There have been attempts to refute the Forms by saying there cannot be a perfect Form of mathematics. But like Hegel, Plato seemed to have an implicit dislike for mathematics, perhaps because he wasn't great at it. Plato thought math was outside the Forms and earthly because 4 is greater than 2 but smaller than six. So 4 seems to be big and small at the same time, an imperfection in Plato's eyes — Gregory

Some people, myself included, claim that Plato himself refuted Pythagorean idealism, before Aristotle. The modern representation of Platonic realism is Pythagorean idealism, and is not a true representation of what Plato exposed.

But this is all in a materialist sense. The most I am willing to reduce matter to is energy. Information? No. Something spiritual? Nop. When Schopenhauer says matter is incorpereal, I take that to mean energy. Every thing else is fairy wand imagination. The world is vibration — Gregory

The issue is in one's understanding of what the word "matter" means. If we understand the term to refer to an aspect of reality which is not understood by humanity, then matter is necessarily just an idea. This is because there can be nothing specific which is known as "matter", there's just a vague unknown which bears that name..

Some people, myself included, claim that Plato himself refuted Pythagorean idealism, — Metaphysician Undercover

Please explain how. I'm much interested :)

This is because there can be nothing specific which is known as "matter", there's just a vague unknown which bears that name.. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well you define matter as "prime matter" which is a mystery. I see matter as res extensa and still regard it as a mystery

I don't know what you would mean by "Accident" here. Isn't an accident a property of an intentional act? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. In this context, "accidental" is the opposite of "intentional". In modern terms, an Accident is caused by random forces, and does not involve the property of Teleology. Aristotle contrasted Accidental change with Substantial change. But that is not what I was talking about.

it is the act of measurement which gives reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's what I thought you were referring to. But I was looking at change from the perspective of the First Cause or Creator. I suppose you could still call that Intentional change an act of measurement, in the sense that it is a mental comprehension. But I would hesitate to say that human measurement creates Reality. To me, it's more like the "measurement" is a choice of which aspect of reality the observer wants to see : location or motion. :smile:

I'm thinking that matter is an emergence from a vibration that is not full extension in itself

Please explain how. I'm much interested — Gregory

I'll start with a bit of an outline. Traditional idealism has a deficiency which becomes evident when the theory of participation, which supports it, is analyzed, as Plato did. He noticed that individual things must participate in the ideas which describe those things. For example, a thing of beauty must participate in the Idea of beauty if there is any truth to its beauty. But this representation makes the thing participating active, while the Idea which is partaken of, is passive. And so this representation cannot explain how the Idea of beauty imparts beauty to the beautiful thing, because it does not allow that the Idea is active. Notice that the Idea of beauty needs to be active, as the cause of beauty, if the Idea is to account for the existence of beauty within the thing.

This is why Plato turns to "the good" in The Republic. The good is said to be what makes the intelligible objects intelligible, just like the sun makes visible objects visible, by lighting them. So the good provides the principle of activity, inspiring human beings to act, and also allowing them to grasp the intelligible objects.

This produces a separation between the intelligible object as apprehended by the human mind, and the intelligible object as independent from the human mind, just like the separation between the visible object as lit by the sun, and the visible object as perceived by the seer. In Plato's system, "the good" is the medium between the intelligible object and the apprehension of it, just like the sun is the medium between the visible object and the image of it.

Plato explored the separation between divine ideas and human ideas in The Republic. He describes a double layer of representation. The carpenter has an idea of a bed, and produces a material bed which is a representation of this idea. But the carpenter's idea of a bed is itself a representation of the divine Idea, which is the best, or ultimate bed. So the carpenter attempts to make the best possible bed, but that carpenter's mind, with its idea of a bed does not really grasp the Ideal, and the bed is made to the best of the carpenter's ability to conceive of the ideal bed.

This refutes the Pythagorean idealism by demonstrating the necessity of a separation between the human ideas and the divine ideas. That type of idealism does not provide for such a separation, as the mathematical objects which are grasped by the human mind are said to be one and the same as the eternal Ideas. After this wedge is driven between the Ideals, and the human ideas, Aristotle attacks the human ideas, demonstrating that their existence can only be in potentia prior to being discovered by the human mind, and he demonstrates with the cosmological argument that no potential can be eternal.

