I think I said in the OP that essential and accidental are two types of efficient causality. — Dfpolis

You did. My bad.

And moral agency

It kicks in as soon as one commits to a line of action.... [and]
It means that we can make rational commitments. — Dfpolis

So, we should not reify the will. — Dfpolis

We can read the Greek and translate it, but in my admittedly limited experience, translation can and sometimes does make the Greek say what it never meant, an inevitable result of making a 2,300-years-old language speak in a 21st century milieu. aitia (ἠ αἰτία), translated as cause, our present example. Perhaps fancifully, it appears rooted in a family of similar words meaning, respectively, to ask for, request, to blame, to collect, blameworthy. And within these both a sense of agency and a sense of assigning agency.

By contrast, if I buy some dynamite to blast a stump out of the ground and having accomplished my goal then ask what caused the explosion, I will find that the Greek will not yield a modern answer.

A part of an understanding of why the ancient Greek does not - aside from not comprehending the modern sense of the question - imo can be teased out of their use of participles, that we usually translate as -ing words, calling them either gerunds or participles depending on usage. Arcane grammar aside, it suggests the ancient Greek viewed his world as a dynamic world of events and processes, of happenings, his language reflecting that view. That is, not, for example, of justice, but rather of being just, or of courage, being couragious, and so forth, the key the being, having, doing. Seeming all the while cased in a temporal sense.

Thus to the ancient Greek the cause of the explosion: my efficient buying the material dynamite to finally get out the stump to formally improve my field. All, even if obscurely the material, dynamic, in motion, agentful, explaining and answering because of what? On the other hand, the modern account tends to freeze the moment to when the burning fuse touches the explosive material, at that moment starting the rapid reaction that just (statically) is the explosion.

And so I find the essential cause as the building of the house being built by the builder building the house not directly translatable. He, Aristotle, imo was making a simple grammatical point about the identity of passive and active description while retaining the dynamism, the process(es) and agency. Not for a moment do I suppose that he meant building as anything separate from what a builder is doing when he builds.

The question, then, if essential causality is the cause of moral agency, is it in the Greek temporal sense of an agent-performed process that produces a result? Or in a modern and static sense, wherein responsibility is extracted and regarded in a frozen moment prior to which it isn't, and at which moment it is. It seems to me that you cannot extract from the Greek sense, without losing it completely and creating a different meaning.

When you take one sentence out of context, you can twist its meaning. — Dfpolis

That isn't out of context. That's your opening untruth.

"Random" has many meanings, one of which is mindless. It should be evident to anyone who read the title ("Mind or Randomness in Evolution") that the meaning of "purely random" in the abstract is totally mindless — Dfpolis

Random does not mean, nor has ever meant, mindless. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

This is not saying that evolution is purely random as you claim I did. — Dfpolis

And yet you did claim this, in the first sentence.if you're trying to convince me that you are logically incoherent, no need. It's evident from your posts.

I explicitly quote Dawkins discussing the non-random aspect of evolution: — Dfpolis

Odd, then, to cite him here as evidence that naturalists believe evolution to be purely random. Again, no shock that your magnum opus is as schizoid as your posts.

IDN either. Mostly I agree and accept correction. Mostly. But we oughtn't anthropomorphize anything bee. And I tend toward thinking that a bee is more, even if not much more, a mechanical sensing device. I.e., being wafted along on a summer breeze, I think there are moments when it chooses which way to go.

By contrast, if I buy some dynamite to blast a stump out of the ground and having accomplished my goal then ask what caused the explosion, I will find that the Greek will not yield a modern answer. — tim wood

Aristotle would, I think, say that you were the efficient cause (having actualized the relevant potentials) and that the dynamite was an instrumental cause, as it was the instrument you used to effect your will to blow the stump up.

