Is there really such a thing as having the essence of a cat?

[Autumn-Smoke]

Can’t think of anything to say, I just felt like making cat pictures

 

[MPat]

I have already provided a few leads in that regard.

Maybe you should provide an actual argument, and not just “a few leads”?

Remember you are the one who denied my view and said it was obvious that the whole Aristotelian metaphysics does not fall if I was right…

Um, what?!

Sure, if you say that Aristotelian metaphysics falls, and you are right, then it does fall. That’s true, although not very useful.

Maybe you should quote more correctly…

I hope not.
I actually agree with Bradski that such an essence is an illusory concept.

Again, try quoting to the end of the sentence. You dropped one part that changed the meaning. Compare:

MPat:

you did talk as if “what is born of a particular animal will forever have the same essence or form of its same parent forms

you did talk as if “what is born of a particular animal will forever have the same essence or form of its same parent forms” is somehow vital for Aristotle’s metaphysics.

There’s a difference, isn’t there?

No problem. These two sentences contradict each other:

"Evolution doesn’t “affect” any members of a particular species.

As far, as they’re concerned, they simply get conceived (with or without mutations), reproduce, die."

The mutation and the process of reproduction is a simple explanation of evolution itself. If something is born with a slight advantage over its peers and lives long enough to reproduce then it will pass on that advantage.

Ah, but what exactly is “affected” by a mutation?

The parent whose gametes end up with mutated genes? No, such gene changes don’t change anything of any significance for them. So they are not “affected” much.

The offspring of such parent? Well, it isn’t there yet, so how can it be directly “affected” by this mutation?

So, no individual is “affected” by evolution here.

And when individual dies, isn’t it more accurate to say that it “affects” evolution, rather than that evolution “affects” it?

It might have been killed by some predator or parasite, but definitely not by “evolution”.

If evolution never had any effect on any member of a species then that species would not never evolve.

Yes, at the first sight it looks so. But, as you can see, if you think about it, that conclusion doesn’t follow.

 

[Ardent_Fire]

Is there really such a thing as having the essence of a cat?

Yes…the internet does.

 

[Bradskii]

‘Ah, but what exactly is “affected” by a mutation’

The organism that has that mutation. I don’t believe I had to explain that.

 

[MPat]

Ah, but what exactly is “affected” by a mutation’

The organism that has that mutation. I don’t believe I had to explain that.

Well, not believing is what atheists are supposed to be familiar with, right?

Of course, i already gave an answer, but I can expand it a little: gametes do not do much in “[t]he organism that has that mutation”, the parent. Thus the parent is not “affected” by it.

By the way, that is only about germline mutations. Somatic mutations, happening in other cells, do “affect” the organism. But they are not inherited, and thus have less to do with evolution.

 

[Benadam]

Bear with me I’m only ‘somewhat’ familiar with philosophical lingo and structure. I may be projecting a confirmation bias.

If there is no ultimate end to evolving life on earth then there is no essence of any one species within it. At least not a singular essence that doesn’t involve change corresponding with what it emerged from and what emerges from it.

As long as life continued to transcend in consciousness and mastery of it’s environment, like humans, I think an essence could only be arrived at if an end species was observed with certainty.
Then the essence of that end species would be a singularity that would include the first simple organism as an essential component and all species inbetween.

 

[Bradskii]

Exactly right. I’ve been trying to put that point across, but you did a much better job of it.

 

[Benadam]

Thank you Bradski,. It was your posting of the idea that essence as we think of it, in a certain way is flowing that opened my mind to the rest of what you were thinking. Thanks again for your contribution.

 

[Wesrock]

Given that Aristotlean-Thomist metaphysics allows for substantial change, I don’t see what the issue is. Any philsophical inquiry must be empirically based (something which Aquinas believed). If our understanding of the world has improved, that must be applied. But if there were good reasons underlying the metaphysical distinction between essence and existence, and those good reasons haven’t changed, then it doesn’t need to be thrown off altogether. Aristotleans/Thomists don’t just sit around treating Aristotle and Thomas as scripture writers, they’re in agreement with basic principles and applying them to what we know now. For example, our understanding of fire has changed such that some of Aquinas’ illustrative examples of act and potency seems rather silly, but the basic act/potency distinction can still be applied in a modern scientific context, even to fire, because the basic observed first principles are still there.

 

[Wesrock]

Benadam:

It was your posting of the idea that essence as we think of it, in a certain way is flowing that opened my mind to the rest of what you were thinking.

And why apply this line of thinking to things individually? Shouldn’t all of existence be considered as one evolving essence? God included.

