Are moral values objectively real?

[Exogen]

Before we can continue, assuming of course that after having another chance to see my reiteration of your argument you still feel that it's a fair restating of your argument, I need you to hear more of your thoughts concerning the capacity of a given organism. I've described it as a greater ability to function in and interact with its surrounding environment, but this still strikes me as vague, and I'd appreciate clarification on this point.

The capacity of the organism as int he potential of its development, meaning what it can develop into. The acorn can develop into a tree, but not into a fern or a car. Its 'capacity' for development is limited due to the kind of thing it is. It's potential for development is limited.


As for its 'functional' ability in its environment, let me use an analogy. Now mind you, this analogy will use the 'subjective' sense of purpose in order to draw attention to the 'objective' sense of it, which is a more complex understanding of function. Let's say you take a hammer. A hammer is something you can use to drive nails or bludgeon someone's skull. It serves more than one end. but there are things the hammer serves and things which don't because of that difference in functionality. You can't hammer a nail or bludgeon someone's skull with a cloud or with a quart of beer (minus the class).

So we see two kinds of 'capacity' here. The first is the capacity, the potential of the organism to develop into its adult form, which is its actuality/purpose because that form is the fulfillment of that potential. The second refers to functional capacity, which applies also to the acorn as well as the adult and the aging oak. The telos is the fully adult organism, which is the actualization-of-the-potential.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Sparhafoc]

The 'ethical discussion' about acorns with tree-potential homunculi?

Pull the other one cobber, it's got bells on.

If you read my discussion with Psikhrangkur (as he seems to be getting it loud and clear at this point), you will see that there are no 'homucili' in the acorn. The potential is not 'in' the acorn, as in some property it has which can be distinguished from its whole, or a part of it in any other general or specific sense. The potential isn't something 'lurking' inside the acorn. Rather, the acorn IS the potential oak tree. The oak tree IS the actuality of the acorn.

And as I said also many times over, the acorn-tree is an example of the concept of potentiality-actuality which defines what is meant by 'telos' in this natural sense. This natural sense of telos is a presupposition for teleological ethics. So this natural telos is just the first step in building the case for moral realism along teleological lines of the naturalistic variety.

DING-A-LING-A-LING


See?


Your acorn-tree concept is complete bunk. Not even wrong.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The capacity of the organism as int he potential of its development, meaning what it can develop into. The acorn can develop into a tree, but not into a fern or a car. Its 'capacity' for development is limited due to the kind of thing it is. It's potential for development is limited.

It's amazing when people produce poor arguments, have them shown wrong, then simply repeat them again. It does show how they dug that hole for themselves and why they can't get out, but it's a bloody terrible argument for others to come down and join them there.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Pangloss gave instruction in metaphysico-theologico-cosmolo-nigology.... "It is demonstrable", said he," that... everything is made to serve an end..., hence we have spectacles. Legs, as anyone can plainly see, were made to be breeched, and so we have breeches. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle... swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we we eat pork all the year round."

Waves are the actuality of water molecules, sand has the potential to form dunes, and the attainment of cattle food's purpose is bullshit.

 

[Sparhafoc]

If you read my discussion with Psikhrangkur (as he seems to be getting it loud and clear at this point),...

Is that so?

Funnily, not the way I read that either. What Psik is doing is recapitulating your arguments with slightly different words to inquire whether you consider that rendition agreeable, whereas other people simply critiqued your ideas by reference to examples showing the paucity of explanation. You took all criticism of your ideas as signifying that people 'don't get it', because - presumably from your perspective - if they got it, they'd agree. You've left no room for the perfectly respectable paradigm of both getting your idea and considering it bunk.

As for what Psik thinks, I would presume we'd need to wait to hear what he thinks before assigning him a position. Beware, you might find he's one of the Borg collective, and consequently that he 'doesn't get it'.

 

[Exogen]

You're first three posts included no actual responses to my points, and are more of the pattern you have been displaying of psychologizing the conversation and ad hominem-ish sort of remarks.

If you read my discussion with Psikhrangkur (as he seems to be getting it loud and clear at this point),...

Is that so?

Funnily, not the way I read that either. What Psik is doing is recapitulating your arguments with slightly different words to inquire whether you consider that rendition agreeable, whereas other people simply critiqued your ideas by reference to examples showing the paucity of explanation. You took all criticism of your ideas as signifying that people 'don't get it', because - presumably from your perspective - if they got it, they'd agree. You've left no room for the perfectly respectable paradigm of both getting your idea and considering it bunk.

As for what Psik thinks, I would presume we'd need to wait to hear what he thinks before assigning him a position. Beware, you might find he's one of the Borg collective, and consequently that he 'doesn't get it'.

I know what he is doing as far as him restating my view so that we are both of the same page with respect to understanding it. I never said he agreed or disagreed with the idea, so that is an interpretation on your part. My point was he understands what I'm saying, whereas based on what you've actually written, you don't.

And as he said, his issue was that he thought I was trying to argue that this causal relation (which you still have yet to state correctly despite my repeated corrections) was prescriptive and not merely a descriptive account. That was his issue. If he has more, I'm sure he will present them.


Sorry, but you yourself DID misrepresent what I actually said e.g. the idea that potential is something lurking inside something ( the homunculi) and the irrelevant issue about utility. And I never said "if they got it, they'd agree.' Saying so would be 'reading into' my words, an emotional 'tone' or inflection and also an interpretation (none of which is my actual words) of my 'mentality,' which of course has absolutely nothing to do with advancing the discussion, as it is in effect psychologizing the conversation rather than engaging the subject. Again, you DID misrepresent the ideas. Now maybe you were being sloppy with your words, in all fairness, as I am not suggesting it is intentional on your part, but how am I supposed to know the difference?