On the other hand, the modern account tends to freeze the moment to when the burning fuse touches the explosive material, at that moment starting the rapid reaction that just (statically) is the explosion. — tim wood

If we narrow our focus by abstracting the part from the whole, fixing on this to the neglect of that, the result is not to change the reality, but to limit our understanding of reality. This is a bad habit easily corrected by taking the time to see the abstract in context -- thus avoiding Whitehead's fallacy of misplaced concreteness (which consists in seeing our abstractions as the concrete reality).

And so I find the essential cause as the building of the house being built by the builder building the house not directly translatable — tim wood

?. Didn't you just say we have gerunds and participles with which to translate it? We understand that building is in the active mood of the present progressive tense and being built in its passive mood. more importantly we know that building and being built are always inseparable, being two sides of the same coin -- and that is Aristotle's point: that there is no happening without a doing, and so any actualization of a potential requires the act of an operational agent.

He, Aristotle, imo was making a simple grammatical point about the identity of passive and active description while retaining the dynamism, the process(es) and agency. — tim wood

He was never interested in abstract grammar, but did linguistic analysis to tease out the ontology it expresses. You can see this in the Categories, the point of which was to clarify the confusions Platonism traded upon. So, he was doing more than making a grammatical point. He was asking us to look at the grammar and see the reality that motivates it, viz. that there is no acting without something being acted upon, and no being acted upon without something acting.

The question, then, if essential causality is the cause of moral agency, is it in the Greek temporal sense of an agent-performed process that produces a result? Or in a modern and static sense, wherein responsibility is extracted and regarded in a frozen moment prior to which it isn't, and at which moment it is. It seems to me that you cannot extract from the Greek sense, without losing it completely and creating a different meaning. — tim wood

I believe you think too little of Greek comprehension. Yes, there is a process of building, but it is not interminable. There comes a moment when the process is complete, when it has reached its telos, and the house is finished.

In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle shares his vision of the process leading to a choice, which he calls proairesis. It is rational, starting with the end we desire, determining means adequate to that end, then what is required to effect those means, and so on iteratively until we come to what must be done now. Aquinas adds that we only know that we are committed to the end when we will the means -- in other words, when we begin to walk the walk.

Good bye

Good bye — Dfpolis

Bye, crazy lying Christian dude.

Philosophical naturalists claim macroevolution shows order emerging by pure chance. ...Evolution is not random, but fully intentional, evidencing mind in nature

Ah. Cheers, @Kenosha Kid.

@Dfpolis' writing style reeks of fundamentalist Christianity, but I didn't see the explicit evidence until here. He needs free will in order to keep his god. The "arguments" here are not presented for critique in good faith, but to bulldoze a Christian perspective.

Something like that, yes.

The scientific concept(s) of "degrees of freedom" is interesting here as it suggests that freedom is something that can be quantified. And thus that freedom could have started very small among bees and other species similarly "simple" and then grow up progressively.

The mechanical meaning of "degree of freedom" also suggests (to me anyway) the idea that a little bit of "play" is necessary for anything to move. This is an esoteric idea perhaps but a guy interested in mechanics should be able to relate. In mechanics, "play", also called "backlash" or "lash", is the gap between the parts of a machine. Without it the machine will grip (it won't play, it will have no degree of freedom), but if there's too much play, the machine will lose in efficiency.

I see randomness as the universe's "play", the little gap between the wheels of determinism, that allows the whole thing to get some degree of freedom and move ahead, instead of gripping.

I believe you think too little of Greek comprehension. Yes, there is a process of building, but it is not interminable. — Dfpolis

Not less, just as different. And to be sure, comprehensive with respect to what they were working with. As for the building, not the Greeks but you. You appear to want both process and a stopping of process. Process in that which produces the result, and the arrest of process in essential cause - because you want it to be the essential cause of something that it cannot be the essential cause of.

If you wish to say that the commitment to choose an action - these broadly defined - is the genesis of moral agency, I won't gainsay it. But as caused essentially, not so. Either you have process yielding a result not the process - an accidental cause, or you have instantaneous result from an incomplete process.

