected by matter and energy, or by living organisms without mediation of a conscience. The fact that humans like me can grasp all four modes does not contradict their separateness.

I don't know what the relationship is between mind and body, but I don't have need of the notions of metaphysical free will (implied in your point3) and of "Spirit that cannot be directly affected by matter and energy" (your point4). They seem surplus to requirements when it comes to explaining anything of practical significance. Sort of like spinning your wheels in the car, making it look like the car is doing some real work when really it's going nowhere.

[chasw]

.I don't know what the relationship is between mind and body, but I don't have need of the notions of metaphysical free will (implied in your point3) and of "Spirit that cannot be directly affected by matter and energy" (your point4). They seem surplus to requirements when it comes to explaining anything of practical significance. Sort of like spinning your wheels in the car, making it look like the car is doing some real work when really it's going nowhere.

Thanks, Andy. Its understandable that you don't see a need for notions of metaphysical free will and claims of an nebulous spirit dimension. From the materialist POV, they are superfluous to any practical ontology, right on. But that's exactly the point I am promoting, an ontology with categories of existence based on a broader, idealist view of reality.

This idealist position hinges on accepting that our large and manifold universe contains entities that we can barely imagine, much less measure. Some of those unseen entities are revealed in religious experiences, I have simply connected the dots as best I could, based on information from all quarters, religious and material. However, for the non-cognoscenti, such talk appears to be pure superstition or nonsense.

A question for you about my first two points: What do you think of my proposition that living things and inorganic matter/energy should be described as two different and logically separate categories of existence? I maintain their respective natures are so fundamentally different that they should not described in the same ontological category. A universe without life would be purely mechanistic, while living things sometimes act spontaneously, at least on a local level. - CW

[Andy Kay]

A question for you about my first two points: What do you think of my proposition that living things and inorganic matter/energy should be described as two different and logically separate categories of existence? I maintain their respective natures are so fundamentally different that they should not described in the same ontological category. A universe without life would be purely mechanistic, while living things sometimes act spontaneously, at least on a local level.

You contrast living things with inorganic matter/energy, but the contrast is questionable. In the first instance you have to say how you're using the word 'living', and in the second instance the word 'inorganic' is a term used in chemistry to refer to molecular reactions that don't involve the carbon atom. A correct contrast would be organic against inorganic (i.e. with or without carbon atoms), and living against non-living. Assuming you meant the latter distinction, you have the onerous task of saying what distinguishes a living object from a non-living object. You can, of course, stipulate a personal definition for your use of the word 'life', in which case I think you will have an uphill struggle getting others to adopt your definition. You seem to be thinking along the lines that life is something over and above mechanism, but I don't think it's possible to justify that contention. I suspect your attempt will hinge on your notion of 'spontaneity', hinting back to the notion of metaphysical free will, but I think it won't hold water. Try if you like.

[HexHammer]

OP seems to talk directly from a fairy tale land, very obscure fairy tale land that is.

[chasw]

I should not have used the term inorganic, that was a slip. Live organisms vs the rest of the material universe is the distinction I am making. Life exists within the material universe, but is utterly different from all other matter. Carbon is not the issue, a dead organism reverts back to ordinary material and decaying energy.

I fully accept that from the materialist's POV, this sounds mystical, obscurant, even like a fairy tale. Such is the nature of philosophy, with its diverse schools of thought. - CW

[Andy Kay]

I should not have used the term inorganic, that was a slip. Live organisms vs the rest of the material universe is the distinction I am making. Life exists within the material universe, but is utterly different from all other matter. Carbon is not the issue, a dead organism reverts back to ordinary material and decaying energy.

So now all you have to do is to explain the way in which "life [...] is utterly different from all other matter". No easy task but I'm sure you'll give it a go.

[Bernard]

I don't see why matter is necessary for life. It is an constant element to it as we understand life, but that is only as far as our perception has got, not withstanding the many and varied human experiences relating to non-material phenomenon upon which whole philosophies have been built. That said, what is matter. Going into the ins and outs of bosons and the like we have something that although is very prevalent to us, is only a bias of the energetic activities that manifest and eventuate. Atoms are still vast spaces of which we know little of their makeup, whether we like it or not.

[Andy Kay]

I don't see why matter is necessary for life.

That statement doesn't say anything at all if you can't say how you're using the words 'matter' and 'life', and these two words are very tricky little customers to pin down. In the common speech of bottom-level physics 'matter' takes three forms: liquid, solid, and gas (some say that plasma is a fourth form but I don't want to get into distractions). In the common speech of bottom-level biology a 'living' thing has seven identifying characteristics: nutrition, excretion, respiration, sensitivity (to environment), reproduction, growth, and movement. If we stick to these definitions then I don't see how life needs anything more than matter. Anybody arguing that life needs more than matter needs to say how their definitions of life and matter differ from the ones given above.

[chasw]

So now all you have to do is to explain the way in which "life [...] is utterly different from all other matter". No easy task but I'm sure you'll give it a go.

Let me try: Raw matter and energy behave in accordance with definite laws and proximate causes. These laws of physics, notwithstanding random variation at the Planck scale, adequately describe how non-living entities are affected by their environment. A kilo of hydrogen fuses into helium under intense heat and pressure, giving off a specific amount of energy. Very predictable.

Live organisms, however, display random variation on a much larger scale, including genetic mutation and random variation in their response to stimuli. Unlike the dust, gas and electromagnetic energy moving around the universe, living organisms grow and reproduce endlessly. They even purposefully modify their environments to make them more habitable. Note that many attempts have been made to create simple lifeforms from constituent matter and energy, to no avail. All life everywhere, appears to be related and descended from the same living source. - CW

[Andy Kay]

Raw matter and energy behave in accordance with definite laws and proximate causes. These laws of physics, notwithstanding random variation at the Planck scale, adequately describe how non-living entities are affected by their environment. A kilo of hydrogen fuses into helium under intense heat and pressure, giving off a specific amount of energy. Very predictable.

Live organisms, however, display random variation on a much larger scale, including genetic mutation and random variation in their response to stimuli. Unlike the dust, gas and electromagnetic energy moving around the universe, living organisms grow and reproduce endlessly. They even purposefully modify their environments to make them more habitable. Note that many attempts have been made to create simple lifeforms from constituent matter and energy, to no avail. All life everywhere, appears to be related and descended from the same living source. - CW

But it's still not clear why you think that living entities should be considered anything more than highly complex configurations of non-living entities.

[chasw]

But it's still not clear why you think that living entities should be considered anything more than highly complex configurations of non-living entities.

Because only living things grow, reproduce and evolve into sentient beings. In that respect, living organisms behave in ways that transcend the usual laws of physics we are accustomed to. Its true, they have mass, they undergo chemical reactions and they co-exist in 3-dimensional space with the non-living material surrounding them, but otherwise they are unique. As mentioned above, living entities cannot be fabricated or configured from ordinary matter, although many people have tried. - CW

[Andy Kay]

Because only living things grow, reproduce and evolve into sentient beings.

Crystals grow and reproduce -- would you consider them to be 'living'?

When you make the claim that living things differ from non-living things in that they "evolve into sentient beings" are you saying that non-living things can evolve, but only if they become sentient do they become living things, thereby implicating sentience as an essential ingredient? If so then how are you using the word 'sentient'?