The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion
No, to say that x has the potential to become/be/do y is not to say that it is likely or probable that x will be/become/do y. Potentialities can remain unmanifested or "dormant" forever; and they are different from propensities or tendencies, only the latter of which make actions or events more probable.Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 13th, 2021, 7:18 amIf we define potential in the most general sense of the word (without yet tying it to a specific context like physics) then it's an expression of the perceived likelihood that something is going to happen in the future. For example, I could say that my son has the potential to be a premiership football player. Someone could point out that that's true of all able-bodied 15 year olds. I could then say what I mean is that having assessed his ability level I think there's a realistic chance of him being a premiership football player - a likelihood rather than just the theoretical possibility, in the sense that pretty much anything is theoretically possible.
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion
There are so-called iterated potential(itie)s:Fanman wrote: ↑May 13th, 2021, 3:31 amI agree in terms of things that already exist, as the attributes you mention already do. But what if we take things a step back and consider the potential for those attributes existing, not actually possessing them yet. How could we quantify potential in that sense? I don’t think there is a clear answer, or perhaps I have misunderstood you.
QUOTE>
"…and iterated potentialities, potentialities to acquire potentialities (to acquire potentialities to acquire potentialities to…and so forth)."
(p. 31)
"Things have potentialities to possess properties. Potentialities themselves are properties. So, prima facie, things should have potentialities to have potentialities. And the latter potentialities might themselves be potentialities to have potentialities. So there is nothing to prevent things from having potentialities to have potentialities to have potentialities, or potentialities to have potentialities to have potentialities to have potentialities…and so forth. I will call any such potentiality an iterated potentiality."
(p. 135)
(Vetter, Barbara. Potentiality: From Dispositions to Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.)
<QUOTE
However, even in the case of an infinite regress of iterated potentials, all potentialities in that series are actualities rather than mere possibilities. And in the case of a finite regress of iterated potentialities, the first one must be an actuality too, because there is no ontological twilight zone between being and nonbeing in the form of merely possible potentialities.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion
I disagree. I think that if I say "my son has the potential to become a premiership football player" I'm claiming something about the effect of his skills as a football player on the probability of his achieving that position. The fact that potentialities can be unmanifested is irrelevant to that. That seems obvious to me. But I don't particularly want to get into a semantic argument about it.Consul wrote:No, to say that x has the potential to become/be/do y is not to say that it is likely or probable that x will be/become/do y. Potentialities can remain unmanifested or "dormant" forever; and they are different from propensities or tendencies, only the latter of which make actions or events more probable.
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion
I agree with what you say, I just have the following to add.
I think that’s right. But even though in this sense it is not real, we act according to the dictates of how the potential can be realised. For example: Because your son has the potential to become a premier league player, you will do everything you can so that he can fulfil his potential. So although it is not real as in not yet realised, it denotes a real possibility. And therefore has a degree of existence. In what aspect of time and space, is the question. In the case of your son, it would be in his skill level.If we define potential in the most general sense of the word (without yet tying it to a specific context like physics) then it's an expression of the perceived likelihood that something is going to happen in the future. For example, I could say that my son has the potential to be a premiership football player. Someone could point out that that's true of all able-bodied 15 year olds. I could then say what I mean is that having assessed his ability level I think there's a realistic chance of him being a premiership football player - a likelihood rather than just the theoretical possibility, in the sense that pretty much anything is theoretically possible.
So in considering the concept of potential in this sense it's pretty obvious why some people would say it makes no sense to reify it - to see it as a thing, in the way that we see matter as a thing. Perceived likelihoods that something will happen in the future are theories or hypotheses in people's minds based on assessments of various empirical evidence. So I guess we could say that, in that sense, it's either metaphysical or abstract or both, depending on precisely how we use those words. But it's not real.
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion
OK. If you were to interpret "potential" as referring to a currently existing property then yes, you could argue that potential, in that sense, is real. Going back to the football example, if you were to regard "my son has the potential to be a Premiership football player" as literally a statement about my son's currently existing skills, such that "potential" is, in that context, another word for a particular skill set, then you can claim that potential is real.Fanman wrote:...So I would say that potential exists (in the context of people) in the level of capability that we have to do something.
I guess that would then be equivalent to interpreting a statement like "a ball on top of a hill has gravitational potential energy" as a statement about the position of the ball within a field rather than a statement about the possibility of the ball's future movement.
(Incidentally, in actual fact, he doesn't. He plays in goal and, apart from anything else, he's not tall enough.)
