Hi again, RC:
Sorry for the delay...I've been chatting a ton with Henry, and occasionally taking issue with Peter, and both have occupied me for a bit. Besides, I like to give your responses due thought. You're not a guy one responds to in a 'flip' way.
But here we go.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:24 pm
I did not say a thing is, "the sum of its qualities," I said it is whatever all its qualities are.
Okay, RC...you've got me there. I can't see a difference between those two claims. It looks to me like "sum" means "all [of] its..."
If an entity exists it must be something with some nature and it is that nature (all its attributes, properties, and characteristics) that are its qualities.
But now we have two terms: its "nature" and its "qualities." You say they're the same. I don't think they are. I think the qualities tell us what the nature is, but are not that nature.
I have no idea what you mean by, a "unitary existence," unless you are implying some kind of Platonic, "substance," that qualities (form) are impressed on.
No, nothing so difficult as that. I'm just saying that a "diamond" is more than any of its facets, and more, even than the sum of its facets taken together. It has an existence
as a whole that it lacks in parts. That's why you can put a diamond in a ring, but you can't put a bunch of diamond-facets in a ring. The facet is but one aspect of the whole.
So think of it this way: the "nature" of the thing (to employ your word) is a diamond. It's "qualities" are but facets. Their combined unity is greater than the sum of the parts.
There is no need (or possibility) of some kind of mystic or ineffable stuff underlying everything.
I wasn't.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:47 pm
I think that maybe here's the problem: you're using "qualities" in an unusual way. You're including in "qualities" not just adjectival properties, like width, colour, shape, age, and so on, but also unitary
essence...and yet you appear unconvinced that any essence exists beyond these "qualities." So it seems to me there's a kind of amphiboly in your application of the term "qualities."
Are "qualities," in your usage, separable descriptors, or are they inseparable sub-features of the unitary whole? I can't really tell yet what you are supposing about that.
I may be using, "qualities," in an unusual way. Almost everything I say philosophically will be somewhat unusual since I disagree with almost all that goes by the name philosophy. So your question is a fair one. Here is what I mean by qualities [/quote]
Thank you for filling that out. I can accept the stipulation.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:47 pm
It is the life attribute that differentiates between the non-living entities and living organisms.
No doubt it is. But "life" is not simply an additional descriptor, or "quality," is it?
It is a quality (ontological), not a, "descriptor," (epistemological).
But qualities don't exist (ontologically) in absence of reference to the whole.
We have
white paper, but no unassociated "whiteness." That's an abstraction only. The "white" doesn't exist in precisely the same sense as the paper exists...it exists only as an attribution of the paper. So I think we have to separate our ideas of "qualities" from the nouns to which we may attach them. The nouns exist (ontologically) in an absolute way, plausibly; but we cannot ever say the same about qualities. They're closer to judgments or assessments than they are to ontologically 'real' items.
There is something different about organisms that distinguishes them from non-living entities else there would be no reason to identify some things as mere physical objects and others as organisms. The name given to that difference is, "life." There is nothing to prove.
Yes, there is: there's the giving of substance to that term "something" that you use. One can justifiably ask, "Okay, so there's something different between a rock and a turtle, even when they look the same -- but
what, actually is it? That's a very fair question: and to say, "Well, it's life" is really not to answer the question very well. It opens further questions, rather than closing the book.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:47 pm
It seems to me that to add "life" to a description is more than it is merely to add weight, or colour, or shape, or age, or any other such physical "quality."
"Life," is not a physical quality.
Quite so.
But an objector may say, "Well, you can't have life in the absence of physicality, so far as we know." And if you supposed you had an answer to that, you'd have to say more. So I think you mean, "Not
just a physical quality," though you wouldn't deny that physical properties (respiration, reproduction, circulation, and so on) are associated with it, right?
The word, "life," does not explain what life is, It only identifies that which differentiates between non-living entities and organisms.
Yeah, that's my point. Some explanation is still missing.
Life is not something, "added," that transforms a non-living entity into an organism, it is not some kind of, "thing," or, "substance," or "stuff." As I've said before, life manifests itself at the physical level as a process that maintains the organism as the kind of organism it is. I agree with you, that "the physical properties ... of an entity are still intact, but that the entity has 'died,'" if the process ceases. Such a process, however, cannot be explained in terms of physical properties alone, which means the life process is possible because non-physical properties, as well as physical properties, are also part of natural (material) existence.[/quote]
I agree about the necessity of non-physical properties -- which are nonetheless linked to physical operations, but are not just them. But I do not see how you can speak of these non-physical properties as "material." The word "material" seems inevitably to tie you back to the physical; and we have already said that explanation will not be sufficient.
We both think some
non-physical property is being indicated.