Again, either what I've given is empirically false and either you and show that it is, and/or you can show that what I've given is logically incoherent or invalid. Until you do that, you have provided no refutation.

So you're either interested in engaging in this discussion or you aren't. If you have a critique to advance, then bring it forth, whatever it may be.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Exogen,

I'm not sure that your use of the word 'purpose' really means anything here. Rather, I see no way of relating your use of the term to that which you might refer to as 'subjective purpose'. As far as I can tell, 'purpose' here simply means 'something which happens', or more specifically in our conversation, 'a natural process that an organism undergoes granted that certain prerequisite conditions have been met'.
Essentially, as I understand your argument, the 'purpose' of an infant worm is to grow into a mature worm. However, this is assuming that prerequisite conditions have been met: we're assuming that the infant worm isn't caught by a bird. Obviously, this isn't always the case. There are times when the infant worm is preyed upon by a passing bird.
Now, as I understand your argument, it should apply across the board. So the 'purpose' of the fledgling bird is to mature into an adult bird. However, this again assumes that prerequisite conditions are met: we're assuming that the bird's parents have found food for it to consume, or assuming that it's old enough to gather it's own food, that it has found something to eat.
So my question concerning purpose here, is whether or not we can then proclaim that the purpose of our worm in this case is the maturation of the bird.

Concerning the matter of roughly breaking the life cycle of an organism into these separate stages as previously described, I'm not entirely sure that we can do that across the board. I would appreciate the input of someone more versed in the subject than myself, but as far as I can tell something like a bacteria doesn't have any sort of 'infancy' or 'maturity' stage.

Concerning the focus on individual organisms, I'm not entirely sure that this can be justified, either. Again, I would appreciate the input of someone more versed on the topic than myself, but from what I can tell an ant isn't capable of functioning outside of its colony. I'm not actually sure that you could properly describe an ant without referring to its colony.

I'm not entirely sure I follow how all of this connects. The 'purpose' of an organism is its 'actuality', which is simply the realization of its 'potentiality'. This 'actuality' and 'potentiality' simply describe a temporal relationship between two states. However, if this is defined simply as a matter of temporal relation, would the 'actuality' of both the Infancy and Maturity stages be the stage of Impotency? Temporally, it follows from both Infancy and Maturity, and all that follows after Impotency is death.
I understand that you discount Impotency as being the 'actuality' here by virtue of the process of degeneration: it doesn't function as well as Maturity does. I feel as if this muddies the waters a bit. Suddenly, 'actuality' doesn't just describe a temporal relation, it describes actual functionality of the organism. That's all well and good, I don't mind personally, except that now I wonder if we're touching on what you refer to as 'subjective purpose'. We're no longer just describing the natural process of the organism, we're describing it in terms of what it can do, and assigning a value to some functions over others. As you yourself said, Maturity can't grow quite as well as Infancy, which suggests a functionality in Infancy that isn't present in Maturity. However, you've discounted this functionality in favor of some other functionality, which leads me to think that we're almost discussing this in terms of some goal to be achieved by our organism.

 

[Exogen]

Psikhrangkur,

The notion of purpose is simply the state of the form being actualized i.e. the mature form of the organism in relation to its immature form, which is the potential. Just because one thing is potentially another, doesn't mean it must actually become that, right? So just because something is the actuality of some potential doesn't mean that potential must manifest. We wouldn't say that just because something 'can' happen that it must. And we wouldn't say that just because I 'can' grow from an infant into an adult that I must. And we wouldn't say that just because I can develop into this adult form that I 'can' also develop into a car. The natural process of my body simply doesn't do that. I 'could' kill me and use my atoms to be part of the development of a car, but that wouldn't be MY process anymore, that would be another process disintegrating me, a disintegration of my form, my potential, and my actuality.

As for other organisms. Bacterias, when they divide, are smaller, and need to grow to get larger, so I don't see the pattern of potential to actual being broken, as they do develop. Viruses even, once they hijack the cell nucleus and insert their RNA into it, use the cell's machinery to produce little viruses called 'virions.' The virions burst out and grow. Even organisms that exhibit multistage life cycles like butterflies are not outside the domain of potential to actual, same for parasites. Again, this is about the development of form.

Concerning the focus on individual organisms, I'm not entirely sure that this can be justified, either. Again, I would appreciate the input of someone more versed on the topic than myself, but from what I can tell an ant isn't capable of functioning outside of its colony. I'm not actually sure that you could properly describe an ant without referring to its colony.

Dragan broaght this up before. An ant can't live on its own. It needs to be part of the colony, but it's form is again, the result of going from a potential to an actual, from an egg to an adult ant, be it a drone, a warrior, or a queen, etc.

I'm not entirely sure I follow how all of this connects. The 'purpose' of an organism is its 'actuality', which is simply the realization of its 'potentiality'. This 'actuality' and 'potentiality' simply describe a temporal relationship between two states. However, if this is defined simply as a matter of temporal relation, would the 'actuality' of both the Infancy and Maturity stages be the stage of Impotency? Temporally, it follows from both Infancy and Maturity, and all that follows after Impotency is death.

Good question. The answer is no. Why? Because the impotency state, as we are calling it, is a disintegration of the 'form' of the structure, which IS the organism, once fully developed. So think the analogy of weightlifting. You train to your maximum capacity, till your body has reached the limits of how much it can grow. That's your actuality. Once that form itself begins to disintegrate, and you 'lose' the potential to maintain that, say due to aging, the actuality it lost.