I see matter as res extensa and still regard it as a mystery — Gregory

Either way, the point was that if it refers to a mystery, "matter" can't be anything more than an idea.

No. In this context, "accidental" is the opposite of "intentional". In modern terms, an Accident is caused by random forces, and does not involve the property of Teleology. Aristotle contrasted Accidental change with Substantial change. But that is not what I was talking about. — Gnomon

I don't see how there is such a thing as the opposite of "intentional". But for the sake of argument, I'll assume that there is such a thing, and I'll call it "non-intentional". And we'll say that this would be a random force. But such a force makes no sense whatsoever. It would have to spring from nowhere, as uncaused, to be truly random, and a force just springing from nowhere, uncaused, doesn't make any sense.

Matter is only a mystery because it can be broken down into energy. You say The Good must be what makes things intelligible. So... God. Of course you can say he is necessary, but I can respond that matter is dualistic and both contingent and necessary. You would counter with arguments of passivity and actualiy, but I'm never impressed when Feser and the crowd try this. I don't think they thought it through all the way to nowhere's end

Also, in the future when you write in the Thomistic method, know you are making illegal moves all over the chess board

I'd like to know how you decide what is legal and what is illegal in this context.

It's when you stretch someone's thought in a way were you can slip in an idea (a seed) which they would regard as true

I don't see how there is such a thing as the opposite of "intentional". — Metaphysician Undercover

You must have in mind a different definition of "Intentional". The antonym of Intentional (planned, willed) is given as Accidental or Un-intentional or Un-planned.or Un-willed. Are these definitions not oppositions? Perhaps "Accidental" is not a physical Thing, but as a concept it is the negation of "Intentional", is it not? Or are all actions Intentional in some sense? :smile:

Accidental : 1. happening by chance, unintentionally, or unexpectedly.

Intentional (metaphysics) :
3.a. pertaining to an appearance, phenomenon, or representation in the mind; phenomenal; representational.
b. pertaining to the capacity of the mind to refer to an existent or nonexistent object.
c. pointing beyond itself, as consciousness or a sign.

PS__Sorry, I wasn't aware that "Intentional" had a special metaphysical meaning.

Intentional means colloquially "by intent". As opposed to a river running down a mountain

You must have in mind a different definition of "Intentional". The antonym of Intentional (planned, willed) is given as Accidental or Un-intentional or Un-planned.or Un-willed. Are these definitions not oppositions? Perhaps "Accidental" is not a physical Thing, but as a concept it is the negation of "Intentional", is it not? Or are all actions Intentional in some sense? — Gnomon

I see your definition, but as I explained, philosophically it doesn't refer to anything real. Intention is a cause, and chance is not a cause. So chance and intention are two distinct categories, not opposites. When we say an action is intentional, we mean that it was caused by intention. When we say that an act was by chance, we do not mean that the cause of it was chance, nor do we mean that the act was not caused. We generally mean that we do not know the cause of it. If we assume that a chance event has no cause this is an unintelligible idea, as I explained.

So we allow a category of physical activities which are not caused by intention, and are also not by chance, and are therefore not accidental (in that sense). The sun shines and evaporates the puddle of water for example. This is not an intentional act, nor is it by chance, so it is not accidental in that sense. It is a different category, or type of activity, a type of activity where the designations of intentional/unintentional, are not relevant. In the other category, the type of activities which are human activities, the intentional/unintentional designation is relevant, and within this category the two are opposed, as "what I intended", and "not what I intended". But here, an accident, "not what I intended", is actually an off shoot of an intentional act, the unintended consequences of an intentional act. And that is because it doesn't make sense to talk about a human act which is not an intentional act, but a chance act.

Intentional means colloquially "by intent". As opposed to a river running down a mountain — Gregory

Right, these are two distinct categories, or types of activities, which Gnomon conflates into one category, to say that the act of a river running is the opposite of the act of a human running, one is intentional and the other is the opposite, unintentional. Then Gnomon applies the definition of "accidental" which is normally applied to an accident in an intentional type of act (not what I intended, therefore chance occurrence), to the other category, the unintentional act of the river running, and tries to argue that actions like the river running are accidental, or chance acts.