All of which argues that what cause is, is what someone says it is, one-size fits all when cut generously, But for a tighter fit, the speaker must be at least consistent. Momentary essential cause as producing per process a finished product isn't consistent. Or another way: building is the essential cause of building, that which links builder and built. But the linking is itself not constitutive of the building.

I have to allow the temporal constraint to expand, but only insofar as it encompasses the cause. Building, then, is the activity by which the building is realized. As essential cause it may then be grasped as a unity. But by itself, no building was ever built by building by- and in-itself.

Your moral agency, then, is from accidental causes, but no less caused for that. And it may be that, as with the dynamite, there can be singled out the penultimate/ultimate connection, 'twixt which link nothing else can be inserted. But there is nothing to say that such a link will be especially satisfying or edifying as an explanation of the act itself. And perhaps it will be as little as the release of some endorphins, as a sign of the release of tension from a decision having been made.

Again, :up:
The need for lash in a machine is new to me - I never gave it any thought. Thank you for the edu.

I see randomness as the universe's "play", the little gap between the wheels of determinism, that allows the whole thing to get some degree of freedom and move ahead, instead of gripping. — Olivier5

Indeed, but poetic. Perhaps determinism is just the small gaps between the wheels of randomness. Except that I'm pretty sure this randomness, large or small, calls for a more rigorous explication. I'll read if you care to write - but I'm not asking. Or if you want a smaller, lesser challenge; if you can explain in layman's terms the inner workings of Chaitin's Omega, I'd be pleased to read that!

writing style reeks of fundamentalist Christianity, — Banno

Were I a fundamentalist, I would not accept evolution as sound science.

I think what you find unusual in my style is the open, rational consideration of evidence from anyone interested in truth. I read people I disagree with to understand why they think as they do -- and discuss philosophy with any person willing to engage in rational and civil discourse.

I think what you find unusual in my style... — Dfpolis

Your style is not unusual at all - there have been a half-dozen similar in the last year alone.

...is the open, rational consideration of evidence from anyone interested in truth. — Dfpolis

...from any true Scotsman.

Your style is not unusual at all - there have been a half-dozen similar in the last year alone. — Banno

I don't think he was saying his style is unusual, but that you find something unusual in it

And a scotsman by any other name...nah mean?

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion, but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says: "No true Scotsman would do such a thing".

-Antony Flew.

You appear to want both process and a stopping of process. — tim wood

Not quite. I want to know what is. I see processes, and processes coming to completion. Plants sprout, grow, disseminate seed and die. People are conceived, born, mature, do good and/or evil, and die. Processes and ends are equally real.

you want it to be the essential cause of something that it cannot be the essential cause of. — tim wood

I have no idea what this means or how it relates to what I said. What is the "it" I want? What is the "something that it cannot be the essential cause of"?

If you wish to say that the commitment to choose an action - these broadly defined - is the genesis of moral agency, — tim wood

I do not. I wish to say that humans are moral agents because our commitments are the radical origin of new lines of action that can do good or evil. By "radical origin," I mean that the new lines of action are not fully determined before we commit to them.

But as caused essentially, not so. Either you have process yielding a result not the process - an accidental cause, or you have instantaneous result from an incomplete process. — tim wood

Let me be clear, accidental and essential causality are distinct, but not mutually exclusive. Processes always involve the actualization of potency over time. The pile of building materials does not suddenly and discontinuously become a house. Rather a building process turns it, bit by bit, into a house. At every instant the house is being built, there is an essential cause in operation (the builder building). If the essential cause ceases to operate, the house ceases being built. When the house is again being built, its essential cause is again operative -- some builder is once again building.

What we learn from this is that accidental causality, the linking of an initial event (say the signing of a construction contract) to its subsequent outcome (the completion of the house), is simply the integral effect of essential causality over time. At each instant that the process is progressing, it is doing so because an agent is concurrently actualizing some potential.