Because that would imply that this reality is itself metaphysically necessary down to the last quark and gluon, that any other possibilities are metaphysically impossible. Not even that they couldn’t physically come about now given what we got, but they are metaphysically illogical and impossible. You’d have to say that existence in itself is equivalent to this exact reality and that no other mode or variation of existence is conceivable. That this just is what existence is.

And we also have further issues with composition, change, etc… that such a pantheism would not explain.

 

[Nichole]

I assume you mean, the essence of a cat in cats. Some people believe in therians, which is the essence of an animal being in a human, but that is another subject entirely.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

thats a dog!

 

[Autumn-Smoke]

The picture says cat2

 

[Bradskii]

Wesrock:

Because that would imply that this reality is itself metaphysically necessary down to the last quark and gluon, that any other possibilities are metaphysically impossible. Not even that they couldn’t physically come about now given what we got, but they are metaphysically illogical and impossible. You’d have to say that existence in itself is equivalent to this exact reality and that no other mode or variation of existence is conceivable. That this just is what existence is.

Ah, but you’re making an assumption. Which, as I have often pointed out, is something that metaphysicists continuously do. You’re assuming that what you perceive as reality is all that exists, and that all the other possible realities don’t exist. But QM holds out the possibility that all those other realities actually exist as well. Which would mean that anything that can exist, does exist, necessarily, with no exceptions.

And that would mean that there’s no need for an intelligent first cause.

But if QM holds that anything CAN exist, then there are worlds where there IS a need for a first cause.

I don’t think this is one of them by the way…

 

[Bradskii]

I’m missing the difference…

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Because that would imply that this reality is itself metaphysically necessary down to the last quark and gluon, that any other possibilities are metaphysically impossible. Not even that they couldn’t physically come about now given what we got, but they are metaphysically illogical and impossible. You’d have to say that existence in itself is equivalent to this exact reality and that no other mode or variation of existence is conceivable. That this just is what existence is.

Ah, but you’re making an assumption. Which, as I have often pointed out, is something that metaphysicists continuously do. You’re assuming that what you perceive as reality is all that exists, and that all the other possible realities don’t exist. But QM holds out the possibility that all those other realities actually exist as well. Which would mean that anything that can exist, does exist, necessarily, with no exceptions.

And that would mean that there’s no need for an intelligent first cause.

(1) QM doesn’t demonstrate that every possible world actually exists. That’s just the type of metaphysical speculation and god-of-the-gaps-type speculation your types so condemn.

(2) Even if it was true, that wouldn’t rule out a first cause.

 

[Wesrock]

oldnskeptical:

Wesrock:

Because that would imply that this reality is itself metaphysically necessary down to the last quark and gluon, that any other possibilities are metaphysically impossible. Not even that they couldn’t physically come about now given what we got, but they are metaphysically illogical and impossible. You’d have to say that existence in itself is equivalent to this exact reality and that no other mode or variation of existence is conceivable. That this just is what existence is.

Ah, but you’re making an assumption. Which, as I have often pointed out, is something that metaphysicists continuously do. You’re assuming that what you perceive as reality is all that exists, and that all the other possible realities don’t exist. But QM holds out the possibility that all those other realities actually exist as well. Which would mean that anything that can exist, does exist, necessarily, with no exceptions.

And that would mean that there’s no need for an intelligent first cause.

But if QM holds that anything CAN exist, then there are worlds where there IS a need for a first cause.

I don’t think this is one of them by the way…

Well, and not to argue, but just to state my position, a world without a first cause wouldn’t be a metaphysically possible world, no such world could actually possibly exist, and so every possible world would have a first cause. And indeed, by first cause we’re not even meaning the first cause of this possible world or the first cause of that possible world, such that these first causes are different, but would necessarily must have the one and same first cause.

 

[Wesrock]

QM doesn’t say that ANYTHING can exist. It simply holds out the possibility, that anything that CAN exist, does exist.

QM doesn’t state this, some scientists postulate it, but it’s not indeed scientifically demonstrated or a concensus, just a popular theory, and like Ptolemy’s cosmology, may be proven wrong.

 

[IWantGod]

QM doesn’t state this, some scientists postulate it, but it’s not indeed scientifically demonstrated or a concensus, just a popular theory, and like Ptolemy’s cosmology, may be proven wrong.

Personally I think his argument is irrelevant and it is amusing that he brought QM into the conversation at all. At the end of the day QM involves a mechanism that involves change and thus potential states of being, and so we are never really talking about a necessary act of reality or uncaused cause. He is talking about something that has unrealized potential. A necessary act of reality does not.

 

[IWantGod]

QM renders the whole concept of potency and act moot.

This is the point being discussed, and you are wrong.