What I suspect you may be doing here, as Dragan also was, is use 'actuality' as we use it in the normal vernacular, which is a synonym for 'exist.' Or even simply as a synonym for 'result.' Both of those are broader than this concept. Notice that reaching your full potential in the weight room is indeed a 'result' and it does indeed 'exist' at that time when it does, but it doesn't capture what we mean by 'reaching for your full potential.' See, that latter idea is what I'm talking about not the former two.

I understand that you discount Impotency as being the 'actuality' here by virtue of the process of degeneration: it doesn't function as well as Maturity does. I feel as if this muddies the waters a bit. Suddenly, 'actuality' doesn't just describe a temporal relation, it describes actual functionality of the organism.

It's not just because it is a process of degradation. It is because the organism ITSELF is deteriorating, so if we are talking about ITS PURPOSE/actuality, then we must logically say that it is deteriorating.

If you go back and reread my comments you will notice I didn't 'just say' it was a temporal relation. Temporal relation of what? It said between the form in the developmental process, which is defined causally. Go back and look, and you will see I've said that a number of different ways. So function follows form, right? In order to have a certain function, you need a certain form. If that form disintegrates, then you can't have that function (unless you can get it from another form which also serves that end i.e. whcih does whatever we are talking about).

That's all well and good, I don't mind personally, except that now I wonder if we're touching on what you refer to as 'subjective purpose'. We're no longer just describing the natural process of the organism, we're describing it in terms of what it can do, and assigning a value to some functions over others. As you yourself said, Maturity can't grow quite as well as Infancy, which suggests a functionality in Infancy that isn't present in Maturity. However, you've discounted this functionality in favor of some other functionality, which leads me to think that we're almost discussing this in terms of some goal to be achieved by our organism.

As of yet, we are not talking about anything subjective, as no reference to minds or what minds to has been made. Rather, we are simply talking about form, its functionality, and the relationships in time defined within the causal nexus. No more than that.

What exactly have I given for instance, that either presupposes the existence of a mind or is an act of one specifically? see...nothing.

So the organism has no 'goal in mind.' Rather, this is simply the achievement of its capacity. Let's say you just went to the gym and worked out, but you were somehow a mindless robot, totally unconscious. Nonetheless, everything I've said still applies. You still train to your limit and your form reaches its actuality therein. You went from a potentiality to an actuality.

As I said, the subjective sense of purpose comes later on, but not at this stage.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

The notion of purpose is simply the state of the form being actualized i.e. the mature form of the organism in relation to its immature form, which is the potential. Just because one thing is potentially another, doesn't mean it must actually become that, right? So just because something is the actuality of some potential doesn't mean that potential must manifest. We wouldn't say that just because something 'can' happen that it must. And we wouldn't say that just because I 'can' grow from an infant into an adult that I must. And we wouldn't say that just because I can develop into this adult form that I 'can' also develop into a car. The natural process of my body simply doesn't do that. I 'could' kill me and use my atoms to be part of the development of a car, but that wouldn't be MY process anymore, that would be another process disintegrating me, a disintegration of my form, my potential, and my actuality.

Fair enough.

As for other organisms. Bacterias, when they divide, are smaller, and need to grow to get larger, so I don't see the pattern of potential to actual being broken, as they do develop. Viruses even, once they hijack the cell nucleus and insert their RNA into it, use the cell's machinery to produce little viruses called 'virions.' The virions burst out and grow. Even organisms that exhibit multistage life cycles like butterflies are not outside the domain of potential to actual, same for parasites. Again, this is about the development of form.

I'm not entirely sure if that is true of bacteria, though. It may grow as part of its reproductive cycle, but that isn't to say that it was 'infantile' before hand. The bacteria isn't developing the functionality to reproduce, as could be said of something like an acorn or a human being; rather, it's simply beginning to reproduce. Is there any reason to believe that the bacteria's initial form prevents it from undergoing this process?

Dragan broaght this up before. An ant can't live on its own. It needs to be part of the colony, but it's form is again, the result of going from a potential to an actual, from an egg to an adult ant, be it a drone, a warrior, or a queen, etc.

I feel that this shows role diversification contingent on the ant's place in its colony that doesn't exist in other species, and for that reason, I feel that to describe the ant in this manner is dubious at best.

I'm not even sure how to approach the concept of a superorganism here.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22616-y

This is a paper discussing how superorganisms can exhibit reactions otherwise observed in singular organisms such as humans. Should we begin to consider them in terms of Infancy/Maturity/Impotency?

What I suspect you may be doing here, as Dragan also was, is use 'actuality' as we use it in the normal vernacular, which is a synonym for 'exist.' Or even simply as a synonym for 'result.' Both of those are broader than this concept. Notice that reaching your full potential in the weight room is indeed a 'result' and it does indeed 'exist' at that time when it does, but it doesn't capture what we mean by 'reaching for your full potential.' See, that latter idea is what I'm talking about not the former two.

Can we only define 'actuality' in terms of 'potentiality'?
Can we only define 'potentiality' in terms of 'actuality'?

It's not just because it is a process of degradation. It is because the organism ITSELF is deteriorating, so if we are talking about ITS PURPOSE/actuality, then we must logically say that it is deteriorating.

I don't understand the purpose of this clarification.

