What is the point of free will?

[Wesrock]

I will be around. You use the phrase “considered”… “considered” by whom? If you say that they are composite objects, then even a hydrogen atom is composite. According to our current knowledge, the only “simple” objects are the different quarks.

Thomists, certainly. I see I should be sure to discuss the unity of being and intrinsic vs extrinsic unity in detail… It seems like I need to summarize full text book chapters here.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Thomists, certainly. I see I should be sure to discuss the unity of being and intrinsic vs extrinsic unity in detail… It seems like I need to summarize full text book chapters here.

I know that. Well, I am not a Thomist. Aquinas created a whole plethora of weird words, and thomists insist that they are “valid” and “valuable”. Not for me. There are no concepts which cannot be described by simple, everyday words. Since you are a mathematician, you should now that even complicated looking concepts, like derivatives and integrals or topology, or stochastic non-linear programming can be explained using very simple words. The listener might not understand all the details, but he would understand the basic concepts. When a philosopher uses made-up phrases I suspect that he has nothing to say and wishes to hide the fact behind using esoteric phrases.

So, if you wish to continue, make sure that you explain all the concepts in simple, everyday terms. “Intrinsic and extrinsic unity”? Bah, humbug. Translate them into modern English, please.

To help to create a “playing” field, first and foremost I am interested in epistemology. How do we gain knowledge, in an objective, repeatable way? Metaphysics is empty navel-gazing without an accompanying epistemology. An example: If someone asserts that there is such a thing as “immortal soul”, then he is under obligation to define clearly and precisely just what that “immortal soul” might be. Then he must present an objective epistemological method to find out if an “entity X” has that soul or not.

And, by the way, “alleged revelation” is not an epistemological method. Appeal to authority is NOT an epistemological method, though it could be used as an epistemological shortcut. But the authority must be able to substantiate what he says without appealing to some other authority.

Faith is not an epistemological method either. Only reason can be used in arguments.

If you accept these criteria, I am willing to listen.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In the absence of “proof” that there are no seven-headed, fire-breathing dragons one “MUST” keep an open mind that there are… the applicable word is hogwash!

Can you “prove” that there are no fairies, leprechauns, unicorns? As it has been explained to you (and others) many times, there is no such thing a “proving” a universal negative in an open, inductive system. You don’t get it. It is your problem. But if you can’t stand a little heat, stay out of the kitchen.

I can stand heat and it’s my kitchen you are standing in!

The question you have to address is not only proving there is no God, nor any heaven, not a hell where you might be held accountable for your sins ALONG WITH THE REST OF US.

But of course you are absolutely certain of your atheism. You don’t have to offer grounds for that absolute certainty. All you have to do is assert it and Voila! it must be so!

How comforting to have absolute certainty within yourself and no means of proving a single thing.

Oops! That’s what you say about us!

 

[tonyrey]

Irrelevant. We are talking about responsibility. There is no significant difference between the evaluation of the rapist who performed the act and the policeman who stood by and did not interfere. Both are responsible.

God is not a policeman but the Source of our free will and capacity for love which presupposes free will. If you had the power would you brainwash everyone so that they never do anything wrong? Remember you believe we should be free to indulge to our heart’s content in any evil thoughts provided we don’t put them into practice. So according to you we should all have split personalities, spending our lives at two different levels:

I am not interested in quotes from others.

You are not interested in quotes from others even when they are true. It seems you would prefer to be a pig satisfied if we are to judge by your devaluation of free will…

The ultimate aim (according to believers) is to be in heaven and bask in God’s “love”. For them there should be no price too high to pay for this privilege. Not even to become mindless robots.

People often accuse others of their own defects. In your opinion there is no price too high to pay for having our free will restricted so that we become intellectually impotent - like a Dr Hyde and a Mr Jekyll living two different lives! Heaven is at the other extreme because love doesn’t consist of “basking” but of creative activity and joy inspired by the goodness and beauty of God in stark contrast to the aridity and emptiness of the atheist’s purposeless hell on earth which so often ends with suicide or insanity (as in the case of poor Nietzsche).