The universe I live in includes living organisms which are not limited (or bound) by physical properties, which is what differentiates them from the mere physical. I assume you regard living organisms to be supernatural in some way.
It depends what we mean by "natural." The word can be used as a synonym for "routine," as in, "It's natural to like girls." It can be used as a synonym for the material word, as in "Mathematics transcends the natural world," in which case it caries the further implication of "limitedness." Elizabethans used it to mean "child," "mentally-handicapped person" and something rather naughty, at the same time. It can be used various ways -- it's a slippery little bugger, and must be watched.
What I mean when I say "supernatural" is nothing spooky. I mean something very broad and open. I just mean that something beyond the strict observed regularities of the physical world is being indicated...that physical explanations will never suffice to explain it fully. And that's something you've said is true of "life," that it's non-physical. And I'd agree.
But maybe we should say, super-physical instead of supernatural, just to keep that straight. As I say, "natural" is a misleading word.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:47 pm
In short, material existence is all that exists the way it exists.
This statement is merely presuppositional Materialism, though. It's something you have to take on faith, rather than something that can be shown. And when taken on faith, it results in absurd consequences that both of us have already rejected, such as Emergentism.
Nothing is being, "supposed," here, it is simply a statement of what I mean by material existence. Let me put it another way. Whatever there is that exists and whatever its nature is, I call that material existence.
Does it include, then, these non-physical elements, like life, that you are also saying exist?
But then I think we should avoid the word "material," as it's certain to mislead everyone on what you mean. That word already has a strong group of associated meanings, and you don't need to be swimming upstream against those. It will only make your job of explaining harder.
I would have to include the supernatural as part of, "all that exists," and therefore material existence.
This is what I mean: "material" is very frequently used to differentiate from "immaterial." But you seem to be including both in it, and I don't think people will easily understand you on that. I think I'm
kind of getting it now, but I think you'll admit it's been uphill work to explain it to me...you could make your own job much easier.
The purpose of identifying material existence as material existence is to differentiate between what exists, as it exists, independently of anyone's knowledge or awareness of that existence from what only exists as the product of human consciousness, that is, between the ontological and the epistemological.
I think that distinction is important. But I think you should avoid the word "material" in making it, or else use it in the conventional ways, to make life easier for yourself as an explainer. "Material" is too closely tied to the word "matter," and people are going to think that you're saying that only that which is made of physical matter exists. I see you're not, but as I say, it's uphill work.
Everything else that exists, all knowledge and knowledge methods (language, mathematics, logic), science, history, religion, philosophy, literature, and fiction, only exists as the product of human minds and consciousness, and therefore do not exist materially.
This seems to go too far, or veers off in a bad direction, I think. People are instantly going to think "Literature does not exist materially" is an absurd claim. In one very obvious sense, that's
exactly how it exists.
But I think you're wanting to say that the concepts or ideas articulated in the literature "do not exist materially," and I think I can cautiously agree with that.
Our essential difference of view is, that you include what is called the supernatural in that which exists ontologically and I regard everything you call supernatural as only existing epistemologically.
Well, I think we meet over the idea that the "non-physical" to use your term, ontologically exists. And, as I propose, we can substitute the term "super-physical" to clarify that a bit.
We cannot perceive the, "life," quality, but we know what life is, because we are alive. That is what it means to say we know what life is by doing it. It is the same for consciousness and mind as well. We know we are conscious, not by perceiving our consciousness (which we could do if it were physical) but by being conscious, just as we know we can see and hear, not be seeing or hearing those perceptions, but by actually seeing and hearing. We know we have minds, though we cannot perceive them, because of our mind's nature, that is, because we must and can consciously choose all we do, can and must gain and store knowledge (intellect), and can and must think (rationality).
So that answers the epistemological question, "
How do we know we are alive and conscious," but doesn't do anything for the ontological question, "
What are life and consciousness, in themselves?"
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:47 pm
And we do know, both deductively and by empirical means, that the universe had an origin.
Deductively I know nothing comes from nothing. Non-A cannot spontaneously become A.
So far, so good.
Empirically I know what exists exists and that there is no evidence that existence could ever not have existed.
"Existence existed"? That's seems hopelessly self-referential. We aren't saying much thereby. We aren't saying WHAT existed. Clearly, the universe did not always exist. So what was there?
Except for the crackpot Hawking, cosmological hypotheses do not say there was ever nothing or that nothing preceded the so-called, "big bang."
I agree. We can't just say, "Nothing made the universe happen." Nothing does nothing.
It is, after all, not science in any case, because the past cannot be directly examined, and is all conjecture.
