Against final causality

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanAl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Linusthe2nd:
You certainly have exposed yourself. Clear for all to see.
Click to expand...
Please answer my arguments instead of using an ad hominem to evade the question.
 
tonyrey said:
We do not know how our mind interacts with our brain but we do know that we’re not responsible for our thoughts and actions when we are asleep.
Click to expand...
Because they are not your thoughts and actions, otherwise you could have control on them. You just experience some scenes. I had dreams in which I could perform some actions within and I was aware of my being.
tonyrey said:
This suggests that our ability to use our free will and act purposefully only exists when we are aware of our physical surroundings.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree as I have dreams at which I had the possibility to perform actions. I however agree with you that most of thing we experience in our dream are unconditional, where those scenes come from is subject of discussion.
 
Bahman said:
Because they are not your thoughts and actions, otherwise you could have control on them. You just experience some scenes. I had dreams in which I could perform some actions within and I was aware of my being.
Click to expand...
You were dreaming that you were aware and could control them. 🙂
I don’t agree as I have dreams at which I had the possibility to perform actions. I however agree with you that most of thing we experience in our dream are unconditional, where those scenes come from is subject of discussion.
Click to expand...
How do you know you could do what you were dreaming about?
 
40.png
tonyrey:
You were dreaming that you were aware and could control them. 🙂
Click to expand...
This is metaphysically impossible. To have an introspective perception of free choice entails the truth of the perception.
 
SentinelofTruth said:
This is metaphysically impossible. To have an introspective perception of free choice entails the truth of the perception.
Click to expand...
I agree. Anyone who has actually had a lucid dream will realize this; however, if they have not, it is difficult to explain it. Moreover anyone who has had a lucid dream will also be in a better position to know how silly it is to confuse the waking state with a dream world.
 
SentinelofTruth said:
This is metaphysically impossible. To have an introspective perception of free choice entails the truth of the perception.
Click to expand...
To dream we can control our thoughts is not the same as introspective perception of free choice. We can dream about any subject especially if we have been thinking about it. A dentist once told me I was talking about equations while I was anaesthetised.
 
40.png
tonyrey:
To dream we can control our thoughts is not the same as introspective perception of free choice. We can dream about any subject especially if we have been thinking about it. A dentist once told me I was talking about equations while I was anaesthetised.
Click to expand...
When you were anesthetized, you weren’t conscious, so that’s completely irrelevant.
Yes, it is the same. You can’t dream you are having a perception without actually having it.
 
SentinelofTruth said:
When you were anesthetized, you weren’t conscious, so that’s completely irrelevant.
Yes, it is the same. You can’t dream you are having a perception without actually having it.
Click to expand...
Whether we are anaesthetised or having a dream we are still aware of whether we are acting freely or compelled to do something. Nightmares occur when we feel helpless and vulnerable. On the other hand we enjoy our dreams when we succeed in achieving our goal. Of course the question doesn’t always arise but that doesn’t mean we never feel helpless or in command of the situation.
 
40.png
tonyrey:
Whether we are anaesthetised or having a dream we are still aware of whether we are acting freely or compelled to do something. Nightmares occur when we feel helpless and vulnerable. On the other hand we enjoy our dreams when we succeed in achieving our goal. Of course the question doesn’t always arise but that doesn’t mean we never feel helpless or in command of the situation.
Click to expand...
A) Being “compelled” and acting freely are not exclusive.
B) Your last two sentences have nothing to do with the infallibility of introspection, which was the point of the paragraph you quoted.
 
40.png
tonyrey:
An assertion is not a justification.
Click to expand...
If you think they were relevant, explain how.
40.png
tonyrey:
A synonym is not an explanation.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? I wasn’t asked to explain anything, and I gave an antonym, not a synonym.
 
SentinelofTruth said:
If you think they were relevant, explain how.

What do you mean? I wasn’t asked to explain anything, and I gave an antonym, not a synonym.
Click to expand...
I stated:
To dream we can control our thoughts is not the same as introspective perception of free choice.
Click to expand...
Followed by:
On the other hand we enjoy our dreams when we succeed in achieving our goal. Of course the question doesn’t always arise but that doesn’t mean we never feel helpless or in command of the situation.
Click to expand...
Which statement(s) do you reject - and why?
 