Imagine I decide to go to the store. If at any subsequent time my intention changes, I will no longer be going to the store. I might still be driving in the same direction, but I will not longer be driving to the store, but to a point where I can implement my new intention.

All of which argues that what cause is, is what someone says it is — tim wood

Again, not quite. What the term "cause" refers to is what someone says it refers to when they use it. Still, what is (the actual process of building, deciding or whatever) is what it is independently of what anyone says it is.

Momentary essential cause as producing per process a finished product isn't consistent. — tim wood

It is not consistent if you abstract away the continuity of processes. While you may think of moments of essential causality as discrete and isolated points of action, in reality they are neither discrete nor isolated. Rather, each moment of action is dynamically linked to its predecessor and successor.

If we reflect, it is clear that no change can occur in a single point of time, and so no process can progress in an instant. Rather, if we are to capture the notion of change, and of progression of a process, we must think in terms of finite intervals, however infinitesimal. Still, there can be an instant of completion.

Or another way: building is the essential cause of building, that which links builder and built. But the linking is itself not constitutive of the building. — tim wood

No, the builder building (an agent in operation -- not an abstract operation) is the essential cause, not of an abstract operation (building), but of the building being built (a concrete reality).

But by itself, no building was ever built by building by- and in-itself — tim wood

We agree.

Your moral agency, then, is from accidental causes, but no less caused for that. — tim wood

As I pointed out above, accidental causality is derivative on essential causality, being its integral effect over time. At each point in the process that links the initial to the final event, there is an agent operating to actualize some potential -- taking the process to the next stage.

Please do not be so harsh on Ken.

Please do not be so harsh on Ken. — Dfpolis

I am actually Scottish by blood, so...

Indeed, but poetic. Perhaps determinism is just the small gaps between the wheels of randomness. Except that I'm pretty sure this randomness, large or small, calls for a more rigorous explication. I'll read if you care to write - but I'm not asking. — tim wood

I could write about randomness and indeterminism, but you'd be the only reading.

The Open Universe by Karl Popper, is a a series of arguments in favor of an indeterminist outlook in (of course) quantum mechanics but also in classical physics. It's a serious, thick, argumentative and as always crystal clear book that pretty much disposes of determinism. Highly recommended to the dogmatic medieval thinkers here (but you could read it too).

French biologists Monod and Jacob wrote about randomness in evolution, e.g. in "Hasard et Nécessité" by Monod or "Le Jeu des Possibles" by Francois Jacob (not sure what the English titles are) in the 1960/70s.

Closer to us (and to you culturally), Stephen Gould writes well about how evolution is stochastic by nature.

The Open Universe by Karl Popper, is a a series of arguments in favor of an indeterminist outlook in (of course) quantum mechanics but also in classical physics. It's a serious, thick, argumentative and as always crystal clear book that pretty much disposes of determinism. — Olivier5

Does it, to any greater extent than the mainstream interpretations of QM did at the time? Popper wrote prior to the widespread acceptance of deterministic interpretations of QM. He also did not understand QM well, believing that quantum events were completely unpredictable, despite the Born interpretation of the wavefunction entering QM at the level of postulate by that point.

Popper's other argument was that scientific experiment always dealt with simple phenomena, i.e. theory simplifies reality and yields predictions from them, since complex phenomena are beyond our technological capabilities. Popper of all people will have known that this is not a good scientific theory, since determinism is falsifiable while his indeterminism-of-the-gaps is non-falsifiable. Indeed, he states this as a metaphysical argument and it can be dismissed as such.

This should not be confused with non-determinism in QM. You seem to lump together:
- phenomena that, given all relevant information and the technological capability to process it, yield statistical outcomes independent of the phenomena under study (randomness):
- phenomena that, given all relevant information and the technological capability to process it, would yield statistically predictable outcomes (QM, stochastics);
- phenomena that, given all relevant information, we could not make anything more than statistical predictions (complexity);
- phenomena that we cannot have all relevant information about (statistical mechanics).

