Against final causality

[polytropos]

But then the RNA has a new final cause, and yet its form is exactly the same. ???.

What do you mean its form is exactly the same? A retrovirus has its information stored in RNA, which it injects into a host cell to make use of the host cell’s “equipment” (ribosomes, etc.). It thereby writes itself into the host cell’s DNA. If the added DNA is modified (say, though some error or mutation) to be useful for the cell, then the RNA does not at all have the same form. It has a different form which is oriented toward the needs of the cell.

 

[polytropos]

Where are you getting this, " Each article on Aquinas’s Five Ways begins by saying that, because the arguments are based on observations of the world, they are not claimed to follow with absolute certainty… " ?

If you follow the link and click on one of the arguments, they contain statements like “Aquinas’ Argument from Design begins with the empirical observation of the design and order of the universe. Hence, this argument is an à posteriori argument, and the conclusion is not claimed to follow with absolute certainty.” Now that I look at the article for the Fifth Way, it does not seem quite so bad, but I do think that Aquinas regarded final causes as necessary. I think if we look at some of the objections raised, we see that the article is implying things that Aquinas was not committed to (say, III.F).

I don’t see why it couldn’t be used as a " design " argument.

I’m not really saying it’s not a design argument (my phrasing was poor). I am saying that it is not arguing from complexity but from directedness.

That " biological complexity is explained by evolution, " us an unproven assumption.
What do you mean by, " final causality (in simple, inorganic entities as well as life) is not reducible in principle. " ?

I don’t think it is unproven that evolution accounts for much biological complexity. That is not to say that evolution is not directed (I think the process is laden with intentionality). But that is not really what is important for Aquinas’s argument. He is not arguing that, say, the human body is very complex and apparently purposive, so there is a designer. He is arguing that causality of any sort presupposes final causality, which is a necessary feature of reality, and gestures toward a Supreme Intelligence, ie. that it only makes sense to say that A is the efficient cause of B if B is the final cause of A.

 

[Bahman]

How can selves experience each other though illusion, i.e. imaginary things?

First, in this picture everything but self and Self is an illusion. This even include our bodies.

Second, self or Self do not occupy any space and can act in instance. You can imagine them as simple dot without dimension sitting in nothingness. Self is pure knowledge and capable of creating substance. The substance is an illusion of state of being annihilate immediately after its creation so Self has to constantly create them. The substance can be experienced by conscious part of self being understood in an instance. This leads to several state of being in self, like thinking, feeling… Decisions are made in subconscious part of self.

 

[davidv]

First, in this picture everything but self and Self is an illusion. This even include our bodies.

Second, self or Self do not occupy any space and can act in instance. You can imagine them as simple dot without dimension sitting in nothingness. Self is pure knowledge and capable of creating substance. The substance is an illusion of state of being annihilate immediately after its creation so Self has to constantly create them. The substance can be experienced by conscious part of self being understood in an instance. This leads to several state of being in self, like thinking, feeling… Decisions are made in subconscious part of self.

If self is an illusion, how can it be any of the things listed in your second paragraph?

 

[Bahman]

If self is an illusion, how can it be any of the things listed in your second paragraph?

I said everything but self and Self is an illusion. In another word Self and self are not illusion.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

polytropos:

What do you mean its form is exactly the same? A retrovirus has its information stored in RNA, which it injects into a host cell to make use of the host cell’s “equipment” (ribosomes, etc.). It thereby writes itself into the host cell’s DNA. If the added DNA is modified (say, though some error or mutation) to be useful for the cell, then the RNA does not at all have the same form. It has a different form which is oriented toward the needs of the cell.

First, it would be much less confusing if you didn’t interchange “RNA” and “DNA”.
Second, you appear to have changed the scenario. In my understanding of the original version of the scenario the virus’s DNA or RNA was not being changed, just used for a different purpose.
Third, this is dodging the point. Two completely identical objects can have different purposes, and therefore different final causes, proving that telos in not inherent. Here’s an example: a contry manufactures weapons to use in defense of itself, should war arise. A terrorist organization manufactures identical weapons for the purpose of terrorizing the country- a very different final cause.
And for the third time would someone please respond to my argument for Idealism?

 

[davidv]

I said everything but self and Self is an illusion. In another word Self and self are not illusion.

Sorry, I missed the everything but. I still believe is an unreasonable assumption. Because if true, I can reject the truth of your argument because it just an illusion.