 

[tonyrey]

God is not a policeman but the Source of our free will and capacity for love which presupposes free will. If you had the power would you brainwash everyone so that they never do anything wrong? Remember you believe we should be free to indulge to our heart’s content in any evil thoughts provided we don’t put them into practice. So according to you we should all have split personalities, spending our lives at two different levels:
You are not interested in quotes from others even when they are true. It seems you would prefer to be a pig satisfied if we are to judge by your devaluation of free will…

The ultimate aim (according to believers) is to be in heaven and bask in God’s “love”. For them there should be no price too high to pay for this privilege. Not even to become mindless robots.

 

[Wesrock]

I know that. Well, I am not a Thomist. Aquinas created a whole plethora of weird words, and thomists insist that they are “valid” and “valuable”. Not for me. There are no concepts which cannot be described by simple, everyday words. Since you are a mathematician, you should now that even complicated looking concepts, like derivatives and integrals or topology, or stochastic non-linear programming can be explained using very simple words.

Of course they can be explained in simple words. But there’s no reason I should have to spell out the whole definition of a manifold every time I refer to one. It is important we be clear on definitions. I did not mention “intrinsic unity” and “extrinsic unity” merely to leave it at that and let the terms speak for themselves, but as a quick note which I would come back later.

The listener might not understand all the details, but he would understand the basic concepts. When a philosopher uses made-up phrases I suspect that he has nothing to say and wishes to hide the fact behind using esoteric phrases.

I am ignorant of this topic, therefore it is false!

To help to create a “playing” field, first and foremost I am interested in epistemology. How do we gain knowledge, in an objective, repeatable way? Metaphysics is empty navel-gazing without an accompanying epistemology. An example: If someone asserts that there is such a thing as “immortal soul”, then he is under obligation to define clearly and precisely just what that “immortal soul” might be. Then he must present an objective epistemological method to find out if an “entity X” has that soul or not.

And, by the way, “alleged revelation” is not an epistemological method. Appeal to authority is NOT an epistemological method, though it could be used as an epistemological shortcut. But the authority must be able to substantiate what he says without appealing to some other authority.

Faith is not an epistemological method either. Only reason can be used in arguments.

If you think faith and divine revelation are the basis of Thomistic metaphysics, then I’m not sure how I can help. Thomas follows a realist epistemology, or more specifically, relational realism. If there is something in existence over there (a being), then I can gain real knowledge about it through my experience with it. Furthermore, this knowledge isn’t presumed to apply only to the specimen I’m studying, but to other examples of this this type of being (something which is). If I have a sample of opium, and I study the properties of this opium both in its effect and chemically, I attain knowledge not about just this one sample of opium, but about all opium with the same chemical structure. And certainly such assumptions are not unique to Thomas in the real world. If tests are run on a pharmaceutical product, the knowledge gain from such testing applies to all examples of that pharmaceutical product. If an engineer tests a substance’s tensile strength under certain conditions, there is the underlying assumption that this applies to all other samples of that substance under the same conditions. Otherwise there would be no point to testing, because if this didn’t follow then knowledge gained about one sample couldn’t be applied elsewhere.

Now, I hope I don’t have to do this every time I give an example, but in production there will flaws in a minority. But that’s just the point, there’s a flaw, because there’s some underlying impurity going on that differentiates it. Obviously our knowledge applies to samples in the same condition – these rare examples of items with flaws doesn’t suddenly make us assume the knowledge gained from limited samples only applies to those samples, and I don’t think you can deny the general principle that we can gain knowledge in this way and apply it to other cases and samples we haven’t directly experienced. You could obviously deny this is the case, that knowledge gained from a sample doesn’t apply to all… but meanwhile everyone will go on acting as if it’s true, because it works. It makes the world intelligible. It makes science possible. And just look at all the success we’ve had in applying it. Relational realism doesn’t assume we can know all there is about a being, but that we still can learn real knowledge about it through study, and that this knowledge can be applied to other examples.