Oh, I would disagree. True, we cannot use direct observation: but deduction is very powerful here...I would argue, overwhelmingly powerful. If nothing comes from nothing, the universe came from something. But that something cannot have been the universe itself. So what was it? We might not know -- at least by this method -- but we know for sure something non-material and eternal preceded the arrival of the universe, because of the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:47 pm
... what if Someone could come along and tell you, "You're not here struggling between womb and tomb with no real or actual purpose. You're not a cosmic accident whose all on your own to fake meaning out of nothing. I made you, and I love you, and I want you to be fully what you can be. I want you to make your choices (and will defend your right to do so absolutely, even if you have to live with some bad outcomes as a result). But as for me, I want you to grow into the best self you can be, and then not just decay and die, but have eternal prospects of happiness, relationship, exploration, wonder and creativity -- and I'm prepared to lay down my life to make it possible for you."
I would know it was a lie and the speaker was either demented or a rogue. My life is not a, "struggle," it is joy and victory every day.
How fortunate you are, then.
But I was speaking poetically, on behalf of the human race, not on your account only. The human race has more than its share of such experiences. But what part of
"I want you to grow into the best self you can be, and then not just decay and die, but have eternal prospects of happiness, relationship, exploration, wonder and creativity -- and I'm prepared to lay down my life to make it possible for you" makes the speaker a rogue?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:47 pm
If the universe were different in any way from what it is, there would be, "no coherent matter ... no people, no planets, ... nothing." But that puts a limit on your God. If God could have made life possible in any kind of universe, then there is nothing necessary about all the scientific limitations you site as proof God had to make the universe just as it is, but if life and existence are only possible in the universe such as it is, God could not have made this universe different.
Let's suppose that's so. If it were, we have no frame of reference from which to comprehend it. ...
The, "frame of reference," is the universe as it is.
That won't help, because you're asking us to imagine a universe that is
utterly different from this one, and shares none of the fundamental dynamics of this one. This is a thing we cannot really do, and do not have reason even to think is possible. So such a line of inquiry goes nowhere: we cannot do it, anymore than any of us, even the best cosmologists, can comprehend the size of this one little universe in which we already live. You're simply asking the impossible of us. So it's not much of a thought experiment, is it?
Is there another kind of "universe"? We shouldn't then call it "universe." Is there another kind of "life"? But since it shares no features with "life" as it appears in this universe, we cannot even imagine what it would be. No deductions can be made from such an asking.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:47 pm
You and I both know the universe has an exact nature and that there is nothing random or accidental about it.
Is that true? You don't believe that the universe happened by accident? You don't believe, for example, in the Big Bang? You believe something non-random created the universe?
Yes it's true. I do not believe in the, "big bang." I believe the universe is what it is and has the nature it has, period,
which does not require that it was created.
I can only say that the greatest cosmologists of our time would disagree. They might not want the word "created," and prefer a term like "commenced," but they would point out to you that all the empirical evidence we now possess seems to point irrefutably to an origin-of-the-universe.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:47 pm
You're arguing from something that clearly undermines your theory that the universe can "just happen," to the conclusion that it "just happened" into existence. You're accepting the evidence for design, and then concluding that it all happened without design.
The universe did not, "happen." The universe simply is what it is and requires nothing to make it what it is. The idea that the universe was, "designed," is exactly what you accuse me of, an
ex post facto conclusion based on the fact the universe has a specific nature; but that nature does not require a designer anymore than the wonderful patterns of the Grand Canyon or Painted Dessert required a designer.
Ah, but you've overlooked a key feature of that the universe itself and life in particular have different from the coloured rocks in the Grand Canyon or the Painted Desert:
specification.
The rocks in the Painted Desert do not
specify anything. But if you went down to the Grand Canyon, and saw that the ripples in the rocks were shaped into the words, "Clive wuz here," what would you think?
I doubt very much you would say, "Wow: isn't it amazing how billions of years of water passing over rocks created this?" No, you'd go looking for the delinquent with the spray can: because you'd know that rocks plus time do not specify anything. But Clive does.
...a concept for which there is no evidence and call it God.
Ah. But the jury's still out on that, I hope.
Thank you for that and for inquiring about my health. There are physical problems, but nothing to worry about.
I'm glad. I trust they're not overwhelming? And perhaps I may hope they will decrease and improve with time, too?
I know you must be looking forward to Christmas. I do enjoy much of the music [the old, mostly classical themes, Bach, Mozart, Handle, Beethoven, Haydn, Mendelssohn, Purcel, Elgar, Monteverdi, Tchaikovsky, Telemann, Pachelbel, Luther, not the modern stuff] and the simple joy and pleasure I see in others at this time of year, and wish all the best of that for you and yours.
Well, at the risk of being seasonal, and since you enjoy classics, can I regale you with this? I hope you enjoy it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXh7JR9oKVE
Yours,
IC