I doubt you have read the book, so I will ignore your uninformed attempts at a critique.

the widespread acceptance of deterministic interpretations of QM. — Kenosha Kid

There is no such thing. QM are generally interpreted as indeterministic.

determinism is falsifiable — Kenosha Kid

How would you go about falsifying determinism, then? Please propose an experiment that could prove it false.

There is no such thing. QM are generally interpreted as indeterministic. — Olivier5

This is your problem. You are not precise with language. Quantum indeterminacy relates to knowability: we cannot, for instance, know both the position and momentum of a particle to arbitrary precision. This underpins the wavefunction description of particles.

Whether the behaviour of that wavefunction is deterministic or not is the subject of the measurement problem. If the wavefunction evolves deterministically following or during measurement, QM is a deterministic theory. This is the case in MWI, for instance. If it undergoes some collapse mechanism (Copenhagen) or other probabilistic means of producing singular measurement outcomes (e.g. transactional QM), it is non-deterministic, specifically it is probabilistic.

They are not the same thing, nor are they purely random, nor are they the same thing as stochastical indeterminacy, nor are they the same thing as complexity.

How would you go about falsifying determinism, then? — Olivier5

Do you understand what falsifiability is? That nature is deterministic can be falsified by the discovery of a phenomenon which is knowable, tractable, but at any scale unpredictable.

If it undergoes some collapse mechanism (Copenhagen) or other probabilistic means if producing singular measurement outcomes (e.g. transactional QM), it is non-deterministic, specifically it is probabilistic. — Kenosha Kid

Well then, we agree.

Do you understand what falsifiability is? That nature is deterministic can be falsified by the discovery of a phenomenon which is knowable, tractable, but at any scale unpredictable. — Kenosha Kid

But you said it yourself: unpredictable is different from undetermined. Something could be fully determined but unpredictable. For example the three bodies problem in classic physics is I think deterministic in the sense that it can be proven (I think) that there is only one solution to the equation. However we cannot compute the solution, we don't know how to do it, and therefore the behavior of three bodies interacting through Newtonian gravity cannot be successfully predicted with the tools at our disposal. It doesn't mean it's not deterministic.

For example the three bodies problem in classic physics is I think deterministic in the sense that it can be proven (I think) that there is only one solution to the equation. However we cannot compute the solution, we don't know how to do it, and therefore the behavior of three bodies interacting through Newtonian gravity cannot be successfully predicted with the tools at our disposal. It doesn't mean it's not deterministic. — Olivier5

This is an example of something being deterministic, knowable, but intractable.

The point remains that unpredictable is not an exact synonym of undetermined, and that testing the former is not testing the latter...

You cannot falsify full determinism. It would require two universes, absolutely equal at time t, and then the ability to compare them at time t+x. We don't have two universes absolutely identical at time t. Ergo determinism is essentially a metaphysical position, and always will be. It brings no scientific value, it can make no significant difference to anything. We are talking about the sex of angels here.

The point remains that unpredictable is not an exact synonym of undetermined, and that testing the former is not testing the latter... — Olivier5

That is why there are three parts to the falsifiability criteria: knowability, tractability, unpredictability. Unpredictability alone does not cut it.

Nothing cuts it. You cannot fathom an experiment that would help conclude one way or another on the philosophical idea of determinism.

Nothing cuts it. You cannot fathom an experiment that would help conclude one way or another on the philosophical idea of determinism. — Olivier5

That sounds like a cherished belief. It has no value in science.

Indeed, determinism cannot be a scientific theory if it is not falsifiable. It is a matter of belief, and your belief in the matter seems quite strong.

For me, it can easily be disposed of as an non-necessary hypothesis. We don't know for a fact, and will never know, if everything in the universe is predetermined or not. It shouldn't bother people, therefore.

If one thinks for instance that free will is incompatible with determinism (which is how this discussion started), well that's no big deal because determinism is pure metaphysics. You can easily dispose of it and retain your sense of free will.