Metaphysics as defined in classical tradition is the study of being. Not just assuming it as a brute fact or taking it for granted. The word being can mean all that is. A being, referring to a specific that, means that which is. Thomas did not see existence as something in itself, but as an action. A being interacts with what’s around it, not necessarily intentionally, mind. Elements give off burst of energy, movement, react chemically, warp space-time, what have you. They interact with the cosmos and other beings (and by being, again, is anything which is. The moment a being goes from this type of action, this type of presentation of itself, to inaction, it’s equivalent to non-existence or non-being. Thus, existing is seen as the first (and ongoing) act of any being.

Let’s pause for a second. Why can we say this? Because we can study beings. As established above, we can gain knowledge of opium by studying a sample of opium. We do not assume that just because we haven’t encountered all opium in existence we can’t know the properties of opium in general. We can gain real knowledge, if not exhaustive knowledge, of the nature of being by studying beings. This assumes a principle of similarity between beings, which we can come back to.

 

[Wesrock]

Beings have an ontological unity. Thomas defines one as that which is undivided in itself and divided from every other. This is fairly obvious. I can know this being. I can know that being. I can know that this being is not that being And the conclusion is that if this is not that, then part of being a being is to be divided off from other beings.

Does it follow that beings must be defined as undivided in themselves? Let’s assume a hypothetical being that is divided in itself. It is composed of parts which don’t cohere together into a unity. There is no objective reason to call it this being, though, but a collection of thises and thats. And what if each other part is itself divided within itself? Again, we encounter the same issue, where there’s no objective reason to consider it a single being, but only a collection of other beings, and so on, until everything is reduced to pure dust.

Intrinsic unity is a unity within the very being of a single real being, such that it exists with a single act of existence and acts as a unit, controlling its actions from a single center of action. Every such being, if composed of parts, as are all the beings in our world of experience, is not just the sum of its parts, but exists and acts as a distinctive whole, manifesting characteristic properties belonging to the whole as such that are not merely the sum of the properties of the parts themselves. A hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom are both highly flammable. But when two hydrogen atoms come together with an oxygen atom, it exhibits new properties that neither the hydrogen nor oxygen had on their own.

Extrinsic unity is a unity not within the very being of a single real being, but rather between two or more distinct real beings, each with its own distinctive act of existence and center of action, but joined together by bonds of relations. Some obvious examples are relations of a common purpose (an army), relations of common location (a herd of cows), and relations of common time (minute, hour, day, year, etc…). The unity of an army is not intrinsic to it as a single being. Neither is the unity of a herd of cows. Artifacts are also an example of extrinsic unity. Artifacts are collections of simpler beings joined together. They have no characteristic active properties of the whole in itself apart from the purposes imposed on them from without. For example, a ship. The wood on a ship does its own thing. The metal on a ship does its own thing. The engine its own motions. The only unity is the unity of order imposed on all these independent entities so that the sum of their various actions ends up with a result that services another’s independent purposes in which the real components have no interest. You can remove a leg of the chair, or the seat, and the active properties of the parts do not change. Similarly for a stone. You can chip off parts of it down to sand, and each of these parts exhibit the same properties they had before. You can chip all the way down to the atoms, and only then, when you break the atom, do you see a change in the properties. A stone is not a single real being. Which I suppose is again, may be easier to think of extrinsic unity.

I believe we had also talked about essence, but I think I’ll leave that for another day. I’m not sure I can offer exhaustive arguments in a series of CAF posts, nor do I think I’m briefed enough in Scholastic Metaphysics to do so. This is the topic that takes full books, because it requires starting from scratch. I hope we can focus on particular points.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

God is not a policeman

And that is the problem. The best way to teach people is to impose immediate reward or punishment as their actions merit it. Only a very mean and stupid person would let other people to commit the same mistakes over and over again, and at the end give out an accumulated punishment.

If you had the power would you brainwash everyone so that they never do anything wrong?

I already answered this MANY times. If I had the power I would only create people, who do not NEED policing, who would not wish to cause harm to others, who would only be filled with good will and no ill will. How many times do I have to repeat it, until you understand this? Such a simple concept… does it fly over your head?