If you go back and reread my comments you will notice I didn't 'just say' it was a temporal relation. Temporal relation of what? It said between the form in the developmental process, which is defined causally. Go back and look, and you will see I've said that a number of different ways. So function follows form, right? In order to have a certain function, you need a certain form. If that form disintegrates, then you can't have that function (unless you can get it from another form which also serves that end i.e. whcih does whatever we are talking about).

If function follows form, and function is observably deteriorating, does it not suggest a deterioration in form? Does it not follow from a deterioration in form?

As of yet, we are not talking about anything subjective, as no reference to minds or what minds to has been made. Rather, we are simply talking about form, its functionality, and the relationships in time defined within the causal nexus. No more than that.

What exactly have I given for instance, that either presupposes the existence of a mind or is an act of one specifically? see...nothing.

I am not suggesting that our organism has any sort of goal in mind, I'm suggesting that you're assigning some meaning to purpose here such that there is a specific goal the organism should achieve such that we can claim that its potential has been actualized, and that we can describe an organisms loss of ability to accomplish said goal as a loss in its potentiality/actuality. That's the impression I get. Otherwise, I just don't follow the point of bringing up the deterioration of the organism's form as though it's important in regards to its potentiality/actuality.

 

[Exogen]

I'm not entirely sure if that is true of bacteria, though. It may grow as part of its reproductive cycle, but that isn't to say that it was 'infantile' before hand. The bacteria isn't developing the functionality to reproduce, as could be said of something like an acorn or a human being; rather, it's simply beginning to reproduce. Is there any reason to believe that the bacteria's initial form prevents it from undergoing this process?

Where is the bacteria going to get the matter from when it divides to divide into two organisms of the size it was when it divided? Unless somehow it can magically produce matter spontaneously, that's impossible. Now, when we say 'infant' let's be clear here, and this is why when I said I agreed with your restatement of what I'm saying, I said words like you 'seem' to understand and what not, which obviously gives me somewhat of a disclaimer. That isn't of course because I'm being disingenuous, but merely because I know that there may be subtle nuances that need to be hashed out, I'm sure you understand - that is merely reasonable. So the 'infant' is merely the undeveloped form. The bacteria, in needing to grow, hasn't yet reached the full potential of that form. So 'infant' need mean no more than that in the general sense. Again, this is about the relationship between form in time in terms of the causal process of development.

But let's say the bacteria can reproduce, even in it's smaller form. That still doesn't mean it doesn't have a fully developed form, prior to it disintegrating, right? Some venomous snakes for instance, can come out of the egg and be ready to bite you and kill you. Just because they have certain functions early on in their development doesn't mean they have reached the actuality of their form. A human male can usually impregnate a female in their early teens, depending on when they hit puberty. But we know they aren't fully actualized in the sense I mean.

Edit: Let's say hypothetically some organism was able to replicate itself and give birth to fully adult organisms that do not need to learn, grow, or develop in any way. Like I said, this would seem to be physically impossible, but let's say there was such an organism that does this or could do this. It would mean that the organism itself would merely actualize in the womb or w/e the gestation mechanism is. This would mean that the potentiality of the organism would be the period of gestation and its actuality once it is fully formed, just like the others.

I feel that this shows role diversification contingent on the ant's place in its colony that doesn't exist in other species, and for that reason, I feel that to describe the ant in this manner is dubious at best.

I'm not even sure how to approach the concept of a superorganism here.

The ant still has limited functionality. Nothing wrong with saying it has an actuality of form, which itself serves a greater functionality within the colony as a whole.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22616-y

This is a paper discussing how superorganisms can exhibit reactions otherwise observed in singular organisms such as humans. Should we begin to consider them in terms of Infancy/Maturity/Impotency?

We might, sure. But nothing wrong with saying there is an interdependent set of realtions of potentials moving to actuals with respect to individual organisms and the superorganisms they may form. Those are simply not incompatible ideas.

Can we only define 'actuality' in terms of 'potentiality'?
Can we only define 'potentiality' in terms of 'actuality'?

Yes, the two are 'related' hence why I say it is a relationship in time. Potentiality and actuality is itself a species of the more general notion of 'possibility.'

I don't understand the purpose of this clarification.

I want to not mix 'what the organism is' with conditions that may have a causal influence on it, and with what it does. Its purpose is the 'what' that it is, coupled with what it does. Function follows form, to which you ask

If function follows form, and function is observably deteriorating, does it not suggest a deterioration in form? Does it not follow from a deterioration in form?

Yes, loss of form results in a loss of form, though obviously this occurs over time in aging, and at various stages.

As a side note, what if an organism was biologically immortal? We might ask, does that mean it is not actualized? The answer is no. It is actualized, even if the impotency state never occurs. It would just mean its purpose is indefinite in terms of temporal extension i.e. it could live forever.

I am not suggesting that our organism has any sort of goal in mind, I'm suggesting that you're assigning some meaning to purpose here such that there is a specific goal the organism should achieve such that we can claim that its potential has been actualized, and that we can describe an organisms loss of ability to accomplish said goal as a loss in its potentiality/actuality. That's the impression I get. Otherwise, I just don't follow the point of bringing up the deterioration of the organism's form as though it's important in regards to its potentiality/actuality.

Make no mistake, I never said the organism 'should' achieve it, as all I've described is the causal pathways in terms of development that naturally occur. No more than that.

The loss of potentiality and actuality is simply the loss of what the organism is, and with it, the loss of its function, hence the loss of its purpose. Think of weight lifting again. Once reaches that full potential, its like being at the top of the mountain. The process is complete insofar as the structure has been completed. At that point, if it starts to disintegrate, this doesn't change the fact that the potential was maximized to its limit i.e. the actuality. Think of it like saying that the potential was 'actualized.' What could have been, in terms of the form of the organism itself, was brought into being, into existence, it became real. Then, say due to aging, it lost that slowly over time.