 

[polytropos]

First, it would be much less confusing if you didn’t interchange “RNA” and “DNA”.
Second, you appear to have changed the scenario. In my understanding of the original version of the scenario the virus’s DNA or RNA was not being changed, just used for a different purpose.

Retroviruses have RNA that writes DNA to a host cell using reverse transcriptase. Both are involved.

Third, this is dodging the point. Two completely identical objects can have different purposes, and therefore different final causes, proving that telos in not inherent.

There are different theories of final causes that differ in whether they are committed to unique final causes or whether a thing can have multiple final causes. I don’t think either position would lead to telos not being inherent. A final cause does not imply that the final cause will necessarily be actualized, as opposed to some other actualization.

The final cause of a virus’s RNA (determined by its form, ie. what it is) is to lead to the virus’s reproduction. It may not actually succeed; the strand could be errantly copied to the cell’s DNA, and the cell could direct it toward its own reproductive advantage. The retrovirus has certainly not fulfilled its end; it would not follow that the retrovirus has two ends, though, since only 1 was determined by its form.

Here’s an example: a contry manufactures weapons to use in defense of itself, should war arise. A terrorist organization manufactures identical weapons for the purpose of terrorizing the country- a very different final cause.

I agree, although the problem here is that we are now talking about artefacts, upon which humans impose their own ends, which are certainly contingent. (Although, in the example you give here, the proximate end of the weapons is to kill others in either case; whether it is moral or terrible to do so does not really change the nature of what the weapons are doing. One could even argue that the proximate end is not even that, but to launch projectiles. The moral quality of the action, I would hold, is attributable to the person acting and independent from the weapon they are using. But this is not all that relevant, since you might modify the alternative to someone using a rifle for some other purpose, say as a walking stick.) The Thomist would hold that the materials used to create the weapons still have the same natural final causes.

Another example would be a tree. A tree’s end is to grow. We could think of a couple situations in which a tree does not grow, however. In one case, I chop down the tree and use it for firewood. This has an artefactual bent to it; I am using the material of the tree for my own purposes. But the fact that I can do so does not imply that getting burned is an end of the tree. The tree’s growth is its end because that is what it does according to its form. Another possibility is that a tree grows over a patch of grass, which it kills by denying sunlight. It is growing and killing grass. But growth is still its actual end; the killing grass is not what it does according to what it is, but is an effect of its growth.

And for the third time would someone please respond to my argument for Idealism?

I have been away from the thread for a while so I just responded to a post on page #2. Where is your argument for idealism?

 

[Linux]

I said everything but self and Self is an illusion. In another word Self and self are not illusion.

What does this mean ontologically speaking and how have you come to this conclusion?

 

[tonyrey]

First, in this picture everything but self and Self is an illusion. This even include our bodies.

Second, self or Self do not occupy any space and can act in instance. You can imagine them as simple dot without dimension sitting in nothingness. Self is pure knowledge and capable of creating substance. The substance is an illusion of state of being annihilate immediately after its creation so Self has to constantly create them. The substance can be experienced by conscious part of self being understood in an instance. This leads to several state of being in self, like thinking, feeling… Decisions are made in subconscious part of self.

How have you reached these conclusions?

 

[SentinelofTruth]

polytropos:

I have been away from the thread for a while so I just responded to a post on page #2. Where is your argument for idealism?

Right here:

me:

Imagine the computer you are using to read this post.
Now imagine what your visual field would look like if it contained that computer.
The “two” images are the same, aren’t they?
Thus, to imagine a physical thing is only to imagine a perception of that thing.
Therefore, physical things only exist insofar as they are perceived. The physical world is actually a lot like the matrix (except there’s no physical reality outside of it). And if physical things don’t even inherently exist, then how could they have inherent purpose, goal, or directedness?

polytropos:

Retroviruses have RNA that writes DNA to a host cell using reverse transcriptase. Both are involved.

Can we take all this overloaded and overcomplicated biological terminology out of the discussion?

Bahman:

Self is pure knowledge and capable of creating substance.

“Pure knowledge”? Seriously? Reminds me of a fantasy novel. I mean, what does pure knowledge even mean? It’s not knowledge unless it’s inside a mind, which implies other aspects, such as emotion, memory, desire, etc, in which case there are other things at play so it’s not “pure knowledge”.

Bahman:

Decisions are made in subconscious part of self.

How can it be a decision if it’s not consciously chosen?