Remember you believe we should be free to indulge to our heart’s content in any evil thoughts provided we don’t put them into practice. So according to you we should all have split personalities, spending our lives at two different levels:

Again… the people who simply fantasize about doing something, but do not want to put into practice will not have “split personalities”. Those who want to put those fantasies into practice, but are prevented from doing it - deserve what they get. Let them be frustrated.

People often accuse others of their own defects. In your opinion there is no price too high to pay for having our free will restricted so that we become intellectually impotent - like a Dr Hyde and a Mr Jekyll living two different lives!

Why do you keep twisting my words? There is no price too high to pay for getting into heaven. For good people there is no need for restrictions. For bad people, if the only way to get them into heaven is to impose SOME restrictions on their freedom to act, it is still better for them to be in heaven, than to burn forever in some cauldron. We habitually restrict the freedom of our children when their freedom would be harmful to themselves or others.

A short summary is due here.1) You keep asking certain questions.
2) I answer them, in detail.
3) Then you ask the same questions over and over again.
4) Can’t you remember what you asked and I answered?
5) Then you twist what I said.
6) Can’t you understand my simple sentences?
7) How boring can you get?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A short summary is due here.1) You keep asking certain questions.
2) I answer them, in detail.
3) Then you ask the same questions over and over again.
4) Can’t you remember what you asked and I answered?
5) Then you twist what I said.
6) Can’t you understand my simple sentences?
7) How boring can you get?

Apparently you are more infallible than the pope. This is the impression you want to give, isn’t it?

But if we are so wrong about everything we say, and you are so right about everything you say, and you are asking how much more boring we can be, what in God’s name are you doing in our kitchen?

 

[Peter_Plato]

And that is the problem. The best way to teach people is to impose immediate reward or punishment as their actions merit it. Only a very mean and stupid person would let other people to commit the same mistakes over and over again, and at the end give out an accumulated punishment.

Funny, I was always pushed by psycholgists to believe that random reinforcement – rather than “immediate reward or punishment” – was the most effective means of using rewards to influence behaviour. Apparently scientists have even worked out “ideal” random interval schedules for reinforcement with regard to the behaviours of pigeons.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1404444/

Now, the ‘take away’ here is that, as far as God is concerned, perhaps real life is an “ideal random interval schedule for reinforcement” with regard to human behaviours.

It is also an odd claim to make that God resorts to waiting for the end to “give out an accumulated punishment” given that life just IS an endless series of seemingly random joys and sufferings.

Now, granted, we’re not pigeons – well, not most of us, at least – so an ideal random interval schedule that reinforces pigeon behaviour may or may not be as effective on our tribe, but “accumulated punishment?” At the end? Seriously?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Apparently you are more infallible than the pope. This is the impression you want to give, isn’t it?

But if we are so wrong about everything we say, and you are so right about everything you say, and you are asking how much more boring we can be, what in God’s name are you doing in our kitchen?

Clearly, Charles, PA is attempting to offset some of that “accumulated punishment” owing him by suffering some of it in this life.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Thomas follows a realist epistemology, or more specifically, relational realism.

And what would that be? I am aware that the catholic definition of “realism” is defined differently from the secular understanding. Realism for us (secularists) is starting from the observable (aka physical) reality, and making logical and scientific inferences from it. What is this “relational realism”? Can you define it?

If there is something in existence over there (a being), then I can gain real knowledge about it through my experience with it.

Perfectly correct. What you say here is trivially known as the first law of logic, “A is A”, or everything is itself. We observe, create hypotheses, set up tests, observe the test results, and validate or refute the hypotheses. This process is usually called the “scientific” method. Actually it is the ONE and ONLY method to check out hypotheses, and that is the reason it is used (borrowed) by science.

If I have a sample of opium, and I study the properties of this opium both in its effect and chemically, I attain knowledge not about just this one sample of opium, but about all opium with the same chemical structure. And certainly such assumptions are not unique to Thomas in the real world.

Again, a trivial remark.

Now, I hope I don’t have to do this every time I give an example, but in production there will flaws in a minority. But that’s just the point, there’s a flaw, because there’s some underlying impurity going on that differentiates it.