As I said, where this will take on a moral turn, is later on down the line, and mind you, with respect to humans or beings that have the sort of cognitive capacities we do at a minimum. So this sense of telos I've been talking about thus far, should be understood as the natural telos, one which requires no mind to achieve.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Where is the bacteria going to get the matter from when it divides to divide into two organisms of the size it was when it divided? Unless somehow it can magically produce matter spontaneously, that's impossible. Now, when we say 'infant' let's be clear here, and this is why when I said I agreed with your restatement of what I'm saying, I said words like you 'seem' to understand and what not, which obviously gives me somewhat of a disclaimer. That isn't of course because I'm being disingenuous, but merely because I know that there may be subtle nuances that need to be hashed out, I'm sure you understand - that is merely reasonable. So the 'infant' is merely the undeveloped form. The bacteria, in needing to grow, hasn't yet reached the full potential of that form. So 'infant' need mean no more than that in the general sense. Again, this is about the relationship between form in time in terms of the causal process of development.

I'm not suggesting that it doesn't grow in size, I'm suggesting that said growth doesn't necessarily constitute a change in form.

But let's say the bacteria can reproduce, even in it's smaller form. That still doesn't mean it doesn't have a fully developed form, prior to it disintegrating, right? Some venomous snakes for instance, can come out of the egg and be ready to bite you and kill you. Just because they have certain functions early on in their development doesn't mean they have reached the actuality of their form. A human male can usually impregnate a female in their early teens, depending on when they hit puberty. But we know they aren't fully actualized in the sense I mean.

This growth the bacteria experiences is a part of its reproductive cycle, not a separate phase of its life wherein it changes form.

Edit: Let's say hypothetically some organism was able to replicate itself and give birth to fully adult organisms that do not need to learn, grow, or develop in any way. Like I said, this would seem to be physically impossible, but let's say there was such an organism that does this or could do this. It would mean that the organism itself would merely actualize in the womb or w/e the gestation mechanism is. This would mean that the potentiality of the organism would be the period of gestation and its actuality once it is fully formed, just like the others.

I don't see how this could be applied to bacteria. There's no gestation period that I'm aware of, a specific bacteria simply divides once ready to do so and becomes two specific bacteria.

The ant still has limited functionality. Nothing wrong with saying it has an actuality of form, which itself serves a greater functionality within the colony as a whole.

The problem is how it seems to discount the important interplay between ants that they've evolved, when said interplay is so crucial to their own individual survival and the continued existence of their species. Are we going to build an ethics system on an understanding of nature that discounts crucial aspects of nature?

We might, sure. But nothing wrong with saying there is an interdependent set of realtions of potentials moving to actuals with respect to individual organisms and the superorganisms they may form. Those are simply not incompatible ideas.

So we're just discussing the superorganism as a colony of singular organisms, then.

Yes, the two are 'related' hence why I say it is a relationship in time. Potentiality and actuality is itself a species of the more general notion of 'possibility.'

So is actuality the only means by which we can describe potentiality? Likewise, is potentiality the only means by which we can describe actuality?

Make no mistake, I never said the organism 'should' achieve it, as all I've described is the causal pathways in terms of development that naturally occur. No more than that.

The loss of potentiality and actuality is simply the loss of what the organism is, and with it, the loss of its function, hence the loss of its purpose. Think of weight lifting again. Once reaches that full potential, its like being at the top of the mountain. The process is complete insofar as the structure has been completed. At that point, if it starts to disintegrate, this doesn't change the fact that the potential was maximized to its limit i.e. the actuality. Think of it like saying that the potential was 'actualized.' What could have been, in terms of the form of the organism itself, was brought into being, into existence, it became real. Then, say due to aging, it lost that slowly over time.

As I said, where this will take on a moral turn, is later on down the line, and mind you, with respect to humans or beings that have the sort of cognitive capacities we do at a minimum. So this sense of telos I've been talking about thus far, should be understood as the natural telos, one which requires no mind to achieve.

Is purpose lost because function is lost, or is purpose lost because form is lost? Hypothetically, if it were possible to preserve functionality while form deteriorates, would purpose be lost?

 

[Sparhafoc]

You're first three posts included no actual responses to my points, and are more of the pattern you have been displaying of psychologizing the conversation and ad hominem-ish sort of remarks. .

Quite. I have a tendency to do that when people start acting like twats.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=188867#p188867

 

[Exogen]

Sparhafoc

you've completely descended into insults. As of yet, you have not given a criticism of what I've said that isn't based on a blatant misrepresentation of my words, even after my clarifications, and despite my attempts at being polite. You've grossly misinterpreted my motives and attitude and shown poor manors. You have yet to show that what I've given is either empirically false or logically invalid or incoherent. You have shown to have no further 'utility' therefore, in this conversation. I, therefore, have no further need of you, and I'm sure you feel the same way, so with that in mind,

good day sir.

 

[Exogen]

I'm not suggesting that it doesn't grow in size, I'm suggesting that said growth doesn't necessarily constitute a change in form.

Ok, sure, it grows in size. But you could say the same of a child to adult human, right? I mean they 'grow in size' too, and their form remains 'the same' don't they? The bacteria still has to develop ribosomes, grow cytoplasms, etc. Just as with a human, it matures, albeit very rapidly by comparison. So I don't see how the bacteria is a deviation from the infancy to adult/potential to actuality in terms of form and function.