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion
If your son has the potential to become a football player and he tries to become one, then it is likely or probable that he will succeed (unless there are circumstances preventing him from succeeding). But if your son has the potential to become a football player but is uninterested in becoming one, then it is highly unlikely or improbable that he will become a football player.Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 13th, 2021, 10:41 amI disagree. I think that if I say "my son has the potential to become a premiership football player" I'm claiming something about the effect of his skills as a football player on the probability of his achieving that position. The fact that potentialities can be unmanifested is irrelevant to that. That seems obvious to me. But I don't particularly want to get into a semantic argument about it.Consul wrote:No, to say that x has the potential to become/be/do y is not to say that it is likely or probable that x will be/become/do y. Potentialities can remain unmanifested or "dormant" forever; and they are different from propensities or tendencies, only the latter of which make actions or events more probable.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion
We don't come into the world, we come out of it, remain one with it. The human self relates to the world kinda how a wave relates to the ocean. The human self is just a very complicated wave that believes that it's separate from the ocean.popeye1945 wrote: ↑May 9th, 2021, 6:33 am Well, the Buddhists say that there is no self, I suppose this is saying the same thing in a different way. Most people think of the self as their identity, but you did not have an identity when you were brought into this world, you acquired it from your reactions to your environment. What came into the world was a constitution either healthy and hardy or a little less so and a little frailer. This constitution in the process of gathering through its experience an identity becomes its experience, it becomes a storyline ever developing, ever adding. At some time one probably procreates and renews the constitution, that spark of life which is relatively immortal, your constitution eventually fails your function realized and your experience storyline enters into oblivion, and the process is relatively immortal, as it has renewed itself as it has for eons.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion
So if my son has the potential to become a football player, there are two possibilities: either he chooses to become one or he doesn't. If he doesn't have that potential then there is one possibility: he doesn't become one. The former represents a higher probability of becoming one than the latter. Therefore "My son has the potential to be a football player" is a statement about his probability of becoming one. Similarly "My son does not have the potential to become a football player" is also a statement about that probability. It's a statement that the probability is zero.Consul wrote:If your son has the potential to become a football player and he tries to become one, then it is likely or probable that he will succeed (unless there are circumstances preventing him from succeeding). But if your son has the potential to become a football player but is uninterested in becoming one, then it is highly unlikely or improbable that he will become a football player.
Similarly, for the example of stock options: If I have a call option on a stock, I have the potential to buy that stock. I don't have to exercise the option. I could choose not to. That's why it's called an option. Nevertheless, owning the option means I have a greater probability of buying the stock than not owning the option. Therefore the option has definable non-zero monetary value.
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion
My potentials concern what I can become/be/do (given my particular nature); and, of course, if I cannot ever become/be/do x, the probability of my ever becoming/being/doing x is zero. But per se my potential to become/be/do x entails nothing about how probable it is that I will become/be/do x, because whether or not my potential will be manifested or activated by me depends on various factors and circumstances.Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 13th, 2021, 11:31 amSo if my son has the potential to become a football player, there are two possibilities: either he chooses to become one or he doesn't. If he doesn't have that potential then there is one possibility: he doesn't become one. The former represents a higher probability of becoming one than the latter. Therefore "My son has the potential to be a football player" is a statement about his probability of becoming one. Similarly "My son does not have the potential to become a football player" is also a statement about that probability. It's a statement that the probability is zero.
As I already said, potentialities aren't propensities; that is, having the potential to do x doesn't mean being inclined to do x; and it is even compatible with being disinclined to do x, in which case the probability of doing x is very low despite the presence of the potential to do x.
By the way, choosing or deciding to become a football player is independent of having the potential to do so. Even talentless guys can do so (but they're certainly unlikely to succeed).
-
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
- Location: canada
Re: The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion
Let me ask you this. If Buddhists think that there is no "self" then why is it that half their teachings are designed to try to make their adherents selfless??
It would be like the fireservice saying that fire does not exist.
No, there are many senses we have. Far more than Aristotle's five big ones. The sense of self is possibly the most important, and has many aspects. We have a sense of direction, touch, proprioperception- enbodyiment (place); hunger; thirst, equilibrioception, chronoception, and many others all contrubute to a sense of self.Quote
The Buddhists design to make their adherents shed the illusion of the self, that it the fire.
When all these things fade, you loose yourself with them; because our body is what our self is.
People with alzheimer's syndrome give witness to the disappearing self. A tragedy to watch.
There is no immoral aspect to this; that is just your fears wishing away reality.
[/quote]
So according to you, the self is the memory, the memory is made up of past experiences when one is born one has no past experiences. There is no self there is but a constitution which becomes its experiences, the loss of memory leaves only a constitution.
-
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
- Location: canada
Re: The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion
I think it would help if you were more coherent in stating what you're proposing; what the central thesis of this topic is. It seems to have started as the proposition that the concept of self is an illusion because human personalities evolve over time. Or something like that. But then, at least in the parts that I've read, it seemed to turn into something vaguely inspired by some of the headline features of quantum mechanics.
Is the topic still about the proposition contained in its title? If not, where would you like to take it?
A technical point about the mechanics of this site: To make it clear who you're replying to, and to make sure they notice your reply, it's useful to use the quote tags. To quote something that somebody has said such that they'll be notified that you've quoted them, enclose the relevant words between quote tags (the word "quote" surrounded by square brackets at the start and the same word preceded by a '/' and surrounded by square brackets at the end). After the first instance of the word "quote", type '=' followed by the name of the person you're quoting. That will cause them to receive a notification.
[/quote]
Steve,
Sorry if I tended to confuse the issue in question, no the topic remains that the self is a highly functional illusion. I'll try to get a handle on the quote system. Thanks for the heads up!
-
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
- Location: canada
Re: The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion
[/quote]
Atla,
Excellent!!
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion
I agree.OK. If you were to interpret "potential" as referring to a currently existing property then yes, you could argue that potential, in that sense, is real. Going back to the football example, if you were to regard "my son has the potential to be a Premiership football player" as literally a statement about my son's currently existing skills, such that "potential" is, in that context, another word for a particular skill set, then you can claim that potential is real.
Yes, that right. In people, potential describes what they have the capability to achieve. But in objects, potential describes its field in relation to energy (excuse my science terminology).I guess that would then be equivalent to interpreting a statement like "a ball on top of a hill has gravitational potential energy" as a statement about the position of the ball within a field rather than a statement about the possibility of the ball's future movement.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023