Seems to me that again there is an is/ought problem here.

In so far as "levels of being" ascribes differing values to different things it is an evaluation, and so it is about our attitude towards things rather than how they are.

Which is fine, provided that our evaluations are not mistake for how things are.

I assume I get to be a substance in some sense, that I am not less real than my mother was because my existence is dependent on her having existed. — Srap Tasmaner

But her existence is equally dependent on her mother. Arguably, you are less real because you're farther back the line. The train engine is most real. The second car is second-most real. The third car is third-most real, etc. (And now ditch the linear paradigm.)

The idea seems simpler than many are making it. It's basically levels of ontological dependence (whether per se or per accidens). But then apparently we want to make it an extrapolation of Aristotle's distinction between substance and accident, and that's where things become more confusing. Still, the basic idea seems straightforward.

Which is fine, provided that our evaluations are not mistake for how things are. — Banno

Why do you think the first articulation of the is/ought problem came from David Hume, the 'godfather of positivism', and a principal of the Scottish Enlightenment? Not coincidental, right? 'What is', as distinct from 'what ought to be', in Hume's context, is what is precisely measurable and can be stated with certainty. Which doesn't even extend to causal relations, as it turned out.

Aristotle's distinction between substance and accident... — Leontiskos

As noted, the use of the term 'substance' is inherently confusing and misleading in respect to metaphysics. See the reference upthread to Heidegger's criticism of the use of the term as a translaton for ouisia.

Imagine if, in that essay we're referring to, the expression was 'all that is real, is beings and their modes of existence' instead of 'substance and modes'. Even if it's also not quite correct, I think it conveys the original intention more clearly.

'What is', as distinct from 'what ought to be', in Hume's context, is what is precisely measurable and can be stated with certainty. Which doesn't even extend to causal relations, as it turned out. — Wayfarer

Probably down to Hume, I don't see as that matters much. But values can be stated with certainty and measured.

I do really like the idea of trying to come up with a continuous graduation reality concept, which isn't an accuracy of a representation, or a way of counting things that already apply, or a way of saying how individuated an entity is. But I don't think it's possible, honestly. — fdrake

We need a metric space whose points are things that are real. Then a distance function for pairs of points. But first, one needs to decide what "real" means. I suggest anything our consciousness registers, from the moon to flights of fancy. But where the purely physical runs up against the purely mental could be a problem worth a thousand pages of philosophical ramblings.

It's basically levels of ontological dependence (whether per se or per accidens). — Leontiskos

Go ahead and explain that. Some of us are uneducated.

A sign or symbol has an identity that transcends the material constituents from which it is composed. — Wayfarer

Ah, well it's my fault then for picking a well-known geometric shape. I only meant that the sticks are arranged in such a way that they make up a thing, temporarily anyway.

Arrangements of things into other things is, in some circles, a core problem of metaphysics. And it's something a little different from the problem of collections, which is why I mentioned them both.

And it does raise questions of hierarchy in a straightforward way. Each of the sticks is a part of the triangular whole. I didn't want to rehearse all the usual arguments here (triangles of Theseus, and so on), but just see what we might say about hierarchy, since that's our topic.

Very good. Point well made.

I'll go one step further. A deeper question is whether the spectrum of reality is continuous. As Einstein inferred, the moon exists - and our imaginations exist. What is in between? — jgill

I am going to answer your deep question with a simple: no. Is the spectrum of reality continuous, my answer is no. The other option is yes? Maybe in one direction it can be continuous....

In between the moon, and my imagination is me and distance out of my bounds, surviving outside of them is not worth experience what I can staying within them, in the environment I am well adapted to and attached / drawn to being. The space is between. In the space is possibly nothing. The imagination and moon....the moon is seen from a far distance, the imagination is at no distance from the place you are standing, the grounds you rest upon, used to travel from place to place.

The imagination has no place without the mind, that comes from the human being from the powers within using the organs we were born with, to function as a species living in nature. Human nature, the mind is of it. The thinking is of experiences as humans with a mind of your own. The brain, is the hub for the mind. The brain that undergoes damage from a trauma, like an accident or something the cognitive abilities can be lost, needing to recover, retrain, or deal with the loss and change of lifestyle for the remaining time alive.


Perhaps the space between is just that, but perhaps if a "thing" ought to be between it has to do with the transition or power that goes into conscious mind's of a human brain. As far as I am concerned, a soul, spirit, consciousness as an EXPERIENCE is linked to the brain, meaning without the brain the conscious experience of humans would not be...Consciousness is aware of the body and the connection to it? The soul is of consciousness and consciousness is of human nature or human evolution with is of life...which is of, love? Sex? Partners? The perfect match?