 

[polytropos]

Can we take all this overloaded and overcomplicated biological terminology out of the discussion?

It’s inessential to the point I was making. I was just showing that I was not at all equivocating. (Distinguishing between RNA and DNA in this example allows us to keep track of what has what form.)

Imagine the computer you are using to read this post.
Now imagine what your visual field would look like if it contained that computer.
The “two” images are the same, aren’t they?
Thus, to imagine a physical thing is only to imagine a perception of that thing.

OK.

Therefore, physical things only exist insofar as they are perceived.

This does not follow from what you’ve claimed. To say that our experience of real objects is mediated by perception (or phantasms, the scholastics might say) is not to say that real objects only exist as perceived. What the thought experiment might show is that perceptions can be confused. Having seen a real computer, we have the phantasm, or sense experience, of the computer, which we can later recall. But the phantasm that we recalls does not have existence in the way that the actual computer does.

 

[Bahman]

Sorry, I missed the everything but. I still believe is an unreasonable assumption. Because if true, I can reject the truth of your argument because it just an illusion.

Why you deduced that my argument is an illusion.

 

[tonyrey]

…How can it be a decision if it’s not consciously chosen?

If it’s not consciously chosen it’s certainly not a rational decision for which we are responsible.

We would be minds which cannot control ourselves - a hypothesis which could be described as fatalistic idealism or even deterministic solipsism! In either case it is self-refuting…

 

[Bahman]

What does this mean ontologically speaking and how have you come to this conclusion?

It means that the things like, logical thinking, memory (long and short), emotions, intuition, wisdom, creativity, free will are the products of self. Self (God) on the other hand owns, very short memory (at level of instant), emotions, intuition, wisdom and will. Substance is created by Self constantly and allows selves to experience different forms and through this different products of self could be practised. Self and selves are anomalous beings.

 

[Bahman]

If it’s not consciously chosen it’s certainly not a rational decision for which we are responsible.

We would be minds which cannot control ourselves - a hypothesis which could be described as fatalistic idealism or even deterministic solipsism! In either case it is self-refuting…

There are several studies that shows that our decision is made by subconsciousness and our consciousness become aware of decision afterwards. Please read: psychologytoday.com/blog/memory-medic/201010/free-will-is-not-illusion

 

[Bahman]

Right here:

Can we take all this overloaded and overcomplicated biological terminology out of the discussion?

“Pure knowledge”? Seriously? Reminds me of a fantasy novel. I mean, what does pure knowledge even mean? It’s not knowledge unless it’s inside a mind, which implies other aspects, such as emotion, memory, desire, etc, in which case there are other things at play so it’s not “pure knowledge”.

How can it be a decision if it’s not consciously chosen?

You are correct. Self owns emotions, memory, …

Please read: psychologytoday.com/blog/memory-medic/201010/free-will-is-not-illusion to find out that our decision are made by subconsciousness.

 

[Linux]

It means that the things like, logical thinking, memory (long and short), emotions, intuition, wisdom, creativity, free will are the products of self. Self (God) on the other hand owns, very short memory (at level of instant), emotions, intuition, wisdom and will. Substance is created by Self constantly and allows selves to experience different forms and through this different products of self could be practised. Self and selves are anomalous beings.

How did you arrive at this conclusion.

 

[Bahman]

How did you arrive at this conclusion.

This is a minimal model in which the relation between creation and creator can be explained. Practically Self and self are intrinsically equivalent but they are in different state of mind so what is left is substance which is illusion created by Self for a very specific purpose.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

polytropos:

This does not follow from what you’ve claimed. To say that our experience of real objects is mediated by perception (or phantasms, the scholastics might say) is not to say that real objects only exist as perceived. What the thought experiment might show is that perceptions can be confused. Having seen a real computer, we have the phantasm, or sense experience, of the computer, which we can later recall. But the phantasm that we recalls does not have existence in the way that the actual computer does.

I’m not just saying that it’s mediated by perception. I’m saying that our perception is calculated by an algorithm (designed by God) that is very like the matrix. In which case, everything would be just the same as if physical stuff were real.
The inherent existence of an unconscious thing is empty. Consciousness essentially means to be able to perceive anything. And if physical things can’t do that, their existence is meaningless. It doesn’t count.

Bahman:
For all your references to psychologytoday.com, just because some scientists say something conceptually incoherent doesn’t make it true. Self-evidently, free decisions must be conscious.