Hey, sorry I wasn’t on for a while. Went camping in the mountains… Anyway:
40.png
tonyrey:
Which statement(s) do you reject - and why?
Click to expand...
I reject this:
40.png
tonyrey:
To dream we can control our thoughts is not the same as introspective perception of free choice.
Click to expand...
On the basis that you can’t think you are having a perception unless you are indeed having it.
 
SentinelofTruth said:
You can’t dream you are having a perception without actually having it.
Click to expand...
Agreed; and, moreover, my perceptions in my dreams are constructed out of or from my actual sense perceptions: if I had never seen red, I could never dream of red things.

Anyways, back more strictly on topic.

I think the existence of final causes is both evident and also necessary.

If we accept that there is something unique and determinate about things that makes them what they are and not something else, then the specificity of that thing entails its being realized as such (a kind of thing). Now both man and nature produce things: rocks and cats are natural products, and houses and chairs are artificial products. Now if a builder didn’t in some sense possess the distinct form or essence of a house, he could not produce or realize an actual house; and again, if there was nothing determinate about a house, then the builder could not possibly produce a house, because he would have nothing to specifically aim at in order to realize it. Hence he in some sense must contain the effect and be capable of making it an actuality. Similarly, nature produces things too. The existence, in my opinion, of definite things implies the reduction from potency to actuality of those things. Now nature consistently produces certain kinds of things, e.g., animals or vegetative creatures like plants. Their succesful reproduction implies a determinancy in nature that regularly gives and produces the result. Thus, just as builders build houses so nature produces natural products and, in both cases, this necessitates the definite realization of some thing; if it were never a definite kind of thing, then there would be no things, because everything would be indeterminate - i.e. there would never be a ‘this’ or a ‘that’ for such an assignment implies a something distinct, definite and distinguishable in something.

In other words, if there were no final causes or ends in nature, then the unique kinds of things we see all around us and being regularly generated or produced could never come into existence; and as there is necessarily a definite and limited process involved in producing a house, so there must also be a definite and limited process in producing or generating a cat; otherwise, if the process was unlimited in any way, nature could not any more than a man could succesfully produce some definite thing, as the process would go on to infinity. But that the process does not go on to infinity is evident from the existence and observation of definite things naturally generated and produced.
 
1AugustSon7 said:
Agreed; and, moreover, my perceptions in my dreams are constructed out of or from my actual sense perceptions: if I had never seen red, I could never dream of red things.
Click to expand...
Of course but the issue is not “had seen”:
On the basis that you can’t think you are having a perception unless you are indeed **having **it.
Click to expand...
Anyways, back more strictly on topic.
Click to expand...
I think the existence of final causes is both evident and also necessary.
Click to expand...
If we accept that there is something unique and determinate about things that makes them what they are and not something else, then the specificity of that thing entails its being realized as such (a kind of thing). Now both man and nature produce things: rocks and cats are natural products, and houses and chairs are artificial products. Now if a builder didn’t in some sense possess the distinct form or essence of a house, he could not produce or realize an actual house; and again, if there was nothing determinate about a house, then the builder could not possibly produce a house, because he would have nothing to specifically aim at in order to realize it. Hence he in some sense must contain the effect and be capable of making it an actuality. Similarly, nature produces things too. The existence, in my opinion, of definite things implies the reduction from potency to actuality of those things. Now nature consistently produces certain kinds of things, e.g., animals or vegetative creatures like plants. Their succesful reproduction implies a determinancy in nature that regularly gives and produces the result. Thus, just as builders build houses so nature produces natural products and, in both cases, this necessitates the definite realization of some thing; if it were never a definite kind of thing, then there would be no things, because everything would be indeterminate - i.e. there would never be a ‘this’ or a ‘that’ for such an assignment implies a something distinct, definite and distinguishable in something.
Click to expand...
A sceptic would say nature doesn’t produce natural products intentionally but necessarily although it is far from obvious that nature must produce complex organisms - or anything at all. Belief in “physical necessity” is totally gratuitous and unsubstantiated.
In other words, if there were no final causes or ends in nature, then the unique kinds of things we see all around us and being regularly generated or produced could never come into existence; and as there is necessarily a definite and limited process involved in producing a house, so there must also be a definite and limited process in producing or generating a cat; otherwise, if the process was unlimited in any way, nature could not any more than a man could successfully produce some definite thing, as the process would go on to infinity. But that the process does not go on to infinity is evident from the existence and observation of definite things naturally generated and produced.
Click to expand...
An interesting explanation which reflects the immense improbability that DNA - let alone the mind - has emerged fortuitously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top