I see your definition, but as I explained, philosophically it doesn't refer to anything real. Intention is a cause, and chance is not a cause. So chance and intention are two distinct categories, not opposites. When we say an action is intentional, we mean that it was caused by intention. When we say that an act was by chance, we do not mean that the cause of it was chance, nor do we mean that the act was not caused. We generally mean that we do not know the cause of it. If we assume that a chance event has no cause this is an unintelligible idea, as I explained. — Metaphysician Undercover

My contrast of "Intentional Cause" versus "Accidental Cause" is basically a pragmatic scientific distinction, not an abstract philosophical category. For the practical purposes of Science, all physical events are either Intentional (artificial; experimental) or Accidental (natural; intrinsic). Intentional acts are deterministic & teleological, while Accidental events are random & probabilistic, caused by Chance. But you implied that "chance" means, not calculable mathematical probability, but merely ignorance of the effective Cause . . . a shrug of the shoulders. Then you admitted that an event without a (known or inferred) cause is "unintelligible". So, why place natural Accidents into a separate category from cultural Intentions? That would seem to be a resignation to the incomprehensibility of Nature.

Accidents in nature are usually attributed to statistically deterministic Natural Laws as the Cause, which originally referred back to the Will of God as the Prime Cause. Hence, even apparently random events were presumed to be Teleological and Intentional. Scientists still use the term "Law", but dispense with the notion of an intentional Lawgiver. That's because, unlike some philosophers, to admit ignorance of the chain of causation would undermine the validity of their theories. Unfortunately, their logical chain has no beginning, no First Cause --- only infinite ignorance.

According to Hume though, we have no way of knowing for sure that an effect is caused by its precedent. Instead, we merely assume that there is some (lawful) link between the before and after states. In other words, the Cause of an Effect is inferred rationally, but not observed empirically. Is that what you mean by, "it doesn't refer to anything real"? And yet modern Science would not work without Causal Inference, and the term "law" implies a willful deterministic Cause of some kind : perhaps the vague notion of Philosophical Necessity. Chance may not be a clear-cut Cause, where the intention can be ascertained by asking the intender. But, for the purposes of Science, Chance is the causal power of Nature, not some spooky fickle force like Fate. :smile:

Chance :
1, do something by accident or without design.
2. in the most general sense of the word, is the negation of necessity and the opposite of determinism.
3. Probability theory, a branch of mathematics concerned with the analysis of random phenomena. The outcome of a random event cannot be determined before it occurs, but it may be any one of several possible outcomes. The actual outcome is considered to be determined by chance.

Probabilistic Causation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_causation

Correlation does not imply causation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Statistical Determinism : https://dictionary.apa.org/statistical-determinism

Transference theory of causation : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01918271/file/Why_is_the_transference_theory_of_causat.pdf

tries to argue that actions like the river running are accidental, or chance acts. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well I do think that chance can be a cause

According to Hume though, we have no way of knowing for sure that an effect is caused by its precedent. — Gnomon

We can know we are the cause of picking up a ball because we can feel the causality in action. But seeing an avalanche is different. We can't sense what is causing what. In developing my materialistic version of cosmology, I've totally disregarded the idea of time. Time is a mental thing, something Bergsonian. It has nothing to do with matter. There is simply the first pull of gravity on matter and the following actions after that. Everything is mechanistic. There is nothing before the first pull of gravity because time doesn't exist outside our brains. What physicists call "time" is really a form of energy

Intentional acts are deterministic & teleological, while Accidental events are random & probabilistic, caused by Chance. — Gnomon

Again, I think you are conflating categories, making category errors. Let's make two categories, as you propose, artificial (intentional), and natural (chance). We cannot say, as you do, that intentional acts are deterministic, because the evidence is that we have freedom of choice. Likewise, as I already explained, we cannot say that natural occurrences are caused by chance. In fact, it makes no sense at all, as I told you already, to say that chance is a cause. To say that something happened by chance is to say that it is uncaused.

But, for the purposes of Science, Chance is the causal power of Nature, not some spooky fickle force like Fate. — Gnomon

This is not true at all.