What that even requires, is of the aware being, soul included. Feet moving, the body brings the brain along for the ride! Or run...The brain is moving, mind is included, linked to the person, like a ball and chain.....body is moving, imagination is moving, trailing behind...whipping around turns, bumping into things, aware of location and self in the world via mind, dreams, and imaginations, visions, hallucinations, etc

Between is nothing meaning, I am wondering if it is even a "thing" , should it be a thing if it were to be moved, meaning by human aid. Causing the motion by hand or with purpose/intentions to indirectly continously loop, or remain in a cycle. is it that the cycle is stuck, or can that become stabilized in that where it is stuck, as the cycle continues, the stuckness caused the growth and stopped the movement in the natural direction, how to get stuck? If we can claim being in a stuck cycle, are we aware of something else to give us the idea in the first place, if we could be stuck, do we not for sure know where we should be? Stuck in a cycle or stable in a current? Flow.......Like a hobo on the tracks waiting for a train to hop. That train has wheels, engine, and motion...staying on track, set up and built to transport things. Between the imagination and the moon depends on the track or path taken, and the fate awaits.

The timing of the minds thoughts, the act of thinking, and the SPEED of comprehension cognitively, understanding thinking and how much trust the self has in themselves is measured? Sure, why not...but Also, why? Unbothered. Yet, I am still curious to say the least, but not fixed or sure of my stance. I am just sharing what I do know and that is in the form of typed thoughts. Streaming thoughts. It's a style.....catch it if you can. Note it, but it is not but also is always what IT seems. If what it seems is in fact aligned with what IT IS, that is just a way to explain after the fact, using justified actions for self in that moment...it passes judgement with no questions.

Anyways, to jgill's question again, what is in between is not of measured motion, perhaps the speed is timed but it has to do with the instinct or muscle memory we have learned how its being used/functioning, is that reasonable to cognitive skills and performance of such? Usually so, we can tell in the womb nowadays the disabilities of the baby before it is out of the mother and into it's first day of life breathing oxygen. The organs attached is linked to quality of life..genetics are telling, precaution is taken quicker with advanced medicine. Is the medical field as a whole where they need to be at the level they operate and work in? Are people paid what they deserve? Usually not, but we accept or tolerate a rate that meets our basic needs at the minimum, sometimes we lose grip of self in realty and abuse our time by neglecting the self in the present.

We just need to be aware, become it, then decide after you really reflect. By grounding oneself and acting as you will...happens with reason, and as accordingly to benefits us to our line, or boundary we set for self needs. We need and want differently, but it can be based on what we consider to be efficient to maintain lifestyle currently experiencing. The life you lead, the day to day self of character and the alignment with soul is in the consciousness of self. That requires awareness....of the body with the will and the timing of feelings and reflection was used to cause a change or certain outcome? Only one outcome exists...has, will, does, ought, shall and it is what and when it will and was always ought. To be. At it. Life is at it, death has had it, the soul remains and reminds all in a collective consciousness

This person (WE) has/ought to have more trust in ourselves. The power is in our hands, and from our minds of our life experience in motion, space and with the track of time.the change and eventually unchangeable direction or movement maybe power (time constraint) to move thoughts using the required brain, intentions behind it could add to degree of energy or power added / wasted to importance/attention/work required to perform these cognitive skills, mentally, and communicate it / write it down physically in tangible material. But the soul is moving from these pieces of work. Moving is it? Or fluctuations occur and we can feel them in the air. Our senses inform us of things, and our brain tells US what is going on in order to know how to make the next move, as we are moving in time. Day after day, tomorrow is coming, today is there. Time was lost, time is never gone just...What else was gone, besides our selves? Our minds can be lost, but what are the chances they are found? Good as new? Better? Worse?

The condition is dependent. Time, interest that life revolves around, attention spending efficiency, awareness. In others, in self. How do emotions attach to tangible material things, but the experience being subjective doesnt matter. The objective part is that it is all subjective, biased, or effected by envirment, nature, nurture....but luck, chance, and timing is funny. Love is a funny thing. A funny thing and the humor of it, is of the funny person and laughed at by those with similar humor, aware high, or those who are followers, lost/looking rightfully so, rationally...doing what they ought to be, right where they need to be. THEY have to SEE that first, but to see means choosing to ignore what they know from what they see, is believing what they dont want to see, but blaming the world praying for God or the world to change. Before we ask of such demands of the world, Universe, God, Angels, As above so below, we ought to have answered and confirmed with surety that no change on our end is worth the effort. That option exists, the mind state or frame under the influence of many factors play a role in decision making moments that cant be undone past a certain point.

The art we see, music we hear, words we read move us. The way they made us move and feel are two different things and separate from what we think. When we think and move and feel, they happen almost fluidly. The arts are observed. The emotions, are moving created and used differently impacting subjectively, meaning each person is experiencing it differently, how the life path is built and where we are moving towards depends on the light we get from the darkest place we see is based on memory, learned lessons, life experience, time invested, and wisdom gained...Was fate earned, received or delivered. According to time and nature or by observing what we can say is real...What we believe to be true is real. Fake news is real, as that...fake news. It always existed, we made it what it is. We deal with it separately, at a later time and boy is it the occasion....