Now this is problematic. How much “discrepancy” is allowed before the actual sample becomes a new, different specimen, not a “flaw” of the original? How many new properties can a “human being” gain, before it will cease to be a human, and become a super-human? This points back to the “essence”, which is a very problematic concept.

Thomas did not see existence as something in itself, but as an action.

Why so? Is a “being” not a “being” on its own right? Does it need to interact with other “beings”?

Thomas defines one as that which is undivided in itself and divided from every other. This is fairly obvious.

Not obvious to me. It sounds like gobbledygook.

A hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom are both highly flammable. But when two hydrogen atoms come together with an oxygen atom, it exhibits new properties that neither the hydrogen nor oxygen had on their own.

Apart from the obvious error that oxygen is not flammable at all, you describe the concept of emergent properties, which is fine and dandy.

Artifacts are collections of simpler beings joined together.

Where did this come from? Artifacts are artificial (as opposed to natural) entities. As I said, we have a huge difference in using even simple, everyday terms.

I believe we had also talked about essence, but I think I’ll leave that for another day.

No kidding.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

After all, no matter how good you might be, you cannot “earn” your way to heaven. Good works, proper decisions, virtuous life are all insufficient. It would be much better to be a “mindless” robot, to be predestined to heaven. To have free will, which allows one to make incorrect decisions is a burden or a curse.

Looking for inconsistencies in the thoughts of others, Greek guy? No doubt it is a good exercise… There is one, though, which is better than that, for it demands more intellectual strength: Resolve your own inconsistencies!

But how could you, by yourself? It wouldn’t be as entertaining as a good discussion with other guys. You would need someone, with a remarkable ability to find inconsistencies, playing the role of your mirror. He would give you the opportunity to look at yourself. Perhaps, if his ability is really remarkable, he would provide you with the opportunity to look at your interior. You could learn something new, Greek guy (but… is that really possible?).

You have responded almost to everyone here. Sometimes (am I right?) you have responded to more than one poster in the same post. It reminds me of those who play chess with several players at the same time. Good! Great!..

But quite strangely to me, you -the great Pallas Athene, for whom all is Greek- have ran away from a man who is half Greek, half Hebrew. You have avoided consistently everyone of his posts, even though he is addressing them directly to you; one after another…

Are you afraid of something, Greek guy?

Surely you know him; no doubt you have read his posts; otherwise what would be the use of your very big eyes?.. Peter Plato is your chance to strengthen your intellect, to renew your algorithms (if you can). It would be too disappointing if you don’t take the chance, Greek guy…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Peter Plato is your chance to strengthen your intellect, to renew your algorithms (if you can).

I have read and contemplated his posts for a while (quite a while). I tried to conduct a conversation with him. But it was all to naught, so I decided to ignore him and his nonsense. Life is too short to engage in a conversation with the unworthy. Of course he is not smart enough to realize that he is being ignored, and keeps on trying to get included… just like other nincompoops. Poor sucker.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I have read and contemplated his posts for a while (quite a while). I tried to conduct a conversation with him. But it was all to naught, so I decided to ignore him and his nonsense. Life is too short to engage in a conversation with the unworthy. Of course he is not smart enough to realize that he is being ignored, and keeps on trying to get included… just like other nincompoops. Poor sucker.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17959

 

[Wesrock]

And what would that be? I am aware that the catholic definition of “realism” is defined differently from the secular understanding. Realism for us (secularists) is starting from the observable (aka physical) reality, and making logical and scientific inferences from it. What is this “relational realism”? Can you define it?

I feel I did go on to define it, but to put it another way. Beings are real. We learn about them in how they act towards us (act does not imply intention), how they *relate *to us. Or, perhaps more basically, our experience with them. It is how the real world is related to us and how we are to it.

Perfectly correct. What you say here is trivially known as the first law of logic, “A is A”, or everything is itself. We observe, create hypotheses, set up tests, observe the test results, and validate or refute the hypotheses. This process is usually called the “scientific” method. Actually it is the ONE and ONLY method to check out hypotheses, and that is the reason it is used (borrowed) by science.