This growth the bacteria experiences is a part of its reproductive cycle, not a separate phase of its life wherein it changes form.

That's not actually true, as I understand the biology. Bacterias need to first grow in order to be large enough to divide. They need to grow the internal components necessary, which involve specific proteins and peptides, and structures within the cell. After all, as I said before, if they could just divide right after dividing without ANY growth at all, where would the matter come from for this process of infinite division?

I don't see how this could be applied to bacteria. There's no gestation period that I'm aware of, a specific bacteria simply divides once ready to do so and becomes two specific bacteria.

I'm not saying it would be applied to the bacteria per se. I'm not aware of any that can do that. But 'any' organism hypothetically I'm saying for the sake of argumnet to draw out the concept. So I'm saying for the sake of argument let's say there was some organism somewhere that could give birth to fully formed adult offspring that needed no further development of any kind. These would be already mature at birth, again, it would just mean the potential was inside the parent organism, rather than being out in the external environment.

The problem is how it seems to discount the important interplay between ants that they've evolved, when said interplay is so crucial to their own individual survival and the continued existence of their species. Are we going to build an ethics system on an understanding of nature that discounts crucial aspects of nature?

Perhaps you could elaborate a little bit more on this point. I'm not sure what your issue is here. As I said, the ants functionality is the ants functionality, but that can also contribute to the functionality of the whole, whcih is the colony. It's simply whole-part relations. So if you could clarify please.

So we're just discussing the superorganism as a colony of singular organisms, then.

Ants are social insects, so their survival is dependent on the various functions of the group, which collectively define the functions of the whole. There are parallels between the colony and the pattern an organism follows, hence the superorganism idea. But I just don't see why any of that refutes anything I've said here. The colony as a whole, if it follows the potential-actual pattern, and if there is most importantly a form which defines it, which has a function, then no reason it wouldn't have a telos as well, as the conditions would be met for one. But none of that would contradict the individual ants having a telos, as the whole-part relation doesn't stand in contradiction. Again, maybe I'm just not following you, so if you could clarify.

So is actuality the only means by which we can describe potentiality? Likewise, is potentiality the only means by which we can describe actuality?

Actuality ultimately is about 'order' and function. But in a world of change, it isn't logical to suggest that you would have order without process. So developmental stages seem inevitable. I mean by this that if everything was ordered perfectly and not processual, then there would be no change by defintion. But if there is both order and change, then you have to be always moving towards or away from some order, or both. Does that make sense?

Is purpose lost because function is lost, or is purpose lost because form is lost? Hypothetically, if it were possible to preserve functionality while form deteriorates, would purpose be lost?

Both really, in regards to your first question. Function follows form, so if form is lost, there can be no function, at least of the sort there was before. For instance, you can rearrange by atoms into another form, and make another function, but you can't have both my form and the other form, you have to pick one. And that would be true even if both forms somehow achieved the same function generally speaking. For instance, you could take matter and make a hammer out of it, or some other tool. Both might achieve generally similar functions, but they wouldn't have the same form. Nonetheless, the function of each object IS limited by its form.

In regards to your second question, I just don't see how function could be preserved while form deterioates. I mean, I think we can see that it is a process of decline, so its not like form is imidiately lost, but over time, it decreases. As we age, we can't perform as well, function is lost. It may not always be lost at the same rate, and it may go in stages, and these not necessarily be linear or symetrical, but it is still a decline, generally speaking, a move away from the form, therefore degrading the function of that form.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Sparhafoc

you've completely descended into insults.

Abject nonsense, just as with your prior declaration about the litany of fallacies.

It's easy to write words, rather more difficult for some people to ensure their words correspond to reality. A pattern.

In reality, I've never insulted you. Just mocked the living shit out of your half-baked bullshit. Sorry if you don't grasp the difference.

As of yet, you have not given a criticism of what I've said that isn't based on a blatant misrepresentation of my words,...

Bullshit as anyone with even a passing familiarity with Biology would agree. In fact, the members on this website who ARE Biologists ALREADY agreed.

So feel free to keep manufacturing spin, just be aware it's not washing anything.

even after my clarifications,...

Obfuscations.

... and despite my attempts at being polite.

You stopped being polite in the post I referred to, and that's when I stopped being civil to you. Whinge away though, no skin off my nose. You've taken on the mantle of the crackpot purveyor of snake-oil, so I am just sliding into the role countering that.

You've grossly misinterpreted my motives and attitude and shown poor manors.

Fuck off, and stick your snooty condescension back in the orifice you dragged it from.

You have yet to show that what I've given is either empirically false or logically invalid or incoherent.

Whereas, in reality I have done exactly that and you've alternatively either denied it with obtuse non-sequiturs, or pretended that it still corroborates your half-baked foray into biological analogies.

You have shown to have no further 'utility' therefore, in this conversation.

I am indeed just following suit.

I, therefore, have no further need of you, and I'm sure you feel the same way, so with that in mind,

good day sir.

Oh no, you've got it wrong. I have need for some comedy in my life, so I'll stick around mocking your arrogant bumbling, thanks all the same.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Function follows form

Biology if it were taught by artists.

Of course, it's just a tad more complex than that.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greeting,

Exogen, regarding bacterial growth, it's size-related - there's no change from pre-pubescent to pubescent stages, as in animals, including humans.

Since there's no change in form from "child" to "adult", one cannot apply "maturity" to a bacteriom to differentiate it from a "child", as in humans.