Moving the imagination, thoughts, ideas, visions, dreams to a piece of work, art depicting experiences, events, emotions, dreams etc. literally as they were (how can we know? who cares? do we need to? sometimes yes, sometimes NO) Art can be an exaggeration and that is style. This is of course opinion based, but it is possible to objective or "grade" Art for the lets say, taste, technique, impact, rubric perhaps? I am far from an artist, but a creative.

Moving thoughts along a track, hmm. Those grounds for thoughts to thrive are different and unfamiliar territory for some. It is the place, to be, not bound to anything in space or time as we know it because we experience what we know in the mind, dream state similar or lifelike to the detailed accounts of that experience. Having two at one time different experiences of one thing.... space time, or travel as a material body WITH thoughts attributed to us. These thoughts are of US, the awareness of the consciousness is a degree to which effects the experience in waves of intensity, impacting mentally, physically, emotionally, spiritually or all in different times, combos, and for reasons that are knowable...ought to be known by the self, which makes the soul AWARE of the body that is experiencing life.

The communication between soul and consciousness is or may be unknowable at the human level, as far as what is beyond us...well, we ought to find out before we die. Or is dying required for the cycle to complete? Birth to Death. The human lifespan, life cycle...death cycle? What is keeping these cycles intact where they may be in space? Evolution? I think evolution emerges from or is caused by the specific species and it's life cycle from start to no end, but how it arrives to one. When the end is near, can we feel it coming?

The path of the cycles. The placement, the power of it. I think only we humans have the pleasure or luck to experience it, life, for what it is....either which way does not matter, because their is/was/will be no other option at the time when it counts. It as in LIFE, counts. It answers the question, whether you like it or not. The ask is what you get, "you have to give to get," I like to say and truly believe. It is that simple, As above so below and you get what you give......the thing is you get what you give is biased towards the being and will of the person...it is not karma, it is like ultimate fate. Unreasonable doubt....

Creative minded people and links to authenticity and individuality is something I am now finding may be interesting to look deeper into...Perhaps, this is how/why you can point them out with the name actually being present. Specific artists known for the style. The way they write, sound, sing, play an instrument is observable and by those who call themselves fans or just those who happen to frequent the work by chance or choice, unbothered...for now. --cvt 11/21/24 1241AM, hold before posting, current version above is pre-draft, T1, og


Great discussion topic! 11/21/24 1035pm cvt

I suggest anything our consciousness registers, from the moon to flights of fancy. But where the purely physical runs up against the purely mental could be a problem worth a thousand pages of philosophical ramblings — jgill

Right?!

As Einstein inferred, the moon exists - and our imaginations exist. What is in between? — jgill

I'll take that as a cue. As is well-known, Einstein paused on one of his afternoon walks, and asked his walking companion, Abraham Pais, 'does the moon continue to exist when nobody is looking at it?' Of course, was the expected answer. But why ask it? What prompted that? It was the now well-known 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum physics, formulated by his younger contemporaries Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Max Born, among others (although at the time, the name hadn't been coined.) The question crystallizes the tension between the realist view (that objects have determinate properties independently of their observation) and Bohr's attitude - that physics can only ever reveal nature as exposed to our method of questioning.

Now how this relates to this question in the OP. Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders, actually happens to believe that reality comes in degrees. Heisenberg, a lifelong student of Greek philosophy, re-purposes Aristotle's idea of 'potentia' to solve the conundrums of quantum physics.

three scientists argue that including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses. ...At its root, the idea holds that the common conception of “reality” is too limited. By expanding the definition of reality, the quantum’s mysteries disappear. In particular, “real” should not be restricted to “actual” objects or events in spacetime. Reality ought also be assigned to certain possibilities, or “potential” realities, that have not yet become “actual.” These potential realities do not exist in spacetime, but nevertheless are “ontological” — that is, real components of existence.

This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an extraspatiotemporal domain of quantum possibility,” write Ruth Kastner, Stuart Kauffman and Michael Epperson.

Considering potential things to be real is not exactly a new idea, as it was a central aspect of the philosophy of Aristotle, 24 centuries ago. An acorn has the potential to become a tree; a tree has the potential to become a wooden table. Even applying this idea to quantum physics isn’t new. Werner Heisenberg, the quantum pioneer famous for his uncertainty principle, considered his quantum math to describe potential outcomes of measurements of which one would become the actual result. The quantum concept of a “probability wave,” describing the likelihood of different possible outcomes of a measurement, was a quantitative version of Aristotle’s potential, Heisenberg wrote in his well-known 1958 book Physics and Philosophy. “It introduced something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality.” — Quantum Mysteries Dissolve....

According to this interpretation, the act of observation 'actualises' or 'manifests' the potential possibilities described by the wave function Ψ.

Something which I think is pregnant with all kinds of philosophical possibilities.