This was a few hundred years before the scientific method was really set, and to be frank, the idea of empirical research seems to have actually come out of this way of thinking, not the other way around.

I don’t think we need to be arbitrarily restrictive and limit all knowledge to empiricism. You have no way to show that is true through a empirical approach and the assumption itself makes some metaphysical claims without any ground, it just becomes a brute fact.

Again, a trivial remark.

I’m glad we’re in agreement for the most part about how to gain knowledge. But I think you’re assertion that this is trivial shows a rather restricted mind-set, or at least one that has been operating on one set of assumptions as unquestioned brute facts.

For example, Kant was not a realist. He maintained that we can never know reality in itself. Things in the real world may act on us, according to Kant, but it’s just a jumble of sense information without intelligible order, form, or structure. It’s only our minds that impose intelligibility on the content of our experience. The world doesn’t mold our minds. It reveals nothing intelligible about itself to us. Whatever order and intelligibility exists is all in our heads.

So if you ask about obtaining knowledge, I need to define how we do so, and it’s not something that should just be taken for granted.

Now this is problematic. How much “discrepancy” is allowed before the actual sample becomes a new, different specimen, not a “flaw” of the original? How many new properties can a “human being” gain, before it will cease to be a human, and become a super-human? This points back to the “essence”, which is a very problematic concept.

Damned if I do, damned if I don’t. I try to anticipate an objection, and it just goes the other way. Consider what I said about extrinsic unity below. A rock is not a single being all to itself. I can chip it down to atoms without changing the properties of any of its parts. Opium is no different. It’s a bunch of molecules, and I can remove parts of it without changing the properties of any of the parts. A flawed BATCH of opium would essentially have molecules in it that “shouldn’t” be in there. Each actual opium molecule is going to have all the properties of opium to it. The batch may be ineffective if there are impurities in it. But this batch of opium isn’t a single being, it’s made up of a bunch of other molecules, which are beings in themselves. So I seem to have muddied up my own example. By studying an opium molecule, we can know properties intrinsic to ALL opium molecules without exception. By studying the tensile strength of steel, I can know the strength of pure steel, for example. So a flawed batch of opium isn’t a new being, it’s a bunch of separate beings together in the wrong proportion.

Organisms are more complex examples, particularly humans. I’m not sure you’ve really established why essence is a problematic concept yet. Probably better to focus on the current points. I think we’ll get back to essences later, as that’s where my original point about good and bad came from. We can address it then.

 

[Wesrock]

Why so? Is a “being” not a “being” on its own right? Does it need to interact with other “beings”?

It’s able to “present itself” to other beings, even if none were around, no? It stands out from nothingness. It is not just a potential, it is actualized.

Not obvious to me. It sounds like gobbledygook.

Obviously may have been patronizing, but I wouldn’t just assume it’s gobbledygook because it sounds funny. If you step into a math or physics (or any specialized class really) class mid-semester, and aren’t already versed in it, much of the dialogue is going to sound rather foreign. I’m not claiming to be highly intelligent or the most informed on this topic, or that such a thing is necessary before the terminology begins to make sense. I’m just a novice at this. But I’ve gone through some books back to front on this. I got the argument (even if it was just an overview) from the beginning, and it does not strike me as gobbledygook anymore.

Apart from the obvious error that oxygen is not flammable at all, you describe the concept of emergent properties, which is fine and dandy.

Whoops. Oxidizer.

Where did this come from? Artifacts are artificial (as opposed to natural) entities. As I said, we have a huge difference in using even simple, everyday terms.

I’d like to double-check the definition of artifact I provided. I may be conflating two examples of extrinsic unity. “Artifact” does seem to be defined as artificially constructed with Thomism, and most common examples exhibit the type of extrinsic unity I described, that is, they have no intrinsic unity of their own as existing and acting as wholes. Furthermore, changing the size of a rock does not necessarily make it a new substance, as a difference in size and weight only reflects the sum of its parts – it does not reflect any new emergent properties. It also does not reflect a new whole that must be considered as acting as one in order for its parts to retain the properties natural to it. The highest level of intrinsic unity in a rock are the atoms and molecules that make it up.