Regarding your disagreement with Sparhafoc, earlier I noted that you didn't answer his question regarding which of the "fallacies" he had committed.

I recall that when Monistic Idealism didn't answer your questions in the other thread, you dropped out of that discussion. With all due respect, it seems you're doing the same thing that MI did.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Ok, sure, it grows in size. But you could say the same of a child to adult human, right? I mean they 'grow in size' too, and their form remains 'the same' don't they?

Not really, no. The way they handle severe trauma becomes different, the rate at which their heart is expected to beat is different, their capacity to reproduce is different, etc. There are demonstrable changes of form, there.

The bacteria still has to develop ribosomes, grow cytoplasms, etc.

As part of its reproductive cycle, sure. Meaning that no change in form had to occur before this stage began, which can't be said of multiple other species including humans and acorns.

That's not actually true, as I understand the biology. Bacterias need to first grow in order to be large enough to divide. They need to grow the internal components necessary, which involve specific proteins and peptides, and structures within the cell. After all, as I said before, if they could just divide right after dividing without ANY growth at all, where would the matter come from for this process of infinite division?

Even if you're correct about the size of the organism growing before its reproductive cycle, I don't see how that qualifies as a change in form.

I'm not saying it would be applied to the bacteria per se. I'm not aware of any that can do that. But 'any' organism hypothetically I'm saying for the sake of argument to draw out the concept. So I'm saying for the sake of argument let's say there was some organism somewhere that could give birth to fully formed adult offspring that needed no further development of any kind. These would be already mature at birth, again, it would just mean the potential was inside the parent organism, rather than being out in the external environment.

I'm rather confused by this. You suggest that it would apply to any organism for the sake of argument, but didn't we just accept that bacteria were an exception to this?

Perhaps you could elaborate a little bit more on this point. I'm not sure what your issue is here. As I said, the ants functionality is the ants functionality, but that can also contribute to the functionality of the whole, which is the colony. It's simply whole-part relations. So if you could clarify please.

You could say the same thing of humans or any other social species, except that this would fail to explain the importance of the superorganism in relation to ants as a species.

Essentially, I can't argue that you could describe ants in this way, but it's all rather wishy washy to me. Better explanations of the species exist if we're approaching this from a biological perspective, and it seems like a matter of convenience on your part if we're approaching this from an ethics perspective. It feels like you're forcing it to work.

Ants are social insects, so their survival is dependent on the various functions of the group, which collectively define the functions of the whole. There are parallels between the colony and the pattern an organism follows, hence the superorganism idea. But I just don't see why any of that refutes anything I've said here. The colony as a whole, if it follows the potential-actual pattern, and if there is most importantly a form which defines it, which has a function, then no reason it wouldn't have a telos as well, as the conditions would be met for one. But none of that would contradict the individual ants having a telos, as the whole-part relation doesn't stand in contradiction. Again, maybe I'm just not following you, so if you could clarify.

Well, the only point to be made here is that this all just seems like a poor description of what we observe in reality.

We could sit here and describe the superorganism as a whole made of individual organisms that each possess their own potentiality and actuality, but that seems to discount the importance of the superorganism itself, as though it's something that exists as a convenience as opposed to a necessity. Humans could in theory survive outside of society, whereas ants can't actually exist on their own.

We could sit here and try to describe the superorganism the same way we've tried describing other individual organisms, on account of previously cited(and as far as I'm aware, uncontested) evidence that suggests it displays psychophysical reactions similarly to individual organisms, but that comes with its own problem of whether or not a superorganism has stages of Infancy, Maturity, and Impotency.

Actuality ultimately is about 'order' and function. But in a world of change, it isn't logical to suggest that you would have order without process. So developmental stages seem inevitable. I mean by this that if everything was ordered perfectly and not processual, then there would be no change by defintion. But if there is both order and change, then you have to be always moving towards or away from some order, or both. Does that make sense?

Not to me, no. I'm not sure how this explanation ties into the rest of our discussion. Unless I just assume that actuality is based on function, but that seems hasty to me.

Both really, in regards to your first question. Function follows form, so if form is lost, there can be no function, at least of the sort there was before. For instance, you can rearrange by atoms into another form, and make another function, but you can't have both my form and the other form, you have to pick one. And that would be true even if both forms somehow achieved the same function generally speaking. For instance, you could take matter and make a hammer out of it, or some other tool. Both might achieve generally similar functions, but they wouldn't have the same form. Nonetheless, the function of each object IS limited by its form.

In regards to your second question, I just don't see how function could be preserved while form deterioates. I mean, I think we can see that it is a process of decline, so its not like form is imidiately lost, but over time, it decreases. As we age, we can't perform as well, function is lost. It may not always be lost at the same rate, and it may go in stages, and these not necessarily be linear or symetrical, but it is still a decline, generally speaking, a move away from the form, therefore degrading the function of that form.

The point of the hypothetical is to determine whether the actuality of an organism is tied to its natural form or to its capacity to function. So how about this:

We have an adult that was in a car accident. Their spine has been damaged, and as a result, they can't walk on their own.
Their spine can't actually be fixed. However, we develop some means of bypassing this issue entirely, which results in the man being able to walk.

This man, whose spine is still damaged, can now walk via artificial means. Has actuality been lost, because his spine has been damaged, or has actuality been preserved, because he can still walk?

 

[Sparhafoc]

With all due respect, it seems you're doing the same thing that MI did.

Exactly.

 

[Exogen]

Greeting,


Regarding your disagreement with Sparhafoc, earlier I noted that you didn't answer his question regarding which of the "fallacies" he had committed.