Well I do think that chance can be a cause — Gregory

Perhaps you can explain these thoughts? Let's say for example, that I'm in a shopping mall and happen to meet an old friend I haven't seen in many years. That's a chance meeting. How do you think that chance caused me to meet this person? Or suppose a person wins a lottery. How does chance cause that person, rather than another person, to win?

How does chance cause that person, rather than another person, to win? — Metaphysician Undercover

Isn't that obvious??

Clearly each ticket has an equal chance to win. It doesn't cause one to win rather than another, because each has the same chance. What causes one to win rather than another, is the draw.

If you want to argue that this specific example is deterministic, that's fine. You don't seem to understand what the word random even means though. This is typical of Thomists

I'm not arguing that it's deterministic. Nor am I arguing that it is not random. I'm arguing that chance cannot be a cause. If there is such a thing as a random occurrence, then the occurrence is uncaused. If we say that it happened by chance, in no way does this mean that chance is the cause of the occurrence.

Word salad paragraph. You don't know what random is! So you think you know it's relation to spontaneity?....

Randomness is matter completely free. Free will in humans is pure spontaneity. Determinalism might be true. Aquinas would have become a Calvinist before he's go be a Molonist camp. We are all trying to figure this stuff out

Randomness is matter completely free. — Gregory

This is contradiction, plain and simple.

We are all trying to figure this stuff out — Gregory

There's no point in trying to figure out contradictions. Give it up! It's simply wrong.

We cannot say, as you do, that intentional acts are deterministic, because the evidence is that we have freedom of choice. — Metaphysician Undercover

Apparently, you are looking at causation from a different perspective. When I say that Intention is a deterministic cause, I mean that the human Intender had the power to determine a specific effect. That's why most people believe they have enough Freewill to overrule the Common Cause of random events. You may be thinking of determinism in terms of Divine Will. Theists tend to believe in divine fore-ordination, by analogy with human design and programming. That is what we call the First or Primary Causation, which is reflected in the teleology of Natural Causes. Hence, human intentions and creations are secondary causal acts.

Common Cause vs Special Cause : Common Cause is also known as Chance Cause (natural pattern). Special Cause is a non-random, unpredictable causation, such as an intentional human act (un-natural cause).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_cause_and_special_cause_(statistics)

Likewise, as I already explained, we cannot say that natural occurrences are caused by chance. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've been using the term "Chance" as a shorthand for "Random Probability". So I assume you have some important philosophical reason for denying that natural events are caused by random Chance. Since "Chance" is an ancient notion of natural agency similar to Fate, perhaps we should use the more scientific "Probability". Note, in the definition below, "Chance" refers to Causation that is unpredictable, or random, instead of Intentional. Therefore, when we can't attribute an effect to any particular (special) cause, we say it was "caused" by Chance, meaning a natural random event (or an act of God), instead of an intentional willed effect by human agents. Therefore, our disagreement is not a category error, but merely the failure to properly define our terms for this context. :smile:

Chance : the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency:

Probabilistic Causation : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/

Chance and Causality : http://home.uchicago.edu/~jlmartin/Chance%20and%20Causality.pdf

PS__I forgot how we came to disagree on the use of "Chance" pertaining to natural events. Please describe what difference it makes to your understanding of Causation in general.
PPS__ I may have answered my own question in the next post.

But, for the purposes of Science, Chance is the causal power of Nature, not some spooky fickle force like Fate. — Gnomon
This is not true at all. — Metaphysician Undercover

I should clarify my statement to include "Natural Selection", which is the complement to "Random Chance" as the Cause of Natural Evolutionary Change. By itself, randomness is destructive, so you are correct to say my shorthand assertion is not true. Yet, combined with Selection, Chance can be creative. Moreover, so-called "Natural Selection" covertly implies a Selector, or Intender, or Creative Agent, who created the program of progressive evolutionary change.

Since most scientists deny the necessity for a First Cause of the subsequent sequence of natural events, they put the emphasis on Randomness as the creative power behind the upward arc of Evolution. But that doesn't make sense to me. So I assume that Nature functions like a computer program, which was designed to reach some ultimate solution via a heuristic searching algorithm. I don't know what that teleological goal is, but increasing Intelligence seems to be a stepping stone on the path to the Big Finale. Will the output of the program be an ideal world?? Maybe; maybe not. :cool:

Natural Selection Algorithm : There is a form of evolution, called a genetic algorithm, that takes place in a computer
https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA14217688&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00368075&p=AONE&sw=w

PS__What I refer to as "The Programmer", may be a modern term for Anaxagoras' notion of the rational power of Logos, which causes dumb matter to evolve into thinking beings.