Are there exceptions to the rule? Plant cuttings? Chopping a worm in half? In order for the parts to retain their properties, there is a dependence. The division can’t just be anywhere, or in any number, it needs to be in a particular part. The plant cutting will also need to be appropriately planted. There is a mutual dependence for these beings with intrinsic unity in order for the parts to keep exhibiting their properties and cause which are intrinsic to them. That is certainly not true with breaking up a chair or chipping apart a stone.

 

[Wesrock]

I have read and contemplated his posts for a while (quite a while). I tried to conduct a conversation with him. But it was all to naught, so I decided to ignore him and his nonsense. Life is too short to engage in a conversation with the unworthy. Of course he is not smart enough to realize that he is being ignored, and keeps on trying to get included… just like other nincompoops. Poor sucker.

I’m sure Peter Plato has a firmer grasp on what I’m trying to explain than I do. Might be good to engage him. He won’t be such an easy target.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’d like to double-check the definition of artifact I provided. I may be conflating two examples of extrinsic unity. “Artifact” does seem to be defined as artificially constructed with Thomism, and most common examples exhibit the type of extrinsic unity I described, that is, they have no intrinsic unity of their own as existing and acting as wholes. Furthermore, changing the size of a rock does not necessarily make it a new substance, as a difference in size and weight only reflects the sum of its parts – it does not reflect any new emergent properties. It also does not reflect a new whole that must be considered as acting as one in order for its parts to retain the properties natural to it. The highest level of intrinsic unity in a rock are the atoms and molecules that make it up.

Are there exceptions to the rule? Plant cuttings? Chopping a worm in half? In order for the parts to retain their properties, there is a dependence. The division can’t just be anywhere, or in any number, it needs to be in a particular part. The plant cutting will also need to be appropriately planted. There is a mutual dependence for these beings with intrinsic unity in order for the parts to keep exhibiting their properties and cause which are intrinsic to them. That is certainly not true with breaking up a chair or chipping apart a stone.

Your definition – “have no intrinsic unity of their own as existing and acting as wholes” – is fine.
See definition #2.

artifact |ˈärtəfakt| (Brit. artefact)
noun
1 an object made by a human being, typically an item of cultural or historical interest: gold and silver artifacts.

2 something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure: widespread tissue infection may be a technical artifact.

For the record, you are doing fine with your posts.

PA prefers pulling the discussion in many different directions to diffuse your points rather than seriously address them – it looks like he is doing a clean dissection and he certainly thinks he is, but really, in the end, he hasn’t really made any points that stand scrutiny.

Try going back to any post of his and focus on one particular point. It is either rhetorical or incorrect.

This one, for example:

I know that. Well, I am not a Thomist. Aquinas created a whole plethora of weird words, and thomists insist that they are “valid” and “valuable”. Not for me. There are no concepts which cannot be described by simple, everyday words. Since you are a mathematician, you should now that even complicated looking concepts, like derivatives and integrals or topology, or stochastic non-linear programming can be explained using very simple words. The listener might not understand all the details, but he would understand the basic concepts. When a philosopher uses made-up phrases I suspect that he has nothing to say and wishes to hide the fact behind using esoteric phrases.

What is he saying here? That mathematicians simplify things but philosophers don’t?
Perhaps that is more a function of his mathematics background and his lack of facility with philosophy, but he won’t admit that.

He just makes a rhetorical point about philosophers “hiding” behind esoteric phrases. That might just be because philosophers deal with difficult and unwieldy ideas, unlike mathematics which is quantifiable.

 

[tonyrey]

I have read and contemplated his posts for a while (quite a while). I tried to conduct a conversation with him. But it was all to naught, so I decided to ignore him and his nonsense. Life is too short to engage in a conversation with the unworthy. Of course he is not smart enough to realize that he is being ignored, and keeps on trying to get included… just like other nincompoops. Poor sucker.

“Life is too short to engage in a conversation with the unworthy”!