I recall that when Monistic Idealism didn't answer your questions in the other thread, you dropped out of that discussion. With all due respect, it seems you're doing the same thing that MI did.

Kindest regards,

James

Hi Dragan,

I will address the stuff about bacteria in my other post after this one.

let's examine what was actually written, with respect to the issue related to Sparhafoc shall we? If I am to be accused of doing some MI did, let us examine the facts.

My original list of errors in its entirety is here. Take notice of the first two sentences prior to the list

So here are just some of the repeated fallacies I'm seeing from you guys. And by 'you guys' I mean everyone that has been debating here. I do not mean that everyone has exhibited these errors, but that I have seen all of these errors collectively.

1. The misunderstanding that temporal relations between stages of development needn't be exact in order for them to be real, as opposed to invented or subjective.

2. Misunderstanding that taxonomy does not have to be exact down to the last micro-detail in order to be valid and objective.

3. Conflating the more general natural cycles, be them geological, organic, etc, with the specific processes of a particular organism.

4. Conflating a particular organism's life with the life cycle of is parents, offspring, and species.

5. Conflating the subjective sense of purpose which is exclusively psychological, with the natural sense (telos) to which the subjective sense logically presupposes.

6. Misunderstanding what is meant by 'actual' and confusing it with the vernacular usage as a synonym for 'exist.'

7. Failing to use the definitions I've provided, and instead using other ideas I've shown by contrast to be different from what I've defined.

8. Misunderstanding that states of the world are not 'defined' to exist subjectively, and therefore the causal relations in time in terms of the structural development of various natural phenomena, including organisms, is not, therefore, an arbitrary matter as it pertains to notions like 'function' and 'capacity.'

9. The fallacy of composition. Example, life is a chemical process, therefore life is nothing but chemicals. This ignores the structural arrangement which life is.


10. The fallacy of composition with respect to temporal relations. animals having a purpose would imply evolution has a purpose which is again a fallacy of composition. Animals having a purpose does not necessarily imply evolution does or does not. If evolution does, then it would have a purpose of irrespective of whether or not individual organisms did or didn't. Organisms are things, evolution is not a thing, but a process. The notion of purpose already presupposes the notion of process. Things which undergo processes can have purposes.

There are more, but that's just off the top of my head.

And the stuff about utility is really neither here nor there.

I've made a claim, so the burden of proof is on me. I've shown why my claim doesn't contradict basic descriptions of biology. It is on anyone here to show how my claim is either

A. Empirically false as it doesn't fit the data
B. Logically erroneous as there is a failure of inference in my reasoning or contradiction internal to the descriptions I've given.

Until anyone can show that, no valid objections have been given.

Then Sparhafoc

says this

Provide a single instance of me employing even one of these fallacies (not that most of them are actually fallacious).

The only time its even come close is when you've misread what I wrote and inserted one of the above ideas on my behalf.

You will notice he actually didn't ask a question, just for the record. You said he asked me a question, but he didn't, at least not here. Are you referring to another post, or just meaning that his response prompts one?

Provide a single instance of me employing even one of these fallacies (not that most of them are actually fallacious).

The only time its even come close is when you've misread what I wrote and inserted one of the above ideas on my behalf.

So I said

Sure, but recall I said there were other errors, as that list is off the top of my head, and directed at all of you guys. You were the main one coming with what are irrelevant epistemic issues of utility, which I did mention in that post where I had the list, just below the list, which you quoted. As for the list itself, given what I just said I'm not required, therefore, to give you one, but if you want a 'single' example, let's see.

So then I went on later to write

I am afraid to say it absolutely does contradict empirical knowledge about life. The form of the acorn itself has no potential whatsoever towards the tree. There's no tree homunculus being nurtured within. At the moment of acorn, there is no tree form to be found anywhere within, so there can be no potential towardsit.

This is an example, not only of misstating the actual teleological thesis, but also a clear indication of 7. The notion of potentiality doesn't mean what you're saying it does here, and you're imposing stipulations that aren't required for the definition. As I corrected you before on this, the acorn IS the potential of the actuality that is the tree. This means that acorn form develops into tree form. That it has a causal capacity for development into the tee. There isn't any sort of little tree form inside the acorn or something like that. I don't even know what that would mean. So that's a blatant misstatement of what I said about this prior to that. Again, the potentiality-actuality idea is a 'relationship' in time between forms, defined causally, of a developmental process of those form i.e. an acorn developing into a tree. This is not arbitrary because the form of the acorn exhibits a developmental 'capacity' to develop into the adult form which is the tree. And this is deducible given the functions of the various stages and the causal potentials thereof.

As you can see here, and go back and read for yourself, I DID answer his 'question.' AND, I said in my initial list that these were 'just some' of the errors that I saw, which I later clarified as it is off of the top of my head. I told him on at least two instances that there is no homunculus in any sense in the acorn, and that potential isn't something that something 'has' in any literal sense, nor is it a property or aspect of something.

I would also like to point out, that at no point is such manors required or justified. Misunderstandings happen all the time, but there is something called 'charity' to the one you are debating. If they have a bad idea, you let them hang themselves, you don't go psychologizing the conversation attributing motives when you don't know who is on the other end and what their demeanor is. He also accused me of basically saying 'you just don't understand what I'm saying' to people as a way to avoid criticism, which of course would be disingenuous. YET, I provided clarifications which differentiated my idea from the one he was attributing to me. Just an example, and I can bring up others. I think I have been quite honorable here.