I think all algorithm's are strange loops and are as such faulty

I think all algorithm's are strange loops and are as such faulty — Gregory

By "faulty" do you mean imperfect? One essential "imperfection" in the evolutionary program is that it may permit self-reference. Which allows causal feedback loops. But that apparent "fault" may be the secret to evolving intelligent beings from dumb matter : the ability to learn from experience and feed that information back into the ongoing process. :nerd:


The Baldwin effect : . . . . in evolutionary developmental biology literature as a scenario in which a character or trait change occurring in an organism as a result of its interaction with its environment becomes gradually assimilated into its developmental genetic or epigenetic repertoire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_effect

Strange loops in learning and evolution : Scientific theories typically make sense of phenomena at a given level of explanation. Occasionally, phenomena that seem to belong to one level unexpectedly influence an entirely different one. These interactions are strange loops.
https://homes.luddy.indiana.edu/rocha/publications/embrob/wiles.html

"Natural Selection" — Gnomon

In the regular uncapitalized natural selection, it is the 'selection' that is the scientific alternate to ID, meaning, too, that evolution doesn't work by chance, which is the same as you said about chance not being able to drive it.

PPS__ I may have answered my own question in the next post. — Gnomon

Yes, I think you have answered the question in the next post. Chance is not actually a cause at all, in evolution, natural selection is the cause.

Yet, combined with Selection, Chance can be creative. — Gnomon

It appears to me, like you are still making the same mistake. "Chance" is the word that we use to describe the situation when we apprehend no particular reason for one outcome or another. So the word refers to how we, as human beings, apprehend or describe the situation, it doesn't refer to something active in the world.

Take a coin toss for example. A human hand takes the coin, tosses it, and allows it to land. That is a description of the activity involved. The hand is the cause of the coin toss. However, we can say that there is a 50/50 chance of heads or tails. That "chance" is the way that we describe the possible outcome of the potential toss. If the action is initiated, there is a chance that the outcome will be one thing, and a chance that the outcome will be something else. So "chance" is a word that describes the effects of an action, not the cause of the action.

Even when a person is considering what action to take, and the person decides to "take a chance", "chance" relates to the potential outcome of the possible action. The person is not sure what the outcome will be, and so takes a chance. Chance is not the cause of the action, because the person intentionally chooses the action, but the word "chance" refers to the person not being sure what the outcome will be.

Imagine your example of evolution. One might say, that there is a chance mutation of the being. This does not mean that the mutation is caused by chance, it means that whether the mutation might make the being more or less capable, is a matter of chance, just like flipping the coin creates a chance of heads or tails. Natural selection is the end result, what validates the effect as better or worse. So "chance" is something created by an action, like flipping a coin, or throwing the dice, and the word refers to the fact that the outcome (effect) is indeterminate. But chance is not a creative power in itself, it's how we describe the effect of a creative act when there is more than one possible outcome of the creative act.

Since most scientists deny the necessity for a First Cause of the subsequent sequence of natural events, they put the emphasis on Randomness as the creative power behind the upward arc of Evolution. But that doesn't make sense to me. — Gnomon

You demonstrate a logical intuition, to say that this does not make sense to you. Randomness is just like chance, it describes a created situation, like tossing the dice, it does not describe a creative power. We create randomness, like a random number generator, or tossing the dice, but randomness cannot create anything itself. If there was such a thing as pure randomness, it would just continue on as pure randomness forever and ever, without creating anything. If it actually did create something, then by that very fact it would falsify the designation of randomness, and we'd have to say that it really wasn't random.

we'd have to say that it really wasn't random — Metaphysician Undercover

Some research somewhere I can't remember suggest that the wave function collapse isn't instant or random, it becoming only after a gradual build-up.

'Random', though has a tough time of going away, although I'd like it to. Anton Zellinger claims to have proven that "randomness is the bedrock of reality" to many sigma, through experiments.