Do you think this admits of a purely physical solution? — Wayfarer
That the epistemic cut, or the distinction between the semantic and the physical, will be erased in due course? — Wayfarer
I find it a little embarrassing for you that you deny that lipids can spontaneously from in the right conditions — Read Parfit
Of course the only way to judge the reasonableness of such speculation - which ran ahead of the experiments now being done by Lane and others - would be to actually read his book. — apokrisis
If it's true, then where is the evidence? Where are all these lipids which are spontaneously forming in the right conditions? Or is it simply the case that "the right conditions" just don't exist and therefore lipids just aren't spontaneously forming? And, "the right conditions" is a convenient fiction which substitutes for "magic". — Metaphysician Undercover
As I explained to Read Parfit, both the evidence and the logic indicate that the correct direction for speculation is into the nature of the non-physical, and how the non-physical "soul" brings about the existence of living physical bodies. — Metaphysician Undercover
You don't seem to understand the scientific version of hylomorphism - the kind where global organisation can form "spontaneously" to meet some finality. The word spontaneous is used here to denote that there is no particular local material/efficient cause that produces the global organisation. Instead there is some generalised finality being served which does the trick. — apokrisis
In the case of lipids forming micelles, the finality is the usual one of entropy minimisation. The lipid molecules have no choice but to find the configuration which is the least energy-demanding possible. And any kind of nudge or fluctuation at all is going to be enough of a local material push to set that chain of dominoes falling to its inevitable conclusion - a micelle arrangement with all the hydrophobic tails tuck up inside, safely far from any surrounding water. — apokrisis
So for a modern biological Aristotelian, we have our notions of final/formal cause that make measurable sense. — apokrisis
But lipids don't form spontaneously — Metaphysician Undercover
By removing that non-physical aspect, intent, from finality, you are left with nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover
Final cause requires intention, the non-physical. — Metaphysician Undercover
They form membranes spontaneously. You forgot, or never understood, what was said. — apokrisis
Can purpose refer to function or reason instead of intent, and thereby to a strictly physical (as opposed to mental, or non-physical) process?
For example:
1) The purpose (function) of the heart is to pump blood.
2) The purpose of (reason for) photosynthesis is to convert light into chemical energy. — Galuchat
Did Aristotle define telos in terms of reason or intent? — Galuchat
I suppose we need to define "spontaneously" then. — Metaphysician Undercover
In his "Physics" he defined final cause as "that for the sake of which". The example he gave is that if a man walks for his health, then health is the cause of the man walking, in the sense of final cause. The man has an idea, a goal, "health", and this is the cause of him walking. This is commonly called, by us, intent. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah. I did. The spontaneous part of "spontaneous symmetry-breaking" refers to the fact that any old material nudge is going to tip everything in some collective symmetry-breaking direction. So it says, yes, you need some kind of material/efficient cause to get things going. But the very least imaginable fluctuation is going to do that. — apokrisis
It is a pure accident. Whatever happened, it would have resulted in the same effect. — apokrisis
A classic example of this is a ball balanced on top of a dome. It is going to roll off one way or another of its own accord. Well, it will need a nudge to get going. But there is always going to be some vibration or other that tips the balance. — apokrisis
That's why we must look to something other than the mind as the source of purposeful, or intentional activity. If you read Aristotle's biology you will see that he attributes this immaterial source of purposeful, or intentional activity (which manifests as conscious intent), to "the soul", which all living things have in common. — Metaphysician Undercover
The intellect (mind) and soul (form of the living body) of the human being are united as one (according to Aquinas, not Aristotle). — Galuchat
So, how is the human soul (mind+form) the source of intentional activity if "...we must look to something other than the mind as the source of purposeful, or intentional activity." (as above)? — Galuchat
Also, if Aristotle's final cause applies to all of nature, it may help if you could explain what the final cause of an inorganic object or process (e.g., a volcano or volcanic eruption) would be. — Galuchat
When two things are united as one, each part has a different relation to the one united thing. So "soul" could refer to the source of intentional activity, and "mind" could have a different relation to intentional activity, while the two are united as one in the human being. — Metaphysician Undercover
If the soul (mind+form of the body) is the source of intentional activity, and we must look to something other than the mind as the source of intentional activity, then is it more accurate to say that the form of the body (and not the soul) is the source of intentional activity? — Galuchat
I'm just trying to determine whether (given Aristotle's avoidance of psychological terms such as "intent") the use of even "nonconscious intent" to describe final cause should be avoided in favour of another, such as "end" (telos). It seems to me that using "intent" with reference to final cause is equivocal, possibly serving an unnecessary theological (as opposed to strictly scientific) end (read: Thomist viewpoint superseding Aristotelian viewpoint). — Galuchat
In the Physics, Aristotle builds on his general account of the four causes by developing explanatory principles that are specific to the study of nature. Here Aristotle insists that all four causes are involved in the explanation of natural phenomena, and that the job of “the student of nature is to bring the why-question back to them all in the way appropriate to the science of nature” (Phys. 198 a 21–23)." — Galuchat
The soul was always understood as separable from the body, even following Aristotle's definition, designating it as the form of the body... — Metaphysician Undercover
As I understand, the soul is not the form of the body. — Metaphysician Undercover
Given Aristotle's avoidance of psychological terms...It seems to me that using "intent" with reference to final cause is equivocal, possibly serving an unnecessary theological (as opposed to strictly scientific) end (read: Thomist viewpoint superseding Aristotelian viewpoint). — Galuchat
I don't see this equivocation. "Intent" and "end" are both applicable terms, one is of the general, the other particular. "End" refers to the particular, best understood as "the good", that which is desired, the particular thing which one is trying to bring about in an intentional act. — Metaphysician Undercover
You claim that organisation occurs "to meet finality" which implies necessarily, "purpose", but then you deny the non-physical, "intent" which is implied by purpose. — Metaphysician Undercover
In my opinion, you have been presenting a view of Final Cause which Aristotle would not have endorsed. — Galuchat
If your understanding is not contradictory, your explanations certainly are. — Galuchat
So, Aquinas changed the meaning of "soul" from "form" to "mind" and separated it from "body" for theological reasons. — Galuchat
From here:
The soul was always understood as separable from the body, even following Aristotle's definition, designating it as the form of the body... — Metaphysician Undercover
To here:
As I understand, the soul is not the form of the body. — Metaphysician Undercover
If your understanding is not contradictory, your explanations certainly are. — Galuchat
For example, prior to the work of Maxwell and Hertz, electromagnetic radiation was non-physical, but became physical as a result of the knowledge that they generated. — johnpetrovic
Metaphysics complements physics if you know how to translate between the two systems. — wellwisher
An eternal soul persists apart from the body. It is like a DVD of data that is removable. — wellwisher
I'm sorry. I thought you meant metaphysical in a philosophical sense. It seems you mean something closer to the everyday, something along the lines of abstract, figurative, mystical and maybe even magical. I don't really disagree with what you say, I just misunderstood your intended meaning. :up:
6 hours ago — Pattern-chaser
Dark matter and dark energy is a metaphysical system — wellwisher
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.